Evidence for God from Science

Hi guys

I was looking to get a non-belief response on this video, it poses some interesting questions and thoughts about reality and the nature of reality.

Let me know what you think.

Cheers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

There you go Rick, such a complainer.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Hi guys

I was looking to get a non-belief response on this video, it poses some interesting questions about reality and the nature of reality.

Let me know what you think.

Cheers.

Uh...hello?...earth to Daniel...it would help if you posted the video.

The video has made a common misinterpretation of what "observation" means in a quantum mechanical sense, and transposed this misinterpretation onto an argument using the word in a philosophical, idealism vs. realism sense.

The mistake they have made regarding quantum mechanics is that the theory necessitates a human (or at least conscious) observer to
cause a wave function to collapse (that is, for a quantum of matter to start behaving definitively as either a wave or a particle
rather than something similar to both). Most interpretations of the theory don't define "observation" and the ensuing wave function collapse as something which ultimately has to have a conscious element, but more as something akin to "measurement" or "interaction" - a photon hitting another would cause a wave function to collapse, so an observation/measurement/interaction could be said to take place even if no conscious being was around to be aware of it.

There are, however, other schools of thought which do interpret the theory to necessitate an ultimate element of consciousness to cause a wave function to collapse. You can read more about this here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousn ... ollapse.22

So if the latter interpretation is correct, and observation in the colloquial, conscious sense is needed to cause matter to stop acting quantumly and start acting like real waves and particles then there would be the basis of a case that no reality can exist without a conscious observer.

If those interpretations are incorrect and there is no requirement of conscious observation to cause collapse, then the premise of the video falls down. Reality could be said to be an external, universal concept rather than one which requires a mind to exist.

PerciFlage wrote:The video has made a common misinterpretation of what "observation" means in a quantum mechanical sense, and transposed this misinterpretation onto an argument using the word in a philosophical, idealism vs. realism sense.

The mistake they have made regarding quantum mechanics is that the theory necessitates a human (or at least conscious) observer to
cause a wave function to collapse (that is, for a quantum of matter to start behaving definitively as either a wave or a particle
rather than something similar to both). Most interpretations of the theory don't define "observation" and the ensuing wave function collapse as something which ultimately has to have a conscious element, but more as something akin to "measurement" or "interaction" - a photon hitting another would cause a wave function to collapse, so an observation/measurement/interaction could be said to take place even if no conscious being was around to be aware of it.

There are, however, other schools of thought which do interpret the theory to necessitate an ultimate element of consciousness to cause a wave function to collapse. You can read more about this here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousn ... ollapse.22

So if the latter interpretation is correct, and observation in the colloquial, conscious sense is needed to cause matter to stop acting quantumly and start acting like real waves and particles then there would be the basis of a case that no reality can exist without a conscious observer.

If those interpretations are incorrect and there is no requirement of conscious observation to cause collapse, then the premise of the video falls down. Reality could be said to be an external, universal concept rather than one which requires a mind to exist.

Thanks Perci

It is an interesting subject for sure.

Since I am no expert in the field, I have to take all opinions with a grain of salt as I am sure there are rebuttals to your rebuttals.

Ok now that I have had more time to think about it, I have some questions.

PerciFlage wrote:The mistake they have made regarding quantum mechanics is that the theory necessitates a human (or at least conscious) observer cause a wave function to collapse (that is, for a quantum of matter to start behaving definitively as either a wave or a particle
rather than something similar to both)

I am not sure if that is exactly what they meant, they didn't talk about other causes or rule out other causes but were just talking about talking about one particular cause for the wave to break down.
What they said could still remian true even if there are other cause of waves breaking down into particles.

So i guess my question now is, why when being measured or "observed" does the wave start to act like a particle, if the answer is not simply observation then why does it do it?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Ok now that I have had more time to think about it, I have some questions.

PerciFlage wrote:The mistake they have made regarding quantum mechanics is that the theory necessitates a human (or at least conscious) observer cause a wave function to collapse (that is, for a quantum of matter to start behaving definitively as either a wave or a particle
rather than something similar to both)

I am not sure if that is exactly what they meant, they didn't talk about other causes or rule out other causes but were just talking about talking about one particular cause for the wave to break down.
What they said could still remian true even if there are other cause of waves breaking down into particles.

I'm not sure that what they were saying would remain true if there wasn't ultimately a consciousness behind everything that could cause a wave function to collapse. The thrust of their argument is:

1. Wave function collapse creates reality by making quanta of matter dissolve into either waves or particles.
2. Only consciousness can collapse wave functions.
3. Therefore, idealism.

2. isn't a mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics, though it certainly does have its exponents.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:So i guess my question now is, why when being measured or "observed" does the wave start to act like a particle, if the answer is not simply observation then why does it do it?

It's not a wave which begins to act like a particle when observed. A quanta of energy when observed can start to act either like a wave or like a particle. That "decision" to become one thing or the other is called wave function collapse, and it is caused by observation, but not necessarily in the sense of a conscious mind peering at or otherwise examining it. Observation can simply be interaction with another photon.

As for why wave functions collapse, I believe that's something which has not yet been answered.

Interesting, I have many more questions if you have the time.
I know mine is limited at the moment, I still have PM's to answer but I want to come back to this.


Thanks

Sure thing! I'm not a trained physicist by the way - I have a fair lay understanding of the concepts, but not the mathematics.

PerciFlage wrote:The video has made a common misinterpretation of what "observation" means in a quantum mechanical sense, and transposed this misinterpretation onto an argument using the word in a philosophical, idealism vs. realism sense.

The mistake they have made regarding quantum mechanics is that the theory necessitates a human (or at least conscious) observer to
cause a wave function to collapse (that is, for a quantum of matter to start behaving definitively as either a wave or a particle
rather than something similar to both). Most interpretations of the theory don't define "observation" and the ensuing wave function collapse as something which ultimately has to have a conscious element, but more as something akin to "measurement" or "interaction" - a photon hitting another would cause a wave function to collapse, so an observation/measurement/interaction could be said to take place even if no conscious being was around to be aware of it.

There are, however, other schools of thought which do interpret the theory to necessitate an ultimate element of consciousness to cause a wave function to collapse. You can read more about this here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousn ... ollapse.22

So if the latter interpretation is correct, and observation in the colloquial, conscious sense is needed to cause matter to stop acting quantumly and start acting like real waves and particles then there would be the basis of a case that no reality can exist without a conscious observer.

If those interpretations are incorrect and there is no requirement of conscious observation to cause collapse, then the premise of the video falls down. Reality could be said to be an external, universal concept rather than one which requires a mind to exist.

Actually the video doesnt make the mistake, and the actual observation is what is needed to collapse the wavelength. The measurement deviece is a photon detector and if the device itself caused photons from it to collide with the lectrons and interfere with them the device itself would have detected them.

I just was watching a video by a physicist a few days ago in which he talked about The experimentors not being there and the measurment device was still there but it was turned off and the electrons went back to acting the way they did before the observer was observing and measuring it. Im so frustrated that I cant remember the video as I forget so easily these days.

Like I said, if there were photons coming from either the observer or the measuring device from the double slit experiment then the photon detector itself would have shown this but it doesnt show this and that is they are inferring that what is needed here to cause the wavelength collapse is a conscious observer, and what is needed to cause the wavelength of our potential universe to collapse and cause the potential universe to become a reality.

The being that would have needed to cause this wavelength collapse had to have been transcendent of space and time, and he needed to be a personal observer to want to cause this wavelength to collapse. and he needed to be immaterial of course.

Im smacking myself trying to remember how I found that video presentation given by a particular physicist (and no it wasnt given by DR. Quantum Alan Wolfe, who by the way taught physics nearby to where I live at SDSU )

Now it may not be an absolute mainstream belief but as Perci said it does have its proponents and some very heavy hitting Physicists that back this theory up.

But then again, continental drift wasnt a mainstream scientific belief when it first came out.

still popping my head with smacks trying to find that video. Arghhh, its no use, ill probably find it again when im more relaxed lol

PerciFlage wrote:Sure thing! I'm not a trained physicist by the way - I have a fair lay understanding of the concepts, but not the mathematics.

Same here Perci, I hated math when I was young, though I wished I would have paid more attention to it now

bippy123 wrote:I just was watching a video by a physicist a few days ago in which he talked about The experimentors not being there and the measurment device was still there but it was turned off and the electrons went back to acting the way they did before the observer was observing and measuring it. Im so frustrated that I cant remember the video as I forget so easily these days.

Like I said, if there were photons coming from either the observer or the measuring device from the double slit experiment then the photon detector itself would have shown this but it doesnt show this and that is they are inferring that what is needed here to cause the wavelength collapse is a conscious observer, and what is needed to cause the wavelength of our potential universe to collapse and cause the potential universe to become a reality.

Hi bippy,
What was the experimental setup exactly and what was observed?

1over137 wrote:

bippy123 wrote:I just was watching a video by a physicist a few days ago in which he talked about The experimentors not being there and the measurment device was still there but it was turned off and the electrons went back to acting the way they did before the observer was observing and measuring it. Im so frustrated that I cant remember the video as I forget so easily these days.

Like I said, if there were photons coming from either the observer or the measuring device from the double slit experiment then the photon detector itself would have shown this but it doesnt show this and that is they are inferring that what is needed here to cause the wavelength collapse is a conscious observer, and what is needed to cause the wavelength of our potential universe to collapse and cause the potential universe to become a reality.

Hi bippy,
What was the experimental setup exactly and what was observed?

From my watching of the video lecture, the photon detector was setup to observe the electrons as they passed through the slit. When it was there and they consciously observed it, it collapsed the wave length. I think he said that if the machine was there but no one was observing it still didnt collapse the wavelength.I wish I could find it again.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Hi guys

I was looking to get a non-belief response on this video, it poses some interesting questions and thoughts about reality and the nature of reality.

Let me know what you think.

Cheers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

There you go Rick, such a complainer.

Raises interesting questions.

Gives much thought about the nature of reality.

I'm finding that many Christian theologians (including WLC) seem to embrace Idealism.

Some of my own thoughts...

1) It seems to me, that an external or inter "cosmic observer" ought to override the findings of an "internal cosmic observer." Since the cosmic observer would always observe things first before we observe = our observation is superseded and we should only see the effect of the extra-cosmic observer. Such that, the "slit" experiments seeing particles or waves -- follow the observation of an internal observer (human scientists) rather than external/inter observer.

In essence, we should never become aware that our world is Idealistic. The video touches on this, and I'm not sure adequately deals with it, so I'd have to re-listen and reflect more on this point. But, for our own Idealism to hold true (to be able to affect the world) than it seems the higher-level cosmic observer would need to be able to without their observing from influencing an outcome, such that internal observers (us humans) could perform the "slit" experiments with different outcomes.

Thus, if true, there seems to be some sort of "real" substance underpinning reality that the external/inter observer (let's call the Ultimate Observer) has control over, such that His own consciousness and observing can be restricted from overriding that of an internal observer on some substance of reality. This seems suggestive to me that pure Idealism would be claiming too much based upon these experiments.

2) In order for the Ultimate Observer to also not be externally observed for their own existence, there would need to be some sort of inter-relationship within the Ultimate Observer such that each within this relationship observes one another allowing the existence of the Ultimate Observer to be sustained. Interesting that all this may in fact logically support to the existence of a Ultimate Observer being something akin to a Trinitarian conception of God (something ironically considered illogical by many).

3) The extrapolated conclusions are immense. From a few experiments, to conclude that we ourselves must be observed for our own existence, and that person observing us and so on and so forth, well -- that is jumping to quickly to a fully-fledged Idealism without any cross-over to Realism + Idealism for different situations. It could be, that Idealism it true for certain situations, Realism is true for others and even the two cross over in certain circumstances -- a moderate form of Realism perhaps.

To simply jump to the conclusion that the entire world is Idealistic based on "some" experiments, is claiming victory for a lot more than can be actually proved.

Based on the video and my thoughts in (1) and (2), if true, then it seems to me one is lead to something akin to "God" being the Ultimate Observer. Even more, an inter-personal conception of God like in Christianity where the Trinity is believed.

Based on my thoughts in (2), Materialism may be debunked since there is something more going on. Material things may still be true, but they are not everything. Similarly a fully-fledged Realism may be debunked, but a more moderate Realism and dual substantialism is not.

I personally feel more comfortable embracing a Moderate Realism than I do either a pure Realism or Idealism.

bippy123 wrote:From my watching of the video lecture, the photon detector was setup to observe the electrons as they passed through the slit. When it was there and they consciously observed it, it collapsed the wave length. I think he said that if the machine was there but no one was observing it still didnt collapse the wavelength.I wish I could find it again.

I was curious because I do not believe it.

Question: what if some animal was there to observe it? What response those in the video would have?