Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 11:46 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-09-2015 10:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 10:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The universe is probabilistic, not deterministic.

As to its every last detail, I don't know. You seize the opportunity to shove God up your own ass rather than let things lie unbearably empty. I suppose that's your prerogative, but I fail to see where anyone else ought to give any shits about what makes your ignorant ass feel better.

He presents no contradictions as such. But if you perceive one, do share it with the class...

Can you answer the question asked please. Do you agree that Quantum Mechanics posits irreducible randomness?

It seems to, based on what we presently understand.

So what?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 12:02 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(09-09-2015 11:05 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Quantum mechanics does not posit that events are truly random. You don't know what you are talking about. Irreducible randomness is just an interpretation.

I don't have much time, but I'm gonna respond to this.

Yes, quantum mechanics posits events are truly random. Or, at the very least, the negation of "randomness" leads to very bizarre interpretations.

This is precisely because of the EPR paradox. I haven't followed the thread closely enough, but the EPR paradox is a paradox inasmuch as following the logic of quantum mechanics led to counter-intuitive conclusion, which is that if an entangled partner is measures spin up, the corresponding partner is measured to be spin down instantaneously. Einstein erroneously concluded that the only logical explanation is that the state of the entangled particles is pre-determined and thus the measurement of spin up and spin down happens post factem (and as such, the entangled partner isn't measured to be spin up instantaneously).

However, Bell's Inequality provided us an experimental proof. The mathematics of how spin wavefunctions is messy, so read here if you want details. Long-story short is that if we assume that electrons are either spin up OR spin-down, then we find a violation of Bell's Inequality. The issue is with the premise--spin up and spin down isn't a binary state, but rather, an electron can be spin up, spin down, or a superposition of spin up and spin down (since the assumption that spin is binary). However, we never measure a superposition state.

*I really do not have time to explain why the instantenous measurement of spin up and spin down does not violate relativity. The notion "nothing" travels faster than light is a misnomer; it's that information cannot travel faster than light. There's plenty of discussion on this technicality, so I'll just refer to this.

I've been sloppy in my use of "spin up" and "spin down." Really, I need to specific direction--spin up and spin down in the z-direction, spin up and spin down in the y-direction, and so on. This gets annoying, so I'm going to go ahead and call these properties hard and soft (spin up/down in direction A) and black and white (spin up/down in direction B). We can measure the spins of an electron using a Stern-Garlech set-up, but let's just treat it as some box that tells you if an electron is hard/soft or black/white etc.

If I put a random electron into a hard/soft box, half come up hard and half come out soft. If I then put half of those hard electrons into a black/white box, half come out black and half come out white. LIkewise, if I put in black electrons into a hard/soft box, I get out half black and half white. If, however, I use a complicated set-up like the one here on page 3, the net "color" of the electron remains unchanged. Which means if I selected black electrons to go into this set-up, I will get only black electrons out (notice that if black electrons were deterministically half hard and half soft, we should get half hard and half soft out). If you accept superposition and think of black creating a superposition of hard and soft, this isn't an issue (when the electrons recombine, you get a "superposition" of hard and soft again, AKA black). This is exactly what the mathematically theory of spins would predict. We've done these experiments; I've heard of it as the two-paths experiment.

So how does this show randomness? The existence of the superposition principle seems evidence both from two-baths and bell's inequality BUT we never observe superposition. The conclusion is taken to be that an electron "collapses" randomly into either a hard or soft state when we measure for hardness/softness.

Why do we think we can't measure a superposition? Let's go back to the double-slit experiment. If we do not measure the electron and let it take its course without measuring its position, we get a diffraction pattern similar to a light double-slit experiment. The "difference" is that actually measuring the diffraction pattern takes time, since we measure the position of the electron at a screen *behind* the double slit, so we have to measure an awful lot of electrons. Point in case, a light double slit looks like [Image: lecture24.pdf], but the electron double slit looks like this. But if we try to measure the position of the electron before it goes through the slit, we don't get a diffraction pattern. Only if we let the electron go through the slit without measuring it we get diffraction pattern.

The interpretation is this: the incoming electron is in a superposition state. If we measure the electron, we find it going through either slit 1 or slit 2. Subsequently, it goes through either slit 1 or slit 2; but in the superposition state, it goes through both.

The randomness is thus: every measured superposition state returns a particular state (called stationary state, eigenstates, or characteristic states); this state cannot be determined ahead of time (otherwise spin up/down would be binary, and would satisfy Bell's Inequality) and superposition states cannot be measured. The most logical conclusion is that quantum mechanics is random.

Yes, there are some interpretations that deny the existence of superposition (and by-step randomness entirely), but they often posit things like the existence of many-worlds. That is, if a quantum state is superposition A and B then upon measurement, both universes where A and B are realized at the same-time (but then, for some reason, we collectively only witness universe A). This done, effectively, by introduction a global variable (i.e. the universal wavefunction)--consistent with the previous analysis but ultimately deterministic. In fact, the opposite reasoning works too--the existence of a universal wavefunction implies the existence of many-worlds, which is about the only reason the many-worlds has gained any sort of traction. It's the sort of "well, maybe quantum mechanics doesn't have randomness" that... basically makes the way of the universe so fucking clear that bringing God into it is like using bringing god to fill in a gap only to realize the gap has already been filled.

Anyway, I probably said enough on the subject and have more important things to do.

Blush
Anyone else need a smoke?

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 12:12 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 11:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So what?

So, presumably, he's playing some pointless gotcha-game again.

It is, for some reason, a common theme among posters like this. People defending crank beliefs will generally prefer to ask what they think are leading questions and then hope that someone will give them the answer they want. Only once that is done will they actually state the entirety of their argument, which rests entirely on the answer to that question - but is almost always entirely nonsensical, since it's very rare that they actually understand the answer.

It's rather irritating, really. If you have an argument to make, just make it. Trying to force other people to jump through your hoops beforehand is just boring for everyone involved.

"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
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
11-09-2015, 12:20 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 12:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 11:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So what?

So, presumably, he's playing some pointless gotcha-game again.

Also my conclusion. Found a post by a scientist on one of the sites I frequent addressing this issue, was thinking of posting it - but I don't really see a point.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 12:26 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Any argument/s for the existence of God is simply waste of time, your time and anybody else's time. Nobody needs it(the arguments).
P.S. Let's say there is God. Let's say you convinced yourself and others. So, what?
why do you and others need this knowledge? what for?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alla's post
11-09-2015, 12:34 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Alla showed up - now this topic is complete. Laugh out load

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like houseofcantor's post
11-09-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 12:20 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 12:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  So, presumably, he's playing some pointless gotcha-game again.

Also my conclusion. Found a post by a scientist on one of the sites I frequent addressing this issue, was thinking of posting it - but I don't really see a point.

Well, someone might benefit. That's always still possible.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-09-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 12:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 12:20 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Also my conclusion. Found a post by a scientist on one of the sites I frequent addressing this issue, was thinking of posting it - but I don't really see a point.

Well, someone might benefit. That's always still possible.

Laugh out load
Quote:The equations of quantum dynamics allow physicists to predict the future values of the wave function, given its present value. According to the Schrödinger equation, the wave function evolves in a completely predictable way. But in practice we never have access to the full wave function, either at present or in the future, so this “predictability” is unattainable.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 12:34 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Alla showed up - now this topic is complete. Laugh out load
Big Grin Thumbsup

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Alla's post
11-09-2015, 12:58 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 01:04 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 11:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 10:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Can you answer the question asked please. Do you agree that Quantum Mechanics posits irreducible randomness?

It seems to, based on what we presently understand.

So what?

To posit something is to assume something as fact....to put forward as the basis of argument. Quantum mechanics does not posit irreducible randomness. When you say "it seems to" you are making a conclusion that irreducible randomness exists. It is not one bit different than me making a conclusion that a non-local-causal agent exists.

"So what?" you ask? I was ready to drop this thread until you opened your trap and claimed you explained many times what ZoraPrime was trying to explain....which was " quantum mechanics posits events are truly random.". ZoraPrime's post had lots and lots of good information in it.....but it did not show what he set out to show. It does not show that "quantum mechanics posits events are truly random". You're explanations don't show it either. These are just conclusions or interpretations you and others have made. Quantum Mechanics does not posit irreducible randomness and when push comes to shove you will begrudgingly admit that.

I just don't buy irreducible randomness any more than I would buy irreducible gravity to explain "dark matter" gravity. Gravity is an effect and effects always have causes. Effects always having causes is an axiom by which I make sense of reality......I do not cherry pick when that axiom applies and when it doesn't. Concluding irreducible randomness is engaging in an error of "What you see is all there is" simply because you do not want to entertain the notion of the existence of a non-local causal agent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: