Did I ever say it was? Why do you think this is relevant to the double slit experiment?
As he even notes, his views on this are rather controversial. I'd also point out that he says that the 'self' is created by the brain. Hmmm......
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proven Science says there is No Universe without Conscious Man to Observe it.
- Thread starter Steven Merten
- Start date
Did I ever say it was? Why do you think this is relevant to the double slit experiment?
As he even notes, his views on this are rather controversial. I'd also point out that he says that the 'self' is created by the brain. Hmmm......
Thief
Rogue Theologian
nay.....life experiences deal to your spirit
you think you would be the same......in another body?
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
I listened to two minutes and was completely bored. Perhaps you could summarize his viewpoints or fund something he wrote.
I also noted that he was affiliated with The University of Arizona. For some reason, that facility is home to a lot of kooky profs.
WalterTrull
Godfella
Sorry, I didn't read all 13 pages of this. I like to blame age for laziness - convenient. 2 cents burning a hole.
The ticklish part for me is the "conscious man" bit. I'm an adherent of the "mental universe" theory and of the role consciousness plays. I believe the universe, God, and man exist. What I have yet to clearly discern is “as what” and the relationships. There are hints, but it seems I’m a bit slow. I can get on board with the concept if an evolving God, however.
The ticklish part for me is the "conscious man" bit. I'm an adherent of the "mental universe" theory and of the role consciousness plays. I believe the universe, God, and man exist. What I have yet to clearly discern is “as what” and the relationships. There are hints, but it seems I’m a bit slow. I can get on board with the concept if an evolving God, however.
Steven Merten
Active Member
Hello Polymath,
Where did you get your photons from?
Do you agree that photons are in a superposition state, wave state, before conscious man looks at them, as well as electrons, protons and neutrons?
What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?
In the modern quantum form, Young’s experiment involves beaming individual particles of light or matter at two slits or openings cut into an otherwise opaque barrier. On the other side of the barrier is a screen that records the arrival of the particles (say, a photographic plate in the case of photons). Common sense leads us to expect that photons should go through one slit or the other and pile up behind each slit. They don’t.
The measurement—in this case the interaction of the wave function with the photographic plate—is said to “collapse” the wave function. It goes from being spread out before measurement to peaking at one of those places where the photon materializes upon measurement.
quoted from:
What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?
I was talking about the electron version of the double slit experiment, where the interference pattern disappears when it becomes possible to detect 'which slit' information by interacting with photons.
Yes, 'common sense' is useless when talking about quantum mechanics. The facts are just not amenable to classical intuitions.
But, it *is* possible to get *new* intuitions, trained by quantum phenomena, and understand what happens based on those. Consciousness is NOT the key here. Interaction with a system capable of distinguishing 'which slit' information is.
I would note that I am trained in physics. I don't have a PhD in physics (although I do in math), but have passed the PhD level qualifying exams in it. In particular, quantum mechanics is one of the central topics tested upon.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You do realise that even the article you quote from disagrees with your statement that "photons are in a superposition state, wave state, before conscious man looks at them"?
From the same article:
But these experiments don’t constitute empirical evidence for such claims [about consciousness]. In the double-slit experiment done with single photons, all one can do is verify the probabilistic predictions of the mathematics. If the probabilities are borne out over the course of sending tens of thousands of identical photons through the double slit, the theory claims that each photon’s wave function collapsed—thanks to an ill-defined process called measurement. That’s all.
Also, there are other ways of interpreting the double-slit experiment...
It then goes on to outline just two of the many other possibilities, and concludes:Also, there are other ways of interpreting the double-slit experiment...
If nothing else, these experiments are showing that we cannot yet make any claims about the nature of reality, even if the claims are well-motivated mathematically or philosophically. And given that neuroscientists and philosophers of mind don’t agree on the nature of consciousness, claims that it collapses wave functions are premature at best and misleading and wrong at worst.
dad
Undefeated
On earth...sure. But the reason why could be far different than you thought.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
There is no such thing as "proven science". Science makes observations and devises an hypothesis to explain the observations and then tests and retests the hypothesis. The hypothesis eventually will either be discarded, or modified and become a theory once confidence reaches the point that it is rational to believe the theory is correct. But all theories are subject to modification with the addition of new evidence. None of your post has anything to do with evolution.
Steven Merten
Active Member
Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"
Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"
Verses
Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
Hello Milton,
Can evolution occur in a universe which has no Quantum Particle Wave Collapse? The double slit experiment scientifically proves that conscious man, Adam and his descendants, can collapse quantum waves into physical quantum particles, through observation/measurement. Yes, once Adam and his descendants are in the universe, evolution could begin, however, Adam already being Created, when, some form of evolution begins, kind of puts a damper in what many atheist scientists consider to be evolution.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No it doesn't. As several have pointed out: there is no such thing a proving a theory in science.
The double slit experiment does not even provide provide any evidence that it is conscious observation is what is significant in the apparent "collapse" of the wave function.
This is total nonsense for the above reason and several others too - including that evolution is not the preserve of "atheist scientists".
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
my understanding of quantum physics is minimal. If you believe you can disprove evolution prior to the existence of homo sapiens, please present your paper to a proper journal for publication. Once your hypothesis has been tested and verified, I will be more than happy to accept the results. However, I will say that to the best of my knowledge, observation at the quantum level is not the same as observation at the macro level.
Should your hypothesis be true, however, how could man have been created? By your hypothesis, there could be absolutely nothing before there was a man to observe it... therefore no universe, and no god.
Steven Merten
Active Member
Hello Milton,
I would, but PBS and Neils Bohr (100 years ago), and many other scientists, beat me to it. Did you watch the PBS video, link below, on the 'Peek a Boo' universe?: A universe which does not exist when man is not looking at it. I hope you would agree that there can be no evolution, in a situation where there is no universe for evolution to take place in. The PBS video goes through this big debate between Einstein and Bohr, as to whether of not the universe exists when man is not looking at it. After one hundred years, scientists are finally being able to preform Einstein's EPR experiment, Einstein thought up to defeat Bohr and his 'Peek a Boo' universe. The experiment results did not go Einstein's way. Bohr, with his, 'the universe does not exist with out man to observe it', has become the overwhelming winner of the debate. The PBS video says that science is still clearing up a few minor possible loop holes, which could 'salvage' Einstein's 'Realism' philosophy, but it is doubtful. Please watch the PBS video and tell me what you think.
Audie
Veteran Member
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Yes, I have watched this. Thanks. I just don't buy your conclusion yet. If nothing can exist without a man to observe it, then nothing does exist, including a man. There could not have been a man before there was a cosmos.
Since neither you nor I actually exist, apparently, this conversation is not really happening, either.
Last edited:
WalterTrull
Godfella
I do believe you've hit on it.
Well, quantum mechanics is well established. And it is a *local* but non-realist description. But, for macroscopic objects like the moon, there is also decoherence. And *that * restores a type of realism for macroscopic objects even if realism is violated at the atomic and subatomic scale.
But, the most consistent interpretation of QM currently is that it is non-realist and local, not the reverse.
And apparently, I’m not even writing this.
But wait...I see this, so it exists. Wait...I don’t see you, so you don’t exist? So am I writing to myself?
Last edited: