View Full Version : A Prerequisite To Discussing God
David Sklansky
10-07-2005, 08:01 AM
I don't know why I haven't mentioned this previously. But the fact is that no one, religious or not, can intelligently discuss God or religion without becoming familiar with all of the known aspects of the double slit experiment. So do it now.
The double slit experament is completely irrelevent to discussing CHRISTIANITY intelligently. In what way is it relevant to discussing other religions? And why?
Did you mean to say that no one can disprove the existense of God without a complete knowledge of all aspects of the double slit experiment?
And again, why?
snowden719
10-07-2005, 08:50 AM
this is straightforwardly false, but then again, you knew that.
David Sklansky
10-07-2005, 09:09 AM
I'll grant that you can take out the word "religion" from my original post.
[ QUOTE ]
this is straightforwardly false, but then again, you knew that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have too few posts to begin contradicting myself (by berating other posters), but was this an attempt at some kind of point? And if so what was it? Who was this even directed at, Sklansky or myself?
Sorry If I come off as an ass but whatthewhodawhatee?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is straightforwardly false, but then again, you knew that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have too few posts to begin contradicting myself (by berating other posters), but was this an attempt at some kind of point? And if so what was it? Who was this even directed at, Sklansky or myself?
Sorry If I come off as an ass but whatthewhodawhatee?
[/ QUOTE ]
If you look at the “Re:” right above the body of the post (the heading, I guess we can call it) the screen name after the "Re" shows who it replies to. In this case, snowden719 is replying to Sklansky.
Exactly. But, I forgot to mention, you can only see the "Re:" while viewing posts in flat mode. Do you SEE why? LOL.
And all this time!!!...............
purnell
10-07-2005, 11:01 AM
Double-slit experiments with light show that light behaves like a wave, even though it also consists of particles. In fact, even a single particle behaves like a wave. So we have a mysterious duality where a photon appears to be in more than one place at the same time.
Is it this duality in nature that is supposed to inform our discussion, or what?
Maybe the point of this post is that before theists or non-theists go running off discussing God and the nature of the universe, they should have some understanding of how complicated that nature really is from a human perspective at this time. The double slit experiment shows that we can't even fully understand the why/how of wave-particle duality when applied to a single particle. How then can we accept this nice and tidy explanation for the entire existence of everything given by a 2000-year old text? I think exposure to QM and relativity theory and experiments (as well as M-theory and other more radical stuff) is valuable for anyone discussing "God" -- not because QM and relativity explain everything or debunk religion, but because they expand the human mind and forces one to realize that the universe is far different than we normally think from our perspective, and certainly far different than people thought it was before 1900. We don't need to know what implications follow from these theories and experiments as yet, just know that the implications have already shattered the layman's concept of the universe and may even shatter the most knowledgeable scientists' concept as well.
IronUnkind
10-07-2005, 11:40 AM
If you provide support for this outlandish statement, then I would be happy to debate you as to why it is false.
bocablkr
10-07-2005, 01:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the point of this post is that before theists or non-theists go running off discussing God and the nature of the universe, they should have some understanding of how complicated that nature really is from a human perspective at this time. The double slit experiment shows that we can't even fully understand the why/how of wave-particle duality when applied to a single particle. How then can we accept this nice and tidy explanation for the entire existence of everything given by a 2000-year old text? I think exposure to QM and relativity theory and experiments (as well as M-theory and other more radical stuff) is valuable for anyone discussing "God" -- not because QM and relativity explain everything or debunk religion, but because they expand the human mind and forces one to realize that the universe is far different than we normally think from our perspective, and certainly far different than people thought it was before 1900. We don't need to know what implications follow from these theories and experiments as yet, just know that the implications have already shattered the layman's concept of the universe and may even shatter the most knowledgeable scientists' concept as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kid,
Do you ever work? Where do you get the time to write such insightful responses? You say what I would like to say but don't have the time to do. That is why most of my posts are short.
andyfox
10-07-2005, 02:00 PM
Might Sklansky have also been referring to whether or not God plays dice?
eOXevious
10-07-2005, 02:14 PM
Well the world and universe are confusing, and I think people should have a lot more knowledge of the Universe before discussing it's exsistance and creation. But, it's confusing, beautiful, and miraculous that can anyone just sit back for one second and look around and say, this just cannot be the product of chance, that possibly we were designed.. I know I can, and I do it all the time.
carlo
10-07-2005, 02:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Double-slit experiments with light show that light behaves like a wave, even though it also consists of particles. In fact, even a single particle behaves like a wave. So we have a mysterious duality where a photon appears to be in more than one place at the same time
[/ QUOTE ]
Another scientific paradox. The presumption is that light must contain matter and therefore one goes from there.It IS only a theory you know. Spinning thoughts and leaving the earth.
Back to Newton.He saw the seven colors come out of the prism and ergo the seven colors are contained in light. He furthur posited that particles came out of the prism thus continuing the atomistic view of light.
It is interesting to note that there were some respected scientists at that time who did not believe this to be the truth(Huygens,Young). Also, and of note, Goethe did his own experiments and did not agree with Newton. Science goes on ,carrying a preconceived notion into the future and you and I are stuck with particles that aren't. LOL.
To Sklansky-Only the chosen few(physicists and pretenders) can intelligently come to grips with the Creator? You must explain yourself--enough of this"I lead you through the labyrinth stuff"--come out of the closet.
carlo
hurlyburly
10-07-2005, 02:43 PM
I only had to go out to 2 different websites to start seeing where he's coming from:
This (http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/index.html) then this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment).
IronUnkind
10-07-2005, 04:03 PM
Thanks, but I'm already well-acquainted with the topic. I don't object to the relevance of these matters, but I disagree that a familiarity with them is essential for intelligent discussion.
hurlyburly
10-07-2005, 04:39 PM
Ok, sorry I misinterpreted you.
David speaks in absolutes, he also thinks animals murder each other...
[ QUOTE ]
Kid,
Do you ever work? Where do you get the time to write such insightful responses? You say what I would like to say but don't have the time to do. That is why most of my posts are short.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. I just finished my second tour through grad school and have had some time on my hands of late, I guess. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Well I would interject that we know humans tend to give pattern to randomness because our minds can hardly handle the idea of utter randomness in the first place. Where do I get this outlandish idea? Look at the psychology of poker for a couple minutes and you'll see it... people deciding they "deserved" the cards to come out a certain way, or anything they describe as "lucky" all point to this. Therefore I would say that it is very possible this happened my "chance" as you say.
To use an example I heard very very often growing up in a strictly Christian (very evangelical Catholic) home: Our lungs are only equipped to accept the EXACT combination of gases in the air, if they were off by just a small amount, we would all suffocate. Doesn't that prove the existence of a omnipotent creator? No, it doesn't, if you believe in the scientific process of evolution. If our air was purely oxygen, then we would have simply developed lungs equipped to handle pure oxygen.
I know this is off topic, sorry all, but in response to eOXevious, it is appropriate.
Eric
David Sklansky
10-07-2005, 07:32 PM
I was talking mainly about the observer aspect.
If the OP’s intent is to suggest that one should be intelligent enough to understand the double slit experiment before one enters in such discussion about God, then for the sake of discussion, I’ll agree with the OP.
If it says anything other than that, can someone please explain the connect for me? So far it only seems to me to be saying something similar to this: “…no one…can intelligently discuss God without becoming familiar with all the known aspects that the earth revolves around the sun.” That is of course good to know. But unless one is saying the Sun is God, I don’t see any immediate relevance.
Again, if I missed something, anyone, please let me know.
Piers
10-07-2005, 08:26 PM
I was just perusing Halking’s “The Universe in a Nutshell” and stumbled across the following quote concerning the velocity and position of a partial,
[ QUOTE ]
“Even God is bound by the uncertainty principle and cannot know the position and velocity. He can only know the wave function.”
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps David’s obscure remark has something to do with this?
Personally I think this is a little use of artistic license. What is really being said is that the partial model of light etc, although useful, starts to brakes down when we think in quantum terms. God cannot know what the velocity and position of the partial, because there is no partial. “ God can only know the wave function,” well if that is what it is then I see no problem, however I suspect another layer of the onion we have not reached where all such paradoxes can be resolved.
NotReady
10-07-2005, 08:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
“Even God is bound by the uncertainty principle and cannot know the position and velocity.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is this science?
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the point of this post is that before theists or non-theists go running off discussing God and the nature of the universe, they should have some understanding of how complicated that nature really is from a human perspective at this time. The double slit experiment shows that we can't even fully understand the why/how of wave-particle duality when applied to a single particle. How then can we accept this nice and tidy explanation for the entire existence of everything given by a 2000-year old text? I think exposure to QM and relativity theory and experiments (as well as M-theory and other more radical stuff) is valuable for anyone discussing "God" -- not because QM and relativity explain everything or debunk religion, but because they expand the human mind and forces one to realize that the universe is far different than we normally think from our perspective, and certainly far different than people thought it was before 1900. We don't need to know what implications follow from these theories and experiments as yet, just know that the implications have already shattered the layman's concept of the universe and may even shatter the most knowledgeable scientists' concept as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
If this is the point, then I could not agree more.
Not to sound corny or like I am proselytizing, but:
That is why from the perspective of religion - religion needs to always "evolve" too. And I think most do. Catholicism does, I do know that. We call ourselves a "Living Church". We say this because it is important to be living in love and community with others (the corny part), but also because we keep growing as far as our understanding of Christ's message - what do we know from science, for example, that can better explain for us today what He meant? These are questions, that we do indeed ask ourselves.
IronUnkind
10-07-2005, 09:16 PM
But what of the interpretations of QM in which wavefunction collapse does not occur (e.g. the Hugh Everett model)?
Jeff V
10-07-2005, 09:24 PM
I thought you were taking a hiatus from SMP?
[ QUOTE ]
But the fact is that no one, religious or not, can intelligently discuss God or religion without becoming familiar with all of the known aspects of the double slit experiment.
[/ QUOTE ]
But the fact is that no one, religious or not, <font color="blue"> can become </font> familiar with all of the known aspects of the double slit experiment <font color="blue"> , </font> God <font color="blue"> , </font> or religion without intelligently discuss<font color="blue">ing them. </font>
If the goal is to talk as intelligently as possible about God/religion, you must have intelligent discussions/inquiries/self reflections to derive the need for the explanation of the double slit.
I understand what your getting at David, and my tought is that when trying to fully understand something as complex as God, there will have many levels of learning involved. Every step of the way will need to have intelligent discussions/inquiries/self reflections, all while keeping the end goal in mind, to be sure you stay on the correct path.
Questions come before answers. Or do they? Answers are always there, but they don't become answers until the question is asked. (We should consult Alex Trebec on this one.) Also, answers often come in the form of another question. I think a person shouldn't disreguard the value of debating the big questions/problems just because all the smaller sub-problems aren't answered. Large problems simply would never get solved with that approach.
There is one thing I know for sure. For me to figure out how that double slit thing works, I'd have to have an itelligent discussion with God. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Piers
10-07-2005, 11:30 PM
Don't know, but it is what a distinguished scientist wrote in a book. I think its just rhetoric to help get his point across, rather than heartfelt belief, but I could be wrong.
Piers
10-07-2005, 11:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
But the fact is that no one, religious or not, can become familiar with all of the known aspects of the double slit experiment.
[/ QUOTE ]
Chalk one up /images/graemlins/grin.gif.
David Sklansky
10-08-2005, 10:32 AM
"But what of the interpretations of QM in which wavefunction collapse does not occur (e.g. the Hugh Everett model)?"
Why is everybody trying to get so complicated and argumentative again? The fact is that there is a physics experiment that shows results that are so far away from common sense, including a possible dependence on conscious observers, that those who debate about whether God exists, need to include the results of this experiment in their model. My point had nothing to do with the intelligence of people who are familiar with the experiment.
chezlaw
10-08-2005, 11:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"But what of the interpretations of QM in which wavefunction collapse does not occur (e.g. the Hugh Everett model)?"
Why is everybody trying to get so complicated and argumentative again?
[/ QUOTE ]
maybe because you rarely bother to tell anybody what your point is, so we have to guess?
[edit: and because we think you're clever we think the point might be subtle].
chez
[ QUOTE ]
"But what of the interpretations of QM in which wavefunction collapse does not occur (e.g. the Hugh Everett model)?"
Why is everybody trying to get so complicated and argumentative again? The fact is that there is a physics experiment that shows results that are so far away from common sense, including a possible dependence on conscious observers, that those who debate about whether God exists, need to include the results of this experiment in their model. My point had nothing to do with the intelligence of people who are familiar with the experiment.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, why didn’t you just say that? - lol.
p.s. That explains, too, why I couldn’t figure out what the double slit said.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"But what of the interpretations of QM in which wavefunction collapse does not occur (e.g. the Hugh Everett model)?"
Why is everybody trying to get so complicated and argumentative again?
[/ QUOTE ]
maybe because you rarely bother to tell anybody what your point is, so we have to guess?
[edit: and because we think you're clever we think the point might be subtle].
chez
[/ QUOTE ]
Chez,
He might not even realize this, but his manner in posting is an homage to Jesus. Jesus never said anything directly either. He often spoke in parables and such.
RJT
IronUnkind
10-08-2005, 10:19 PM
My statement was neither complicated nor argumentative. I was pointing out that the spookiness of the wavefunction collapse is diminished in certain interpratations of QM, esp. those that eschew the wavefunction collapse altogether.
I am not saying that these interpretations are correct, but the fact that they exist demonstrates that one can concoct an explanation that doesn't rely heavily upon consciousness (whatever that is). This relates to your statement in that these less spiritual interpretations render the God question tangential to the double-slit experiment.
IronUnkind
10-09-2005, 05:18 AM
This is one of the luxuries of being the son of god. Perhaps David arrogates to himself similar divinity?
[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the luxuries of being the son of god. Perhaps David arrogates to himself similar divinity?
[/ QUOTE ]
Why the word "perhaps", Ironman?
(Oh, come on David, just joking. We (I) love to bust your chops.)
David Sklansky
10-09-2005, 09:56 AM
I stand by my statement. Just like nowadays anybody who debates god is wrong to do so without knowing what people say regarding the Big Bang, the same applies to the less well iknown double slit experiment.
Thats like saying that Aristarchus of Samos (270 BC), had no business debating/suggesting that the Earth revolve around the Sun because he didn't know about it's relationship to gravity (Sir Isaac Newton 1686 AD).
If the theory was disreguarded and forgetten about, it may have taken hundreds of years to link the two. That probably wouldn't be true in this analogy, but I think the idea holds up.
To dismiss debate of of an issue, while waiting for results of potentially related issues, may result in a huge waste of time.
Here a nice link to a chronology of some scientic discovery stuff. I had no idea who Aristarchus of Samos was, I'm not pretending to be a history buff. I just googled it to get the info to make my point.
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Stimelin.htm
This could be heading in the "everything is relative" direction.
Trantor
10-09-2005, 01:33 PM
This is, in my view, simply absurd. However,I presume you are up to date with recent developments in the double slit experiments? What do you consider the most significant, in the last year say?
What is suprising to me is that you regard it as so important to yet you aparantly are inclined not to believe what all experiments to date demonstrate...or are do you believe that the hidden variable theory might turn out eventually to have experimental support? Your mind set in at least one previous post (to this one of mine..the predicting a coin toss) is one of prequantum mechanical, Newtonian determinism which doesn't even take into account classical chaos theory.
You obviously are entitled to a view but I would suggest a liitle less arrogance (so British that,,,what I really mean is with no arrogance). Why not explain why it is important in your view not assume that because you think it is it must be so?
David Sklansky
10-09-2005, 03:37 PM
"Thats like saying that Aristarchus of Samos (270 BC), had no business debating/suggesting that the Earth revolve around the Sun because he didn't know about it's relationship to gravity (Sir Isaac Newton 1686 AD)."
No its not. I'll let others elaborate.
IronUnkind
10-09-2005, 05:16 PM
But I assumed your statement was predicated upon the idea that consciousness causes collapse. If the role of consciousness is taken out of the equation (as it is in some interpretations of QM), then how is the experiment central to the discussion of God?
scalf
10-10-2005, 02:32 AM
/images/graemlins/smile.gif to try to find g*d
thru the intellect is; as mohammed suggested; like asking a donkey who is toting a sack of books to comment on their contents...
think about it.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.