How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[Kylie]

You chose two extremes from things which are the closest you can get to objective ( distance) to subjective ( love / hate) . But Quantum effects live in the gap between them. The nature of an objective reality is certainly blurred.

On your main point the mind , consciousness and emotions are strange beasts. Neuroplasticity implies the mind controls the brain not the other way round.

I was noting that objectivity is not quite as cut and dried even in defining as objective those things which your example measure the same.

Even distance isn’t quite objective. It used to be that time and distance were defined , so speed of light was calculated. There was a small but significant variation in speed of light measurements. Now time and speed of light are fixed. Distance floats a little! Why? Who knows?

It’s a fascinating world.

My understanding is that the quantum effects are still predictable. And they are still the same for all observers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My understanding is that the quantum effects are still predictable. And they are still the same for all observers.

With the Dirac or Schrödinger equation (or a field theory) quantum effects can definitely be computed. They are probabilistic in nature. For individual particles or interactions the specific outcome can not be determined, but they can on the average of an ensemble or series of measurements.

 

[Kylie]

With the Dirac or Schrödinger equation (or a field theory) quantum effects can definitely be computed. They are probabilistic in nature. For individual particles or interactions the specific outcome can not be determined, but they can on the average of an ensemble or series of measurements.

If we have, say, three atoms lined up, and we know that in the next minute, quantum mechanics tells us one of them will decay, if I see Atom A decay, won't you also see that Atom A decayed?

 

[Hans Blaster]

If we have, say, three atoms lined up, and we know that in the next minute, quantum mechanics tells us one of them will decay, if I see Atom A decay, won't you also see that Atom A decayed?

It really depends on what you mean by "see". If you mean that the emitted photon strikes your retina, then, no I won't. But, if you mean that it hits a photomultiplier tube and then counts the photon, I can see the counter. (Testing the excited state would require destroying it, so I can't run a separate experiment on the same atoms. I could however repeat your experiment and get the same result.)

 

[Kylie]

It really depends on what you mean by "see". If you mean that the emitted photon strikes your retina, then, no I won't. But, if you mean that it hits a photomultiplier tube and then counts the photon, I can see the counter. (Testing the excited state would require destroying it, so I can't run a separate experiment on the same atoms. I could however repeat your experiment and get the same result.)

I thought it was quite clear that I didn't mean "see" as in actually seeing the atom, but simply detecting which of the three atoms had decayed. I get believers who use such water-muddying techniques in discussions, I don't need it from anyone else.

 

[stevevw]

No, even if there was nothing before, then the creation of the apple would increase the amount of energy. Remember, Einstein's e=mc^2 tells us that energy and mass are interchangeable. As long as something is created without using pre-existing materials, then there must be an increase in the total energy of the universe.

Actually if there was nothing it would have created the energy in the first place not increase the total energy as there was no energy to increase. The point is I think explaining how that energy got there in the first place if there was no energy to begin with.

As the law of conservation says energy cannot be created or destroyed. So if an apple was created from nothing into our current universe then it would create new additional energy which would break the law of conservation.

It would actually be evidence of something happening beyond the scientific laws and our universe. This would bring into question scientific assumptions about reality. It could have been transported from another dimension or universe maybe but then that's pretty weird anyway.

 

[Kylie]

Actually as the law of conservation says energy cannot be created or destroyed. So if an apple was created from nothing into our universe then it would create new additional energy which would break the law of conservation.

Which is exactly what I said, isn't it?

I said, "the creation of the apple would increase the amount of energy."

It would actually be evidence of something happening beyond the scientific laws and our universe. This would bring into question scientific assumptions about reality. It could have been transported from another dimension or universe maybe but then that's pretty weird anyway.

Exactly my point. Thanks for explaining what I already said.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I thought it was quite clear that I didn't mean "see" as in actually seeing the atom, but simply detecting which of the three atoms had decayed. I get believers who use such water-muddying techniques in discussions, I don't need it from anyone else.

Sorry the nature of atomic physics complicated things for you. Your thought experiment would work with three nuclei that could decay. Decayed or undecayed can be measured non-destructively. (I.e., is it C-14 or N-14?)

 

[Mountainmike]

My understanding is that the quantum effects are still predictable. And they are still the same for all observers.

Anyone who says they understand quantum physics is not being truthful. And that is pretty much ALL the qyantum physicists agree on, including statement by some peoples hero Feynmann!

For sure there are equations that work - and the statistics are predictable which is how we use the quantum effects. But trying to rationalise them into a nature of existence is so far impossible, and 100 years on from Copenhagen and Bohr there is still no consensus on what it means. Some have called it the most embarassing thing in physics.

Two essentiial problems.

First because of the apparent role an observer has in defining the existence. It is not they dont know where it is till observed ( lack of knowledge) , but the action of observing is what actually crystallizes the existence, it is not defined till then: so called bell experiments confirm that.

That makes reality subjective. It is not defined WITHOUT an observer.

The action of multiple observers confuses it even more.

There is also the problem of non locality. So called spooky action at a distance so observation at one place crystallizes existence at a remote location.

If you want to read an easy book on this to highlight the problem read "through two doors at once" which also looks at all the (mostly failed hypotheses) to explain it like "pilot waves"

I am sure @hans_blaster will have his take on this. I am equally sure he will preface it with "i think or believe" not "it is". Because as I said none really understand it.

for geeks - they should study the “ wigners friend “ thought experiment verified by Buckner in a lab in a 6 photon experiment which appears to confirm two different observers can observe a different reality, aka subjectivity.

What do you make of it Hans?

 

[Astrid]

Actually if there was nothing it would have created the energy in the first place not increase the total energy as there was no energy to increase. The point is I think explaining how that energy got there in the first place if there was no energy to begin with.

As the law of conservation says energy cannot be created or destroyed. So if an apple was created from nothing into our current universe then it would create new additional energy which would break the law of conservation.

It would actually be evidence of something happening beyond the scientific laws and our universe. This would bring into question scientific assumptions about reality. It could have been transported from another dimension or universe maybe but then that's pretty weird anyway.

What is this "it" you keep referring to.

 

[Mountainmike]

I thought it was quite clear that I didn't mean "see" as in actually seeing the atom, but simply detecting which of the three atoms had decayed. I get believers who use such water-muddying techniques in discussions, I don't need it from anyone else.

I don’t know if you missed my reference.

But study the “ Wigner’s friend “ thought experiment which appears to be validated in a lab by Buckner, that two different observers can observe a different “ reality”

what do you make of it Hans?

Most uses of quantum effects rely on bulk statistics of ( such as) quantum tunnelling. Shut up and calculate works. But when you study behaviour of individual electrons in such as two slit the very nature of existence and subjectivity is called into question. Nobody can rationalise it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What is this "it" you keep referring to.

Apparently the "nothing" that creates the universe.

 

[Astrid]

Apparently the "nothing" that creates the universe.

Ah so desu ka.
Deep.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah so desu ka.
Deep.

Do you believe Ka did?

If not, okay if I don't either?

Or am I obligated to give Ka equal airtime?

 

[Kylie]

I don’t know if you missed my reference.

But study the “ Wigner’s friend “ thought experiment which appears to be validated in a lab by Buckner, that two different observers can observe a different “ reality”

what do you make of it Hans?

Most uses of quantum effects rely on bulk statistics of ( such as) quantum tunnelling. Shut up and calculate works. But when you study behaviour of individual electrons in such as two slit the very nature of existence and subjectivity is called into question. Nobody can rationalise it.

Wait...

Are you calling me Hans?

 

[Mountainmike]

Wait...

Are you calling me Hans?

No I was asking you , but also @Hans Blaster as well…
He was expressing a view on these things too.

 

[Kylie]

Anyone who says they understand quantum physics is not being truthful. And that is pretty much ALL the qyantum physicists agree on, including statement by some peoples hero Feynmann!

I never said I understood it. I said that what I understand of quantum mechanics (which I admit is very little) is that it is still quite predictable, even if we understand the WHAT and not much of the WHY.

For sure there are equations that work - and the statistics are predictable which is how we use the quantum effects. But trying to rationalise them into a nature of existence is so far impossible, and 100 years on from Copenhagen and Bohr there is still no consensus on what it means. Some have called it the most embarassing thing in physics.

Two essentiial problems.

First because of the apparent role an observer has in defining the existence. It is not they dont know where it is till observed ( lack of knowledge) , but the action of observing is what actually crystallizes the existence, it is not defined till then: so called bell experiments confirm that.

That makes reality subjective. It is not defined WITHOUT an observer.

Only on microscopic scales. Or are you suggesting that the moon didn't exist until there was someone to observe it?

for geeks - they should study the “ wigners friend “ thought experiment verified by Buckner in a lab in a 6 photon experiment which appears to confirm two different observers can observe a different reality, aka subjectivity.

But does this experiment mean that it's possible for one person to think that I am a Human Being, and another person to see me as a 10 meter cube of solid tungsten?

I don’t know if you missed my reference.

But study the “ Wigner’s friend “ thought experiment which appears to be validated in a lab by Buckner, that two different observers can observe a different “ reality”

what do you make of it Hans?

Most uses of quantum effects rely on bulk statistics of ( such as) quantum tunnelling. Shut up and calculate works. But when you study behaviour of individual electrons in such as two slit the very nature of existence and subjectivity is called into question. Nobody can rationalise it.

I'm not familiar with that, can you provide more detail about how it applies to this discussion?

 

[Mountainmike]

I never said I understood it. I said that what I understand of quantum mechanics (which I admit is very little) is that it is still quite predictable, even if we understand the WHAT and not much of the WHY.



Only on microscopic scales. Or are you suggesting that the moon didn't exist until there was someone to observe it?



But does this experiment mean that it's possible for one person to think that I am a Human Being, and another person to see me as a 10 meter cube of solid tungsten?



I'm not familiar with that, can you provide more detail about how it applies to this discussion?

On the first point I indicated that nobody claims to rationalise QM - I was also pointing at me- so there are many different views.

Because the “ what “ is only defined in bulk statistics. I can say with reasonable certainty the outcome with many electrons.

The problem comes with tracing the history of just one, and in classical objective physics the results don’t make sense. Nobody can say what or how. Experiments have confirmed that not only is the state unknown it is actually undefined. The state does not exist till observed. Observation is what crystallises the state.

All this is complicated so I can only give a broad brush:

In double slit , two possible path experiments that recombine at the end , observation of one of the paths results in a different outcome after recombining pathd from that which would be observed after recombination if the observation had not been made. It’s crazy but it’s true.

Wigners friend is more complicated. It is the paradox of an observer observed, if our only knowledge is observation of the observer who communicates the state not the underlying state itself, . And what is the state between the observation and the observation of the observer to determine what the observer saw?

Does the observation of the observer yield a second crystallisation which can be in a different state to the first or can it only echo the first?

To cut a long story short, ( and this is an approximation to make it sound easy) an experiment conducted with six photons concluded the “observer of an observer” can come to a different conclusion of the state to the “ observer” , So in that in that sense reality is subjective Observers influence outcome which can differs between observers. Since a bomb destroying the world can be triggered from an observation of one particle, the idea that this is only a problem for small things does not work!

if you want to go further try either “ quantum reality” bagot , or “ through two doors at once” to explain the experiments that don’t make sense.

As for what I believe? I have said it many times.

All this wonderful maths is a game that produces useful models of a fundamentally unknowable universe ( I’m in good company with unknowable , many quantum physicists think the same, so do many philosophers)

Gravity is a useful example to illustrate the philosophical status of the model: It’s just a name we give to a pattern that mostly works. It doesn’t underpin the universe, or explain it, it’s just an observation of it. No one can explain what it is, only what normally happens.

I’m with Einstein and Bohm thinking the model of QM is incomplete. So there needs to be a better model but it has so far defied all the best minds, the results don’t make sense, so modelling is a problem.


So For me , the moon does exist , whether I look at it or not. If the maths of the model differs or looks screwy at times , or the underlying phenomena seem to make that questionable , who cares? , it’s because it’s only a model and observations not the universe itself.


I think Next century model will be unrecognisable from this.

Not least because I think consciousness is not a process of the brain.
The mind controls the brain, and consciousness does interact with the universe and other consciousness in a non local manner , so the observer does influence the observed. The consciousness is not visible either and non local ( in physics sense)

I know I will be ridiculed for my thoughts.

I take heart that “young “ who proposed the wave model of light was utterly ridiculed in his time by senior physicists of the day and followers of newton who believed it was a particle and said of young:

“contains nothing which deserves the name, either of experiment or discovery, and… is destitute of merit…. We wish to raise our voice against innovations, that can have no other effect than to check the progress of science, and renew all those phantoms of the imagination that Newton put to flight”


Pretty much what they say about people who think consciousness can be out of body. Sabom. Van lommel. Bellg. The list is long. But you will be surprised how many now believe it as a matter of medical experience, not faith. If you want to read up on that, try pim van lommel.

And with the acceptance consciousness is separate from body - the entire basis of life as a product of chemistry , and dawkinsian and Darwinian beliefs die the same day. That’s why materialists will fight tooth and claw to prevent that conclusion. They can no longer explain life. Awkward for atheists,

well you did ask…. So I answered.
The moon exists. Or something exists we perceive as the moon.
There is a soul and a body, but the consciousness needs the body to interact, but not to observe. You are being watched!
The science is squiffy.
The universe is unknowable.

 

[stevevw]

What is this "it" you keep referring to.

This is whatever created the energy (universe) in the first place. I call this 'it' because we don't know what the cause of the universe was. It could have been God, it could have been a Multiverse, It could have been some unknown cause that we have not discovered yet.

 

[stevevw]

Which is exactly what I said, isn't it?

I said, "the creation of the apple would increase the amount of energy."



Exactly my point. Thanks for explaining what I already said.

That's OK lol. But the point being that if our universe was created from no previously existing energy then all the energy is created ex nihilo. Where did that come from.