Multiple Realities Scientifically Proven; Adam Created, without, then with, Animals, is Possible.

[StevenMerten]

A quantum experiment suggests
there’s no such thing as objective reality​

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.
A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality​

Multiple realities, similar to Adam being Created, by God, without animals and then Adam being recreated, by God, with a past of animals, has now been duplicated, by physicists, in a lab. A couple months ago (2019), in a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, two different realities were observed by two different sets of physicists.

Ever since the birth of Quantum Mechanics (the study of subatomic particles) 100 years ago, the insecurity of what is actually 'Real', has shaken the 'Realism', Classical Physicists', world. 'Realism' Physicists, demand their scientifically unproven, philosophy that the universe exists, even when man is not looking at it. Quantum Physicists, studying the quantum world, realize this is not the case.

There is a great battle being waged in the science world, as to what our reality really is. We, as Creationists, simply have to point to Quantum Mechanics geniuses, starting with 'Father of Quantum Mechanics', Neils Bohr, one hundred years ago, and say that these scientist believe that there is no universe without man to observe it, so do we. The Atheist scientist 'Realism' side of modern 'science' really hate this truth in Quantum Mechanics, science.

At the subatomic particle level, we see where God preforms the miracles of Creation. Quantum Mechanics Physicists see no universe without conscious man, beginning with Adam, to observe it.

No Animals, thus no Evolution, When God First Created Adam; Animals were added Later

 

[thecolorsblend]

I don't pretend to understand the science behind this. But I've been reading comic books my entire life so the idea of a multiverse isn't a new thing for me. It's surprising how fresh an idea it is for some people though, even in a fictional story.

So I'm not prepared to support or oppose the idea of a multiverse.

Anyway. From a theological standpoint, I think it could make sense. If God wants to maximize probabilities and literally watch them unfold in real time, a multiverse is definitely on the table. Partly, I can accept the idea of a multiverse because God is a creative God. I think this could line up with His revealed character. But mostly, I want to believe that a better world than this one could exist.

 

[Resha Caner]

There is a lot of nonsense surrounding the idea of multiverses - much of it propagated by SciFi (which no longer adheres to the rules of early SciFi writers like Asimov, who was a scientist, but is more of a techy mysticism). Some scientists question whether the multiverse is legitimate science.

The conflation of scientific terms happens a lot. "Energy" is probably the biggest offender. In science, energy has a rigorously defined and very specific meaning. Therefore, when mystics talk about spiritual energy, they're spouting nonsense that has no connection to the scientific meaning of the word.

So, it doesn't mean anything you can imagine must be happening in a parallel universe. It doesn't mean your doppelganger is right next to you, but in a different dimension. It definitely doesn't mean what was proposed in the OP.

What does it mean? Think of rolling a die. It could result in any number between 1 and 6. The multiverse hypothesis states that the die gives all those answers, with each one branching off into a different universe. So, if they exist, we would never have any way of knowing it. Unless that can be overcome, the idea violates the key scientific principle of falsifiability, and is not legitimate.

 

[thecolorsblend]

There is a lot of nonsense surrounding the idea of multiverses - much of it propagated by SciFi (which no longer adheres to the rules of early SciFi writers like Asimov, who was a scientist, but is more of a techy mysticism). Some scientists question whether the multiverse is legitimate science.

The conflation of scientific terms happens a lot. "Energy" is probably the biggest offender. In science, energy has a rigorously defined and very specific meaning. Therefore, when mystics talk about spiritual energy, they're spouting nonsense that has no connection to the scientific meaning of the word.

So, it doesn't mean anything you can imagine must be happening in a parallel universe. It doesn't mean your doppelganger is right next to you, but in a different dimension. It definitely doesn't mean what was proposed in the OP.

What does it mean? Think of rolling a die. It could result in any number between 1 and 6. The multiverse hypothesis states that the die gives all those answers, with each one branching off into a different universe. So, if they exist, we would never have any way of knowing it. Unless that can be overcome, the idea violates the key scientific principle of falsifiability, and is not legitimate.

Next time, you could simply type "More research is needed" and save yourself at least a little bit of effort.

 

[StevenMerten]

I don't pretend to understand the science behind this. But I've been reading comic books my entire life so the idea of a multiverse isn't a new thing for me. It's surprising how fresh an idea it is for some people though, even in a fictional story.

So I'm not prepared to support or oppose the idea of a multiverse.

Anyway. From a theological standpoint, I think it could make sense. If God wants to maximize probabilities and literally watch them unfold in real time, a multiverse is definitely on the table. Partly, I can accept the idea of a multiverse because God is a creative God. I think this could line up with His revealed character. But mostly, I want to believe that a better world than this one could exist.

Hello tcb,
I disagree with the 'multiverse' concept. I see it as out of infinite possibilities of potential realities, God chooses only one timeline, in the universe. Thus no 'multiverse'.

With the Double Slit, quantum Experiment, we see that subatomic particles only come into physical existence when a conscious observer (Adam-kind) looks at them. When man is not looking at subatomic particles, they do not exist physically, but only in a wave of all possibilities. It does not matter when in physical time man looks at subatomic particles, a present and past of subatomic particles, lock into place, at the moment of observation. Thus, when Adam first observed the universe, a past with no animals locked into place. Thus a past with no evolution is the past selected, by God, as the reality for that portion of the universes timeline.

Because Adam was lonely, God recreated a universe reality with male and female man, as well as animals in it. When Adam opened His eyes to observe the universe a second time, it is this present and past which subatomic particles locked into. Now a past with dinosaur fossils in it, is the new reality. However, this new reality, out of infinite realities embedded into subatomic particle superposition, does not supplant, the original past of no animals during Creation. We simply switched to a new reality, with a new past, a past which never existed physically. The original past with no animals in it, was, and remains, the past of the universes one timeline.

What do you think?

 

[Resha Caner]

Next time, you could simply type "More research is needed" and save yourself at least a little bit of effort.

That would miss my point.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That would miss my point.

"More research is needed" consists of only four words. Your post effectively says "More research is needed" but uses a lot more than four words to say it.

Let's just cut to the chase, you know? More research is needed.

 

[Resha Caner]

Your post effectively says "More research is needed" but uses a lot more than four words to say it.

That's not what my post said.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That's not what my post said.

That's precisely my point. Your post didn't say that. But that's still what it meant.

And yes, you're right, more research is needed, I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's precisely my point. Your post didn't say that. But that's still what it meant.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? You can't tell me what I meant to say. My post did not at all mean what you say. You may have interpreted it that way, but you would be wrong. You may decide that is an action you need to take and that's fine. But it wasn't my point.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Are you being intentionally obtuse? You can't tell me what I meant to say.

I think I just did.

My post did not at all mean what you say.

Except it did though.

You may have interpreted it that way, but you would be wrong.

Nah, I'm pretty sure I was right.

You may decide that is an action you need to take and that's fine. But it wasn't my point.

Of course it was. You may not have realized it. But your critique of their methods ignored the promise of what further research can offer. It's possible that they'll make discoveries which validate the idea of a multiverse. It's also possible that their methods will have some other result. It could also be that they discover they need to use new (or at least different) methods.

Your post criticized them for not having a certain answer yet when further research may very well provide more definitive results. So yes, "more research is needed" for them and I don't think a tiny bit of patience on your part would do any harm either.

 

[Resha Caner]

Except it did though.

Your arrogance is going to bring this to a quick end. I suspect that's what you want, and if so, then let it be.

Of course it was. You may not have realized it. But your critique of their methods ignored the promise of what further research can offer. It's possible that they'll make discoveries which validate the idea of a multiverse. It's also possible that their methods will have some other result. It could also be that they discover they need to use new (or at least different) methods.

It's obvious you have no idea what I said. So let's try another example. If that doesn't work, I'm more than happy to just give up.

Would more research make it possible to know the position and momentum of an electron simultaneously?

Or, to use an even more obvious answer: Would more research help us learn that the color blue is, in fact, red.

 

[Michie]

I find this thread so amusing. What a silly topic to get upset over.

 

[Resha Caner]

I find this thread so amusing. What a silly topic to get upset over.

I agree it's silly. I'm not upset and I never had the impression @thecolorsblend was upset either. Based on the exchange I can only think of 2 possibilities: 1) He's arrogantly ignorant, 2) he's trying to yank my chain.

I could be wrong about the details of the multiverse hypothesis, but that's doesn't change the intent of what I said.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I agree it's silly. I'm not upset and I never had the impression @thecolorsblend was upset either. Based on the exchange I can only think of 2 possibilities: 1) He's arrogantly ignorant, 2) he's trying to yank my chain.

Or 3) I genuinely do believe more research is necessary. I mean, that's totally possible, isn't it?

 

[Resha Caner]

Or 3) I genuinely do believe more research is necessary. I mean, that's totally possible, isn't it?

That was an option I indicated in post #10. You rejected it and asserted the right to tell me what I was thinking when I wrote my post, and thereby, what that post means. So, yes, you may think more research is necessary, but that has nothing to do with what I said. If you're going to talk to me, it would be nice to reply to what I said.

Further, as I posited the multiverse hypothesis, more research is impossible because there's nothing to research.

 

[StevenMerten]

I find this thread so amusing. What a silly topic to get upset over.

Neils Bohr

"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties (science labels this, 'a superposition of states')."​

Verses​

Albert Einstein

"I'd like to think the moon was there, even when I was't looking at it!"​

Einstein insisted on an objective reality
A reality independent of our observation of it.
​

Whether or not the universe exists, when man is not looking at it, may seem like a silly topic to get upset over. However, the two mega mind, powers of the twentieth century, Neils Bohr vs Albert Einstein, were at great odds over this issue. Albert Einstein spent a great deal of his time and thought, trying to prove that the universe exists, even when conscious man is not looking at it.

Albert Einstein insisted on an objective universe, which once put into motion, simply exists and changes over time. Which, of course, is what all Atheist scientists want. Neils Bohr, based his 'The universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it', on the scientific proofs of experiments at the quantum (subatomic particle) level.

It is proven that subatomic particles do not materialize into physical particles, until a conscious observer looks at them. Both Einstein and Bohr agree on this.

Albert Einstein spent years of his life trying to think up complicated experiments to prove that the universe exists, even when man is not looking at it. Einstein died in 1955 but the whole scientific community has taken up the cause this huge debate. As Einstein's experiments are eventually being brought to fulfillment over the decades since his passing, they all point toward Neils Bohr's 'There is no universe without conscious man to observe it', being the correct answer. Neils Bohr's correct answer, is a Creationist answer, which flies in the face of Atheist scientists"Realism' portrayal of Creation. 'Realism' is the term for scientists who reject Quantum Mechanic scientific proofs, and instead simply take up the unproven philosophy that the universe exists even when man is not looking at it.

This recent scientific proof, along with other scientifically proofs over the decades, prove Neils Bohr right and Albert Einstein wrong. The proof of multiple realities is yet another nail in "Realism's" coffin. This recent proof, is yet another win for Creationists, in the biggest scientific argument of the twentieth century.

"A quantum experiment suggests
there’s no such thing as objective reality"​

 

[StevenMerten]

Creationism = Quantum Mechanics = Neils Bohr VS. Albert Einstein = Realism = Atheism
​

This is my CF thread over in the Creationist Forum, if anyone is interested in watching some videos on the greatest scientific debate of all time, between Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein. Neils Bohr is the scientist who discovered the electron rings on the atom. Neils Bohr is considered to be, "The Father of Quantum Mechanics". Quantum Mechanics is the study of the actions of subatomic particles. Neils Bohr had to 'save Quantum Theory', from Albert Einstein who was drastically out to discredit it. Einstein and Bohr were good friends and colleges. Still this huge argument over whether or not the universe exists, when man is not looking at it, raged on, throughout their lives.

The universe not existing without Adam-kind, conscious observers, in it, is a very Creationist position.​

 

[Tutorman]

I don't pretend to understand the science behind this. But I've been reading comic books my entire life so the idea of a multiverse isn't a new thing for me. It's surprising how fresh an idea it is for some people though, even in a fictional story.

So I'm not prepared to support or oppose the idea of a multiverse.

Anyway. From a theological standpoint, I think it could make sense. If God wants to maximize probabilities and literally watch them unfold in real time, a multiverse is definitely on the table. Partly, I can accept the idea of a multiverse because God is a creative God. I think this could line up with His revealed character. But mostly, I want to believe that a better world than this one could exist.

I always thought there was another universe where my scooter/wheelchair is blue instead of red, blue being my favorite color, and that in that universe the other me scooter/wheelchair is red instead of blue. Now if there was someway to gt to that other universe and trade wheelchairs . With my luck if I tried to go to the other universe I would probably end up in the mirror universe with Captain Kirk

 

[StevenMerten]

Hello thecolorsblend and tuturman,

I do not believe that multiple realities means multiple universes. Not to many scientist put much belief in the 'Many worlds' theory, anymore. Simply because subatomic particles exist in a nonphysical, wave of all possibilities, when man is not looking at them, does not automatically prove all, many, or even two, different universes exist.

Subatomic particles existing in a non-physical state of all possibilities, when man is not looking at them, then materializing into only one physical location and form, when man does look at them, is simply the miraculous Power of God, and His ability to put observers into any reality of His All Powerful, choosing.