Does Quantum Mechanics Prove Existance of God?

[420Joey]

I adressed that point DYW in the context you quoted. Conscious to a degree. Obviously I am not stating they are full conscious like human beings.

ROCKS are subjective thought, what makes you think otherwise?

 

[Dywyddyr]

This is simply scientific fact. Why does one twin come out perfectly healthy and the other dead even though both biological systems are in working order?

Wouldn't the fact that one is dead be a slight hint that biological systems aren't in working order?

Consider what happens in dreams while "asleep". We are not having the physical experience we have when we see ourselves as "awake". But we are still having experience. Some is about being physical and some about ideas foreign to the reality we know. Rarely however do dream experiences conform to waking experience. Why? Our conscious awareness during sleep is not restricted to observing experience based on the laws physical reality must conform to to be physical appearing in the first place.

Is there a point to this?

Now factor in the conclusive aspects of Quantum Science, and god becomes not only possible, but highly probable.

How so?

For example, entanglement insures communication of all physical concepts with each other enabling a consistency and predictability to what appears physical.

Really? How?

 

[420Joey]

We can both atleast agree that intellectual pursuits of god is futile given the subject at hand. Provided the complexity of life I'm assuming what we think is of some significance. Therefore I argue the possibility of god existing and instill my belief of a god or source I can connect to unless proven otherwise. In my opinion it is the only logical conclusion to be made and is the safest bet if some source does exist in relation to belief and will, if it has any impact, that is.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I adressed that point DYW in the context you quoted. Conscious to a degree. Obviously I am not stating they are full conscious like human beings.

You made a claim. What exactly do you mean by "conscious to a degree"? How do you know?

ROCKS are subjective thought, what makes you think otherwise?

So there's nothing at all to a rock other than the subjective thought?
Strange...

 

[420Joey]

Dwy.

1) is just a sway diverting from my point
2) Ofcourse that your empericism is meaningless in this question at hand and that quantum events create the physical even outside this physical state. We always judge whether god exists or not in the macro despite the fact that it would make more sense to find evidence of god in the micro. Our approach is not suited for this so its attacked. The fact that we dream and correspond with physical reality is enough evidence for me to dismiss relying on "physical proof" to draw conclusions for god. Your basically trying to explain what can't be explained with "not true" similarily im saying "true" why is your opinion more valid?

3. How do you not understand what I am stating? How do you propose I awnser your question How so? Read above that sentence.

4. Is this going to turn into a "How for everything" argument? I awnser this question For example, entanglement insures communication of all physical concepts with each other enabling a consistency and predictability to what appears physical. Not only does this allow physical reality to seem real to us, but it insures we can acknowledge the same experiences with each other. Observation, our conscious awareness, is how we perceive this reality as physically real. Duality allows us to experience both matter and energy, and space and time as fundamental requirements for a physical reality. Uniformity and relative agreement as well.

 

[420Joey]

Its not merely subjective thought but I think you understand the point I'm trying to get across. You can't prove its really a rock, neural processing, couldent something subjectively be thought of a rock but be something entirely different? Can you prove your real? I guess we would have to define what we agree REAL is and what consiousness is but than again I cant even think of what existance IS without god.

 

[Dywyddyr]

that quantum events create the physical even outside this physical state.

Supposition.

We always judge whether god exists or not in the macro despite the fact that it would make more sense to find evidence of god in the micro.

Also a supposition. And also appears to be a change in the concept of "god".

The fact that we dream and correspond with physical reality is enough evidence for me to dismiss relying on "physical proof" to draw conclusions for god.

Um, didn't you argue that this is not the case?

Our conscious awareness during sleep is not restricted to observing experience based on the laws physical reality

Your basically trying to explain what can't be explained with "not true" similarily im saying "true" why is your opinion more valid?

Then you're not reading. I'm asking: what evidence do you have that is is true?

3. How do you not understand what I am stating? How do you propose I awnser your question How so?

By telling me how you get from the premise to the conclusion.

4. Is this going to turn into a "How for everything" argument?

It is if you insist on making unsupported claims.

I awnser this question For example, entanglement insures communication of all physical concepts with each other enabling a consistency and predictability to what appears physical.

And this is not the case. It's only how you are interpreting it. I'm asking: what makes you think this?

Not only does this allow physical reality to seem real to us, but it insures we can acknowledge the same experiences with each other.

Our shared commonality of perception is nothing to do with "entanglement".

Duality allows us to experience both matter and energy, and space and time as fundamental requirements for a physical reality.

Another thing you appear to be misconstruing.

 

[Rav]

such an entity would be outside the concept of time.

Stating that God is outside of time just gives birth to logical difficulties that ultimately discredit the idea. For example, if the first cause (of the universe) is outside of time, then the universe has always existed. You wont be able to get your head around this at first, but I'll try to elaborate anyway. Since "before" and "after" can not be properties of timelessness, if the first cause exists the universe does as well, because there can be no "delay" between the two.

One way to resolve this problem is to redefine our concept of God by reintroducing the concept of time. This allows him to exist "before" the universe did and presumably also after it's gone (if indeed it will ever be gone). You may even choose to say that God exists throughout the fullness of all time and that in this sense he is indeed eternal; that there always was God and that there always will be God, no matter what. But if we assume that something can exist eternally, then we must also accept that the same can be true of physical reality itself. Perhaps the universe, like our revised concept of God, has simply always existed. The question of why there is "something" instead of "nothing" is for another discussion (and has already been hashed out exhaustively in these forums already).

The arguments really do not get any more advanced than this. I do not mean to suggest that I am as intelligent as anyone can be, only that I know this to be true because I've pretty much encountered every argument for and against the existence of God that any philosopher of note has ever formulated. Ultimately the reason that I am an atheist is because the question of existence doesn't require us to invoke God.

 

[420Joey]

Dwy, before I entertain you further, for what intended purposes, should I not believe in god? My older points was questioning your faith in physical empericism

I have evidence that supports that notion (or what appears to me as evidence but clearly its relative and subjective) needless to say we have reached the limits of this discussion if were demanding some form of emperical evidence since neither your theory or my theory can be validated that way.

Stating that God is outside of time just gives birth to logical difficulties that ultimately discredit the idea.

Stating that god is inside of time gives birth to even more "logical difficulties" I dont see your connection with "logical difficulties" and "ultimately discrediting the idea". What in reality doesent have as many "logical difficulties" as god?

One way to resolve this problem is to redefine our concept of God by reintroducing the concept of time. This allows him to exist "before" the universe did and presumably also after it's gone (if indeed it will ever be gone). You may even choose to say that God exists throughout the fullness of all time and that in this sense he is indeed eternal; that there always was God and that there always will be God, no matter what. But if we assume that something can exist eternally, then we must also accept that the same can be true of physical reality itself. Perhaps the universe, like our revised concept of God, has simply always existed. The question of why there is "something" instead of "nothing" is for another discussion (and has already been hashed out exhaustively in these forums already).

Why is it impossible to concieve god as an ultimate source of consiousness or awareness that places itself in small focal perspectives in all arrays of life and animates reality within infinite states of events and outcomes and in this framework the illusion of freewill and reality suffices. What if consiousness, the essense of it is never destroyed or created like energy just transfered via life and death?

I guess we have to ask ourselves this question if we demand proof of god.

Suppose for a minute, god exposed himself to humanity. Subsequently we learn everything there is to know by getting connected to this hypothetical source. Would life be worth living? Think about it.

If you believe there is no god, provided the complexity of life as evidence, than I suppose you think we, in the future, will be able to create consiousness? Since its all mechanical random sequenced events?

 

[Rav]

There isn't a single thing in the universe (or about the universe) that can't be explained as being a property of the universe itself. I just don't see any "problems" that require the invocation of God to "solve". It's that simple.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dwy, before I entertain you further, for what intended purposes, should I not believe in god?

What do you mean by "intended purpose"?

I have evidence that supports that notion (or what appears to me as evidence but clearly its relative and subjective)

QED. Then why insist the notion is actually true as opposed to a mere personal (but commonplace) opinion?

needless to say we have reached the limits of this discussion if were demanding some form of emperical evidence since neither your theory or my theory can be validated that way.

And once more you persist in the fallacy that I have a theory...

The rest of your post appears to be addressed to Rav. I'll leave that to him.

 

[Yazata]

Does QM say that things do not exist unless there is an observer to observe them?

No.

That's a philosophical interpretation of the 'collapse of the wave function' problem that appeared in the early days of QM about 100 years ago, in a German-influenced intellectual context in thich Kantian idealism was kind of assumed to be the the most advanced philosophy.

I think that most physicists today, when they think of philosophy at all, aren't philosophical idealists in the Kantian style. They think of what used to be called 'observation' in terms of physical interaction. It's the idea that some quantum mechanical properties don't take on discrete values until there's a physical interaction, with an experimental apparatus or whatever. There needn't be and usually isn't any dualistic implication that this interaction must be with a 'mind' possessing some mysterious extraphysical nature.

 

[Yazata]

Okay I see I will be met with fire on this one, let me ask you guys something, what is your position in the origin of the universe?

** The universe had a cause?
** The universe has an infinite pass and has no beggining?

What do you believe?

Causality links together discrete events within the universe. So I'm not sure if it makes sense to say that the universe itself has a cause, at least if we are interpreting 'universe' to include everything that is.

At this point, I don't think that science and philosophy are advanced enough to explain reality itself, except in the most speculative ways. I wonder if they will ever be up to the task.

But having said that, I don't see how introducing the anthropmorphism and anthropocentrism of ancient religious myth brings us any closer to the answer. That just adds a whole new layer of mystification and confusion.

It's best to just admit that we don't have all of the answers at this point.

 

[420Joey]

There isn't a single thing in the universe (or about the universe) that can't be explained as being a property of the universe itself. I just don't see any "problems" that require the invocation of God to "solve". It's that simple.

Ofcourse everything could be a property of the universe itself, but that is the "problem" that requires the invocation of god. Could you propose a better explanation? Creation is a property of the universe? Why? What intent would consiousness service? Why do we have any will to live in the first place? If god is not real, why are "conscious dreamers" in the sense that everything is primarily processed as a relative reality rather than one in concrete. Without god, you have nothing but a question mark.

What you have to do is redefine your concept of god untill reaching a conclusion that makes sense, give meaning to life, without god - why should you even uphold a moral compass? Sure you can help the millions starving but why, who really gives a flying donkey fuck? I think its because we dont understand god, the nature of reality and energy as we try to aquire an understanding through emperical testability we will only understand one aspect and we dont want to fuck ourselves if consiousness suprasses this physical reality so we maintain our moral compass. Why does evolution even give a fuck about you crying and reaching out to the apathy of others. It seemingly feels to me reality has some underlying principle of survival that implies to me an ultimate will. Otherwise how can you make sense of consiousness??

What do you mean by "intended purpose"?

What purpose does it serve, to believe in nothing, when our thoughts are so powerful we subjectively create this reality thats consistant with everybody elses focal point (as apart of this universal source of consiousness) for what intended purposes shall I adopt this bleek outlook. Reality is a fallacy, emotions, pain, neutron triggering, etc is all done in vain because "matter feels like it"

QED. Then why insist the notion is actually true as opposed to a mere personal (but commonplace) opinion?

I dont claim anything to be 100% true this is my theory I believe. It may be exposed as wrong in the future like any other theory but its relative and subjective. I can look at a lion and see the design of intelligence, you can look at the same creature and ponder on how magnificent evolution is that this random creature appears the way it does.

And once more you persist in the fallacy that I have a theory...

Why engage in something with no position. In the end, we all have the same awnser, "who knows" so this is just a modest pursuit of a possible theory that best explains our reality provided the data we have is consistant with the concept.

No.

That's a philosophical interpretation of the 'collapse of the wave function' problem that appeared in the early days of QM about 100 years ago, in a German-influenced intellectual context in thich Kantian idealism was kind of assumed to be the the most advanced philosophy.

I think that most physicists today, when they think of philosophy at all, aren't philosophical idealists in the Kantian style. They think of what used to be called 'observation' in terms of physical interaction. It's the idea that some quantum mechanical properties don't take on discrete values until there's a physical interaction, with an experimental apparatus or whatever. There needn't be and usually isn't any dualistic implication that this interaction must be with a 'mind' possessing some mysterious extraphysical nature.

Link please. Quantum mechanics sheds light onto how complex our reality truly is, providing ample room for a god to exist, in an attempt to understand the nature of reality. We can say that the concept of god complicates things, but than what we are essentially stating is that we are all independant of the universe, we are random mutations, there is no purpose to consiousness, the universe or all there is was constructed from nothing with no will or awareness outside of laws that govern its nature, and plenty of other baseless assumptions. You can say "God" is another baseless assumption but it is how you view the evidence. If you believe in statistics than you either believe in multiverse or god to explain this reality? and guess what 1) doesent contradict 2) so its the most reasonable conclusion IMHO

 

[Dywyddyr]

What purpose does it serve, to believe in nothing

Circular argument. I asked (I'll try again):

What do you mean by "intended purpose"?

I dont claim anything to be 100% true this is my theory I believe.

Strawman. I didn't mention "100%". You are still persisting that god exists. And it is NOT a theory.

Why engage in something with no position.

To get answers? You'd be surprised how it works.

so this is just a modest pursuit of a possible theory that best explains our reality provided the data we have is consistant with the concept.

False.

 

[420Joey]

So god is real

 

[Dywyddyr]

No.