Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[Slidey]

Here's another theorem proving how most hidden variable hypotheses are impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen-Specker_theorem

 

[Mojohi]

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_Cat

Practical applications

The experiment is a purely theoretical one, and the machine proposed is not known to have been constructed. Analogous effects, however, have some practical use in quantum computing and quantum cryptography. It is possible to send light that is in a superposition of states down a fiber optic cable. Placing a wiretap in the middle of the cable which intercepts and retransmits the transmission will collapse the wavefunction (in the Copenhagen interpretation, "perform an observation") and cause the light to fall into one state or another. By performing statistical tests on the light received at the other end of the cable, one can tell whether it remains in the superposition of states or has already been observed and retransmitted. In principle, this allows the development of communication systems that cannot be tapped without the tap being noticed at the other end. This experiment can be argued to illustrate that "observation" in the Copenhagen interpretation has nothing to do with consciousness (unless some version of Panpsychism is true), in that a perfectly unconscious wiretap will cause the statistics at the end of the wire to be different.
In quantum computing, the phrase "cat state" often refers to the special entanglement of qubits where the qubits are in an equal superposition of all being 0 and all being 1, i.e.

+

.

 

[Riet]

Schroedingers cat is a thought experiment not an equation and it has been explained just as Einstein's Alice and Bob experiment has. Quantum Mechanics holds up and has been tested experimentally plenty of times.

Edit: Schroedinger's cat's answer depends on whether you believe in the Many Worlds Interpretation or the Copenhagen (and related) Interpretations. Either way the answer is non-deterministic.

 

[Mojohi]

Schroedingers cat is a thought experiment not an equation and it has been explained just as Einstein's Alice and Bob experiment has. Quantum Mechanics holds up and has been tested experimentally plenty of times.

Edit: Schroedinger's cat's answer depends on whether you believe in the Many Worlds Interpretation or the Copenhagen (and related) Interpretations. Either way the answer is non-deterministic.

but it acts deterministically when it is being observed.
"When a photon's state is non-deterministically altered, such as interacting with a half-silvered mirror where it non-deterministically passes through or is reflected, the photon undergoes quantum superposition, whereby it takes on all possible states and can interact with itself. This phenomenon continues until an observer interacts with it, causing the wave function to collapse and returning the photon to a deterministic state."


So only through observation is determinism applicable. That is what these theories acknowledge. Am i right?

 

[Slidey]

So only through observation is determinism applicable. That is what these theories acknowledge. Am i right?

What? Are you trying to say that part of the universe is deterministic and part isn't? Because that's logically impossible.

All that it is saying is that once observed, a state is determined. It is not saying the system becomes deterministic (or it shouldn't say that - the bane of an open encyclopaedia), because it doesn't. Determinism is irreconcilable with quantum mechanics, so if it's your desire to prove determinism, you'd better start looking for a new mechanics.

Part of me wonders whether you're going to accept the truth or keep trying to prove something that's false.

 

[Riet]

He's making the same mistake that Neil's Bohr originally did, thinking about observation in terms of classical (read: deterministic) physics.

 

[Slidey]

To be fair, that's the same mistake that Einstein made.

Edit: 5000th post... I feel so small and inconsequential.

 

[Riet]

To be fair, that's the same mistake that Einstein made.

Edit: 5000th post... I feel so small and inconsequential.

Nah, einstein and bohr were actually both equally wrong, just in different ways.

 

[Slidey]

Einstein was treating the whole of QM classically, Bohr was treating his observance and measurement classically. Either way the fault was treating some part of QM classically.

 

[Mojohi]

but it acts deterministically when it is being observed.
"When a photon's state is non-deterministically altered, such as interacting with a half-silvered mirror where it non-deterministically passes through or is reflected, the photon undergoes quantum superposition, whereby it takes on all possible states and can interact with itself. This phenomenon continues until an observer interacts with it, causing the wave function to collapse and returning the photon to a deterministic state."


So only through observation is determinism applicable. That is what these theories acknowledge. Am i right?

no i was just saying that in terms of the excerpt. It says "This phenomenon continues until an observer interacts with it, causing the wave function to collapse and returning the photon to a deterministic state."

See how it says that it returns to a deterministic state when it is observed. Ive thought about all this and decided that it isnt spontaneous, it just appears spontaneous because we dont have enough understanding of the workings of sub atomic particles. Even Brian Greene doesnt seem to be able to understand his own string theory at times. Untill there is a new break through radioactivity will appear random and we will have to rely on probabilities.
I cant see why the macro scale would been any different to the micro scale.

 

[Slidey]

no i was just saying that in terms of the excerpt. It says "This phenomenon continues until an observer interacts with it, causing the wave function to collapse and returning the photon to a deterministic state."

See how it says that it returns to a deterministic state when it is observed. Ive thought about all this and decided that it isnt spontaneous, it just appears spontaneous because we dont have enough understanding of the workings of sub atomic particles. Even Brian Greene doesnt seem to be able to understand his own string theory at times. Untill there is a new break through radioactivity will appear random and we will have to rely on probabilities.
I cant see why the macro scale would been any different to the micro scale.

I'm so glad you have so much insight on the nature of the universe that you're completely willing to contradict not just conventional science but also rock solid mathematical theory.

I'd strongly suggest you avoid any courses in engineering, science, or IT, by the way. I believe an arts major would be quite suitable for your intellect, especially any in which postmodernism features prominently.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ I think it's presumptuous and somewhat offensive that you think Arts students are less intellectual than Engineering etc students. Not everyone is interested in mathematics or science.

 

[sam04u]

Schroedingers cat...

He has a cat? cool.
Post pics of your cat Schroedinger.

 

[Mojohi]

I'm so glad you have so much insight on the nature of the universe that you're completely willing to contradict not just conventional science but also rock solid mathematical theory.

I'd strongly suggest you avoid any courses in engineering, science, or IT, by the way. I believe an arts major would be quite suitable for your intellect, especially any in which postmodernism features prominently.

Thanks for the suggestion, i would like to suggest you continue to delve into mathematical theory; because you appear to have very limited social skills and computers and books can be a valuable friend for you, and i am sure these absurd thought experiments which you seem to regard equal to the bible have about as much substance as the emporers new clothes. All theories will evolve as evidence builds and im sorry to say this, but it will take more then some isolated experiments and theories to discredit determinism.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Thanks for the suggestion, i would like to suggest you continue to delve into mathematical theory; because you appear to have very limited social skills and computers and books can be a valuable friend for you, and i am sure these absurd thought experiments which you seem to regard equal to the bible have about as much substance as the emporers new clothes. All theories will evolve as evidence builds and im sorry to say this, but it will take more then some isolated experiments and theories to discredit determinism.

you're an idiot

 

[Slidey]

^ I think it's presumptuous and somewhat offensive that you think Arts students are less intellectual than Engineering etc students. Not everyone is interested in mathematics or science.

Less intellectual? Oh surely not. The obvious point I'm making is that arts students think in a different way to engineering and science students.

It'd be hypocritical of me to claim arts students are less intelligent, because it's one of my degrees (first BA/BSc, now BEd/BSc). Arts students certainly have strength in a different facet of intelligence on average, however.

Thanks for the suggestion, i would like to suggest you continue to delve into mathematical theory; because you appear to have very limited social skills and computers and books can be a valuable friend for you, and i am sure these absurd thought experiments which you seem to regard equal to the bible have about as much substance as the emporers new clothes. All theories will evolve as evidence builds and im sorry to say this, but it will take more then some isolated experiments and theories to discredit determinism.

It's funny because you juxtapose poor sentence structure and dialogue flow with an acutely obvious lack of scientific awareness.

While you're talking about how scientific theories evolve, maybe you should pay some heed to how science has evolved away from the primitive deterministic world view of the 1800's which you so desperately cling to.

 

[Slidey]

did a lot of posts get deleted? this thread was on 610ish like a week ago? :S

Yeah what gives?

Are you planning to close it and sticky it so you can point fundie n00bs to it? Is that why you've pruned it?

 

[HNAKXR]

i believe in a god not bound to mortal perceptions of good and evil.

 

[squeenie]

Woah... It's been a long while since I've looked at this thread.

I think religion is trying to say to science "I reject your reality, and substitute my own!!" Well whatever floats your boat, religion. If you don't want to think rationally, then that's fine by us.

Earlier in this thread, someone asked what was intelligent about not believing in God... Whoever you are, please.... just... don't say stuff like that! You're just making yourself look even worse.

 

[tommykins]

Ahaha, on the topic of God, I was watching the WYD celebrations and a Father (bishop? I don'tknow the technical terms) was talking about the atmosphere. I'll quote as best as I can -

"I was on the way to the mass until I saw a woman dropped her pram, and without hesitation - a group of pilgrims helped her out immediately. Now that's the atmosphere we are looking at, faith driven love and unity."