Does Quantum Physics Prove God's Existence

Discussion in 'Religion' started by osixkilz, Dec 9, 2016.

  1. osixkilz

    osixkilz Well Known Mod

    Messages:
    323
    Featured Threads:
    4
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Does Quantum Physics Prove God's Existence?
    {filename}-Does Quantum Physics Prove God's Existence
    Question: Does Quantum Physics Prove God's Existence?

    The observer effect in quantum mechanicsindicates that the quantum wavefunctioncollapses when an observation is made by an observer. It is a consequence of the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Under this interpretation, does that mean that there must be an observer in place from the beginning of time? Does this prove a need for God's existence, so that his act of observing the universe would bring it into being?

    Answer:

    There are several metaphysical approaches to use quantum physics to try to "prove" the existence of God within the current framework of physical knowledge and, of them, this is one which seems among the most intriguing and most difficult to shake, because it's got a lot of compelling components to it. Basically, this takes some valid insights into how the Copenhagen interpretation works, some knowledge of the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP), and finds a way to insert God into the universe as a necessary component to the universe.

    The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics suggests that as a system unfolds, its physical state is defined by its quantum wavefunction. This quantum wavefunction describes the probabilities of all possible configurations of the system. At the point when a measurement is made, the wavefunction at that point collapses into a single state (a process called decoherence of the wavefunction). This is best exemplified in the thought experiment and paradox ofSchoredinger's Cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time until an observation is made.
    [ In simple words consider a cat in a box with the probability of being alive and dead , the only way to be certain is if observed , this goes to prove that God is the observer]
    Now, there's one way to easily rid ourselves of the problem: The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics could be wrong about the need for a conscious act of observation. In fact, most physicists consider this element to be unnecessary and they think that the collapse really just comes from interactions within the system itself. There are some problems with this approach, though, and so we can't completely role out a potential role for the observer. (Check out the book Quantum Enigmato find out more on this subject.)
    Even if we allow that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is completely correct, there are two significant reasons that I can think of why this argument doesn't work.[ But then again this is just me trying to simplify my thoughts]

    Reason One: Human Observers Are Sufficient
    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. As described by Wheeler in a 2006 radio interview:

    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?
    Reason Two: An All-Seeing God Doesn't Count as an Observer

    The second flaw in this line of reasoning is that it is usually tied in with the idea off an omniscient deity that is simultaneously aware of everything happening in the universe. God is very rarely depicted as having blind spots. In fact, if the deity's observational acumen is fundamentally required for the creation of the universe, as the argument suggests, presumably he/she/it doesn't let much slip by.

    And that poses a bit of a problem, because the only reason we know about the observer effect is because sometimes no observation is being made. This is clearly evident in the quantum double slit experiment. When a human makes an observation at the appropriate time, there is one result. When a human does not, there is a different result.

    However, if an omniscient God were observing things, then there would never be a "no observer" result to this experiment. The events would always unfold as if there were an observer. But instead we always get the results as we expect, so it seems that in this case the human observer is the only one that matters.
    While this certainly poses problems for an omniscient God, it doesn't entirely let a non-omniscient deity off the hook, either. Even if God looked at the slit every, say, 5% of the time, in between various other deity-related multitasking duties, scientific results would show that 5% of the time, we get an "observer" result when we should get a "no observer" result. But this doesn't happen, so if there is a God, then he/she/it apparently chooses consistently not to ever look at particles going through these slits.

    As such, this refutes any notion of a God who is aware of everything ... or even most things ... within the universe. If God exists and does count as an "observer" in the quantum physics sense, then it would need to be a God who regularly does not make any observations, or else the results of quantum physics (the very ones trying to be used to support God's existence) fail to make any sense.

    [Thoughts on this would be appreciated although this is just an aspect of physics that is still in theory and until it is full functional all claims here are invalid]
    My honest thoughts
     
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads - Does Quantum Physics Forum Date
    Ask What Does It Mean To Take The Lord's Name In Vain? Religion Sunday at 1:41 PM
    Christian - Muslim Conversion (vice Versa) [what Does God Says] Religion May 4, 2017
    What Does The Bible Say About Tattoo? Religion Jul 27, 2016

  3. osixkilz

    osixkilz Well Known Mod

    Messages:
    323
    Featured Threads:
    4
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    73
  4. Prezzy

    Prezzy GrandMaster Protector

    Messages:
    20,903
    Featured Threads:
    527
    Likes Received:
    6,258
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Seriously, there's no mathematics that can prove the existence of God bro.

    I mean, God is way beyond the boundaries of what's possible with mathematics and science.

    I appreciate their effort but then, the Bible has made us to know that it's
    Mathematics is not part of the equation here o_O
     
    James Nille likes this.
  5. osixkilz

    osixkilz Well Known Mod

    Messages:
    323
    Featured Threads:
    4
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    73
    [/SMILES]. God gave us science
    The greatest problem concerning quantum mechanics is fully based on God
     
  6. Prezzy

    Prezzy GrandMaster Protector

    Messages:
    20,903
    Featured Threads:
    527
    Likes Received:
    6,258
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Yeah, they are crazy enough to imagine different things are possible and I like them for that but bro... The fact that they believe stuff doesn't mean they can prove it.
    The existence of God is one of those.

    However, I am on the sidewalk watching as this branch of dark science unfolds what it has in store
     
  7. osixkilz

    osixkilz Well Known Mod

    Messages:
    323
    Featured Threads:
    4
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    73
    [/Laughs hard]
    Boss dark science haha haha
    It's just theories, anyone can propose one....
    Dark matter is on of them
    Dark energy also part of them but it's not dark arts....

    The fact is the mind he gave us was meant to show us something....
    We know the name of Jesus brings miracle, imagine knowing God's own name
     
  8. Prezzy

    Prezzy GrandMaster Protector

    Messages:
    20,903
    Featured Threads:
    527
    Likes Received:
    6,258
    Trophy Points:
    143
    That knowledge is considered occultic bro.

    Please don't mention it again.
    Theories are only things to that helps science to survive just the same way Love helps humans to survive.

    Theories create questions and solve them only to create bigger ones! It's an endless loop that helps keep science alive.

    The good part is that the questions they ask and the answers they provide help the world to advance from one stage to another else it's a rat race.
     

Share This Page