Upgrading the God Concept
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2011, 05:18 PM
RE: Upgrading the God Concept
(16-12-2011 02:53 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  It's not saying that reality is in our minds, more like consciousness collapses probability waves by virtue of observation. We make the world manifest when we look at it.

And what was the universe doing before we came along to make it manifest?

Just askin'.

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
17-12-2011, 05:19 PM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2011 05:40 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Upgrading the God Concept
(17-12-2011 01:41 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I'm another one of those crazies who discussed bio centrism with you girly =p I should probably make a thread on my funness.Animistic atheism is just one of those beasts you can't make hide nor hair of. Really even if I made a thread it's one of those things where each ember holds their own view. Both of those words kinda mean potluck. =p

Yeah, I remember LilithPride and thanks. I was disappointed that I couldn't get the physicist engaged while he was still here. Dunno if he didn't know what to make of it or he just held the same blushing position as the physicist Richard Conn Henry of JHU in his review:

"And what is their underlying thesis? They present it as a long list of Principles of Biocentrism that have no individual value, in my opinion––but the heart of it, collectively, is correct. On page 15 they say 'the animal observer creates reality and not the other way around.' That is the essence of the entire book, and that is factually correct. It is an elementary conclusion from quantum mechanics.

So what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!"

(17-12-2011 05:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-12-2011 02:53 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  It's not saying that reality is in our minds, more like consciousness collapses probability waves by virtue of observation. We make the world manifest when we look at it.

And what was the universe doing before we came along to make it manifest?

Just askin'.

Dunno, I'm not a physicist, but quivering in an indeterminate state eagerly anticipating being observed and collapsed seems likely. It was waiting to be born.


(17-12-2011 01:32 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(16-12-2011 11:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Diminishment doesn't equal invalidation, ... fool.

I don't know why you think I'm diminishing your argument. I actually took it quite seriously.

And it's Mr. Fool to you.

My apologies, I meant to say Your Foolish Eminence. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2011, 05:41 PM
RE: Upgrading the God Concept
(17-12-2011 05:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 05:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-12-2011 02:53 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  It's not saying that reality is in our minds, more like consciousness collapses probability waves by virtue of observation. We make the world manifest when we look at it.

And what was the universe doing before we came along to make it manifest?

Just askin'.

Dunno, I'm not a physicist, but quivering in anticipation of being observed and collapsed seems likely.

I've always disliked this "collapse of the wave function". The interpretation that something isn't actual until observed smacks of religious cant and mysticism.

The wave function is a probability wave describing the uncertainty in knowing the precise position and velocity of a particle.

This comes from the fact that to measure the position of a particle, we have to shine 'light' on it. The shorter the wavelength, the more accurate. But the shorter the wavelength, the more energy the photon has. The photon alters the velocity and position in proportion to the energy, and the result is non-deterministic. This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

So I can't measure the particle without changing what I wanted to measure; I can never know the position of any particle. So looking at it doesn't collapse any wave function. It's where it is whether anyone knows it or not.

Hey, collapse this!

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-12-2011, 05:55 PM
RE: Upgrading the God Concept
(17-12-2011 05:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 05:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 05:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-12-2011 02:53 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  It's not saying that reality is in our minds, more like consciousness collapses probability waves by virtue of observation. We make the world manifest when we look at it.

And what was the universe doing before we came along to make it manifest?

Just askin'.

Dunno, I'm not a physicist, but quivering in anticipation of being observed and collapsed seems likely.

I've always disliked this "collapse of the wave function". The interpretation that something isn't actual until observed smacks of religious cant and mysticism.

The wave function is a probability wave describing the uncertainty in knowing the precise position and velocity of a particle.

This comes from the fact that to measure the position of a particle, we have to shine 'light' on it. The shorter the wavelength, the more accurate. But the shorter the wavelength, the more energy the photon has. The photon alters the velocity and position in proportion to the energy, and the result is non-deterministic. This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

So I can't measure the particle without changing what I wanted to measure; I can never know the position of any particle. So looking at it doesn't collapse any wave function. It's where it is whether anyone knows it or not.

Hey, collapse this!

Too clarify my "Like":
I really didn't understand anything you were talking about until I got to the last sentence. Big Grin

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2011, 05:56 PM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2011 06:14 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Upgrading the God Concept
(17-12-2011 05:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 05:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 05:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-12-2011 02:53 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  It's not saying that reality is in our minds, more like consciousness collapses probability waves by virtue of observation. We make the world manifest when we look at it.

And what was the universe doing before we came along to make it manifest?

Just askin'.

Dunno, I'm not a physicist, but quivering in anticipation of being observed and collapsed seems likely.

I've always disliked this "collapse of the wave function". The interpretation that something isn't actual until observed smacks of religious cant and mysticism.

Again, don't blame the mild-mannered atheist, blame the physicists.

(17-12-2011 05:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  So I can't measure the particle without changing what I wanted to measure; I can never know the position of any particle. So looking at it doesn't collapse any wave function. It's where it is whether anyone knows it or not.

The physicists I've discussed this with disagree with you. They claim the particle has no position unless it is observed. This is essentially the Copenhagen interpretation and it troubled no less than Einstein:

"Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements. Einstein's comments 'I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice.' and 'Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?' exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said 'Einstein, don't tell God what to do'."

But the next most accepted interpretation by physicists is every bit as big of a mind fuck as that one. All possible worlds exist simultaneously.


(17-12-2011 05:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  Hey, collapse this!

Tried my best. Smile

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2011, 06:10 PM
RE: Upgrading the God Concept
(17-12-2011 05:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 05:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 05:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 05:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-12-2011 02:53 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  It's not saying that reality is in our minds, more like consciousness collapses probability waves by virtue of observation. We make the world manifest when we look at it.

And what was the universe doing before we came along to make it manifest?

Just askin'.

Dunno, I'm not a physicist, but quivering in anticipation of being observed and collapsed seems likely.

I've always disliked this "collapse of the wave function". The interpretation that something isn't actual until observed smacks of religious cant and mysticism.

Again, don't blame the mild-mannered atheist, blame the physicists.

(17-12-2011 05:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  So I can't measure the particle without changing what I wanted to measure; I can never know the position of any particle. So looking at it doesn't collapse any wave function. It's where it is whether anyone knows it or not.

The physicists I've discussed this with disagree with you. They claim the particle has no position unless it is observed. This is essentially the Copenhagen interpretation and it troubled no less than Einstein:

"Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements. Einstein's comments 'I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice.' and 'Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?' exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said 'Einstein, don't tell God what to do'."

But the next most accepted interpretation is every bit as big of a mind fuck as that one. All possible worlds exists simultaneously.


(17-12-2011 05:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  Hey, collapse this!

Tried my best. Smile

I'll take door number three.

Both of those interpretations are letting the mathematics of the model drive reality. Doesn't work that way.

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
17-12-2011, 06:18 PM
RE: Upgrading the God Concept
(17-12-2011 06:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'll take door number three.

Both of those interpretations are letting the mathematics of the model drive reality. Doesn't work that way.

Seems like the burden's on you now, brother, to explain how it works.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2011, 08:19 PM
RE: Upgrading the God Concept
(17-12-2011 06:18 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 06:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'll take door number three.

Both of those interpretations are letting the mathematics of the model drive reality. Doesn't work that way.

Seems like the burden's on you now, brother, to explain how it works.

I pretty much said it. It's the "collapse of the wave function" that's the problem.
This is mathematics, the mathematics of the model, not a description of reality.

Behind door number three is the simple interpretation - the universe doesn't bifurcate for every "collapse of the wave function", no multiple universes created.

Also, you must remember that this applies only at the sub-atomic particle level;
how many sub-atomic particles have you observed today? Bifurcated any universes lately?

Maybe there are multiple universes, but not because of observation.

And, no, the burden isn't on me. The physicists are the ones making the claim that reality works in this way. It is unsupported by any evidence.

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
17-12-2011, 08:34 PM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2011 08:45 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Upgrading the God Concept
(17-12-2011 08:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  And, no, the burden isn't on me. The physicists are the ones making the claim that reality works in this way. It is unsupported by any evidence.

Fair enough, I guess. But then you'll forgive me if I keep probing the physicists the way I'd probe a priest (which is entirely different from how a priest might want to probe me), I presume. ... I mean like they're the fuckers responsible for producing the evidence. ... That's quite a charge you're leveling and it requires substantiation.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2011, 08:51 PM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2011 09:03 PM by Chas.)
RE: Upgrading the God Concept
(17-12-2011 08:34 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 08:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  And, no, the burden isn't on me. The physicists are the ones making the claim that reality works in this way. It is unsupported by any evidence.

Fair enough, I guess. But then you'll forgive me if I keep talking and listening to the physicists, I presume.

These are interpretations of quantum mechanics.
An interpretation is a set of statements about quantum mechanics which attempt to inform our understanding of nature. These are attempts to understand what the Theory and experiments tell us.

Also, this applies to sub-atomic particles. How many sub-atomic particles did you observe today? How many universes bifurcated?
I was pretty slack, didn't observe even one damn particle.

Listen away; most physicists don't buy one or the other of these, and some don't buy either one.

Door number three is the "don't interpret - shut up and calculate" position.

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: