It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheists are right...

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I didn't claim there were I said it was an explanation.

You said there were not.




posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Luthier you can't continue to ask me questions and not answer mine.

That's not the kind of dialogue I wish to engage in.


So far you haven't supported your argument or provided a mechanism to explain fine tuning with out a multiverse.

My argument? Are you reading my posts?

I made it clear i'm not positing a truth claim of any sort and what I asked was only in an attempt to better understand your position.

I offered hypotheticals for that reason. Understand? It doesn't represent my belief. If you want to know mine, then ask.
edit on 3-12-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

Can you prove there were no observers or designers?

Your not in a simulation?


luthier,

Your confusing Quantum Theory with Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Theory says that it 'appears' that an observer is required for quantum interaction, given the double slit experiments.

But we are still in our early early infant stage of understanding Quantum Mechanics.

Ask anyone who studies theoretical physics if this saying is correct:

'Anyone who says they understand quantum physics, doesnt understand quantum physics.'

So using the observer example is asinine and a good example of an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Coomba98


It's actually not an argument from ignorance.


I am referring to the participatory Anthropic principle as a possibility.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I did answer yours.

I told you I think the participatory Anthropic principle is a possibility.

If you don't understand what I am talking about ask or Google the theories.

Your a philosopher I asumed you covered some cosmology.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:31 AM
link   

edit on 3-12-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Anyways.

My question was:


For the sake of conversation let's say conscious life only exists on Earth (as unlikely as that is).

The Sun for some unknown reason explodes tomorrow and thus the Earth and all conscious life is annihilated.

What you're saying is that the entire Universe, all of the other planets and stars, would cease to exist.

Why?

Did reality not exist prior to the evolution of animals who gained the ability to be conscious??



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

And my explanation as I keep saying is the participatory Anthropic principle. Read it. I don't want to type a novel.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier

Anyways.

My question was:


For the sake of conversation let's say conscious life only exists on Earth (as unlikely as that is).

The Sun for some unknown reason explodes tomorrow and thus the Earth and all conscious life is annihilated.

What you're saying is that the entire Universe, all of the other planets and stars, would cease to exist.

Why?

Did reality not exist prior to the evolution of animals who gained the ability to be conscious??


The Participatory Anthropic Principle, or PAP, is the idea that the universe requires observers, because without observers the universe could not actually exist. This controversial claim is based on the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, which requires an act of observation to resolve the superposition of states in a quantum wavefunction.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

luthier,

Your arguing that an observer/consciousness is needed for reality to exist, and basing said assertion on a theory within a very young field of science that nobody truly or partially understands.

Its like using ancient Greek knowledge on cannonball physics today!

So to use a theory on a subject nobody understands not even the physicists truly understands and make assertion is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Definition of the Argument from Ignorance phrase.
'A fallacy is a mistake in belief based on an unsound argument; so, an ignorance fallacy occurs when a person mistakenly believes something to be true that is not, because he or she does not know enough about the subject to know otherwise. For example, an argument based on stereotype or hasty generalization is an example of ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is persuasive because the audience is ignorant.'

Coomba98
edit on 3-12-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: luthier

luthier,

Your arguing that an observer/consciousness is needed for reality to exist, and basing said assertion on a theory within a very young field of science that nobody truly or partially understands.

Its like using ancient Greek knowledge on cannonball physics today!

So to use a theory on a subject nobody understands not even the physicists truly understands and make assertion is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Definition of the Argument from Ignorance phrase.
'A fallacy is a mistake in belief based on an unsound argument; so, an ignorance fallacy occurs when a person mistakenly believes something to be true that is not, because he or she does not know enough about the subject to know otherwise. For example, an argument based on stereotype or hasty generalization is an example of ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is persuasive because the audience is ignorant.'

Coomba98


Coombs the Anthropic priciple in at least four forms has been around longer than the 25 years I have studied philosphy.

John Archibald Wheeler

Read him.

Read the coopenhagen school and waveform and probability theories.

Again this a possibility not a fact I am stating.

It sounds like your uniformed.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

is the idea that the universe requires observers, because without observers the universe could not actually exist.

Good grief! I know that's your viewpoint! You know! We both know! The understanding of that "principle" doesn't need to be called into question, dude. I get what the principle implies. I'm asking my question with the understanding we both get it! lol

Okay. So... the idea is that the Universe's existence is contingent upon conscious observers, right? That's congruent with your principle and your posts so far?? That's exactly what I'm basing my question on!

Again... for the last time probably...


For the sake of conversation let's say conscious life only exists on Earth (as unlikely as that is).

The Sun for some unknown reason explodes tomorrow and thus the Earth and all conscious life is annihilated.

What you're saying is that the entire Universe, all of the other planets and stars, would cease to exist.

Why?

Did reality not exist prior to the evolution of animals who gained the ability to be conscious??

edit on 3-12-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy


One "reality" requires observation or it may as well be Santa. It should shown up in data or evidence without it, there is no relevance. There is zero emperical evidence without observation. Your confusing this concept with life cycles

Two: without observation a waveform of probability occurs. Once observation happens that waveform is condensed into an event marked in time and space and probability becomes a location.

When observers completely die off the universe ceases to exist in a definate time space location and becomes waveforms of probability.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Would reality exist if all conscious creatures within the universe died?

Yes, or no?



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

luthier,

Matters not if its 25yrs old.

The Quantum Mechanics (QM) model first occurred in 1877 by Ludwig Boltzmann who suggested that the energy levels of a physical system, such as a molecule, could be discrete.

After all that time we still know diddly sqat.

There are many theory models that describe QM. Pretty sure the ones your using such as Anthropic principle and coopenhagen are within one of the many String Theory models that describes QM.

Philosophy and Physics are completely different fields. Not sure why you bring that up.

Ohh and i dont wear a uniform... i dress like a dag


Coomba98



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Of course not reality requires a mind. It's a concept created by a mind.

It is possible that reality would not exist at all without conscious observers as I have said multiple times.

It is possible reality would turn into a waveform of probability until an "anchor" measurent was taken.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy


One "reality" requires observation or it may as well be Santa. It should shown up in data or evidence without it, there is no relevance. There is zero emperical evidence without observation. Your confusing this concept with life cycles

Two: without observation a waveform of probability occurs. Once observation happens that waveform is condensed into an event marked in time and space and probability becomes a location.

When observers completely die off the universe ceases to exist in a definate time space location and becomes waveforms of probability.


luthier,

Ok your kinda confusing me. Is the above quote by you your belief?

Coomba98



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: luthier

luthier,

Matters not if its 25yrs old.

The Quantum Mechanics (QM) model first occurred in 1877 by Ludwig Boltzmann who suggested that the energy levels of a physical system, such as a molecule, could be discrete.

After all that time we still know diddly sqat.

There are many theory models that describe QM. Pretty sure the ones your using such as Anthropic principle and coopenhagen are within one of the many String Theory models that describes QM.

Philosophy and Physics are completely different fields. Not sure why you bring that up.

Ohh and i dont wear a uniform... i dress like a dag


Coomba98


What I know is you came in pretending to know something and were certainly proven wrong.

Philosphy and physics work hand in hand in cosmology. They literally write thesis papers together.

Theoretical physics is not bs like you claim. It's supported with data and falsifiability.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy


One "reality" requires observation or it may as well be Santa. It should shown up in data or evidence without it, there is no relevance. There is zero emperical evidence without observation. Your confusing this concept with life cycles

Two: without observation a waveform of probability occurs. Once observation happens that waveform is condensed into an event marked in time and space and probability becomes a location.

When observers completely die off the universe ceases to exist in a definate time space location and becomes waveforms of probability.


luthier,

Ok your kinda confusing me. Is the above quote by you your belief?

Coomba98


Yes I believe that is possible.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Of course not reality requires a mind.

This is why I did talk about evolution and why I think it's relevant.

There was a period on Earth when we were essentially single-celled organisms. We evolved into conscious apes. Earth wasn't always inhabited by conscious beings.

Even if you thought Earth always was, the Universe itself was in a state for a long time where no conscious life would have arisen.

So how do you account for all that time when there were obviously no conscious observers?
edit on 3-12-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

First off obviously no observers?

Right off that is a falacy.

And I already explained reality is a probability of events until something observers or measures an event. (Possibly just one of many possibilities supported by data)

Explain this since your having trouble.

If no observers exist or will ever exist or have ever existed does the universe exist? If yes how would you prove that?




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join