Creation vs. Evolution

[dave3712]

Your post supportswhat I told you....

Your post supportswhat I told you....

That interpretation has nothing to do with evidence of a first cause. The concepts which started debate had to do with quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment. The Copenhagen Interpretation. Neils Bohr's view can be summed up by the following:



Einstein's view which caused him to state the following;



totally dismantles your claim that this is evidence of an initial cause. Einstein simply realized that there is no wavecollapse function. The mere fact of human observation of quantum events is simply a snap shot of dynamic factors in quantum mechanics. These phenomena are constantly changing and an instant of human observation is just those phenomena in a static state because it is a snap shot and not a moving picture. Even if human observation caused a "wavecollapse" function this does nothing to support intitial cause. Because if the initial is an observer, as you must be claiming form your statement, then it would certainly not also take a human observer to create a "wavecollapse" function.

1) Einstein didn't like The Copenhagen Interpretation when he read it, but he was corrected in that God DOES play dice with the Natural Law of Probability which has come to found the scientific thinking of today.

2) The Copenhagen Interpretation is still the tenet acceptable to most all scientist now.
In the paragraph you Googled, where it says "measurement," it means observe.
Until someone observers or "measures" the phenomenon, the materialization does not occur, because the Wave does not collapse into what it "probably" would become.


3) Read more Googles and see that I am correct.
/////



1) The key concept of the theory, which forms a central part of the Copenhagen Interpretation, is known as the "collapse of the wave function".

2) The theory seeks to explain how an entity such as a photon, atom, or an electron, could "travel as a wave but arrive as a particle."

3) According to the interpretation, what is passing through the split experiment is not a material wave at all, but is a 'probability wave'. ....That wave merely contains the "probability" for what COULD be real.

4) Once the thing is observed, the wave function collapses and the photon, atom, and electron, or the whole world becomes a reality

5) Nothing is real until it has been observed!

6) We really are saying that in the 'real' world - even outside of the laboratory - until a thing has been observed it doesn't exist. ....But, by observing, all things materialize

7) This implies that there MUST actually be something 'outside' the universe, (God?), to look at the universe as a whole and collapse its overall wave function.....
Then, the Universe materialized and continues to so do.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum mechanics.htm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

 

[noguru]

1) Einstein didn't like The Copenhagen Interpretation when he read it, but he was corrected in that God DOES play dice with the Natural Law of Probability which has come to found the scientific thinking of today.

The probability of a quantum event can be gauged. In the short time (for an initial singular event) any prediction will most likely be inaccurate. It is in the long term (and with many events) that such predictions can become accurate.

So Eintstein was right.

2) The Copenhagen Interpretation is still the tenet acceptable to most all scientist now.

I understand that it is covered in classes teaching this subject. That fact has nothing to do with the point I am making. I am asking you to read what I posted and try to understand my point, and not just reiterate your misunderstanding of this.

Do you think that no quantum events would occur without a human observer? (please answer this if you respond to my post, otherwise you are totally missing my point).

In the paragraph you Googled, where it says "measurement," it means observe.

Thanks for the review, but I already understand this. Any measurement or any attempt to gauge something inherently includes an observation. Please do not insult my intelligence again.

Until someone observers or "measures" the phenomenon, the materialization does not occur, because the Wave does not collapse into what it "probably" would become.

How would we know that an event does not occur if a measurement (observation) is not completed? Your logic is horrendous here. How would you go about "non-observing" something?

3) Read more Googles and see that I am correct.

/////

I have googled this very thoroughly. What you have included in this post is really just a reiteration of your misunderstanding of the points i was making. Now can you please put in a real attempt to understand my points?

1) The key concept of the theory, which forms a central part of the Copenhagen Interpretation, is known as the "collapse of the wave function".

I understand this. Please do not repeat this again. I understand the idea of "collapse of wave function". You are diverting attention from my points here.

2) The theory seeks to explain how an entity such as a photon, atom, or an electron, could "travel as a wave but arrive as a particle."

It has to do with the double slit experiment as well as quantum entanglement. I already acknowledged that I understand this. Now it is your turn to acknowledge the points I have made.

3) According to the interpretation, what is passing through the split experiment is not a material wave at all, but is a 'probability wave'. ....That wave merely contains the "probability" for what COULD be real.

So you are saying that nothing is real unless it is observed by a human?

Probability does not negate the reality of an event. It simply acknowledges the uncertainty of the result of any singular event. Given more events, predictions based on probability become increasingly accurate.

4) Once the thing is observed, the wave function collapses and the photon, atom, and electron, or the whole world becomes a reality

They were most likely real before any human observation. However, it takes a human observation to perceive and acknowledge (although you seem to have a problem with this part) the quantum event. If you disagree with me, can you please show me some evidence of where human "non-observation" makes an event unreal?

5) Nothing is real until it has been observed!

This is what you keep claiming, but I am asking you for some evidence that things that are not observed by humans are "unreal". Can you supply that evidence?

6) We really are saying that in the 'real' world - even outside of the laboratory - until a thing has been observed it doesn't exist. ....But, by observing, all things materialize

Refer to my previous response.

7) This implies that there MUST actually be something 'outside' the universe, (God?), to look at the universe as a whole and collapse its overall wave function.....

Is the "outside the universe observer" the only thing necessary for things to become "real"?

Then, the Universe materialized and continues to so do.

How many times does the wave function have to collapse for things to become real?

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum mechanics.htm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

I understand all this. And you have not shown that you understood my points in the slightest.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Well Alwight,
It really doesn't matter to me if you can't believe that I've been visited by 3 angels, much less more than 3, which is what has happened. I only told you of 3 visits. You couldn't handle that, much less more than that. Anyway, my words on the 3rd angel don't match the words written in the Bible concerning the beast. It says instead "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation. etc." See Rev. 14: 7, 8, 9. It also says he will burn in fire forever and ever. Just go read it if you have a Bible. My own words came nothing like the words written, but you accuse me of copying them!! So we will not go into whether God apparently loves me more than you. He would love you more if you'd come back to the fold and be with Him and me instead. Denounce your atheism and be on the winning side for a change!!

I don't care if you're a Canadian. I LOVE Canadians. Used to party with them when I went smelt-fishing in Lake Erie back in 1973.

Sure Wish You'd Join The Living Eternally!!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

Why are you doing a number on defenseless Ben Masada, noguru and dave3712? Why don't you just deal with me instead? Especially Ben Masada. You even know he's new at this site. You brood of vipers. Either change your dogma, or be sorry for it eternally. It's not like you haven't been given EVERY chance to change your minds and hearts, and souls.

Speak To The Hand!!

 

[gcthomas]

2) The Copenhagen Interpretation is still the tenet acceptable to most all scientist now.
In the paragraph you Googled, where it says "measurement," it means observe.
Until someone observers or "measures" the phenomenon, the materialization does not occur, because the Wave does not collapse into what it "probably" would become.

Measurement in the Copenhagen Interpretation does not mean 'observed by a conscious entity'. That would be referring to the Von Neumann Interpretation, which is no longer supported by the evidence.

1) The key concept of the theory, which forms a central part of the Copenhagen Interpretation, is known as the "collapse of the wave function".

2) The theory seeks to explain how an entity such as a photon, atom, or an electron, could "travel as a wave but arrive as a particle."

The concept is NOT a central part of Copenhagen. It was a fudge to avoid the 'measurement problem' getting in the way of real progress. It was a 'black box' process that was not understood or even properly described.

3) According to the interpretation, what is passing through the split experiment is not a material wave at all, but is a 'probability wave'. ....That wave merely contains the "probability" for what COULD be real.

4) Once the thing is observed, the wave function collapses and the photon, atom, and electron, or the whole world becomes a reality

5) Nothing is real until it has been observed!

The wave equations describe something that is definitely real, but that cannot be described classically. ('Not-classical' doesn't mean 'unreal').

Nothing unreal about it. Observation is not necessary for the transition from quantum to classical, and neither is wave function collapse. Decoherence could explain 'apparent' wave function collapse as a loss of information to the surroundings, leaving dispersed and practically unmeasurable wave functions to continue even after the 'apparent collapse'.

Indeed, several of the Interpretations have never required wavefunction collapses.

6) We really are saying that in the 'real' world - even outside of the laboratory - until a thing has been observed it doesn't exist. ....But, by observing, all things materialize

No, we are not saying that. Wave functions describe things that actually exist. Think about light, where the intensity of the light at a point is proportional to the square of the wave function of the light. Light is a travelling wave function. It is very real, even in the absence of an observer.

7) This implies that there MUST actually be something 'outside' the universe, (God?), to look at the universe as a whole and collapse its overall wave function.....
Then, the Universe materialized and continues to so do.

No conscious observers observers are necessary: that is just a half century old text-book hangover from Von Neumann's interpretation of the limited Copenhagen Interpretation. Things have moved on in the last 35 years.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

Like you can't even understand things on earth if I speak to you of other things. There was life on Mars at one time and Our God oversaw it. And He created man there and woman there. And a whole existence happened there before this life we have on 'this' Earth. Mars was in this orbit of Earth before it was popped out into a different path, just as it says this earth shall reel to and fro' like a drunkard and be utterly removed out of her place. Someone out there with a knowledge of the Scriptures knows where this is written in the Bible. But all the men and women did there continuously with Creation and re-forming, was learn to make war with each other and kill each other. This is what I've been told about the matter. God has not been too privy on the details, just He wanted me to know the basics. Yes, Mars used to have life on it. That's all for now. You can barely handle what's on Earth now, much less what was on Mars. No, I do not currently have proof for you. You will have to wait for it, just like everyone else.

Walk Down God's Path!!

 

[gcthomas]

Dear All,

Like you can't even understand things on earth if I speak to you of other things. There was life on Mars at one time and Our God oversaw it. And He created man there and woman there. And a whole existence happened there before this life we have on 'this' Earth. Mars was in this orbit of Earth before it was popped out into a different path, just as it says this earth shall reel to and fro' like a drunkard and be utterly removed out of her place. Someone out there with a knowledge of the Scriptures knows where this is written in the Bible. But all the men and women did there continuously with Creation and re-forming, was learn to make war with each other and kill each other. This is what I've been told about the matter. God has not been too privy on the details, just He wanted me to know the basics. Yes, Mars used to have life on it. That's all for now. You can barely handle what's on Earth now, much less what was on Mars. No, I do not currently have proof for you. You will have to wait for it, just like everyone else.

Walk Down God's Path!!

Don't you find it just a little interesting that your communications wih god don't ever give you any information that you couldn't have guessed or made up anyway?

 

[Ben Masada]

Your logic seems to consist of saying that since the things with which you are familiar have a beginning, then things which are unfamiliar must also have beginnings. And since I don't know what caused it then you know for sure it was a God.

Did I miss something? You have set up a premise and stated a conclusion, whilst leaving out the logic part. Doesn't seem like it is watertight enough to convince a high school debating society, let alone grown-ups.

And you have skipped the obvious follow up question again, so I'll repeat it. If the universe must have a creator because it now exists, then if God exists, what created God?

Yes, you did miss the meaning of the logical point of this issue. I am not the one who created Logic as it exists to be used. Again, since the BB has almost 100% proved the beginning of the universe and the universe could not have caused itself to exist, the Logic of the matter is that the Primal Cause is implied if not obvious.

And for your question about who created the Creator is completely destitute of Logic because if the Creator was created He would not have been the Creator and if you want to get further entangled with illogical arguments stretch yourself back as far as you want and you will only waste your time and mine.

 

[Ben Masada]

I don't think that your presumed "logic" actually stands up too well when there are probably unknowns involved.
Why anything at all, including any god, should exist is for me the ultimate unknown. If you want to call that unknown "God" or "Yahweh" then that's up to you but I don't think that in itself it would add a satisfactory explanation or knowledge.

For your "God" to mean anything then simply being a "logically" supposed "uncaused-cause" would just be a convenient way to escape an otherwise infinite regression (of turtles all the way down). Darwinian evolution occurs regardless of how life began while the universe goes on expanding however it was originally caused.
What actually is there that requires a godly input?

What is there that requires a godly input is a logical answer for the beginning of things that could not have caused themselves to begin in the first place. I know you do not know and I would not be pressing on this butt were not for the arrogance of atheists to assert with surety that the Primal Cause is impossible. At least admit the concept of probability and we can call the quits.

 

[Ben Masada]

There are other possible theroies to creation and some physicists question the BB theory, in certain particulars, context, etc.

If we presuppose an uncaused eternal Creator out of which creation arose,...we still have some interesting juxtaposes to consider, since space-time would have a definite beginning as some point in eternity, from which creation rolls on endlessly perhaps, or undergoes continual cycles of expansion/contraction; birth, death, rebirth.

Genesis speaks of this creation being 'a' beginning,...which could allow for there to be multiple creations strewn thru-out eternity before this local universe creation began. If a creative intelligence or Deity initiated material creation, we could call that 'God' or any number of creator-gods that emenate from a hierarchal procession from that original ONE. - either way,....there is energy, light, consciousness, elements, matter...which make up creation. All of it comes from an infinite source, no matter that point in time it makes an appearance or comes into 'form'.

As shared earlier here,...All that exists is 'creation' and its 'evolution'. This is all that there is, as existence itself and its observable phenomena proves. Anything prior to or beyond this 'creation' would be of an invisible substance or aether outside of ordinary sensual perception. It could be the 'womb' or 'mother' of all material creation.

In-joy!

paulie

I don't think "space-time" could be a theme in this issue as space and time are but accidents of matter. Space what extends between matter and mater and time when matter is in motion.

 

[alwight]

Well Alwight,
It really doesn't matter to me if you can't believe that I've been visited by 3 angels, much less more than 3, which is what has happened. I only told you of 3 visits. You couldn't handle that, much less more than that.

Yes I expected as much, you've probably seen more angels than you can shake a stick at. lain:

Anyway, my words on the 3rd angel don't match the words written in the Bible concerning the beast. It says instead "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation. etc." See Rev. 14: 7, 8, 9. It also says he will burn in fire forever and ever. Just go read it if you have a Bible. My own words came nothing like the words written, but you accuse me of copying them!!

I will however accuse you of copying and deriving the style and content of Revelation, probably because you are so steeped in it rather than in real life. Surely your angels would be well aware of modern life and could tell us specifically what they mean by say "Babylon is fallen"?
Ask one for me next time would you?

So we will not go into whether God apparently loves me more than you. He would love you more if you'd come back to the fold and be with Him and me instead.

Fear not Michael I am not jealous.

Denounce your atheism and be on the winning side for a change!!

There is nothing in atheism to denounce, it's just a disbelief of yours or anyone's supposed gods.

I don't care if you're a Canadian. I LOVE Canadians. Used to party with them when I went smelt-fishing in Lake Erie back in 1973.

No, Nazaroo is Canadian, not me Michael, I'm British.

Sure Wish You'd Join The Living Eternally!!

I don't believe anyone lives eternally, that would be imo a fate far worse than death.

 

[gcthomas]

Yes, you did miss the meaning of the logical point of this issue. I am not the one who created Logic as it exists to be used. Again, since the BB has almost 100% proved the beginning of the universe and the universe could not have caused itself to exist, the Logic of the matter is that the Primal Cause is implied if not obvious.

And for your question about who created the Creator is completely destitute of Logic because if the Creator was created He would not have been the Creator and if you want to get further entangled with illogical arguments stretch yourself back as far as you want and you will only waste your time and mine.

On your first point, the big bang theory of the expansion of the universe is not a theory of the cause for the existence of the universe. So it cannot lead to your faux-logical conclusions.

As for the creator, your wriggling excuse for logic is laughable. To paraphrase, you say that having a creator that needs creating would be silly, so there must be a creator that doesn't need creating. But that begs the question of the existence of a creator.

The equivalent logic for me would be that a self-creating universe cannot have a creator because if it did then the logic would be destitute as the universe would not have been self creating.

See the problem with trying to use logic to prove the existence of god when the argument necessarily relies upon the pre-assumed existence of a creator?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear gcthomas,

Tons of stuff I couldn't make up. You are fishing here. How would I come up with half of it. I would never have GUESSED who the antichrist is, etc.

Whatever.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

I have no problem explaining what I was told about Babylon has fallen. If you need to know let me know.

God Be With You!

 

[dave3712]

LOL

LOL

The probability of a quantum event can be gauged. In the short time (for an initial singular event) any prediction will most likely be inaccurate. It is in the long term (and with many events) that such predictions can become accurate.

So Eintstein was right.



I understand that it is covered in classes teaching this subject. That fact has nothing to do with the point I am making. I am asking you to read what I posted and try to understand my point, and not just reiterate your misunderstanding of this.

Do you think that no quantum events would occur without a human observer? (please answer this if you respond to my post, otherwise you are totally missing my point).



Thanks for the review, but I already understand this. Any measurement or any attempt to gauge something inherently includes an observation. Please do not insult my intelligence again.



How would we know that an event does not occur if a measurement (observation) is not completed? Your logic is horrendous here. How would you go about "non-observing" something?


/////

I have googled this very thoroughly. What you have included in this post is really just a reiteration of your misunderstanding of the points i was making. Now can you please put in a real attempt to understand my points?




I understand this. Please do not repeat this again. I understand the idea of "collapse of wave function". You are diverting attention from my points here.



It has to do with the double slit experiment as well as quantum entanglement. I already acknowledged that I understand this. Now it is your turn to acknowledge the points I have made.



So you are saying that nothing is real unless it is observed by a human?

Probability does not negate the reality of an event. It simply acknowledges the uncertainty of the result of any singular event. Given more events, predictions based on probability become increasingly accurate.



They were most likely real before any human observation. However, it takes a human observation to perceive and acknowledge (although you seem to have a problem with this part) the quantum event. If you disagree with me, can you please show me some evidence of where human "non-observation" makes an event unreal?



This is what you keep claiming, but I am asking you for some evidence that things that are not observed by humans are "unreal". Can you supply that evidence?



Refer to my previous response.



Is the "outside the universe observer" the only thing necessary for things to become "real"?



How many times does the wave function have to collapse for things to become real?



I understand all this. And you have not shown that you understood my points in the slightest.

LOL

 

[dave3712]

Yoiur ideas are so heaven skewed they are no earthly good...

Yoiur ideas are so heaven skewed they are no earthly good...

Dear Alwight,

I have no problem explaining what I was told about Babylon has fallen. If you need to know let me know.

God Be With You!

Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away (in the spirit of thought), into the wilderness (of my imagination) and I saw (as if) a woman, ...

.... (those who have Institutionalized a system of sexual seduction into a failed matrimony), sit upon a scarlet coloured beast (of a brazen and corrupt sexually misdirected economic system: [Dan 3:1-5]), full of names of (Pagan) blasphemy, having seven heads:
(which existed in (1) Egypt, (2) Assyria, (3) Babylon, (4) Persia/Mede, (5) Greece, (6) Rome (7) the whole of Western Culture to follow)...

... having ten horns upon these seven heads:
(1. Undivided Empire; capital Rome: [305 AD],

2. Western Roman Empire: (Romulus Augustus): [to 476 AD],

3. Eastern Roman: Byzantine Empire, [1453 AD]

4. Charlemagne, [800 - 1000 AD]

5. Holy Roman Empire, [1200 AD-1492 AD]

6. Italy, [Renaissance, 16th century]

7. Spain, [17th century]

8. France, [18th-19th Century]

9. Britain, [19th-20th century]

10. Nazi Germany, [20th century])


11. America next…?

 

[gcthomas]

Dear gcthomas,

Tons of stuff I couldn't make up. You are fishing here. How would I come up with half of it. I would never have GUESSED who the antichrist is, etc.

Whatever.

Let me help you with that quandary.

Either you are, indeed, regularly visited by angels who tell you lots of stuff that is never of good enough quality to actually demonstrate what you claim, OR you are as mad as the hatter in Through the Looking Glass, along with a multitude of other loonies decorating the internet.

I'll let you wonder which we think you are.

 

[dave3712]

Things have moved on in the last 35 years.

Of course things have moved on yet stayed the same.

There has been no science to replace the Copenhagen Interpretation by showing it to be wrong and improved by some new hypothesis.



Copenhagen interpretation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Acceptance among physicists

Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists. Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s,[20] according to a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,[21] the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists.





The POINT here was to respond to the CLAIM and CHALLENGE that no Science supports a creator/God.

My point remains, that Neils Bohr's "science" does, in fact, support an observer outside of and prior to the Big Bang.

 

[gcthomas]

Of course things have moved on yet stayed the same.

There has been no science to replace the Copenhagen Interpretation by showing it to be wrong and improved by some new hypothesis.



Copenhagen interpretation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Acceptance among physicists

Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists. Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s,[20] according to a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,[21] the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists.





The POINT here was to respond to the CLAIM and CHALLENGE that no Science supports a creator/God.

My point remains, that Neils Bohr's "science" does, in fact, support an observer outside of and prior to the Big Bang.

Why did you drop off the last sentence of the 'Acceptance Among Physicists' section? You reproduced the entire subtitled section, but left off the key part about recent surveys... Now, why would you do that?

Acceptance among physicists

Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists. Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s,[20] according to a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,[21] the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists. In more recent polls conducted at various quantum mechanics conferences, varying results have been found.[22][23][24]

I'm still not clear as to why it is OK for a god to exist without a cause, but not the universe. If you accept the principle of uncaused existence, why can that not apply to the universe?

 

[dave3712]

Let me help you with that quandary.

Either you are, indeed, regularly visited by angels who tell you lots of stuff that is never of good enough quality to actually demonstrate what you claim, OR you are as mad as the hatter in Through the Looking Glass, along with a multitude of other loonies decorating the internet.

I'll let you wonder which we think you are.

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.