1. 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!

what are your thoughts on this?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by bradleykavin, May 1, 2007.

  1. bradleykavin

    bradleykavin Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    68
    Ratings:
    +4
    although this video might just seem like a weird science experiment that was done fifty years ago, i believe it has a significant meaning to our religious views..i have done more reading and this experiment, proves that when no conscious being is present (animal or human) particles act differently. That when no ones around, everything is "Probability". If the big bang is true, that would mean that it would need an initiator, a being of some sort, to initiate its occurance. I know most of you dont even believe in the big bang, but regaurdless, this is very interesting to me and i would be interested to hear your thoughts.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
     
  2. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,324
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I believe in the Big Bang because of the evidence, and as a quantum level event the big bang did not need an initiator.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Panda

    Panda 42?
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    10,234
    Ratings:
    +839
    Ahh yes a subjective universe, very interesting but it is to above my understanding at this time. Its one of there "its a table because i think its a table" things which confuse me, i did have a really good video all about this but i can't find it.
     
  4. PolyHedral

    PolyHedral Superabacus Mystic

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    6,339
    Ratings:
    +325
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_Cat

    It's both dead and alive at the same time.
     
  5. maggie2

    maggie2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    975
    Ratings:
    +228
    Cool stuff. I love exploring all these kinds of possibilities.
     
  6. lilithu

    lilithu The Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    12,031
    Ratings:
    +1,864
    Most of us don't believe in the Big Bang?? :confused: I don't believe that it was really a "bang" as in an explosion, but I most certainly do believe in a rapid expansion of what we call the universe from a singularity.

    As for everything being "probability" when no observers are around, doesn't that just mean that the big bang could have happened or it could not have happened? Who knows how many countless universes have not come into existence just by chance. Ours did, and it could have done so just by chance.

    The confusion here is that once it did happen, from our perspective it becomes a certainty. But outside of our perspective it might very well not have happened at all.
     
  7. fullyveiled muslimah

    fullyveiled muslimah Evil incarnate!

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,095
    Ratings:
    +465
    That was interesting. My personal conclusion to that is that there is an observer of electrons, etc at all times. Being a theist I will obviously point to Allah as being the constant observer.

    I know next to nothing about quantem physics. I did find this rather interesting. I would say something else but it's late and I'm having a hard time gathering my thoughts.
     
  8. yuvgotmel

    yuvgotmel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,091
    Ratings:
    +125
    “The brain selects specific sets of the frequencies out of this vibrating blur and transforms them into sensory perceptions, and abracadabra, our objective reality exists. But what if one could focus attention on the de-localized aspect of self, then what would he or she perceive? …As the ancient religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion. True Reality is emptiness. Consider the following quote in What is Life, from the theoretical Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger, co-discoverer with Heisenburg of quantum mechanics, “Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. How does the idea of plurality arise at all? …the only possible alternative is simply to keep the immediate experience that consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there is only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing …”

    “The Silent Gospel,” by James Barrett, pp. 203​
     
  9. yuvgotmel

    yuvgotmel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,091
    Ratings:
    +125
    I'm not necessarily doubting the theory of the big bang herein. However, I would like it noted that even that theory is subject to a particular local of thought or algorithm, which may not be taking into account all possible calculations of other fully-valid possible realities.

    At any rate, it does not change my view of forces of light and sovereignty.

    Additionally, it does, in my opinion, display that there is a lot of responsibility laid upon the shoulders of what appears to be "individual" consciousness and their projected realities from "singular" thoughts.
     
  10. gnomon

    gnomon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    8,830
    Ratings:
    +1,450
    Religion:
    atheist
    This is an interpretation of an iterpretation of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. It's interesting but not really verifiable proof of anything metaphysical. I say metaphysical because I notice in the video a computer generated poster of the "What The Bleep Do We Know" video which enters the realm borderlining pseudoscience.

    It reminds of the whole nonsense about if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound. Sound is not solely dependant upon a human observer being able to "hear" the sound waves vibrating the organs which we call sound. Sound is a physical principle which acts independant of humans being able to hear the phenomenon. The same is true with light.

    Just because Heisenberg posited a principle that a particle cannot be both measured for position and velocity to come to such far reaching conclusions as Ramtha, or rather, J.Z. Knigh, Fred Alan Wolf and others state doesn't make it true.

    It is interesting. But videos such as this seem to jump off the deep end and "woo-woo's", that's right, "woo-woo's" like to take experiments such as these and tell us that there is more than science can tell us. It took thousands of years before humans reached an understanding of physics that Newton, Kepler, Brache and others discovered. It was another few centuries before Bohm, Einstein, Maxwell and others showed us more.

    Don't give up yet.

    And besides, the big bang was not a bang and no cosmologist would tell you otherwise. It's a euphamism. Big Bang sounds better than inflationary universe.

    And last, to conclude that human beings might lack the ability to understand all that we observe must require an initiator is nothing more than conjecture.
     
  11. lilithu

    lilithu The Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    12,031
    Ratings:
    +1,864
    As a theist myself, I would agree with you. However, I must point out that in the framework of the video, if there were an observer at all times, the electrons would never behave like a wave.
     
  12. fullyveiled muslimah

    fullyveiled muslimah Evil incarnate!

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,095
    Ratings:
    +465
    Point taken, but if Allah is truly Allah, then it matters not. Allah is the controller as well as the observer, so if the electrons need to act as waves to accomplish a certain goal, or fit into a certain system, then Allah would make it so. If Allah is ONLY the observer then what you say holds true everytime.

    Of course I am shooting from the hip with all that I say here, and am most probably out of my league. I have never studied or read about these things before, but my interest is thoroughly peeked. So if you are looking into a debate with me in this area you win lilith:help:
     
  13. lilithu

    lilithu The Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    12,031
    Ratings:
    +1,864
    lol, no debate. :flower2: But I am going to elaborate on my position.

    I personally do not believe that God/Allah's presence can be proven by science. Science requires "controlled experiments" - that is, cases in which the thing being studied is present and cases in which it is not present. Only then, by looking at the differences between the two, can science deduce the nature of the thing being studied. Since I believe that God/Allah is always present, it would be impossible to do such an experiment.

    Moreover, I do not need science to prove the existence of God/Allah. To me, that would suggest that science is the ultimate arbiter of what is true.
     
  14. Scarlett Wampus

    Scarlett Wampus psychonaut

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,208
    Ratings:
    +423
    Even if you had read or studied much about these things before its likely it would still be mystifying anyway! My cousin is a particle physicist by profession now and from the outset of his study & training he wore a perpetual expression of deep puzzlement that remains.
     
  15. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    God bless Hawkings:

    "When I hear about Schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun."
     
  16. Rolling_Stone

    Rolling_Stone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,231
    Ratings:
    +255
    This is not nearly as far-fetched as some people would like to believe because it rattles the cage of the paradigm they grew up believing in. Yet, you can go to just about any bookstore and find books written by physicists that say the exact same thing. There are a lot of interpretations. One scientist said, "The stream of knowledge seems to be headed toward the understanding that the universe is more like a grreat thought than a great machine."

    Another said, "New ideas take hold not because they are better, but because the proponants of old ideas die off." Unwilling or unable to accept new ideas, most choose to ignore the implications of experimental data drawn from Bell's theorom, the double slit experiment (and its variations) and the Aspect experiments (indicating that reality is non-local or what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" is a fact of nature).

    Maybe philosophers should take a second look at George Berkeley's philosophy that matter does not exist (something most scientists have concluded) and reality is held to exist in the mind of God.
     
  17. lilithu

    lilithu The Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    12,031
    Ratings:
    +1,864
    Maybe philosophers should give up the mind/body, either/or dichotomy.
     
  18. Rolling_Stone

    Rolling_Stone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,231
    Ratings:
    +255
    Those who haven't are probably waiting for a satisfactory explanation for how it is the observer can also be the thing observed. Personally, I think they are fundamentally one, but the oserver/observed dichotomy implies consciousness, not matter-energy, is primary. That is, it implies that consciousness is intrinsic to the nature of reality rather than an epiphenomenon or emergent property. I realize this is not the orthodox interpretation, but to simply dismiss it because it is incongruent with the dominant paradigm is closed-minded, unreasonable, and anything but logical and scientific.

    What alternative explanatios are there? Do the alternatives preserve the appearance? Are the alternatives supported by evidence? How do the mesh with other equally surprising results, like the results of the Aspect experiments?
     
  19. Quagmire

    Quagmire Imaginary talking monkey
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    47,446
    Ratings:
    +8,174
    Religion:
    I am not an athiest.
    I'm personally a believer in the Big Gnab, that moment in history when the Universe will suddenly start rushing back towards itself and we will all live every moment of our lives over again, only backwards, which should be even funnier.
     
  20. lilithu

    lilithu The Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    12,031
    Ratings:
    +1,864
    Have you ever read "Time's Arrow" by Martin Amis?
     
Loading...