Jump to content

The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment proves there is no God


VenusPrincess
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 10/15/2020 at 10:30 PM, VenusPrincess said:

However since the cat's state remains in superposition we can infer that it has not been observed, and therefore God is has no knowledge of the cat's state.

Since we are talking about God which is by definition supernatural, he can make any rule he wants, such as, "my knowledge of the state of the system has no effect".

Using an analogy is not a good idea to make your point.  At no time in reality, is a cat alive and dead at the same time.  We won't know if the cat is alive or dead until we open the box, but the cat is either dead or alive we just don't know.

Edited by Bufofrog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, exchemist said:

I am not aware of any axioms in any theory of science. Axioms belong in logic and mathematics, surely? 

And I do not see the relevance of all this about laws and material quantities to the untestable hypothesis of a First Cause. 

The conservation laws are examples of axioms in theoretical physics, that the laws of physics are homogenous and isotropic are examples of axioms, need I go on?

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Despite of course being in the "religion" forum, and plenty of inferences to supernatural creation.

Characterizing my posting as "religious" is a strawman, I've made no mention of organized religions or belief systems.

Quote

Why not just invalidate what I have said. Let me sum it up.

I just did, I've made no mention of organized religions, no part of my argument for "God" is based on anything other than reason and logic and inference the very same concepts we use in scientific inquiry.

Quote

[1] Creationism/God/deities is an unscientific explantion.

Yes and that's intentional because - as I've shown and you've failed to rebut - a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe leads to a paradox (we cannot use the material to explain the origin of the material).

We can resolve the paradox in several ways, one is to postulate an explanation that is not scientific, another of course is to bury one's head in the sand or simply deny reality as you appear to be doing.

Quote

[2] Ancient man saw "God"or magic everywhere as detailed.

Irrelevant and possibly and example of the genetic fallacy.

Quote

[3] The reason why he/she saw God, was that no other explantion was available

See? the genetic fallacy, even if true, adopting a belief because there are no other viable options does not prove that that belief is false.

Quote

[4] Science finally through the process of gathering knowledge and standing on the shoulders of giants, eliminated much of that myth. [the myth of God being the Sun, Moon etc.

Irrelevant, first the genetic fallacy is a fallacy so any reasoning based upon it is also fallacious, second none of the arguments I've put forward hinge in any way of myths.

Quote

Ahh, one of my favourite videos. Actually what Feynman does is explain to a novice, the magnetic force, an detailed how that explanation depends largely on who he is explaining it to. I dare say we all have been in situations where an expert/professional maybe trying to explain a process to us, and we may ask him to dumb it down.

Your final remark about the need to reject all of science, does absolutely nothing for whatever you are trying to convey here. 

Which remark please? it always help to quote one's opponent accurately, avoid paraphrasing etc.

Edited by Holmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Holmes said:

The conservation laws are examples of axioms in theoretical physics, that the laws of physics are homogenous and isotropic are examples of axioms, need I go on?

I must profoundly disagree with you here.

 

There are no axioms in Physics, theoretical or otherwise.

In Physics you will find Principles, eg 'The Principle of Relativity'

Principles are the nearest Physics gets to axioms.

But then Physics is quite different from Mathematics (and Logic) which have axioms.

Axioms cannot be derived or proved. The best one can do is to establish self consistency with other axioms and derived  lemmas and theorems.
That is how they work in Maths and Philosophy.

 

In Physics the equivalent of derived theorems are derived laws.

For instance 'Conservation of Mechancial Energy' can be derived from the Principles of Mechanics.
This derivation can be achieved in more than one way, not all of these ways having an equivalent in axiomatic systems like Maths.

 

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Yes and that's intentional because - as I've shown and you've failed to rebut - a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe leads to a paradox (we cannot use the material to explain the origin of the material).

You are the one that has the 'new' idea, it is up to you to show evidence for your idea, we do not need to refute it.  You have not supplied anything close to compelling evidence, you have just made unsubstantiated pronouncements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, joigus said:

"God did it" looks more like the blank sheet of paper that you've shown before, @Holmes.

But is it not the case that we are left with a blank sheet of paper for our "theory of everything"? you say nothing of that, you seem only concerned with my use of the term "God".

Quote

What god did it? Enki? Quetzalcoátl? How did he (or she, or it) do it? Why?

Start a thread on that if it interests you, this thread is about the inability of scientific inquiry to explain the origin of the universe, you seem reticent to focus on this.

Quote

You're playing semantic games.

Translation - "I am unable to form a sound reasoned rebuttal so I'll be dismissive instead".

Quote

 

We now know something very much like the inflaton field explains structure formation in the universe. Why that happened and what this inflaton field is, etc is unknown. It explains planar large-scale structure, horizons problem, absence of monopoles...

Yes, as I've said several times science is reductionist, it always explains the material in terms of the material - therefore it cannot possibly explain the origin of the material, this is the point you seem to be shying away from.

Quote

According to your "explanation", did god hate monopoles?

The parametrics is by no means satisfactorily explained in the inflationary models. But,

It must have had a very gentle slope and a very long time to evolve previous to the inflationary epoch.

You are describing the evolution of the state of an existing system, why? we're discussing the origins of the system not how it fluctuates one it exists.

Quote

It must have had a very steep slope, dominated by friction, during the inflationary era. It must have bounced back in so-called re-heating. Those assumptions pretty damn well explain structure formation.

Ditto.

Quote

Problem is, you need to assume parameters (those are the assumptions (axioms) that seem to bother you so much when they involve numbers and mathematical structure).

No, that is not "the problem" at all Joigus, try again, what is my thread about?

Quote

Arguably, all physical theories are parametrizations in a context that we have very good reasons to believe is what physics looks like (a quantum field theory.)

Did God like to play with scalar-field slopes? What's your explanation for planarity, horizon problem, and monopole absence?

Answer: blank piece of paper.

That's sarcasm.

You're not doing a very good of rebutting me.

8 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You are the one that has the 'new' idea, it is up to you to show evidence for your idea, we do not need to refute it.  You have not supplied anything close to compelling evidence, you have just made unsubstantiated pronouncements.

This is just paraphrasing, be specific, accurate, logical, quote my words, what exactly have I said that you seek evidence for and what would you like me to substantiate?

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

I must profoundly disagree with you here.

 

There are no axioms in Physics, theoretical or otherwise.

In Physics you will find Principles, eg 'The Principle of Relativity'

Principles are the nearest Physics gets to axioms.

But then Physics is quite different from Mathematics (and Logic) which have axioms.

Axioms cannot be derived or proved. The best one can do is to establish self consistency with other axioms and derived  lemmas and theorems.
That is how they work in Maths and Philosophy.

 

In Physics the equivalent of derived theorems are derived laws.

For instance 'Conservation of Mechancial Energy' can be derived from the Principles of Mechanics.
This derivation can be achieved in more than one way, not all of these ways having an equivalent in axiomatic systems like Maths.

 

The laws of physics are unproven and unprovable (science relies on inductive reasoning) therefore - like axioms in mathematics - they are assumed to be true, taken for granted, believed, I make no apology for labelling these as "axioms" it is a legitimate label epistemologically speaking.

 

Edited by Holmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Holmes said:

You're not doing a very good of rebutting me.

As a matter of interest I always preach the gospel of cooperation over confrontation.

I try to practise it as well.

Nobody knows everything or is right all the time.

Clever people putting their heads together can demonstrate the old adage

Two heads are better than one.

 

Since I started this you have added confrontational material to your last post.

I can be a smart ass too.

8 minutes ago, Holmes said:

The laws of physics are unproven and unprovable (science relies on inductive reasoning) therefore - like axioms in mathematics - they are assumed to be true, taken for granted, believed, I make no apology for labelling these as "axioms" it is a legitimate label epistemologically speaking.

How is cooperation to be achieved between two people speaking different languages ?

Surely it is better they use the same 'dictionary'.
In the interests of a level playing field I recommend a 'standard' written by a third party.

Since you make  unsupported claims to know the derivations of 'the laws of physics' I would be grateful if you would display or refer me to the derivations of the conservation laws for mechanical energy, linear and angular momentum.

I have no idea of the relevance of the quote you append to your reply to me as it does not address anything I have said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

As a matter of interest I always preach the gospel of cooperation over confrontation.

I try to practise it as well.

Nobody knows everything or is right all the time.

Clever people putting their heads together can demonstrate the old adage

Two heads are better than one.

I agree and strive to avoid that too, but surely your not seeing my comment about my perceived lack of a rebuttal as confrontational?

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

Since I started this you have added confrontational material to your last post.

I can be a smart ass too.

Well I apologize if that's the case, I agree that confrontation isn't desirable but I'm not quite sure what I said that's confrontational Studiot.

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

How is cooperation to be achieved between two people speaking different languages ?

Surely it is better they use the same 'dictionary'.
In the interests of a level playing field I recommend a 'standard' written by a third party.

I'm sorry I did explain and I thought, justify my use of the term "axiom", I do not consider it an abuse or misuse of language or a source of misunderstanding here.

Additionally as you mentioned, mathematics does have axioms and our theories in physics are mathematical and so must have axioms.

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

Since you make  unsupported claims to know the derivations of 'the laws of physics' I would be grateful if you would display or refer me to the derivations of the conservation laws for mechanical energy, linear and angular momentum.

I never claimed that conservation laws were "derived" Studiot, they are not, they are inferences, they arise from the use of inductive reasoning, I thought I already said this?

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

I have no idea of the relevance of the quote you append to your reply to me as it does not address anything I have said.

Science and certainly theoretical physics, rests upon axioms, the conservation laws are assumed and used to establish all kinds of mathematical relationships and consequences, I really do not see what's bothering you here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

41 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Start a thread on that if it interests you, this thread is about the inability of scientific inquiry to explain the origin of the universe

Actually, right there in the title: The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment proves there is no God

On 10/15/2020 at 9:30 PM, VenusPrincess said:

According to the Copenhagen interpretation a quantum system remains in superposition until it is observed. If God was omnipotent he would be all knowing, implying that he observes all. However since the cat's state remains in superposition we can infer that it has not been observed, and therefore God is has no knowledge of the cat's state. That contradicts the initial assumption that God is omnipotent, but if God is not Omnipotent then he is not God at all, and therefore God does not exist.

For someone so passionate about arguing on reason and logic, you sure seem to make a lot of remedial reasoning errors and overuse logical fallacies 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say there is a subtle weakness in the forum, it is very easy to accidentally click "Quote" at the bottom of post when one actually just wants to edit a post. I've done this a few times and it causes a small mess for me. Perhaps this has been a source of confusion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Holmes said:

No, that is not "the problem" at all Joigus, try again, what is my thread about?

Since when are you the OP in this thread? Sloppy sloppy sloppy thinking abounds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Actually, right there in the title: The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment proves there is no God

For someone so passionate about arguing on reason and logic, you sure seem to make a lot of remedial reasoning errors and overuse logical fallacies 

Are you seeking my opinion of VenusPrincess's post? I've never seen her post before, have no idea in what context it arose or what it has to do with anything I've said.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Since when are you the OP in this thread? Sloppy sloppy sloppy thinking abounds

Quite true, I meant to write "thesis" not "thread".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Holmes said:

Are you seeking my opinion of VenusPrincess's post?

Nope. As should be clear to everyone including you, I was pointing out you were incorrect when describing the thread subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy to leave this discussion as-is if people want, I've stated my case, we've chatted back and forth and may have reached an impasse, if anyone wants to continue then fine, but if we end up repeating ourselves and saying nothing new or novel we might as well leave it at that, for now at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have such gaps in your thinking about the simple things like this, it's difficult to trust you don't have similar gaps when asserting supernatural causes, themselves reliant on special pleading. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nope. As should be clear to everyone including you, I was pointing out you were incorrect when describing the thread subject.

My apologies I did not realize that that post you just quoted was the OP! I last read the OP yesterday morning and paid no real attention to it once this debate got underway.

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

If you have such gaps in your thinking about the simple things like this, it's difficult to trust you don't have similar gaps when asserting supernatural causes, themselves reliant on special pleading. 

Lets stick to the question I've been asking (yet had no answer to yet) - how can one use material and laws to explain the origin of material and laws?

I don't think anyone here (other than MigL - "its always been here") has even begun to address this question or to admit the problems it presents when we cling to scientism, like nobody wants to go there, nobody wants to admit that this is a huge huge issue if we rely exclusively on science for our explanations of reality.

Edited by Holmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH, I find your question rather moot. You could point to a billion challenges or gaps in the scientific understanding or approach. Not a single one of them would ever allow us to make a valid or logical jump to assuming supernatural cause. That’s nonsequitur, and IMO is a cop-out that should be below a mind as obviously sharp as yours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2020 at 7:30 PM, VenusPrincess said:

According to the Copenhagen interpretation a quantum system remains in superposition until it is observed. If God was omnipotent he would be all knowing, implying that he observes all.

Well "all knowing" means there's no need to "observe" surely?

On 10/15/2020 at 7:30 PM, VenusPrincess said:

However since the cat's state remains in superposition we can infer that it has not been observed, and therefore God is has no knowledge of the cat's state. That contradicts the initial assumption that God is omnipotent, but if God is not Omnipotent then he is not God at all, and therefore God does not exist.

But since there's no need to observe how does this argument carry any weight?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to accept supernatural explanations for reasons of psychological comfort, not for reasons of logic. At least be honest with yourself and us about this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

TBH, I find your question rather moot. You could point to a billion challenges or gaps in the scientific understanding or approach.

No, you cannot say that. You are confusing an absence of some process with the absence of the possibility for a process.

Not (yet) having an algorithm to run is very different from not having a way to run any algorithm, these are quite clearly very different problems.

Quote

Not a single one of them would ever allow us to make a valid or logical jump to assuming supernatural cause. That’s nonsequitur, and IMO is a cop-out that should be below a mind as obviously sharp as yours. 

This is not an answer (and there is none that you can present) - quite obviously one cannot use material and laws to explain the origin of material and laws, why not simply admit this?

Once again, no answer, no real attempt to answer - I wonder why...

I replied directly to the OP, it was perhaps a little discourteous to not do so.

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seem to accept supernatural explanations for reasons of psychological comfort, not for reasons of logic. At least be honest with yourself and us about this. 

How did you reach that conclusion? what line of reasoning did you employ that leads to the conclusion "therefore he accepts this because it gives him psychological comfort"?

Are you a psychiatrist by the way? do you have some other kind of MD?

Edited by Holmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

No, you cannot say that.

And yet I did. Amazing!
 

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

You are confusing an absence of some process with the absence of the possibility for a process.

No, I am not. I am saying that neither the absence of some process nor the absence of possibility for a process are enough to make the logical leap you’re making toward a supernatural explanation. You need. It read anything more into it than that unless you are actively trying to misunderstand me?
 

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

This is not an answer

Perhaps it’s not the answer you’d prefer, but it IS an answer. Please stop with the No True Scotsman fallacy (and related other fallacies you keep ignoring when pointed out). 
 

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

How did you reach that conclusion?

By watching you repeatedly ignore the obvious flaws in your reasoning being pointed out to you. You also stipulated it yourself when saying this: 

 

22 hours ago, Holmes said:

I reject it myself because it seems to actually be an admission that nothing can be explained, it just is and that doesn't satisfy me

And this:

22 hours ago, Holmes said:

The supernatural agency is a better answer I guess that's what I'm saying. Does it raise more questions? yes of course it does

And this:

22 hours ago, Holmes said:

The supernatural agency seems - to me anyway - to offer a deeper way to understand


What you have is a preference, one that pleases you psychologically, and that’s okay, but you do not have a valid conclusion based on logic as you keep claiming, and definitely not from logic itself rooted in questionable premises. Hope that helps. 

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

Are you a psychiatrist by the way? do you have some other kind of MD?

Any arguments I make are on the merits and don’t rely on appeals to authority or title. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Holmes said:

I never claimed that conservation laws were "derived" Studiot, they are not, they are inferences, they arise from the use of inductive reasoning, I thought I already said this?

Actually you did since you claimed simple 'the laws of Physics'.

Since you made no exceptions or distinctions it must include all laws, including the conservation laws.

A couple of years a go now I posted here a derivation of mechanical energy and momentum conservation laws based on the fact that we can arrive at an equation for an isolated system where these conserved quantities equal a constant.

This is not proof by induction.

If anyone can remember that that thread I would be grateful for a link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

And yet I did. Amazing!
 

No, I am not. I am saying that neither the absence of some process nor the absence of possibility for a process are enough to make the logical leap you’re making toward a supernatural explanation. You need. It read anything more into it than that unless you are actively trying to misunderstand me?
 

Perhaps it’s not the answer you’d prefer, but it IS an answer. Please stop with the No True Scotsman fallacy (and related other fallacies you keep ignoring when pointed out). 
 

By watching you repeatedly ignore the obvious flaws in your reasoning being pointed out to you. You also stipulated it yourself when saying this: 

 

And this:

And this:


What you have is a preference, one that pleases you psychologically, and that’s okay, but you do not have a valid conclusion based on logic as you keep claiming, and definitely not from logic itself rooted in questionable premises. Hope that helps. 

This is all just your ongoing effort to avoid my question.

You said earlier that the question is "moot" for example, which is simply a dismissal of my question, you do not like the question.

Here's the question as a reminder:

How can one use material and laws to explain the origin of material and laws?

The answer - the honest answer - is of course that we cannot, it is a logical absurdity to cling to the belief that we can when it leads to a paradox.

What is wrong with postulating a different kind of explanation as we attempt to remove the paradox?

If the explanation cannot be - logically cannot be - natural then it is obvious, that if there is an explanation it must of necessity be not-natural.

So lets have less of the amateur psychiatry and dismissals please.

We should always be prepared to ditch beliefs that we can see are false, this is true of all of us.

 

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

Actually you did since you claimed simple 'the laws of Physics'.

Since you made no exceptions or distinctions it must include all laws, including the conservation laws.

A couple of years a go now I posted here a derivation of mechanical energy and momentum conservation laws based on the fact that we can arrive at an equation for an isolated system where these conserved quantities equal a constant.

This is not proof by induction.

If anyone can remember that that thread I would be grateful for a link.

Do theories in physics assume things?

The problem that's evident in this discussion recently is that science, the scientific method has hard limits on what it can do for us, what it can explain. 

Those here who have embraced scientism have trapped themselves, their devotion to, their belief in scientism (philosophical materialism) has trapped them, some are even objecting to the question how can one use material and laws to explain the origin of material and laws.

The question is proof that science is inapplicable to certain questions we can ask about reality, this is evident, the obvious paradox, contradiction revealed by the question (in bold above) is that proof.

So this is why so many here are struggling, they are committed to the view that everything that can be explained can be explained scientifically when it cannot.

Some here are not actually willing to face the music, not willing to be brutally honest with themselves, instead their position is "how can I answer these questions without abandoning my deeply held belief in philosophical materialism" - it is not truth they seek.

Edited by Holmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Do theories in physics assume things?

The problem that's evident in this discussion recently is that science, the scientific method has hard limits on what it can do for us, what it can explain. 

Those here who have embraced scientism have trapped themselves, their devotion to, their belief in scientism (philosophical materialism) has trapped them, some are even objecting to the question how can one use material and laws to explain the origin of material and laws.

The question is proof that science is inapplicable to certain questions we can ask about reality, this is evident, the obvious paradox, contradiction revealed by the question (in bold above) is that proof.

So this is why so many here are struggling, they are committed to the view that everything that can be explained can be explained scientifically when it cannot.

Some here are not actually willing to face the music, not willing to be brutally honest with themselves, instead their position is "how can I answer these questions without abandoning my deeply held belief in philosophical materialism" - it is not truth they seek.

Sigh

I had really hoped that you would become a solid contributor.

Sadly it seems I was mistaken.

Been nice talking to you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Holmes said:

 

How can one use material and laws to explain the origin of material and laws?

Sigh. I didn’t think this was a hard concept, but I’ll try again. 

Even if I stipulate that one cannot use material laws to explain their own origin, this adds nothing to the conclusion toward which you’ve leapt, the conclusion that supernatural explanations are the only valid ones. That is a baseless nonsequitur that gains no weight EVEN IF I concede to your line of questioning. 

EDIT: Lol. I x-posted with studiot who also began with a sigh 😂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sigh. I didn’t think this was a hard concept, but I’ll try again. 

Even if I stipulate that one cannot use material laws to explain their own origin, this adds nothing to the conclusion toward which you’ve leapt, the conclusion that supernatural explanations are the only valid ones. That is a baseless nonsequitur that gains no weight EVEN IF I concede to your line of questioning. 

EDIT: Lol. I x-posted with studiot who also began with a sigh 😂 

So you accept that "one cannot use material laws to explain their own origin" very well, so do you then by extension admit that if there is an explanation it cannot be what we'd term a scientific explanation? it could not be based on laws?

Do you agree with that conclusion or not?

Incidentally, you said "this adds nothing to the conclusion toward which you’ve leapt, the conclusion that supernatural explanations are the only valid ones" but let me clarify.

It's not that supernatural explanations are the only valid ones, it is more that supernatural explanations is the name I use for explanations that are not scientific, not based on material or laws.

This is a definition - if you will - of what I mean by supernatural.

Edited by Holmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.