Scientific proof of god's existence

[gmilam]

My impression was that Copenhagen QM defitintiely requires
a wavefunction collapse, and situates in it the measuring device,
thus conferring a special status on the measuring device that
many experts find troubling.

Amazing how something that is basically a measurement problem can cause such confusion.

 

[NCDane]

Besides which, the world of quantum phenomena is the world of the very small. Large items do not behave in a quantum manner. So saying the moon will not exist if unobserved is inaccurate.

This is not completely true.

QM theory is considered by those who believe in it to apply
to everything. Even the universe as a whole is considered by
some specialists (e.g. Everett and Hawking) to possess a
quantum wave function.

In most interpretations of QM (but presumably not Everett's
"Many Worlds") QM effects on large objects are so tiny that
they may be neglected in calculation. Analagously, gravitation
exists at the atomic level and below, but may be treated as
absent because of its weakness there.

However, even if QM is rerstricted to the very small, what
of the state of the Singularity fractions of a second into the
Big Bang? The entire universe was at that time subatomic
in size, so I would think QM might be applied full force, undiminished.

 

[Skeptical]

NC

What you say is correct, but only if you want to be horribly pedantic about it. To all practical intents and purposes, quantum phenomena are not seen in macroscopic objects.

 

[NCDane]

Wigner was a very smart and interesting man. But he was also as much a philosopher as he was a physicist. His exploration of the possible metaphysical implications of physical theory combined with his belief in a mysterious and miraculous connection between mathematics, physics and the capacity of the human mind to make sense of it all eventually led him to start thinking of the universe itself as being some kind of all pervading consciousness. I'm not saying that he completely embraced this idea. In fact he seemed to remain a rational scientist right into his final years. In the end, by his own admission, he had simply made peace with the mystery of it all. I'd love to talk some more on this because last night I spent a few hours researching the man and his ideas and reflecting upon them. It was all quite compelling. But, well, another thread at another time. What we are trying to do here is establish whether or not Wigner's ideas could count as evidence of the existence of some kind of God.

If we were to define God as a universal consciousness that is inextricably linked with physical reality then we could argue that there was once a brilliant physicist who's efforts to make sense of the quantum world lead him to a similar conclusion.

Wigner originally considered the link between consciousness and
reality to be a matter of science only didn't he?

I am aware of the fact that he developed some peculiar philosophical
and/or theological views late in life, details of which I am afraid now
escape me.

I would prefer to go along with Murray Gell-Mann, who claims that
philosophy became such a value-subtracting force in his professional
life that it began to affect his health, spurring his family Doctor to
write a prescription forbidding philosphical discussion in his presence!

Wigner didn't use the word God of course, but it's all just semantics really. However, being that we already know that consciousness is a feature of reality, as evidence by the fact that you're sitting there reading this, it's not really anything new.

Not OK. It is a matter of considering proportion.

Consciousness as a feature of reality by virtue of the fact
I am reading this is a triviality. Consciousness as a feature
of everything that has ever happened, going back to the
Big Bang, itself, is proportionally enormous, colossal.

Consciousness is here, but isn't the question of God more about why it is here and how it all came to be?

Does the "it" in "why "it" and "how "it" refer to consciousness
or to God? Either way the necessity for an observer is not the
same as the details of the observer's behavior, or the results
its activity.

This brings me back to your original hypothetical argument that the existence of consciousness may be necessary for the existence of anything (which I agree essentially seems to be the same argument that Wigner was making) and that it may then make some kind of sense to suggest that the universe itself could not possibly exist unless consciousness existed first. But there is no doubt that more than one person out there who is reading this right will be worried about Wigner turning in his grave over this huge leap. We haven't just departed from physics, we've wandered a long way even from justifiable metaphysical speculation. You can't call any of this scientific evidence, no matter how intriguing it may be to think about.

I cannot provide better reference, but I read an article in the Scientific American
about 10 years ago of physical experiment which seemed to provide
evidence for the scientific fact of observer-based reality. Although I
concede this citation is inadequate I am going to hold out for insisting
that the issue should be treated as a scientific problem rather than a
philosophical one. What we are discussing has bedeviled, as a matter
of science, many of the greatest of our cutting-edge scientific geniuises
for about 85 years, and no end is in sight. Yet to give up on the challenge
as a matter of science is compelely unsuitable for me, and I hope likewise
for the specialists who continue to ponder the challenge.

I don't have a problem with getting stuck into the philosophical thick of things. In fact I love it. But we'd need to do it in a different forum.

See op cit re M. Gell-Mann.

 

[NCDane]

Amazing how something that is basically a measurement problem can cause such confusion.

It is one of the greatest problems in the history of science,
it has been so literally since the Day One of Quantum Mechanics,
and it remains 100% competely unsolved.

 

[NCDane]

NC

What you say is correct, but only if you want to be horribly pedantic about it. To all practical intents and purposes, quantum phenomena are not seen in macroscopic objects.

This objection does not address the matter of fact of the
subatomic dimensions of the Universe in the earliest moments
after the Big Bang, and it does not address the need to consider
the wave function of the monumentally larger modern Universe.

 

[gmilam]

It is one of the greatest problems in the history of science,
it has been so literally since the Day One of Quantum Mechanics,
and it remains 100% competely unsolved.

My understanding is that the unsolved problem is how something can show properties of both a particle and a wave. I don't know of anyone credible who buys into the "consciousness causes collapse" BS.

 

[Skeptical]

In the earliest moments of the Big Bang, things were far from macroscopic. The entire universe was smaller than a proton.

 

[NCDane]

In the earliest moments of the Big Bang, things were far from macroscopic. The entire universe was smaller than a proton.

Yes, hence Quantum Quantum mechanics should apply
"full force and undiminished" as I have contended.

If consiousness is a necessity then it was there then.

 

[Skeptical]

NC

We agree that quantum physics applies to the earliest moments of the universe. However, I doubt that too many physicists would take this as evidence of the existence of consciousness at that time.

 

[NCDane]

My understanding is that the unsolved problem is how something can show properties of both a particle and a wave.

My understanding is that the wave-particle issue is not the same
as the wave collapse issue, and that the former paradox has been
explained to the satisfaction of most authority by Bohr's principle of "Complimentarity".

I don't know of anyone credible who buys into the "consciousness causes collapse" BS.

I have informed you earlier that the great mathematical physicist
John von Neumann situated the collapse in the human mind.

Now, this occured in the 1930s, and I do not know how many
experts then or now agree with this view. However, the issue
is so unsettled that I doubt any credible authority can dare
claim to have refuted Von Neumann's interpretation of QM,
and all authority must take it seriously until some way rigorous
around it can be be established.

 

[NCDane]

NC

We agree that quantum physics applies to the earliest moments of the universe. However, I doubt that too many physicists would take this as evidence of the existence of consciousness at that time.

That is not what I have been saying.

Since the Big Bang cannot be observed, obviously we cannot look
to it for evidence.

 

[gmilam]

John von Neumann situated the collapse in the human mind.

And others claim the measuring device itself can create the collapse. No consciousness required.

I suppose next you're going to start quoting Dr Quantum and "What the bleep do we know" to us. :bugeye:

 

[NCDane]

And others claim the measuring device itself can create the collapse. No consciousness required.

All measuring devices are created by conscious beings,
all the way from mental inception, through manufacture
of the components, to assembly of the components, to
the end product, to calibration of the end product, say
a microscope: No consciousness, no measuring device.

N'est-ce pas?

I suppose next you're going to start quoting Dr Quantum and "What the bleep do we know" to us. :bugeye:

This is a ridiclous and substandard remark, which identifies you
as a ridiculous and substandard contributor to the discussion.

In the name of God go!- go back to whatever junior high school
classroom you were most recently promoted into, and stay in
that jhs classroom until you are intellectually fit to comment
on advanced subjects such as the one under discussion here.

 

[Sarkus]

I have informed you earlier that the great mathematical physicist John von Neumann situated the collapse in the human mind.

And many others disagree: there are numerous interpretations of QM and while JvN's is quite a popular view, it is by no means universally accepted.

Now, this occured in the 1930s, and I do not know how many experts then or now agree with this view. However, the issue is so unsettled that I doubt any credible authority can dare claim to have refuted Von Neumann's interpretation of QM, and all authority must take it seriously until some way rigorous around it can be be established.

I thought experiments have shown that collapse can happen long before conscious observation occurs? Look at this.

But there are plenty of interpretations, some of which even deny that any collapse takes place!

JvN is a popular interpretation, but don't fool yourself that just because he is a "great mathematical physicist" that he therefore has to be correct.

Furthermore, I understood that one of the major stumbling blocks with Quantum Computing is that anything, even a stray electron, can collapse the qubits into their decoherent states. This is without conscious observation, although obviously the collapse will not be realised/recognised until a conscious observation.
But to then argue that the conscious observation is the cause is logically flawed, I think, or at least tangled in semantics and possibly philosophy etc.

 

[gmilam]

All measuring devices are created by conscious beings,
all the way from mental inception, through manufacture
of the components, to assembly of the components, to
the end product, to calibration of the end product, say
a microscope: No consciousness, no measuring device.

N'est-ce pas?




This is a ridiclous and substandard remark, which identifies you
as a ridiculous and substandard contributor to the discussion.

In the name of God go!- go back to whatever junior high school
classroom you were most recently promoted into, and stay in
that jhs classroom until you are intellectually fit to comment
on advanced subjects such as the one under discussion here.

Yawn... Test this hypothesis. Go and not observe something for a while and see what that gets you.

 

[NCDane]

And many others disagree: there are numerous interpretations of QM and while JvN's is quite a popular view, it is by no means universally accepted.

I am aware of the fact that no interpretation of QM is universally
accepted, and I did not say or imply otherwise.

I thought experiments have shown that collapse can happen long before conscious observation occurs? Look at this.

This looks interesting. I will try to digest it later.

But there are plenty of interpretations, some of which even deny that any collapse takes place!

Yes, and one would be the "Many Worlds" interpretation of Everett,
which I have mentioned. Are you reading the posts in this thread
with any care at all?

JvN is a popular interpretation, but don't fool yourself that just because he is a "great mathematical physicist" that he therefore has to be correct.

I did not say anything remotely resembling this.

You owe to your interlocutors the favor of reading the contributions
you respond to more carefully.

Furthermore, I understood that one of the major stumbling blocks with Quantum Computing is that anything, even a stray electron, can collapse the qubits into their decoherent states. This is without conscious observation, although obviously the collapse will not be realised/recognised until a conscious observation.

I am not sure how Von Neumann and Wigner would have
reponded to this. I myself do not know offhand.

But to then argue that the conscious observation is the cause is logically flawed, I think, or at least tangled in semantics and possibly philosophy etc.

You are here placing yourself above both John Von Neumann
and Eugene Wigner, and that is not going to work, sorry.

It may be that VN was wrong, but he looked exhaustively,
and I have read one commentator (Nick Herbert) say that
the choice of the mind was made in "desperation" because
it was accepted that there must be a collapse, but there
seemed to be nowhere to locate it.

 

[Sarkus]

I am aware of the fact that no interpretation of QM is universally accepted, and I did not say or imply otherwise.

Nor did I mention the price of eggs, but if I felt it necessary to do so to clarify the situation to others reading this thread, then I will.
Your tone is certainly one of putting JvN's interpretation on a pedestal and the implication (intentional or otherwise) from your posts is that it should be accepted as above the others until proven otherwise.

Yes, and one would be the "Many Worlds" interpretation of Everett,
which I have mentioned. Are you reading the posts in this thread
with any care at all?

Indeed I am. But since you seem to give mere lip-service to the other interpretations and then ignore them to put JvN on your pedestal, I felt it worth pointing them out to you lest you forget that these other interpretations exist.

I did not say anything remotely resembling this.

If you walk along the edge of a cliff and I warn you to be careful, you can indeed rightfully claim that you were never in danger. It won't stop me warning you as a result of the perceived risk.

You owe to your interlocutors the favor of reading the contributions
you respond to more carefully.

You owe it to yourself to phrase your comments in a way that won't give implications you don't intend.

I am not sure how Von Neumann and Wigner would have
reponded to this. I myself do not know offhand.

You have no view on this? No opinion?

You are here placing yourself above both John Von Neumann
and Eugene Wigner, and that is not going to work, sorry.

How am I placing myself above them, and how does my location in reference to them make any difference to what I say and the validity/soundness or otherwise of the argument I make?

The point, if you care to actually take the time to understand it, is that since we can not realise/recognise an event until we observe it, it is logically flawed to conclude that the observation must therefore cause the event. It remains a possibility, but it is not a logical conclusion.
The issue of language / philosophy / semantics is then raised in trying to establish what it is to "realise" or to "recognise", or what an "event" is etc, and what is real, what it is to "exist": the classic case of whether an object exists if there is no one to observe it etc

 

[Rav]

What we are discussing has bedeviled, as a matter
of science, many of the greatest of our cutting-edge scientific geniuises
for about 85 years, and no end is in sight. Yet to give up on the challenge
as a matter of science is compelely unsuitable for me, and I hope likewise
for the specialists who continue to ponder the challenge.

We are without sufficiently compelling scientific evidence to be able to conclude that the consciousness causes collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics is an accurate description of reality. In fact it is one of the more radical ideas that enjoys very little acceptance in the physics community. I could sit here throw around a whole bunch of criticisms and alternative interpretations that are much more widely accepted but getting bogged down in a discussion about which interpretation makes the most sense is not really the point of this discussion. This is the reason that I said what I said in my last post. Speculation about the implications of an interpretation of quantum mechanics does not constitute scientific evidence. To relate it back to the topic at hand, formulating such speculation into a form that could be used to argue for the possible existence of God is philosophy, not science. So in the interests of respecting the nature of the question asked by the OP, we need to admit here that this speculation is insufficient and either move on, or continue this discussion in the philosophy forum.

Make no mistake. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, not physics. And whenever you find yourself pondering the implications of an abstract mathematical model or some intriguing experimental results, and ask the question "What might we infer from this about the fundamental nature of reality", it is essentially a metaphysical question that you are asking.

Having said that, physicists and indeed many other scientists engage in metaphysical discussions and debates all the time. So I don't mean to suggest that such discussions are inherently unscientific. Rather I see them as an invaluable tool for moving science forward.

 

[jmpet]

Is it possible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of god(s)? Or, if not prove, at least provide some evidence one way or the other.

It is nearly impossible to prove or disprove God because He either never existed, or has always existed.

And since the Universe is one continuity of one time line; and since we logically evolved from a scum bubble billions of years ago, we have nothing to measure God up against. It's like asking a fish what water is.

The closest I will come to an athiest belief is believing in a definable quata comprising reality with oscillating universes- the alternative to an eternal something is an eternal nothing and I believe reality truly exists.

I am comfortable with that theory, and as far as "where did this quanta come from?" the answer is that it exists forever forever.

However, I do believe in a singular God. I have absolutely no idea what His intentions and motives are and nothing I have read so far is good enough to pass as a statement to that effect (a religion), yet I believe.

Half the world believes in Abraham. What if Abraham was a made up story? What damage would that do to thousands of years of belief? Would we all abandon hope? Would we burn all Bibles then? And if so, what the heck do we believe in then?

I have long held the belief that science's job is to find God. Because when science finds something to fundamentally bizarre that it changes our perception of reality, we are entering God's realm.

I also believe that there is a whole other higher science than physics; that physics is a limited field that covers the probable in math formulas. And when I learned that pi was an irrational number, faith to me was restored.

And at the same time I wonder- where the heck is God? Why isn't He talking? Where's the burning bush?

With so little to go on religiously (Abraham and everything that followed is faith-based), why don't we have more?

Insofar as we can ask "why isn't God here now?" we can equally ask "what if God was never here at all?" with equal validity.

But then again, I believe in God.