James Hodge

My reasoning was that the "wave" interferes with the device (must, else no measurement takes place), so an equal interference must take place of the device with the "wave". But since you claim to know about the experiment, why don't you tell me how exactly the "wave" is being measured and how much force the wave exercises onto the device (and vice versa). as for math-equations: please see my other post about my issues with why they aren't "verifiable" in the same sense as claims about physical reality. (No need to repeat myself). And there's a huge difference between the question of whether we can call something "real" or whether we can verifiy it (i.e. proof somehow that it's true outside our heads) (and I asked for giving me something non-phyiscal we can verify not just naming something that we can call real but isn't physical, since that is what you're claiming). I don't think either of us know enough about that experiment to debate it and I am happy to leave it as it was never really a crux of my argument. My high school physics teacher reckoned no one really knew how gravity works as how does the earth actually know the sun is there? Like wise with two magnets. We know there is a field, but what is a magnetic field made of? And what is a gravitational field made of? Gravity must be non-physical as it can't be weighed or touched.

This is a logical fallacy called a "scope shift" A tree is made up of a bunch of cells therefor a bunch of cells are a tree and all a tree is is a bunch of cells well no, a tree has emergeant qualities over and above what a bunch of cells do and a bunch of cells could just as easily not constitute a tree I don't know if I could articulate this well, but I hope it gets the jist across I think I get what your saying and I think I agree. The fact that our universe (or an entity) is made up of things does not mean 'a group of things' are an entity, right? What I am pondering is, are people correct to refer to our universe as an entity? Well, it does seem to be self organising with emergent qualities. We and animals could be likened to twigs and leaves. It organised itself into beings that can self accuate. Do we have any way of knowing yet? It is a scope shift because the scope of the conclusion is wider than the scope of the evidence for it. To clarify: "this is famously exemplified by the fallacy in Bertrand Russel’s reasoning where Russell cites the example of a stick half-immersed in water which appears bent even though it is not to argue that because the stick is not bent it must not be the actual stick we are seeing in order to argue that what we perceive are not physical, mind-independent objects, but Sense Data, mind-dependent objects which we conjure into existence Wittgenstein identified a fundamental flaw in this argument, claiming that the semantics of the suggestion that we see “something” bent was a rhetorical ploy which begs the question by assuming that because we see perceive something bent, something bent actually exists." You mean knowing that the universe organises itself? Well it seems strikingly obvious to me, especially if you consider that the mathmatical equations that allow existence are also part of the universe. There is enourmous evidence that the universe is self organising. You are exhibit A. Even if you came to be here by a mathmatical fluke, that was still set up by the universe. The universe has organised itself into planets, galaxies and beings that dwell therein. As for the Bertrand Russel thing, your eyes recieve photons, which send messages to your brain, which the creates an image based on a translation of those photons. So when you see a stick, you are really only seeing your brains version of what a stick is. This is how hypnosis works, if you can get the brain to translate the information differently, a person will see a bent stick when everyone around them sees a straight stick. So no, we are not seeing the stick itself but a version of it we create.

Okay but it still leaves the question of how does the wave know it is being measured? As I understand it the measuring device is not supposed to interfere with the wave. It may be fallacious but it seems an important part of our reality that things communicate without physicality. I see your point that the wave collapses before human conscious intervention. What the experiment demonstrated to me was a non physical aspect to our environment, that matter is only a wave of possibility until something else asks 'where are you?' and it is only then that the matter says 'oh, here I am', if you follow. First of all, I don't think we know that whatever is being measured is a wave (the fact that it can be accurately described as a awave of probability isn't the same as saying that the thing in question is in fact a wave. Partly also because a wave isn't a thing but a form of movement. And certainly no one can say it knows anything (as that implies conciousness of some sort)). And the device surely does interfere (else no measuring would take please), but just so little that it's not supposed to disturb the measured thing in question that much. But I know too little about the math/experiments/devises used etc. to give any good answer here. I'm also not sure what you mean with "non-physical". Could you give me an example of something non-phyiscal that is verifiable/falsifiable? If the observation device interferes with the wave, how so? It is a recorder set up over both slits to recieve photons that were already there, it is not adding anything to the equation. As for 'know', yes well , like I said it is not being interfered with yet it changes it function, so I can't say it reacts as there is nothing to react to. If you could explain to me how the recorder device interferes with the wave, I'd appreciate it. Another person recently pointed out to me thtat mathmatical equations are non-physical things that are real.

This is a logical fallacy called a "scope shift" A tree is made up of a bunch of cells therefor a bunch of cells are a tree and all a tree is is a bunch of cells well no, a tree has emergeant qualities over and above what a bunch of cells do and a bunch of cells could just as easily not constitute a tree I don't know if I could articulate this well, but I hope it gets the jist across I think I get what your saying and I think I agree. The fact that our universe (or an entity) is made up of things does not mean 'a group of things' are an entity, right? What I am pondering is, are people correct to refer to our universe as an entity? Well, it does seem to be self organising with emergent qualities. We and animals could be likened to twigs and leaves. It organised itself into beings that can self accuate.

Okay but it still leaves the question of how does the wave know it is being measured? As I understand it the measuring device is not supposed to interfere with the wave. It may be fallacious but it seems an important part of our reality that things communicate without physicality. I see your point that the wave collapses before human conscious intervention. What the experiment demonstrated to me was a non physical aspect to our environment, that matter is only a wave of possibility until something else asks 'where are you?' and it is only then that the matter says 'oh, here I am', if you follow.

Thank you, I think this is the best and most cogent answer I have had so far. I would have to reply, an infinite object. Okay well I would say that God/All That Is did not create the uinverse, but that this universe is part of all that is. All that is has always existed and always will. I think "all that is" is an infinite object of which you are part, as am I. In fact All That Is would not be complete without you. Ah, but you see you can't modify the noun of reality (i.e. physical object) with an irrational adjective "infinity". Objects are bounded ("finite") by nature i.e. by definition. All objects have a border, a contour against the background; shape is conceptually surrounded by space/nothing. You have to have spatial separation to conceive of any object. Even a lone object in the entire Universe is still bordered by space, regardless of "size", which is relative to other objects anyway. We can always "zoom out" in our Mind's Eye and realize the object is still limited by the prison of space. An infinite object, although grammatically and contextually impossible, would mean something like one continuous block of matter, with no gaps or spaces. So no–thing could move. You couldn't do anything with this giant single megabloc! Infinite itself is an irrational adjective but I won't go into that here. So if your god is an object, the next challenge is to go about using him/it in a theory. E.g. how god created the universe in zero-time. Touche. Well then, if this universe is not infinite, which it may not be, then let us say it is really big. I am willing to concede that. Once again I do not think God created the universe, I think God IS the universe. And I think the universe is without begining or end, because the alternative is illogical. According to Wikipedia, the first person to propose the big bang theory was a catholic priest called Georges Lemaître. The big bang theory makes no logical sense at all. First there was nothing, then out of this nothing came something... completely illogical. In fact impossible, you cannot get something from nothing. If you want to go down that route then you have to tell me your theory of how something came from nothing. If there is an alternative I have missed, let me know.

Brilliant, you got me, I agree 'Universe' is a more appropriate term than God. I can agree to leave quantum physics alone as I was really refering to a fascinating experiment rather than quantum theory which I agree can be a rabbit warren. I basically agree with your post. Thanks, I think i will avoid the term God as it seems to have too many conotations of old men in the sky and unicorns. As far as I understand the source of matter/motion/energy is consciousness or thought. I don't know how to prove this and have no evidence but it just seems like the only thing that can transition between physical and non physical.

Thank you, I think this is the best and most cogent answer I have had so far. I would have to reply, an infinite object. Okay well I would say that God/All That Is did not create the uinverse, but that this universe is part of all that is. All that is has always existed and always will. I think "all that is" is an infinite object of which you are part, as am I. In fact All That Is would not be complete without you.

You conveniently forgot that I quoted the exact sentence I was referring to. So here it is AGAIN. This sentence has exactly the same structure as saying "unicorns have horseshoes", that is: "Halucination / concept A has property x". So don't tell me that is not what you were doing. Non-sense. Non-sense. "All that is" is nothing but a bunch of stuff. You're not making statements about the outside world by giving it the name "God", but describing your inside world. This is about YOUR state of mind and nothing else. You're basically saying "help! I'm going insane!" There is no way any of us can 'win the conversation', whatever that means, because you're not making a falsifiable statement. You're rambling. That means, I can't win anything, and neither can you. This is not about my beliefs, you're right about that. That's why I have uttered no belief of mine, you're the one spouting things he 'believes'. I was trying to explain to you the obvious logical fallacy you were committing: applying the principles of quantum theory in a context outside of quantum theory. That is what you were doing, and you don't seem to understand why that even is considered a fallacy. It is a VERY common error in religious and theist reasoning, and it has been pointed out since quantum theory has first been published. Yet people still fall for it, including you. You can choose to keep arguing the points I am making, or not. Your call. But don't forget, it was you who posted a question, I answered it to the best of my knowledge and ability. You basically begged me to rebut this post (headline: 'please'). Never forget that. I'm here on your call. I was asking if the concept of God was omniscient etc, not really stating that God is omniscient, that's why my next sentence was "I mean theoretically" to drive home the fact that I was asking about the concept of God.I don't see how people's concept of God being equal to those same peoples concept of 'all that is' is nonsense, it's a fact. Most people, when they say God, really mean 'all that is'. It's true. I don't feel insane, and I'm not trying to make a statement about the outside world or my world. I am laying down my understanding, flawed as it may be. Once again, I am trying not to ramble as this seems so very simple to me. I am not spouting things 'I believe', this is simply the way I understand things. Okay once again with the quantum thing, I was trying to point out that there are repeatable experiments to show that all matter is conscious to some degree as electrons, photons and even carbon60 molecules react to observation as if they know that they are being watched. It is not quatum theory, it's a damn experiment. I don't see why you are so vitriolic and condescending. Thankyou, I appreciate your time and effort to rebut this post.

Yes I am trying to get to grips with the format here too. What is the alternative interpretation exactly? As I understand it, the act of observation causes a wave of probability to collapse into a particle of actuation.But if this is not true, tell me. I must admit, my first understanding of this experiment came from the 'dr quantum' you tube video! But as Stef has said, if there are any double blind, repeatable studies showing non physical force, let me know. As I understand, the act of observation is not physically altering or affecting the wave, but yet it collapses to a particle simply through the act of being observed. I have heard this experiment quoted many times with this understanding and have never heard any alternative interpretation but I am all ears.

No I am not saying that unicorns have horseshoes. I am saying that All That Is exists and therefore God does as they are exactly the same thing. When people refer to God, they refer, really, to all that is, not a unicorn. Now accusing me of rambling is hardly a way to win the conversation. Surely if I am making no sense you can just show I am rambling by proving the silliness of my statement. People may as well say, All That Is... is just, is true is awesome. That is what they mean when they say God. On the second point, "I don't believe Young's experiment is in any way related to these ramblings." well your belief has nothing to do with anything. Young's double slit experiment shows the conscious link between matter, that is to say, al that is, or what people refer to as God. Once again your beliefs have nout to do with shit.

No I am not saying that unicorns have horseshoes. I am saying that All That Is exists and therefore God does as they are exactly the same thing. When people refer to God, they refer, really, to all that is, not a unicorn. Now accusing me of rambling is hardly a way to win the conversation. Surely if I am making no sense you can just show I am rambling by proving the silliness of my statement. People may as well say, All That Is... is just, is true is awesome. That is what they mean when they say God. On the second point, "I don't believe Young's experiment is in any way related to these ramblings." well your belief has nothing to do with anything. Young's double slit experiment shows the conscious link between matter, that is to say, al that is, or what people refer to as God. Once again your beliefs have nout to do with shit.

Oh and I forgot, God is all powerful too. So something that is omnipresent and all powerfull must be everything. If you are inside every atomic particle and can manipulate said atomic particle at will then you are truly everything in the truest sense. God is All That Is and All That Is has self aware consciuosness.

Hi, I will try to lay out my understanding as simply as I can and I want someone to convince me I am barking up the wrong tree. Okay, so this thing called God is omniscient omnipresent, everlasting and infinite right? I mean theoretically.So then it must be everywhere at once. So it is All That Is, by definition. Okay, so we know that God is All That Is, by definition. Now the question cannot be; "does All That Is exist?" but rather, should it start with capitals? I mean is it conscious and self aware? Now I could say the fact that All that is contains self aware individuals shows that All That Is must be somewhat conscious but this might be seen as somewhat of a tautology.Yet, however, Young's double slit experiment shows that particles of light are collapsed from waves to particles by consciousness and this experiment has been replicated with particles as large as Carbon60 molecules. So we know that even tiny, insignificant particles react to conscious human awareness. So this proves that all things are linked by some non physical force called consciousnes...So All That Is has conscious self awareness.