Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2015, 09:39 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 09:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 01:54 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Entanglement is an example of something violating relativity. That's the first thing that comes to mind when someone says something cannot exceed the speed of light. As I have just linked to, Bell's Theorem shows such a violation.

No, it does not.

Entanglement is a consequence of past interaction. It means that future measurements will be correlated in a specific way - not that one is affecting the other, but that both are evolving from a joint state. There is no way to create entanglement without (relativistic) interaction between the entities.

Thank you! That was a simple, direct explanation that greatly clarified a misunderstanding I had about this whole area.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 09:03 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  This could be a whole new thread...
I can't do it, cause it'll fill up with Gwynnies. Big Grin
(31-08-2015 09:16 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The brain is a computer. Literally. It computes. It is a Turing-complete device. All Turing-complete devices are, by definition, computers. It is massively complicated and makes use of mechanics that are not yet fully understood, and which do not have direct comparisons in digital computing, but it is still a computer.

Was presented for further understanding. Seems you understand. I accept it metaphorically.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 09:25 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Unbeliever, I see you're bringing me in circles and sometimes simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

No. I'm just, quite plainly, pointing out the glaring issues with your argument.

Holograms and simulations are not the same thing. Evidence for one is not evidence for the other.

Brains are computers. Saying that running the hypothetical simulation on a non-brain computing device would be "impractical" due to "Platonic information processing" - a nonsense term that means precisely nothing and has never made an appearance in actual information theory - being, in some undefined way, more efficient, is special pleading.

No scientific evidence exists for minds existing outside of a material framework. Literally all evidence we have points to consciousness being computational. The only possible argument in favor of it being otherwise is just a god-of-the-gaps variant involving pointing to various unexplained brain functions and saying "well a computer couldn't do that" without any actual evidence to support the claim.

Any entity which can never be shown to exist, in any way, under any circumstance, does not exist by definition.

This is not "disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing", or "bringing you in circles". These are basic, fundamental concepts which you must address in order for the argument to be coherent. Even if you are simply speculating, this must be addressed.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 09:59 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 09:07 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 08:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  I linked to point out to BlowJob that his assertion that the meaning of Bell's Inequality was settled.

In this case a reference to a paper is not peer review of the paper.

I've already posted the peer-reviewed paper: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-spook...NatureNews


The peer-review reference is at the end of the page: doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18255

A reference is not peer review:

"3. Hensen, B. et al. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949 (2015).
In the latest paper, which was submitted to the arXiv preprint repository on 24 August and has not yet been peer reviewed, a team led by Ronald Hanson of Delft University of Technology reports the first Bell experiment that closes both the detection and the communication loopholes…"

That is the reference from the Nature article. Bolding is mine.

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
31-08-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 08:14 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If something "happens", then it is *natural* for that to happen. Nothing "unnatural" ever happens. Improbable, or unusual...maybe.

Bucky, if you are going to take the position that if something happens it is natural....including acts of God, you cannot now then claim there is no evidence for God because all observations indicate everything is natural. The position that acts of God are natural/supernatural is contradictory.

Be honest and don't just presuppose God does not exist when you think about the next question. What kind of natural events would indicate God's existence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 11:35 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 08:29 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Said it better than I could. I was going to point out how Benny Hinn was a terrible example to use (also because he is generally a terrible person for leeching off the ignorance of others) mainly because he has been exposed as a fraud already.

I used Benny Hinn because that is the only televangelist I could think of. The point is miracles are not miracles if they happen all the time. We shouldn't be looking for miracles to show that God exists. We should be looking at nature for things nature itself cannot logically produce. If we look hard enough, we do see those kind of things....like effects without local causes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 11:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  We shouldn't be looking for miracles to show that God exists. We should be looking at nature for things nature itself cannot logically produce. If we look hard enough, we do see those kind of things....like effects without local causes.

You will note that the same theories which posit the existence of events without local causes also theorize mechanisms by which this happens.

"Well, that's slightly odd" does not mean "a wizard did it".

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 12:24 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 12:28 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 11:42 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 11:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  We shouldn't be looking for miracles to show that God exists. We should be looking at nature for things nature itself cannot logically produce. If we look hard enough, we do see those kind of things....like effects without local causes.

You will note that the same theories which posit the existence of events without local causes also theorize mechanisms by which this happens.

"Well, that's slightly odd" does not mean "a wizard did it".

No theory explains "Irreducible randomness" or theorizes a mechanism by which this happens. They take it into account because randomness is appearing but they don't posit a cause for it other than to claim that it cannot be completely explained by local variables. And none of those theories preclude non local variables.

edit: let me take that back, many worlds explains irreducible randomness by positing reality magically divides itself into every possible outcome. I'd rather believe in the wizard rolling the dice for us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 12:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  No theory explains "Irreducible randomness" or theorizes a mechanism by which this happens.

Therefore wizards.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 12:43 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 12:35 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 12:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  No theory explains "Irreducible randomness" or theorizes a mechanism by which this happens.

Therefore wizards.

Not therefore Wizards. Just something you would expect to see if the Wizard exists.

Atheists are wrong when they claim no observations suggest the existence of the Wizard as effects without local causes is exactly the kind of things we would see if the Wizard exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: