How do you tell the difference?

[Polymath257]

The Many Worlds, or Multiverse interpretation of QM has traction because it solves a problem. Specifically a problem relating to wave function collapse. I won't go into all that here, and doubtless if I did @Polymath257 would be along to tell me I've misunderstood. Which perhaps I have, but so have we all, for there are many things which surpass all understanding.

Superdeterminism solves the same problem in a completely different way. And there are other QM interpretations, and very little consensus among quantum physicists as to which is the most accurate description of "reality" at the sub atomic level. Or even what the problem (of wave function) is, or what it means.

Another aspect is that it is possible to do QM with a wave function that doesn't change at all. Instead, the 'observables' change over time. The end results are exactly the same, but which things change is different. And there are 'mixed' versions where both the wave function and the observables change over time.

The point is that all of these different interpretations lead to *exactly* the same observational results. There is NO WAY to distinguish between them by way of observation.

And, frankly, at that point, it becomes meaningless to adopt one interpretation or the other except when they simplify the actual calculations.

What I would say is that 95% of the 'paradoxes' of QM come from trying to make sense of it with classical ideas. If you think of things having definite properties and being in definite locations at all times, you *will* run into paradoxes because that is NOT how QM describes things. The problem isn't with QM, it is with the outmoded metaphysics saying what things 'should' be like.

ANY time you read about information going backwards in time, or instantaneous signalling, you *know* someone is trying to use classical concepts where QM applies. And that is, in and of itself, a huge mistake.

Perhaps the puzzles and paradoxes posed by QM, and looking the other way, of black holes and dark energy and dark matter, will begin to be resolved; only to be replaced with a completely different set of puzzles and paradoxes.

Yes that is how science tends to progress: we resolve some puzzles and paradoxes only to find new ones.

Meanwhile, we humans will continue to wrestle with the nature of the universe, it's first cause, and our place in it. Logic and reason are not the only tools we have been given to help us make sense of all that, or of our own little lives; there will always be a place for what has been called "The Language of the Heart".

A very poor way to find out things about the real world (as opposed to figuring out what you want to do).

 

[Nimos]

Brother. In Islam, the theology or philosophy does not make sentences like that. I already defined the concept of God to you. God is singular. Thats it.

"There is one God, Allah" is a fundamentally wrong statement. I think you should define God yourself based on your epistemology or understand the concept of God I explained to you.

I took this from BBC, do you agree with this or not? or is this completely off in regards to Islam?

Muslims have six main beliefs.

• Belief in Allah as the one and only God
• Belief in angels
• Belief in the holy books
• Belief in the Prophets...
  • e.g. Adam, Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Dawud (David), Isa (Jesus).
  • Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the final prophet.
• Belief in the Day of Judgement...
  • The day when the life of every human being will be assessed to decide whether they go to heaven or hell.
• Belief in Predestination...
  • That Allah has the knowledge of all that will happen.
  • Muslims believe that this doesn't stop human beings making free choices.

Allah
Allah is the name Muslims use for the supreme and unique God, who created and rules everything.

The heart of faith for all Muslims is obedience to Allah's will.

• Allah is eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent...
  • Allah has always existed and will always exist.
  • Allah knows everything that can be known.
  • Allah can do anything that can be done.
• Allah has no shape or form...
  • Allah can't be seen.
  • Allah can't be heard.
  • Allah is neither male nor female.
• Allah is just...
  • Allah rewards and punishes fairly.
  • But Allah is also merciful.
• A believer can approach Allah by praying, and by reciting the Qur'an.
• Muslims worship only Allah...
  • because only Allah is worthy of worship.

The one and only God
All Muslims believe that God is one alone:

• There is only one God.
• God has no children, no parents, and no partners.
• God was not created by a being.
• There are no equal, superior, or lesser Gods.

Thats avatars of God in hinduism. They are not Gods. They are avatars of God.

I am just trying to work with you based on your school of thought.

Well then someone should correct the internet, because they are classified as deities and referred to as gods.

Indra, in Hindu mythology, the king of the gods. ... Indra is sometimes referred to as “the thousand-eyed.” In later Hinduism, Indra is no longer worshipped but plays the important mythological roles of god of rain, regent of the heavens, and guardian of the east.

Call them whatever you want, avatars, deities I don't care. My question is still does this fit with Islam, are there avatars like this in Islam, if you read the above text, if you agree with it?

 

[Link]

I took this from BBC, do you agree with this or not? or is this completely off in regards to Islam?

Muslims have six main beliefs.

• Belief in Allah as the one and only God
• Belief in angels
• Belief in the holy books
• Belief in the Prophets...
  • e.g. Adam, Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Dawud (David), Isa (Jesus).
  • Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the final prophet.
• Belief in the Day of Judgement...
  • The day when the life of every human being will be assessed to decide whether they go to heaven or hell.
• Belief in Predestination...
  • That Allah has the knowledge of all that will happen.
  • Muslims believe that this doesn't stop human beings making free choices.

Allah
Allah is the name Muslims use for the supreme and unique God, who created and rules everything.

The heart of faith for all Muslims is obedience to Allah's will.

• Allah is eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent...
  • Allah has always existed and will always exist.
  • Allah knows everything that can be known.
  • Allah can do anything that can be done.
• Allah has no shape or form...
  • Allah can't be seen.
  • Allah can't be heard.
  • Allah is neither male nor female.
• Allah is just...
  • Allah rewards and punishes fairly.
  • But Allah is also merciful.
• A believer can approach Allah by praying, and by reciting the Qur'an.
• Muslims worship only Allah...
  • because only Allah is worthy of worship.

The one and only God
All Muslims believe that God is one alone:

• There is only one God.
• God has no children, no parents, and no partners.
• God was not created by a being.
• There are no equal, superior, or lesser Gods.

Well then someone should correct the internet, because they are classified as deities and referred to as gods.

Indra, in Hindu mythology, the king of the gods. ... Indra is sometimes referred to as “the thousand-eyed.” In later Hinduism, Indra is no longer worshipped but plays the important mythological roles of god of rain, regent of the heavens, and guardian of the east.

Call them whatever you want, avatars, deities I don't care. My question is still does this fit with Islam, are there avatars like this in Islam, if you read the above text, if you agree with it?

There is three approaches to this question in Quran:


Who they deem gods from unseen, would be Angels (1).
Those Angels they trust are not really Angels, but Jinn and mostly (if not all) are Devils (2)
The servants God has chosen to represent him and guide his creation to himself are not Angels, but chosen humans like Adam, Noah, the Ahlulbayt of Ibrahim, etc, and verses about many reasons why those humans are chosen for that and why it's a human (3)

As for 3, the main reason is delegation. If it was Angels on earth walking about, then Angels would be Messengers and representatives. But delegation should stop at the person God chooses to lead.

The case with 1 and 2, is that it comes down to soothsayers and the likes speaking on behalf of Angels/gods/Jinn, and why should we trust either? There are no proofs, and so it's blind trust and leads to darkness when there aren't proofs, because liars have as much ground as truthful.

Indeed the legion of Jinn and Humans was such that a lot of Jinn and till this day many humans, believe, they don't lie about God. They do per Quran and if they didn't, they still require proof. Proofs are required in God's religion.

None of their gods had any proof, none of their titles had any proof, and there was no divine scripture giving authority to any soothsayer while Quran says "bring your book/scripture if you are truthful".

Quran proves Mohammad and Ali and their authority, and Fatima's chosen offspring authority. There is proof for them, and really for no one else, as far I can see, to lead and guide humanity.

 

[firedragon]

I took this from BBC, do you agree with this or not? or is this completely off in regards to Islam?

Less than sophomore.

Well then someone should correct the internet, because they are classified as deities and referred to as gods.

Understanding Hinduism is not so easy. I doubt I ever will. It is too vast a study. Quick searches will not suffice.

Deities, Gods are so widely used words that dont really define anything. Just looking at some sentences dont make proper justice to a theology. Try and understand it better.

Even the mention of several Gods as separate entities, asking someone to "correct the internet" shows fundamental flaws in understanding the hindu monism. In hinduism, it is monistic which means all is one or unified. When I say all, I mean all. All that exists. So at a surface level one may say things like there are many deities, many trees, many atoms, many elements, etc, they are all one. Hindus, despite their multiplicity of divinities, believe that ultimately there is only One, one reality in which all individual existents, inanimate, animate, divine, participate.

 

[Nimos]

The question is, if the Creator exists, is he capable of provide a clear sign/indication of his religion being true. Since you misunderstood or maybe I misunderstood how you understood the question.

My question was, that you are convinced of a certain God being the right one, how do tell the difference between that one doing or being the cause of things, rather than one of the others that you don't believe exist?

And if you can't tell the differences, why would choose that one over another.

 

[Link]

My question was, that you are convinced of a certain God being the right one, how do tell the difference between that one doing or being the cause of things, rather than one of the others that you don't believe exist?

And if you can't tell the differences, why would choose that one over another.

He is known through his signs/proofs, his signs/proofs indicate the true personality he has.

His highest signs are those who are instances of the holy spirit and his holy revelations/books, together, they bring you back to God.

 

[Nimos]

Quran proves Mohammad and Ali and their authority, and Fatima's chosen offspring authority. There is proof for them, and really for no one else, as far I can see, to lead and guide humanity.

But there is a huge difference between proving that Muhammad existed and the experiences that is claim he had right? Baha'u'llah from the Bahai faith also claimed to be special and lots of people believe that as well. But he is not accepted in Islam right?

 

[Link]

But there is a huge difference between proving that Muhammad existed and the experiences that is claim he had right? Baha'u'llah from the Bahai faith also claimed to be special and lots of people believe that as well. But he is not accepted in Islam right?

You are right in all three sentences.

 

[Nimos]

He is known through his signs/proofs, his signs/proofs indicate the true personality he has.

His highest signs are those who are instances of the holy spirit and his holy revelations/books, together, they bring you back to God.

This is what you believe, which is fine, I have no issue with that.

But you are being very unspecific here. When you say signs/proofs, what do you mean? The Qur'an is a sign? Because we know it was written by humans, so isn't it possible that God had nothing to do with it? and if not, why?

 

[Link]

This is what you believe, which is fine, I have no issue with that.

But you are being very unspecific here. When you say signs/proofs, what do you mean? The Qur'an is a sign? Because we know it was written by humans, so isn't it possible that God had nothing to do with it? and if not, why?

You asking specific questions about general answer. How is a holy spirit a sign in the unseen world, how is Mohammad Ali signs in the unseen kingdom, how do they guide there. Good questions, how is their light an authority from God. Good question.

How is Quran a miracle. General answer, then specific, examples of eloquence, then questions about how those specific example of eloquence are signs or how can any eloquence be signs. Good questions.

But I've answered your question generally here. There is specific of the specific. But those require more detail and threads regarding each point. Because posting all the details here doesn't make sense as it will get lost in the thread and there are many conversation happening here.

So I will make threads about each one, inshallah.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Another aspect is that it is possible to do QM with a wave function that doesn't change at all. Instead, the 'observables' change over time. The end results are exactly the same, but which things change is different. And there are 'mixed' versions where both the wave function and the observables change over time.

The point is that all of these different interpretations lead to *exactly* the same observational results. There is NO WAY to distinguish between them by way of observation.

And, frankly, at that point, it becomes meaningless to adopt one interpretation or the other except when they simplify the actual calculations.

What I would say is that 95% of the 'paradoxes' of QM come from trying to make sense of it with classical ideas. If you think of things having definite properties and being in definite locations at all times, you *will* run into paradoxes because that is NOT how QM describes things. The problem isn't with QM, it is with the outmoded metaphysics saying what things 'should' be like.

ANY time you read about information going backwards in time, or instantaneous signalling, you *know* someone is trying to use classical concepts where QM applies. And that is, in and of itself, a huge mistake.



Yes that is how science tends to progress: we resolve some puzzles and paradoxes only to find new ones.



A very poor way to find out things about the real world (as opposed to figuring out what you want to do).

Yes, I knew you would once again disavow all prospect of the miraculous contaminating the sacred field of scientific enquiry.

But I hold that that the universe, and everything that’s in it, is indeed miraculous. And you’re part of the miracle too, though you may begrudge admitting as much.

 

[firedragon]

My question was, that you are convinced of a certain God being the right one, how do tell the difference between that one doing or being the cause of things, rather than one of the others that you don't believe exist?

And if you can't tell the differences, why would choose that one over another.

Do you believe there was a cause to the universe? Can you specify that?

 

[PureX]

If you as a believer, let's say a muslim, believe in God and this is the only God that exist. Yet you have people that believe differently, let's say a hindu, which must from the muslims point of view mean that they are wrong about their gods.

If you as an art lover feel that Leonardo DaVinci os the greatest artist , ever ... and your friend down the street who is also an art lover feels that the sculptor Michelangelo is the greatest artist, ever, how do you determine that you are right and they are wrong?

The answer is that you don't have to, because it's already been done. YOU are the decider, and you have already decided. And that's, that. Your friend isn't going to agree with you, but that's because he's wrong, as you have already determined. So his disagreement only serves to supports your conclusion.

So how do you tell the difference between your own God(s) (the real ones) and the wrong ones (made up ones)?

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

Of course you can tell the difference. The same as you can tell the difference between DaVinci's Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's David. And of course you can choose which one of them you think is the greatest. It's your choice, and you will make that choice based on your criteria. How else could it be?

Why are you trying to impose an objective criteria on a subjective choice?

 

[firedragon]

Because we know it was written by humans, so isn't it possible that God had nothing to do with it? and if not, why?

Nimos. In order to get into this discussion, you have to define and explain your epistemology.

Otherwise it is gonna be one person says something, you respond saying no, this person believes this, Bahaullah says that, Hindu's say something else, Buddhists say another thing etc. This kind of question cannot be done so shallowly.

How much of the Qur'an do you know? What have you read? What is your source of knowledge? What is your criterion to compare it with if comparison is your ultimate game as you have demonstrated although this thread?

Please be clear on this and then maybe you could have a fruitful discussion with your questions.

 

[viole]

I just listen to my heart.

Cool. Is the answer in the beat frequency?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

There isn't any.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nimos]

Do you believe there was a cause to the universe? Can you specify that?

I believe that the big bang caused it, but what caused the big bang, I don't know.

I have my own completely unsupported idea of how it might work, but it's not a belief as such as much as its just being an idea. Which is that we live in a binary state or what to call it. Which I would simply refer to as "existence" itself. As that is basically the most simple you can go, meaning that either something exist or it doesn't, there is no inbetween.

What exactly this existence is, whether it's something capable of creating energy or whatever I don't know, and I don't think we would be able to figure it out either, because we are observers of what it is capable of, but unable to go beyond existing. So everything we can measure, experience, observe etc. in the Universe or reality, or whatever you want to refer to it as, simply tells us what it is capable of.

Also it solves the issue with a creator, because existence itself is a state rather than something, again, either something exist or it does.

But again, its just an idea I have, that seem to solve the need for an intelligent creator, and explaining how multiverses could be possible, big bang etc. as I see it.

Can I prove it? Absolutely not

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Cool. Is the answer in the beat frequency?

Ciao

- viole

Nah. It's far simpler than that. It's in the lack of a clear answer.

 

[viole]

What I would say is that 95% of the 'paradoxes' of QM come from trying to make sense of it with classical ideas. If you think of things having definite properties and being in definite locations at all times, you *will* run into paradoxes because that is NOT how QM describes things. The problem isn't with QM, it is with the outmoded metaphysics saying what things 'should' be like.

And that can be effectively used as evidence that human brains are the result of naturalistic processes.

Processes that favour a classical intuition, which is useful to survive in a world with classical objects, despite being fundamentally wrong, but produces brains that are utterly incapable of grasping the real truths which lie beyond what is useful for survival.

When we say QM, or relativity, defy human understanding, or looks absurd, or weird, we are asserting a truth about us, even the "spiritual" us. That is us being the product of blind processes geared toward survival, and not necessarily truths. Which constitutes massive evidence in favour of ontological naturalism.

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

I believe that the big bang caused it, but what caused the big bang, I don't know.

I have my own completely unsupported idea of how it might work, but it's not a belief as such as much as its just being an idea. Which is that we live in a binary state or what to call it. Which I would simply refer to as "existence" itself. As that is basically the most simple you can go, meaning that either something exist or it doesn't, there is no inbetween.

What exactly this existence is, whether it's something capable of creating energy or whatever I don't know, and I don't think we would be able to figure it out either, because we are observers of what it is capable of, but unable to go beyond existing. So everything we can measure, experience, observe etc. in the Universe or reality, or whatever you want to refer to it as, simply tells us what it is capable of.

Also it solves the issue with a creator, because existence itself is a state rather than something, again, either something exist or it does.

But again, its just an idea I have, that seem to solve need for a intelligent creator, and explaining how multiverses could be possible, big bang etc. as I see it.

Can I prove it? Absolutely not

So no sufficient reason.