Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Digital Physics Argument

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 8:59:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 8:42:37 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
What you do guys think of this?




Thanks,
J

It says digital physics predicts information processing without space-time. We can rule this our a priori. Processing requires change, and thus time. If there is no space or time, then no process can occur.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.

Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 9:38:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.


Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J

I agree that materialism is dead, but I don't believe this has any theistic implication. Also, the video assumes that consciousness is required for collapse of a wave-function. However, a system can bath in photons with no conscious observers at all and collapse those wave-functions. A measurement by a non-conscious robot can produce the same result. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is just not convincing.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 10:19:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 9:38:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.


Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J

I agree that materialism is dead, but I don't believe this has any theistic implication. Also, the video assumes that consciousness is required for collapse of a wave-function. However, a system can bath in photons with no conscious observers at all and collapse those wave-functions. A measurement by a non-conscious robot can produce the same result. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is just not convincing.

Yes, materialism is, indeed, dead.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 10:26:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 10:19:34 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:38:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.


Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J

I agree that materialism is dead, but I don't believe this has any theistic implication. Also, the video assumes that consciousness is required for collapse of a wave-function. However, a system can bath in photons with no conscious observers at all and collapse those wave-functions. A measurement by a non-conscious robot can produce the same result. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is just not convincing.

Yes, materialism is, indeed, dead.

How would you argue against the theistic implications proposed at the end of the video?
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 10:36:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 10:26:48 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:19:34 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:38:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.


Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J

I agree that materialism is dead, but I don't believe this has any theistic implication. Also, the video assumes that consciousness is required for collapse of a wave-function. However, a system can bath in photons with no conscious observers at all and collapse those wave-functions. A measurement by a non-conscious robot can produce the same result. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is just not convincing.

Yes, materialism is, indeed, dead.

How would you argue against the theistic implications proposed at the end of the video?

I would argue what you propose. I agree. My problem is that I am not tuned to this at all. Why does a consciousness have to be the one that's observing?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:04:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I always get a kick when non-physicists talk about physics, especially stuff like quantum computing and mechanics.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 12:52:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:19:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Atheist physicist Victor Stenger has a lot to say about this:

http://www.colorado.edu...

Thanks, Rational. I have been told that "delayed choice quantum eraser experiment shows instrumental detectors cannot countA279; as observers". You agree? I thought it just says that conscious minds can count as observers, but surely saying the opposite is a false dichotomy.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 12:54:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 12:52:42 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:19:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Atheist physicist Victor Stenger has a lot to say about this:

http://www.colorado.edu...

Thanks, Rational. I have been told that "delayed choice quantum eraser experiment shows instrumental detectors cannot countA279; as observers". You agree? I thought it just says that conscious minds can count as observers, but surely saying the opposite is a false dichotomy.

I totally disagree with "delayed choice quantum eraser experiment shows instrumental detectors cannot count as observers".... As do most physicists.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 1:01:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 12:54:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:52:42 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:19:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Atheist physicist Victor Stenger has a lot to say about this:

http://www.colorado.edu...

Thanks, Rational. I have been told that "delayed choice quantum eraser experiment shows instrumental detectors cannot countA279; as observers". You agree? I thought it just says that conscious minds can count as observers, but surely saying the opposite is a false dichotomy.

I totally disagree with "delayed choice quantum eraser experiment shows instrumental detectors cannot count as observers".... As do most physicists.

It seems we are in agreement. *offers high five*
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:17:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 10:19:34 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:38:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.


Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J

I agree that materialism is dead, but I don't believe this has any theistic implication. Also, the video assumes that consciousness is required for collapse of a wave-function. However, a system can bath in photons with no conscious observers at all and collapse those wave-functions. A measurement by a non-conscious robot can produce the same result. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is just not convincing.

Yes, materialism is, indeed, dead.

It didn't die. It just became physicalism.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:43:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 2:17:58 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:19:34 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:38:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.


Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J

I agree that materialism is dead, but I don't believe this has any theistic implication. Also, the video assumes that consciousness is required for collapse of a wave-function. However, a system can bath in photons with no conscious observers at all and collapse those wave-functions. A measurement by a non-conscious robot can produce the same result. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is just not convincing.

Yes, materialism is, indeed, dead.

It didn't die. It just became physicalism.

What is your view about these arguments?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:43:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 2:17:58 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:19:34 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:38:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.


Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J

I agree that materialism is dead, but I don't believe this has any theistic implication. Also, the video assumes that consciousness is required for collapse of a wave-function. However, a system can bath in photons with no conscious observers at all and collapse those wave-functions. A measurement by a non-conscious robot can produce the same result. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is just not convincing.

Yes, materialism is, indeed, dead.

It didn't die. It just became physicalism.

You are an Atheist who is into physics heavy, so you should have something to say about arguments that try to use physics to prove God.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:45:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 2:43:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:17:58 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:19:34 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:38:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.


Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J

I agree that materialism is dead, but I don't believe this has any theistic implication. Also, the video assumes that consciousness is required for collapse of a wave-function. However, a system can bath in photons with no conscious observers at all and collapse those wave-functions. A measurement by a non-conscious robot can produce the same result. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is just not convincing.

Yes, materialism is, indeed, dead.

It didn't die. It just became physicalism.

You are an Atheist who is into physics heavy, so you should have something to say about arguments that try to use physics to prove God.

I don't have the time or motivation to watch the videos in question, but my general impression from arguments about quantum mechanics is that they try to draw macroscopic implications from microscopic mechanics. It fundamentally doesn't work.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:01:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 2:45:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:43:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:17:58 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:19:34 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:38:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.


Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J

I agree that materialism is dead, but I don't believe this has any theistic implication. Also, the video assumes that consciousness is required for collapse of a wave-function. However, a system can bath in photons with no conscious observers at all and collapse those wave-functions. A measurement by a non-conscious robot can produce the same result. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is just not convincing.

Yes, materialism is, indeed, dead.

It didn't die. It just became physicalism.

You are an Atheist who is into physics heavy, so you should have something to say about arguments that try to use physics to prove God.

I don't have the time or motivation to watch the videos in question, but my general impression from arguments about quantum mechanics is that they try to draw macroscopic implications from microscopic mechanics. It fundamentally doesn't work.

The "Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism" video says:

"Many have tried to get around this by trying to separate the quantum world, from the macro-world. But that has also been falsified in 2010 by violations of the Leggett-Garg inequality, and in 2011, Brukner and Kofler showed that Macrorealism does emerge from quantum physics; so you cannot separate the two. This should be obvious since double-slit experiments have been performed successfully with larger things like atoms or molecules, and experiments are being devised on how to build mid-sized proteins and viruses, and nobody doubts the results will be different. Other elements of quantum weirdness have been seen in macro-objects as well, such as quantum entanglement between two aluminum chips big enough to be seen with the naked eye, and putting a small metal paddle into a quantum superposition...So, the idea that we can escape by postulating the macro-world is separate from the quantum world, doesn't work..." - 9:25

It seems as if the video already took care of your objection. Quite convincingly I have to admit.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:10:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 3:01:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:45:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:43:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:17:58 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:19:34 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:38:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.


Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J

I agree that materialism is dead, but I don't believe this has any theistic implication. Also, the video assumes that consciousness is required for collapse of a wave-function. However, a system can bath in photons with no conscious observers at all and collapse those wave-functions. A measurement by a non-conscious robot can produce the same result. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is just not convincing.

Yes, materialism is, indeed, dead.

It didn't die. It just became physicalism.

You are an Atheist who is into physics heavy, so you should have something to say about arguments that try to use physics to prove God.

I don't have the time or motivation to watch the videos in question, but my general impression from arguments about quantum mechanics is that they try to draw macroscopic implications from microscopic mechanics. It fundamentally doesn't work.

The "Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism" video says:

"Many have tried to get around this by trying to separate the quantum world, from the macro-world. But that has also been falsified in 2010 by violations of the Leggett-Garg inequality, and in 2011, Brukner and Kofler showed that Macrorealism does emerge from quantum physics; so you cannot separate the two. This should be obvious since double-slit experiments have been performed successfully with larger things like atoms or molecules, and experiments are being devised on how to build mid-sized proteins and viruses, and nobody doubts the results will be different. Other elements of quantum weirdness have been seen in macro-objects as well, such as quantum entanglement between two aluminum chips big enough to be seen with the naked eye, and putting a small metal paddle into a quantum superposition...So, the idea that we can escape by postulating the macro-world is separate from the quantum world, doesn't work..." - 9:25

It seems as if the video already took care of your objection. Quite convincingly I have to admit.

I'm not sure about Legget-Garg, but in the case of people like Kofler, I think they are trying to show that the classical world emerges from the quantum, not that things like 'particles can become entangled, so consciousness is entangled' are valid. In regards to the first task, Kofler once remarked that ""It"s really fair to say that classical physics out of quantum theory has not been entirely achieved yet by anybody,', so I think the confidence of the video is unjustified.

Then again, I have no idea what the thesis of the video is, so maybe you should start with the first assertion made.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:18:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 3:10:56 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 3:01:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:45:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:43:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:17:58 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:19:34 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:38:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.


Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J

I agree that materialism is dead, but I don't believe this has any theistic implication. Also, the video assumes that consciousness is required for collapse of a wave-function. However, a system can bath in photons with no conscious observers at all and collapse those wave-functions. A measurement by a non-conscious robot can produce the same result. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is just not convincing.

Yes, materialism is, indeed, dead.

It didn't die. It just became physicalism.

You are an Atheist who is into physics heavy, so you should have something to say about arguments that try to use physics to prove God.

I don't have the time or motivation to watch the videos in question, but my general impression from arguments about quantum mechanics is that they try to draw macroscopic implications from microscopic mechanics. It fundamentally doesn't work.

The "Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism" video says:

"Many have tried to get around this by trying to separate the quantum world, from the macro-world. But that has also been falsified in 2010 by violations of the Leggett-Garg inequality, and in 2011, Brukner and Kofler showed that Macrorealism does emerge from quantum physics; so you cannot separate the two. This should be obvious since double-slit experiments have been performed successfully with larger things like atoms or molecules, and experiments are being devised on how to build mid-sized proteins and viruses, and nobody doubts the results will be different. Other elements of quantum weirdness have been seen in macro-objects as well, such as quantum entanglement between two aluminum chips big enough to be seen with the naked eye, and putting a small metal paddle into a quantum superposition...So, the idea that we can escape by postulating the macro-world is separate from the quantum world, doesn't work..." - 9:25

It seems as if the video already took care of your objection. Quite convincingly I have to admit.

I'm not sure about Legget-Garg, but in the case of people like Kofler, I think they are trying to show that the classical world emerges from the quantum, not that things like 'particles can become entangled, so consciousness is entangled' are valid. In regards to the first task, Kofler once remarked that ""It"s really fair to say that classical physics out of quantum theory has not been entirely achieved yet by anybody,', so I think the confidence of the video is unjustified.

Did Koflor say that prior to, or after 2011 when the experiment in question was carried out? Also, the video had sources supporting the notion that things that can be seen with the naked eye have been engaged in quantum entanglement (two small chips), and that a small metal paddle was the largest object to ever be in a quantum superposition. That seems convincing to me.


Then again, I have no idea what the thesis of the video is, so maybe you should start with the first assertion made.

They take the Schroeder's cat situation, and say that the cat is both dead and alive until someone observes it. So, we could be both dead and alive right now. What keeps us, apparently in one position, has to be a higher consciousness. If someone observing me keeps me in one position, and someone observing them does, then there has to be a cosmic consciousness to keep everything in position. At least, that is what I got out of it.... It really doesn't argue for God until the end of the video, and spends most of the video debunking materialism.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:25:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 3:18:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 3:10:56 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 3:01:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:45:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:43:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:17:58 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:19:34 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:38:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:18:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.


Thank you, Rational. Did I mention how much I appreciate you? :D There's one last thing I'd like you to look at:

Many thanks again,
J

I agree that materialism is dead, but I don't believe this has any theistic implication. Also, the video assumes that consciousness is required for collapse of a wave-function. However, a system can bath in photons with no conscious observers at all and collapse those wave-functions. A measurement by a non-conscious robot can produce the same result. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is just not convincing.

Yes, materialism is, indeed, dead.

It didn't die. It just became physicalism.

You are an Atheist who is into physics heavy, so you should have something to say about arguments that try to use physics to prove God.

I don't have the time or motivation to watch the videos in question, but my general impression from arguments about quantum mechanics is that they try to draw macroscopic implications from microscopic mechanics. It fundamentally doesn't work.

The "Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism" video says:

"Many have tried to get around this by trying to separate the quantum world, from the macro-world. But that has also been falsified in 2010 by violations of the Leggett-Garg inequality, and in 2011, Brukner and Kofler showed that Macrorealism does emerge from quantum physics; so you cannot separate the two. This should be obvious since double-slit experiments have been performed successfully with larger things like atoms or molecules, and experiments are being devised on how to build mid-sized proteins and viruses, and nobody doubts the results will be different. Other elements of quantum weirdness have been seen in macro-objects as well, such as quantum entanglement between two aluminum chips big enough to be seen with the naked eye, and putting a small metal paddle into a quantum superposition...So, the idea that we can escape by postulating the macro-world is separate from the quantum world, doesn't work..." - 9:25

It seems as if the video already took care of your objection. Quite convincingly I have to admit.

I'm not sure about Legget-Garg, but in the case of people like Kofler, I think they are trying to show that the classical world emerges from the quantum, not that things like 'particles can become entangled, so consciousness is entangled' are valid. In regards to the first task, Kofler once remarked that ""It"s really fair to say that classical physics out of quantum theory has not been entirely achieved yet by anybody,', so I think the confidence of the video is unjustified.

Did Koflor say that prior to, or after 2011 when the experiment in question was carried out? Also, the video had sources supporting the notion that things that can be seen with the naked eye have been engaged in quantum entanglement (two small chips), and that a small metal paddle was the largest object to ever be in a quantum superposition. That seems convincing to me.


Then again, I have no idea what the thesis of the video is, so maybe you should start with the first assertion made.

They take the Schroeder's cat situation, and say that the cat is both dead and alive until someone observes it. So, we could be both dead and alive right now. What keeps us, apparently in one position, has to be a higher consciousness. If someone observing me keeps me in one position, and someone observing them does, then there has to be a cosmic consciousness to keep everything in position. At least, that is what I got out of it.... It really doesn't argue for God until the end of the video, and spends most of the video debunking materialism.

I must say it comes across as quite convincing on the face of it. "We have to go deeper"
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:27:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 12:54:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:52:42 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:19:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Atheist physicist Victor Stenger has a lot to say about this:

http://www.colorado.edu...

Thanks, Rational. I have been told that "delayed choice quantum eraser experiment shows instrumental detectors cannot countA279; as observers". You agree? I thought it just says that conscious minds can count as observers, but surely saying the opposite is a false dichotomy.

I totally disagree with "delayed choice quantum eraser experiment shows instrumental detectors cannot count as observers".... As do most physicists.

I'm in no position to judge. But what do they object to?
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:34:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Everyone, please note: We have moved off of the Digital Physics argument and we are now on the Quantum Consciousness argument.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 4:09:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I brought up to Raaz that his argument commits a fallacy of composition when trying to link it to God. He uses some guys idea that a mind is a type integrated information then says the universe exists within information. We went back and forth for a while, but he never responded to me on this.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 4:12:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 4:09:51 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I brought up to Raaz that his argument commits a fallacy of composition when trying to link it to God. He uses some guys idea that a mind is a type integrated information then says the universe exists within information. We went back and forth for a while, but he never responded to me on this.

It is also a fallacy because even if a mind is an integrated information system, that doesn't mean that if something is an integrated information system; it has to be a mind. Similarly to how a doughnut is something that can be eaten, but that doesn't mean that if an item is something that can be eaten, it has to be a doughnut.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 4:16:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 3:34:00 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Everyone, please note: We have moved off of the Digital Physics argument and we are now on the Quantum Consciousness argument.

Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, 1965):

"Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not" (Feynman et al., 1965).

Murray Gellmann (Nobel Prize, 1969):

"The universe presumably couldn't care less whether human beings evolved on some obscure planet to study its history; it goes on obeying the quantum mechanical laws of physics irrespective of observation by physicists"(Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, 156).

John A. Wheeler:

"Caution: "Consciousness" has nothing whatsover to do with the quantum process... "(Wheeler, 1983).

http://journalofcosmology.com...

I like what Wheeler said, which pertains to this idea.

"We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?"

Physics.about.com says this

"The argument being exploited in this method of proving God is that there needs to be an observer to cause a collapse. However, it makes the error of assuming that the collapse has to take prior to the creation of that observer. In fact, the Copenhagen interpretation contains no such requirement.

Instead, what would happen according to quantum physics is that the universe could exist as a superposition of states, unfolding simultaneously in every possible permutation, until such a time when an observer springs up in one such possible universe. At the point the observer potentially exists, there is therefore an act of observation, and the universe collapses into that state. This is essentially the argument of the Participatory Anthropic Principle, created by John Wheeler. In this scenario, there is no need for a God, because the observer (presumably humans, though it's possible some other observers beat us to the punch) is itself the creator of the universe."
http://physics.about.com...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 4:18:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 4:12:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 4:09:51 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I brought up to Raaz that his argument commits a fallacy of composition when trying to link it to God. He uses some guys idea that a mind is a type integrated information then says the universe exists within information. We went back and forth for a while, but he never responded to me on this.

It is also a fallacy because even if a mind is an integrated information system, that doesn't mean that if something is an integrated information system; it has to be a mind. Similarly to how a doughnut is something that can be eaten, but that doesn't mean that if an item is something that can be eaten, it has to be a doughnut.

Yeah, that's similar to what I explained to him. Our discussion is on one of his videos.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 8:56:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 9:03:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that our world is a virtual reality, or a hologram has been debunked:

"Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram"
http://www.wired.com...

So, I think my objections sufficiently debunk that hypothesis you mentioned.

"Not everyone agrees with this idea. Its foundation is formed with math rather than hard data, as is common in theoretical physics. And although a holographic universe would answer many questions about black hole physics and other paradoxes, it clashes with classical geometry, which demands a universe of smooth, continuous paths in space and time." ~ symmetrymagazine.org. I think this is a good example of what can happen when we use mathematical models alone to make predictions.