Quantum Mechanics and the Incompetence of Atheism.

[Holy Roller]

Good questions. HR, you have readers awaiting answers to these questions.

I have answered these replies on numerous occasions. My responses were of quality sufficient enough to guarantee any possibilities of misunderstanding. If they want to find what I said with regard to what's on their minds, I'd recommend they just go back in time and read the stuff that had already been typed.

If they said, "How does uncertainty prove the existence of G-d?" I can only answer like I've answered umpteen times before: this thread does not serve the purpose of proving G-d's existence. It serves only to highlite a fundamental problem related to what I call the Fundamental Principle of Atheism. The Principle states that G-d does not exist, because no evidence is available to support an idea that He exists. I contend that if Atheists reject G-d based on lack-of-evidence, tehn Atheists must, by default, reject any and all concepts that inherently have uncertainty-of-existence at their core.
Quantum mechanics has uncertainty at it's core, therefore the Atheist must reject quantum theory. He doesn't have to reject predictable results that stem from equations modelled in QM; he just has to reject the premise that quanta behaves in a statistical, unknowable manner, that's all.
What does this mean? It means that the Atheist can accept something like light coming out of a flashlight with good batteries, but he cannot accept the quantum explination of blackbody radiation, because blackbody radiation is uncertain.

Who? I though HR was a trader...not a scientist.

I am a poet and a lover. You both are wrong.

 

[Braunwyn]

I have answered these replies on numerous occasions. My responses were of quality sufficient enough to guarantee any possibilities of misunderstanding. If they want to find what I said with regard to what's on their minds, I'd recommend they just go back in time and read the stuff that had already been typed.

I've read the thread. You didn't answer these questions with any clarity. Sorry, that's just how it reads from where I sit.

If they said, "How does uncertainty prove the existence of G-d?" I can only answer like I've answered umpteen times before: this thread does not serve the purpose of proving G-d's existence. It serves only to highlite a fundamental problem related to what I call the Fundamental Principle of Atheism. The Principle states that G-d does not exist, because no evidence is available to support an idea that He exists. I contend that if Atheists reject G-d based on lack-of-evidence, tehn Atheists must, by default, reject any and all concepts that inherently have uncertainty-of-existence at their core.

Maybe it's that I'm unfamilair with QM experiments beyond undergrad labs but your reasoning holds, as I am understand it, that uncertainty about anything renders all uncetainty about anything as having equal credence. I cannot grasp how this makes sense to you. And how would an atheist go about rejecting the uncertainty found in QM? I'm trying to figure out what that would look like and how it would play out.

Quantum mechanics has uncertainty at it's core, therefore the Atheist must reject quantum theory. He doesn't have to reject predictable results that stem from equations modelled in QM; he just has to reject the premise that quanta behaves in a statistical, unknowable manner, that's all.

I don't get why uncertainty about something warrants rejection. Again, I probably don't have the background to understand its applications.

What does this mean? It means that the Atheist can accept something like light coming out of a flashlight with good batteries, but he cannot accept the quantum explination of blackbody radiation, because blackbody radiation is uncertain.

Perhaps a time will come when everyone will reject the quantum explanation of blackbody radiation if a better explanation surfaces. Who knows. As an atheist, who knows nothing of physics, I can say that the uncertainty in QM plays little role in my lack of belief and disinterest of assimilation to your worldview.

I am a poet and a lover. You both are wrong.

You are the one that put active trader in your profile. You sell stocks or some such thing according to you. Perhaps you need to edit if you were in error?

 

[Holy Roller]

Maybe it's that I'm unfamilair with QM experiments beyond undergrad labs but your reasoning holds, as I am understand it, that uncertainty about anything renders all uncetainty about anything as having equal credence. I cannot grasp how this makes sense to you.

Trust me. What I have just read here makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever...

I don't get why uncertainty about something warrants rejection. Again, I probably don't have the background to understand its applications.

I don't get it either, but just because the existence of G-d is uncertain, Atheists reject Him.

Perhaps a time will come when everyone will reject the quantum explanation of blackbody radiation if a better explanation surfaces. Who knows. As an atheist, who knows nothing of physics, I can say that the uncertainty in QM plays little role in my lack of belief and disinterest of assimilation to your worldview.

Wha...
Wh.
ha.. I... What the he...
(Holy Roller's mouth is agape as he stares at the screen...)

 

[Cabal]

The Principle states that G-d does not exist, because no evidence is available to support an idea that He exists. I contend that if Atheists reject G-d based on lack-of-evidence, tehn Atheists must, by default, reject any and all concepts that inherently have uncertainty-of-existence at their core.

Uncertainty of existence? What exactly doesn't exist in QM? A single photon being diffracted still exists. It still has position and momentum.

Quantum mechanics has uncertainty at it's core, therefore the Atheist must reject quantum theory. He doesn't have to reject predictable results that stem from equations modelled in QM; he just has to reject the premise that quanta behaves in a statistical, unknowable manner, that's all.

A statistical, unknowable matter that actually makes a lot of things in physics make sense, whose nature and whose effects are reproducible every single time.

Now, compare this to God. Effects definitely not reproducible every time.

I don't know of any atheist who uses QM to justify what they believe, and I am certain atheists well grounded in physics would know that uncertainty is inherent and is the fundamental mystery of quantum mechanics. I propose you have simply mischaracterised atheism. (Assuming, of course, that atheism is a "religion" and can be this narrowly defined) Atheism accepts that which has evidence, and that which produces evidenced effects. I propose that, empirically speaking, QM has a much better track record of producing reproducible evidence when compared to "testing" God.

 

[Braunwyn]

Trust me. What I have just read here makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

I don't get it either, but just because the existence of G-d is uncertain, Atheists reject Him.

So, you're saying that I should believe in Zeus, Krishna, Jesus, unicorns, faries, astrology, the power of crystals et al because the existence of such things are uncertain? Again, that makes no sense. On top of that you have your own version of your deity of choice (I'm sure) and somehow I'm supposed to be able to read your mind and then adopt your beliefs? lol eta: or employ effort in order to reject them? lol

I've been honest with you when stating that I really don't care one way or the other about your (or anyone's) deity of choice to take the time for serious consideration. Most atheists I know IRL have the same attitude. You see that as rejection. You have an image in your mind that I can't see, touch, or know and yet my lack of interest equates rejection to you?

Wha...
Wh.
ha.. I... What the he...
(Holy Roller's mouth is agape as he stares at the screen...)

What's so difficult to understand? I don't know enough about QM to hold a position or form an opinion. I can and probably will go my whole life without a comprehensive understanding of QM and that won't play a role for me in any way. I do know that you are an internet "atheist hunter" lol hence you're on the hunt because your worldview is not supported and for whatever reason that holds value for you.

 

[Belk]

I have answered these replies on numerous occasions. My responses were of quality sufficient enough to guarantee any possibilities of misunderstanding. If they want to find what I said with regard to what's on their minds, I'd recommend they just go back in time and read the stuff that had already been typed.

If they said, "How does uncertainty prove the existence of G-d?" I can only answer like I've answered umpteen times before: this thread does not serve the purpose of proving G-d's existence. It serves only to highlite a fundamental problem related to what I call the Fundamental Principle of Atheism. The Principle states that G-d does not exist, because no evidence is available to support an idea that He exists. I contend that if Atheists reject G-d based on lack-of-evidence, tehn Atheists must, by default, reject any and all concepts that inherently have uncertainty-of-existence at their core.
Quantum mechanics has uncertainty at it's core, therefore the Atheist must reject quantum theory. He doesn't have to reject predictable results that stem from equations modelled in QM; he just has to reject the premise that quanta behaves in a statistical, unknowable manner, that's all.
What does this mean? It means that the Atheist can accept something like light coming out of a flashlight with good batteries, but he cannot accept the quantum explination of blackbody radiation, because blackbody radiation is uncertain.



I am a poet and a lover. You both are wrong.

Oh, is that all? Hey no problem. I don't believe in elves, unicorns, or teapots orbiting Saturn either.

As far as black body radiation (two words BTW), since I am not a quantum physicist I have no opinion on the matter.

 

[Washington]

My responses were of quality sufficient enough to guarantee any possibilities of misunderstanding.

So, you're simply playing games with people here, making sure they misunderstand you. "Nice" guy. But then why should we be surprised.

 

[Naraoia]

I understand that very well. From my brief physics background, we know that an electron will be in their respective orbital 90% of the time. The rest of the time its uncertain.

Isn't it uncertain all the time? Sorry if I sound stupid, I don't have a physics background at all. At least I don't count high school Newtonian mechanics much of a physics background in this context.

Now, i'm still trying to wrap my head araound exactly how it is that this proves the existance of god? Is there a 10% chance that god exists because we dont know (for now) where that electron is? God takes that electron 10% of the time? whats the arguement here?

I'm not sure what HR's argument is, to be honest.

I hope you dont think i'm picking on you Naraoia,

I don't

i'm directing the question at you because Holly Rollers logic is a tad too infantile for me. I'm still wondering how an alleged physist believes in magic.

Ehh... perhaps said physicist feels uncomfortable in a non-deterministic universe? But then why doesn't he try to find a deterministic model; he wouldn't be the only one. G-d only knows, I guess

 

[Braunwyn]

Isn't it uncertain all the time? Sorry if I sound stupid

http://www.chem.uic.edu/web1/OCOL3/STRUCT/F11.HTM


Props to you all for addressing HR. I always find QM/charged drivel conversations difficult.

 

[Naraoia]

If they said, "How does uncertainty prove the existence of G-d?" I can only answer like I've answered umpteen times before: this thread does not serve the purpose of proving G-d's existence. It serves only to highlite a fundamental problem related to what I call the Fundamental Principle of Atheism. The Principle states that G-d does not exist, because no evidence is available to support an idea that He exists. I contend that if Atheists reject G-d based on lack-of-evidence, tehn Atheists must, by default, reject any and all concepts that inherently have uncertainty-of-existence at their core.

Quantum mechanics has uncertainty at it's core, therefore the Atheist must reject quantum theory. He doesn't have to reject predictable results that stem from equations modelled in QM; he just has to reject the premise that quanta behaves in a statistical, unknowable manner, that's all.
What does this mean? It means that the Atheist can accept something like light coming out of a flashlight with good batteries, but he cannot accept the quantum explination of blackbody radiation, because blackbody radiation is uncertain.

Now that's a bit clearer. At least I think it clears things up for me.

I still think your reasoning is flawed, though. With God, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever (that I know of) that such an entity exists. Yes, that's why I remain an atheist (weak/agnostic atheist to be precise).

With QM, though, isn't there evidence that photons/electrons etc. behave in a probabilistic manner? What we should reject in this case (by the reasoning about God) is that individual photons reach detectors in predictable locations. There's no evidence for that and tons to the contrary.

We can't reject uncertainty on the same principles because uncertainty is, however uncomfortable it may be, a scientific fact as of now.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Naraoia]

http://www.chem.uic.edu/web1/OCOL3/STRUCT/F11.HTM

Thanks for the link but I know the basics about orbitals (I didn't have QM education but this came up in chemistry)

Now I think Paconious and I were just talking past each other. If he just meant that 90% of the time the electron is within a finite region then I have no problem with that.

 

[Braunwyn]

Thanks for the link but I know the basics about orbitals (I didn't have QM education but this came up in chemistry)

Now I think Paconious and I were just talking past each other. If he just meant that 90% of the time the electron is within a finite region then I have no problem with that.

That's just how I read it and I didn't read his statement in context, only quoted in your response so I probably missed something. Now I'm curious IRT to what you were thinking about so I'm going to read back a few posts to catch up.

eta: after reading a bit more I'm in no better a place so sorry for piping in. I also cannot understand how, in HR's mind, uncertainty in QM renders atheism as incompentant and what reasonable conclusions can be arrived at with his thinking.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I have answered these replies on numerous occasions. My responses were of quality sufficient enough to guarantee any possibilities of misunderstanding. If they want to find what I said with regard to what's on their minds, I'd recommend they just go back in time and read the stuff that had already been typed.

If they said, "How does uncertainty prove the existence of G-d?" I can only answer like I've answered umpteen times before: this thread does not serve the purpose of proving G-d's existence. It serves only to highlite a fundamental problem related to what I call the Fundamental Principle of Atheism. The Principle states that G-d does not exist, because no evidence is available to support an idea that He exists. I contend that if Atheists reject G-d based on lack-of-evidence, tehn Atheists must, by default, reject any and all concepts that inherently have uncertainty-of-existence at their core.
Quantum mechanics has uncertainty at it's core, therefore the Atheist must reject quantum theory. He doesn't have to reject predictable results that stem from equations modelled in QM; he just has to reject the premise that quanta behaves in a statistical, unknowable manner, that's all.
What does this mean? It means that the Atheist can accept something like light coming out of a flashlight with good batteries, but he cannot accept the quantum explination of blackbody radiation, because blackbody radiation is uncertain.



I am a poet and a lover. You both are wrong.

OK, lemme get this straight: because in quantum mechanics one cannot simultaneously know with full accuracy both the exact position and exact momentum of a particle, but in fact can only know the lower bound of the product of changes in both which is equal to h/4*pi that there is an ineffible "somethingness" in the universe.

The atheist uses statistical hypothesis testing to fail to reject the null by merit of the lack of sufficient data to ensure them that rejecting the null hypothesis would not result in a Type I error.

So because of the second point, the atheist is not allowed to believe in the Uncertainty Principle?

Oh, I get it. You appear to be conflating two concepts. Let me go over this for you.

Why I am an Atheist:

I am an atheist because I am presented with a universe that has two competing hypotheses:

H[sub]o[/sub]: The NULL Hypothesis usually phrased in science as "no effect", or "no relationship" etc. In this case it is "There is no God"

The null is usually formulated to test against.

The ALTERNATIVE hypothesis is thus:

H[sub]a[/sub]: There is a God

The goal therefore is to test against the Null. That is all I can do. I am not testing to disprove God. I am presented with only a sampling of data from the entire universe. I am only one person, one man. One human. I cannot see all in the universe. BUT, when looking for the existence of God as I did for many years I simply failed to find sufficient proof of God.

ERGO, as a scientist I felt that I would be making a Type I error in "rejecting the null hypothesis"

Now, the "uncertainty" here is in the form of the fact that I cannot (nor can you nor can anyone) see all data in the entire universe at one time. We are limited beings. We are not gods. So, within the experimental uncertainty (the "alpha level" arbitrarily set) I don't see sufficient reason to believe that rejecting the null will not result in a Type I error.

What this means is I, as a statistically somewhat-savvy individual, can and do use probability. We all do. Everyone does. It is possibly the only thing that truly binds us all.

This is, as I understand it, somewhat fundamentally different from the kind of "uncertainty" Heisenberg was dealing with. There is certainly a stochastic feature to QM, but I don't see how the existence of a stochastic feature can render it off-limits to me. To my knowledge no scientists ever claims 100.00...0% accuracy in anything ever. To do so is to not do science. We realize the limitations and we work within those to limit the amount of error we are likely to make.

So maybe we could turn this around on you and say that perhaps you need to provide us atheists with more data. Obviously there is something compelling in that belief of yours that causes you to believe it and think we are mistaken. What is that "proof"?

 

[Chalnoth]

Sorry for being late, didn't notice this thread.

The fundament of quantum mechanics is uncertainty. That is, the more the apparatus measures position, the less the apparatus can be certain of momentum--hence, uncertainty.
This necessarily means that there will be factors related to physical reality that cannot be determined by the empirical observation. In fact, Heisenberg's uncertainty relation all but guarantees the lid on observing quantum phenomena be closed, and that no experimental apparatus deviseable by man can ever open it.

Nope. You've completely missed the point. The issue with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not that there are facts about reality that we cannot determine, but instead that those particular features that we are used to using to describe objects around us (e.g. position, momentum) do not apply to quantum mechanical particles. It is still entirely possible to fully-specify the state of a quantum-mechanical particle. We do this by specifying its wavefunction.

This places the Atheist ('A' capitalized out of respect for the Atheist religion) in a difficult bind; a bind he cannot get out of. It necessarily means he has to admit that there is at least one characteristic of physical reality (in this instance, quantum mechanics) that he can only explain away by means of faith--faith in the unobservable, ethereal mechanics of uncertainty. Faith that this uncertainty will bring about a certain, cause-and-effect outcome to phenomena in physical reality.

Hmmm. Where else do we see this Faith?...

Again, entirely wrong. While it is true that quantum mechanics does not predict the precise outcome of many experiments, what it does do is make very specific predictions as to the statistical output of experiments. So, if we take the two-slit experiment as an example, quantum mechanics does not say where on the screen a single photon will land, but if I send many photons through the pair of slits, it does make very explicit predictions as to what the overall picture will look like.

There is no faith going on here. It's entirely about experimental observations and the theories that we adopt to explain them.

 

[Holy Roller]

OK, lemme get this straight: because in quantum mechanics one cannot simultaneously know with full accuracy both the exact position and exact momentum of a particle, but in fact can only know the lower bound of the product of changes in both which is equal to h/4*pi that there is an ineffible "somethingness" in the universe.

The atheist uses statistical hypothesis testing to fail to reject the null by merit of the lack of sufficient data to ensure them that rejecting the null hypothesis would not result in a Type I error.

So because of the second point, the atheist is not allowed to believe in the Uncertainty Principle?

Oh, I get it. You appear to be conflating two concepts. Let me go over this for you.

Why I am an Atheist:

I am an atheist because I am presented with a universe that has two competing hypotheses:

H[sub]o[/sub]: The NULL Hypothesis usually phrased in science as "no effect", or "no relationship" etc. In this case it is "There is no God"

The null is usually formulated to test against.

The ALTERNATIVE hypothesis is thus:

H[sub]a[/sub]: There is a God

The goal therefore is to test against the Null. That is all I can do. I am not testing to disprove God. I am presented with only a sampling of data from the entire universe. I am only one person, one man. One human. I cannot see all in the universe. BUT, when looking for the existence of God as I did for many years I simply failed to find sufficient proof of God.

ERGO, as a scientist I felt that I would be making a Type I error in "rejecting the null hypothesis"

Now, the "uncertainty" here is in the form of the fact that I cannot (nor can you nor can anyone) see all data in the entire universe at one time. We are limited beings. We are not gods. So, within the experimental uncertainty (the "alpha level" arbitrarily set) I don't see sufficient reason to believe that rejecting the null will not result in a Type I error.

What this means is I, as a statistically somewhat-savvy individual, can and do use probability. We all do. Everyone does. It is possibly the only thing that truly binds us all.

This is, as I understand it, somewhat fundamentally different from the kind of "uncertainty" Heisenberg was dealing with. There is certainly a stochastic feature to QM, but I don't see how the existence of a stochastic feature can render it off-limits to me. To my knowledge no scientists ever claims 100.00...0% accuracy in anything ever. To do so is to not do science. We realize the limitations and we work within those to limit the amount of error we are likely to make.

So maybe we could turn this around on you and say that perhaps you need to provide us atheists with more data. Obviously there is something compelling in that belief of yours that causes you to believe it and think we are mistaken. What is that "proof"?

The good news is you're now understanding where I'm coming from, and the nature of this thread. The bad news is you want to place an even greater burden on the thread by having me go off-topic and discuss proofs of Creator G-d. Sorry, but we can't do it. The bible says we have to walk by faith and not by sight, which means, like matters of quantum phenomena, G-d is off-limits as far as the experiment is concerned.

Thanks for putting thru the psychic effort necessary to understand the nature and purpose of this thread.

 

[Holy Roller]

Sorry for being late, didn't notice this thread.

Nope. You've completely missed the point. The issue with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not that there are facts about reality that we cannot determine, but instead that those particular features that we are used to using to describe objects around us (e.g. position, momentum) do not apply to quantum mechanical particles. It is still entirely possible to fully-specify the state of a quantum-mechanical particle. We do this by specifying its wavefunction.


Again, entirely wrong. While it is true that quantum mechanics does not predict the precise outcome of many experiments, what it does do is make very specific predictions as to the statistical output of experiments. So, if we take the two-slit experiment as an example, quantum mechanics does not say where on the screen a single photon will land, but if I send many photons through the pair of slits, it does make very explicit predictions as to what the overall picture will look like.

There is no faith going on here. It's entirely about experimental observations and the theories that we adopt to explain them.

Lol, why do you say, "Again, entirely wrong" then type, "While it's true..."?

Anyway.
The single photon exiting the aperture or slit will land on an area that can't be predetermined. This is called uncertainty, and it's predicted by and governed by the uncertainty relation.

If we emit many photons on the screen, uncertainty gives way to certainty and the screen shows the interference pattern in a classical manner. Since we're emitting many photons, the experiment goes from quantum in nature to classical in nature.

We must only consider one photon instead of many photons, because the topic calls for quantum mechanics, not classical mechanics.

The Atheist must have faith that this photon will land on a predetermined area (we all must have faith in this regard), thus he has to reject QM as a valid branch of science, because faith separates him from both beliefs. Faith defines the Atheists beliefs: if it requires faith, it is not to be believed. If it doesn't require faith, it is to be believed.

It's non-evidence that makes the Atheist believe G-d doesn't exist.
Likewise, it's non-evidence (the 'non-evidence' of the photon reaching a pre-determined part on the screen) that makes the Atheist say QM is not a valid branch of science.

If the Atheist can accept the photon reaching the screen with no evidence of the path taken by the photon, then there is nothing stopping him from having the faith in G-d, even though there's no evidence of his direct existence.

Evidence=no G-d. Faith=G-d.
Evidence=no quantum effect. Faith=quantum effect.

Faith defines the Atheists beliefs: if it requires faith, it is not to be believed. If it doesn't require faith, it is to be believed.

If he has faith that G-d exists, he's no longer an Atheist.
Likewise, if he has faith that the photon will reach its predetermined destination on the screen from the slit, he can regard QM as a valid branch of science.

 

[Braunwyn]

Maybe I'm missing something here but I thought the gist of the uncertainty was that a predetermined destination couldn't be predicted (within/under/whater conditions). eta: how can that lead anyone to think it will land on a predetermined area?

 

[Braunwyn]

Lol, why do you say, "Again, entirely wrong" then type, "While it's true..."?

Anyway.
The single photon exiting the aperture or slit will land on an area that can't be predetermined. This is called uncertainty, and it's predicted by and governed by the uncertainty relation.

If we emit many photons on the screen, uncertainty gives way to certainty and the screen shows the interference pattern in a classical manner. Since we're emitting many photons, the experiment goes from quantum in nature to classical in nature.

We must only consider one photon instead of many photons, because the topic calls for quantum mechanics, not classical mechanics.

The Atheist must have faith that this photon will land on a predetermined area (we all must have faith in this regard), thus he has to reject QM as a valid branch of science, because faith separates him from both beliefs. Faith defines the Atheists beliefs: if it requires faith, it is not to be believed. If it doesn't require faith, it is to be believed.

It's non-evidence that makes the Atheist believe G-d doesn't exist.
Likewise, it's non-evidence (the 'non-evidence' of the photon reaching a pre-determined part on the screen) that makes the Atheist say QM is not a valid branch of science.

If the Atheist can accept the photon reaching the screen with no evidence of the path taken by the photon, then there is nothing stopping him from having the faith in G-d, even though there's no evidence of his direct existence.

Evidence=no G-d. Faith=G-d.
Evidence=no quantum effect. Faith=quantum effect.

Faith defines the Atheists beliefs: if it requires faith, it is not to be believed. If it doesn't require faith, it is to be believed.

If he has faith that G-d exists, he's no longer an Atheist.
Likewise, if he has faith that the photon will reach its predetermined destination on the screen from the slit, he can regard QM as a valid branch of science.

.

 

[Holy Roller]

Maybe I'm missing something here but I thought the gist of the uncertainty was that a predetermined destination couldn't be predicted (within/under/whater conditions). eta: how can that lead anyone to think it will land on a predetermined area?

You're not missing something; you're correct.

 

[Holy Roller]

Now that's a bit clearer. At least I think it clears things up for me.

I still think your reasoning is flawed, though. With God, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever (that I know of) that such an entity exists. Yes, that's why I remain an atheist (weak/agnostic atheist to be precise).

With QM, though, isn't there evidence that photons/electrons etc. behave in a probabilistic manner? What we should reject in this case (by the reasoning about God) is that individual photons reach detectors in predictable locations. There's no evidence for that and tons to the contrary.

We can't reject uncertainty on the same principles because uncertainty is, however uncomfortable it may be, a scientific fact as of now.

Or am I missing something?

I think you're in the right track, and understandably, you're troubled by that fact that no evidence is offered for G-d's existence. You will likely never get that evidence unless you have a Damascus Road Experience...