Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Jentleman Geff]

Wow. Do you just read wikipedia or something to learn things? Thought experiment has not been the main way physics has worked for the past century. Not a single physicist would say that.

 

[Pie eyed]

Yes it has.

Schrodingers thought experiment (the cat in the box) was proposed to Einstein (along with others) in a series of debates in the early part of the 20th century.

To which a series of rebuttals and other thought experiments were proposed and counter proposed (such as the EPR experiment and so forth).

As we (and physics) have progressed, we have been able to practically test many of these thought experiments as actual experiments (the EPR thought experiment has since actually been conducted and falsifed Einsteins 'underlying clockwork' theory, the Quantum Eraser and Delayed choice eraser have been actually conducted and confirmed Heisenbergs 'uncertainty principle' and so forth).

The LHC is just a continuation of those experiments and an effort to unify the two schools of Physics; 'classical' and 'quantum' into a standard model (amongst many other things).

Like your sig.

 

[Malifice]

Wow. Do you just read wikipedia or something to learn things? Thought experiment has not been the main way physics has worked for the past century. Not a single physicist would say that.

Huh? You misread my post.

I was suggesting that Physics (and the scientific method) relies on falsifiability, hypothesis and experimentation (including thought experiments which is where every experiment starts). Part of the process of the method is to pose a theory behind the cause of a phenomenon and then propose a reasonable set of circumstances in which that theory can be proved wrong.

A classic example is the EPR paradox proposed by Einstein Podolsky and Rosen:

The EPR paradox is an early and influential critique leveled against quantum mechanics. Albert Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (known collectively as EPR) designed a thought experiment intended to reveal what they believed to be inadequacies of quantum mechanics. To that end they pointed to a consequence of quantum mechanics that its supporters had not noticed.

The predictions of EPR were subsequently tested, falisifed and proved wrong by John Bell in 1964:

In 1964, John Bell showed that the predictions of quantum mechanics in the EPR thought experiment are significantly different from the predictions of a particular class of hidden variable theories (the local hidden variable theories). After the publication of Bell's paper, a variety of experiments were devised to test Bell's inequalities (experiments which generally rely on photon polarization measurement). All the experiments conducted to date have found behavior in line with the predictions of standard quantum mechanics theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#Implications_for_quantum_mechanics

 

[Malifice]

Like your sig.

Thanks Bro.

Douglas Adams again. Man was a frickin genius.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#Implications_for_quantum_mechanics

Surprise, surprise.

 

[Malifice]

Surprise, surprise.

No need for source snobbery unless you are saying that the information I posted is wrong.

The EPR thought experiment was based on (then) theories held by a number of Physicists (including one Albert Einstein). At the time it was proposed the EPR paradox was impossible to verify (or falsify). It made a number of predictions however, and those predictions can themselves be verified or falsified (and subsequently in 1964 were in fact tested for and falsified, confirming Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, and the subjective nature of the electron and photon).

What part of the infomation I posted there is incorrect, or do you refute, and on what grounds?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

I always find that when science attempts to disprove God, and theology takes on science, both positions come from very different perspectives and neither is compatible with the other, and therefore neither is convincing to the other. A bit like train tracks - each going the same way but never likely to meet. Deity believing scientists excepted of course .

Given that, it's also interesting, and somewhat ironic, that theologians were the ones who "started" scientific investigation...

Given the standpoints of each side, the argument is pointless.

So what's the point?


Now that's the biggest question of all!

 

[cancat]

What part of the infomation I posted there is incorrect, or do you refute, and on what grounds?

The information that you posted where the "experiment" about retrocausality and the "results" were made up by a blogger who proposed "capturing" photons in a box and also proposed building a Star Trek computer.

 

[Malifice]

The information that you posted where the "experiment" about retrocausality and the "results" were made up by a blogger who proposed "capturing" photons in a box and also proposed building a Star Trek computer.

Lol. Again, the guy could be fruitcake but the experiment is legit:

Let us assume that we are studying the position of a light photon traveling in space. We've shown that this photon has a wavefunction as introduced by Schrodinger equation.The wavefunction peaks at the position of the photon. Now if this photon encounters a half-silvered mirror, tilted at 45° to the light beam (a half-silvered mirror is a mirror, which reflects exactly half of the light, which impinges upon it, while the remaining half is transmitted directly through the mirror), the photon's wavefunction shall splits into two, with one part reflected off to the side and the other part continuing in the same direction in which the photon started. The wavefunction is said to be "doubly peaked." Since each "part" of the wavefunction is describing a position that may be light-years away from the other position given by the other "part" of the wavefunction, we can conclude that the photon has found itself to be in two places at once, more than a light-year distant from one another!

Someone might say that this previous assessment is not real. What is happening really is that the photon has a 50 percent probability that it is in one of the places and a 50 percent probability that it is in the other? No, that's simply not true! No matter for how long it has traveled, there is always the possibility that the two parts of the photons' beam may be reflected back so that they encounter one another, for a much awaited "reunion". If it was a simple matter of probability, the photon would be either on one position "OR" the other, and there would not be any need for "reunion" with the other probability.

So as long as there is any possibility that the wavefunction will be reduced to one peak again (as it was before the photon hit the half-silvered mirror), the photon in question shall behave as one photon in two places at the same time!

In the experiment presented here, a light beam encounters a half-silvered mirror angled 45° to the light beam, splitting the beam into two. The two parts of this light beam is brought back again to the same point (where a second half-silvered mirror is placed) by using a pair of fully-silvered mirrors .Two photocells (A & B) are placed in the direct line of the two beams in order to find the where about of the examined photon. What do we find? If it were merely the case that there were a 50 % chance that the photon followed one route and a 50 % chance that it followed the other, then we should find a 50 % probability that one of the detectors registers the photon and a 50 % probability that the other one does. However, that is not what happens. If the two possible routes are exactly equal in length, then it turns out that there is a 100 % probability that the photon reaches the detector A, lying in the direction of the photon's initial motion and a 0 % probability that it reaches the other detector B (the photon is certain to strike detector A).

What does this tell us about the reality of the photon's state of existence between its first and last encounter with a half-reflecting mirror? It seems inescapable that the photon must, in some sense have actually traveled both routes at once! For if an absorbing screen is placed in the way of either of the two routes, then it becomes equally probable that A or B is reached; but when both routes are open (and of equal length) only A can be reached. Blocking off one of the routes actually allows B to be reached! With both routes open, the photon somehow "knows" that it is not permitted to reach B, so it must have actually felt out both routes.

If youre not just being obtuse, and are genuinely intrested, check out this site:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C005775/Observations/particle.html

 

[Malifice]

 

[tb_fanboy]

 

[Pie eyed]

I always find that when science attempts to disprove God, and theology takes on science, both positions come from very different perspectives and neither is compatible with the other, and therefore neither is convincing to the other. A bit like train tracks - each going the same way but never likely to meet. Deity believing scientists excepted of course .

Given that, it's also interesting, and somewhat ironic, that theologians were the ones who "started" scientific investigation...

Given the standpoints of each side, the argument is pointless.

So what's the point?


Now that's the biggest question of all!

I don't think science ever tries to disprove God. Science, if it were an conscious entity, would tell you it is impossible to disprove God.

 

[blackcat]

I don't think science ever tries to disprove God. Science, if it were an conscious entity, would tell you it is impossible to disprove God.

the NRA said guns dont kill people spokespeople for science do.

 

[Si Botak]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?



You don't wish to debate your faith because faith is the belief in something without recourse to reason. As Dawkins says (borrowed from the great man Pirsig) "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion".

Tell me about this God you believe in. You seem to think it is male. What properties does it have? What does it look like? Why would a being as powerful and all knowing enough to create an immense and complex universe reveal itself only to one desert tribe of an infinitely lesser species? What was God doing for billions of years before mankind came along? Are the Gods of the other religions all false?

Surely you acknowledge that the bible was written by men? And by your own words human beings are fallible and imperfect, hence the bible, on which I assume your faith depends, lacks moral, spiritual or intellectual authority.

Yay for the forum software that now tells me you've responded.

Your first sentence is both presumptuous and contains the exact arrogance I decried in my post. My response - I have neither the requirement nor the inclination to respond in a rational matter. Simply put, Piss Off.

As for God's gender, I don't presume to know what gender he/she is... I simply put it into the same terms of reference the bible does, mainly because as fallible humans we have a very poor understanding of what he/she/it is, and at the time it was assumed it was a he. I'm not going to argue semantics around gender textuals written a couple of thousand years ago. Again, Piss Off.

I do, and that's the primary issue with any religious text. The words of man are almost certainly fallible. Acknowledgement of that doesn't equate to acknowledgment that God is. Piss Off.

One more thing... don't call me Shirley.

 

[skilts]

I do, and that's the primary issue with any religious text. The words of man are almost certainly fallible. Acknowledgement of that doesn't equate to acknowledgment that God is. Piss Off.

...and man created god.

 

[cancat]

Your first sentence is both presumptuous and contains the exact arrogance I decried in my post. My response - I have neither the requirement nor the inclination to respond in a rational matter

So you've waited over a year to respond in an irrational manner?

As for God's gender, I don't presume to know what gender he/she is... I simply put it into the same terms of reference the bible does, mainly because as fallible humans we have a very poor understanding of what he/she/it is, and at the time it was assumed it was a he. I'm not going to argue semantics around gender textuals written a couple of thousand years ago

That's fine. I was just asking you to tell me something about this God you believe in. What properties does it have?

I do, and that's the primary issue with any religious text. The words of man are almost certainly fallible. Acknowledgement of that doesn't equate to acknowledgment that God is

If the words in the bible are fallible then it lacks moral, spiritual or intellectual authority. How do you choose which bits to believe in? And where does your knowledge of the God you believe in come from?

 

[evo]

Take your wink and say that not all metaphysics has to be of the appropriating kind, in which the enquiry into of the Being of humans is seen to be, of necessity and by definition, a violent and deterministic pursuit.

I reckons capitalising the term being is a dead give away that metaphysics is being employed, appropriating kind or no.

 

[Monniehawk]

If the words in the bible are fallible then it lacks moral, spiritual or intellectual authority. How do you choose which bits to believe in? And where does your knowledge of the God you believe in come from?

How so?
The US Constitution contains similar flaws (also real and imagined), yet is held to be authoritative - even within its conflicts. I guess that is so because the nation has resolved to believe in it. Ditto our Acts of Parliament, etc. Obvious conflicts, errors or fallibilities may raise conjecture on specifics, but they hardly qualify the said documents as lacking any authority, etc.
The reading of any document is open to interpretation and the reader will subconsciously structure tracts into a hierarchy of importance/relevance. Finding one paragraph (or even many) irrelevant in, say, Hawkins "The Elegant Universe" does not consign the book to a list of academic remainders, surely!
It helps to understand the human mind: being humans, xians have made a commitment - to the scriptures in this case - and are able to reconcile that there are imperfections or conflicts. The same as I do with Darwin's Origin of the Species. The basic message remains wonderful, inspiring and important. I have no intention of trashing the OoS because some zealot pointed out that Charlie had some difficulties with the eye!
Those details are the spice that allow semanticists to pontificate because they managed to locate a misplaced comma.

 

[cancat]

How so?

The US Constitution contains similar flaws (also real and imagined), yet is held to be authoritative - even within its conflicts. I guess that is so because the nation has resolved to believe in it. Ditto our Acts of Parliament, etc. Obvious conflicts, errors or fallibilities may raise conjecture on specifics, but they hardly qualify the said documents as lacking any authority, etc.
The reading of any document is open to interpretation and the reader will subconsciously structure tracts into a hierarchy of importance/relevance. Finding one paragraph (or even many) irrelevant in, say, Hawkins "The Elegant Universe" does not consign the book to a list of academic remainders, surely!
It helps to understand the human mind: being humans, xians have made a commitment - to the scriptures in this case - and are able to reconcile that there are imperfections or conflicts. The same as I do with Darwin's Origin of the Species. The basic message remains wonderful, inspiring and important. I have no intention of trashing the OoS because some zealot pointed out that Charlie had some difficulties with the eye!
Those details are the spice that allow semanticists to pontificate because they managed to locate a misplaced comma.

My conditional was a response to Si Botak's statement -

I'm a Christian and I see no need to debate my faith with anyone, quite simply because I refuse to recognise the moral, spiritual or intellectual authority of any fallible imperfect human being to enter into such an exercise with me.

His stated reason for not discussing his faith with fellow humans is that we are fallible and therefore lack the moral, spiritual or intellectual authority to enter into such an exercise. As opposed to a conversation with an infallible God (or Pope ). If the bible is written by man it follows, for the same reasons, that the bible also lacks moral, spiritual or intellectual authority.

But there is an important difference in why people have resolved to believe in the bible, compared to why they believe in the US Constitution or Origin of Species. The bible, even if acknowledged to be written by man, purports to represent the word of God. There would be no Christian religion unless there was a claim that Jesus was the son of God and that his message is sacred. But I still find it very interesting what people choose to believe from cherry picking from the bible.

That being said, I don't think it really matters if Jesus was the son of God or even if God exists. If religions add value and "meaning" to people's lives then they are doing alot better than some of the alternatives.

 

[skilts]

That being said, I don't think it really matters if Jesus was the son of God or even if God exists. If religions add value and "meaning" to people's lives then they are doing alot better than some of the alternatives.

This only works if you think that lies add value to existence. There are those who would say that we might choose not to live at all, if we found ourselves bereft of the lies we embrace (not just religious ones). We would be reduced to what is, what our perception of ourselves is, and what we can know. Whether it is better to live a lie, rather than not live at all is a moot point, I think.

 

[Pie eyed]

Yay for the forum software that now tells me you've responded.

Your first sentence is both presumptuous and contains the exact arrogance I decried in my post. My response - I have neither the requirement nor the inclination to respond in a rational matter. Simply put, Piss Off.

As for God's gender, I don't presume to know what gender he/she is... I simply put it into the same terms of reference the bible does, mainly because as fallible humans we have a very poor understanding of what he/she/it is, and at the time it was assumed it was a he. I'm not going to argue semantics around gender textuals written a couple of thousand years ago. Again, Piss Off.

I do, and that's the primary issue with any religious text. The words of man are almost certainly fallible. Acknowledgement of that doesn't equate to acknowledgment that God is. Piss Off.

One more thing... don't call me Shirley.

Si, you're a great poster and we agree on a lot of issues, but I think it is a reasonable question from another poster to have you define what it is you believe in.
Admittedly the wording of the queries may come across a little aggressive, but the actual question is worthy of a response.
For those of us who have no religious belief it really is a mystery and some other posters, who hold various beliefs can be quite defensive when theirbeliefs are questioned.

I know you are not in this category.

 

[cancat]

This only works if you think that lies add value to existence

They can do. Humans are irrational creatures. We each believe our own set of lies. But maybe I am lying to myself about that

There are those who would say that we might choose not to live at all, if we found ourselves bereft of the lies we embrace (not just religious ones). We would be reduced to what is, what our perception of ourselves is, and what we can know. Whether it is better to live a lie, rather than not live at all is a moot point, I think.

I'm familiar with absurdism - but I never quite got how an acceptance that life might not have meaning might lead to one committing suicide. I quite like life just for the shits and giggles. And the charity work (ok I made that bit up). Maybe I never fully berefted myself of the lies. Is that even possible? How can you know if you have done so or not?

 

[skilts]

They can do. Humans are irrational creatures. We each believe our own set of lies. But maybe I am lying to myself about that



I'm familiar with absurdism - but I never quite got how an acceptance that life might not have meaning might lead to one committing suicide. I quite like life just for the shits and giggles. And the charity work (ok I made that bit up). Maybe I never fully berefted myself of the lies. Is that even possible? How can you know if you have done so or not?

Loved your post. Authentic introspection might be one method, but as you say, no guarantees. I agree that the inability to find meaning in ones own life stems from a complete lack of imagination. To find yourself forced to exclusively draw upon somebody else's interpretation of that meaning seems to me to be an abrogation.

 

[cancat]

Authentic introspection might be one method

I find red wine works too, but that's just me. Usually a different form of introspection in the morning.

 

[skilts]

I find red wine works too, but that's just me. Usually a different form of introspection in the morning.

Although I rarely get to Geelong, we should have a shiraz together one time. Afterwards, we could continue furiously arguing with each other.