What I was getting at is basically Clarke’s Third Law. Depending on what you mean by a miracle, many can be easily accomplished by natural processes, including some we know how to do.
The reason for this is because some people did not grow up and influenced with families with extremely high believers of religion. Lets date back 100 years ago when the technology seemed far too astronomical compared to what we have now. Its more easy to believe that anything that is unexplainable must be a creation of a supernatural being.
By doing so in a natural process will not consider it a miracle. Its more of an accomplishment for all your hard work.
If Wigner said that (which I doubt) then he was wrong. We have indirectly observed quantum systems that exist indefinitely in a state of superposition. If unobserved quantum systems can exist right now in an uncollapsed state, they could certainly do so for billions of years before the first conscious observer appeared.
The name of this forum is Great Debates. Someone explaining to you why you’re wrong is not a “tantrum”. I realize that if you’re accustomed to discussing things like this with theists, this concept may be foreign to you. Theists commonly accept all sorts of outlandish propositions that contradict logic and evidence with nary an eye blink, so being asked to explain and justify your claims may feel odd.
Forgive me for doubting the vague speculations of one anonymous grad student. :rolleyes:
Perhaps you can enlighten us by explaining his hypothesis in more detail. HOW does God use these rolled up dimensions to work miracles? WHAT sorts of miracles do they make possible?
(BTW, you don’t need to use hard returns when you type in the text box. It screws up the formatting.)
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
If Wigner said that (which I doubt) then he was wrong.
We have indirectly observed quantum systems that exist indefinitely in a state of superposition. If unobserved quantum systems can exist right now in an uncollapsed state, they could certainly do so for billions of years before the first conscious observer appeared.
[/QUOTE]
Wigner need not have said so in precisely those words.
The requirement for an observer need only be an inevitable
consequence of his view.
The following passage does not mention Wigner by name,
but is does, clearly, refer to the consequences of Wigner’s
view that if there is an observer (i.e. “measurer”), then the
dividing line between observer and observed “cannot be eliminated”.
(from link, emphasis added):
Bell earnestly desires eviction of the “measurer” from the list
of fundamentally necessary items, and his view arises from
personal distaste rather than scientific necessity. If someone
of the staure of J.S. Bell cannot do better than that a priori,
then there really is an urgent need for rigorous experimental
underpinning.
Now, I would really and truly like to read more about the “indirectly
observed quantum systems that exist indefinitely in a state of
superposition” so I may judge for myself whether or not an indirect
observer is a superfluous item.
Can you provide some documention? Please? Finally?
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
The name of this forum is Great Debates. Someone explaining to you why you’re wrong is not a “tantrum”.
[/QUOTE]
Empty-headed rhetorical ejaculate is not a form of explanation,
and can only result from a mental state where reason is clouded
by emotion. My guess was that the emotion afflicting you was
anger, the anger in turn being the result of wounded vanity, the
wounded vanity in turn the result of having met your master in debate.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
I realize that if you’re accustomed to discussing things like this with theists,
[/QUOTE]
I have not actually discussed this with anyone except in one post
on one other board years ago, (where it drew no replies). Nor do
I conduct much theological debate anywhere any more. I reposted
here in hope of eliciting more informed and level-headed commentary
than might be expected at most internet forums. So far I have
been disappointed.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
this concept may be foreign to you. Theists commonly accept all sorts of outlandish propositions that contradict logic and evidence with nary an eye blink, so being asked to explain and justify your claims may feel odd.
[/QUOTE]
I agree completely with your evaluation of most theistic argument.
It gets so ridiculous most of the time that it makes me angry.
However, it does not follow that all theological argument is
necessarily outlandish, and the QM measurement-observer issue
has always struck me as a possible exception to the normal
absurdity of theology.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
Forgive me for doubting the vague speculations of one anonymous grad student.
[/QUOTE]
Excuse me? PhD = “grad student”? You better try again on that one.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
Perhaps you can enlighten us by explaining his hypothesis in more detail. HOW does God use these rolled up dimensions to work miracles? WHAT sorts of miracles do they make possible?
[/QUOTE]
You perfectly within your right to ask for documentation from me,
but are you ever going to provide any yourself?
I have furnished ample citation for my other points, and I have
spent and hour or two trying to track this guy down again (I have
located him on the net before). I promise to continue trying.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
(BTW, you don’t need to use hard returns when you type in the text box. It screws up the formatting.)
[/QUOTE]
FYI I prefer to format my posts in short lines.
Just Google “quantum entanglement experiment” and you’ll find a wealth of articles.
Here’s one. Researchers maintained a set of photons in a state of quantum superposition as they shuttled them around between 3 Swiss towns.
LOL.
Sadly, it isn’t.
In other words, you don’t actually *understand *the claim you’re making. You’re just parroting something some guy told you.
Thanks for not using Comic Sans.
It would be a miracle from the point of view of the people we do it for. Clearly, what people using the advanced technology do is not magic to them. A lot fewer things would be miracles for us than for our remote ancestors.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
Just Google “quantum entanglement experiment” and you’ll find a wealth of articles.
Here’s one. Researchers maintained a set of photons in a state of quantum superposition as they shuttled them around between 3 Swiss towns.
[/QUOTE]
I earlier googled “quantum entanglement”, and I did not find
anything banishing that pesky observer who Wigner wants to
attach to absolutely everything.
Here again are Wigner’s words:
[QUOTE=Eugene Wigner]
All that quantum mechanics purports to provide are probability connections between subsequent impressions (also called “apperceptions”) of the consciousness, and even though the dividing line between the observer, whose consciousness is being affected, and the observed physical object can be shifted towards the one or the other to a considerable degree, it cannot be eliminated.
[/QUOTE]
Here are the concluding two paragraphs of your link:
Here is Another google hit at the same site for a “quantum
entanglement” search, last two paragraphs quoted:
The two “quantum entanglement” experiments seem to me
to be of the same cloth as many others going back to those
by Alain Aspect beginning about 40 years ago. They establish
virtual certainly that non-local (i.e. superluminal) effects exist
in nature. Perhaps this means that reality is independent of
measurement, although that is not clear to me. Nor is it clear
to me that reality must be independent of observation, even
if the observer is somehow not measuring anything.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
LOL.
[/QUOTE]
“LOL” is never more than a completely juvenile response. It is
only employed by those whose intellectual maturity is arrested
at some Valley Girl stage of development, or the equivalent. In the
context of adult debate it only connotes hopeless inadequacy:
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
Sadly, it isn’t.
[/QUOTE]
There would be nothing sad about it if there weren’t.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
In other words, you don’t actually understand the claim you’re making. You’re just parroting something some guy told you.
[/QUOTE]
What I was doing was citing expert opinion.
However, I do not need some guy to tell me a few things like:
No, one, not even Edward Witten and Nima Arkani-Hamed
“understands” String theory.
Assuming String theory is correct (a really, really big assumption,
I grant) the 6-7 dimensions over and above the one temporal
and three special are likely to have practical application once our
“understanding” is more complete.
Such practical application might easily be employed by God in the
conduct of activity not yet seeming to humans to be connected
with any natural process.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
Thanks for not using Comic Sans.
[/QUOTE]
I won’t bother to look it up.
While we do have to have some idea of what ‘God’ means before we can look for evidence, we don’t have to be perfectly precise. If we did, then it would be absurd for believers to think they could learn new things about God, but this is not absurd. An very powerful, very knowledgeable thinking thing with no physical basis seems like a pretty good working definition.
What would count as evidence? Observations that are best explained by God. So, for instance, suppose every Christmas Eve a huge booming voice from above started talking about Christianity and current events, as the stars lined up to provide a Star Wars style rolling transcript and that billions of people around the world noticed. That, I think, would be pretty good evidence.
Actually that evidence would not count, since sound (booming voice) is a physical thing.
Sure it would count. The whole idea that God doesn’t have a physical manifestation is a recent invention to explain away why there are no physical manifestations of God.
Such an occurrence wouldn’t be *irrefutable *evidence for the existence of God. (After all, it might be super-powerful aliens trying to mess with us. Or we might be in a Matrix-like simulation.) But it would be a good starting point.
Actually, I was referring to one of Xenocrates stipulations, “An very powerful, very knowledgeable thinking thing with no physical basis seems like a pretty good working definition.”
In other words, by his definition, his God could not make a sound.
A thing with no physical basis could still have an impact on the physical world. Otherwise, this God would be pretty useless, not being a creator and not being in contact with us by definition. So I think his definition is fine.
In heaven, no one can hear you scream.
There is no absolute evidence for the existence of Galileo.
(emphasis mine)If you are going to invent terminology, you should at least give us a working definition.
He’s mentioned in Bohemian Rhapsody, and that’s good enough for me.
How can a thing with no physical basis interact with the physical?
I agree with the outcome, if it were not possible that such a God would be useless - however that doesn’t mean that the description is any more coherent.