I read about this fact in one of Prof Hawking's book . I think the book is The Grand Design . He clearly mentioned that , this fact is experimentally proven but why this happens ; no reason was given .
WHO is GOD in terms of SCIENCE ?
- Thread starter hansda
- Start date
I read about this fact in one of Prof Hawking's book . I think the book is The Grand Design . He clearly mentioned that , this fact is experimentally proven but why this happens ; no reason was given .
No, I'm challenging you to describe how you think an observer effect in physics translates into an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent thing.
An observer in physics is any system that can accept information. It can be a person's toenail, a photon detector, a block of cheese (etc.).
Owned indeed. There is no involvement of consciousness, just an interaction is required to collapse the wave function. And even as a wave function, all the atoms making up the moon are just as real as when collapsed. The moon is there when we dont look at it, in fact, it was there long before anyone looked at it and it will be there even after we colonise it.
@hansda --
Such an oversight is understandable as the uncertainty principle is(or should be) covered in freshman physics course(at least it is in Feynman's freshman lectures). It really is such a basic concept that everyone discussing QED or any related theories should be well versed in it.
Such an oversight is understandable as the uncertainty principle is(or should be) covered in freshman physics course(at least it is in Feynman's freshman lectures). It really is such a basic concept that everyone discussing QED or any related theories should be well versed in it.
Last edited:
An observer being "theoretical observation point" ; can be considered as a 'Frame-of-Reference' in Quantum-Dynamics .
Do you mean to say , an observer is passive ; just witnessing the physical events of Physics/Science ?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. He means literally atoms interact with other atoms, causing each others' superposition states to collapse. Structures of many atoms do not behave quantum mechanically because of those interactions. No live observer is necessary.
Let us move step by step . First try to understand , 'Who is an observer in Physics ?'
An observer is not mass , energy or space but one who can observe all mass , energy , space and their movements . So, an observer is totally different from mass, energy and space . An observer has the capability of observation ; whereas mass , energy and space do not have this capability of observation . Mass , energy and space only follows certain principles .
So an observer is active or passive in quantum dynamics ?
I am saying that the term 'observer' is misleading. There need be no 'observer', just an interaction with another particle. There doesn't have to be anyone watching. Any interaction will collapse the wave function.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I haven't bothered to read all the posts in this thread, so maybe somebody has already said this.
But wouldn't the truth of this rather idealistic sort of spin on the idea of an "observer" (when it's interpreted as mind or consciousness) collapsing quantum wave functions represent kind of a disproof of God's existence?
If God is omniscient, then God must effectively be a universal observer. But if God observes events on the quantum scale, then wave functions must always be collapsed. So quantum wierdness (the two-slit experiment etc.) would simply be impossible if God existed. Events on the quantum scale would be classical.
So if we accept all these (highly questionable) presuppositions, evidence of wierdness on the quantum scale would also appear to be evidence that God doesn't exist.
Last edited:
Good point.
I have heard that somewhere - I cant remember. Its lucky for the theists that a conscious observer isnt needed - otherwise omniscience and omnipresence need to be thrown out the window!
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. Let me expound upon Schrodinger's Cat's plight by introducing the "Russian doll" variation.
A scientist (Ashford) is observing a box in which sits Schrodinger's cat. Inside the box, there is a cat that knows it is alive. Inside the box, there is also a cat that knows it is dead (OK, dying). Until Ashford opens the box, the cat is in a superposed state.
Ashford opens the box and discovers either a live cat or a dead cat. So far so good.
However, unbeknownst to Ashford, he is in a larger box. This larger box has not been opened, and it is being observed by a (very large) scientist (Beckett). Until Beckett opens his box, it contains two superposed states: one in which a scientist named Ashford discovers a live cat, and one in which Ashford discovers a dead cat. Both Ashfords observe completely normal, expected behavior of the cat in the box. Nothing he observes about his world tells him about being inside an enclosed box or in a superposed state. Nothing in his world tells him anything about Beckett.
But unbeknownst to Beckett, he is inside a very large box, which is being observed by a scientist named Crompton...
... and so on.
The moral of the lesson is thus: the fact that we observe collapsed states tells us nothing about whether our world itself is in a superposed state.
Last edited:
I do not see how we can truly put any characteristics or qualities on the concept of 'being god'.
It is part of human nature to describe and categorize, such things as the taste of an exotic fruit, or an unusal visual experience, but such atttemps will always fall short of the actual experience, of the actual existence or phenomena.
I understand the attempts to pigeonhole 'god' into human terms, but do not believe any of them are successful. Such attempts by the OP not excluded.
I see no reason to suppose that the nature of 'god as observer' needs to conform to any concepts science has to offer.
Saying there exists some rational evidence against the existence of god, makes no more sense to me than saying there is some rational evidence for the existence of god.
Peeing into the wind either way.
If there is a 'Being God', existence or phenomena, such is outside the rational as we know it.
I see no evidence against the existence or understanding of the nonrational, except some circular logic used by those who start with the assumption that only the rational exists or is truthful.
The nice thing about the rational, is that it can be shared with others who are rational, and the nonrational is problematic, because it is not explainable to others who wish to understand the same nonrational phenomena.
You just have to be there.