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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Right, and therefore I wonder to what extent this could actually alter things.Only in the sense that people can doctor history, and cases of historical revisionism.
Right, and therefore I wonder to what extent this could actually alter things.
Yes, I agree it is absurd to the average mind. It is absurd to mine as well.Actually alter things in what way? I ask because this line of thinking has some very absurd implications. No amount of historic rewriting of "dinosaurs did not exist" will change the fact that they did.
Thoughts on this question?
Yes, I agree it is absurd to the average mind. It is absurd to mine as well.
I guess I can try and put it in a religious context. The Lord says when we repent of our sins and are forgiven that the Lord remembers them no more. Some people are of the idea that the mind of God is the entire reality in existence so if God remembers things no more, does that actually constitute an altered past?
Good questions! I don't think things can be tampered with very easily.Does it wipe everyone else's memory? Does it undo the damage of the misdeed? If we convinced everyone that the moon landing wasn't real, would the footprints vanish from the lunar surface? If I wrote down on a sticky note that I had won the lottery a week prior, would the millions materialize in my bank account?
Well, probably only mentally since what's past is past.Do you mean mentally? Or phyiscally?
Some quantum physicists might disagree with you there.Well, probably only mentally since what's past is past.
Most people aren't avid followers of history, so I doubt rewriting the history books would cause much of an issue, except for school history departments.Right, and therefore I wonder to what extent this could actually alter things.
No matter what is forgotten, actions of the past cannot be undone. Even if you forgive and forget, that does not mean the past is erased.I guess I can try and put it in a religious context. The Lord says when we repent of our sins and are forgiven that the Lord remembers them no more. Some people are of the idea that the mind of God is the entire reality in existence so if God remembers things no more, does that actually constitute an altered past?
Well, probably only mentally since what's past is past.
Can anyone share what they know that would cause them to?Some quantum physicists might disagree with you there.
A lightning strike may not have an observer, but the tree it strikes will still be damaged. And although no one saw the lightning bolt to remember it, the damaged tree is still damaged.So, could quantum physics hold the answer to what it means that "God remembers it no more"? If God, which represents the collective mind of man, is not observing something (remembering it) then it ceases to exist.
It is. If the past needed an observer to exist, then we would never find any long-forgotten settlements. If the statement of needing an observer to exist was true, then these places would cease to exist entirely the moment the last person to remember them died. But we not only find these settlements, we find remains of various sorts that have escaped all memory for thousands of years.It's my understanding that all this "reality requires an observer" is a bunch of misappropriated New Age BS. No offense to the New Age community, but movies like "What the Bleep do We Know?" really are misappropriations of the science. Quantum mysticism =/= actual quantum science. I just don't touch it.
One of the earlier cognitive developments in humans is called object permanence, in which we begin to realize that objects still exist outside of our own perception of them. If reality required an observer, then we could never gain what is a very basic understanding of our world.I know it has something to do with "reality" requiring an observer to maintain its existence. If something isn't being observed then it is as if it ceases to exist.
A lightning strike may not have an observer, but the tree it strikes will still be damaged. And although no one saw the lightning bolt to remember it, the damaged tree is still damaged.
It is. If the past needed an observer to exist, then we would never find any long-forgotten settlements. If the statement of needing an observer to exist was true, then these places would cease to exist entirely the moment the last person to remember them died. But we not only find these settlements, we find remains of various sorts that have escaped all memory for thousands of years.
One of the earlier cognitive developments in humans is called object permanence, in which we begin to realize that objects still exist outside of our own perception of them. If reality required an observer, then we could never gain what is a very basic understanding of our world.
This is true but isn't the tree damaged and undamaged? Does it not take the act of something to decohere all other possible wave functions? I mean MWI says that the tree is damaged in one universe and undamaged in another while copenhagen says that it is either through consciousness/environment/observation that all other possibilities collapse and only one is possible.
First, he is a biocentrist and not a physicist. And the future cannot effect anything, as it is not hear yet. And if the past could be altered, we would not have any sort of stability in the present, as even a slightly altered past could have tremendous effects on the present.I remember reading something Robert Lanza said in his biocentrism theory that an experiment found evidence that the action of something in the future can affect the quantum actions of the past.
I suppose saying an object on solid-mass may work for a definition. But indeed the universe existed before anyone could observe it, or else there would be nothing as there would have been nothing to allow for any living organisms to arise and perceive the world around them. If it took perception to create the universe, then how did anything ever come to be as there would be nothing to observe which means nothing to create.How can we define what an object is? I mean it's only an object once we perceive or observe it. Wouldn't an object just be in a superposed state if nothing is decohering all the other possibilities?