A Prerequisite To Discussing God

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]

I was talking mainly about the observer aspect.

[RJT]

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]

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]

[ QUOTE ]

“Even God is bound by the uncertainty principle and cannot know the position and velocity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this science?

[RJT]

[ 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]

But what of the interpretations of QM in which wavefunction collapse does not occur (e.g. the Hugh Everett model)?

[Jeff V]

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

[Piers]

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.