07 Dec 07
Originally posted by znshoIt's not exactly like that, but there's a point here.
1) Results of the two-split experiment shows that waves become matter when observed.
2) The two-split experiment shows that waves exist when not observed.
3) God / Allah is supposed to observe EVERYTHING, including two-split exepriments.
4) Since waves exist, they are not being observed.
5) It follows that God / Allah does not exist, since, if he / she / it did exist, then waves should not exist.
If there's an observer who can measure a specific state, it would automatically alter that state. If God knows everything, we would operate on that state, and it would be definite, but we can measure it to be perfectly random.
What does that tell us? NOTHING!!
It simply means god doesn't follow the same rules of physics we presently know. It can be easily disproven to not be necessarily true.
It's simply another evidence god does not exist. Nothing more, nothing less.
It would be a proof only if you would presuppose God follows physics and that quantum theory is right.
07 Dec 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat I'm interested in is how mere human observation effects whether light acts as a wave or a particle. The fact that mere observation does effect light alludes to some direct form of influence, which may or may not be physical.
What I'm interested in is how mere human observation effects whether light acts as a wave or a particle. The fact that mere observation does effect light alludes to some direct form of influence, which may or may not be physical.
Perhaps it is the human soul/spirit which effects light from a place quite outside time-space, i.e., the sam ...[text shortened]... s direct participation. I'm sure He would be good-humored and graceful enough to oblige.
What we presently suppose it that both light and matter are both waves and particles at the same time. It's only theory, but I think it's the best we have. I'm not a quantum physicist. I won't go into details, it would only bother everyone.
Perhaps it is the human soul/spirit which effects light from a place quite outside time-space, i.e., the same "presence" which rides the electro-biochemical activity of our brains, and finds its expression there. After all, light occupies the demarcating line between time-space and timelessness (one foot in time and one foot in eternity, as it were), and it makes sense that if there is a spirit occupying the higher/deeper dimensions of which we are only dimly aware of, if at all, that it would communicate within our time-dimension through light and electricity; exhibit A: our brains.
Usually when I don't know something about a particular subject, I refrain from commenting about it. You just made a mixture of concepts and put it together in a paragraph that, although grammatically correct, doesn't make the minimal sense whatsoever. I won't even bother to dissect it. It's just plain wrong. Don't go into metaphysics when you obviously don't know about physics.
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by znshothat's like asking "can God make a boulder so big that not even He can lift it?" it's poor reasoning.
That's my point. If the conclusion is correct, that observation causes waves to become particles, then all-observant God / Allah cannot ever witness waves. He / she / it is everywhere watching everything.
09 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Red NightGood question.
Has anyone ever seen love?
I have a pretty good understanding of logic (even though it never shows up in my posts!) Even after years of studying logic, I still don't know what color or shape "the law of exluded middle" is. I also have no idea how much the "law of non-contradiction" weighs. And exactly how long is the "law of identity" anyway?
Is this a bust of physicalism?
09 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by gaychessplayerNo. Love is invisible. You can't see air. However love can be felt as an emotion.
Good question.
I have a pretty good understanding of logic (even though it never shows up in my posts!) Even after years of studying logic, I still don't know what color or shape "the law of exluded middle" is. I also have no idea how much the "law of non-contradiction" weighs. And exactly how long is the "law of identity" anyway?
Is this a bust of physicalism?
Those mathematical laws are relationships. A battleship is a battleship; a poodle is a poodle. There's the law of identity in material terms.
12 Jan 08
5 edits
=======================================
I can assure you, mate, I do not go around executing or lashing people for being a believer and do not threaten believers with hell fire damnation or wave a knowing finger at them saying 'you will be punished'.
=======================================
When the crew and travelers of the Titanic realized that the ship was sinking were they going around "threatening" people with chilly water getting into their lungs?
12 Jan 08
Originally posted by gaychessplayerFortunately for me that doesn't apply to marijuana smoking.
I'm really getting sick of all these health nuts threatening smokers with the possibility of getting lung cancer if they keep on smoking.
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer
13 Jan 08
Originally posted by jaywillNo, they went around saying "Thankfully, the guy who booked you all on this boat, even though he knew it was going to sink, saw fit to provide life rafts so some of you could escape." 🙄
When the crew and travelers of the [b]Titanic realized that the ship was sinking were they going around "threatening" people with chilly water getting into their lungs?[/b]