Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2015, 04:46 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(26-08-2015 09:38 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 06:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  They claim that, but their experiment and methodology is yet to be confirmed.

Dammit, Chas. You beat me to it.

Ideasonscribe, when this is published in an actual peer-reviewed journal, then I will consider it. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a hypothesis.

I'm not sure I understand. What will you be "considering"? That's fine that you want to wait until this moves on to something you find more acceptable. However, this is progressing without failure so far just as Quantum Physics has done since it's inception. Perhaps you can explain your dilemma. I've explained mine throughout this thread. Your problem here was that this hadn't been shown to be done loophole-free, and it is moving along in that direction. So what are you "considering"?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 05:26 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(05-07-2015 04:39 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I'm not sure if many of you remember me. I used to post quite a bit on here a couple years ago.
At the time, I was a devout Christian. However, since I've been gone, I've actually been an atheist for a good while, and then started studying Quantum Physics and Superstring Theory. After a good amount of research, I realized my materialistic stance was no longer tenable. Shortly after, I then realized my atheistic stance was untenable as well.
I am a Philosophical Theist. I believe in the probable existence of what can be defined as 'god'. I am not religious, so whatever it is I believe in, I have attributed no doctrine or dogma to. There are also no religious characteristics to associate with this being as I don't find it necessary.
I actually came on here not too long ago and shared something similar to this a while back. That was during the beginning of my Philosophical Theism. Since then, I have done a lot more research and have found myself even more convinced of it's validity.

During my research, I had a massive compilation of notes and relevant papers collected. I eventually found some time to organize them all into a shorter argument.
NOTE: This argument/essay has been intentionally articulated to beg more questions while simultaneously providing the necessary substance for it's validity. This is so that people are encouraged to ask the right questions in order to continue the conversation at the lay level.
This information can get a bit technical, and I don't want to scare anyone away from joining the conversation.
I am willing to answer any and all questions, and to elaborate further on any point, paper or concept.

Keep in mind that this argument is also designed to demonstrate two main points:
1.) That Local Realism has been experimental falsified - consequently, so has Materialism.
2.) The existence of Intelligent Platonic Information-Processing Consciousness (AKA - IPIC [Cosmic])

On the existence of IPIC, I will also demonstrate how this being can be comfortably defined as 'god' in a more religiously-neutral sense.

So without further ado, I present -
The Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of god:

What I want to demonstrate in my argument is this:

1.) Local Realism is false and Quantum Mechanics has demonstrated this.
2.) Quantum Mechanics (weirdness) applies to everything.
3.) There are ways in which you can attempt to falsify this via showing Bells Inequality has not been violated.
4.) The universe is likely a hologram or virtual simulation and we can test this.
5.) The information processing the hologram is coming from a mind - rather than a highly advanced computer.

“Quantum experiments hint at a worldview that has not yet been grasped. The existence of something beyond what we usually consider physics – beyond what we usually consider the “physical world”.
- The Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness

------> Local Realism is false and Quantum Mechanics has demonstrated this. <------
Quantum mechanics began it's tests with particles (i.e. electrons, protons, etc.)
The particles (or matter) behaved like waves of probability when not being measured, and like balls of matter while being measured.
(http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys2...tExpt.pdf)
(http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/...eslit.htm)
(http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/v...ide14.pdf)
This implied either that the detectors were screwing up the results, or that matter is not really as stable as we originally thought it was.
The results of experiments seemed to show that matter is dependent on observation, or 'measurement', to exist in any defined location.

We also found that two particles connected by Entanglement can somehow communicate with each other instantaneously at any distance in space. This phenomena was called "spooky action at a distance" by Albert Einstein.
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (Later known as the EPR Paradox) came together to find a 'local hidden variable'. This hidden variable is something that would connect the particles somehow to show that reality wasn't as "spooky" or strange as the experiments were implying.
(http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf)


Other experiments were devised to remove the problem of the detectors in order to show that it wasn't the detectors causing the problem.
The Delayed Choice Quantum Erasure proposed by Scully and Dr ̈uhl in 1982 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047.pdf) (http://einstein.drexel.edu/~bob/TermPape...ayed.pdf), was the experiment that drove us further down the rabbit hole.
The experiment succeeded in showing that the detectors played no role in the interference and clump patterns shown by the particles.


However, local realism has been violated:
http://phys.org/news/2010-11-physicists-...alism.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/46/19708.full

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10....ett.37.465


------> Quantum Mechanics (weirdness) applies to everything. <------

The data has been done for large enough objects to see with the naked eye. As the experiments use larger and larger subjects, physicists no longer doubt the results will be the same.
Time moves along less like an analog clock and more like a digital clock with individual, computable states. Each state containing a specific amount of information

As the experiment is scaled up in size, at some point quantum behavior (interference) should give way to classical behavior (no interference). But how big can the particles be before that happens?

Quantum Mechanics shows that not only particles are defined by interference, but much larger objects as well. The results repeat no matter how large the object being used in the experiments.

Quantum Interference is shown in large organic molecules -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104521/

Imaging of the experiment, as well as the equipment used:
http://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.201...chnica.com


------> There are ways in which you can attempt to falsify this via showing Bells Inequality has not been violated. <------

If you can show that Bell's Inequality has not been violated, you will win a Nobel Prize:

The Quantum Randi Challenge: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294

Bell’s Inequality:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v40...9791a0.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v39...189a0.html

Leggits Inequality:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.5133


------> The universe is possibly a hologram or virtual simulation and we can test this. <------

Physicists such as Yoshifumi Hyakutake and colleagues of Ibaraki University in Japan have previously provided convincing evidence for the idea of holographic universes:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.5607v1.pdf
"In this article we provide the first quantitative evidence for the gauge/gravity duality at the level of quantum gravity. We perform Monte Carlo simulation of the dual gauge theory in the parameter regime that corresponds to a quantum black hole. Our results agree precisely with a prediction for an evaporating black hole including quantum gravity corrections. Thus we find that the dual gauge theory indeed provides a complete description of the quantum nature of the evaporating black hole."
The evidence provided by the Physicists at Ibaraki University of Japan show that the information that is projected into a black hole by information at the edge or the "event horizon", actually occurs at a cosmic scale.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.7526v3.pdf

- Yoshifumi Hyakutake

Is this concept testable?
Absolutely. The concept is currently being experimentally tested at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_...40826.html

I've sent an email to FNAL with a request for the results of the experiment. The data is expected to be reviewed this year.

The experiment is searching for "holographic noise" at the fundamental level.
“If we find a noise we can’t get rid of, we might be detecting something fundamental about nature – a noise that is intrinsic to space-time,” - Fermilab physicist Aaron Chou
The noise is found by using two separate interferometers situated on top of one other. Each interferometer sends a one-kilowatt laser beam (the equivalent of 200,000 laser pointers) at a beam splitter. Then, once the light beams are split, they travel down two perpendicular 40 metre arms. Next, the light is reflected off a mirror back to the beam splitter, where the two beams finally recombine. However, during this journey, even the tiniest vibrations can interfere with the light's frequency, causing fluctuations in the brightness of light.
The analysis of the light fluctuations is critical to the results of the experiment. It enables them to discover whether space itself is vibrating.
These vibrations will be the "holographic noise".

Other experiments are being done by a group of Physicists at the University of Washington looking for "signatures" that would indicate our universe is graph-like, much like you would use in a 3-dimensional world in a virtual system.
(http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847.pdf)
And here's the laymen presentation of the PDF:
(http://www.int.washington.edu/users/mjs5...Universe/)


------> The information processing the hologram is coming from a mind - rather than a highly advanced computer. <------

If the cosmos is a hologram, where is the information coming from?
We know that simulations of virtual realities can be processed via computers. However, in order to build a computer to process every qubit of our universe, one would need to create a computer larger than the universe itself. It's not practical and largely unnecessary to postulate.
However we do know that our brains can process information much more smoothly and compactly into platonic information.
The above science has shown, however, that the brain is also a part of the hologram. Therefore, the matter that makes the brain is also observer dependent.
That means that the mind is fundamental and can be a separate entity. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20...MvW5NB-FA)
(http://www.projects.science.uu.nl/igg/jo...igner.pdf)
If this is true, then our universe can more simply be explained by inferring a mind processing the universe through platonic information processing.
This mind would be a cosmic mind that envelopes all of space-time in our four dimensions.


"What I mean by 'consciousness' is, consciousness is the one thing that cannot be an illusion."
- Sam Harris

Just more I.D. shit.

Dismissed.

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 07:10 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
" I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
-Richard Feynman

"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
-Richard Feynman

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ted Tucker's post
29-08-2015, 01:26 AM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2015 01:30 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 10:42 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  The MWI suffers from the Preferred Basis Problem as well as rectifying the Born Rule.
The Simulation Hypothesis makes too many uncomfortable assumptions - 1.) That we reach a post-human age.
2.) That we find a way to create identical universe simulations (which would potentially take a computer larger than the size of our universe to perform every qubit transaction of our universe).
3.) That we find a way to create self-aware beings in these simulations.
A question that someone brought up recently was - "How would we know if we had created real conscious simulated beings and not just something equivalent to Philosophical Zombies"? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie]).

The problem with simulation hypothesis is that it requires the implementation of the principle of indifference. The principle of indifference requires that if we have multiple mutually exclusive alternatives and no reason to favor one alternative over the other, than we give each the same probability.

Simulation hypothesis is a trilemma that claims one of the following statements must be true.

1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;

2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;

3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If we apply the principle of indifference two the three alternatives, then there is a 1/3 chance that 3 is true. This means there is about a 1/3 chance we are living in a simulation. However the trilemma can be reformulated.

First consider the probability of the existence of a post human civilization. There are two mutually exclusive alternatives.

A. Post Human civilizations will/already do exist
or
B. Post Human civilizations do not/will not exist.

If we apply the principle of indifference here we can assign each one a probability of 1/2.

Now if A is true, we can then move on to these two mutually exclusive alternatives.

a) Post human civilizations will create ancestor simulations.
or
b) Post human civilizations will not create ancestor simulations.

If we apply the principle of indifference a has 1/2 probability of being true. What is the probability of A and a being true? Well it is 1/2 times 1/2 or 1/4.

So depending on how we formulate the argument we come up with different probabilities for us living in the simulation. If a principle, like the principle of indifference, yields different probabilities depending on how the argument is being formulated, then it cannot be relied upon. Formulate the argument one way and there is a 1/3 chance we are living in a simulation. Formulate the argument another way and there is 1/4 chance we are living in a simulation.

Without the principle of indifference Simulation hypothesis is not compelling. It does not tell us anything about the likelihood that we are simulants.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
29-08-2015, 01:57 AM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2015 02:48 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(29-08-2015 01:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Without the principle of indifference Simulation hypothesis is not compelling. It does not tell us anything about the likelihood that we are simulants.

You're application of the principle of indifference here is what's not compelling. In fact it is your application of the principle of indifference that tells us nothing about the likelihoods. It's the last recourse before "Who the fuck knows?"

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
29-08-2015, 02:06 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(28-08-2015 04:46 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 09:38 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Dammit, Chas. You beat me to it.

Ideasonscribe, when this is published in an actual peer-reviewed journal, then I will consider it. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a hypothesis.

I'm not sure I understand. What will you be "considering"? That's fine that you want to wait until this moves on to something you find more acceptable. However, this is progressing without failure so far just as Quantum Physics has done since it's inception. Perhaps you can explain your dilemma. I've explained mine throughout this thread. Your problem here was that this hadn't been shown to be done loophole-free, and it is moving along in that direction. So what are you "considering"?

It has not been reproduced and it doesn't even appear to be peer-reviewed.

I will consider it meaningful when those happen.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 02:09 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(29-08-2015 01:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 10:42 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  The MWI suffers from the Preferred Basis Problem as well as rectifying the Born Rule.
The Simulation Hypothesis makes too many uncomfortable assumptions - 1.) That we reach a post-human age.
2.) That we find a way to create identical universe simulations (which would potentially take a computer larger than the size of our universe to perform every qubit transaction of our universe).
3.) That we find a way to create self-aware beings in these simulations.
A question that someone brought up recently was - "How would we know if we had created real conscious simulated beings and not just something equivalent to Philosophical Zombies"? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie]).

The problem with simulation hypothesis is that it requires the implementation of the principle of indifference. The principle of indifference requires that if we have multiple mutually exclusive alternatives and no reason to favor one alternative over the other, than we give each the same probability.

Simulation hypothesis is a trilemma that claims one of the following statements must be true.

1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;

2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;

3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If we apply the principle of indifference two the three alternatives, then there is a 1/3 chance that 3 is true. This means there is about a 1/3 chance we are living in a simulation. However the trilemma can be reformulated.

First consider the probability of the existence of a post human civilization. There are two mutually exclusive alternatives.

A. Post Human civilizations will/already do exist
or
B. Post Human civilizations do not/will not exist.

If we apply the principle of indifference here we can assign each one a probability of 1/2.

Now if A is true, we can then move on to these two mutually exclusive alternatives.

a) Post human civilizations will create ancestor simulations.
or
b) Post human civilizations will not create ancestor simulations.

If we apply the principle of indifference a has 1/2 probability of being true. What is the probability of A and a being true? Well it is 1/2 times 1/2 or 1/4.

So depending on how we formulate the argument we come up with different probabilities for us living in the simulation. If a principle, like the principle of indifference, yields different probabilities depending on how the argument is being formulated, then it cannot be relied upon. Formulate the argument one way and there is a 1/3 chance we are living in a simulation. Formulate the argument another way and there is 1/4 chance we are living in a simulation.

Without the principle of indifference Simulation hypothesis is not compelling. It does not tell us anything about the likelihood that we are simulants.

No, I debate with facts and evidence. I insult chucklefucks like you with insults.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
29-08-2015, 04:14 AM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2015 04:18 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(28-08-2015 07:10 PM)Ted Tucker Wrote:  " I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
-Richard Feynman

Quantum mechanics makes a lot more sense when you posit a God introducing randomness into this reality. Randomness remains, as it has been, a function of ignorance instead of irreducibly random. Nobody really understands irreducible randomness and it doesn't fit with observations of reality at large. Spooky action at a distant is no longer so spooky because there is no speed limit on injecting information into space. Speed of light only limits information traveling through space.

Manywords, simulation hypothesis, multiverses, etc....these are all becoming more palatable because it is becoming more and more apparent that the only way to make sense of our reality is to make it a part of a much larger reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 07:21 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(29-08-2015 04:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Quantum mechanics makes a lot more sense when you posit a God introducing randomness into this reality. Randomness remains, as it has been, a function of ignorance instead of irreducibly random. Nobody really understands irreducible randomness and it doesn't fit with observations of reality at large. Spooky action at a distant is no longer so spooky because there is no speed limit on injecting information into space. Speed of light only limits information traveling through space.

Manywords, simulation hypothesis, multiverses, etc....these are all becoming more palatable because it is becoming more and more apparent that the only way to make sense of our reality is to make it a part of a much larger reality.

Blink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 07:32 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(29-08-2015 04:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 07:10 PM)Ted Tucker Wrote:  " I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
-Richard Feynman

Quantum mechanics makes a lot more sense when you posit a God introducing randomness into this reality. Randomness remains, as it has been, a function of ignorance instead of irreducibly random. Nobody really understands irreducible randomness and it doesn't fit with observations of reality at large. Spooky action at a distant is no longer so spooky because there is no speed limit on injecting information into space. Speed of light only limits information traveling through space.

Manywords, simulation hypothesis, multiverses, etc....these are all becoming more palatable because it is becoming more and more apparent that the only way to make sense of our reality is to make it a part of a much larger reality.

God of the gaps argument, BlowJob? Really? You can do no better than that?

You are fucking dense if you think that is at all compelling.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: