Quantum Physics Abused Why We Need DrW Around Here

[_Philo Sofee]

https://www.preachitteachit.org/ask-rog ... nto-being/

This is one example of someone misusing Quantum Mechanics in order to get God into reality. Two things stood out to me, and perhaps DrW can show us more.

One thing his idea of US humans having to be the observers is not all the story. It is ANY kind of observation that causes the wave collapse, not only a living human one. An observation can be made by an instrument as well.

And Second, his comment on Einstein saying he would like that if the moon was really there if he was not looking at it (due to his argument with Bohr). His imputing it to God is simply making stuff up. This is not evidence for God at all. It's rather a silly Creationism view.

Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Physics have truly nothing to do with proving anything about God, let alone which one anyone believes in. I wish it did, but lets keep it real without inventing all kinds of other "spookiness" already out there.

[_DrW]

One of the worst pieces of 'religion loves science' apologetic nonsense I have ever tried to read. It makes some of DCP's stuff look almost credible - almost.

Is this kind of unfounded belief based on no understanding whatsoever even worth posting a link?

[_Chap]

As an ex-theist, I do wish that my old friends would try to avoid saying things that make them look either slightly dumb, or else deliberately deceptive.

One thing his idea of US humans having to be the observers is not all the story. It is ANY kind of observation that causes the wave collapse, not only a living human one. An observation can be made by an instrument as well.

That point (that machines can make observations just like humans can) is so clear that it was even made by Winston Churchill, long ago. I'll post the reference if I can come across it.

[_Res Ipsa]

Part of the problem, I think, is the common use of the term “observation” as the event that triggers collapse of the wave function. Folks extrapolate from that term to conclude that consciousness of the observer is the important part of the interaction. My understanding had been that collapse is triggered by measurement, which is anything that conveys information. The measurement doesn’t have to be taken by or conveyed to a conscious entity.

Ironically, one could argue that the linked article has the theological implications exactly backwards. The existence of quantum mechanics is evidence against an omniscient God. If he were observing tiny things, they couldn’t be in superposition. ;-)

[_Analytics]

Part of the problem, I think, is the common use of the term “observation” as the event that triggers collapse of the wave function. Folks extrapolate from that term to conclude that consciousness of the observer is the important part of the interaction. My understanding had been that collapse is triggered by measurement, which is anything that conveys information. The measurement doesn’t have to be taken by or conveyed to a conscious entity.

Ironically, one could argue that the linked article has the theological implications exactly backwards. The existence of quantum mechanics is evidence against an omniscient God. If he were observing tiny things, they couldn’t be in superposition. ;-)

I was reading Sean Carroll this morning before work and the pages talked about this. He flatly said that physicists don't agree on what it means to "observe" in this context, and they don't agree on what fundamentally causes wave functions to collapse.

He then went on to explain why he personally buys into the multiverse explanation, which he explained in a way that actually made a bit of sense to me for the first time. The concept was, as I interpreted it, that the fundamental reality of the universe is that everything ultimately is a wave function by fundamental nature (in no way does that mean that the moon isn't there unless God is looking at it, by the way). What it does mean is that everything is at least somewhat fuzzy and undetermined--but this generally happens on a level that we aren't paying attention to. But then on those occasions when we measure whether the photon goes into the left slit or the right, we see the wave function collapse. But the wave function isn't really collapsing--it only appears to collapse from the perspective of an observer who is also fundamentally a wave function in her own right. Thus, while we might say, "wow, it sure is interesting the photon went through the right slit," that's just half of a ghost talking--the other half is saying, "wow, it sure is interesting the photon went through the left slit!" In other words, the real metaphysical reality isn't that the wave function collapsed--rather, the reality is that the observer split into two--that is something that happens all the time anyway, but we normally don't do anything that captures an observation of the phenomena.

Of course this interpretation leads to paradoxical thought experiments about torturing cats with an implication that the wave function isn't always something that reverts to the mean, but rather can diverge the universe in dramatically different ways.

As far as I can tell, while we understand incredibly well how to use quantum physics to make predictions, there is at best little understanding and no consensus about what it really means with regards to the true nature of things. And the heart of this is understanding what it really means to "observe" something.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Analytics. I haven’t read any Carroll. I really should get off my ass and do so.

Incidentally, the most understandable explanation of multiverse I’ve found is from the author of a blog Starts With A Bang. https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/t ... 11fd1825c6

I had no idea of the connection between inflation theory and multiverse theory.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I mean. The "Big Bang" could just be, you know, part of our known universe. Like. It may not even BE the universe. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me, but space itself moves FTL. So whatever the “F” is happening beyond our ability to observe it will forever be unknown to us. We may be moving away from something, but it doesn't mean we're not moving toward something, too. Who's to say we're not being pulled toward something massive that we simply can't observe or measure?

*shrugs*

The universe(s) is a big place. There might be a lot of them bubbling around us, pushing and pulling and absorbing or popping out of existence or splitting into existence.

- Doc

[_Chap]

If I'm wrong feel free to correct me

I think it is more that you have just articulated a sense of confusion about the kind of things people say on threads like this, even when they know quite a lot about the topic in question.

That is an understandable thing to do, since the questions being discussed are highly abstruse, but I don't think you could claim that it met the bar for being wrong..

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, the upside is I've now watched half a dozen videos by Lawrence Krauss, who, much to my shame, was unknown to me before today.

I'm currently on a wiki binge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

It's turtles all the way down man...

- Doc

[_Symmachus]

Then it hit me. Einstein may not be observing the moon at some particular moment—but God is. His observation makes it real!

We live in a world with substance and reality because God is presently observing everything on earth as well as all in the universe surrounding us.

This is a good example of the sort of thing that I just don't get about all this god talk. How do we know god is observing anything? Maybe god isn't looking at the moon and everything else that is—maybe he's very busy right now having hipster sex with a Lena Dunham impersonator on one of the rings of Saturn (see Hebrews 15:34 and Leviticus 43:1). If we're just gonna tack some scriptures onto imaginative statements about the guy/gal/contemplative and ontological core, then how is that activity useful for making a claim about the real world? How is it different from writing a fantasy novel? I honestly don't understand it why people find it believable except that it conforms to their mythic assumptions—except when we're talking about quantum physics, we're not talking about mythic assumptions, are we?