Proven Science says there is No Universe without Conscious Man to Observe it.

[atanu]

Hello atanu,
I am not trying to prove religion using proven science. I am simply showing that proven science does not disprove religion. Screaming atheist Stephen Hawking mocks God of having no Power of Creation, due to Hawking's selected 'scientific proofs'. Hawking never proved Neils Bohr's, 'There is no universe without man to observe it', wrong. Albert Einstein could not do so either. Neils Bohr continues to win the scientific debate on what Reality is, through continued proven scientific experiments, to this day.

First, Einstein was more theist than Bohr was, (although according to Heisenberg, Bohr also ascribed to an idea of a central order).

Second, how does the Bohr-Heisenberg’s Copenhagen interpretation (physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured) indicate God more than Einstein’s realism?

 

[Audie]

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"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
​

Science cannot claim evolution when proven science indicates that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. No universe before/without conscious man, thus no evolution before conscious man.

If there was a universe five days before Adam was created, it would be a scientific miracle.

The Great Neils Bohr VS Albert Einstein Debate
on scientific Reality

What garbage. There is no such thing as "proven science".
So you are off to a real poor start.

 

[sealchan]

Does everyone agree that to believe that there is no universe without conscious man, Adam, to observe it, is a scientifically credible, if not mainstream, scientific view to hold? Even if you do not believe it, you still respect and give dignity to the scientific people who do hold this scientific view. Are we all respectful of people who believe in Quantum Theory and Neil's Bohr's, No universe without conscious man to observe it?

If six day Creationists believe that God miraculously caused six days of creation before conscious man opened his eyes and the universe came into existence, we can allow them the dignity to believe in this miracle from God, as well. Correct?

No, this is not a scientifically credible statement. You must posit a hypothesis that is disprovable which your statement is not. In fact you cannot perform or determine anything at all scientifically without doing science which presupposes conscious human beings. Unconscious human beings dont do science or contemplate hypotheses.

Your assertion is a trivial subset of the above observation.

Also consider for yourself...of what does observation consist? Does it require vision? Can a blind scientist observe the outcome? Can a deaf scientist who is not blind observe it? How is it observed? Is it mediated observation through an instrument? Can that instrument be computerized such that it can record the results of the instrument? Are the results themselves (as in Schrodinger's Cat) ambivalent until someone reads the computer report? If there is a statistical analysis of the report in the automation, does that calculation then get included in the super-position of possibilities?

Logically observation comes down to some physical world interaction with the target subject. What that interaction was was probably not well understood in Bohr's time but now with the Bell Test experiment we can begin to understand something of the distinction between the two. If you attempt to detect the particle before it passes through the slots it acts classically, if you don't then it acts in a quantum superpositional manner. The human observer doesn't distinguish between the two outcomes the experimental apparatus does. The human observer is a constant between the two.

Schroedinger's Cat is a similarly trivial outcome of the common sense notion of the tree falling in the woods. In some rarified quantum contexts (probably within a simple system with no entropy) there is this quantum superposition. As soon as anything with a remotely classical or entropic consequence enters the picture the superposition state collapses to the classical one.

 

[ChristineM]

Please, Christianity is still a story we tell ourselves.

Some of you do

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Does everyone agree that to believe that there is no universe without conscious man, Adam, to observe it, is a scientifically credible, if not mainstream, scientific view to hold? Even if you do not believe it, you still respect and give dignity to the scientific people who do hold this scientific view. Are we all respectful of people who believe in Quantum Theory and Neil's Bohr's, No universe without conscious man to observe it?

If six day Creationists believe that God miraculously caused six days of creation before conscious man opened his eyes and the universe came into existence, we can allow them the dignity to believe in this miracle from God, as well. Correct?

Every one has to grow up, so we can say it is time we matured.

Man is but one species that has access to a conscious mind. We will find there is a universe of others, most likely some well advanced.

Regards Tony

 

[tas8831]

If there was a universe five days before Adam was created, it would be a scientific miracle.

Creationists get more and more desperate all the time.

 

[tas8831]

God existed without man to observe Him

But did fake dinosaur soft tissue?

Why so many post and runs? You have PATENTS!!!

 

[tas8831]

Does everyone agree that to believe that there is no universe without conscious man, Adam, to observe it, is a scientifically credible, if not mainstream, scientific view to hold?

The bible creation tales are untenable fantasy. Adam was not a real person. Ever.

 

[Audie]

Creationists get more and more desperate all the time.

Hard to say for sure, but they never have come up with
any fact contrary to ToE.

 

[atanu]

In Heisenberg’s “Physics and beyond”, the following is attributed to Neil’s Bohr.

Niels Bohr - Wikiquote

In quantum mechanics the departure from this ideal has been even more radical. We can still use the objectifying language of classical physics to make statements about observable facts. For instance, we can say that a photographic plate has been blackened, or that cloud droplets have formed. But we can say nothing about the atoms themselves. And what predictions we base on such findings depend on the way we pose our experimental question, and here the observer has freedom of choice. Naturally, it still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus, but it is no longer possible to make predictions without reference to the observer or the means of observation. To that extent, every physical process may be said to have objective and subjective features. The objective world of nineteenth-century science was, as we know today, an ideal, limiting case, but not the whole reality. Admittedly, even in our future encounters with reality we shall have to distinguish between the objective and the subjective side, to make a division between the two. But the location of the separation may depend on the way things are looked at; to a certain extent it can be chosen at will. Hence I can quite understand why we cannot speak about the content of religion in an objectifying language. The fact that different religions try to express this content in quite distinct spiritual forms is no real objection. Perhaps we ought to look upon these different forms as complementary descriptions which, though they exclude one another, are needed to convey the rich possibilities flowing from man's relationship with the central order.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Maybe a large part of the problem is in how we use words. Words like "observe" seem to imply some kind of consciousness, but could it not just as easily mean "have some effect on something else which causes some reaction?"

If that is the case, then all that's really needed is "other stuff." and it would appear that there has, since the BB been an ample amount of that, and it does, indeed, seem to interact.

See, in the end, I think it is a rubbish idea to suppose that since the far side of the moon is (almost) never observed by anyone that we know of, that it isn't still there.

 

[blü 2]

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"​

Bohr knew many thinks that I don't, but here he says that QM is its theories and the maths of those theories. That is, he says the map is the territory. In my view that's a category error.

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)​

My worldview starts with three assumptions: that a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me of that world, and that reason is a valid tool. Not only that, but if Bohr and Einstein didn't share those assumptions, consciously or unconsciously, they wouldn't bother addressing the public because they wouldn't assume there was one. So on that important point ─ and perhaps despite his words ─ Bohr agrees with Einstein.

The nature of that world is a matter for science, and the conclusions of science are a matter of the consensus of the best opinions from time to time. Even in 2019, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen view, or versions of it, are still seriously argued for, despite Bell's important theorem ─ they're not the majority consensus, but they haven't gone away.

As well as that, of course, is the old problem, what does 'observer' mean in QM. It used to be equated with a conscious observer (or, given that Schrödinger's cat by inference can't be the observer that resolves its own state, a conscious human observer). But the present view only requires the superpositioned particle to interact with something external to its immediate frame. That's woo-free and naturally appeals to me.

 

[PruePhillip]

First science proves nothing particularly from the scientific perspective, and philosophical assertions offer nothing to support the conclusions of the nature of our physical existence.

I side with neither since they assert philosophical conclusions on how we interpret the 'information' we have concerning the nature of our physical existence, and not the science. The science of reality is simply the descriptive nature of our physical existence, nothing less nor nothing more. The science of Einstein and Neils Bohr are excellent and descriptive of the nature of our physical existence from the science perspective.

Precisely, but what it all means is up to you.
Bottom line, we don't know and tomorrow we are all dead.

 

[Shad]

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"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
​

Science cannot claim evolution when proven science indicates that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. No universe before/without conscious man, thus no evolution before conscious man.

If there was a universe five days before Adam was created, it would be a scientific miracle.

The Great Neils Bohr VS Albert Einstein Debate
on scientific Reality

It is called an axiom.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
​

Science cannot claim evolution when proven science indicates that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. No universe before/without conscious man, thus no evolution before conscious man.

If there was a universe five days before Adam was created, it would be a scientific miracle.

The Great Neils Bohr VS Albert Einstein Debate
on scientific Reality

There's no such thing as "proven" science.
And especially not the Bohr idea you wish to pass of as "proven".

It's also quite juvenile that you'ld use such nonsense as a wedge to sneak in your creationistic nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Has everyone watched the PBS Video? What are they talking about when they say Neils Bohr's 'Peek A Boo' universe, a universe which does not exist when conscious man is not observing it?

I didn't watch the video, therefor it does not exist.

 

[wellwisher]

Observation causes sensory data to enter the brain. This raw data is then interpreted and organized, based on underling premises, to create a picture of reality that consciousness sees.

This picture is not necessarily reality, but is only an interpretation of reality. This interpretation of reality is what this discussion is really all about. The interpretation does not exist unless we observe. If it is out of sight it is also out of mind. If there is no data entering the brain, the brain is not assembling an interpretation, so it appears not to exist.

For example, below is picture of a blue ball. If we only use only our eyes, to observe, it looks 3-D based on how the brain interprets the input data. If we l also use the sense of touch, to feel its edges, reality changes to 2-D. What we perceive as reality, is not the same as reality.

At one time humans thought the earth was flat. If we believe Bohr, then the earth was flat, at one time, since this is what was observed. Somehow, when it was discovered the earth was more spherical, like magic, the earth went from 2-D to 3-D almost overnight. The earth did not change. What changed was how the brain perceived the earth; created its own reality. Bohr was unconsciously projecting the uncertainty assumed within quantum observation as being due to a consciousness assembly variable; interpretation.

In politics, two sets of people; two different sides of the issue, can look at the same observational data and form too opposite interpretations. Reality does not change based on what one group says, unless that group can come to power and force their interpretation onto others. Brain washing plays a role in terms of group reality. Einstein believed that reality existed apart from conscious interpretation. It is up to humans to upgrade the mind until the two can overlap.

 

[PruePhillip]

There's no such thing as "proven" science.
And especially not the Bohr idea you wish to pass of as "proven".

It's also quite juvenile that you'ld use such nonsense as a wedge to sneak in your creationistic nonsense.

What Bohr is getting at, or what you can discern from his discoveries, is that the universe is stranger than
you can hope to comprehend. And his is 1920's science - imagine what it will be like in the centuries to come
when only AI can "discern" these things, with no real way to communicate this to humans.

 

[tas8831]

I didn't watch the video, therefor it does not exist.

Mind.
Blown.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Does everyone agree that an electron changes its course of past travel, when conscious man observes it? How did an electron 'evolve' to know when man is looking at it, and thus go back in physical time to change its path of travel?

You appear to misunderstand quantum theory and evolutionary theory. Wave like electrons don't change their trajectory in the past, nor do they evolve.