Atheists are right...

a reply to: dfnj2015

Most cosmologists and ontologists have pretty open minds in my expirience. When you actually work in the field you don't hold rigid positions as a badge, your testing hypothesis that could very well fail.

Shroedinger's opinion and original purpose of the expirment has been turned on its head as we develop new and better measurement tools.

originally posted by: luthier
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.

like I said before, you believe that the first 10+ billion years of the universe are complete myth (or perhaps a quagmire of amorphous uncertainty) because no conscious mind was there to observe it? if there is a big bang and no one is around to witness it, is a universe still born? hmm.... so how about those Norse gods eh? or the native american gods? or African gods? atheists might not be so rigid if they could have fun with theology.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: luthier
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.

like I said before, you believe that the first 10+ billion years of the universe are complete myth because no conscious mind was there to observe it. if there is a big bang and no one is around to witness it, is a universe still born? hmm....

Wow perhaps you don't quite grasp the concept.

Maybe you should start with Shroedinger's Cat.

Also see quantum entangled realities.

And no I never mentioned my belief in this other than a possibility.

It's also actually what scientists are working on so I think your the one stuck in your beliefs.

Check out this after you sort through Shroedinger's Cat.

This is where people who actually know things present them to other people who actually know things.

www.nature.com...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: luthier
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.

like I said before, you believe that the first 10+ billion years of the universe are complete myth because no conscious mind was there to observe it. if there is a big bang and no one is around to witness it, is a universe still born? hmm....

Wow perhaps you don't quite grasp the concept.

Maybe you should start with Shroedinger's Cat.

Also see quantum entangled realities.

And no I never mentioned my belief in this other than a possibility.

It's also actually what scientists are working on so I think your the one stuck in your beliefs.

they are working on it, sounds like you already have a conclusion. premature Mr luthier, you should know better. quantum entangled realities and shrodingers cat, what purpose do these ideas have? we cant even get along with people of a different pigment or religion and we want to mess with reality and open other universes or dimensions. we forget the trees while we are dreaming about the stars.

you dont understand quantum mechanics anymore than the professionals who openly admit quantum mechanics are a mystery inside a riddle inside an enigma. no shame in it, unless you are dishonest about understanding it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

No sense at all in your post.

The purpose as it has always been is to understand reality.

Invention comes out of this.

I would be happy to discuss moral philosphy.

Where does it sound like I have a conclusion when I keep say "as a possibility"

Religion occupies the mind of maniacs and instead of killing sprees they preach

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

No sense at all in your post.

The purpose as it has always been is to understand reality.

Invention comes out of this.

I would be happy to discuss moral philosphy.

Where does it sound like I have a conclusion when I keep say "as a possibility"

Haha...to understand, or to exploit? to have knowledge, or to abuse it? moral philosophy has no basis in organized religion, or spiritual business as some would call it. taking wealth in exchange for giving people hope. its a bankrupt practice. if you are in the habit of pondering possibilities, then you must also consider the opposite possibility - the universe does not need to be observed in order to function. stars will be born and galaxies coalesce and tear apart and black holes consume and suns explode whether any living thing notices or not.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Your rant made little sense.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

Your rant made little sense.

it appears that it made sense to others if those stars are any indication. its fine, im not here to convince you.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Yeah that is correct. Neither atheists or religious folks can provide proof of an existing/nonexistent being.

Let alone proof how the world was created.

originally posted by: luciferslight
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Yeah that is correct. Neither atheists or religious folks can provide proof of an existing/nonexistent being.

Let alone proof how the world was created.

www.space.com...

nice little article and video to inform those who are interested in knowing how a planet forms naturally.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Your completely incapable of understanding the concept.

It's OK it does take thought and I can't expect you to take effort in understanding why planets formed naturally has nothing to do with a designer. Or how waveforms collapse when an observer is present has nothing to do with evolution existing.

Neither of those situation is effected at all by what I am talking about.

Observed reality is still what it is.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

Your completely incapable of understanding the concept.

It's OK it does take thought and I can't expect you to take effort in understanding why planets formed naturally has nothing to do with a designer. Or how waveforms collapse when an observer is present has nothing to do with evolution existing.

Neither of those situation is effected at all by what I am talking about.

Observed reality is still what it is.

observed reality is still reality even when it is not observed.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't thibk you understand why that is false.

Philosphically it's false.

QM wise it is false.

Therefore your statement is false.

If you mean once you observe reality then sure but your saying because the moon is there when you look again and can explain it through further observation and make predictions it must always be real.

I assure you there is sound theory, math, expirment, etc saying there may be another model and explanation.

The only thing you can prove is your observations of the universe. Can you explain how you report about something you didn't measure?

Again this argument has no support. The fact that things are the way they are is also perfectly explained within the Copenhagen and similar models.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Do God(s) exist - of course and simply because you believe they do. Religion and Science both seek 'reasons/causes/conditions' for empirical 'happening' if you will. One seeks 'unseen'(immaterial, unmeasurable, undefined) reason and the other the 'seen' causes. Both have the same goal; they just use different approaches. So, Science is a religion in it's own right.

This time of year I (an avowed atheist/agnostic) find myself praying often to the 'Parking Gods' and suspect others are doing the same. You might be surprised how often my prayers to the 'Parking Gods' are answered in the affirmative - or perhaps it's just a 'confirmation bias' on my part. Whichever is 'true', 'Parking God' or 'Applied Self-Talk', the outcome is the same so I continue to practice prayer supplicating this and many other God's/Higher Beings - the one I believe in or need assistance from at any moment in time.

Seems to me, after a lifetime of searching, that science and religion are converging in many areas and it is causing great existential suffering for those that need 'absolute' certainty in their lives. Those that insist that 'their religion' is the only way are often those that are privately uncertain in their personal beliefs and, I believe that uncertainty is a function of lack of searching and researching, lack of hearing out differing ideas, and unwillingness to commit to continual growth of understanding.

Religion and Science both practice 'authoritarianism' that encourage the devout to just 'believe' and 'have faith' and don't offer their followers dissenting viewpoints and it is up to each of such to decide who and what to believe. Hopefully, these 'beliefs' will expand and transform over time so that the individual evolves understanding and wisdom continually throughout their lives. But this is not and encouraged practice.

At the turn of the 20th century, there was a movement in Christendom towards a more 'esoteric' interpretation of scripture that I find truly delightful and psychologically practical. This movement, particularly in the US, only began to die out when corporate entities in the late 40s and 50s co-opted certain branches for their own ends (see: Kevin Kruse "One Nation under God" & www.npr.org...)

There are universal spiritual principles (morals, ethics) that helpful for life and these are enumerated in all the worlds religions, East and West that apply to all, regardless of belief, just as physical laws apply to all in like manner. Some we can measure and keep 'metrics' on and others that are, as yet, too subtle to measure and record.

For the supersensible side of existence (that which is beyond the ability of the senses (natural or machine enhanced) to detect) the 'truth' is very personal and we have to let our own experience and intuition guide us.

There is a paraphrased quote by the Buddha:

"Do not believe anything, even if I have said it, if it doesn't agree with your common sense" or something like that.... a good rule of thumb but here is the actual quote:

But on to the quote. In the original Kalama Sutta, we have:

“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’

When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

fakebuddhaquotes.com...

And the short contempory synopsis:

I won’t go through a point-by-point comparison, but look at the two criteria for acceptance of teachings:

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.

One thing all traditional religions (though not science in my understanding) agree on: that you have to look inside yourself to find God(s).

Whatever you believe, if it works to make your mind and life peaceful and happy, then it is Truth.

Truth however, I've found, is a moving target.

May the Parking and Traffice Gods be with you during this Holy Consuming month.

a reply to: FyreByrd

An interesting observation to this thread and I have read the majority of posts is that only a few people reference sources outside themselves when making their points.

I find it interesting because we are each the sum total of our experience and the experience of others that we have internalized (largely in childhood).

Interesting.

a reply to: SethTsaddik and luthier

SethTsaddik,

By SethTsaddik
I think your comment here is pretty ignorant and fallacious, you have to suggest that other people besides yourself be asked about the truth of a statement that is theoretical itself as some people can and do understand parts of quantum physics, it would not exist otherwise other than as pure theory and I believe it is more than just a theory, is a science with facts and thus can be understood.

Where is the ignorance and fallacies in my post?

Yes I agree we understand parts of QM but thats only 0.0001%. The rest is theory based off something we really dont understand whats happening with the interactions and why things happen in the QM world.

QM is facts, Quantum Theory (QT) is not. QT sets out to explain the reasons behind QM using our very very limited understanding of QM. This is why QM is so bizzare and freaky.

By SethTsaddik,
Your little ''anyone who thinks they understand... doesn't" is just a stupid phrase, not factual and made out of ignorance (by you), taken too literally and that you are just a little troll trying to feel smarter than you really are.

I have posted a question on the science and tech forum. Lets see what the experts say, as I got that saying 'from' an expert in that field.

By SethTsaddik,
I don't care about quantum mechanics, but people who say things like ''ask so and so" are obviously not informed themselves and need others to confirm what they are saying is true.

If you dont care about QM then why use one of its theories to support luthiers beliefs? Strange.

I made a statement I got from an expert, I ask you to ask an expert because this is what you do when you dont know the answer and you dont want to listen to someone who is not qualified but at least understands some of the basics.

Someone who does not want to ask the experts for verification is being consciously ignorant.

By SethTsaddik,
Because you know you don't know wtf you are talking about.

Yet I have only corrected on one point, which was not the main point being the observer stance.

People using the Shroedinger's Cat thought puzzle to describe the macro world doesnt understand the thought puzzle.

Shroedinger's Cat example is to help people who dont understand QM how QM really works in the QM world. So physicists use macro examples so people who dont understand QM can get an understanding on how puzzling and bizzare QM really is.

Physicsts are not saying that in the macro world if there is no observer there is no reality. The macro world physics is not QM and are governed by different rules.

So for someone to use the observer stance from QT and apply it to the macro world cannonball physics is just showing ignorance of not only QM and QT, but the real meaning and reason behind the Shroedinger's Cat example.

Also the definition of an internet troll is:
1.a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting.

How am i that? Your making things up dude.

Coomba98

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Are you Padawan #1?

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

Hey bud, your way over your head and I am tired of stating the same thing.

I already explained Shroedinger's cat and his rejection of te Copenhagen model.

However I also provided a peer reviewed paper from the journal nature showing showing shroedinger was missing quite a bit of info and was wrong.

You have made strawman after strawman. I never once mentioned a belief other than its possibility

I have you vocabulary and links to Google.

Participatory Anthropic principle, simulated universe model, holographic universe model Copenhagen models,..these are theories you try when your not stuck in the mud.

How obtuse can you be.

This question would need to be answered specifically by cosmologists or ontologists. There isn't a technical aspect unless your in dialogue with Fermi lab, CERN, MCGILL, ARIZONA etc.

Colorado has a good lab as well.


I want to ask strait up, you are denying superposition? It's not of interest to ontology? It is national enquire garbage is that about right?

I think that believing in a God provides a moral framework for society so that everyone has the same ideals and can work together with each other. I believe that different cultures (there are other societies, believe it or not, that have different religions besides Christianity) are not as compatible.

My point is, religion is necessary for humans to work together as a complex society. However, as society progresses it is less necessary as science starts to explain things that religion was only guessing on and those scientific explanations form a new society.

A lot of people think that society run by science is dangerous, but right now it is actually less dangerous than religions are - a religious person could go to war with others of different religions and fully justify killing each other.

Science shows us through experiments that it is healthier to work together because it is advantageous for the individual's genetic material if their clan is safe.

I find it strange (a bit cold) that science thinks we care about each other just because we are human, but maybe we should care about each other just because we are all human. It does make sense.

Religions would immediately start objecting, putting all of these excuses in there as to why it is okay to harm this person, or that person, etc.

Yes, the legal system provides a way to deal with repeat offenders, but this is based on a Democratic society's rules. The advantage of this is that everyone has a say in the law - whereas in a religion, only one person acting as God, or a select few religious elites, or maybe an ancient text with less context in today's world have the say.