Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Do quantum physics disprove god?

Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 4:43:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I actually mean that as a question, seeing as I have only a vague understanding of quantum physics. So I'd like to hear from anyone who understands it a bit better if my thoughts are on the right track.

From what I've learned, quantum physics shows something along the lines of atoms having different properties or being different or existing/not existing depending on whether they are being observed. I'm not really sure what it is that gets changed but I think it was something along those lines.

To me, if this is true, it has a few consequences. It could prove that there is something soul-like. On the other hand, couldn't it call into question the existence of a god?

What I mean is that, if, for example, something's existence is changed based on whether it's being observed, then, well, it shouldn't. If god is omnipresent, I imagine he'd override human observations and everything would be in whatever state he wanted. Human observation shouldn't be able to override god's will, right? Hope that made sense. Quantum physics is freaking confusing.

I'm just curious, not really making an argument here.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 4:47:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
meh.... from what i've read the "observation" in the obserer effect has to be framed in quantum terms before the question makes sense- in other words the "observer" must act on the particle in question by some subatomic means for the observer effect to be real. presumably god would not be limited to observing things by physical interference so i doubt it would make much difference either way.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 4:55:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 4:43:48 PM, Yvette wrote:
From what I've learned, quantum physics shows something along the lines of atoms having different properties

Probably mean location versus momentum with this one. The methods we use to determine one of those properties will naturally interfere with obtaining the second measurement. The more accurate we can measure one, the less accurate we can measure the other.

or being different or existing/not existing depending on whether they are being observed.

Schrodinger's cat is a bit of a self parody. Until we observe we can't know X property. Not, that it is in multiple states until we do.


To me, if this is true, it has a few consequences. It could prove that there is something soul-like. On the other hand, couldn't it call into question the existence of a god?

What I mean is that, if, for example, something's existence is changed based on whether it's being observed, then, well, it shouldn't.

Should first clear up what 'observe' means. It means anything that interacts, not actually a requirement for seeing/viewing. So the bouncing of particles off another to determine a property - the bouncing particle is the observer, not the person in the lab doing the tests.

If god is omnipresent, I imagine he'd override human observations and everything would be in whatever state he wanted.

Naw. It's not an actual observation in the sense of viewing.

Granted there are freaky things in quantum physics like entanglement and a counter spinning particle occurring at the one time - it's no proof/disproof of the divine however. It doesn't stop quantum quackery from appearing however. :P
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 5:03:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ah, so simple observation doesn't change the state of things?

You lied to me Morgan Freeman!
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:18:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The more and more I find out about physics especially quantum the more and more I am convinced of the existence of God
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Mason0612
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:46:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:18:02 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
The more and more I find out about physics especially quantum the more and more I am convinced of the existence of God

Which God though? Any God in general or a specific God?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:49:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:18:02 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
The more and more I find out about physics especially quantum the more and more I am convinced of the existence of God

I suggest you read better sources then. :P
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:49:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is similar to the Argument from Quantum Physic:

Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:52:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Observing = physically interacting. Unless you can prove that God is messing around with particles all the time, then no.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:59:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 5:03:20 PM, Yvette wrote:
Ah, so simple observation doesn't change the state of things?

"If the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once." -- http://en.wikipedia.org...

The observation doesn't change the state of things, but rather the state of things appear different when viewed through our observation.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 8:09:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:59:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/8/2010 5:03:20 PM, Yvette wrote:
Ah, so simple observation doesn't change the state of things?

"If the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once." -- http://en.wikipedia.org...

The observation doesn't change the state of things, but rather the state of things appear different when viewed through our observation.

All that's saying is we can't know X until we know X. The act of observing changes the nature of the particle because it requires physical interaction.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 8:13:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:59:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/8/2010 5:03:20 PM, Yvette wrote:
Ah, so simple observation doesn't change the state of things?

"If the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once." -- http://en.wikipedia.org...

The observation doesn't change the state of things, but rather the state of things appear different when viewed through our observation.

However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense.[ From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system.

how many times are you just gonna skip over this part? lol
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 8:20:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 8:09:02 PM, Puck wrote:
At 8/8/2010 6:59:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/8/2010 5:03:20 PM, Yvette wrote:
Ah, so simple observation doesn't change the state of things?

"If the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once." -- http://en.wikipedia.org...

The observation doesn't change the state of things, but rather the state of things appear different when viewed through our observation.

All that's saying is we can't know X until we know X.

You're saying superposition doesn't exist?

The act of observing changes the nature of the particle because it requires physical interaction.

If that were the case it wouldn't be called the "observation principle." It would be called the "physical interaction principle."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 8:21:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 8:13:35 PM, belle wrote:
However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense.[ From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system.

how many times are you just gonna skip over this part? lol

Because it doesn't refute anything.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 8:24:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 8:21:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/8/2010 8:13:35 PM, belle wrote:
However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense.[ From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system.

how many times are you just gonna skip over this part? lol

Because it doesn't refute anything.

sure it does. it means that "observation" has nothing to do with consciousness, which you keep claiming it does.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 8:29:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 8:20:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

You're saying superposition doesn't exist?

I'm saying it's not what you make it out to be.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 8:31:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:59:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/8/2010 5:03:20 PM, Yvette wrote:
Ah, so simple observation doesn't change the state of things?

"If the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once."

How do we know this? Is there any possible evidence for that statement?
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 11:26:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To even start to grasp quantum mechanics first you must buy a cat, but not become emotionally tied to it.

That for me was the the hardest part.

I like cats.

Oh yes ….. there is no god. The greater our understanding of quantum mechanics increases the smaller the place for "god" to stand becomes.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 11:27:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 11:26:30 PM, Zeitgeist wrote:
To even start to grasp quantum mechanics first you must buy a cat, but not become emotionally tied to it.

That for me was the the hardest part.

I like cats.

I know where you're going with this...

You're terrible. :(
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 11:51:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 8:29:54 PM, Puck wrote:
At 8/8/2010 8:20:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

You're saying superposition doesn't exist?

I'm saying it's not what you make it out to be.

But it's not just like saying "before I look in that door I don't know if there is someone in there or not", which you seem to be saying it is. The double slit experiment showed that the act of observation forces the particle to choose a slit, changes it's behaviour. If the particle is unobserved it takes all possible paths, or resides in all possible positions. This is a property of the universe not a mere statement of our inability to find or track particles.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 11:54:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:18:02 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
The more and more I find out about physics especially quantum the more and more I am convinced of the existence of God

Any particular reason why?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 12:39:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 11:27:49 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/8/2010 11:26:30 PM, Zeitgeist wrote:
To even start to grasp quantum mechanics first you must buy a cat, but not become emotionally tied to it.

That for me was the the hardest part.

I like cats.

I know where you're going with this...

You're terrible. :(

LOL!

I do my best! ;)

BTW - Good Morning! :)
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 12:41:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 12:39:26 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 8/8/2010 11:27:49 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/8/2010 11:26:30 PM, Zeitgeist wrote:
To even start to grasp quantum mechanics first you must buy a cat, but not become emotionally tied to it.

That for me was the the hardest part.

I like cats.

I know where you're going with this...

You're terrible. :(

LOL!

I do my best! ;)

BTW - Good Morning! :)

Good morning to you too although it's still not even 1 AM here. :)
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 1:04:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 11:51:48 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 8/8/2010 8:29:54 PM, Puck wrote:
At 8/8/2010 8:20:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

You're saying superposition doesn't exist?

I'm saying it's not what you make it out to be.

But it's not just like saying "before I look in that door I don't know if there is someone in there or not", which you seem to be saying it is. The double slit experiment showed that the act of observation forces the particle to choose a slit, changes it's behaviour. If the particle is unobserved it takes all possible paths, or resides in all possible positions. This is a property of the universe not a mere statement of our inability to find or track particles.

Which is only because certain particles have the wave particle duality. The particle is not ever present within the wave, it has a probability function of existing within X range of the wave, which is why dual slit experiments are the way they are and why measuring where the particle actually is, collapses the wave. Applying that to the macro level again is simply non demonstrated.