Does Quantum Mechanics Prove Existance of God?

Does QM say that things do not exist unless there is an observer to observe them? What collapses the universes wave function?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Observation causes a mixed state to become a definite state; does it not? Can you explain how our wave function collapses?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At what scale is an observation required to turn a "mixed state" into a "fixed one"?

Alternatively, who observed god to "collapse his wave function"?

 

No.

IF the universe has a single wave-function (unproven) then collapsing it would require something like interaction with a photon.

Hope that helps.

Wavefunctions, if indeed they collapse (the exact mechanics is still disputed, even to the point of whether there is a collapse or not), require interaction with something such as a photon.

The confusion you may have as a result of your understanding of the term "observation" (which I am gauging from the direction of your posts) is that conscious observation (i.e. what we see) is caused by photons from the object hitting our eyes. Therefore for us to consciously observe a wavefunction it requires a photon to interact with the wavefunction and then hit our eyes. If the photon doesn't hit the wavefunction then we will not consciously observe it.

But it is the photon itself that causes the collapse... and then we observe the result. So by default, if we see a wavefunction, it will have collapsed. That is why some confuse "observation" to mean conscious viewing.

However, even if conscious observation does not occur, a photon can still (as far as I understand) cause a wavefunction to collapse.

So it does not need a conscious observer to collapse a wavefunction - just interaction with something like a photon.

 

Okay I see I will be met with fire on this one, let me ask you guys something, what is your position in the origin of the universe?

** The universe had a cause?
** The universe has an infinite pass and has no beggining?

What do you believe?

Provided that we will never know everything about anything what good reason is there to prevent someone from making an inference to the best explanation based on the data available?

1. All scales. Matter without observation would be meaningless at any rate.
2. You assume god is limited by his work, maybe we are all connected to the same source, like drops of water, in an ocean. We just have a small human focal perception of this source or ultimate consiousness with infinite events and outcomes since such an entity would be outside the concept of time.

Yes, a photon has conscious awareness, as do all identities; conscious awareness of themselves and everything else that exists in the present instant. They cant think or create. They obey laws that govern there function. When has a photon or any thing other than a human told anyone what they were observing? We know they are aware because of entanglement. We do not nor can we know what they observe beyond themselves or what they are part of.

Consciousness is not required for observation! How can you know that then? Who's the unconscious observer making this statement? What exactly can you observe when unconscious?

 

I see. You invoke QM and then, when pressed, claim something different.

In other words just one more "god is god and he can do what he likes" get-out.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No it doesn't. Unless you have a very weird definition of "conscious".

 

So in other words I'm right dwy and you've resorted to trolling. Yay. I love how you can reduce a statement, take it out of context, and jabber on like a psycho as if you invalidated something.

 

No. As shown.

An also no.

Or maybe if you learned how to read, in context...

 

You always talk about "claims from theiest" as if we are making an extraordinary claim. Why doesent it fall on the skeptic to justify why we should eliminate the need for a cause in this instance? Or provide an explanation as to why it is more plausibile, in the same way a skeptic would demand for the assertion the world will end.

There is no reason to believe there wasnt a cause to our universe were just uncerain as to its nature.

Given the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it is understood that certain sub-atomic events cannot be predicted/measured. Not being able to predict or measure something is an epistemic problem; it doesn't mean there isn't a cause for it.

I'm just saying that
QM sure does have alot of themes that would lead you to believe that god does exist. Do you disagree, if so why?

 

Your statement made it seem like I said photos were conscious creatures. Read my sentence in context, you only quoted the part "Photons were consious". Old trolling trick perhaps??

 

Because you are making an extraordinary claim.

Maybe you don't understand the way things go. If YOU make a claim then YOU are required to justify it. It is not up to others to provide alternatives, merely ask WHY you think YOUR claim is valid.

And the point here would be that theists have stated that they do know what the cause was. With no evidence.

And you bring this point in because...? You have ALREADY dragged us away from sub-atomic events with this remark:

No it doesn't.

Because I don't have a fixed and pre-disposed interest in showing that god does exist. Because god doesn't pop up in my mind when considering physical phenomena. Because god doesn't figure in physics.

 

Oh, false:

Post 7.

A lie on your part perhaps?

 

^^^ No, this is what I said..

[/quote]Yes, a photon has conscious awareness, as do all identities; conscious awareness of themselves and everything else that exists in the present instant. They cant think or create. [/quote]

Why is it extraordinary? Extraordinary to what? Please explain your reasoning?? Cosensus believes in god, beggining cannot be explained without god, so.......... who is making the extraordinary claim?

So why dont you justify all of your claims? I did justify it by intruducing GOD, you are not justifying your claims in stating he does not exist. What is your theory on the origin? Is it, that you have no position, and you attack others peoples claims to regress?

Observation does not cause things to come into existence, it just causes a specific thing from a mixture of things? Okay I'll just believe what you do??

Isnt matter waves??? How is your line of reasoning more advanced than mine??

 

Correct. That's what you said.
And you're wrong. Unless, as I said, you have a strange definition of "conscious".

Because there is no evidence. A super-being?

So all you're doing is either claiming that the majority is always right or that I should ignore what can be shown and can't be shown and subscribe to a baseless belief?

Please quote me where I said he doesn't exist. Otherwise stop ascribing things to me that I haven't said.

I personally don't have a theory. However I do go with science's answers. Which is, basically, we don't know yet.

No. I just want to know why people make claims they can't (or won't) substantiate.

So by that argument god didn't create the universe. It was already there and god just made it "collapse".

 

Hi Dwy,

Do you see the irony here, dwy? Please explain to me the basis of the big bang or any other module that makes sense excluding god

This is clearly your position. If you want to weasel your way out of it; done. But dont contest my opinions without forming your own; what progress does that serve? What explanation do you propose? "We dont know yet" is fine and modest but some people do "know" and are "aware" of a god, it's almost a feeling, perhaps an outlook on the perception of life; maybe its a god molecule but its outside culture driven phenom. It's something that I interact with and am aware of.

What is real to you, dwy? Your bed? Because the coding and interaction in quantum events makes it appear this way? Can we atleast agree that life and consiousness is much like a programming language.

I promise this question has a point.

 

Is it that extraordinary Dwy? D

The point Im trying to make is that experience cannot be known until it is acknowledged through some electro chemical code that only the brain can recognize and give meaning to which is by default "non physical" as we understand it.

Whatever we perceive and conceive can only be subjective thought. As difficult as this is to comprehend, this is the only experience we can ever have. The proof is in the fact that all our experience is mental. This includes the experience we each have of ourselves and each other.

We have no difficulty understanding this and accepting this if they are practical ideas, and conform to the laws of physical reality, we eventually can detect them in what we are so convinced is our objective experience. What we have trouble recognizing is this is how we have all our experience.

So we dismiss god based on our need for physical emperical evidence not realizing the ubsurdity of the question. You continuing to perpetuate your opinion is thus, not needed as it doesent contribute further in regards to the topic at hand.

 

Not at all.

Because god is an unnecessary step and cannot be measured. Therefore god doesn't figure into it. If you think any part of physics includes god please show me. And if you can't do you think that physics doesn't make sense?

Then you have no understanding of my position.

Pardon? My "opinion" has been given: there is no evidence for god.

And you think that spouting unsupported positions DOES serve progress?

No. No one knows god. They believe they do.

So did my implied questions: which you have so far failed to answer.
You - Yes, a photon has conscious awareness.
Me - No it doesn't. Unless you have a very weird definition of "conscious".

Care to address that point?

 

It is not our eyes that know what they see, or our ears that know what they hear, etc.It is only when what we believe these senses have detected do we discover what we are looking at or hearing or touching or smelling or tasting. All these recognitions however do not become real until the brain assigns them meaning . This is simply scientific fact. Why does one twin come out perfectly healthy and the other dead even though both biological systems are in working order?

The sensory input we are receiving cannot be proven to come from things physical outside of our physical bodies when the only way to know about them is purely subjective. There only real in the moment we give them recognition. While this recognition makes us believe we are experiencing physical reality, the only thing we know conclusively is that we are experiencing

The physical experience we are so "addicted" to appears so real because it has to in order to have any meaning. But it only appears real in the instant of observation. This observation is not our physical senses at work, but our thoughts and ideas of physical reality. It is our conscious awareness that is how we observe and "make" things appear as physical reality.

Consider what happens in dreams while "asleep". We are not having the physical experience we have when we see ourselves as "awake". But we are still having experience. Some is about being physical and some about ideas foreign to the reality we know. Rarely however do dream experiences conform to waking experience. Why? Our conscious awareness during sleep is not restricted to observing experience based on the laws physical reality must conform to to be physical appearing in the first place.

Now factor in the conclusive aspects of Quantum Science, and god becomes not only possible, but highly probable.

For example, entanglement insures communication of all physical concepts with each other enabling a consistency and predictability to what appears physical. Not only does this allow physical reality to seem real to us, but it insures we can acknowledge the same experiences with each other. Observation, our conscious awareness, is how we perceive this reality as physically real. Duality allows us to experience both matter and energy, and space and time as fundamental requirements for a physical reality.

 

Rocks are subjective thought? There's no objectiveness to them? Planets? Yourself?