what are your thoughts on this? (theist, verse, Allah, science)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by fullyveiled muslimah

That was interesting. My personal conclusion to that is that there is an observer of electrons, etc at all times. Being a theist I will obviously point to Allah as being the constant observer.

As a theist myself, I would agree with you. However, I must point out that in the framework of the video, if there were an observer at all times, the electrons would never behave like a wave.

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Originally Posted by lilithu

As a theist myself, I would agree with you. However, I must point out that in the framework of the video, if there were an observer at all times, the electrons would never behave like a wave.

Point taken, but if Allah is truly Allah, then it matters not. Allah is the controller as well as the observer, so if the electrons need to act as waves to accomplish a certain goal, or fit into a certain system, then Allah would make it so. If Allah is ONLY the observer then what you say holds true everytime.

Of course I am shooting from the hip with all that I say here, and am most probably out of my league. I have never studied or read about these things before, but my interest is thoroughly peeked. So if you are looking into a debate with me in this area you win lilith

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by fullyveiled muslimah

Point taken, but if Allah is truly Allah, then it matters not. Allah is the controller as well as the observer, so if the electrons need to act as waves to accomplish a certain goal, or fit into a certain system, then Allah would make it so. If Allah is ONLY the observer then what you say holds true everytime.

Of course I am shooting from the hip with all that I say here, and am most probably out of my league. I have never studied or read about these things before, but my interest is thoroughly peeked. So if you are looking into a debate with me in this area you win lilith

lol, no debate. But I am going to elaborate on my position.

I personally do not believe that God/Allah's presence can be proven by science. Science requires "controlled experiments" - that is, cases in which the thing being studied is present and cases in which it is not present. Only then, by looking at the differences between the two, can science deduce the nature of the thing being studied. Since I believe that God/Allah is always present, it would be impossible to do such an experiment.

Moreover, I do not need science to prove the existence of God/Allah. To me, that would suggest that science is the ultimate arbiter of what is true.

[Scarlett Wampus]

Originally Posted by fullyveiled muslimah

Of course I am shooting from the hip with all that I say here, and am most probably out of my league. I have never studied or read about these things before, but my interest is thoroughly peeked. So if you are looking into a debate with me in this area you win lilith

Even if you had read or studied much about these things before its likely it would still be mystifying anyway! My cousin is a particle physicist by profession now and from the outset of his study & training he wore a perpetual expression of deep puzzlement that remains.

[angellous_evangellous]

God bless Hawkings:

"When I hear about Schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun."

[Rolling_Stone]

This is not nearly as far-fetched as some people would like to believe because it rattles the cage of the paradigm they grew up believing in. Yet, you can go to just about any bookstore and find books written by physicists that say the exact same thing. There are a lot of interpretations. One scientist said, "The stream of knowledge seems to be headed toward the understanding that the universe is more like a grreat thought than a great machine."

Another said, "New ideas take hold not because they are better, but because the proponants of old ideas die off." Unwilling or unable to accept new ideas, most choose to ignore the implications of experimental data drawn from Bell's theorom, the double slit experiment (and its variations) and the Aspect experiments (indicating that reality is non-local or what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" is a fact of nature).

Maybe philosophers should take a second look at George Berkeley's philosophy that matter does not exist (something most scientists have concluded) and reality is held to exist in the mind of God.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Maybe philosophers should take a second look at George Berkeley's philosophy that matter does not exist (something most scientists have concluded) and reality is held to exist in the mind of God.

Maybe philosophers should give up the mind/body, either/or dichotomy.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Maybe philosophers should give up the mind/body, either/or dichotomy.

Those who haven't are probably waiting for a satisfactory explanation for how it is the observer can also be the thing observed. Personally, I think they are fundamentally one, but the oserver/observed dichotomy implies consciousness, not matter-energy, is primary. That is, it implies that consciousness is intrinsic to the nature of reality rather than an epiphenomenon or emergent property. I realize this is not the orthodox interpretation, but to simply dismiss it because it is incongruent with the dominant paradigm is closed-minded, unreasonable, and anything but logical and scientific.

What alternative explanatios are there? Do the alternatives preserve the appearance? Are the alternatives supported by evidence? How do the mesh with other equally surprising results, like the results of the Aspect experiments?

[Quagmire]

I'm personally a believer in the Big Gnab, that moment in history when the Universe will suddenly start rushing back towards itself and we will all live every moment of our lives over again, only backwards, which should be even funnier.