KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Wrong. Period.
-
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!
Mathematical Proof of God?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
joelr
Well-Known Member
No that does not prove God. You don't end up with a conscious deity who cares about coveting the neighbor from this.
But infinity is not omnipresence. There are conceptually an infinite amount of even numbers. That isn't omnipresence. There are also levels of infinity defined by Cantor called transfinite cardinals. The first infinity is just "w" or Alef-0. Alef-1 is next and Cantor came up with a proof that there are levels to infinity.
1 divided by 0 is undefined. It isn't an equation for w. You could take the limit as 1/x approaches zero. The value would be the same from thel eft or right. But from the left it's an increasing negative and from th eright it's an increasing positive number. So it's undefined.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Observation affecting the behavior of a particle being measures is considered quantum woo in science.
The need for a "conscious observer"
there are some good answers here from physicists. Pop-sci books seem to popularize that stuff.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
The measurement problem, quantum entanglement, the Bell inequality and consequent implications for non-locality or realism, are not phenomena you can dismiss as 'quantum woo' - or, as Einstein put it 'Spooky stuff at a distance'.
If you are genuinely interested, may I suggest you do some proper research rather than just googling something? Adam Becker, Michael Brooks, Carlo Rovelli and Sean Carroll are physicists who have written accessible books on the subject, as are philosophers with backgrounds in science such as Anthony Aguirre, Alyssa Nye and Jonathan Schaffer.
None on spontaneous creation, but, yes and maybe more hypotheses in the future, but nonetheless they are working models based on sound Quantum Mechanics and Methodological NAturalism scientific methods.
Of course, nothing here needs my approval. Your continuing sarcasm without references to support your subjective assertions is tiring.
More condescending bull poop. No dialogue??? without references to support your subjective assertions without references.
I do not nor can I ever explain what happened before the BB. This is another ridiculous statement on your part that is meaningless concerning how science develops working models on the origins of our universe, all possible universes, and the possible multiverse,
I conditionally agree. Of course, It is ongoing research and the last word has not been said.
The philosophical issues abound with questions mostly unanswerable from the scientific perspective. You brought up a few of many questions concerning philosophical issues.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Over a thousand years old, and it's breaking in an internet chatroom, do I need to say I'm sceptical? When all the global news networks break the story that it's conclusions are valid according to a global scientific consensus, I promise I will come back and acknowledge it, until then...
Nonsense, i provided a reference to a mathematical paper, you seem to have ignored the implications. As expected.
I have never said there were not sound hypothesis using QM. What I have said and you completely ignore is that there are other hypothesis.
You act as though your approval is a right It's not
I provided a reference, you poopood it, your deliberate ignorance is not my problem.
You claimed you knew what happened before the bb. All this argument is because you would not admit you were talking bull poop
Nonsense and not remotely related to your subjective assertions, and more infantile useless insults.
I have never said there were not sound hypothesis using QM. What I have said and you completely ignore is that there are other hypothesis.
Attempting to turn the argument simply shows how wrong you were and are now trying to claim my position. I have had enough of this childishness.
I have had enough of this childishness, the selective dishonest citation of my references, my posts, and the failure to provide references to support your subjective assertions without a basis in science.
Pathetic,
Pathetic,
I must have really upset you for you to have such childish tantrums. I won't be replying to you anymore, i am concerned for you health
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Wouldn't it be more apt to ask if omnipresence is an infinity?
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Consider....what does undefined really mean?
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
I've already mentioned one recognized hypothesis. The God hypothesis. I've already shown a miniscule sampling of the consideration of a God concept in scientists thinking. The God hypothesis addresses troubling questions that have arose in cosmological observations.
This is what I mean by a militaristic opposition to some concepts. "Creationists" , didn't calculate the fine tuned factors found in the universe. Scientists did. Scientists such as Penrose, Hoyle, Hawking, and even those you mentioned previously. Now whether or not a particular scientist is also a creationist is irrelevant here I think. The numbers speak for themselves.
I think you may be mistaking cosmological fine tuning for perfection in the universe? Not quite the same thing I don't believe.
Don't make the mistake of thinking all creationists are not scientists therefore all scientists cannot be creationists. Many scientists have agendas specifically against creationism as well and will specifically interpret data to fit that agenda.
Chaotic events taking place within a system which contains those events does not preclude the fine tuning which allows for such chaos. Unless you know something that the fathers/mothers of modern physics don't your misapplying what they mean by cosmological fine tuning.
I think so.
What I meant was if you dichotomize your theories between purely natural processes and processes with a supernatural component (God) then if there are more than two competing theories addressing the same phenomena one would expect there to be more theories excluding a God component than including one.
That's pretty darn presumptuous and arrogant. The few scientists I mentioned including the ones you mentioned are far from simple "kooks" as you put it. Good lord if you eliminated all those scientists who have considered a God component to creation or even believe in a God component to the creation of the universe you wouldn't have any modern science. Your language is not neutral to seeking truth. Its hostile to the proposition of intelligent design. Why is that?
What do you mean they don't have any standing? Einstein considered it and didn't dismiss the possibility. Is he without standing? Oppenheimer, Tesla, you'd be hard pressed to find a scientists who hasn't at least considered the proposition. Some believe some don't for their own reasons. None to date have "proven" their position but all are far from kooks and without standing. What do you even mean by kook? Someone who disagrees with you?
What do you even mean by to "include gods"? If a scientist believes in a God but his/her hypothesis on how the heavy elements were synthesized in the bowels of young stars doesn't mention God why would you expect it to? Your confusing two different issues.
Look at it this way. If a person hypothesizes how a water pump works in a car, or develops a theory on how the different parts of a car interact with each other that's not the same as hypothesizing and then developing a theory on how the parts themselves came together to work, if the car was designed or not. So in developing theories on how things work questions arise as to why things work the way they do and those questions have raised more questions and so on, one of which is whether or not the car was designed intelligently or not. The question of intelligent design has arisen from observational data not mere faith.
The question is...was the universe intelligently designed or not. That has always been the question when looking at the whole and not the parts. Attempts at developing a complete theory of creation has always been about eliminating the question of intelligent design. Any competition between competing materialist theories of creation have always been about finding the theory that best proves wrong the hypothesis of intelligent design.
Anyone who says otherwise is (in my opinion) either lying to themselves or lying to others. For some reason most people either vehemently hate the thought of God, probably because its a non-conformist, or they love the thought of God. There doesn't seem to be many willing to have a neutral discussion on the matter for some reason.
My apologies if I rambled here and for the typos. I'm very distracted today.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Regards the Planck quantum of time, 10^-44 seconds, this is the point at which general relativity, which is a classical theory, collides with quantum phenomena. In classical physics time and space are continuously reducible down to zero, in QM they are quantised. In other words there is a minimum unit of each. GR and QM are each considered among the most successful scientific theories ever produced, but they are both in a sense incomplete because GR makes no allowance for quantum phenomena, while QM does not account for gravity. The Planck quantum of time is the space time co-ordinate at which they collide and cannot be reconciled. When astronomers say we cannot account for the universe before 10^-44 seconds, they mean that the Planck unit of time is the point at which all the mathematical models break down.
All this is entirely hypothetical, there is no observable evidence for the history of the universe before 380,000 years after the Big Bang. At that point matter and radiation became separated and the universe, formerly opaque (so hot and dense that no light could escape), became transparent. The observable evidence for this moment in the history of the universe is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - light emitted over 13 billion years ago still radiating through space and time. Further back than this we simply cannot see.
Hope I’ve understood and explained that properly and it sheds some light () on the standard Big Bang model of cosmology.
All this is entirely hypothetical, there is no observable evidence for the history of the universe before 380,000 years after the Big Bang. At that point matter and radiation became separated and the universe, formerly opaque (so hot and dense that no light could escape), became transparent. The observable evidence for this moment in the history of the universe is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - light emitted over 13 billion years ago still radiating through space and time. Further back than this we simply cannot see.
Hope I’ve understood and explained that properly and it sheds some light (
) on the standard Big Bang model of cosmology.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Strawman. I didn't say Bells theorem doesn't say either non-locality or realism are false? I didn't say entanglement isn't a mystery. What I remarked on is that consciousness affects the measurement. That specifically is what is considered quantum woo.
I have read plenty of pop-sci physics. Heinz Pagels, almost all of Paul Davies books, some of them several times (About Time) and around 20 individual authors like F. A. Wolf, João Magueijo, even Quantum Enigma by 2 Phds who explore the measurement problem.
It's weird that you are telling me to read poop-sci when I linked to physicsforums where in order to get certain credentials you have to show you are a professor with a degree?
That part of the measurement problem is considered woo. I see that pop-sci is big on selling these concepts. Unfortunately when I went to physics forums and tried to learn further information I found that it's not supported in physics. In other words, I did some further research.
But since it doesn't match what you believe to be true you assumed I just googled it? That would be cognative bias. Here is a thought, make a username and ask some physicists/advisors on the forum your question and see how it goes. The "advisors" have to show a degree and a teaching job.
The need for a "conscious observer"
"With the exception of the Wigner interpretation (for which even Wigner himself eventually withdrew support), a conscious observer plays absolutely no role in any of quantum mechanics. Collapse of the wave function (assuming an interpretation that posits it) is unrelated to consciousness, else the universe could never have evolved a conscious observer."
Reference: The need for a "conscious observer""
It's often explained by decoherance:
"It's been observed in experiments, so it's a fact. See, for example, this review article by Schlosshauer: Quantum Decoherence"
Reference: The need for a "conscious observer"
"For all practical purposes, you can substitute a measuring device for a conscious observer. You can program a robot to write "The particle was measured to have spin-up" just like a human observer. The Rules of Quantum Mechanics would work just as well for the robot. Sure, you can take a skeptical stance and say that the robot doesn't actually know that the spin was up, you need a human to read what it wrote and interpret it. But you can apply the same skepticism to other humans---maybe only your observations collapse the wave function? Anyway, the Rules of Quantum Mechanics say, roughly, that: When a measurement is made, the result will be an eigenvalue of the operator corresponding to the observable being measured. Some people interpret the measurement to be made when a conscious observer learns the result. But if you instead, you interpret it as: the measurement is made when there is a persistent, irreversible record of the result, you get a variant of quantum mechanics that is experimentally indistinguishable from the first interpretation."
Reference: The need for a "conscious observer"
Does unitarity of the evolution of wavefunction get rid of the need for a "conscious observer", and does collapse in contrast demand a "conscious observer"?
Reference: The need for a "conscious observer"
are in principle answered. If all chain links in a von Neumann measurement chain are treated as pure physical systems – up to the end, one ends up - when basing oneself on the physical formalism of quantum theory and the Schrödinger dynamics in particular - with nothing but an entangled state. If the object of interest which is measured is, for example, represented by a superposition state a|+>+b|−>, the last chain link of von Neumann’s measurement chain ends also in a superposition state a|+,A+,E+,Me+>+b|−,A−,E−,Me−> where A+,E+,Me+ and A−,E−,Me− represent the state of the apparatus, the environment and the “observing” sytem at the end of the chain. That's the "physics"! There is - when all chain links are considered as pure physical systems - nothing which reduces the superposition of two possibilities to one unique actuality. As Euan J. Squires puts it (see reference in post #10): “So, where is the problem, and what has all this got to do with consciousness? The complete description of the “physics” in orthodox quantum theory is the state displayed above, which contains both terms, i.e. both “results”. The unique result of which I am aware does not exist in physics - but only in consciousness. The Born rule does not have anything to say about physics - it says something about consciousness.”
Reference: The need for a "conscious observer"
Conscious observers obey the same quantum theory as the rest of the universe. Conscious observers are irrelevant. Not to put too fine a point on it, but conscious observers are the ones who define "conscious," and aside from the inherent bias in that, there is no consensus to what that even means. Why would "conscious observers" be special aside from the desire of some conscious observers to think they are special and not subject to the same laws of physics that applies to the rest of the universe?
Reference: The need for a "conscious observer"
In fact I had to go to the "ask anything" section of the forum because questions related to nonsense are not allowed in the regular forums.