• 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!

God's quantum universe

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
DISCLAIMER; MODS; IF THIS THREAD IS IN THE WRONG PLACE FEEL FREE TO MOVE IT


God's quantum universe

If recent experimental data* is true there is a good chance that quantum entanglement is not localized as assumed for the past several decades. This has serious implications for free will, prayer, and prophetic predictions (as in the Hebrew bible etc) and determine whether the universe runs on classical physics or quantum probability. It also lends evidence that quantum events such as entanglement, 'superposition' and other effects the macro universe as well as the micro universe on non-localized scales which is exciting to say the least! Well its exciting for theists and others that have been claiming quantum events actually effect the material world are are not just part of a mathematical system etc.

*....http://news.mit.edu/2014/closing-the-free-will-loophol
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
Page not found

The requested page "/2014/closing-the-free-will-loophol" could not be found.

However, it bothers me how the word 'quantum' has become 'entangled' with indeterminate ideas.
That everything material exists in quanta rather than infinitely divisible continua is an entirely separate question,
to the question of consciousness/material duality.

The notion of a universe that is infinitely divisible results in logical contradictions of course.
And an entirely material universe results in unreal possibilities like time-travel amongst many others.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Jonathan;
Try that link (above) it looks the same but had the page numbers on it, confusing ain't it?

However, it bothers me how the word 'quantum' has become 'entangled' with indeterminate ideas.
That everything material exists in quanta rather than infinitely divisible continua is an entirely separate question,

Are you referencing where I said that the quantum 'based' universe incorrect? If so what I mean is that there are two competing ideas about how the universe is 'governed'. One is by classical physics where quantum events are only active at a local distance (ie said to be localized). The other where quantum effects are not localized, that is events like entanglment effect are non-localized.

to the question of consciousness/material duality.

The notion of a universe that is infinitely divisible results in logical contradictions of course.
And an entirely material universe results in unreal possibilities like time-travel amongst many others.

Yes indeed fact really is stranger than fiction in some areas of the universe. I have always been fascinated by time dilation and physics of time in general.
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
Jonathan;
Try that link (above) it looks the same but had the page numbers on it, confusing ain't it?



Are you referencing where I said that the quantum 'based' universe incorrect? If so what I mean is that there are two competing ideas about how the universe is 'governed'. One is by classical physics where quantum events are only active at a local distance (ie said to be localized). The other where quantum effects are not localized, that is events like entanglment effect are non-localized.



Yes indeed fact really is stranger than fiction in some areas of the universe. I have always been fascinated by time dilation and physics of time in general.

The comments below that article echo my own thoughts better than I can express them myself:

Doesn't the fact that the experimenters are eventually connected by causality to both quasars ruin the whole idea of any complete independence of the measurements of the two entangled particles?

The quasars may be independent of each other, but are the experimenters truly independent of the quasars?

Thus the quasars cannot be truly independent of each other.

An excellent set of comments on that article - be advised to read them.

Personally I believe the idea of 'spooky action at a distance' is a feature of the universe
that is logically essential to its functioning. Any attempt to get past it eventually results in contradictions.

Here is an article I wrote which outlines the foundation as to why I think this must be so:
Gravitational Waves & General Relativity - A Computational Analysis

I have a more concise article in the making. Argh! I wish I had it finished already!
The trickiest part is to know when one has said enough, and when to carry on analyzing.
Knowing for oneself is great, but expressing it all slows down the analysis.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
The comments below that article echo my own thoughts better than I can express them myself:

"Thus the quasars cannot be truly independent of each other."

An excellent set of comments on that article - be advised to read them.

Well I subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of QT, which like the big bang (hot model, one universe) which is falling out of favor which is due in part to the theistic implications of both. The latter is mostly speculation based on observation and maybe a little paranoia (lol). So yes, I feel everything material is casually connected to each other. I do wonder if sentience is required to change things, ie if observing causes the collapse of the wave function for example. As you can see I don't think there is a measurement problem as much as a problem accepting that sentient observers can effect quantum and maybe even macro events. (I think I hear Viole
groaning about now!)

Btw, I only know the basics of quantum theory and such things as relativity. I struggle with the math of both but I do have a good conceptual idea of both especially Einsteins work such as his theories on time meaning(space-time), special relativity and others. However I find forums extremely difficult when I am trying to express ideas of such things like the above subjects not only for the length it requires due to having difficulty putting my thoughts into language. So please bear with me because my schooling is of theology and anthropology which is not much help when discussing the math of QT or the finer Geometric intricacies of special relativity! However, you seem well learned in these subjects. Maybe you could help me with a few questions I have about QFM?

Personally I believe the idea of 'spooky action at a distance' is a feature of the universe that is logically essential to its functioning. Any attempt to get past it eventually results in contradictions.

I don't want to get past it , lol ! Entanglement seems it might be a good vehicle for merging some aspects of metaphysics (ie spiritual metaphysics) with the hard sciences of physics, cosmology etc.

Here is an article I wrote which outlines the foundation as to why I think this must be so: Gravitational Waves & General Relativity - A Computational Analysis

Sounds interesting. I was excited when the data come in from the recent Gravitational waves experiment. I still don't know it that bodes well for my God based world view, but my mind is always open to new evidence and ideas.

I have a more concise article in the making. Argh! I wish I had it finished already!
The trickiest part is to know when one has said enough, and when to carry on analyzing.Knowing for oneself is great, but expressing it all slows down the analysis.

Ha ha yes! And its difficult to gauge the interest and abilities of your audience (when posting in forums). I will give it a read. If its not too math heavy I may be able to understand it. I envy but respect those souls where math comes easy to them!
 
Last edited:

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
Well I subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of QT, which like the big bang (hot model, one universe) which is falling out of favor which is due in part to the theistic implications of both. The latter is mostly speculation based on observation and maybe a little paranoia (lol). So yes, I feel everything material is casually connected to each other. I do wonder if sentience is required to change things, ie if observing causes the collapse of the wave function for example. As you can see I don't think there is a measurement problem as much as a problem accepting that sentient observers can effect quantum and maybe even macro events. (I think I hear Viole
groaning about now!)

Btw, I only know the basics of quantum theory and such things as relativity. I struggle with the math of both but I do have a good conceptual idea of both especially Einsteins work such as his theories on time meaning(space-time), special relativity and others. However I find forums extremely difficult when I am trying to express ideas of such things like the above subjects not only for the length it requires due to having difficulty putting my thoughts into language. So please bear with me because my schooling is of theology and anthropology which is not much help when discussing the math of QT or the finer Geometric intricacies of special relativity! However, you seem well learned in these subjects. Maybe you could help me with a few questions I have about QFM?



I don't want to get past it , lol ! Entanglement seems it might be a good vehicle for merging some aspects of metaphysics (ie spiritual metaphysics) with the hard sciences of physics, cosmology etc.



Sounds interesting. I was excited when the data come in from the recent Gravitational waves experiment. I still don't know it that bodes well for my God based world view, but my mind is always open to new evidence and ideas.



Ha ha yes! And its difficult to gauge the interest and abilities of your audience (when posting in forums). I will give it a read. If its not too math heavy I may be able to understand it. I envy but respect those souls where math comes easy to them!

Perhaps you do not give yourself enough credit as regards the math?
My thesis is that 90% of Einstein's theories have math at its core that is fundamentally at fault.
So your only problem is in assuming that the math is workable. Entertain the notion that it is fatally flawed
and it all becomes much simpler.

It is always a rare pleasure to discuss such ideas with minds that accept both Theism and Astrophysics as mutually supportive ideas.

The Gravitational waves experiment is full of theoretical errors regardless of the observations, but I am getting ahead of myself again!
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
PARTIAL QUOTE>>>>>
Perhaps you do not give yourself enough credit as regards the math?
<<<<<

Thanks for the kind words Jonathan. To compliment a stranger (kindness) is the mark of basic goodness. Can I inflict a short bit of scripture on the forum? ;

2 Forget not to show love unto strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Hebrews 13;2

That said;

I agree with you. To discuss ideas openly, even with those of us that have 'opposing' world views is a welcome change. Also open discussion holds the key to new discovery especially as science becomes increasingly theoretical and where we are going to need new tools to discover what happened before the big bang banged or what lies beyond the event horizon of a super-massive black hole. The pleasure was mine Jonathan.

 
Last edited:

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
PARTIAL QUOTE>>>>><<<<<

2 Forget not to show love unto strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Hebrews 13;2


This question has echoed in my mind.
Specifically this:

The idea, essentially, is that if two quasars on opposite sides of the sky are sufficiently distant from each other, they would have been out of causal contact since the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago, with no possible means of any third party communicating with both of them since the beginning of the universe — an ideal scenario for determining each particle detector’s settings.

This shows how the mainstream astrophysics paradigm clearly contradicts itself.
According to the Relativists, nothing can be moving faster than light relative to anything else.
So if the two quasars are not able to send a signal between them at the velocity of light then
they must have been moving away from one another at a faster velocity than light.
Because they both started at the same 'big bang' position.

No esoteric maths required.

As for the title 'closing the free-will loophole',
that should give off every warning signal.

Astrophysics has unfortunately been degenerating in its logical consistency for at least the last 100 years.

I have taken the liberty of reworking the big bang model.
I call it the 'Big Unwind'.
It is entirely Theistic, based on computer algorithms which only function due to what Aquinas
called the 'Argument from Design'

Here is a looped graphic that presents the core argument quite simply:


big%20unwind.gif


Here is an article with more detail:
The Big Unwind
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
>>>>>>>PARTIAL QUOTE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This question has echoed in my mind.
Specifically this:
This shows how the mainstream astrophysics paradigm clearly contradicts itself.
According to the Relativists, nothing can be moving faster than light relative to anything else.
So if the two quasars are not able to send a signal between them at the velocity of light then
No esoteric maths required.
Ha ha, indeed Mr Jonathan ! Yes sir. Also science couldn't be science if it could not be falsified. This ability to be wrong and even to be expected to be wrong* is a necessary evil. It's a luxury religion can not afford! Ok so science allows emerging evidences and discoveries etc. to alter and even completely change claims answers and theories.

they must have been moving away from one another at a faster velocity than light.Because they both started at the same 'big bang' position.

I think and I am not sure I agree the way around the apparent faster than light information exchange in this particular case is that there can be one exception to the speed limit. And that is when space itself expands faster than light it allows for this contradiction. Dont kill the messenger!

As for the title 'closing the free-will loophole',
that should give off every warning signal.

I couldn't agree with you more! That said, I feel we humans have a designed free will that runs on auto pilot by the grace of God. If a creator, say for argument a deity like the God of the old testament really existed free will would be toast, if the being wanted it so. All it would need to do is know the action of every particle, of everything from the beginning of time to the end, and visit time to time to give love or a flood etc. I think God chooses not to know everything allowing free wlll to exist. Lastly there must be fail safes to protect his creation.... but that's another thread or reply.... ok....


It's an exciting time to be alive ain't it ?


Peter 2; But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
 
Last edited:

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
All it would need to do is know the action of every particle, of everything from the beginning of time to the end

Well it can be shown that the universe consists of more than mere determined particles.
Suppose I build 'Pandora's machine', which maps every atom, electron, quark and other little subatomic widget in your brain.
The machine could then predict your every thought.
I then show you the results such that it shows you are going to wear a blue shirt tomorrow.
Knowing this, you can then just decide to wear a white shirt.

Human contrariness will always defy determinism.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Ah ha, but Jonthan, and first I will say that I think we humans have free will and are not predestined to do this or that despite believing in an all knowing omniscient creator . So, that said, your thought experiment machine (can we call it hal?) is lacking ability when compared to say...God. I have had many sometimes heated disagreements with fellow believers who say we have no real free will (because God already knows everything that can or will happen) might say God would know our hapless shirt changing thought experiment friend would change his shirt which equals no free will!

So again since I have a hunch with no scriptural support that God wants man to have a free will he could give us that gift by several methods. The one I support is that I feel God created our universe (and each sentient beings life timeline etc) to run on probabilities the same as or similar to quantum calculations. Of course I envision my creator of the universe to have the benefit of totally complete data as well as an infallible methods to apply it. So the creator gives his loved humans gift of free will by 'knowing our decisions' with an accuracy not of 100% but with an accuracy of nearly 100%. The less than 100% accuracy is the wiggle room we call free will.

Lastly let me say that I have quite a few atheist friends, they ask me how I can believe in a God that sounds like it was lifted from a fairy tale. That's the easy part! In a universe that is nearly 14b years old why couldn't our universe have already created sentient life? Lets say this first civilization is smarter than we and never knew war and so lucky life wasn't squashed nearly out of existence by a BFR (Big Freaking Rock) from space. Instead they got busy and built wondrous computers that would make our supercomputers toys in comparison, and kept building better and better computers for millions of years! Given enough time these beings could advance to God like status, right? They might become disembodied spirits that could easily create our universe on a whim. Time is the reason this could happen. These races could exist and they could be so far advanced it would be like comparing we humans to a virus or bacteria. Um' in that scenario we would be the virus!

Anyway that is only one in many ways God could exist. Maybe not like the God we Christians would like to think exists, but hey I will take any kind of God that avoids wars, pain and suffering and that creates universes for fun! Ahhh....?

Btw I plan on reading your book the unwinding asap. Oh lastly to the members I do not believe or watch with interest chariots of the Gods etc that airs on the cable channels. They take far too much liberty stating guesses as facts and make far too many incredible assumptions etc.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I have had many sometimes heated disagreements with fellow believers who say we have no real free will (because God already knows everything that can or will happen) might say God would know our hapless shirt changing thought experiment friend would change his shirt which equals no free will!

I would ask your atheist friends if watching a documentary about Hitler, while knowing exactly what he will do next, and how he will end, entails that Hitler did not have free will.

The problem of God's omniscience is not free will, but what the point of His creation is.

Ciao

- viole
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
DISCLAIMER; MODS; IF THIS THREAD IS IN THE WRONG PLACE FEEL FREE TO MOVE IT


God's quantum universe

If recent experimental data* is true there is a good chance that quantum entanglement is not localized as assumed for the past several decades. This has serious implications for free will, prayer, and prophetic predictions (as in the Hebrew bible etc) and determine whether the universe runs on classical physics or quantum probability. It also lends evidence that quantum events such as entanglement, 'superposition' and other effects the macro universe as well as the micro universe on non-localized scales which is exciting to say the least! Well its exciting for theists and others that have been claiming quantum events actually effect the material world are are not just part of a mathematical system etc.

*....http://news.mit.edu/2014/closing-the-free-will-loophol

I don't see how quantum entanglement can help the theist at all. For instance, you cannot transmit information in a non-local way by using entanglement. So, your prayers will still take ages to reach the target, anyway. Assuming you look for physical support for the metaphysical.


Ciao

- viole
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I would ask your atheist friends if watching a documentary about Hitler, while knowing exactly what he will do next, and how he will end, entails that Hitler did not have free will.

It seems you I have different ideas of what 'time' is. Also it seems that this difference tends to causes me to misunderstand you at times. Have you read a universe without time? Its about Godel and his friend Einstein who tried during the last half of his life attempted to refute Kurts proof that time can not exist in a universe described by the Theory of Relativity. Einstein seemed to agree that Godel was correct but I do wonder if that was his true feelings.....

The problem of God's omniscience is not free will, but what the point of His creation is.....Ciao- viole

Hmmm' why do I feel if I defend reasons for God, if he is a perfect being, would 'need' a creation I might get ambushed with a big Horia Plugaru stick ?

Or if I am being paranoid I will explain in my next reply~ anyway its all in fun eh?
 
Last edited:

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I don't see how quantum entanglement can help the theist at all. For instance, you cannot transmit information in a non-local way by using entanglement. So, your prayers will still take ages to reach the target, anyway. Assuming you look for physical support for the metaphysical.


Ciao

- viole

I am not decided if there there can be physical support for metaphysical events. By that I mean a material explanation for a immaterial or so called supernatural event. I am spending more time learning subjects that can give me a rudimentary working knowledge of QM. I did read a recent article where the effects of quantum entanglement may not have a 'local boundary' limitation. In any case most of the time I only use quantum mechanics (the effects of) as a metaphor or analogy to describe difficult to visualize metaphysical concepts etc.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I am not decided if there there can be physical support for metaphysical events. By that I mean a material explanation for a immaterial or so called supernatural event. I am spending more time learning subjects that can give me a rudimentary working knowledge of QM. I did read a recent article where the effects of quantum entanglement may not have a 'local boundary' limitation. In any case most of the time I only use quantum mechanics (the effects of) as a metaphor or analogy to describe difficult to visualize metaphysical concepts etc.

I think that the difficulty of imagining QM has evolutionary reasons. Our brains did not evolve to have a natural intuition about fundamental physics. After all predators are pretty big, like food, and none of them disappear and reappear randomly nor travel at speeds closer to light's. So, it is plausible to expect that our natural belief forming systems (e.g. Intuition) are only restricted to what has immediate relevance towards survival. Ergo, the middle sized world we call "classic". A world that is only a rough approximation of the real thing.

I also think that QM is abused as evidence of a trascendent world or some sort of fuzzy spiritual world or consciousness.Which is puzzling to me since it is eminently physical. And pretty materialistic. Especially entanglement captures the imagination for what it appears to be non locality and speeds faster than light's.

But the problem, again, is that we find these things strange because we persevere on treating these object as classic, when they are not. So, they are not strange classic things, they are ordinary not classical things.

In the case of two entangled particles, it is for instance a mistake to see them as two independent things that immediately coordinate themselves over light years of distance. Our intuition dictates that, but our intuition is classic, and therefore unreliable beyond its restricted scope.

Two strongly entangled particles must be considered as one object. One object with only two states in superposition: up/down and down/up. So, a measure of one subset of the object determines the state of the whole object. And it cannot be otherwise., since these are the only two states allowed. A bit like classical rigid bodies: knowing the state of a few particles of the body: determines at once the state of all others, no matter how big the body is.

And the math shows clearly that you cannot use entanglement to transmit information (or causality chains, or actions of any kind, spooky or not) in a non local way. Or to send messages in the past. Information travels still locally and at a speed not higher than light's.

For all practical purposes, the world is still local.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
It seems you I have different ideas of what 'time' is. Also it seems that this difference tends to causes me to misunderstand you at times. Have you read a universe without time? Its about Godel and his friend Einstein who tried during the last half of his life attempted to refute Kurts proof that time can not exist in a universe described by the Theory of Relativity. Einstein seemed to agree that Godel was correct but I do wonder if that was his true feelings.....

I dare to suspect that they were his real feelings. After all, he also claimed that time is a very stubborn illusion. And it cannot be otherwise: a consistent acceptance of relativity dictates the objectivity of spacetime only. An immutable 4 dimensional block , punctuated with what we call events.

And this block (or Pseudo RIemannian manifold, to be precise) is not simply the product of two things (space and time) that are, in principle separable. They are not. This is the funny thing with manifolds: not all of them can be seen as the product of two indipendent manifolds with fewer dimensions.

On the other hand, if we consider some seminal equations of quantum gravity, as speculative as they might be, then we have independent support that time does not exist. For instance, the Schroedinger equation extended to the whole Universe sets the rate of change of the Universe as a constant multiplied to its energy. Now, the total energy of the Universe seems to be zero. Which entails that the rate of change of the Universe is zero. Ergo, the Universe does not change.

It is an immutable eternal thing. Which is what a face-value reading of classical gravitation theory (General Relativity), also confirms.

Hmmm' why do I feel if I defend reasons for God, if he is a perfect being, would 'need' a creation I might get ambushed with a big Horia Plugaru stick ?

Relax. Maybe I am also committing a fallacy in identifying myself with God. But if I do, I feel entitled to ask what the purpose, if any, of all of His creation is. Especially when you know everything.

Or if I am being paranoid I will explain in my next reply~ anyway its all in fun eh?

Oh yeah, it is.

Ciao

- viole
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Hi Viole. Thank you for taking the time to describe the way contemporary scientists (meaning the theory that is popular today) understand quantum entanglement (the non-Copenhagen version lol). I have learned some new things in our discussions, that is true. I am always interested in learning, even if what I learn is different from what I feel is truth. The block theory interpretation of quantum mechanics is a good example. Also one day I may reject, well anything I now believe to be true. Most science theory changes from its original draft, so change is good eh?

.I would like to thank you again for sharing your world view and how your version of the QM locality requirement of quantum entanglement doesn't agree with my world view.

excuse me while I destroy this computer? This herkey jerkey freezing notebook app or the wireless keypad is giving me fantasies of sending this PC back to its creator, and windows 10 is a joke....arrrrrah...
 
Last edited:
Top