Will quantum physics prove the existence of God?

Ok so if consciousness did evolve from matter where is? It should be made of matter like everything else that evolved. Ok so maybe the conscience isn’t a thing. Maybe it’s an attribute that develops in complex systems like your brain. So then 50 years into the future when we program a supercomputer with sufficient A.I. it will develop this attribute but it will refuse to believe it was created.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

moving:

Nutter butter. Consciousness evolved from nutter butter.

You got it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What's the matter Xev why no response to the last part?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not sure how the last part was relevent, could you explain?

 

got what? what kind of emergence?

 

You might be interested in the recent issue of Journal of Consciousness Studies, which is (supposedly) devoted to a discussion of 'machine consciousness'. (In fact, as science knows nothing about consciousness, the discussion is almost entirley about AI).

It's a good reminder that there are no 'third-person' theories of consciousness within science that are not completely ridiculous. Couple of good articles by philosophers though.

I'm with W.I.Thompson, who writes in JCS "So I side with the mystics and think that the mechanists are caught in the boomerism of American hypercapitalism and are simply hawking their wares."

There is no evidence at all, nil, zilch, zero, that consciousness evolved from non-conscious matter. The evidence is that mind evolved with brain, in other words that the human experience of consciousness, which for most of us is mostly determined by mind, has evolved alongside our brains. However consciousness itself, the act of experiencing, is as much a mystery to science as it ever was, and always will be (it being presumed by science to be immaterial, non-causal, unlocatable and entirely beyond third-person observation). There is as yet no recognised method of proving that human beings are conscious (other proving ones own consciousness to oneself of course), and there never will be.

To argue that it came into existence via evolution is simply to state an unsupportable opinion. It is in principle impossible to scientifically settle the argument either way. Settling this argument requires thinking non-scientifically, (or not thinking at all). This is a scientific conclusion, since it is a logical consequence of our defintion of science.

This is often taken by scientists to mean that consciousness doesn't exist. After all, many would argue, if it's not scientific how can it exist? There is much bollocks written by scientists on this subject. I don't know why they don't just 'stick to their knitting', as the saying goes.

 

so if i get rid of your brain you will still be concious?

Seriously, the evedence that conciousness evolved out of matter can be seen in things like sleep. if your conciousness was independant of your physical form then why do things that happen to your body affect your conciousness? if you get hit on the head hard enough you loose conciousness, every night your tired body looses conciousness.

before brains there werent no conciousness.

 

It is certainly hard to believe that consciousness can exist independently of mind and brain. I proved it to my own (intellectual) satisfaction sometime ago, but still find it hard to believe (sometimes even impossible). However as a lifelong sceptic (about everything) I can assure you that there are sound arguments for the existence of forms of consciousness beyond mind and brains.

Nothing I could say would prove this to you. But it's odd that so many introspective philosophers reach the same conclusion. It's also odd that even now we cannot by science or westernised philosophy explain the existence of consciousness unless we say that it is fundamental to existence. There seem to be an intractable logical problems with explaining it any other way.

For instance the idea that it evolves has major logical problems associated with its moment of creation. These are difficult to overcome. Susan Blackmore (big cheese in the field) for instance, is forced by these problems to assume that mind existed before consciousness, which is rather silly IMHO.

It is also rather telling that all the people who claim to have some understanding of consciousness talk about cosmic consciousness, while all the people who suggest we cannot understand it yet claim no such thing exists. This isn't any kind of proof of anything, but it's one hell of a strange coincidence.

 

No.

 

No but i think quantum computation will prove our brains are not turing devices set in a single universe.

In other words and put extraordinarily simply:
a quantum computer will be capable eventually to make its own decisions,as it is not a classical device set in classical laws like a turing device such as the laptop im typing on right now.

To make it sound even more sci-fi(but undoubtedly true)
the only reason my laptop dont talk to me is cos it does not on a quantum level interact with its counterparts in parallel universes unlike what my brain does.
My brain i believe is a classical device in identity just like everything else i see,but the consciousness of the system and computation is working on many many levels.

N+N=X can represent a standard calculation

compared to

N2+N2=X in a quantum system.

Them squared calculations cannot possibly come from knowhere.

As for god,youll still be left in the dark,although this might cheer you religous people up a bit:

If it is indeed a multiverse,which i think is most likely the case
then from gods point of view there is no good/bad

good=50%
bad=50%

While im not killing people here i am elsewhere,and while charles manson is a nasty piece of work here,hes a nice bloke elsewhere.

From gods point of view he sees no reason to help anyone as they are in better/worse situations elsewhere.

Praying wont do you much good as you watch a relative on there death bed,cos elsewhere they are fit and healthy even though from a classical point of view its no use to you.

 

In an important sense quantum computers are no different from normal computers; they still only do exactly what they are programmed to do, nothing more and nothing less. The only difference is that quantum computers are able to perform multiple calculations simultaneously, so they can solve certain problems much faster than an ordinary computer.

There is little reason to believe that quantum effects are caused by interactions with parallel universes.

 

Greetings,

moving, I must have missed something here...
I fail to see the connection you're looking for.
Simply because we have theoretically established ideas of non-locality and multiple dimensions doesn't entail the existence of anything that could satisfy your definition of God.
Go back to premisses.. work deductively from there..

 

From a classical point of view they are the same,but the physical system is far different,i pose you the question:

if the universe we see around us is all there is, where are quantum computations performed?

If you can answer that without the multiverse,you are a better man that not only me but all proffessors of theoretical physics.

Maybe i put what i was saying wrongly.

They dont exactly perform faster,they run at the same clock speed,but the computations are squared for each calculation,but we cant seem to know where these computations are coming from,they appear to come from knowhere.

But yes from our point of view they would seem to be just a very fast computer,but theres far far more to it than that.

 

The calculations are all performed in our universe. It is possible for the computer to do more than one calculation simultaneously because it bases its calculations on the spin of electrons which have not yet had their spin wave-functions 'collapsed' into a single definitive spin. Say, for example, you want to find the solution to a math problem and you know that the solution is two bits long. This means that it could be 00, 01, 10, or 11. The only way to see which one is correct is to have the computer check each possible answer. First it will check 00, and if that isn't the correct answer it will move on to check 01, etc. There aren't any shortcuts; you have to check each answer, one after the other, until you find the correct one.

With a quantum computer it's a little different. Our 2-bit computer could base its calculations on the spin of two electrons, saying that spin up is 1 and spin down is 0. Since before the spin wave-function of the electrons collapses the electrons will simultaneously have both spin up and spin down, our computer can check all possible 2-bit answers simultaneously in the time it would ordinarily take to check one answer.

It's easy to see the applications for something like this. If you wanted to find the solution to a difficult math problem you could have the computer find the solution very quickly by simply checking all possible solutions. It would also be very handy for things like decrypting files that have been protected with a password, since your computer could try all possible password simultaneously.

Very few physicists consider the 'many worlds' hypothesis to be a serious possibility.

The processing ability of a quantum computer isn't merely squared. It depends on how many bit the computer is. If you had a 32-bit quantum computer then you could simultaneously check a block of all possible solutions that can be expressed as 32-bits. So while an ordinary computer would be able to check one 32-bit solution at a time, our quantum computer could check 2^32 solutions at a time, which would make it 4294967296 times faster than its 'normal' counterpart. An 8-bit computer could check 2^8 solutions, so it would be 256 times faster. Currently physicists are only able to simultaneously entangle 3 particles, which would allow you to build a 3-bit computer that checks 8 solutions at a time.

 

glaucon,

My thought was that if everything was connected together you could look at this system as a whole and it would fit the description. God is not a single entity, it is all entities. God does not make decisions we do. I think we are all a small part of God.

 

Ahhhh. Well then, that being the case, then I would say you already have your answer. This interpretation entails that you are, in fact, God.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Very nice.
Have you ever read any Taoist philosophy?
I think you would enjoy it.

 

Hmmn,interesting,maybe i took to much notice of david deutsch.

 

I will now. Thanks.

 

David Deutsch is probably one of the most brilliant physicists in the world today, and is very well respected, but most physicists disagree with him on his 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum phenomena. Under the orthodox interpretation of quantum physics (which is what most scientists agree with) the quantum computer is able to check more than one answer at a time because the electrons have both up and down spin simultaneously. David Deutsch believes that each electron in our universe has only one type of spin, but that in other universes the electrons have other spins. Thus one answer is checked in each universe, and the universe that happens to find the correct answer 'distributes' it to all the other universes. The Many Worlds explanation hasn't been definitively disproved, but like I said, most people don't agree with it.

 

moving

Impossible to say now.But there is no good reason to think that this is impossible.Anyway if the actual standard formalism of QM will remain unchanged and if Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is really 'in built' in reality I really doubt.Finally all we can do now is to stress that there is no good reason to think that from QM,as it is today,we can derive the conclusion that God does exist (or that God hypothesis is more probable than naturalism).There are some claims that quantum entanglement and the violation of Bell's inequalities prove that all minds are interconnected however this conclusion is too strong and does not follow from what we know today.Indeed we can entangle particles but this does not mean they move with supraluminal velocities,moreover WE cannot send information with supraluminal speeds (some information must always be sent using a conventional (subluminal) way of communication in order to make the outcome intelligible for the receiver).It still can be true,nothing disprove yet this hypothesis,but one is entitled to sustain it only as their philosophical point of view,a simple belief finally.

Caution is the best approach.Newton 'proved' once (the famous experiment with the rotating bucket filled with water) that an absolute space do exist.After the Michelson-Morley famous experiment the paradigm totally shifted...However,in my opinion,this experiment did not conclusively disprove the aether hypothesis,it only proved the aether hypothesis as being less probable objectively in the light of all scientific data,beyond all reasonable doubt,known so far.Indeed for example,Bohm's 'quantum potential' can easily be seen as a kind of aether,Bohm's Interpretation of QM+his eq of movement including the quantum potential+the standard formalism of QM,though a simple scientific hypothesis,has not been disproved yet...