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, 12:59 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 hijacked. Laugh out load

FTFY. Drinking Beverage

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 12:26 PM)Alla Wrote:  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?

Alla, we debate these things because it pleases us to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 01:10 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 12:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 11:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

"Complete" knowledge of wave functions is impossible by the precepts of quantum theory. There is no viable coherent alternative theory.

I say "seems to" because I am not claiming perfect absolute knowledge. You are.
(ie, "causality works the way I say it does because SHUT UP, THAT'S WHY")

If the assumptions of quantum mechanics are accurate, then the universe is fundamentally probabilistic. That's simply the reality of the theory. Tough shit for you.

Is the theory wrong? Maybe. Is the theory incomplete? Maybe.

Is ignorant speculation based on literally nothing but feels a compelling alternative? I leave it to the audience to decide for themselves.

(11-09-2015 12:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  "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.

I have in fact explained quantum mechanics to you. Does this ring a bell?

(11-11-2013 05:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Fair enough, as a philosophical point of view. But that is, indeed, not what modern science indicates!

Find a particle with some two-state quantum aspect (eg spin), in more than one separable dimension (spin is 3-dimensional). Such as, say, the electron in a hydrogen atom.

Measure its spin along a spatial axis (convention says the experimenter's primary axis be designated 'z'). Spin is a form of quantized angular momentum; the half-integer spin of an electron admits of two outcomes - up or down (to be a little crude). Before measuring, you don't know what its z-spin is. After, measuring, you know exactly what its z-spin is (either up, or down). Let's say it's z-up.

But suppose you measure its z-spin and then its x-spin. What is its x-spin before the second measurement? What is its x-spin after the second measurement? What is its z-spin after the second measurement?

The answers are, respectively, a simultaneous superposition of x-up and x-down, an exact value of either x-up or x-down, and a simultaneous superposition of z-up and z-down. After we've measured z (and gotten z-up) the probability of measuring either x-up or x-down (being the square of the probability density) is one half. Fifty-fifty. One or the other, equal odds.

According to our current understanding, there is no possible way for these two exact values to coexist (the electron quite literally cannot have simultaneously well-defined spin in multiple axes). Which is to say, non-commuting operators imply an uncertainty relation. This is The Famous Uncertainty Principle (and it often gets Heisenberg's name attached to it).


tl;dr - quantum mechanics is probabilistic.

And then comes hidden variables (evidence suggests: not a thing). Mostly that's a matter of saying, "but I don't want the universe to be quantum! Maybe underneath the quantum it's classical again?"

Or this?

(13-11-2013 10:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(13-11-2013 04:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Physics does not tell us that a random generator is not needed at the quantum level. It only tells us that the random generator does not exist in the physical sense. So I ask you Chas, who throws the dice for you atheists?

Eh?

That's... not what physics says. You're still just re-asserting the same "but there needs to be a dice thrower" as if that meant something. You're just claiming that. Apparently based on... personal conviction? I can't really tell. You just keep saying "but there needs to be".

Take my electron spin example. Any axis may be used as an orthonormal basis in Hilbert function space to describe said probability density functions. Z is traditionally preferred.

And so - a two-dimensional state has two basis functions (dimensionality being a count of the number of linearly independent members required to span the space). It has up to two eigenvalues for a given operator (this follows from linear algebra); the operator diagonalized in said orthonormal basis has those basis states as eigenfunctions.

So we measure on the z axis. We get z-up. That is, after measurement the system exists in a precisely known state, which is completely composed of a single basis function.

To express this is another basis requires a change of basis, another well-known linear algebra process. The same state can be expressed as a linear combination in any basis for the space. So, how do we express z-up in terms of the x basis states? It is necessarily a linear combination of them.

Turns out it's an equal-amplitude combination. Recalling that the probabilities (the amplitudes as opposed to the densities) must sum to 1 (aka of all possible outcomes one of them must happen!), in this case they need to have equal amplitudes. Divide 1 into two equal parts. 1/2 and 1/2. Which is to say the densities are 1/sqrt(2) with appropriate phase (the various combinations of +/- 1 and +/- i required to maintain orthogonality within the {x,y,z}-aligned basis).

So anyway, if the electron exists in precisely the z-up state (which it will, since we just measured it to be there - and with no perturbation it's stable in time) then it exists (it has to exist) in an equal combination of x-up and x-down.

Therefore measuring z, getting z-up, and then measuring x will admit of two equal probabilities (x-up and x-down), and this is due to the nature of the interaction of the physical properties of the system itself. Now, linear algebra and probability theory are of course human mathematical constructs, but whether apparently-accurate models bear any relation to reality (and whether there is such a thing as reality and if so whether we can know anything about it) are different questions. But that's not important right now ('cause if you're interested in ever getting any shit done you better start from the position that shit is real and you can in fact do it).

tl;dr - if our best current physical models are correct (this being the most reasonable assumption, until some other revision/theory with better explicative and predictive abilities comes along) then randomness at a quantum level is very much a well-understood consequence of the presumed physical nature of reality.

But never fear; there are still many points at which we must say "we don't know how/why/if such-and-such happens". So you can shove the ol' God of the Gaps back in yet!
(ie CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS)

...

I shouldn't need to repeat it, but you do apparently like to pretend not to understand explanations you don't like, so here goes:
If the premises of quantum mechanics are valid, then the universe is fundamentally probabilistic.

And yes, that does mean irreducibly random. Our knowledge of any wave function cannot be "complete", because classical assumptions of completeness do not apply.

(11-09-2015 12:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I just don't buy irreducible randomness any more than I would buy irreducible gravity to explain "dark matter" gravity.

What you "just don't buy" is meaningless. Actual science requires more than your feels.

(11-09-2015 12:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Gravity is an effect and effects always have causes. That is an axiom by which I make sense of reality.

Yes. It is a naive assumption based on highly contingent macroscopic personal experience.

It might well be true regardless. I'll tell you what; I'll keep using a peer-reviewed consensus derived from replicable and falsifiable empirical data for my baseline, and you keep on using your feels. How's that sound?

(11-09-2015 12:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

A non-local agent violates the precepts of relativity.

Keep shoving god into that gap, mate.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 01:32 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 01:37 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 01:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A non-local agent violates the precepts of relativity.

Relativity applies to information traveling through our space. It does not apply to information which travels into it.

Suppose we are living in a simulation, All the effects we observe would be deterministic but would appear random to us. If Quantum Mechanics and Relativity do not have the power to distinguish this reality from a sufficiently fine grained simulation then you cannot conclude the universe is fundamentally probabilistic. Those tools of ours are simply inadequate to answer that question....ergo we have no reason to abandon the axiom that all effects have causes....ergo....Tough shit for you.

A non-local causal agent is a valid conclusion. In fact it is more valid conclusion than irreducible randomness since I am not forced to abandon axioms which served me so well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 01:35 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 12:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I just don't buy irreducible randomness any more than I would buy irreducible gravity to explain "dark matter" gravity.

That's wonderful.

It's still not evidence for the existence of a god.

"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
11-09-2015, 01:36 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 01:00 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 12:26 PM)Alla Wrote:  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?

Alla, we debate these things because it pleases us to do.

Oh, that is very good reason. Continue. Smile

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
11-09-2015, 01:46 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 01:35 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 12:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I just don't buy irreducible randomness any more than I would buy irreducible gravity to explain "dark matter" gravity.

That's wonderful.

It's still not evidence for the existence of a god.

Then there is no evidence for irreducible randomness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 01:48 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 01:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A non-local agent violates the precepts of relativity.

Relativity applies to information traveling through our space. It does not apply to information which travels into it.

Now you're assuming an extra magical space ("there are aspects of reality to which relativity does not apply") for no reason.

(11-09-2015 01:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Suppose we are living in a simulation...

Why?

So what?

(11-09-2015 01:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  All the effects we observe would be deterministic but would appear random to us. If Quantum Mechanics and Relativity do not have the power to distinguish this reality from a sufficiently fine grained simulation then you cannot conclude the universe is fundamentally probabilistic.

True in one trivial sense - you can't falsify an explicitly unfalsifiable claim.

False in another - how do you know a simulation can't be fundamentally probabilistic either?
(hint: you don't)

(11-09-2015 01:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Those tools of ours are simply inadequate to answer that question....ergo

Ergo you don't know.

That is what you were going to say, right?

(11-09-2015 01:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  ... we have no reason to abandon the axiom that all effects have causes...

Aw, damn! I was wrong - you apparently do know. Looks like you've accidentally conflated your feels with reality again.

"I don't know therefore I do" is not a very good argument. Sorry.
(and no, "you don't know therefore I do" is not better)

(11-09-2015 01:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  A non-local causal agent is a valid conclusion.

It's incoherent and unfalsifiable.

So with a tremendous generosity of spirit, one might say "valid"...

(11-09-2015 01:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In fact it is more valid conclusion than irreducible randomness since I am not forced to abandon axioms which served me so well.

Right. Your feels are more important than reality.

I mean, that's fine, in and of itself; plenty of people think that way and go on to live happy, productive lives.

Just don't be so asinine as to call it rational, that's all.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
11-09-2015, 01:59 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 01:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Then there is no evidence for irreducible randomness.

I'm afraid that isn't how this works.

But beyond that, it doesn't matter. Whether or not quantum mechanics is truly random, there is still no evidence for the existence of a god, so I don't particularly care either way.

"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
11-09-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
I don't need an argument for the existence of anything that actually exists.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: