Intelligent Design

Quotes about Infinity, Superstition, God, Intelligent Design

Spread the love

Marcus Tullius Cicero,  wrote the most prominent Roman treatise to advance the argument from intelligent design in: The Nature of the Gods (written in 45 BCE), where i wrote:

When you follow from afar the course of a ship, upon the sea, you do not question that its movement is guided by a skilled intelligence. When you see a sundial or a water clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence? … Our opponents however profess to be in doubt whether the universe.. .came into being by accident or by necessity or is the product of a divine intelligence.The truth is that the universe is controlled by a power and purpose which we can never imitate. When we see some example of a mechanism, such as a globe or a clock or some such device, do we doubt that it is the creation of a conscious intelligence? So when we see the movement of the heavenly bodies, the speed of their revolution, and the way in which they regularly run their annual course, so that all that depends on them is preserved and prospers, how can we doubt that these too are not only the works of reason but of a reason which is perfect and divine?

Epicurus taught that the universe is infinite and eternal and that all matter is made up of extremely tiny, invisible particles known as atoms. All occurrences in the natural world are ultimately the result of atoms moving and interacting in empty space. He rejected the idea that the Gods have created our world for multiple reasons.

Epicurus, in attempting to provide a materialist explanation of the emergence of the world in all its complexity,  relied on an argument that transformed blind chance into contingency. Thus he adopted assumptions that not only
reduced the improbability of the world developing in its present form but made the appearance of such a world certain. This was what Epicureans called “the power of infinity” associated with the assumptions of

(1) infinite space, time, and matter;
(2) an infinite number of worlds;
(3) a mathematically smallest magnitude (so small as to be partless) that combined in precise ways with other such minimum magnitudes to form atoms (literally uncuttables);
(4) a resulting finite number of possible atomic types/shapes derived from the combination of these smallest magnitudes;
(5) a largest possible size to a world; and
(6) the principle of isonomia, or distributive equality between like things.

As a result of these mathematical assumptions, together with the basic material postulates of Epicurean philosophy, anything possible was bound to happen in the universe at large, and anything necessary would occur in any given world. In short, a sophisticated argument of cosmic probability was used to bolster the case for a material explanation of the existing world.

“It is the specific originality of Epicurus that he is the first man known in history to have organized a movement for the liberation of mankind at large from superstition.” Epicurus has always had the reputation of being the atheist philosopher par excellence, and was always called a swine; for this reason, too, Clement of Alexandria says that when Paul takes up arms against philosophy he has in mind Epicurean philosophy alone.

Quotes about Infinity, Superstition, God, Intelligent Design

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InaQC1rvH1k

53 Replies to “Quotes about Infinity, Superstition, God, Intelligent Design

  1. 1
    Querius says:

    How fascinating to hear these quote from across over two millenia of discovery that have not really changed substantially. How refreshing that they’re devoid of unsupported assertions, appeals to the majority, or rank ad hominem attacks.

    In addition to Albert Einstein, I would have liked to hear quotes from Niels Bohr, Max Planck, and Anton Zeilinger, plus Jan Baptist van Helmont, Lazzaro Spallanzani, Louis Pasteur, Charles Darwin, Charles B. Davenport, Michael Behe, and James Tour.

    Of course, Steve Allen was there first with . . .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKRxZSOqAYw

    How fun!

    -Q

  2. 2
    Otangelo says:

    Give me time… I made 7 videos, a total of 44 min, in a week !! Preparing the images, researching the text, etc. is quite a bit of work…

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note:

    How I Came to Take Leave of Darwin: A Coda
    Neil Thomas – November 15, 2021
    ,,, Here I will make the attempt to drill down even further to the root causes of what appeared to be the Western world’s unprecedented rejection of tried-and-tested philosophers and scientists such as Aristotle, Cicero, Plato, and the physician Galen in a strange capitulation to “out there” philosophic fantasists like Epicurus and his Roman disciple, Lucretius.
    It was the would-be rehabilitation of those ancient materialist thinkers by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, in the late 18th century, coupled with the later Victorian crisis of faith and the sudden irruption into this already volatile mix of Charles Darwin which was to result in the particularly strange irrationalism which has stubbornly persisted right up to the present day.
    This abdication of normal canons of reason consisted in people forsaking traditional norms of philosophical common sense and (effectively) throwing in their lot with the ancient goddess of chance, Lady Fortuna (or Lady Luck as she was later to be called), that accursed personification of unreliability whom the ancient philosopher Boethius, Geoffrey Chaucer, and many others have arraigned since time out of mind for being incapable of any productive and dependable action on behalf of struggling humanity.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/how-i-came-to-take-leave-of-darwin-a-coda/

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    From the video:

    Epicurus: “I am the first man in history to have organized a movement for the liberation of mankind at large from superstition.”

    So apparently Epicurus was motivated to put forth materialism since he believed that belief in God(s) was merely an imaginary, even silly, superstition.

    Sounds familiar,,,

    1 Corinthians 2:14
    The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    Yet Epicurus, and his modern day followers, are now known to be wrong in their materialistic presuppositions. And are found to be wrong on multiple different levels.

    Aside from the ‘minor’ empirical fact that quantum mechanics itself, via the falsification of ‘realism’, has now falsified material particles as being the ultimate substratum upon which everything else is based,

    An experimental test of non-local realism – 2007
    Simon Gröblacher, Tomasz Paterek, Rainer Kaltenbaek, Caslav Brukner, Marek Zukowski, Markus Aspelmeyer & Anton Zeilinger
    Abstract: Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of ‘realism’—a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell’s theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of ‘spooky’ actions that defy locality. Here we show by both theory and experiment that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations. In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....05677.html

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 ?Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.?Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.?They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”?http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize.
    John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it.
    How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?”
    per Jimfit
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/quantum-physicist-david-bohm-on-why-there-cannot-be-a-theory-of-everything/#comment-662358

    ,,, Aside from the ‘minor’ empirical fact that quantum mechanics itself, via the falsification of ‘realism’, has now falsified material particles as being the ultimate substratum upon which everything else is based,, there is also another fatal problem with materialists assuming material particles as the ultimate substratum upon which everything else is based.

    Eugene Wigner succinctly put the ‘other’ fatal problem for materialists as such, “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied.”

    “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists.”
    – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.

    As well Max Planck himself stated, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    – Max Planck (1858–1947), The Observer, London, January 25, 1931

    In short, with their rejection of consciousness as the ultimate substratum upon which everything is based, materialists have rejected the only thing by which we can have sure knowledge of the external world.

    This puts the materialist in quite the pickle. Although Epicurus, in his rejection of the ‘non-material’ realm of mind/consciousness, apparently believed he was ‘liberating’ mankind from the imaginary superstition of God, the fact of the matter is that Epicurus was enslaving himself, and other atheistic materialists, to a world of fantasy and imagination. A world where even Epicurus himself, and everyone else, becomes merely a ‘neuronal illusion’, i.e. merely an ’emergent property’ of the material brain.

    “Our experiences of being and having a body are ‘controlled hallucinations’ of a very distinctive kind.”
    Anil Seth, “The Real Problem” at Aeon – (Nov. 2, 2016)
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/10/is-consciousness-a-controlled-brain-hallucination/

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3

    The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007
    Part II The Illusion Of Control
    Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
    Steven Pinker – Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University
    http://www.academia.edu/279485.....sciousness

    Sam Harris: “The self is an illusion.”
    – Michael Egnor Demolishes the Myth of Materialism (Science Uprising EP1)
    https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM?t=267

    The claim that our sense of self, that is to say, our conscious experience, is just a neuronal illusion is, in a word, insane. As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”

    The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017
    Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
    – David Bentley Hart
    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, besides our sense of self becoming merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ for the atheistic materialist, many other things that people, including materialists themselves, regard as being undeniably real, also become illusory for the atheistic materialists.

    Free will, beliefs about reality, perceptions of reality, the design we see in life and the universe, meaning and purpose for life, morality and beauty, ALL those things become illusory for the atheistic materialist.
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727328

    Bottom line, without God nothing turns out to be truly real in the atheist’s worldview. Not even the atheistic materialist himself turns out to be real in his materialistic worldview. Much less are beauty, meaning, and purposes for his life to be considered real.

    In what should be needless to say, any worldview that is devoid of any real meaning, beauty or purpose, for life is a severely impoverished, even severely depressing, worldview for anyone to have to hold.

    How anyone can personally stand to be an atheist I have no idea. It is as if someone had the keys to a luxurious mansion with plenty of gourmet food to eat, and fine furniture to sit and lay on, but instead choose to live their life in the squalors of a garbage dump, eating nothing but whatever rotting food they can manage to scavenge from the garbage.

    Again, I simply can’t understand how anyone would willingly choose to live their life as an atheist without any real meaning, purpose, and beauty in their lives. It is a severely impoverished, even severely depressing, worldview for anyone to willingly hold on to.

    Don’t take my word for it, psychological studies bear this fact out,

    “I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion.
    The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – preface
    “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100

    The good news is that you, as an atheist, don’t have to live your life in such ‘illusory’ squalor, but you can choose to accept a very ‘real’ God, with very real meaning, beauty and purpose, into your life anytime you wish.

    Verse and Music:

    Revelation 3:20
    Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

    Chris Tomlin – Good Good Father ft. Pat Barrett
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlsQrycKKsY&t

  6. 6
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    The video doesn’t really make clear what “superstitions” Epicurus purports to deliver us from. He certainly did not argue that the gods do not exist. He argued that if one assumed with Plato and Aristotle that the gods are perfect, then it would make no sense to believe that they take notice of us. Hence we should not believe that our prayers and sacrifices make any difference to them.

    The video does state correctly that he believed that if both empty space (“the void”) is infinite and that there are infinitely many atoms (of infinitely many different shapes, though not sizes), then every possible configuration must occur. (And, as Nietzsche realized, not only occur once but every possible configuration must reoccur infinitely many times.)

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Superstition
    Epicurus considered many, if not most beliefs held by his contemporaries as superstitions: omens, prognostications, “divine signs”, and the like. As Epicurus (and, at great length, Lucretius) observed, many superstitions stem from the popular beliefs that the gods are actively involved in the everyday operations of the universe, and either favorably or adversely inclined towards particular individuals.
    The chief superstition, however, according to Epicurus is the folly of immortality, as it raises unrealistic expectations that can obviously not be fulfilled, and therefore causes far more anxiety than it offers hope.
    http://wiki.epicurism.info/Superstition/

    So Epicurus would hold the personal God of Christianity, and belief in eternal life, to be merely superstition. So, for all intents and purposes, my criticism of Epicurus stands, i.e. “So apparently Epicurus was motivated to put forth materialism since he believed that belief in God(s) was merely an imaginary, even silly, superstition.”

    And again, Epicurus’s materialism, via advances in quantum mechanics has now been empirically falsified.. , (i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ via violation of Leggett’s inequality),

    Moreover, and again, Epicurus’s materialism, via denying the necessary primacy of mind/consciousness in putting forth any coherent definition of reality, winds up in catastrophic epistemological failure.

    In short, Materialism is a garbage philosophy that is directly contradicted by empirical evidence and common everyday experience. Nobody lives their life as if atheistic materialism is actually true.

    ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    https://www.sott.net/article/260160-The-Heretic-Who-is-Thomas-Nagel-and-why-are-so-many-of-his-fellow-academics-condemning-him

    Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails
    Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona/

    Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006
    Excerpt:
    Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,,
    Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
    Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02783.html

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    – per answers for hope

  8. 8
    relatd says:

    Ba77,

    I think you should consider a few things when you assign to quantum mechanics/sub-atomic phenomena, certain facts about reality. First, the desk I am sitting at is quite solid. I can buy ancient Roman coins. The average person has no frame of reference. No tangible frame of reference for quantum mechanics. It’s one thing to discover that physical reality is based on the sub-atomic, and another to convey the discoveries associated with the quantum realm with physical/macro reality, which we experience every day.

    The defined quantum phenomena uses terminology that is truly alien to average readers. Then we have the apparent input from anyone measuring things in the quantum world. The “You can’t know until you measure it” phenomenon. I would say that any scientific discussion ends the moment unique words and terms appear. So, if scientists won’t explain it then we should. To put it another way, the shortest, most simply worded explanation is best.

    But back to the original topic. Part of the problem, and surprise, comes from the fact that people today are conditioned to want the new. Someone said something new today or discovered something new today. The “old” is to be discarded. But, it shouldn’t be. It should be examined, as it is in this case. “Study history.” is not a slogan, it’s the truth. It should be mandatory. However, too many are more concerned with satisfying daily needs and some have an automatic “off” switch for certain types and/or quantity of information.

    Acts 17:21

    “Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.”

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
    By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019
    Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,
    To make sense of this conundrum, we don’t need the word games of information realism. Instead, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.
    Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,,
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

  10. 10
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 9,

    A far too complicated and a “leading to nowhere” reply. I’m sure the writer thought himself to be rather clever. The quantum world itself may indeed be hiding another layer of reality. Keep in mind that unlike this writer’s attempt at cleverness, he simply obscures what, like quantum mechanics, may one day be known. Scientific inquiry does lead to unexpected and spectacular discoveries in some cases. The key, I think, is in not assuming anything. Not in outguessing what science will or will not discover tomorrow.

    On a theological level, and I see no separation between reality, as best as we can describe it, and the action of God, then yes, reality is a mental undertaking that originates with and is sustained by God, whose thoughts are beyond our own. Whose knowledge is beyond our own. However, as I’m sure you know, many of the great scientists of the past acknowledged God and believed they were discovering what God did. And through their work, providing to others, something good and useful.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever Relatd, as far as empirical evidence from quantum mechanics is concerned, materialism is false. With the falsification of ‘realism’, there is no ‘out there’ apart from our measurement of it.

    If you disagree, it will take more than your opinion to refute it. It will take empirical evidence. That’s how science works.

  12. 12
    Querius says:

    Otangelo @2,

    Give me time… I made 7 videos, a total of 44 min, in a week !! Preparing the images, researching the text, etc. is quite a bit of work…

    No worries. Having made a number of videos, I fully appreciate the work involved.

    You probably can see from the groups of scientists I chose, there are some persistent themes over the centuries and millinnea.

    Thanks for all your effort!

    -Q

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    P.S. Many years ago a biology professor in southern California decided to spice up the interest in his classes by means of “guest lectures” by famous biologists from history. To do this well, he reached out to the theatrical acting department and even went so far as using period costumes and makeup.

    According to his book (that I must have lent someone), these lectures were standing room only!

    What a brilliant and dedicated professor!

    -Q

  14. 14
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 11,

    sigh. I’m not criticizing quantum mechanics. I am criticizing the “reality doesn’t exist” presentation method. Instead of dismissing me, ask if you think I’m not getting it (whatever it might be) right.

    What I was trying to do – unsuccessfully, apparently – is to say: “Hey. Average people don’t get this. This IS important and average people don’t get this.” Because what’s the point of providing all this information if people don’t understand it? That’s all.

  15. 15
    Origenes says:

    Relatd @14, Bornagain77

    Like you I am struggling to make sense of quantum mechanics. Here follows a presentation of my “understanding” of the wave function. Bornagain77 please correct me if I am wrong.
    – – –
    An electron can be viewed as a (probability) wave instead of a particle. Its properties (e.g. position, spin) are expressible in probabilities rather than in definite states. For instance, there is an array of greater and lesser probabilities of the electron being somewhere at some time. So, one can say that the electron has an 80% chance of being at position A and a 20% chance of being at position B.
    However, if I understand the experts correctly, we really should say that the electron wave IS for 80% at position A and at the same time IS at position B for 20%. Put differently, the electron exists somewhere between potentiality and actuality. At position A the electron reaches 80% actuality and at the same time at position B it reaches 20% actuality. We do not have a particle we really have a probability wave.
    Mysteriously, after measurement/observation, the electron gets 100% actuality at either position A or B. IOW before measurement/observation, the electron never reaches full actuality ….

  16. 16
    relatd says:

    Origenes at 15,

    I hope you would allow my comment. An “electron gun” in a TV generates electrons that hit the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT). No knowledge of quantum mechanics was required to build this device. Its purpose was to produce electrons at a given rate. There were no considerations given to the designers aside from that. The electrons either hit the tube or they didn’t. I would say that to achieve the desired effect, there was no question about where the electrons were. So, in the present, someone with a background in electronic devices would be confused about any statements derived from quantum mechanics.

  17. 17
    Origenes says:

    Relatd @

    Most of us are confused about quantum mechanics; even Einstein was. We have to put in real effort, unfortunately, there is no easy remedy available.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Origenes at 15: as to how probabilities get into quantum mechanics, the late Stephen Weinberg, who was an atheist by the way, cleared up a lot of confusion for me surrounding how probabilities get into quantum mechanics in the following article,

    As Steven Weinberg succinctly explains, “the Schrödinger equation,,, It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation”.,, “So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?”,,, “In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 2017
    Excerpt: The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?,,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    Weinberg’s statement, “these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure”, does not really capture just how devastating this is to atheistic metaphysics. What Weinberg is really saying, in essence, is that the wave function is not collapsing to its particle state until an observer chooses what to measure.

    This following experiments more fully captures just how devastating wave function collapse is to atheistic metaphysics.

    In the following delayed choice experiment with atoms it was found that, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behaviour was brought into existence,”

    Reality Doesn’t Exist Until We Measure It, Quantum Experiment Confirms – 01 June 2015
    By Fiona Macdonald
    Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release.
    Known as John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, the experiment was first proposed back in 1978 using light beams bounced by mirrors, but back then, the technology needed was pretty much impossible. Now, almost 40 years later, the Australian team has managed to recreate the experiment using helium atoms scattered by laser light.,,,
    ,,, “Quantum physics predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, a PhD student who worked on the experiment.,,,
    ,,, a future measurement was affecting the atom’s path, explained Truscott. “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behaviour was brought into existence,” he said.
    https://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms

    And in the following experiment which falsified ‘realism’, (which is the belief that an objective ‘material’ reality exists independently of our observation/measurement of it), it was found that, “Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
    Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
    They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    The Theistic implications of such experiments are fairly straightforward. As Scott Aaronson quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”

    “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
    – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables

    Of supplemental note, the recent Nobel Prize Lectures by Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger may be of interest:

    “There’s one important message I want to say here. When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There’s no role at all.”,,,
    – Anton Zeilinger
    – 2022 Nobel Prize lectures in physics – video (1:50:07 mark)
    https://youtu.be/a9FsKqvrJNY?t=6607
    Alain Aspect: From Einstein’s doubts to quantum technologies: non-locality a fruitful image
    John F. Clauser: Experimental proof that nonlocal quantum entanglement is real
    Anton Zeilinger: A Voyage through Quantum Wonderland
    – Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”.

  19. 19
    Origenes says:

    BA77 @18
    A quick response, without looking into the articles you link to:

    “Reality Doesn’t Exist Until We Measure It”.

    I suppose these people honestly try to explain something mysterious the best way they can, but a statement like this is logically incoherent, right? How can you measure what does not exist? What does one measure then? One cannot measure what does not exist, right?

    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

    Again, if reality does not exist, you cannot look at it or measure it. If there is nothing in existence to look at, there is no way forward. From nothing, nothing comes. I really do hope these people find a coherent way of expressing their explanation of quantum mechanics.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    They are talking about material reality, i.e. atoms and photons, not existing prior to measurement. Since we both intuitively know that some kind of reality must necessarily preexist the existence of material reality, (i.e. from nothing caomes nothing), then I, as a Christian, hold that it must be the infinite Mind of God that sustains the material reality of the universe in its existence.

    And, as I touched on yesterday in the ‘unmoved mover’ argument, given that the wave function is mathematically defined as being in an infinite dimensional/infinite information state, then I hold that only omniscient/omnipresent God has the ‘causal sufficiency’ within Himself necessary to explain the collapse of the wave function.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/aquinas-ockham-and-descartes-about-god-a-free-adaptation-of-their-main-arguments/#comment-773061
    i.e. God sustains the universe in its existence.

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:17
    And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

  21. 21
    Origenes says:

    BA77

    They are talking about material reality, i.e. atoms and photons, not existing prior to measurement.

    I know. To say that something does not exist before a measurement is logically incoherent. How do you measure “nothing” (something that does not exist)? When you measure “nothing” the only possible outcome is “nothing”, because from nothing nothing comes.

  22. 22
    Querius says:

    Origenes @21,

    To say that something does not exist before a measurement is logically incoherent.

    That’s a good question. It’s not actually nothing. It’s actually a probability wave and as soon as you observe/measure it, the wavefunction collapses into a particle. Yes, it’s weird, but the reality in which we exist consists of information and probabilities at the smallest scales!

    Here’s a cute video describing the mysterious behavior:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvzSLByrw4Q

    And now you know why quantum physicists are very , very puzzled.

    -Q

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Thanks Querius,

    I was thinking of referencing that video. After rewatching it, I forgot just how good that ‘cute’ video is at getting the basic point across.

    According to a Physics World poll conducted in 2002, the most beautiful experiment in physics was the two-slit experiment with electrons. Feynman said that the experiment “is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery.”

    “According to a Physics World poll conducted in 2002,[1] the most beautiful experiment in physics is the two-slit experiment with electrons. According to Richard Feynman,[2] this classic gedanken experiment “has in it the heart of quantum mechanics” and “is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.”
    – Richard Feynman
    https://thisquantumworld.com/the-mystique-of-quantum-mechanics/two-slit-experiment/

    “We choose to examine a phenomenon, (the double slit experiment), which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery.”
    – Richard Feynman –
    The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I – Feynman • Leighton • Sands – Copyright © 1963, 2006, 2013 by California Institute of Technology, Chapter 37

    Here are a couple of more double slit videos from Anton Zeilinger that I was going to reference alongside that ‘cute’ one.

    “The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”
    – Anton Zeilinger
    Quantum Mechanics – Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0

    “We know what the particle is doing at the source when it is created. We know what it is doing at the detector when it is registered. But we do not know what it is doing in-between.”
    – Anton Zeilinger
    Prof Anton Zeilinger Shows the Double-slit Experiment – video
    http://www.dailymotion.com/vid.....iment_tech

    Also of note, The double slit experiment has now been performed with ‘objects’ much larger than electrons.

    Double-slit superposition for objects as large as protein molecules:
    Matter-wave physics with nanoparticles and biomolecules – March 2017
    Excerpt page 1: Double- and multi-slit diffraction experiments with massive matter have been realized with electrons [3], neutrons [4], atoms [5, 6] and their clusters [7], as well as small [8] and large molecules [9]. The combination of several diffraction elements into full matter-wave interferometers allowed accessing states of increasing macroscopicity: Nowadays, it is possible to delocalize individual atoms on the half-meter scale [10] and to demonstrate spatial superposition states from single electrons [11] up to organic molecules exceeding 10^4 amu [12]. All studies together already span a factor of 10^7 in mass and are still fully consistent with Schrodinger’s quantum mechanics, as developed 90 years ago [13].
    In our present lecture we report on explorations of quantum physics with strongly bound, warm objects of high internal complexity. We study matter-wave interference of organic nanomatter that may bind dozens or beyond a thousand atoms into one single quantum object [14, 15].,,,
    Excerpt page 13: Figure 7. The functionalized porphyrin TPPF20 (left) is the largest object for which matter-wave interference has been observed so far. It compares in complexity and mass with insulin (middle) or cytochrome C (right). The extension of TPPF20 can reach up to 50 A.
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.02129.pdf

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Atheistic materialists have tried to invoke ‘decoherence’ in order to try to explain quantum wave collapse. But decoherence has been falsified as a coherent explanation for quantum wave collapse by what are termed “Renninger-type” ‘interaction-free measurements’

    The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/436029a

    Interaction-Free Measurements
    In physics, interaction-free measurement is a type of measurement in quantum mechanics that detects the position, presence, or state of an object without an interaction occurring between it and the measuring device. Examples include the Renninger negative-result experiment, the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-testing problem [1], and certain double-cavity optical systems, such as Hardy’s paradox.,,,
    Initially proposed as thought experiments, interaction-free measurements have been experimentally demonstrated in various configurations, 6,7,8,,
    6. Kwiat, Paul; Weinfurter, Harald; Herzog, Thomas; Zeilinger, Anton; Kasevich, Mark A. (1995-06-12). “Interaction-Free Measurement”. Physical Review Letters. 74 (24):
    7. White, Andrew G. (1998). “”Interaction-free” imaging”. Physical Review A. 58 (1):
    8. Tsegaye, T.; Goobar, E.; Karlsson, A.; Björk, G.; Loh, M. Y.; Lim, K. H. (1998-05-01). “Efficient interaction-free measurements in a high-finesse interferometer”. Physical Review A. 57 (5):
    – per wikipedia

    The following video also clearly explains why decoherence does not explain quantum wave collapse,

    The Measurement Problem – InspiringPhilosophy – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

    Moreover, the double slit itself, where a detector is placed at only one slit, is a type of interaction free measurement in that the ‘wave function’ at the ‘unobserved’ slit still collapses into a particle state although there is no physical detector at that ‘unobserved’ slit. Thus proving that interaction with the measuring device (i.e. decoherence) is insufficient to explain the collapse of the wave function to a particle state in the double slit experiments,

    Quantum Experiment without Interaction (Double Slit experiment with detector at only one slit) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    To further solidify my claim that the infinite Mind of God must be ‘collapsing’ the infinite dimensional/infinite information ‘wave function’ to its finite particle state,,,

    There was a heated argument between Albert Einstein and Henri Bergson, (who was a prominent philosopher), over what the proper definition of time should be.

    Einstein bluntly stated, (to an audience of prominent philosophers that he was invited to speak to), that, “The time of the philosophers did not exist”. And in fact, that disagreement with those philosophers, and with Henri Bergson in particular, over what the proper definition of time should actually be was one of the primary reasons that Einstein failed to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity:

    Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time – Wednesday 24 June 2015
    Excerpt: The meeting of April 6 was supposed to be a cordial affair, though it ended up being anything but.
    ‘I have to say that day exploded and it was referenced over and over again in the 20th century,’ says Canales. ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’
    It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow.
    As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact.
    ‘What he meant was that philosophers frequently based their stories on a psychological approach and [new] physical knowledge showed that these philosophical approaches were nothing more than errors of the mind.’
    The night would only get worse.
    ‘This was extremely scandalous,’ says Canales. ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’
    Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity.
    Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the committee from awarding the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time.
    So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities.
    Bergson was fond of saying that time was the experience of waiting for a lump of sugar to dissolve in a glass of water. It was a declaration that one could not talk about time without reference to human consciousness and human perception. Einstein would say that time is what clocks measure. Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place.
    ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them … unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’
    In a theoretical nutshell this, (disagreement between Einstein and Bergson), expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,,
    Just when Einstein thought he had it worked out, along came the discovery of quantum theory and with it the possibility of a Bergsonian universe of indeterminacy and change. God did, it seems, play dice with the universe, contra to Einstein’s famous aphorism.
    Some supporters went as far as to say that Bergson’s earlier work anticipated the quantum revolution of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg by four decades or more.
    Canales quotes the literary critic Andre Rousseaux, writing at the time of Bergson’s death.
    ‘The Bergson revolution will be doubled by a scientific revolution that, on its own, would have demanded the philosophical revolution that Bergson led, even if he had not done it.’
    Was Bergson right after all? Time will tell.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionat.....me/6539568

    Henri Bergson, as the preceding article pointed out, championed the primacy of ‘lived time’ over and above Einstein’s ‘spacetime’, Which is to say that Bergson championed ‘subjective experience’ over and above ‘objective reality’ in providing the proper definition of time. As the preceding article stated, the subjective experience of “duration”, was “a major part of his (Bergson’s) thesis on time”.

    In support of Bergson’s main thesis, and as Dr. Egnor has pointed out, “Duration, and/or “persistence of self identity”, is one of the main defining attributes of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.

    The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008
    Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: –
    Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....13961.html

    Likewise, J. Warner Wallace also lists “Persistent self-identity through time”, i.e. ‘duration’, as a property of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.

    Six reasons why you should believe in non-physical minds – 01/30/2014
    1) First-person access to mental properties
    2) Our experience of consciousness implies that we are not our bodies
    3) Persistent self-identity through time
    4) Mental properties cannot be measured like physical objects
    5) Intentionality or About-ness
    6) Free will and personal responsibility
    http://winteryknight.com/2014/.....cal-minds/

    In more clearly defining what Henri Bergson actually meant by ‘duration’, and/or “persistence of self identity through time”, it is important to note that we each have a unique perspective of being outside of time. In fact we each seemingly watch from some mysterious ‘outside of time’ perspective as time seemingly passes us by. Simply put, we very much seem to be standing on a ‘tiny’ island of ‘now’ as the river of time continually flows past us.

    In the following video, Dr. Suarez states that the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists as such, “it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’ (experiencing now), we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a “Person” who is not bound by space time. (In other words) We must refer to God!”

    Nothing: God’s new Name – Antoine Suarez – video
    Paraphrased quote: (“it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA

    In further defining the immaterial mind’s attribute of ‘the experience of the now’, in the following article Stanley Jaki states that “There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.”

    The Mind and Its Now – Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008
    Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,,
    Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind’s baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not.
    ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.
    ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond.
    ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS.
    http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now

    Several years after Einstein’s heated exchange with Bergson, which resulted in Einstein failing to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity, Einstein had another encounter with another prominent philosopher,, Rudolf Carnap.

    In particular, and around 1935, (and on a train no less), Einstein was specifically asked by Rudolf Carnap, “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”

    “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”
    – Rudolf Carnap

    According to Stanely Jaki, Einstein’s answer to Carnap was ‘categorical’, he said: “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”

    “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”
    – Albert Einstein

    Carnap and Einstein quotes are taken from the last few minutes of this video:
    Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now”
    https://vimeo.com/10588094

    Einstein’s ‘categorical. denial that ‘the experience of the now’ can be a part of physical measurement was a very interesting claim for Einstein to make since “The experience of ‘the now’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as very much being a defining part of our physical measurements in quantum mechanics.

    For instance, the following delayed choice experiment, (that was done with atoms instead of photons) demonstrated that, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

    Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms – Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015
    Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release.
    http://www.sciencealert.com/re.....t-confirms

    Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality, which falsified ‘realism’, stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion “that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”

    “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
    – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, advances in quantum mechanics even goes one step further and show us, via “quantum entanglement in time”, that “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.” and, “Quantum correlations come first, space-time later.”

    Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past
    July 5, 2017 by Lisa Zyga
    Excerpt: retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html

    Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time – 2016
    Bizarre quantum bonds connect distinct moments in time, suggesting that quantum links — not space-time — constitute the fundamental structure of the universe.
    Excerpt: Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,,
    “If you have space-time, you have a well-defined causal order,” said Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna who studies quantum information. But “if you don’t have a well-defined causal order,” he said — as is the case in experiments he has proposed — then “you don’t have space-time.”,,,
    Quantum correlations come first, space-time later. Exactly how does space-time emerge out of the quantum world? Bruner said he is still unsure.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/

    And in regards to quantum entanglement in time, Professor Elise Crullis draws out the implications and provocatively states that “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”

    You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time – Feb. 2018
    Excerpt: Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.,,,
    Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?,,,
    The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted.
    What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.
    Elise Crullis assistant professor in history and philosophy of science at the City College of New York.,,,
    https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time

    Moroever, as if that was not provocative enough, with “quantum contextuality”, (which is integral for quantum computing), we find that “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”

    Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012
    Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems.
    In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation.
    Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit.
    Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
    Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-w.....antum.html

    Quantum contextuality
    Quantum contextuality is a feature of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics whereby measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values. ,,,
    Contextuality was first demonstrated to be a feature of quantum phenomenology by the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem.[1],,,
    1. S. Kochen and E.P. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17, 59–87 (1967)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_contextuality

    And as the newly minted, (Oct. 2022), Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    In fact, in his Nobel Prize lecture, after highlighting such experiments as the ones I’ve referenced, Anton Zeilinger stated, “When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There’s no role at all.”,,,

    “There’s one important message I want to say here. When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There’s no role at all.”,,,
    – Anton Zeilinger
    – 2022 Nobel Prize lectures in physics – video (1:50:07 mark)
    https://youtu.be/a9FsKqvrJNY?t=6607
    Alain Aspect: From Einstein’s doubts to quantum technologies: non-locality a fruitful image
    John F. Clauser: Experimental proof that nonlocal quantum entanglement is real
    Anton Zeilinger: A Voyage through Quantum Wonderland
    – Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”

    Thus from multiple lines of experimental evidence, (i.e. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment with atoms, the violation of Leggett’s inequality, Quantum entanglement in time, and quantum contextuality, not to mention the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum information theory), Einstein’s belief that his space-time was the correct definition of time, and that “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics” has been thoroughly, and impressively, falsified.

    In fact, I hold that it would now be much more appropriate to rephrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher Rudolph Carnap in this way; “It is impossible for “the experience of ‘the now’” to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.”

    Verses:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

    Colossians 1:17
    And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

  27. 27
    Origenes says:

    Querius @22, BA77

    Ori: To say that something does not exist before a measurement is logically incoherent. How do you measure “nothing” (something that does not exist)? When you measure “nothing” the only possible outcome is “nothing”, because from nothing nothing comes.

    Querius: It’s not actually nothing. It’s actually a probability wave and as soon as you observe/measure it, the wavefunction collapses into a particle.

    You say it is not actually nothing but instead a probability wave. I agree, indeed a probability wave is not nothing. BTW in #15 I write about the probability wave.
    However, Bornagain cited some scientists who are saying that there really is nothing, that there is also no probability wave before measurement. No particle, no probability wave … just nothing. I pointed out that this must be logically incoherent.

    “In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. …
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

    “Measurement is everything”, there is only measurement; once nothing is measured, something real is created … Again, this cannot make logical sense. If there is only measurement, then there is nothing to measure.

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    Origenes, it is important to differentiate between the wave-function and ‘wave-like’ behavior.

    Quantum mechanics says the wave function exists in an infinite dimensional/infinite information state prior to its collapse to particle-like or wave-like behavior. The wave function, though not material, is certainly not nothing.

  29. 29
    Origenes says:

    BA77 @28

    You write about the wave function as being a thing in reality. However, the wave function is a mathematical description of something (that collapses to particle-like or wave-like behavior after measurement).

    A wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. (Wiki)

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    No I did not write about the wave function as being a ‘thing’, as in a material particle, in reality.

    I specifically stated, after you claimed we were measuring ‘nothing’, that, “The wave function, though not ‘material’, is certainly not nothing”.

    To go further and to bring more clarity, prior to wave collapse, the particle, (in so far as a particle can be said to ‘physically’ exist as a ‘particle’ in its wave-function state), is held to ‘physically’ exist in an infinite dimensional/infinite information state. This ‘infinite dimensional’ wave state of the particle is held to be in a ‘superposition’. A ‘superposition’ of the particle existing in all possible states. i.e. A ‘superposition’ of the particle existing in all possible positions as opposed to the particle existing in only one definite position of only one state as it does post-collapse.

    This ‘superposition’ of the particle existing in all possible states has historically been held to be merely “an abstract element” and “primarily a conceptual entity”. Yet as the following articles touch upon, the ‘abstract’ and ‘conceptual’ entity of the particle existing in a ‘superposition’ wave function is now experimentally shown to be a ‘physically real’ entity that can be ‘weakly’ measured without collapsing the superposition of the particle to just one definitive position.

    Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction – June 2011
    Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....10120.html

    The Weak Measurement in Quantum Mechanics – 2012
    Excerpt: The basic idea of the weak measurement is that the interaction (or disturbance) between the measuring apparatus and the observed system or particle is so weak, that the wave function does not collapse but continues on unchanged. In other words, a weak measurement is one in which the coupling between the measuring device and the observable to be measured is so weak that the uncertainty in a single measurement is large compared with the separation between the eigenvalues of the observable [2].
    http://www-f1.ijs.si/~ramsak/s.....cSibka.pdf

    Wave function gets real in quantum experiment – February 2, 2015
    Excerpt: It underpins the whole theory of quantum mechanics, but does it exist? For nearly a century physicists have argued about whether the wave function is a real part of the world or just a mathematical tool. Now, the first experiment in years to draw a line in the quantum sand suggests we should take it seriously.
    The wave function helps predict the results of quantum experiments with incredible accuracy. But it describes a world where particles have fuzzy properties – for example, existing in two places at the same time. Erwin Schrödinger argued in 1935 that treating the wave function as a real thing leads to the perplexing situation where a cat in a box can be both dead and alive, until someone opens the box and observes it.
    Those who want an objective description of the world – one that doesn’t depend on how you’re looking at it – have two options. They can accept that the wave function is real and that the cat is both dead and alive. Or they can argue that the wave function is just a mathematical tool, which represents our lack of knowledge about the status of the poor cat, sometimes called the “epistemic interpretation”. This was the interpretation favoured by Albert Einstein, who allegedly asked, “Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it?”
    The trouble is, very few experiments have been performed that can rule versions of quantum mechanics in or out. Previous work that claimed to propose a way to test whether the wave function is real made a splash in the physics community but turned out to be based on improper assumptions, and no one ever ran the experiment.
    What a state
    Now, Eric Cavalcanti at the University of Sydney and Alessandro Fedrizzi at the University of Queensland, both in Australia, and their colleagues have made a measurement of the reality of the quantum wave function. Their results rule out a large class of interpretations of quantum mechanics and suggest that if there is any objective description of the world, the famous wave function is part of it: Schrödinger’s cat actually is both dead and alive.,,,
    There may still be a way to distinguish quantum states from each other that their experiment didn’t capture. But Howard Wiseman from Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, says that shouldn’t weaken the results. “It’s saying there’s definitely some reality to the wave function,” he says. “You have to admit that to some extent there’s some reality to the wave function, so if you’ve gone that far, why don’t you just go the whole way?”
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....iment.html

    In fact, collapse of the ‘superposition’ wave function into a finite particle state of only one definite position, has now also been experimentally demonstrated.

    As the following article states, experiments have now demonstrated “the non-local, (i.e. beyond space and time), collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function”,, “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect”,, “the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected”,, and “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”,,

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle.
    ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,,
    According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,,
    ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,
    “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman.
    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.”
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-q.....tance.html

    (Of note: since the many worlds interpretation denies the reality of wave-function collapse, this experiment also falsifies the many worlds interpretation.)

    Origenes, I remind you that we recently went over all of this previously, at the end of which you conceded that,

    Origenes: “This idea, obviously, only makes sense for us theists. How it impacts the minds of the Sabine Hossenfelders of this world when they blurt it out, I have no clue and, frankly, I’m not sure I want to know.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-quora-is-it-possible-to-prove-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-that-intelligence-was-required-to-create-life/#comment-771898

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:17
    And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

  31. 31
    Origenes says:

    BA77 @

    No I did not write about the wave function as being a ‘thing’, as in a material particle, in reality.

    This is what you wrote:

    BA77: Quantum mechanics says the wave function exists in an infinite dimensional/infinite information state prior to its collapse to particle-like or wave-like behavior.

    According to you, the wave function—a mathematical description (!)—“exists” is some “state”, prior to its “collapse to particle-like or wave-like behavior.” Seriously?

    The wave function, though not material, is certainly not nothing.

    The wave function—a mathematical description—“though not material, is certainly not nothing.” Well, mathematical descriptions are not material and not nothing, however, you don’t seem to be talking about mathematical descriptions here.

    I specifically stated, after you claimed we were measuring ‘nothing’, that …

    I never made the claim that we are measuring ‘nothing’. My claim is that the idea (proposed by others quoted by you) that we are measuring nothing and end up with something is incoherent.

  32. 32
    relatd says:

    Well. I’m teaching a class in Physics at the college level. I tell my students that the chair they sit in or their laptops don’t exist. When they ask why, I add the above. I somehow doubt that wave-function collapse is mediated by God will go over with them. I have a background in electronics, and all that matters is producing product. The end user could care lass about wave function and superposition. In the case of quantum computers and other situations where it matters, wave-function collapse just happens. There is a list of defined things that happen in the quantum world. Once engineers/designers get that list, that’s all they care about. In other words, “given these constraints, what can we do and what can’t we do?” The end.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever Origenes, I personally don’t hold the mathematical wave function to be ‘nothing’. I went further and cited references to hopefully clear up any confusion and show that what use to be held to be a purely mathematical description is now known to be ‘something’ that can be weakly measured prior to collapse.

    In so far as any of the papers I referenced might have said they were measuring ‘nothing’, I’m sure they did not mean absolutely nothing, as in not even a mathematical description of what we were measuring, but were saying ‘nothing’ it in context of there being no finite and definite material particle there to measure.

    Seeing as we have been through all this before, and you even agreed with me previously that this makes sense for a Theist, It seems like so much splitting hairs over ‘nothing’ at this point. 🙂

    And seeing as I see no point in splitting hairs over ‘nothing’, then this is my last comment on the subject in this thread.

  34. 34
    Querius says:

    Relatd @32,

    For one thing, you’re probably aware that quantum effects limit further miniaturization of microelectronics. When an electron on a trace somehow decides to manifest its existence on an adjacent trace, you have a problem, especially when there’s a lot of this happening.

    From my perspective, the real problem includes the following:

    1. Deterministic materialism is falsified at the very foundations of reality. Many theoretical physicists struggle to find a way to rescue the idea.

    2. What we consider “real” isn’t real by our definitions of real. Mathematical probability waves have been experimentally shown to are more real than the location in space-time. This includes effects such as quantum tunneling, quantum erasure, and the quantum Zeno effect.

    3. Recording devices don’t collapse wavefunctions until observed/measured by human consciousness. The recording device instead might instead be part of a Von Neumann chain.

    4. Heisenberg showed that related variables such as position and momentum (called conjugate variables) enable the extraction of only a limited total amount of information based on what we CHOOSE to measure.

    5. Particles can become entangled such that to some something about one of them immediately affects the other regardless of the distance between them (but still doesn’t allow for faster-than-light communication).

    6. Quantum effects are the most precisely measured and confirmed in all of science (up to 10 parts per billion). The effects are not in question, but their interpretation his highly controversial among theoretical physicists, reportedly even to the point of a shouting match at a conference.

    Thus, what now seems fundamental to reality involves information, conscious observation/measurement, probability, and conscious choice. Everything else that we consider “real” emerges from these fundamental elements.

    In that context, you might want to read John 1:1 with the understanding that “Word” in Greek is Logos, which means a word (as embodying an idea), a concept, a statement, a speech, reasoning expressed by words.

    -Q

  35. 35
    relatd says:

    Querius at 34,

    Electron tunneling does occur in certain circumstances. However, materials scientists, electrical engineers and circuit designers are working hard to solve what are – to them – strictly engineering problems. It’s all about solving certain problems and then solving other problems. And trying new materials like graphene.

    https://www.thegraphenecouncil.org/blogpost/1501180/Graphene-News-and-Updates?tag=Frank+Koppens

    All that is happening is this: It doesn’t matter how strange the quantum world is. People go in, collect data and build devices, circuits and other things. Research scientists are constantly testing new ideas and materials.

    I fully agree that God is involved but the quantum world has rules, and once these rules are understood, the system can be exploited for practical applications. These people have to be paid for their work and any new discoveries are turned into practical, reliable devices, components or other things.

    There may be Christians who work in these fields but the people they work for only want practical results. They are only willing to invest a certain amount of time and money in any project. If they believe any project is a failure or not worth further funding, it gets shut down. Those who worked on that specific project are usually free to work on other projects.

    I understand that what we consider real emerges from fundamental elements, but practical results are always the goal. A laptop that is one inch thick, a phone that can fold in half. That’s all users and manufacturers care about. It boils down to: “Will people want this? Can I sell it?” And making a profit.

    Sure, there are some research projects that involve exploring new things/materials or trying new things to see if they can be made to work. These types of research only projects are looking for the next breakthrough. No product is produced by them. If it happens, it can be passed on to others for further development and exploitation.

    I do not want to diminish the obvious results of experiments that lead back to God. However, understand that those working in various fields involving electrons and photons are only looking to produce something they can sell, whether that’s a fabrication process, a device or a new type of circuit configuration.

  36. 36
    Querius says:

    Relatd @35,

    Yes, that’s been my experience as well. And generally, there’s a very short term focus and exploitative mindset, so I think Tim Wu’s book The Master Switch should be required reading for all engineers and inventors.

    Yes, I’m also aware of graphene and its astonishing properties! James Tour’s group discovered a way to make it very cheaply, which is exciting!

    Relatd @14 writes: I’m not criticizing quantum mechanics. I am criticizing the “reality doesn’t exist” presentation method.

    What I was trying to say was what we think is reality is not really reality. But then, I understand your point that engineers focus on tangible products regardless.

    -Q

  37. 37
    chuckdarwin says:

    I have never come across the quote in the cartoon attributed to Einstein. An actual citation would be helpful.
    There is a well-known quote attributed to Einstein : “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” There’s no evidence, however, that Einstein ever made the quip……

  38. 38
    Otangelo says:

    Chuckdarwin:

    Had you given a look at the description of the video, you would have read:

    The quote of Einstein is my free invention ( He never said this)

  39. 39
    chuckdarwin says:

    Otangelo/38
    What description of the video?

  40. 40
    Querius says:

    There seems to be such an abundance of misattributed quotes, that I make it a practice now to try to confirm them from independent sources, if possible.

    I think that’s the responsible thing to do rather that to persist or add on to the problem!

    It also makes a huge difference who originated the quote and that the quote is consistent with the context.

    Check this out:
    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/942-two-things-are-infinite-the-universe-and-human-stupidity-and

    Did this come from a letter? A lecture? When and where was it delivered?

    Now, check this out:
    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/04/universe-einstein/

    -Q

  41. 41
    Otangelo says:

    #39 Chuck Darwin

    below the YouTube video, there is a description of the content of the video. There I informed that the quote of Einstein was my invention and not his sayings.

    In fact, I am informing from now on with rigor in all my videos, in the description, what are original quotes, and what is my invention.

  42. 42
    Querius says:

    Octangelo @41,

    There I informed that the quote of Einstein was my invention and not his sayings.

    I’m confused. Not according to @40 . . .

    -Q

  43. 43
    Otangelo says:

    #42. Querius

    This is quite a cool coincidence. I invented the quote. Now I don’t know if I saw the quote some time back, and it was dwelling somewhere in my subconscious, or if it is a pure coincidence that i freely invented it, without reference. As you can see, the words that I put in Einsteins’ mouth are not 1:1 what is quoted in the links above.

  44. 44
    kairosfocus says:

    Otangelo,

    Cicero also:

    Is it possible for any man to behold these things, and yet imagine that certain solid and individual bodies move by their natural force and gravitation, and that a world so beautifully adorned was made by their fortuitous concourse? He who believes this may as well believe that if a great quantity of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they would fall into such order as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them. How, therefore, can these people assert that the world was made by the fortuitous concourse of atoms, which have no color, no quality—which the Greeks call [poiotes], no sense? [Cicero, THE NATURE OF THE GODS BK II Ch XXXVII, C1 BC, as trans Yonge (Harper & Bros., 1877), pp. 289 – 90.]

    KF

  45. 45
    Otangelo says:

    #44 Kairosfocus

    it seems you did not watch my video…. i quote this passage….

  46. 46
    chuckdarwin says:

    Otangelo/41
    I still see no disclaimer. Perhaps it would simply be easier if you just stop making up fake quotes. Kind of a no-brainer…….

  47. 47
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @46,

    Perhaps it would simply be easier if you just stop making up fake quotes.

    LOL. Perhaps it would simply be easier if you actually opened the links I posted @40 and followed the conversation that resulted!

    Once again, how embarrassing.

    -Q

  48. 48
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius/47
    The only thing embarrassing is how far IDers on this blog will go to try and rationalize and rehabilitate a “colleague” who screws up. I’m not the one making up fake quotes. I ran across both of your links before I posted @ 37. The Fritz Perls’ attribution is a heavily edited paraphrase , at best, if indeed Einstein even made the statement. But I am confident that you’re adult enough to distinguish between a misquote, a paraphrase and something someone just pulls out of their a**.

  49. 49
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @48,

    I’m not the one making up fake quotes.

    Was it really a made-up fake quote? Seems like a REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE if it were!

    I pointed out that due to rampant misattribution online, one needs to carefully check the sources of quotes before passing them along–or at least qualify any quote as “attributed to” before using it. I wrote

    There seems to be such an abundance of misattributed quotes, that I make it a practice now to try to confirm them from independent sources, if possible.

    I think that’s the responsible thing to do rather that to persist or add on to the problem!

    It also makes a huge difference who originated the quote and that the quote is consistent with the context.

    Notice what I bolded in my original statement. Nevertheless, you assert that I “try and rationalize and rehabilitate a “colleague” who screws up.”

    Not true. I wrote that “I think that’s the responsible thing to do [check any quotes] rather that to persist or ADD ON TO the problem! [of misattributed quotes]”

    Otrangelo says that he made up the quote, which is definitely a bad idea, but I’d seemed to remember a similar quote attributed to Einstein, so I looked it up in several sources.

    Then, I posted a link to typical one that asserted Einstein actually said it and then another link that researched the supposed quote and found it to be a common, but likely questionable attribution along with the earliest source, Fritz Perls, who might indeed have made up the quote or paraphrased it.

    Taking you at your word, then you ignored the contents of the links you said that you’d read and doubled-down on Otrangelo for making up “fake quotes,” which in this case, he apparently didn’t actually do–despite what he said.

    In any case, I’d think Otrangelo will be more careful researching any quotes in the future and, when in question, use the phrase “attributed to . . .” instead. And hopefully not resort to memories, paraphrases, constructing quotes without properly labeling them as extrapolated!

    I think Otrangelo has a novel idea about having a pseudo discussion between famous people along the lines of Steve Allen’s interview series (which I also linked to), and the amount of verification he puts in should match the work he does in selecting and animating the “conversation.”

    -Q

  50. 50
    Otangelo says:

    #49 Querius

    it was not my intention from the beginning to quote Einstein. It was my intention to put the words in his mouth, that i invented ( and coincidentally seem to have parallels to what he supposedly actually said). But it was not my intention to make it appear that he actually said those words. Thats why i clarified in the description of the video that he never said those words.

    In any case, from now on, i will take even more care to clarify what are actual quotes, and eventually provide the source, and what are my words, or not quotes, to avoid any kind of confusion.

  51. 51
    Querius says:

    Otrangelo @50,

    In any case, from now on, i will take even more care to clarify what are actual quotes, and eventually provide the source, and what are my words, or not quotes, to avoid any kind of confusion.

    Great! I think enough of Einstein’s correspondence is available that could provide you with direct quotes representative of his thoughts.

    If you do find that you need to paraphrase any of your “guest speakers,” I think you should add the word “Paraphrased” below their speech.

    Again, I enjoyed your presentation of their viewpoints in animation. That was a lot of work. When you want to tackle another such conversation between historical figures, the long argument between proponents and experimenters of biogenesis and spontaneous generation would make a great subject!

    -Q

  52. 52
    Otangelo says:

    @51 Querius

    a good suggestion to write, while my ” guest speakers” are speaking, if what they are saying, is a direct quote, paraphrased, or my free invention. That will avoid any confusion.
    Someone asked me if I do debates of my guests. That would be another interesting thing to do. Like a debate between Huxley, and Wilberforce. If there is a historical evolution vs creation debate recorded, at least in written form, but not in audio or video, that might be interesting.

  53. 53
    Origenes says:

    Otangelo @
    Perhaps, the Russell-Copleston Radio Debate on the Existence of God (1948). Copleston offers the cosmological argument for the existence of God. This was before the big bang theory. Russell doesn’t accept the idea that the universe is contingent, and even goes so far as to argue that the “eternal” (wink wink) universe qualifies as a “necessarily existent being”

    Perhaps the most memorable moment of the debate on the cosmological argument comes near the end, when Russell criticizes Copleston’s assertion that because everything contained within the Universe is contingent, the Universe as a whole must also be contingent. “I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy,” says Russell. “Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother–that’s a different logical sphere.” For Russell it was enough to accept that the Universe simply exists. Or as David Hume points out in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, if there must be a necessarily existent being, why can’t it be the Universe as a whole?

Leave a Reply