My belief says yes. Watch the double slit experiment. It will show the infinite possibilities that are possible through "god". Once there is an observer to determine the possibility, it chooses a path.. this is just how I feel though..The computer processor must rely on the infinite possibility IMO..
No, this is the lie that the cult tries to sell through What the Bleep. Nobody chooses or creates possibilities, or their own reality. Also an atom isn't infinite. MelT
Science would readily agree that it can be wrong and that all science is continually growing and learning. This does not mean that we don't know anything and that what we have now is just theories, we know a staggering amount about quantum mechanics (it's been around for about 100 years) that is provable. We already have entngled states on a chip that we'll soon be using for personal computers. It's far from being a 'wild goose chase' when we're already physically using it and that it is allowing us to make very accurate predictions about reality, time and space. God has nothing to do with the experiment as 'he' is a fictional entity. MelT
It wasn't from this movie, it was a separate film I was watching about quantum computers.. If it isn't him looking at the processor that makes the wave function collapse, then what does? And how exactly is an intelligent designer fictional? Name one experiment giving the example of information arising from a purely naturalistic cause with no intelligence intervening.
The wave form collapses because the measurement equipment will always interfere with the experiment. Could you post a link to the film you talk about? The idea that it does collapse isn't fixed in stone either: "...The existence of the wave function collapse is required in the Copenhagen interpretation the objective collapse interpretations the so-called transactional interpretation the von Neumann interpretation in which consciousness causes collapse. On the other hand, the collapse is considered as a redundant or optional approximation in the Bohm interpretation the Ensemble Interpretation the Many-Worlds Interpretation interpretations based on Consistent Histories..." This is the Science forum. Claims of a god as an answer to anything here isn't really relevant unless you post links and proof. I'm still not sure why you think it's pertinent here? Please provide proof that god did it, I have thousands, billions of facts that show how everythng has come about through science. Please show at least a handful of facts that tell otherwise? But it's very easy to answer your question as there are tens of such experiments. The sugars and molecules that form the necessary components of life are created accidentally by the action of water and/or the sun, turning what were random sequences into ordered groups. Without this action, most forms of life would not exist. It's purely random and a chance occurrence, and yet ordred information came about through it. Or how about 'handedness' in atoms and molecules, again something incredibly important for life. The bias towards right-handedness is again created by the Sun via X-rays. Random chance, turning chaos into order. No 'god' required. God is fiction, we really don't need one to account for our existence, and it's a laughable notion in this day and age - or at least in the science forum MelT
You find a book in the middle of a desert. You open this book and on the pages you find symbolic letters written through cover to cover. Even though you can map out the possibilities of a tree shredding to make paper and chemicals coming together to form ink then all collaborating together to create a written language, you know for a fact hands down that something designed it. Information and complex repeatable patterns always originate from intelligence. Not once have humans ever observed information arising from a purely naturalistic cause. Isn't it somewhat obvious that some form of intelligence had a hand in designing this reality? We find repeatable patterns from the subatomic level to the massive cosmos. Even chemistry is acting on predetermined laws. The laws of physics themselves are precisely set to allow life to flourish, if just one law were to be altered such as the weak force, our whole universe would be incapable of even forming the most basic molecules to allow life to arise in the first place. Oh and I'll have to look for that video, was watching it the other night.
Soooo, you didn't read my post then? 'Not once'? I quoted two and can give many more. How did you miss seeing that? Far from it. I've never seen any fact that needs a god to account for it, ever. Again, read my post. Order can come naturally from chaos. The laws of physics aren't set so that 'life will flourish', that's a creationist idea that has no basis in fact. Life is a tiny part of the processes of the universe, there's more sense in saying that the universe was create so that black holes would be propagated, as they are central to everyhting in the universe, including stars and life itself. I note a lack of links showing proof of god's existence to counter mine showig that science did? Could you perhaps post a couple so that it sounds like you have a provable case? It's a pointless debate when you have no evidence and I do, it then becomes just a matter of faith, which again should be a matter for S+P discussions. MelT
But how could you say that the laws aren't set for life? I mean if just the strong force were to be altered just a fraction, atoms would be incapable of holding together, therefore the blocks needed to build our physical reality would cease to exist, therefore life itself could not exist. http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/07/dna-compelling-evidence-of-intelligent-design/
The culmination of that would be that we would not be here. And...? It isn't making a point. If the Big Bang had not taken place the Universe would not be here either. What does that prove? Only that we are a lucky random chance, it doesn't point to a god. Are you surprised that it took place; or are you surprised that there shoud be laws governing action and reality? It's very easy to have complex systems arrive within randomness, as I say below. You're also confusing two issuses, the Universe coming into place and the emergence of life. Science has already shown that the buildng blocks for life come about because of random events that ceate order in chaos. If the univerese was designed for us, then why did our emergence come about - provably - randomly? If you were to see a perfect triangle in nature you would wonder at how that could be formed. How can random action create geometric shapes? Take a bag of marbles and a board long enough to roll them down. Place a piece of wood across the bottom of the board that', say, as wide as 11 marbles across. At each end of this, put a stopper so that the marbles don't roll off. Now tilt the board and roll marbles down the board and watch them gather in the trap at the opposite end. In a short matter of time you'l have a perfect pyramid of marbles. This kind of action happens in chemistry and biology a lot, and it's more akin to engineering than anything else. Think of structure coming from chaos in another way. If you had a vast line of random numbers, every now and again there would be stretches that seemed anything but random. Were they put there by god? No, they were chance occurrences. Things happen randomly in physics and nature all the time. Your link was down by the way, but I looked at the site it was on, the Dakota Voice, a christian group: "..Dakota Voice examines local, state, national and world issues of interest to conservatives and Christians...." MMmmmmmmmm....not quite unbiased then? Please post some links to evidence of god where scientific methods have been used and the study is peer-reviewed. I've done it and can keep doing it, surely that must ring alarm bells that you can't? That science has destroyed every creationist argument to such an extent that all christians have left is faith? But please understand, I don't begrudge you or your religion. You have every right to think what you do. But the moment that you or christianity tries to misrepresent what science says and does, I will respond, the same way that a christian would if I told lies about christianity. It's not done out of malice, it's purely to defend what truths science has discovered and proven. MelT
Life can be considered a coincidence, or a miracle, you choose. BUT, remember ALL the requirements science tells us (water, gravity, plants, REPRODUCTION, CONSCIOUSNESS, physics, quantum mechanics, whatever we learn next. The information is infinite in itself) Let me ask you to consider life being formed. First of all, it seems rather odd that two beings formed simultaneously male and female, no? But it obviously did... So these beings begin with atoms. Using darwins theory of evolution, how do they know what is required for life? How do they know what organs are required to live? Where did the blood come from for such organs? And the consciousness? Where did our organs come from if the creatures we evolved from did not need/have them? My questions stem back to, if the universe started as 1 atom, why would it replicate? It would already be infinite.. Doesn't this ALL require energy to be performed? These are answers I asked myself. The answer I formed is creative evolution. I ask you to please consider the movie The Quantum Activist. You can stream it from Netflix.
If you're going to do this using a scientific approach then look up the science first. Life didn't begin with male and female, and there are still creatures today that breed without the need for a male/female divide. There is no 'knowing' in evoloution. No conscious decision of life to move forward or backward to better or worse. Evolution changes things in response to stresses, needs and the environment any creature lives in. Creatures aren't growing towards a more advanced state, they can move backwards in evolution as well as forwards if their surrouindings change. Creatures have gone from living in the sea, to living on land, then back into the sea again. Creatures have evolved eyes and then lost them. There is no knowing. There is only, "Does Bob the proto-human have big enough teeth to eat these nuts instead of the grass he used to eat?" If not, Bob dies, whilst the nut eaters around him prosper. It evolved, of course. That doesn't really make sense, could you say it again? Apart from that again making no sense, the universe didn't start with one atom. The Universe started with a singularity, there's a difference. Ahhh, another of the Ramtha cult's buddies, Amit Goswami, someone who sold his soul to the cult so he could sell more books. He appeared in 'What the Bleep' and is one of the only (former) scientists who hasn't pulled out and said the movie is nonsense. Tell me, are you a member of the Ramtha movement or affiliated to it in any way? You sound like you are. MelT
I don't rely on science. In fact, I find it to be a big mind game to try to find answers to something that cannot be answered through data (notice how it always trys to find the cause for the effect? It is infinite). Just look around you for proof. Nature is our higher power. Whatever caused nature, is "god". (please actually consider this before flipping your rage switch) This is what I believe. You are free to place faith in what you choose. Just remember, science can be wrong.
Yes, it is apparent that you don't rely on science, and yet you try to pretend that you do understand it so that you can debate here. If you're so against science, then what are you doing posting in a science forum? From what I can tell from your posts you're just here to troll for the new Ramtha god and the idea that we can control reality with our minds. Let's assume that we can. I've practised and am now at grand master Ramtha level. I have just created a reality with my mind where nobody can control reality with their minds and placed you in it. Stupid, isn't it? Of course, but we accept that as fact. When was the last time you heard a religious person do that? . I notice that you haven't responded to my question about your Ramtha membership? MelT
I have no affiliation with any religion. I am just voicing my opinion, as I feel it is a right I have. I posted here, because I find quantum mechanics interesting, but I do not rely on an answer created by others. I think it is all happening through consciousness (energy). May I ask where you think our infinite supply of energy comes from? I am curious what others opinions are on this.. I never said I can create reality. I said we create possibilities. Is it possible to get a new car? Not instantly, but through a series of possibilities, it is, yes? (evolution ) Isn't getting this new car creating your reality in a way? (combining objective and subjective reality) When considering reality, you must always separate objective and subjective. You cannot assume everyones mind is going to think alike, which is how we create our own subjective reality. Also, I'm always open to the idea I am wrong, but no evidence has showed me otherwise. btw, I didn't realise I had to qualify MelT's standards to post here. I apologise. Next time I will ask if my answer is ok..
And a fine notion that is too. But this is the science forum, not S+P, so expect flack. I think TBH in light of wht you asked about how things 'know' to evolve that you might want to start relying on answers created by others, just for a little while, then do your own thing once you understand what it is you think you're rejecting LOL! That's no more evolution than it is god, and a pretty obvious thing to say. If we work hard and save money we can buy a car, but we have to want to work so we 'create our own possibilities'. It's not creating anything but using initiative and having an incentive. Why dignify it by giving it special meaning? Want, work, get. Why are all your posts filled with nonsensical phrases thare meant to sound deep? At this point I would ask any of the fine minds here at GC to make any meaning out of the above. I'm a Buddhist, I'm happy to talk about objective and subjective reality - but nothing in the paragraph above made sense. What do you think it solves pretending to answer questions like this? Then may I humbly suggest that you don't get out enough... MelT
Damn, this thread got off-topic. There's some misinformation about electrons state "changing" when observed. If you observe something, you must see the incoming photons emitted from the thing you're looking at. By observing a certain state of an electron at a given time, you are essentially seeing one of the boundless possibilities due to how many photons are incoming. What I'm saying is, it doesn't matter if you see the photon that caused the state change or not, it relies only on probability. There are disgustingly large amounts of both electrons and photons interacting all around you. Have a look at this Observer effect (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I said MelT, we are all free to create our faith. I'm aware people are ok with the notion of “we just don't knowâ€. But through my faith, I do know. You can place faith in whatever you choose, but does it make sense to rely on manmade concepts, when we know that nature is far beyond our comprehension? It is pretty obvious to me that nature is a much higher power than ourselves (if we can agree it is what created us). Knowledge/science, to me, is infinite. One love friend.
This is why I believe the photon is "god" (consciousness/energy/objective reality) and the electron is "hell" (ego/subjective reality). This is just my belief though