Part 2 of Scientific Evidence of God

Let's continue.

The bands of light on the screen in the double slit experiment are interpreted as good evidence of wave function/probability distribution. Reinforcement of some waves and cancellation of others occur because of the various distances between spreading waves. An interference pattern can also be demonstrated by dropping two pebbles into a still pond.

Otherwise the light would travel in fairly straight lines and produce two spots on the screen.

If detection of photons and measurement of their positions are made as they pass thru the slits, the wave/distribution pattern is terminated, producing two spots on the screen.

However, if the data is not collected or the data is erased as it is collected, the pattern reverts back to wave/probability distribution. Absolutely awesome! Wake up, humanity.

Does this mean that there really isn’t any such process as collapse of the wave function by an observer? Perhaps it’s just data management by the intent and purpose of the domain authority: the level of consciousness in control. Why? To provide a sufficiently consistent reality as a suitable learning environment for us kindergarten consciousnesses.

Perhaps we do have good potential as a promising crop with serious importance, else the system would not go to such trouble.

 

That is close enough to the case of our experimentation.
What we understand is that Conscious Observation changes light from waves to particles.

Now, understanding that ONLY waves of energy existed initially at the Big Bang, some observer had to be present to collapse the wave information or wave function into particles of matter.

If that observation did not occur, matter would not exist, only waves of energy would exist.

 

From AboveAlpha in the original thread:

Close enough for a cigar, but it has already been refined.

The existence of an infinite number of you and me is apparently not necessary and would be a waste of resources, at least in our local group of multiverses. Our actual existence is limited to the present time frame. Models of us are calculated as part of all possible future realities. Probable possibilities are sorted out and retained on record as unactualized probable future realities. Those that don't get actualized are retained as unactualized past probable realities.

Individuals who make forays into the data banks of mind-hyperspace can get tangled up in some whacky scenarios if they aren't careful. This business is full of wild stuff.

Now we know where some prognosticators get some of their remarkable hits. This kind of clarification puts to rest the notion that the future is written in stone, or an infinite number of stones. Free will is still at the helm of the individual and group.

 

So nobody's found any evidence yet....

 

For the hell of it, try The Starmaker's Apprentice, by F. Louis Tzot (Zot?) aka Ambassador Zot.

 

No, you're wrong. Now buzz off like you do every other time I tell you this.

 

Show PROOF that cupiddave is wrong.

 

The theory doesn't prove there's a god. If anything it makes the argument there isnt. It is impossible for an unobserved waveform to exist if there is an all seeing omniscient god. God can't simply observe the unobserved if he has been observing forever in all directions of time, space, pretime,prespace.

 

Then you understand wrongly. We observe these things consciously - we couldn't have done the experiment otherwise. But because event X happens when observer Y has attribute Z, does not on its own, in any way, imply that attribute Z is *required* in order for event X to happen at all.

That is one hypothesis, and it could be correct. As I said before the first thread was locked, though:

* It has not yet been shown that the observer is required to be conscious.
* It has not yet been shown that the observer is required to be present at the time of an event.
* It has not yet been shown that the observer is required to be external to a function.

Also, since you didnt get a chance to answer my question in that other thread, may I ask it again:

As an aside, by the way, do you ascribe to the notion that god is all-knowing? Because that would be a violation of the Heisenberg principle, and disqualify god as a valid observer. Even if that problem could be overcome somehow, it would also mean that everything already has an observer, so everything would already be collapsed and we wouldn't even be able to know about quantum uncertainty because there would be none.

 

They see absence of proof as evidence.

"If we can't explain it, God did it."

 

Proof sufficient to you or proof sufficient to him? He scampers off every time he's confronted.

 

Nice try,...

But there is NO space/time UNTIL the Big Bang has started and matter is formed.
The Time before the Big Bang is zero, since time begins 13.5 billion years ago AT the Big Bang.

 

Hahahaaaaa...

Funny.

He means, show how science disputes the requirement to collapse the first waves at the start of the Big Bang.

You do agree that before matter appeared, all that existed was energy wave functions, right?

 

You doubter do not know enough Science to respond against this nor accept it.

 

God is the Force behind reality which continuously unfolds for us.
His son is Truth, sired in his wake.

 

where did i say there was space time before the big bang. how can an unobserved state exist to be observed if god is omniesent who observes all.

 

Either you have evidence or you don't. My knowledge of science doesn't change your burden of proof.

 

"absence of proof" is evidence. It is evidence that you and those others have not and cannot present any evidence or argument that will compel my mind to accept what you assert as true.

 

despite repeated debunkings of your use of the copenhagen interpretation you insist it is some kind of proof that an observer needed to be present.

The true state and position of a quantum particle can only be MEASURED upon observation, not prediction. It does not mean that it doesn't exist prior to observation and most definitely not that said observation some how changes waves into particles or vice versa.

 

Yeah. There's a giant spaghetti monster hiding behind Neptune. My religion tells me so, and you can't prove this fact wrong, so it's true.

What I love about science is that it's continually trying to prove itself wrong. After this fails enough times, theories become assumptions (grounds for more theories).

What I hate about religion is that arguments to prove existence of deities are just unfounded excuses.

 

Absence of the proof disproving a claim is not proof of any kind for the truth of that claim.

This is logic 101.

The classic example of this fallacy is - "No one can prove God doesn't exist so God must exist"

Another good one " You cant prove that the inside of Pluto is not made of Green cheese so it must be"

 

One, let me first point out that the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't the only interpretation of QM out there. There are several. Anyways, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, the most famous example is obviously Schrödinger's Cat Experiment. In the thought experiment he uses the word "observer", and now people of all kinds are jumping in to say this has something to do with consciousness and the need for a conscious observer. This isn't true. The correct term in CI is "measurement". And no, this doesn't mean a "human act of measurement". Read about it for yourself.

You know about the double-slit experiment? What caused the wave function collapse was the detection by the particle detectors, not human eyes. We can't see these particles in these states with our own eyes. I don't even know why you're concentrating on the Big Bang. There was no human consciousness until a few millions of years ago, so you're basically saying that the only reason the entire Universe could exist before we existed was that there was some supernatural conscious observer. Nothing about that is correct or scientific.

Get some.

 

That would be PROOF to me.. A claim was made and subsequently that claim must have evidence or argument that will support the validity of that claim. In other words, I like to see claims backed up with sufficient proof that will compel my mind to accept the evidence or argument as true.

 

Nobody that knows anything about quantum theory would agree. Here a relatively plain language explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

 

If your mind had ever been compelled by anything another poster said, I would give you a chance. But, as far as I know, this has never happened. Has it? You don't want to accept normal standards for what counts as compelling evidence.