Quantum Creationism

Discussion in 'Religion' started by danshawen, Jun 26, 2017.

  1. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    https://answersingenesis.org/physics/do-creationists-believe-in-weird-physics/

    "As an aside, we perhaps ought to mention that the determinism derived from Newtonian physics also produces a conclusion unpalatable to many Christians. If determinism is true, then all future events are predetermined from the initial conditions of the universe. Just as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics led to even God not being able to know the outcome of an experiment, many people applying determinism concluded that God was unable to alter the outcome of an experiment. That is, God was bound by the physics that rules the universe. This quickly led to deism. Most, if not all, people today who reject quantum mechanics refuse to accept this extreme interpretation of Newtonian physics. They ought to recognize that just as determinism is a perversion of Newtonian physics, the Copenhagen interpretation is a perversion of quantum mechanics."

    Just so you know it when you see it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,854
    So, the physicists will as physicists do in taking this apart, and the same with mathematicians; but when it shows up in broader discourse, watch the historians, philosophers—yes, including theologians—anthropologists, and art critics. They're the wrecking crew that will be effective, if any can, because, quite frankly, most people won't understand quantum physics well enough to fend off a discursive marketplace in which facts are merely one side of the story, and make-believe must necessarily be granted equivocal credibility. That is to say, quantum creationism diminishes God.

    There's a bit, for instance, about how polytheism is just monotheism in disguise: If the God of the Sun is restricted to his provenance and obliged to his duties, how is he restricted and by whom or what is he obliged?

    Now, we know that in more formal systems it all comes back to monotheism, anyway; the authority that binds the gods is the authority that binds the gods. If the monotheistic godhead is bound by higher authority, then it is not the ultimate authority, and therefore not the monotheistic godhead. Whatever else these theistic arguments do to quantum mechanics, the proposition generally considers a false god, such as things go.

    To the other, let us pretend a framework for validating "quantum creationism". The real answer, when we cut away all the pascalian wages and wagers, will lead toward the reason I describe myself not as theist, atheist, or agnostic, but apathetic. The reason I don't care whether or not "God" exists is that we don't really have another word for this concept that represents so much as the monotheistic godhead, and at that valence what we have, in the question of religion and theology, is a "God without consequence". More directly, the word "God" is just a description of the way things are at a valence that not only transcends our knowledge but defies the capability of a finite entity to achieve. Whether it's a Universe, a multiverse, an illusion, or whatever; whether time is real or not, but who cares; cogito ergo sum, or, cogito ergo es (also, c.e. sunt), there is a difference but it is both a priori and circulus in probando with the latter depending on the former which, in turn, has no meaning without the latter.

    If you're familiar with the vague notion of isness ... okay, well, if you're not, it really is supposed to be kind of mysterious, because here's the thing: There is only one proper tautalogy we can assert about a monotheistic godhead: "God is". And what that means is actually something we might colloquially describe as a "technicality", but this isn't a courtroom, and more formally we might simply call it a logical result: Any affirmative statement about what God is necessarily demarcates something God is not, thus violating the basic tenet of Alpha and Omega, more generally described as some manner of infinitude about an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent monotheistic godhead.

    Additionally, history suggests quite clearly, and the social sciences are growing more and more confident asserting, that, yes, some of these people are effectively beyond communication. The latest round, for instance, is the growing realization that no, Trump voters aren't going to come around, and like the fervently religious, they will simply play make-believe instead when reality disputes with them.

    Inasmuch as we need to know it when we see it, the challenge will be to counter efforts to legitimize the argument. That is, explain the physics all you want; the challenge is that, for instance, in my society Christians advocating quantum creationism would betray God, and whether they are so beholden to their sin as to flee worldly rescue and, ultimately, reject Christ's divine rescue would be something of an inevitable consideration.

    Whatever else they're doing in a scientific context, this is a mess in any context pretending religious faith part of any ongoing heritage or experience.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Quantum creationism makes a better religion than a science.

    Niels Bohr, founder of the Copenhagen school of physics, got a lot of bad press for harassing poor Schroedinger about his wave equation (just because the Copenhagen school preferred matrices). As it turned out, they were equivalent. But the Copenhagen school was as legitimate as any competing school of physics at the time.

    Quantum creationism, on the other hand, is neither a science, nor a legitimate school of physics, nor any other branch of science.

    Trump makes a better reality show host than a president. Of course he does. Gambling and hospitality industries are both heavy on entertainment value, light on legal and administration and public relations and political savvy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    So . . .What does Trump have to do with quantum creationism? . . . . IMO you and Tiassa are off your own topic! Were you just starting this thread to smack Trump? Sad!
     
    Yazata and danshawen like this.
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    My fault. She noticed I have this posting style (tie the subject matter into Trump somehow). Point to Tiassa!

    This part of the forum is taylor made for someone like Eugene Schubert. Why doesn't he ever post here, or did I just miss out on some of his best stuff?

    It would be good to have him (Eugene) here about now. There's a whole liturgy of weird stuff associated with quantum creationism, a lot of which I knew absolutely nothing about until finding it in sciforums coming, of all places, from a moderator in the science part of the forum. Some of the stuff he came up with was actually pretty intriguing. If he weren't a moderator, it might have gone far enough for us to both learn something. As it was, he seemed to think it was his duty as a moderator to shut out any discussion of real science associated with quantum mechanics. Pretty sad.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    According to quantum creationists, G-d is a "master observer". Don't dare suggest to them that there is an alternate explanation for quantum phenomena that require something to be observed, particularly if that explanation does not either involve G-d him/her/itself, or some other incarnation of quantum mysticism.

    It's not science. It isn't even particularly good religion. It isn't supposed to make sense to anyone who is not a quantum creationist.

    I hope this person is not James Randi, but if it is, he's done gone demented.
     
  10. Michael 345 Next mythical choc bunnies for mystic who died Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    As the Universe runs via the laws of physics

    and have a built in fudge factor called the Uncertain Principal

    should god be renamed physics?

    Everybody wins

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    or gets a participation Medal

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    danshawen likes this.
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,767
    It is not clear from the cited article as to why the Copenhagen interpretation is supposed to be a "perversion" of quantum mechanics. It is just one way of making sense of the mathematical theory.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    It was perfectly clear from the article. It's because the earlier Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics eliminates an element of quantum indeterminacy and replaces it, as was the standard for physics at the time, with more deterministic ideas about quantum physics. To be specific, it is because electron orbitals were circular and orbited the nucleus at the speed of light. The Bohr model of an atom, while obsolete by today's scientific standards, was indeed quite deterministic.

    Niels Bohr, a WWII hero and Nobel Laureate who immigrated when Denmark became occupied by the Nazis, dissolved his gold medal and smuggled it out in bottles of Danish beer. My junior high school science teacher related to us that at one time, he was more revered for his contributions to science and defeating Nazi plans to build and deploy nuclear arms than was Jesus Christ for Christians. Bohr's woolly eyebrows and his build and general appearance reminded me of one of my favorite uncles who worked as a park ranger, and who was a paratrooper in WWII, incidentally.

    But this doesn't explain to me how quantum creationists so strongly believe that the "spooky" supernatural observer in quantum physics somehow has to be G-d, or else the Ptolemists are back in business placing Galileo under house arrest and burning people teaching Copernican ideas at the stake? Can you shed some light on why that is, James? Why is it you are so prone to shutting down or moving threads that do not square with the quantum creationist point of view? I have amassed your "points" here ONLY BECAUSE of that behavior. Does no one else take note of the pseudoscience you post?

    A scientist already knows all of this, James. How is it that you or someone at Xenfora evidently thinks you are qualified to moderate science threads here when you obviously are not?
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,767
    danshawen:

    Not to me it wasn't.

    The novel feature of the Bohr model was the (then) unexplained quantisation of the orbital angular momentum of electrons in the atom.

    I don't see how the Copenhagen interpretation eliminates anything from quantum theory. As I said, it's just an interpretation of what the mathematics is telling us.

    What does Bohr's biography have to do with "quantum creationism"?

    No, I can't shed any light on that, I'm afraid. For a start, I still don't understand what a "quantum creationist" is. The term isn't mentioned in the article from answersingenesis that was cited, and I don't think you've explained it. I assume it's a term you made up. Is that right?

    Quantum physics, as far as I am aware, doesn't require a "spooky supernatural observer".

    Which threads have I shut down? What are you talking about?

    If you want to give me feedback about your recent moderation for posting pseudoscience, then this is the wrong place to do that. Try the Site Feedback subforum, or send me a private message, perhaps.

    It sounds a lot like you're upset about my warning you not to post pseudoscience to our Science subforums. Is that what this is all about?

    You'll have to ask them. To the best of my knowledge, I do not post pseudoscience, but please feel free to start a thread to correct me on any scientific errors I may have made. Remember, though: no ad hominem attacks!

    All of what?

    With all due respect, danshawen, you're hardly in a position to judge my qualifications. Always nice to get feedback, though. You have a good day. Run along now.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Eugene Schubert keeps getting his science threads locked, or consigned to the Cesspool, or both by science moderators here, mainly because he invariably adopts an intransigent attitude about pseudoscience being a part of his Seventh Day Adventist faith, of which quantum creationism is evidently a part.

    Be tha as it may, I would rather have Eugene as a moderator in the science forums than you, James, because the science he knows, he knows that he knows, and the pseudoscience he clings to because of his faith, at least he understands it is not really science when a scientist points it out to him.

    Someone like Trump doesn't care, because doesn't play to science. Neither do you.
     
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942

    nice googling there, James.

    Bohr's atom preceded modern quantum theory, which you would know if you didn't depend on Google for most of your brain. Such people always miss the chronology.

    You can use a search engine just fine; you just don't actually read what I write. What a great thing for a moderator to do.

    You do the same, James.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,767
    danshawen:

    I see. So you're filing a complaint on Eugene's behalf, are you?

    We all have our preferences. Want to know what I'd prefer?

    What does it mean to play to science?

    What?

    Er, yes. Um... thanks, I guess.

    I managed to quote your post in my reply and respond to various points. Amazing how I can do that without actually reading any of it. It's a skill, I think. What do you think?

    Want to stop now, or shall we go another round?
     
  17. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Of a sort.
     
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I know for a fact that Eugene really is a quantum creationist (because he said so). He is also opposed to the theory of evolution. It is easy for anyone, even a non-scientist, to discern an individual with that predisposition or bias against evolution. It's not so easy to spot quantum creationists, because 1) they hide themselves better, and 2) few people who have not taken AND RECEIVED A GOOD GRADE in a college level quantum physics course, LIKE I HAVE, will not recognize real quantum physics from random bunk that someone with poor search engine skills is likely to turn up on a search for quantum physics.

    You, on the other hand, claim that you are not a quantum creationist, yet you frequent the "religion" forum a lot more than you do the "science" forums, other than to drop by long enough to "moderate" them rather badly, or post to threads about quantum observers with the same authoritative style that you post in the religion forum.

    I also know that Eugene can google as well or better than you do, and that EUGENE STAYS ON TOPIC much better, too. Tiassa, can you do something about that, or do I need to report James for trolling the religious forums as well? Yes, my recommendation would be to offer Eugene a job as moderator to replace James R. They have the same religious orientation, but Eugene is better at science.

    Have a good day, James. There really is no point arguing any science or religion with you here, or anywhere else. You seem qualified to do neither.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,776
    Just a few points on the physics, in case any readers get the wrong idea:

    1) It is nonsense to say that in the Bohr model, electrons move at the speed of light. They do not. The electron speed was in fact calculated for a variety of different orbits in the hydrogen atom. See here for details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
    (Of course we now use a QM model in which the "speed" is not defined at all, only the sum of electrostatic potential and kinetic energies, but that's another story.)

    2) The Bohr model of the atom has precisely zero to do with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, except that Niels Bohr was a protagonist of both, at quite different times in the development of QM.

    3) The Copenhagen Interpretation does not in any way get rid of quantum indeterminacy: quite the reverse. It maintains that a system does not have any definite properties until measurement or interaction takes place, whereupon the wave function, which is a probabilistic expression of the state of the system, collapses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

    4) The Bohr model was a classical model and was therefore deterministic but everyone knew it was wrong, even at the time. It was just a placeholder model, while they worked out what was really going on. They needed something to explain Rutherford's findings that atoms were mostly empty space. But the issues of why the electron did not radiate and spiral into the nucleus, and instead only radiated at discrete frequencies involving a jump from one orbit to another, were ad-hoc rules made up to tally with experiment and everyone knew something was missing - which was duly supplied by de Broglie, Schroedinger et al a short while later.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  20. Kittamaru Apparently some are more equal... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,585
    ... hum, I feel like this is where someone should say something about the fact that James isn't a moderator, but one of the Administration (ergo, higher than moderator) for SciForums... in large part because he showed his proficiency in scientific debate and a solid understanding all around...

    ...

    ... but then, it would probably fall on deaf ears so... yeah.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,854
    To reiterate↑:

    Additionally, history suggests quite clearly, and the social sciences are growing more and more confident asserting, that, yes, some of these people are effectively beyond communication. The latest round, for instance, is the growing realization that no, Trump voters aren't going to come around, and like the fervently religious, they will simply play make-believe instead when reality disputes with them.

    Part of what we're dealing with is a theological argument that doesn't really make much sense; it is driven by pretentious ignorance of God. One of the challenges, as I noted, is that "history suggests quite clearly, and the social sciences are growing more and more confident asserting, that, yes, some of these people are effectively beyond communication". Generally speaking, this is recognized behavior; some people, once down the rabbit hole, simply justify over and over again with neurotically contrasting elements, thereby digging deeper until any potential escape becomes suspect.

    Still, that's a bit abstract. More concretely, "The latest round," of accessible, observable behavior following this type, can be seen in an apparent subset of Trump supporters who support in his presidency the opposite of what they said they supported in his candidacy.

    In my opinion, it probably would have helped to actually pay attention to what you pretended to ask about; you know, since answering your "inquiry" simply involves reiterating what is already on the record. Are you just making shit up because you have a thing for shit? Sad.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,776
    My experience of Dan is that he goes through phases. For a while he is relatively lucid and seems able to keep Minkowski and his various other demons at bay, but then there is a setback, during which he rambles and talks wall-to-wall crap. We seem to be going through one of these episodes at the moment.

    Anyone who says Shubert would do a better job at moderating than James is either not thinking straight or is having a hissy fit. Or both.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    It would. William Lane Craig also gets high marks for style of debate. So, what? It explains a lot.
     

Share This Page