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

[atanu]

Of course. It is actually a disgrace that it is still taught in some schools.
Ciao
- viole

It seems that you hold Copenhagen interpretation at same level as ID or similar. I expected that.

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah. But do you go with the Mississippi Interpretation or the Chicago Interpretation ?
We prefer to hear notes which relate to the tonic as integer ratios. But that damned Pythagorean comma makes it impossible for harmonies to be correct when spanning multiple octaves.
You have to bend it.
Or settle for the ‘acceptable wrongness’ of the well tempered scale.
Or use the Indian sruti system.
Or a Kurzweil.

Whichever approach you take, some wrongness remains.
I’m betting the same is true for theoretical physics.
: )

Any blues will do whether it's right or wrong.

And theoretical physics is of course, theoretical

 

[viole]

It seems that you hold Copenhagen interpretation at same level as ID or similar. I expected that.

Nope. I hold it as an outdated interpretation. Why do you like it so much, since there are alternatives that do not require extra theoretical explanations?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bear Wild]

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 are showing how the experiment affects the outcome. That has nothing to do with consciousness.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It would seem pointless to me that the earth would have the ability to sustain human life and yet there be none. It would be nonsensical for there to be breathable air, edible grains and fruits and a climate ideal for human life without any.

On the contrary, every detail from the climate to plants, foods and atmosphere point to the earth as having been constructed specifically to sustain human life.

 

[Thief]

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

which implies....we need not be here for the moon to be here

and Albert was working on something when someone came asking.....
What are you working on now?

I'm trying to catch God in the act

 

[Thief]

did someone say so?
Does a tree make a noise as it falls in the forest?
and no one is there to hear the noise?

of course it does

 

[Bear Wild]

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

First define consciousness in a measurable way! Then show the evidence that other animals are not conscious given all of the new studies in ethnology and neuroscience that show they have the same capacity for consciousness as a human does.
Since the evidence is now supporting that animals have the capacity for consciousness then your title that "Proven Science says there is No Universe without Conscious Man to Observe it." is already incorrect.
Secondly since evolution created the capacity for brains to develop to the point that we call consciousness then the statement would be no universe existed even though there is evidence it existed until a conscious organism evolved which is against the scientific evidence we have.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It would seem pointless to me that the earth would have the ability to sustain human life and yet there be none. It would be nonsensical for there to be breathable air, edible grains and fruits and a climate ideal for human life without any.

On the contrary, every detail from the climate to plants, foods and atmosphere point to the earth as having been constructed specifically to sustain human life.

and ships are created for the sake of barnacles.

 

[dad]

Evolution is proven beyond doubt

The universe has existed for more than 13.7 billion years before beings able to observe (at least part of it) came along?

False.

 

[loverofhumanity]

and ships are created for the sake of barnacles.

It basically comes down to whether you believe the earths ability to sustain human life was intentional or accidental.

For all the conditions to combine and be ‘just right’ to support human life I believe that to be an impossibility due to randomness or coincidence but more likely to good planning.

I think it requires much more intelligence than a throw of the dice to bring about not only ideal conditions for the existence of humans but to design the human body, a feat the most advanced minds can never accomplish.

I’m not denying evolution. Humans undoubtedly evolved but their origin I believe was not from other species. Human beings I believe are a distinct species to themselves. Just like the embryo of a human changes form however it is human from conception and the sperm and egg are always that of a human.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It basically comes down to whether you believe the earths ability to sustain human life was intentional or accidental.

For all the conditions to combine and be ‘just right’ to support human life I believe that to be an impossibility due to randomness or coincidence but more likely to good planning.

I think it requires much more intelligence than a throw of the dice to bring about not only ideal conditions for the existence of humans but to design the human body, a feat the most advanced minds can never accomplish.

An argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy.

I’m not denying evolution. Humans undoubtedly evolved but their origin I believe was not from other species. Human beings I believe are a distinct species to themselves. Just like the embryo of a human changes form however it is human from conception and the sperm and egg are always that of a human.

So humans shouldn't share DNA with other primates. In fact, our genetic similarity to Bonobo chimps is about 99%.

 

[loverofhumanity]

An argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy.



So humans shouldn't share DNA with other primates. In fact, our genetic similarity to Bonobo chimps is about 99%.

Similarity does not mean identical. The light of a candle and the light of the sun are both light but that’s where the similarity ends.

I can assure you personally that if your DNA was that of a chimp you would now be a chimp not a human being.

I believe that the claim that intelligent life comes forth from unintelligence is an impossibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Similarity does not mean identical. The light of a candle and the light of the sun are both light but that’s where the similarity ends.

I can assure you personally that if your DNA was that of a chimp you would now be a chimp not a human being.

I believe that the claim that intelligent life comes forth from unintelligence is an impossibility.

But it does not appear to be a claim that you can support. I can claim that the Moon is made from purple cheese and that for it to be made of anything else is an impossibility. Guess what? Both of our claims have just as much evidence supporting them.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But it does not appear to be a claim that you can support. I can claim that the Moon is made from purple cheese and that for it to be made of anything else is an impossibility. Guess what? Both of our claims have just as much evidence supporting them.

So you believe intelligent life has come from non intelligence. Well I’ve heard everything now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you believe intelligent life has come from non intelligence. Well I’ve heard everything now.

Please, you think that it came from magic. And you believe. I know. There is a difference.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Please, you think that it came from magic. And you believe. I know there is a difference.

I don’t believe it came from magic. I believe in evolution and science and reason and reject things like superstition.

I just believe that there are signs of a higher intelligence than us. Even NASA believe that. The problem here is can we accept that there is a higher intelligence than us?

Let’s try and be reasonable. Let’s say a programmer programs a computer is that possible? Yes. But the computer being unable to have that awareness could deny that yes?

Our genes did we program them? No. Did someone else? Could someone else have programmed them? Why is it so hard to say yes it’s a possibility as we know we didn’t program them.

The term God often gets mixed up with the superstitions of the church, but couldn’t God be also a scientists and mathematician? Would He need to be to program complex life?

So a Master Scientist could not have programmed all life?

Why not? We certainly didn’t.

 

[siti]

A couple of months ago, scientists at MIT, accomplished duel realities in the lab.

Well that's taking things a bit far - couldn't they just agree to differ?

 

[siti]

"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..." ~ Niels Bohr as quoted by Werner Heisenberg in Physics and Beyond

In fact, the observer could theoretically be just another particle - and there need be no need for consciousness (as in human consciousness) to be involved at all.

What this (Bohr's comment in the OP) really means is that to "peek" is to participate in reality. Experiments like the double slit experiment and quantum mechanics theory deal with isolated (or relatively isolated) particles (but they're not really particles anyway - which is another source of confusion)...and in reality there are no isolated particles...if a particle was so isolated from the rest of universe as to make no difference to any other particles it would make no difference and may as well - for all intents and purposes - not exist at all...and if a particle makes a difference (no matter how small) it is not really isolated.

So a universe consisting of just two particles interacting or under the influence of one another in some way could exist without the need for any other observer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t believe it came from magic. I believe in evolution and science and reason and reject things like superstition.

I just believe that there are signs of a higher intelligence than us. Even NASA believe that. The problem here is can we accept that there is a higher intelligence than us?

Let’s try and be reasonable. Let’s say a programmer programs a computer is that possible? Yes. But the computer being unable to have that awareness could deny that yes?

Our genes did we program them? No. Did someone else? Could someone else have programmed them? Why is it so hard to say yes it’s a possibility as we know we didn’t program them.

The term God often gets mixed up with the superstitions of the church, but couldn’t God be also a scientists and mathematician? Would He need to be to program complex life?

So a Master Scientist could not have programmed all life?

Why not? We certainly didn’t.

NASA has no such beliefs. And you do not see how your terrible analogy of a programmer is circular reasoning. There is no scientific evidence for a higher being. In fact there is no reliable evidence at all for such a critter. So why believe in one.