If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 53

Is this a joke?! Sounds hilarious to me. A mathematical model so spectacularly successful for it's precision, the closest that science has come to a fundamental description of the nature of reality, a branch of Physics which started revolutionizing the scientific world in the first decade of the 20th century the roots of whose study go back to the 17th and 18th century is in it's infancy to you?! Incredible!



Which ones?!

Describe "real" in scientific terms to me. Please provide as much detail as you can.

There is no need to "recollect" tidbits like these from memory when information is freely available all over the web.




1. Extrapolation implies that we are trying to estimate values outside a known data range. There is no unknown data range in this context. If you disagree, please let me know why.

2. The macroscopic properties of matter, be it solids, liquids or gasses, are completely depend on the microscopic particles ("atomic sized things" as you eloquently put it) composing it. If you disagree, please let me know why.

3. A wave function, described by Schrodinger's equations, is the most complete description you could give to a physical system be it moon or any other entity that you could think of. If you disagree please let me know why.

4. The moon's wave function is in a superposition of several different possible eignestates. If you disagree please let me know why.

5. The relation between the wave function and the underlying reality (ex: "spherical object reflecting light") is dependent on which interpretation (semantic explanation of mathematical equations as outlined by Schrodinger) of Quantum Mechanics one would want to go with. If you disagree please let me know why.

6. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If you disagree please let me know why.

7. Per Copenhagen Interpretation, a wave function appears to collapse (one single possibility emerging from several different possibilities) only after an interaction with an observer. If you disagree please let me know why.

8. If there were no observers, there would be no collapse which means it is meaningless to ask anyone to pick one possibility out of several different possibilities.  If you disagree please let me know why.

Which is why I said, the answer to the question of what exists (existed) before an observation is made is fuzzy at best.

We could also discuss the other popular interpretation (Many worlds interpretation) but that would be more shocking than the Copenhagen interpretation, trust me.

To sum up, the math behind Quantum Mechanics is fool proof. The interpretation of what the math means is what is up for discussion.
 

How do you propose we "observe" without any exchange of photons being involved in the process?! This should be interesting.



Whatever it is that is under observation, continues to "exist" in all it's possible eigenstates.

When considering all possible eigenstates, locality has to be rejected unless you would want to go with many-worlds interpretation.

Found this gem on the internet:

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." - Niels Bohr

Edited by Aya. - 11 years ago

@ Aya

It appears that you are missing the gist of my posts.

I'm not saying one should not believe in God or worship. My contention is that faith should never be blind or unquestioned. It should always be tempered with some amount of rational thought or object.

Obviously people may kill in my name even if I didn't ask for it. But that is completely irrelevant and on another tangent. What I am trying to say is we do not know for certain beyond doubt what a God wants, that is why it is more prudent to rely on our intrinsic rationality and moral compass.

Why do you think a person kills in the name of God? Why do you think a person can claim to love God yet malign God's name? Why do you think a person can consider God merciful & benevolent but still be convinced that God wills it to slaughter people?

This happens because of blind faith. The person believes in God but also takes books or religious leaders literally. They never think for themselves. They will do anything if they think it is what God wills. They never stop to think that God would never want to cause harm or death. They blindly do what they assume to be God's will without giving second thought to morality or rationality within humanity.

So before stating anything to be what God wills and expects we ought to ask several questions as to why and ensure that we never place our faith in something that is inconsistent or harmful to humanity in the long run.

As for Karma, I think it is one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts.

Of course actions lead to consequences. It is like Newton's third law of motion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Sometimes it is simple, if you place your hand in fire it will get burned. But when we throw human behavior and emotions in the mix, the situation gets much more complex.

A person disrespecting their parents can lead to a myriad of consequences depending on the situation. They will not all be necessarily bad. The parents may get angry and ground them. Thats a consequence. Or being human they may hurt the child by letting them down sometime. In some cases the child may have meant no disrespect by the parents misunderstood or overreacted. In some cases the parents may have done something despicable. The parents may realize this and in some way try to thank the child for doing the right thing.

This way what we do often has consequences. But God or a third party is not miraculously interfering or causing them. They occur because people around us observe what we do, they experience the impact of our actions. Consequently they make decisions about us, they react to what we do. Good, bad, mixed all sorts of consequences occur simply as a result of humans interacting with each other and being human.

That is why there is no hard and fast rule of behavior to never disrespect or obey without questioning. Nor can you game it by trying to guess what will be good and do it and avoid what is bad. You can't really guess or make a call on what others will think as good or bad or how they will react. The only thing we can do is try not to think about consequence and act in a manner which is sincere and honest to ourselves and do our best to think about what is moral and rational.

Bullies have bad endings not because God punishes bullies or wills it, but because people stand up to bullies and say "It gets better".