John_Mann: I made that argument on page 1 and Willmarite has not addressed it yet.
Interesting video on quantum mechanics
by willmarite 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
John_Mann
Bohm, yeah this is the first thing I ask to anyone who makes a big mystical deal with QM.
Same thing happened with electromagnetism in the 19 century, even the WT used the "Biola Radio" scam.
-
willmarite
With all respect you didn't debunk anything. Some physicists believe consciousness has something to do with collapsing the wave function. A majority presently believe as you say that it could be a measurement device that does so. At this point nothing has been proven with absolute certainty.
As Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum theory . . . you don't understand quantum theory."
Why be so insistent that you are right that you can't even comprehend why someone wouldn't have made up their mind yet?
I certainly do not claim to be any expert on quantum theory. Are you an expert?
-
John_Mann
(Some physicists believe consciousness has something to do with collapsing the wave function)
So there's no oniscient or\and omnipresent gods.
-
John_Mann
One very interesting thing about QM is the new approach about the quantum entanglement being possible through wormholes. If this is true it's a great step towards the so wanted unification.
That's a really interesting thing about QM.
-
John_Mann
(As Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum theory . . . you don't understand quantum theory.")
Why people cannot understand poetic and\or ironic statements ?
-
bohm
Will:
With all respect you didn't debunk anything. Some physicists believe consciousness has something to do with collapsing the wave function. A majority presently believe as you say that it could be a measurement device that does so. At this point nothing has been proven with absolute certainty.
Well, the problem is you have just accepted the argument in the video is flawed. If there are two views that are equivalent experimentally, an argument that rest on the premise only ONE of those views can be true and THEREFORE god exist is flawed right there. To recap:
- Interpretation A or B of quantum mechanics might be correct.
- By construction, we cannot tell A from B experimentally. The vast majority of scientists support interpretation A because it is the simpler.
- If interpretation B is correct, this support an argument for God*.
- Therefore God exist and materialism is false.
Will: As Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum theory . . . you don't understand quantum theory."
...yet you posted the video which claimed an understanding of quantum theory firm enough to deduce God exist...
If we assume (falsely) everything in quantum theory is so mysterious we cannot say anything, why use it to prop op an argument for God? I dont claim to understand quantum theory to the point where i can use it to "proove" deep methaphysical claims (materialism is false) which the person in the video are. I am not the person who claim i understand QM enough to use it to proove a super-intelligence who watch everything exist, the person in the video are.
Please dont play the "be humble" card when you are promoting an idea which is everything but.
I certainly do not claim to be any expert on quantum theory. Are you an expert?
No I am not, but I have had university-level education in quantum optics, quantum field theory, quantum theory of solids, quantum theory of magnetism, superconductivity and written simulations of quantum fluids. Right now I am studying quantum loop gravity as a hobby. As part of this I had the oppertunity to read most of the concrete experimental results (or at least older versions of the same experiments) used in the video and it is fairly painfull to see them being misused and misconstructed to support such a poor argument.
That does not make me an expert, but I am not the person who make (or support) claims that goes against what the majority of experts say.
I take it you have an understanding of quantum theory that allows you to say most experts in quantum theory has gotten the interpretation question wrong?
-
prologos
bohm, thank you, but I am still not understanding.
the photon detector per se must effect the behaviour of the passing photon, so how can the obnservation, the recognition ot that already passed action by a cognicant beiing count more than the process of intercepting the photon? and it's entangled alter ego?
-
bohm
Prologos: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but I think we agree -- for the photon detector to detect anything, it must interact with the photon; if it interact with the photon, why not simply say it is this interaction that cause the collapse?
Thats the route most scientists are taking and which the video ignore, because if it's the action of the detector that cause the collapse, there is no need for a supermind to prevent the entire universe from decohering.
-
KateWild
The video in the OP is unadulterated woo.-cofty
I am not winding you up this time...if you see this cofty, what exactly is woo in this YT. I agree they are being dogmatic by saying "this is the case so therefore God must exist" But what do you mean by woo?
You have said I don't say woo, woo things in your view. Is that still the case?
Kate xx