Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

[Guest]

[SaintOfVirtue]

Interesting, but in no way a conclusive examination of quantum mechanics proving the existence of God.  The ancillary point remains scientifically valid as well (that is to say that if reality is being created by observation there must be an existential observer and since there is no existential observer the model is wrong).  Quantum science can say whatever you want it to say because it is just theories at this point.  Though I would love to see science conclusively prove God's existence; it is just wishful thinking at this point.

Edited July 23, 2015 by SaintOfVirtue

[dUSt]

So... The Matrix is true?

[Guest]

The ancillary point remains scientifically valid as well (that is to say that if reality is being created by observation there must be an existential observer and since there is no existential observer the model is wrong).  

Can you explain this a little further? Not sure if I follow.

[Luigi]

Though I would love to see science conclusively prove God's existence; it is just wishful thinking at this point.

I've thought of this possibility, too, in the past. But it seems that God wants us to have a faith-based relationship in Him rather than a proof-based relationship. (You can make the argument that creation, nature, math, etc. are proofs of God's existence, but I mean proof that the unbelieving would accept.)

Because:

1. God, being omniscient, could generate some kind of definitive proof for all people to see/experience if He wanted to, but He never has.

2. Jesus performed enough signs & wonders that people should have believed he was God - some did, some didn't.

3. I've often wondered why Jesus ascended back into heaven rather than staying on Earth. Being omniscient, he could bi-locate to the n-th degree and make himself available for everybody everywhere to come and put their fingers into the wound on his side, and thereby come to know definitively that there is a God and his name is Jesus. But he didn't stay here.

So I doubt that science will ever be able to prove there is a God, much less what his name is, because God won't let them uncover whatever scientific proof there might be. Thus preserving God's preference for faith-based relationships with his people.

 

Or something.

 

Edited July 24, 2015 by Luigi

[Guest]

I agree that Quantum Physics doesn't prove God. It does make materialism look less likely though. I agree it would be nice if God gave more definitive indications for His existence. People could still have freewill. Even if everyone was completely aware God exited they would still be able to deny Him. That's why now a days I can relate to agnostics and non militant atheist. And don't really have any contempt for them. On a good day I'm sure God exist but even then there can be lingering doubts because you really don't know. It's not completely obvious that a supernatural reality is without question real.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Guest

[SaintOfVirtue]

Can you explain this a little further? Not sure if I follow.

Sure.
There are three major points to address in the video.  First, it takes the words "measure" and "observe" to be synonymous (time stamp: 1:45); secondly, it relies on a misinterpretation of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment perpetuated by pop-science; and lastly, the argument made in the video assumes a vicious cycle of causality (time stamp: 14:50).  

Scientifically speaking, in physics there is little difference between the word "measure" and "observe" except that they both are accepted to mean "to measure" not "to look".  The video errs by applying the reflexive property improperly, it seems to suggest that both measure and observe mean "to look".  Pop-science believes "to look" means the observer is passive, while "to measure" infers the observer is active when really both are active.  This may seem like semantics, but bear with me and let's look at Schrodinger's Cat.

The problem with Schrodinger's Cat is that they have used the clumsy pop-science interpretation of the word observe and put words in Schrodinger's mouth.  Schrodinger never meant that the cat was actually both alive and dead at the same time.  He meant that there was no way to know whether the cat was alive or dead if the only way to open the box (i.e. observe)  was by throwing a spear through it.  The very act of opening the box could change the results.  Similarly in physics, if taking a measurement (i.e. observation) of something changes the results you cannot know the true state of the object.  Schrodinger was not saying that in not knowing the state of an object the object itself must actually be in all possible states, but that we as scientists must assume that any state is a possibility because our tools are to crude to discover its true state.

Now the vicious cycle of causality.  Our physical bodies are made up of complex chemical chains.  Each chain can be divided down to compounds, compounds down to molecules, molecules down to atoms, atoms to particles, particles to quarks, etc.  We are made of the same sub-atomic particles that exist in the most non-sentient substances.  Scientifically speaking the particles of our body "observe" the universe in the same manner that the particles in a rock observe the universe, we are just able to make better sense of our observation than the rock.  (I'm about to over simplify with an analogy)  The world is just as real for blind people as it is for you and me.  They observe by touch rather than sight, their particles interact with the rock's particles and they make the deduction that they are touching the rock.  In physics all particles are equal regardless of whether they belong to a sentient human being or a non-sentient rock.  Therefore who observed who?  Was it the particles of the rock that observed the blind person or was it the blind person that observed the rock.  That is the vicious cycle: every non-sentient sub-atomic particle is constantly observing each other which means that this 'fluid of potentiality' cannot exist because it is always observing itself.  If it does exist then some particles must be different than other particles and we need to rewrite all of physics.  

In this manner the atheist will still argue against the existence of an existential observer (i.e. God) because: human particles 'observe', human particles are the same substance as other particles, therefore other particles 'observe', therefore God does not needed to 'observe'. 

Two sides, one coin.