Totally OT: Quantum Mechanics proof for the existence of a Supreme

[Daniel Lewis]

> > Namely, that there is only one conscious mind in the 
> > universe, and that matter is the result of observations of that mind.  At 
> > the subatomic level, there are only possibilities that require a mind to 
> > bring into actual reality.  And that mind is not Many but One.  

No offense, but that's a load of shit.  The human mind is roughly the equivalent to pudding or a potato.  It just happens to be configured in such a way that it's electrical signals form a massively parallel signal infrastructure.  Hence why we continue to expend about 10% of our body energy supporting our pudding.  

> > The universe 
> > essentially consists of a single Indivisible Mind from which matter 
> > emmanates.

Hippy.  

More correctly, if you take two magnets and pull them apart, at what distance does the magnetic force completely stop; or is it a function of limits?  Likewise for gravity?  Can you therefore consider that when I move my finger, then entire universe feels both electrical and gravitational change?  I would argue that that is how one might interpolate that everything is connected.

> > 
> > Are these the ramblings of a deluded philosopher or religious cult?  Nope. 
> > The conclusions that result due to observations and discoveries made by 
> > Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Niels Bohr, all pioneers of 
> > quantum mechanics.

Wow.  3 people are so at a loss as to why the universe acts a certain way, that we're all going to talk about how the human mind controls the fundamental physics of the universe.  Talk about egocentric.

> I've seen this sort of argument a thousand times, and as per usual, it's 
> veiled in extremely long and complicated prose which completely ignores 
> one fact: There is a competing theory of quantum waveform collapse that 
> does not require one to hold the ridiculous belief that certain 
> complicated chemical reactions are endowed with the magical property of 
> consciousness. Better yet, this theory is extremely simple, and Occam's 
> Razor always likes simplicity. It is the many-worlds hypothesis.

*cough*  Right.  On one of those worlds, I'm dating three hot supermodels and my sister is the president of the United States.  *cough*

Back to reality, the universe isn't a statistics game.  We are noticing that wave forms are arbitrarily collapsing to discrete forms immediately before interacting with one another, and slowly diffusing back into wave forms afterwards.  This can be demonstrated quite clearly with the double-slit experiment.  We have no idea why this happens.

> 
> Essentially, the hypothesis this page (and so many others) professes as 
> proven truth is that the consciousness of a being causes the quantum 
> state of things that being observes to collapse.

Either that, or it's because in order to observe a particle for the double-slit experiment, we need to hit it with something, causing an interaction and thus collapsing the wave - and not really because the particle knows we're out there... watching...

> It requires that you 
> believe that certain beings are endowed with this mystical power of 
> causing collapse, which is contrary to hundreds of years of science 
> suggesting that humans (and all other forms of life) are 
> physical/chemical/electrical reactions (albeit extremely complicated ones).

Aww, but human history is replete with mystical beings.

> 
> One property of quantum mechanics that has been observed and proven 
> fairly well is quantum entanglement. Put simply, one quantum state can 
> be defined with another quantum state as variables. A simplified example:
> 
> 1) You have a cat in a box. For simplicity, we will say that it has a 
> 50% probability of being alive and a 50% probability of being dead.
> 
> 2) You shoot the box. The bullet has a 99.99% probability of passing 
> through the box and the cat (killing it), and a 0.01% probability of 
> jumping spontaneously and missing the cat entirely.

This is not an example of quantum entanglement.  Quantum entanglement, in layman's terms is when one wave is directly affected by another wave in a position possibly quite remote from it by a means not apparent to us.

> Here's a simple explanation: You ARE entangled. Your state becomes 
> 99.995% the-cat-is-dead, 0.005% the-cat-is-alive. What does this mean? 

This means that when you haul out a calculator, you don't know without opening the box, so you calculate a probability, even though the cat really is either dead or alive.  The problem quantum physicists face is that they're trying to calculate position and mass of a wave form for which the boundary is defined by a limit.  Where you draw the limit changes where the calculated center of mass and center of position are; but the particle exists everywhere.

> This means that you exist simultaneously in two worlds, one with a 
> living cat and one with a dead cat. Your consciousness is entangled, and 
> so becomes divided into two universes (in a matter of speaking). 

*cough*

> What do 
> you observe? Well, you can't simultaneously observer both universes 
> (they are two separate streams of consciousness), so it appears that the 
> state has collapsed. In reality, you've just become part of it.

If one takes any given system of information such that along a single dimension the state of that dimension at any given plane can be calculated by the state in a previous plane, one can continuously calculate all possible states along that dimension.  Cellular automata are a simple example.  The problem is that we cannot possibly comprehend the entire state of the universe along a plane.  At best, we can see tiny cone expanding back in time outwards from our current position.  For this reason, we cannot determine the gravitational affect, electrical affect, nuclear-strong affecting, position, or mass of any given wave.  We simply can't see all of it.

> This is called the many-worlds hypothesis. It makes sense and doesn't

Makes sense?

> require a philosophical definition of "observer". It's compatible with 
> the well-supported notion that humans are NOT special, merely 
> complicated. And, sci-fi loves it :P

I'm sure they do.


Best Regards,
Dan