Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2015, 07:08 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
duh dunh dah dunh dunh dah dunh dah dunh dunh dah GOD! Dodgy

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
07-07-2015, 07:24 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 07:08 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  duh dunh dah dunh dunh dah dunh dah dunh dunh dah GOD! Dodgy

Yep, hiding a basic presupposition underneath a bunch of sciency sounding theories and then declaring themselves oh-so-smart if we don't want to take hours to wade through the nonsense.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
07-07-2015, 07:31 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 07:24 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 07:08 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  duh dunh dah dunh dunh dah dunh dah dunh dunh dah GOD! Dodgy

Yep, hiding a basic presupposition underneath a bunch of sciency sounding theories and then declaring themselves oh-so-smart if we don't want to take hours to wade through the nonsense.

Oh.
I thought it was "an argument" for Bugs Bunny.
Why is it in our culture, everyone is so trained to think "Oh, it's an *argument* for a god" ? It's just a frickin' bad habit.

There are no "arguments" for the gods. Either you are granted the gift of faith by Jebus' Father, or you're not, (he said). He never said anything about a "gift for making arguments". Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
07-07-2015, 07:34 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
I give you........NORG!!!!! the creator of all living things!!!!!!! well you cant see him, or hear him, or prove he exists, but he does...truly...he must because there are questions about the world around us we cant answer yet sooooooo NORG!

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
07-07-2015, 08:54 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Although I've just addressed this, some of you seem to have either ignored the comment or simply didn't read it.
Some of you seem to still be implying I am using a god-of-the-gaps argument.
I probably shouldn't be re-iterating this as the comments by some of you seem more like you're being antagonizing rather than actually responding to the OP, but I'll do this for clarification purposes if not anything else.

When someone uses the god-of-the-gaps argument, they are often using god as a "solve all" solution to the problem of the gap. Essentially, god is defined in this situation as a mysterious being that is 'all powerful', 'all present' and 'all knowing', therefore it somehow makes sense that such a being is responsible for a particular phenomena.
However, I am not plugging in some unknown mysterious, all powerful being. I've defined my terms into a coherent definition that is compatible with science. We are familiar with minds and how they process information, so there is nothing 'mysterious' about that.
I am coming to a conclusion based on an inference to the best explanation. If I found that the Multiverse Hypothesis was the best explanation, then I would be arguing for the Multiverse Hypothesis.
If you still would like to challenge that this is a god-of-the-gaps argument, then I ask that you answer this question:
What, then do you say to those who use this same argument to support the existence of multiple universes? Are they using a 'multiverse-of-the-gaps' argument?
You will have to carefully distinguish between a legitimate god-of-the-gaps argument and an inference to the best explanation.

“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
07-07-2015, 09:03 PM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2015 09:08 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 08:54 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Although I've just addressed this, some of you seem to have either ignored the comment or simply didn't read it.
Some of you seem to still be implying I am using a god-of-the-gaps argument.
I probably shouldn't be re-iterating this as the comments by some of you seem more like you're being antagonizing rather than actually responding to the OP, but I'll do this for clarification purposes if not anything else.

When someone uses the god-of-the-gaps argument, they are often using god as a "solve all" solution to the problem of the gap. Essentially, god is defined in this situation as a mysterious being that is 'all powerful', 'all present' and 'all knowing', therefore it somehow makes sense that such a being is responsible for a particular phenomena.
However, I am not plugging in some unknown mysterious, all powerful being. I've defined my terms into a coherent definition that is compatible with science. We are familiar with minds and how they process information, so there is nothing 'mysterious' about that.
I am coming to a conclusion based on an inference to the best explanation. If I found that the Multiverse Hypothesis was the best explanation, then I would be arguing for the Multiverse Hypothesis.
If you still would like to challenge that this is a god-of-the-gaps argument, then I ask that you answer this question:
What, then do you say to those who use this same argument to support the existence of multiple universes? Are they using a 'multiverse-of-the-gaps' argument?
You will have to carefully distinguish between a legitimate god-of-the-gaps argument and an inference to the best explanation.

If the multiverse theory is true, then there have been proposed ways to (eventually) detect them. There will never be a way to detect a god. You *need* an answer to an unknown, and you plug in a god. THAT is a "god of the gaps". Why *end* at a god. An omnipotent god could have created an infinite number of layers of robot universe makers. Your argument, if it is one, is for "the next layer up" (or a "proximate" -- ie closest -- cause), not an ultimate cause. You have provided no reason why there is only ONE higher level.

"Essentially, god is defined in this situation as a mysterious being that is 'all powerful', 'all present' and 'all knowing', therefore it somehow makes sense that such a being is responsible for a particular phenomena."

--- like giving children cancer and pain ? Thumbsup

"god is defined in this situation as a mysterious being that is 'all powerful', 'all present' and 'all knowing" ... "I am not plugging in some unknown mysterious, all powerful being" Umm, yes you are, Right there.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
--- Epicurus.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
07-07-2015, 09:39 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
[Image: 7936581812_44921af99f_m.jpg]

This sums up my opinion after reading this thread; my rebuttal probably gives it more attention that it deserves. You seem to be mistaking some claims about quantum mechanics or speculative physics and expanding them far beyond what they mean. I am defined 'speculation physics' to mean physics that has yet to be confirmed by experiment.

1.) Local Realism Doesn't Exist

What exactly is local realism anyway? What about reality requires determinism at all levels?

Saying that 'matter isn't as stable as we once thought' is misleading. Much of what we know of chemistry only makes sense in light of quantum mechanics and nothing is in contradiction by supposing the universe is actually governed by probability. Yes, the observer effect is a thing, but scientists aren't even sure why observations "collapse" a wavefunction must less what an observation even is. It's either that nature just works that way, or it's a result of a physical process that necessarily occurs whenever we take a practical measurement. Quantum decoherence (which is an explanation to wavefunction collapse) essentially takes the latter view, wherein it's the coupling of a quantum system with the apparatus itself (which, after all, is made of matter) that results in an apparent wavefunction collapse.

Yes, quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive. I don't see why God necessarily follows nor do I understand why counterintuition is tantamount to lack of reality. Just to be clear, I am not arguing that any of the scientific results are false; rather, I am arguing that they do nothing to support your thesis.

Local realism, as it's being used in the phys.org (which explicitly sues the phrase local realism), is referring to the fact that EPR's paradox was in fact a valid analysis that was confirmed by experiment. The important consequence of the EPR paradox is that a.) quantum entanglement is a thing, b.) quantum mechanics cannot be explained by a local hidden variable theory. What bothered Einstein about the EPR paradox is that it seemed to contradict relativity by allowing information to go faster than light. There are various explanation on how quantum mechanics does not violate special relativity, but the main point is usually that even if you can cause quantum particles to change state instantaneously across great distances, you cannot actually give some useful information (e.g. a message) using this technique. There are more sophisticated explanations, but that's good enough for this rebuttal. For that reason, the EPR paradox does not provide a fundamental issue to physics nor is the fact there is no local hidden variable theory to make nature fundamentally deterministic (instead of probabilistic) an issue. The lack of local realism, as its defined in that phys.org article, is simply not an issue for physics nor evidence for God's existence.

2.) Yes, no one is doubting that quantum mechanics is fundamental. We often don't observe probabilistic phenomena at the macroscopic level because everything we deal is on the order of micromoles or higher, at which point variance away from the standard behavior is practically negligible.

note that I did not say we do not observe quantum behavior at the macroscopic level; rather, just the probabilistic part is obscured.

3.) Do you even understand why Bell's Inequality is so important? Quantum entanglement measurements whose experimental validity is premised on Bell's Inequality help show us that quantum mechanics is probabilistic as well as the validation for the EPR paradox being an actual physical phenomenon. See point 1 for why EPR paradox is important, etc.

4.) Possibly. This is where we're entering the 'speculative physics' The details don't matter (all what the holographic principle says is that our universe is equivalent to a 2-D manifold); what is important is understanding the context where the theory arose. The theory arose in examining black holes, which is already a red flag. We do not understand black holes because they require both general relativity and quantum mechanics to describe; however, we have no theory that successfully merges both. As such, the area of physics loosely called "quantum theory" is a clusterfuck of many different, often exclusives, 'theories' that are able to explain one or two problems each but together provide no coherent framework for tackling physics problems that necessitate both general relativity and quantum mechanics. in other words, physicists are just throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks, and a lot of mud as been thrown and we're still not sure what sticks.

This isn't even discussing more specific issues, such as how having information encoded in a boundary isn't as impressive as it sounds (all of Maxwell's equations, for example, are basically equating information at the boundary to information throughout the area/volume enclosed by the boundary).

So, could the universe be a hologram? Maybe, but putting too much stock in this particularly problem won't go very far. The reality is, holographic principle is speculation in physics, and isn't a solid ground to make an argument.

5.) So much woo.

What the first experiment is showing, is again, quantum entanglement is a thing. There's no disagreement with the premise, but no argument for how we get to "ergo God."

The second link doesn't work; you had one parenthesis too many. But that blunder aside, I found the PDF, and... wow. Where the hell do I begin with this? At best, the article is trying to argue that we must deeply consider the implications that cognition can affect the external world, although is trying to act that this is somehow a more impressive statement than saying cognition can melt an ice cube if placed on my forehead. Which is absolutely true, but that doesn't mean cognition ('consciousness') somehow transcends the law of physics; rather, it just means oh god my brains produces too much damn heat


Anyway, I'm done.

bye.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like ZoraPrime's post
07-07-2015, 10:08 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 09:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If the multiverse theory is true, then there have been proposed ways to (eventually) detect them.

"There have been proposed ways to (eventually) detect them" does not somehow raise the multiverse hypothesis to a new level of detection. You either can or you cannot currently test the hypothesis. Saying "we may eventually be able to test this" doesn't somehow make that idea a better alternative if it's still making unnecessary assumptions.

(07-07-2015 09:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There will never be a way to detect a god.

It's good that I've defined what I mean by 'god', then. Since you're just throwing the term around, why don't you go ahead and define your term since you don't seem to either understand what I mean, or you simply do not care. Either way, if you're not on the same page, then you're irrelevant to this thread and will be ignored if you don't get on the same page. Thumbsup

(07-07-2015 09:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You *need* an answer to an unknown, and you plug in a god.

And here you are making baseless assumptions about me.
Ad Hominem statements to undermine the argument. You and a couple others are doing this repeatedly in here.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

(07-07-2015 09:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  THAT is a "god of the gaps". Why *end* at a god. An omnipotent god could have created an infinite number of layers of robot universe makers. Your argument, if it is one, is for "the next layer up" (or a "proximate" -- ie closest -- cause), not an ultimate cause. You have provided no reason why there is only ONE higher level.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about here as this statement is incomplete.
Firstly, I haven't "ended" at god. I haven't said anything about this thing being the end of anything. This is open to other options as well. I simply am appealing to a simpler alternative to the MWI and Simulation hypothesis. Using the Occam's Razor Heuristic, I am going with the explanation with the least amount of assumptions or unnecessarily added entities.
The MWI adds an entire universe for every quantum transaction in your body. That's already a number of undetectable universes that breaks your calculator when you try to calculate it. Then add every quantum transaction in our entire cosmos and you have a complicated system of undetectable universes, each allegedly with their own unique quantum properties. So at the base level, this idea grossly violates the Occam's Heuristic.
I did mention that the MWI suffers from the Preferred Basis Problem as well as rectifying the Born Rule. However, it seems that a few of you don't like that this thread is so "sciencey". So I'm apparently supposed to not use so much science.
This kind of reminds me of when I was much younger, in the Pentecostal Church. I would study my Bible better than my pastor did while I was at home. Every Sunday, I would have a large list of questions for the pastor. I figured he would have answers to these questions. He is the pastor after all...
As I brought him the questions in-between services, he blanketed all my questions with one simple answer - "Put down the books. Ask god to give you the answers you need."
Thereby sending me on my journey out of organized religion.

So as I stated earlier in this thread, I am not interested in irrelevant comments. I am also not interested in antagonistic responses. I am not interested in one-line dismissals. I also do not care if you think I am presenting too much material. This stuff isn't going anywhere, and I have already made it clear that I am not trying to overwhelm anyone. I am going to answer any and all questions, as long as they are relevant and genuine questions, of course.

(07-07-2015 09:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Essentially, god is defined in this situation as a mysterious being that is 'all powerful', 'all present' and 'all knowing', therefore it somehow makes sense that such a being is responsible for a particular phenomena."

--- like giving children cancer and pain ? Thumbsup

You completely misunderstood my statement and simultaneously made a straw man. I'm not going to humor this with a response.



(07-07-2015 09:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "god is defined in this situation as a mysterious being that is 'all powerful', 'all present' and 'all knowing" ... "I am not plugging in some unknown mysterious, all powerful being" Umm, yes you are, Right there.

Again, you don't seem to know what's going on in this conversation for some reason.
I'm not sure why, but you and TheInquisition seem to have this problem in common so far. You've skimmed through my material and comments and made responses that show this like a sore thumb.
I've given a particular definition of my proposal that is separate from the definition you quoted me saying - and then you credited me for using that instead. I'll let you chew on that a little bit and see if it finally makes sense for you.

I know I'm going to have to repeat myself again, but let's just put this out there anyway-

I shouldn't be responding to comments that are either irrelevant or simply blatant misrepresentations of my argument or my character.
If this is how you guys are going to behave, then you'll just be ignored.

“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
08-07-2015, 12:49 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 11:01 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 06:17 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  That is a very good point. However, atheism remains baseless.

I'm sure Sye Ten appreciates that you suck his dick ... but really, atheism is the default position. Therefore it needs no "base". What YOU need, is some evidence. Too bad you gots none, *up in there*.

Why is atheism the "default position"?

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2015, 01:02 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 12:49 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Why is atheism the "default position"?

Because god/gods is an idea. When one is first born, one is unaware of a god or religion until told so. Until educated and indoctrinated into a particular religion, such as Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc.

Religions of all stripes through the ages have been ideas. Religion began thousands of years ago. Most gods have been forgotten because they existed before the written word. Take a god like Zeus. Zeus was worshipped for many thousands of years until that god became unfashionable. Just as others before him.

Nowadays humanity has advanced far beyond the words in, for example the bible, that tell us the second coming will be foreshadowed by stars falling upon the earth. Now we know what stars are and how huge and far away they are. It is impossible for a star to fall upon the earth.

That said, it is now the responsibility of those who assert the existence of something, to prove it exists. It is not for an atheist, for example to disprove something that they never asserted to existing in the first place. As a believer, that is your task.

Now, this thread is devoted to physics. Not basic, and this is extremely basic, questions which have nothing to do with physics.

Rather than derail this physics thread, perhaps open your own thread and prove to us the existence of whichever of the many thousands of gods it is in which you believe.

I hope this is clear?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: