Yes, even though my analogy was panned by the local rock thrower, you kinda got the essence and you got what I was trying to communicate to get you started rather than confuse you with polarization stuff. .I wanted you to understand collapse. After that other things can be dealt with.
The wave function determine where the object is. The mathematical square of each point in the wavefunction is the probability of where that object will be.
I will look forward to when you come back Mark
That simply isn’t true. The physics community goes with what the experiments demonstrate and not what is claimed by popular writers and philosophers – many quoted out of context at that.
Incorrect. Philosophy has NOTHING to do with this. I will not replace the actual physics with either your or my philosophical opinions. The issue is that even if your conclusions are the same as mine this doesn’t validate arguments which are not sound, let alone misrepresentations of the science.
To expand on my previous explanation, there are measurements in quantum physics which are incompatible like position and momentum, or like the spin of an electron in perpendicular directions. These give rise to uncertainty principles so that the more you know about one the less you know about the other. So if you pin down an electron to a precise position its momentum becomes highly unknown, thus making it more difficult to know where it will be a second later. Likewise if you measure the spin of an electron in say the x direction, then a subsequent measure of the spin in the y direction will give completely random results.
Very difficult since everyday things just don’t behave that way!
But ok… Shall we say that an electron is like a big ball of cotton and measuring its position squashes the cotton ball down to a point, only to have burst out again to a cotton ball even bigger than before? The results of these measurements of position are predicted by the cotton ball only as a probability distribution, more likely where the cotton is dense and less likely where the cotton is not so dense.
For incompatible measurements we might try a water balloon which passes through a hole part of it is on one side and part on the other. To measure one property you squash down the balloon on one side only to have the balloon get bigger on the other side.
Once again mitch you avoid explaining how collapse happens without consciousness. You also fail to acknowledge the very obvious fact that many physicists do believe that consciousness is required for the collapse and continue to act like only your interpretation is the one held by physics. You have failed to explain the von Neuman chain. In the Wigner thread, you failed to address the mathematics I put out, and yet act as if you know quantum well. I don’t think you do.
You haven’t dealt with Frauchiger and Renner, you haven’t dealt with the discontinuity of a wave equation which would calculate to the end of the universe, suddenly stopping, changing state and starting its machinations again–always in the presence of an observer. You haven’t dealt with the fact that unobserved systems can not be said to have collapsed, because know one knows the state of the unobserved system. You haven’t dealt with Euan Squire’s demonstration of a contradiction if minds are subject to quantum. It is in the Wigner thread.
In other words, I present issues and you just ignore them. this is exactly how YECs behaved when I used to show them geologic data. I quit dealing with people who won’t deal with data I present because it is a waste of my time to do all this work to have it uncommented on and merely stated to be untrue.
More things for you to ignore:
"The results of these experiments do support a solution of the measurement problem that gives a special status for conscious observation in the measurement process. " D.J. Bierman, “DOES CONSCIOUSNESS COLLAPSE THE WAVE FUNCTION” Mind and Matter1-1 (nov. 2003), p. 8 https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0312/0312115.pdf
A conceptual replication of the Hall-experiment to test the ‘subjective reduction’ interpretation of the measurement problem in Quantum Physics is reported. Two improvements are introduced. First the delay between preobservation and final observation of the same quantum event is increased from a few microseconds in the original experiment to 1 second in this replication. Second, rather than using the observers conscious response as the dependent variable, we use the early brain responses as measured by EEG. These early responses cover a period where the observer is not yet conscious of the quantum event. Results support the ‘subjective reduction’ hypothesis because significant difference between the brain responses of the final observer are found dependent upon the pre-observer looking or not looking at the quantum event (exact binomial p < 0.02). Alternative ‘normal’ explanations are discussed and rejected. It is concluded that the present results do justify further research along these lines. D.J. Bierman, “DOES CONSCIOUSNESS COLLAPSE THE WAVE FUNCTION” Mind and Matter1-1 (nov. 2003), p. 1 https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0312/0312115.pdf
"It is therefore possible to assume that the unitary mechanics applies to the entire physical universe and that wave function collapse occurs at the last possible moment, in the mind itself. This, of course, assumes a non-physical mind.
…
**The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform measurements on the brain causing wave function collapse." Zvi Schrieber, "The Nine Lives of Schrodinger’s Cat, University of London: MS Thesis, Oct 1994, p. 46 https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9501014v5.pdf
Of the collapse being discontinuous, this article is a hilarious refutation of decoherence, but he makes some fascinating points along the way. The wave function collapse is outside of the equations of quantum, which consist of the Schrodinger equation. Unitary means deterministic–the outcome is predicted to the end of time, except observation breaks the determinism:
*hile the experimenter turns on the apparatus and monitors its smooth functioning, the theoretician follows the smooth evolution of the statevector according to Schroodinger’s equation. Suddenly, the experimenter sings out “An event has occurred, and this is the result.” Abruptly, the theoretician stops his calculation, replaces the statevector, which has by now become the sum of states corresponding to different possible outcomes of the experiment, by the one state which the experimenter told him had actually occurred, and then continues his calculation of the smooth evolution of the statevector.
In other words, the practitioner of SQT must go outside the theory, to obtain additional information, in order to use the theory correctly. What is missing is that the theory doesn’t give the probability that an event occurs between t and t + dt." Phillip Pearle, True Collapse or False Collapse, https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9805049.pdf p.2
Quantum is not a complete theory because of this discontinuity. A complete theory would not refer to humans at all.
Bohr and Heisenberg argued for the observer collapsing the wavefunction, but you can ignore that as well.
“At a meeting in Copenhagen in 1927, two of the founders of quantum mechanics, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, suggested that until quantum particles are observed they exist as “wave functions” that can contain a superposition of many properties. But when an observer makes a measurement, the wave function collapses - yielding a particle that behaves classically.” Zeeya Merali, “Quantum Reality, Darwinian Style,” New Scientist, June 30, 2007, p. 18
Nonsense. The demonstrable result is that the collapse happens when the measuring device extracts the information and the presence of a conscious observer makes no alteration in the results whatsoever. This isn’t a matter of interpretation. It is conclusive. How you explain the mathematics can NEVER change this basic fact!
The most that your quote mining will prove is that you can find justification for your rhetoric, exactly the same way that creationist have been doing for decades. None of it changes the basic facts which is that when they speak of an observer they mean a measuring device and the presence or absence of an conscious observer makes no difference whatsoever.
It looks like rereading is in order for one participant here:
Wigner's Friend, the existence of the immaterial soul and death of materialism - #195 by gbob
All this concentrated on perhaps one or two points. First I suggest that trying to employ the language of quantum mechanics is fraught with difficulties because of our inadequate understand of these concepts
You could perhaps get more insight by looking at other questions. For one we can’t agree on when we get a spiritual soul. If at fertilization, we are faced with the fact that billions of beings never come to term. Few even implant. So what does God do with all those immortal souls? The better question is, why would the Creator set things up so as to have to deal with them
As for demanding that consciousness requires something spiritual, one is stuck with whether dolphins and gorillas go to heaven! For they clearly have consciousness. Even sel consciousness
In fact the is good evidence that evolution has gradually developed humans from close relatives Dis Neanderthals go to heaven?
Stanislas Dehane and colleagues have done ground breaking work in determining research on consciousness and unconsciousness and are close to showing how the brain produces it
So let’s not once again make the god of the gaps mistake of saying science can’t explain this
The final question is perhaps the most perplexing: what is the function of the spiritual soul. Not an easy one to answer unless as Steven Barr says it’s needed to think. Hmmmmm
To me the idea of a soul is attractive, but it needs substantial modification
Perhaps it is gods loving knowledge of each of us?
In my view all living things have spirits because all living things make choices and it is the choices which create the spirit. However there is very clearly a big difference between the spirit of an amoeba and the spirit of a human being.
I don’t see why God has to do anything with any of the spirits of living things. The only question is whether they have it within them to grow and live or not, and ultimately that is going to require a connection with the source of life in God. I think many will quite possibly be adopted by others in a mutual choice as spirit children or pets.
Yes consciousness is a property of life itself. Which is not to say all consciousness is equal – not even in human beings.
It is now pretty clearly established that neanderthals are homo sapiens and many of us are descended in part from them (certainly all white and asian people). But is DNA all it takes to be human? I don’t think so. I think there is a memetic inheritance from God which came to us through Adam and Eve. So I don’t think any of them were human but that doesn’t mean we won’t find them in heaven. A heaven with only humans (and angels) in it doesn’t sound very heavenly to me.
Well I think what we will find is that things are lot more complicated than we imagined and consciousness is more than we thought – that we really didn’t know enough to even ask the right questions.
It is certainly a question under considerable dispute. I certainly don’t think it is possible that anything non-physical can play a consistent substantial role in affecting events in the physical universe. Thus I think the vast majority of causality goes in the other direction.
That is a good idea Mr. Keller, but I am doing it now with the issue of free will, not the contentious issue of when we get a soul.
Choice? What’s that? How does it differ from free will? Does God have it? What [spirit creating] choices do amoebae make?
Thanks for the responses. But to a scientist your points essentially say
Science has no standing when thinking about theology. Do you still really think there were two progenitors of humans?
Adam and Eve is a useful, even beautiful myth but is almost certainly couldn’t have happened. And individual immortal souls don’t seem to be interchangeable
BioLogos is supposed to be admitting our increasing knowledge of creation, but apparently not?
Free will is another that needs a bit of science. The research again by Stanislavsky Deheane indicates it to be essentially a non problem For while it is true most of our decision making is automatic and/or driven by our biology, the unconscious and conscious is constantly making decisions on its total input and thus one of the main functions of the brain it to exert “free will”. That’s just what it does!
Ironically, I’d be more receptive to it if all the historical claims were simply set aside and the Bible was left to speak for itself unencumbered by arguments over historicity. Eternal truths shouldn’t depend on historic grounding. If The Princess Bride can stand on its merits without documentation, why shouldn’t the Bible be able to do the same? All the legalistic sounding arguments kill the message.
Mr. Keller, you need to be using the reply to button at the bottom of the post to whom you are replying I don’t know if you are asking this of me or someone else, but I will answer.
Yes, I do believe in an initial pair, but it was long ago around 5.5 myr ago because that is what the science says about the ages of the oldest genes found in the human population. references found on my blog
gene--------------age of the gene
Tap2------------------5.36 myr
ERAP------------------5.08 myr
green opsin-----------5.5 myr
HERVs-----------------5.0 myr
TRIM5-----------------4-7 myr
Patr-DRB1*03-------4.6 myr
DEFB1----------------4.5 myr
CDSN/PSORS1C1-4.18 myr
ERAP1-----------------4.12 myr
CD151------------------3.83 or 2.14 myr
That is the time hominids first appeared on earth and it is the time of the only flood in geologic history that matches exactly the description of Noah’s flood. Of course you can say this is nuts. But you can’t say science has no standing with theology because I am the one incorporating what science says–just not in a way people like. But as crazy as it sounds, I don’t believe science is what the group thinks. Science is about new ideas, not stale ones.
So, you would prefer biologos be as regulated and boring as the ASA became after Ted Davis shut down their forum? That would truly be a shame.
While I agree with you, free will and materialism are incompatible. If all there is, is matter and the laws of physics, and the laws of physics govern everything then the decisions the brain makes are every bit as governed by the laws of physics which are entirely deterministic. That would mean your thoughts are deterministic and you have no free will.
This book is great up until he tries to explain how free will works, then I didn’t find his explanation satisfactory, but his philosophy and logic do illuminate the issues and incompatibility of free will and physics.
“We have found that for free will to be real, our thoughts must exert forces to change the motion of real matter. However, forces being created by momentum-free minds could lead to a violation of the conservation laws. Specifically, the conservation laws we are concerned with here ae the conservation of energy, the conservation of momentum and the conservation of angular momentum. These three conservation laws are part of the bedrock of physics, and any violation of these conservation laws would be wholly unacceptable to physics and to all scientifically informed readers.” Wayne Portwine, "Free Will is Real: A Theory of Consciousness, Sheridan: Kryghter LLC. location 390
There is a big issue I think needs answering. ‘Eternal Truths’ are in the eye of the beholder unless there is some reason to believe that the deity stating those truths is really the deity, that is, a real living god. For the ancient Carthaginians who worshipped Molech, it was an eternal truth that babies were to be burned alive as sacrifices to their God. Eternal truths of Commanche animism led to their belief that they would be protected in war,which they loved to engage in, raiding, kidnapping and mutilating other tribes and early settlers. For them this was their eternal way of life. And the Koran tells its adherents to strike infidels in the neck to terrorize them into belief. that is an eternal truth for them.
Thus, the question of which eternal truths should be believed depends in my opinion on whether the god can be believed to be real or not. To me, that means a God who claims to be creator and tells a false story about what happened at creation, isn’t a real god and his ‘truths’ are not eternal.
You could be right. Or perhaps any number of gods can be true for you but only if you let them be. Perhaps there is something in the way we are wired which locks the ‘eternal truths’ away from our conscious minds, but which can still reach us only when we value it enough to make room for it. Perhaps whatever it is can readily assume whatever cultural package is available. If that is right, then maybe the places, dates and names don’t really matter so much as the stories and the meanings it would like us to have.
I have always said, whatever God is like, He is God. If he is a Klingon war god then we have to deal with that. We don’t really get a vote on what kind of God we would prefer, we have to deal with what we have, assuming, of course that there is a god. I believe thee is. I certainly might be wrong, but even if I am wrong, I have had a blast working the theological problem I have been working–yeah it would be meaningless if God were a Klingon war god, but the fun can’t be taken away from me.
And that is why I believe it is important to look at all the major religious documents to see if thee is some way to get a handle on the issue. Most religions give no handle of observational possibilities. The Kiti I i’qan of the Bahai says if you leave copper in the earth for 70 years it becomes God. That was the only observationally testable statement in that entire book. Unfortunately the statement is false, which, in my mind disqualifies that god.regardless of how endearing the ‘eternal truths’ contained in the Kiti I i’qan are.
The Dhammapada, which is believed to have been written by Buddha, has great advice for living with one’s fellow man, but no observationally verifiable statements at all. I also didn’t find anything verifiable in the Koran either. Those religions are accepted totally on faith in that faith, with no hand holds of rational thought.
Maybe it’s good to have a choice which makes a claim to historicity since nowadays so many of us cannot imagine believing anything else. But the devil will be in the details since I don’t think all Christians believe the documentation is airtight enough to persuade all comers. For those looking for justification for going on believing as they do it is probably enough. But promoting the idea that any belief which cannot be proven should be rejected could backfire. I don’t advocate such a standard, but I find room to believe in more than what can be proven. Your position seems perilously close to scientism. Do you really think science is capable of being the measure of all things?
I don’t think anything will persuade all comers. That is impossible. I am, however, delighted that you now see the need for historicity, something so many claim is unnecessary. The problem is always one of models. David Rohl captures the enterprise of history, which is no different than the enterprise of finding oil–one takes a set of facts available and finds a model of the past which fits either historical data or geological data in my case.
"The answer to both of these scholars is, yes, the Conquest did happen…but not in the time when Finkelstein imagines it should have happened. And you really can look for the evidence of that Conquest, just as you can with any historical event which leaves its mark in the archaeological record. Thompson is convinced that the Bible is a myth in the first place, so he rejects any attempt to look for evidence of city destructions that may have been the work of Israelite invaders. He no longer possesses the open mind that must surely be he primary tool of any good scholar… which is sad… but somewhat inevitable given the lack of evidence for a Conquest of the Promised Land at the end of the Late Bronze Age, where Thompson and the others were undoubtedly looking.
“But now we have a new timeline for the ancient world and a completely new way of viewing the Exodus tradition-through the sharp lens of the Middle Bronze Age when, as we have already seen, there is a remarkable pattern of archaeological evidence which is consistent with the biblical narratives. This is how you do it, Professor Thompson. You construct a history based on evidence and you test out a historical narrative, like the biblical text, by comparing the pattern of evidence from archaeology with the pattern of events described in the text. If there is a convincing match between archaeology and narrative, then you have constructed a reasonable history, if, on the other hand, the archaeological pattern is not consistent with the narrative (as is the case with the Ramesses Exodus Theory) then, of course, you have either produced an unreasonable and therefore false history, which rightly needs to be rejected, or the narrative is false. After all, it should be remembered that history–as constructed by historians–is not the past. The past is what happened, while history is just our best guess as to what happened.” ."* David Rohl, Exodus, (Thinking Man Media, 2015, p. 263
If a God is claimed to have interacted with humanity in history, there will be some evidence of that. This is why historicity is important–it is a foundation but it still doesn’t replace faith. Even if my views of historicity of scripture are true, that fact doesn’t prove that Jesus rose from he dead. That still must be taken on faith. But we can use evidence of how the disciples lived their lives afterwards as evidence at least that they believed what they spouted.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.