What exactly you mean by 'multiverse, as an explanation for our existence'?
And if you know that in describable terms, how that gives sweet taste to your mind?
Last edited:
-
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!
The multiverse is more likely to be true than any religion.
- Thread starter serp777
- Start date
What exactly you mean by 'multiverse, as an explanation for our existence'?
And if you know that in describable terms, how that gives sweet taste to your mind?
Your definition of whether evidence is "scientific" seems to me sophistry. One cannot observe gravity, but we know it exists. The evidence for a grand Creator, though unseen, is all around us, IMO. Just as every house had a builder, the things we observe give eloquent testimony of supreme intelligence and unfathomable power. "For his [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [who deny Him] are inexcusable." (Romans 1:20) As well noted, "Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. (John 4:24) It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific. Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’” So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not simply exchanging one type of faith for another? In some cases, disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth. The psalmist wrote: “The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’”—Psalm 10:4." (w04 6/1)
And that is where I am saying I'm more interested in the possibilities provided by any QM interpretation. Any actualization I doubt can be proven but as the OP alludes, multiverses have more evidence than most religion.
gnostic
The Lost One
You are being totally ignorant or narrow-minded, rusra02. So I shouldn't be all that surprise.
In science, observation doesn't necessarily mean just seeing with naked eye, rusra02.
There are lot of things that we can't see with our own eyes, so we often need help with observation.
Observation can also using device that detect, analyse. For instance, we cannot see radio waves, that we used on radio, satellite, tv, wireless network devices, etc, but we can measure the wavelength and frequency.
We also don't electricity that go through wires or transistors or circuit board, and yet with certain devices we can measure the voltage, current (amps), resistance (ohm) and power.
Astronomers can not see distant stars or galaxy, without telescopes, and not all telescopes are optical. There are radio telescopes, and telescopes that used certain filters, like near-infrared or microwave, that allow us to see beyond the capability of the optical telescopes. The space telescopes can be specially equipped with these filters.
And observation don't necessarily mean just seeing too; it can be also be hearing, and yes, even smell. For instance, we cannot see some gases, because they colorless, but we can smell certain gases. And of course, there are some gases that are odorless, so how do think we determine that there other gases other than air? Think about it.
It is not sophistry, it is common knowledge among scientists and engineers, and its also common sense.
As to gravity, gravity can be determined, most commonly through mass.
Know the mass of any object, then you can determine the gravity. Even though we cannot actually see gravity, we can see they have effect on objects, for instance, the Sun and Earth (or other planets), the Earth and Moon.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
Observation is data collection but is often confused with experimentation in the form of observing the experiment and the results of it.
idea
Question Everything
The probability of God existing is no different from the probability of life existing... how old is the universe? and how long would it take for life to evolve to the level of becoming Gods?
Religion is more concerned with our final destination than with our origins - and that final destination question is one of progression, refinement, organization. We are not on a quest to merely "exist" or "survive" (the rocks do this much more efficiently than any life form does), but to progress. If it is not progressing then it is, or might as well be, non-living.
Then please name a single test that has been or could be performed
Just ignoring most of what I say and now quote mining. It is the same evidence the copenhagen interpretation uses. The problem with copenhagen is it must treat the wave function as a multiple reality that must collapse to one single reality (that is mystical), the same reality you deny the many worlds interpretation.
I wrote two posts of some length responding to the idea of the multiverse and MWI, which you ignored almost entirely except for three little points made that you mischaracterized. I'm trying to simplify here by asking you to answer a single question rather than ask you to explain how quantum mechanical systems and experiments work pragmatically but differ according to interpretations because I know that you do not understand and cannot work with the bare, pragmatic quantum mechanical framework let alone how the components of the theory are treated conceptually according to this or that interpretation. Asking you to name a test you claim exists seemed to me simpler than e.g. asking you how the probabilistic interpretation of the realization of eigenvalues from the application of operators can be understood in an interpretation in which all eigenstates from the linear transformations of the set of superpositions are physically realized without the statistical structure that exists from empirical tests.
This is a completely inaccurate description of both the Copenhagen interpretation and the related orthodox interpretation. In both, there is ONLY ONE reality, and the collapse describes the same kind of "collapse to one single reality" that you get by tossing a coin: the "multiple reality" in which you could get either heads or tails collapses to one or the other.
Last edited:
There are no possibilities in the MWI:
"The problem of probability in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics arises because the splitting of worlds is unrelated to the Born probabilities...in the many worlds theory, not only Born’s rule but any probability rule is meaningless."
Hemmo, M., & Pitowsky, I. (2007). Quantum probability and many worlds. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38(2), 333-350.
Last edited:
You may as well say the quantum maths just work and don't represent any objective reality.
The mathematics yield probabilities confirmed by countless experiments. The entire foundation of quantum mechanics is rooted in the statistical outcomes derived from the probabilities given by repeated experiments. This foundation disappears if all outcomes are realized because there can be no relative frequencies such that we have any basis for using "the quantum maths"
Apparently you don't think I can be trusted (I don't know whether you think I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm misrepresenting things deliberately, that I am ignoring aspects of modern physics to suit my purposes whatever they may be, etc.). The "quantum maths" are ROOTED fundamentally in probability and they WORK because they represent the probability of outcomes. However, since you don't trust me, I went hunting for sources. Because these are too technical for you to understand, I have started them at the relevant points in the lectures and you can stop them when they stop relating to probabilities in quantum mechanics:
ALL OF QUANTUM WEIRDNESS COMES FROM PROBABILITIES (watch until 17:03)
THE PROPERTY THAT MAKES THIS INTO A PHYSICAL THEORY AND GOES BEYOND MATH IS WHAT YOU KNOW IS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WAVE-FUNCTION AS A PROBABILITY:
I understand that but the probabilities represent something. I trust you plenty. My issue is I feel like your using your expertise to prove something that is still a matter of a opinion, regardless of the fact that the maths work. Lets not pretend any certain "interpretation" has been proven, especially when even your guessing at what is something actual or just a force.
My other issue is obviously with the copenhagen "interpretation". Yielding probabilities but nothing real at the same time, this remains to be seen. Its a wave or a particle or neither, none of that makes much sense. If something is being measures then there is something real there. Then this non-wave or whatever it is has to collapse to one point, how many points it is at before that?
I also feel like you hide behind the maths when it must represent a reality. Now the maths are beyond me but I have a decent conceptualization and came to conclusions like that of wheeler on my own.
I've been up for almost 2 days straight frustrated with a problem. I'm tired, braindead, and liable to say things that are unwarranted, dismissive, etc. So for now I will forestall all commentary. But I think this statement in particular is useful, particularly when combined with your statement about the utility of the mathematics of quantum physics.
Probabilities are many things, but mathematical is one of these things and arguably probability should be understood primarily mathematically. The probability of getting "heads" when flipping a fair coin is 1/2. This probability represents something. It represents the probability of getting a particular outcome given an experiment. We prepare the system (we get a fair coin), perform our experiment (toss it), and we get an outcome.
Likewise, in quantum physics, we prepare a system, we have probabilities that represent outcomes, and when we preform the experiment we get an outcome.
Probabilities represent the likelihood that a particular preparation of a system that is then measured in a specified manner will yield particular results. Basically, probabilities represent the chances that we will get the outcome we do, just as with the coin toss.
The issue I have with this is the double slit experiment is not like a coin toss when it comes to probability. Cause a coin toss uses regular physics. A quantum coin will be both heads and tails at the same time according to how the experiments play out. So when calculating these probabilities we conveniently treat it as a wave cause it suits probability only to ignore all of it at the point of wave function collapse. The interference patterns emerge because the photon or electron is doing something it wouldn't be doing via Newtonian physics. The maths that figure this out must represent actual interference that make the interference pattern emerge.
Or is it that the double slit experiment is equivalent to throwing a "thousand" sided dice that will always only find one side? Thats not what I understand is happening in the double slit experiment. An experiment that is easily done even from home, I have seen these interference patterns with my own eyes with simple laser light.
I don't know what "regular physics" is, as quantum physics I hardly the only theory that contradicts experience and seemingly logic, but as for experiments with quantum-mechanical systems, the outcomes are always heads or tails. That is, we only get a single possible outcome just like with the coin
I agree but I think your missing my point.
What I mean by regular physics, in newtownian physics adding a second slit shouldn't make such a profound difference.
--edited so it makes sense
Last edited:
I think I get what you mean by this. Quantum states violate classical logic (i.e., quantum systems can be in states that classically are mutually exclusive).
Here's the first issue: if we try to make quantum mechanics obey classical logic and insist that e.g., a system (such as an electron) travels through either one slit or the other, the theory fails completely. The "quantum maths" you referred to are what underlie the non-classical physics of quantum mechanics, the non-classical logic of quantum mechanics, and the "weirdness" that you seem to object to. In other words, if the "quantum maths" represent real systems then e.g., electrons must be in multiple (possibly infinitely) many places at once, they are never traveling along any trajectory, and they aren't even ever really in any point in space or spacetime ever. That's what the "quantum maths" say IF we interpret them as describing physical systems (i.e., if we adopt the many-worlds interpretation).
The second issue is that most interpretations (including the Copenhagen and orthodox interpretations) regard the quantum state as a probability function. That is, the wave function isn't a description of the state of a physical system but is a statistical entity yielding the likelihoods of measurement outcomes. It's true that according to such irreducibly statistical interpretations, the quantum maths don't describe objective systems, but they still describe an objective reality in that as in classical statistical mechanics quantum mechanics describes real, physical things, but these things are experimental outcomes/measurement results. Quantum states don't describe states of objective, physically realized systems they describe the probabilities that we will get particular objective, physically real results from particular experiments.
Finally, if we abandon the irreducibly statistical interpretations of QM, we don't somehow get a theory that follows classical logic or is anything like Newtonian physics. No-collapse interpretations like the relative state interpretations (the many-worlds interpretation is a relative state interpretation) don't result in any kind of classical reality. The MWI seeks to resolve the double slit experiment by stating that the electron goes through both slits and through neither, but in doing so it doesn't remain one electron (or rather, it remains one electron but now realized in different universes corresponding to possible outcomes). Even if one prefers this interpretation to the orthodox interpretation (or other interpretations), there remains a serious problem: by adopting this interpretation, we loose quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is successful because it successfully tells us what the outcomes of experiments will be. Any non-quantum theory would entail the almost instantaneous destruction of every atom in the universe (among other disastrously wrong results). Quantum mechanics gives the right results. However, it is derived from the statistical structure of experiments: we can predict outcomes using the theory because we formulated the theory by repeatedly preparing and observing systems in the same way and determining the frequencies of particular outcomes. This worked. It is the foundation of quantum theory. A central issue with the many-worlds interpretation is that it holds that given any preparation of a system and subsequent measurement, there is no "collapse" because all possible results are realized. But the entire theory was constructed from and is rooted in the idea that we can predict the outcomes of experiments as follows: in the past, when we prepared X system and observed it in Y manner we obtained Z outcome with a particular frequency.
Let me simplify. One way of understanding that we have a 1/2 probability of getting heads when tossing a fair coin is by tossing a fair coin over and over again. As the number of tosses increases, the frequency of "heads" approaches 1/2. Of course, coins may not be fair: they could be biased or even be double-sided. The orthodox interpretation is like testing whether a coin is fair by tossing it many times and seeing whether heads occurs with a frequency approaching 1/2 (same with tails). The many-worlds interpretation is like taking a coin and assuming that it is a different coin every time we toss it, but determining that each one is fair if the frequency of outcomes of heads approaches 1/2.
There is no logical support for the statistical outcomes we actually get using quantum mechanics without assuming that the frequencies we get from repeating the same experiments only result in the outcomes we find. If we assume that all outcomes are realized, then no outcome can occur with frequently than any other. But in quantum mechanics, certain outcomes DO occur more often and are therefore more likely. That's what makes the theory successful.
The probabilities ARE the "wave's" amplitude. We don't treat the system as a wave. In fact, the whole "wave" approach is only one formulation of quantum mechanics and doesn't work in relativistic quantum physics. The "wave" component of quantum wave mechanics doesn't involve actually waves but uses wave amplitudes to derive probabilities. The first complete quantum mechanics was matrix mechanics and didn't involve any waves.
1) Newtonian mechanics requires that every electron in the universe plunge into its nucleus. It violates special and general relativity. It can't even deal with systems like electrons because it doesn't involve electromagnetic fields (or fields at all).
2) According to the orthodox interpretation, it is meaningless to ask what the photon or electron is doing when we aren't observing/measuring it. The results we get from measurement are due to the manner of measurements.
3) The MWI holds that the interference patterns emerge because all possible outcomes are realized, but can't explain why we get the patterns we do.