A reasonable argument for God? (testimony, Einstein, philosopher, famous)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The double slit experiment does not say matter doesn't exist until observed.
What it does indicate is that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles.
But the HYPOTHESIS that matter doesn't exist until observed EXPLAINS the behavior of the DS experiment, rather elegantly IMO. No other explanation that I am aware of does.
To wit:
IF the electrons being shot through the DS apparatus one at a time don't physically exist until observed, then they might go through one slit, they might go through the other, so the system calculates as though it went through both and interfered with itself, and you get an interference pattern. This has been experimentally verified many, many times.
If observed at the slit, the probability wave collapses into physical matter, as it must, and the interference pattern goes away. This, too, has been experimentally verified many times.
If the electron is matter, and exists absent observation, the experiment makes no sense!!
Thus, when the tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, not only does it not make a sound, it didn't even actually fall, it just probably fell, and will be rendered as though it fell the next time an observer comes along.
Well that's silly.
You can place a tape recorder (last I checked tape recorders don't have consciences) near the forrest and the sound waves produced by the falling tree will cause a chain of electromagnetic events that will result in a faithful reproduction of the sound. Armed with our recording of this event we can look for evidence of its source. Having at one time or another witnessed the falling of a tree we can match the sound on the recording to our observed experiences. We can then look for a tree trunk lying in proximity to our recording and since the what we know about gravity and how trees grow (not lying on the ground separated from its root system, we can then deduce that it was the tree that fell.
In short all the physical evidence and empirical data is present to ascertain that a tree fell whether we were there to witness it or not. Only an ego of gargantuan proportions would argue without the absence of a human to witness an event the event didn't occur.
You can place a tape recorder (last I checked tape recorders don't have consciences) near the forrest and the sound waves produced by the falling tree will cause a chain of electromagnetic events that will result in a faithful reproduction of the sound.
Absolutely correct.
As soon as a human (or other consciousness) listens to it, or otherwise analyzes it.
Quote:
Only an ego of gargantuan proportions would argue without the absence of a human to witness an event the event didn't occur.
I didn't say human, I said consciousness, and that's why ultimately the tree is a bad example, because trees tend to be in areas teeming with conscious life, and is likely under near constant observation by some critter or another. But if you assume away all those critters, my example stands.
Hi, all. I'm showing up a bit late for this party, but wanted to put in the reason I believe in God, which I think is a pretty reasonable argument. I haven't read the entire thread, so it's possible someone's already argued something like this. If so, my apologies.
We live in a universe in which life not only exists, but is apparently inevitable, and can be sustained for billions of years. A universe created by random, unguided means would almost certainly not be like this. That's not to say it couldn't be like this, just that it's unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
I disagree. Given the one lone unlikely condition, that DNA is susceptible to the causes of random mutation, but also then that it reproduces itself reliably recording those changes, then tests them, against a rigorous set of life's realities, we have "the perfect storm" setup for the gradual but inevitable progress that results in a progressive Evolution of complexity. It builds upon itself, and does so seemingly with purpose where none actually exists.
It just "is".
Now if (as many believe) there are multiple, or even infinite, universes, then this does increase the chances of one of the universes being able to create and sustain life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
(You then go on to propose a rather unlikely alternative, one of infinite universi, just for the making of an unlikely but assumptive argument (see below), but where in fact we may just have one, three or, let's say, 5, tops. Why not?)
To me, accepting that this text was written by my cat repeatedly walking across the keyboard is a little like accepting that the universe and, ultimately, all life in it, was created by random, unguided forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfmn
No, not at all. We do know there's at least one universe [look around you...]; all the rest is pure speculation set up by you to support the far more unlikely idea that all those unlimited numbers of variant universi were simultaneously made up by your Supreme Commander. Which is wholly implausible, frankly.
Frankly & logically, even the one universe we see all around us is conceptually too much for even an omnipotent deity, and even if He were so inclined, tinkering with each and every sub-atomic particle out there, and then following up on them for all eternity. And demanding endlessly adoring supplication from it's apparently only and silly-stupit populace? And after the first few millennia, sitting on His white cloud, watching us intellectually stumbling along? Bohhh..ringggg....
All just soz we can have a placating answer to the no-afterlife threat...? Huh?
If something APPEARS to be quite purposeful, it makes more sense to accept that it IS purposeful than that it isn't. {**note from rflmn: see my follow-up note below**} The fact that it could, hypothetically, be purposeless doesn't mean that we should accept that it was purposeless.
Well yep; Evolution is purposeful in that it accomplishes things that are functionally necessary to life, but you need to better understand just how and why it's relentless advancements have occurred, reaching onwards from the simple and plausible on up to the hugely complex, built on, as it always is, each prior organism's basics.
BTW, as to my asterisks above: you have expounded, possibly unknowingly, on Occam's Razor, which is a far better explanation for the existence of Evolution and a non-Deity creation than it is FOR such an unlikely Holy event. Look it up please.
It's like you're saying that the new Ă¼ber-tech Boeing 787 is simply not possible because it's too complex! In the case of life though, that has advanced towards a series of DNA-related functional entities because of the ability of simple early organisms to reproduce billions of replicants, all of whom necessarily went out to be tested. But also there were always a few thousand alternate designs sent out (by the millions per each design...) at the same time, some (most) to perish, but a scant few did survive because of their superior but nonetheless purely-chancy design improvements.
But the HYPOTHESIS that matter doesn't exist until observed EXPLAINS the behavior of the DS experiment, rather elegantly IMO. No other explanation that I am aware of does.
To wit:
IF the electrons being shot through the DS apparatus one at a time don't physically exist until observed, then they might go through one slit, they might go through the other, so the system calculates as though it went through both and interfered with itself, and you get an interference pattern. This has been experimentally verified many, many times.
If observed at the slit, the probability wave collapses into physical matter, as it must, and the interference pattern goes away. This, too, has been experimentally verified many times.
If the electron is matter, and exists absent observation, the experiment makes no sense!!
In order to do the double slit experiment at all, matter (electron) must first exist...You must be yanking my chain, because what you say makes no sense at all.
In order to do the double slit experiment at all, matter (electron) must first exist...You must be yanking my chain, because what you say makes no sense at all.
How do you figure?
Assume matter exists objectively renders the actual experimental results as nonsensical. The opposite assumption both predicts and explains the real world results.
Assume matter exists objectively renders the actual experimental results as nonsensical. The opposite assumption both predicts and explains the real world results.
In order for a particle of matter to be shot out of an electron gun, it must first exist. Otherwise, it couldn't be shot out of the electron gun in the first place. Duh.
As soon as a human (or other consciousness) listens to it, or otherwise analyzes it.
Then allow me to ask the following.
If sound waves are a matter of consciousness then surely we can turn what we perceive as light into sound?
If we don't use a sound recording but rather an instrument like a seismograph to graphically represent those sound waves, is it sound or simply scribbling on a piece of paper?
And lastly,
Is the argument that amy being within proximity to a falling tree share the same experience produced by the sound waves produced by this falling tree?
Again, I argue that this is purely a egocentric construct, ergo, without man there is no realty.
Assume matter exists objectively renders the actual experimental results as nonsensical. The opposite assumption both predicts and explains the real world results.
Pardon me, but I need to find my tinfoil hat before I fade out of existence.
In order for a particle of matter to be shot out of an electron gun, it must first exist. Otherwise, it couldn't be shot out of the electron gun in the first place. Duh.
But how do you know that it was shot out in the first place? You can't see it. You can't hear it. You can't smell or feel it.
The only way you know is by using sophisticated equipment to detect it. But it bahaves differently depending upon WHERE you detect it. If you detect only at the measuring screen, you get a pattern that indicates that somehow it went through both slits and interfered with itself. Something that is physically impossible if it existed as physical matter the entire time.
But when you measure an the slit, it must go through one or the other, so it gets rendered there and could not have gone through both, so the interference pattern goes away.
Capiche?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
