A Prerequisite To Discussing God

[Piers]

[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

[David Sklansky]

"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]

[ 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

[RJT]

[ 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.

[RJT]

[ 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]

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]

This is one of the luxuries of being the son of god. Perhaps David arrogates to himself similar divinity?

[RJT]

[ 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]

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.