Emusan:

About reading other books and the truth of the God in Bible I can't say much on that because the story is long...Jesus is the only one who has died and still living today among those prominent man ever live in the past.

Cutting long story short, you haven't read every book, so your claim is invalid! A quick Google search will reveal a plethora religious books and ideas (eg Islam, Shintoism, Hinduism and Judaism) with creation and redemption stories.

Emusan:
For science correlation check this link

https://www.nairaland.com/1305164/things-only-god-could-known

Shalom!

Since you have referred me to a link authored by you, where you make pseudo-scientific claims that an elementary school kid will never make; that is, a circle is equal to a sphere and light powers east wind (not even sure what that means), allow me to direct you to a link where some scientific fallacies of the Bible are addressed. And perhaps, in future, you will be more careful about using science to validate the Bible.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter5.html

Y'all keep having fun.

OlaAjia:
Cutting long story short, you haven't read every book, so your claim is invalid!

Did I say so or you just assume?

A quick Google search will reveal a plethora religious books and ideas (eg Islam, Shintoism, Hinduism and Judaism) with creation and redemption stories.

Judaism worship the same God with Christianity while others claim different gods. Bible God claims the creator of the universe whereas others gods claim the create earth only if you read their creation account very well.

Since you have referred me to a link authored by you,

Did you find any meaningful thing there?

where you make pseudo-scientific claims that an elementary school kid will never make; that is, a circle is equal to a sphere

From that link it means the rest are correct but only this one wrong.
Well only if you can reason in line with the perspetive of the writer then you can grap the real message in that verse because that same verse refers to .....God as a grasshoppers.... I won't say anything more than that.

and light powers east wind (not even sure what that means),

The light causes the east wind to blow because the dawn heats the air that has been cooled all night. As the air cooled, it had contracted until it basically reached an equilibrium. Then when dawn creeps towards the horizon it begins to heat the air nearby, and as this air is heated it expands, causing a higher pressure than the still-cool air of the night, which makes the east wind “blow”.
We know this! God knew this! But NO ONE ELSE COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT LIGHT CAUSES WIND! No one in the entire planet suspected a connection between light and wind until around 500 years ago! Until then no one really had the faintest clue how light really worked! Only God could have inspired that section of Job, probably written thirty-five CENTURIES ago! You can browse it also to comfirm it.

allow me to direct you to a link where some scientific fallacies of the Bible are addressed. And perhaps, in future, you will be more careful about using science to validate the Bible.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter5.html

I click on the link and found many truth about Biblical unscientific accuracy but space and time won't allow me to touch many of those points. I believe any question comes from Bible can be answer through the help of the Holyspirit. Most of the points on that link has been answered by this poster in other thread.

I will only say something about the moon's light and stars.

Many people attack this very point because they misunderstood the wirter's context, firstly, anytime the Bible mentions Moon's light it will surely come/follow by Sun's light and a conjuction word 'AND' must be in between them which means the two phrases cannot be seperated from each other.

I challenge give me a verse in the Bible where It reference to Moon's light alone without Sun's light in the same verse.

Secondly, I haven't gotten the real message about stars in any books of the Bible because it's somehow figurative but most skeptics always interpret this point literally base on human's limited knowledge. We can see this in Rev 9:1-2 "And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

In this verses a star fall fron heaven and it was referred to as HIM/HE so I know we can't fully understand the mystery of the word of God 'Bible' with human's knowledge now. "Mystery" in the Bible refers to something that has not yet been revealed. These mysteries are revelations of new information about God’s plan that has not yet been disclosed.

Shalom!

Uyi Iredia: Y'all keep having fun.

My brother yes ooo just to gain more knowledge about our universe and God jare!


Quite a long time on NL?

Welcom back!

^^^ I decided to cool off Nairaland. And even the Internet a bit. Thanks.

wiegraf:

yes, no vex. I failed completely to frame that adequately. I was hoping to get away without posting much, but that would be silly considering the nature of the topic and my poor grasp of it.

From reading this blog;

http://www.profmattstrassler.com

(And I'm on a mobile, so I can't quote atm, but I'll be back to edit and present this properly.) He describes particles thus;

"A nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through space"

Basically, (I think) he views the universe as a series of fields that permeate through it*, of course all existing simultaneously. For instance, he goes on to describe virtual particles as;

"Generally, a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles"

And goes on to explain how interactions between fields generate virtual particles, and in a deterministic manner that is known.

Anyways, my question is more elementary (for now, I still want to see how double slit issues, quantum collapse fit into this model), what are these 'ripples' in a field made of? Thanks



*and the math, etc, all back him up. Put in another way, strictly speaking no such thing as a particle per se, everything is a wave, or part of a field. Particles being the smallest possible ripples of certain fields

I think I now understand your question better. Your question seems to presuppose a strictly particulate identity for matter. Of course, to determine what the particles in the field are, the kind of field in question has to be ascertained. The simple answer to your question is that particles are broadly either Fermions or Bosons.

Quantum collapse tells us that the universal eigenfunctions continue to be a superposition of wavefunctions in which all states are equally true until an observation occurs in which everything then collapses in space and time to the state observed. Like the classical analogy of Schroedinger's cat in which the cat is both dead and alive until an actual observation takes place. The sum of the cat's state is therefore a superposition of |dead> + |alive>.

OlaAjia:

I think I now understand your question better. Your question seems to presuppose a strictly particulate identity for matter. Of course, to determine what the particles in the field are, the kind of field in question has to be ascertained. The simple answer to your question is that particles are broadly either Fermions or Bosons.

Quantum collapse tells us that the universal eigenfunctions continue to be a superposition of wavefunctions in which all states are equally true until an observation occurs in which everything then collapses in space and time to the state observed. Like the classical analogy of Schroedinger's cat in which the cat is both dead and alive until an actual observation takes place. The sum of the cat's state is therefore a superposition of |dead> + |alive>.

This is good, thanks.

I think my issue is with the nature of physical fields in particular, and what are they really made of. I know of fermions and bosons, with bosons in particular being peculiar (with their ability to share the same spacetime, is that correct?). But this view, of all matter being the result of waves interacting in fields, a view you sort of allude to earlier, puts everything in context for me.

I'll try to get my head around the concept of fields and what these 'ripples' are in particular, but let me attempt to put my issue this way. Let me use a body of water as a field, a particle being somewhat similar to a wave, or a 'ripple' in it. My question is, more or else, what's the wave, the ripple itself, made of?

For instance, a bubble moving through the water, while not exactly a wave (though causing one), isn't comprisd of water, it's air. Are these 'ripples' made up of other elements from other fields, just as bubbles in water, or are they just water excited? If it's just water excited, the question of how the force propagates comes up again. Bosons are responsible, I understand that, but if one claims everything is a wave you run into issues. What is responsible for propagating energy through fields of bosons themselves, and are the bosonic fields responsible for manipulating the fermionic ones?

With water, collectively, yes, a wave, but that wave involves individual molecules being flung about by bosons (for the most part). It's water molecules themselves that form 'ripples', aided by the force carriers, yes? So what is responsible for propagating energy through a field of bosons itself, surely particles themselves no? These ripples being comprised of particles, no?

But what he seems to be saying isn't such. He seems to be saying everything is of a field, field first and field whole, and when you're picking out a particle you aren't really slicing out a bit of the field. That bit cannot exist without the field and must be linked to it, even if you can't detect any other particles of said field for astronomical distances. That bit is just a part of the field at a particular intensity, and the field exists everywhere through the galaxy. But what is responsible for these ripples themselves? Surely particles, no? Must they always be part of a whole? This is chiken and egg $hit to me..

Don't bother with this btw, as it's obviously not clear. But I'll leave it as just an attempt to illustrate my issues with comprehending the 'everything is a wave' view. Putting it down though does help. In fact, perhaps I get it now sef

And double slit is really, really strange (inb4 any fool and GOD!!! did it!!)

wiegraf:

This is good, thanks.

I think my issue is with the nature of physical fields in particular, and what are they really made of. I know of fermions and bosons, with bosons in particular being peculiar (with their ability to share the same spacetime, is that correct?). But this view, of all matter being the result of waves interacting in fields, a view you sort of allude to earlier, puts everything in context for me.

I'll try to get my head around the concept of fields and what these 'ripples' are in particular, but let me attempt to put my issue this way. Let me use a body of water as a field, a particle being somewhat similar to a wave, or a 'ripple' in it. My question is, more or else, what's the wave, the ripple itself, made of?

For instance, a bubble moving through the water, while not exactly a wave (though causing one), isn't comprisd of water, it's air. Are these 'ripples' made up of other elements from other fields, just as bubbles in water, or are they just water excited? If it's just water excited, the question of how the force propagates comes up again. Bosons are responsible, I understand that, but if one claims everything is a wave you run into issues. What is responsible for propagating energy through fields of bosons themselves, and are the bosonic fields responsible for manipulating the fermionic ones?

With water, collectively, yes, a wave, but that wave involves individual molecules being flung about by bosons (for the most part). It's water molecules themselves that form 'ripples', aided by the force carriers, yes? So what is responsible for propagating energy through a field of bosons itself, surely particles themselves no? These ripples being comprised of particles, no?

But what he seems to be saying isn't such. He seems to be saying everything is of a field, field first and field whole, and when you're picking out a particle you aren't really slicing out a bit of the field. That bit cannot exist without the field and must be linked to it, even if you can't detect any other particles of said field for astronomical distances. That bit is just a part of the field at a particular intensity, and the field exists everywhere through the galaxy. But what is responsible for these ripples themselves? Surely particles, no? Must they always be part of a whole? This is chiken and egg $hit to me..

Don't bother with this btw, as it's obviously not clear. But I'll leave it as just an attempt to illustrate my issues with comprehending the 'everything is a wave' view. Putting it down though does help. In fact, perhaps I get it now sef

And double slit is really, really strange (inb4 any fool and GOD!!! did it!!)

Your questions are valid and actually quite poignant.
You can see particles as quanta of their said fields. Of course, different fields interact to create some sort of sometimes predictable; other times, aberrant, stochastic effects. As for what is responsible for propagating energy at all? My obvious educated guess would be that they are guided by laws of thermodynamics. We do not fully understand these interactions yet, otherwise, physics and quantum mechanics in particular would be complete and dead. It's not a dogma though, it's a close fit approximation approach. The better our understanding of the phenomena, the better our approximations.

I hope you're spending time to further research these.

OlaAjia:

Your questions are valid and actually quite poignant.
You can see particles as quanta of their said fields. Of course, different fields interact to create some sort of sometimes predictable; other times, aberrant, stochastic effects. As for what is responsible for propagating energy at all? My obvious educated guess would be that they are guided by laws of thermodynamics. We do not fully understand these interactions yet, otherwise, physics and quantum mechanics in particular would be complete and dead. It's not a dogma though, it's a close fit approximation approach. The better our understanding of the phenomena, the better our approximations.

His language indicates he's fairly certain of the 'field' theories, though I might be misunderstanding him. So, for instance, for the laws of thermodynamics, in say the macro world, the agents of these laws are, for the most part, the forces. So what are the laws like for these bosonic fields themselves? What are the agents in this case? All this compounding on the confusion

The main issue though is indeed accepting that everything is a wave (as he insists), as particles somewhat explains more easily (or just more intuitively to the lay man) how energy propagates itself. But I think I can grasp a bit how waves could explain these, thanks.

OlaAjia:
I hope you're spending time to further research these.

Even if I tried not to, I would fail. I do understand though that there are some things that cannot be understood without the math, and accept that.

One last question, is there any remotely intuitive way to explain the mechanism behind quantum collapse, or does that still remain an 'x' for now? Something that just happens?

wiegraf:

His language indicates he's fairly certain of the 'field' theories, though I might be misunderstanding him. So, for instance, for the laws of thermodynamics, in say the macro world, the agents of these laws are, for the most part, the forces. So what are the laws like for these bosonic fields themselves? What are the agents in this case? All this compounding on the confusion

The main issue though is indeed accepting that everything is a wave (as he insists), as particles somewhat explains more easily (or just more intuitively to the lay man) how energy propagates itself. But I think I can grasp a bit how waves could explain these, thanks.



Even if I tried not to, I would fail. I do understand though that there are some things that cannot be understood without the math, and accept that.

One last question, is there any remotely intuitive way to explain the mechanism behind quantum collapse, or does that still remain an 'x' for now? Something that just happens?

Allow me to say, claiming certainty is the most self-indicting statement of an arrogant ignoramus. The last person to claim certainty is a scientist. That said, you know that in visualisation techniques, I can reproduce practically any shape using a series of superposited (constructive and destructive) sinusoids? Of course it will be complicated, but it's doable. Likewise, you can use particles in form of tiny dots (say pixels) to achieve the same. The wave/particle duality are mutually complementary. The one you choose to use largely depends on the perspective. In the nano world, it's more instructive to use waves because it is comprehensive and explains many observable phenomena like the formation of bandgaps better than particles. In the macro however, particles are simpler, yet produce the same end result as waves (As bohrs correspondence theory suggests).

Quantum collapse is very intuitive actually, you might laugh if I say what I think of it. It is nothing more than a scientific way to express uncertainty. It fundamentally means all possibilities within the framework of possible eigenfunctions are true. As you may know, Schroedinger's equation deals with both temporal and spatial evolution. Hence the only possible outcome you observe depends on the operator (spatial/temporal) you choose to apply to your wave functions.

Emusan:
Did I say so or you just assume?

Yes, I assumed. But my assumption is an informed one. This is no ad-hominem attack, but from every post of yours I've read, you don't inspire the demeanour of someone who is widely read. Furthermore, I don't know for a fact that you don't speak all earthly languages, but I know it would be highly improbable that you do. So unless you speak and/or understand every single language that exists, you most likely haven't read all books. I hope you prove me wrong!

Emusan:
Judaism worship the same God with Christianity while others claim different gods. Bible God claims the creator of the universe whereas others gods claim the create earth only if you read their creation account very well.

This is perhaps the definitive proof that you haven't read much at all. Do yourself a favour and pick up a Quran, the Avestan, Kojiki and Nihon Shoki (these are but a few of many more which I probably don't know). You'll see fantastic stories about the Creation of the universe in them.

Emusan:
Did you find any meaningful thing there?



From that link it means the rest are correct but only this one wrong.
Well only if you can reason in line with the perspetive of the writer then you can grap the real message in that verse because that same verse refers to .....God as a grasshoppers.... I won't say anything more than that.

I found the same nonsense talk that has come to characterise your posts unfortunately.

And no, it doesn't mean anything was correct. I found no sense in them whatsoever. I'm not very good at responding to things that are senseless.

Emusan:
The light causes the east wind to blow because the dawn heats the air that has been cooled all night. As the air cooled, it had contracted until it basically reached an equilibrium. Then when dawn creeps towards the horizon it begins to heat the air nearby, and as this air is heated it expands, causing a higher pressure than the still-cool air of the night, which makes the east wind “blow”.
We know this! God knew this! But NO ONE ELSE COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT LIGHT CAUSES WIND! No one in the entire planet suspected a connection between light and wind until around 500 years ago! Until then no one really had the faintest clue how light really worked! Only God could have inspired that section of Job, probably written thirty-five CENTURIES ago! You can browse it also to comfirm it.

What causes west winds? You seem really desperate to pass a rather ambiguous text off as scientific knowledge. I feel betrayed!

Emusan:
I click on the link and found many truth about Biblical unscientific accuracy but space and time won't allow me to touch many of those points. I believe any question comes from Bible can be answer through the help of the Holyspirit. Most of the points on that link has been answered by this poster in other thread.

I will only say something about the moon's light and stars.

Many people attack this very point because they misunderstood the wirter's context, firstly, anytime the Bible mentions Moon's light it will surely come/follow by Sun's light and a conjuction word 'AND' must be in between them which means the two phrases cannot be seperated from each other.

I challenge give me a verse in the Bible where It reference to Moon's light alone without Sun's light in the same verse.

Secondly, I haven't gotten the real message about stars in any books of the Bible because it's somehow figurative but most skeptics always interpret this point literally base on human's limited knowledge. We can see this in Rev 9:1-2 "And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

In this verses a star fall fron heaven and it was referred to as HIM/HE so I know we can't fully understand the mystery of the word of God 'Bible' with human's knowledge now. "Mystery" in the Bible refers to something that has not yet been revealed. These mysteries are revelations of new information about God’s plan that has not yet been disclosed.

Shalom!

You're not willing to concede that a star falling on earth is thoroughly unscientific, rather you attribute it to "mystery".
You challenge me to give you a verse in the Bible that mentions the moon without mentioning the sun. What is the point of this challenge? You will find a way to say there is a cryptic message in pairing both in the same verse. It implicitly means that moon reflects the sun's light.
Your unwillingness to accept that you are wrong will do nothing but reinforce your ignorance. Here's my advise, if you'll find it useful. Feel free to believe in, and practice your religion. It's a source of comfort and internal resignation. I get that and I think at some point we all need this kind of comfort in order to avoid being overwhelmed by the treacherous realities of life. But don't try to validate your beliefs with science. At best, the things you call scientific are vague, but it's a double edged sword, it could also injure you.
You have to accept that scientific method and religion are not on the same basis. Their fundamental axioms and assumptions are very different, and while you may sometimes find points of intersection. You may also find points of severe divergence that will plunge you into an abyss of cognitive dissonance.

OlaAjia:
I found the same nonsense talk that has come to characterise your posts unfortunately.
And no, it doesn't mean anything was correct. I found no sense in them whatsoever. I'm not very good at responding to things that are senseless.

Ok.

What causes west winds? You seem really desperate to pass a rather ambiguous text off as scientific knowledge. I feel betrayed!

End of discusion based on the above statement.

You're not willing to concede that a star falling on earth is thoroughly unscientific, rather you attribute it to "mystery".
You challenge me to give you a verse in the Bible that mentions the moon without mentioning the sun. What is the point of this challenge? You will find a way to say there is a cryptic message in pairing both in the same verse. It implicitly means that moon reflects the sun's light.
Your unwillingness to accept that you are wrong will do nothing but reinforce your ignorance. Here's my advise, if you'll find it useful. Feel free to believe in, and practice your religion. It's a source of comfort and internal resignation. I get that and I think at some point we all need this kind of comfort in order to avoid being overwhelmed by the treacherous realities of life. But don't try to validate your beliefs with science. At best, the things you call scientific are vague, but it's a double edged sword, it could also injure you.
You have to accept that scientific method and religion are not on the same basis. Their fundamental axioms and assumptions are very different, and while you may sometimes find points of intersection. You may also find points of severe divergence that will plunge you into an abyss of cognitive dissonance.

Take care!

Emusan:

Ok.



End of discusion based on the above statement.





Take care!

Wow. Emusan.. you have been totally crushed to fine powder..

you guys have taken over this thread and changed the course of the discuss, gooodluck

ooman:

Wow. Emusan.. you have been totally crushed to fine powder..

lol...but I believe you can see my reason in his post not because there's no answer to all his post.

Oga, abeg no vex. When not procrastinating I've been rather busy. And I'm now back on mobile sef.... Anyways

OlaAjia:

Allow me to say, claiming certainty is the most self-indicting statement of an arrogant ignoramus. The last person to claim certainty is a scientist. That said, you know that in visualisation techniques, I can reproduce practically any shape using a series of superposited (constructive and destructive) sinusoids? Of course it will be complicated, but it's doable. Likewise, you can use particles in form of tiny dots (say pixels) to achieve the same. The wave/particle duality are mutually complementary. The one you choose to use largely depends on the perspective. In the nano world, it's more instructive to use waves because it is comprehensive and explains many observable phenomena like the formation of bandgaps better than particles. In the macro however, particles are simpler, yet produce the same end result as waves (As bohrs correspondence theory suggests).

The bolded, and in your typically rather precise, lucid style, says it all.

My interpretation though is probably the issue. So it likely is that I, as the messenger, failed. He might be attempting subtlety, in that he's saying something akin to what you state; ie you could use either for visualization, as approximations ie (and judging by the success SM, apparently the most accurate ever). But yes, he does seem to me to be indeed insisting the particle view is only useful as a teaching tool (in a manner of speak), that the 'wave' theories generally are a far more accurate/rational portrayal of what is actually happening. But again, don't take my word for it, as I'm basically the 'unreliable narrator' in this case.

(Random note: Yes, I know. Frankly, there's no way he can be absolutely sure. And when did science begin dealing with absolutes? Especially in cases such as this. But I do love love his blog because (and like you) he tries not to insult the intelligence of his readers. Then again, most of us (and unlike you) are mere mortals. Catching 22 all round..)

For us lay folk, visualizing say curving spacetime alone can be quite the task, and when compared to the nano world where weirdness is the norm, curving spacetime seems like child's play. I'm not sure if some of these things can even be intuited, as sometimes even the people who discover them do not intuit them per say. From playing with some formulas, they discover that the math says this particular weirdness must occur. They then test this out in the field, and to the consternation of a great many oftentimes including even themselves, it's true! Physical evidence right there! And I'm not sure the math can be translated to 'common sense', though you all do try.

One could accept these axioms, sort of like cramming them, but cramming is usually rather useless. One would not, for instance, be capable of making (what should be) simple predictions of what could happen in a given scenario, as he'd have no real understanding of how it works, and does not possess the tools (usually the math, 'years upon years of training needed' math) required for the task. Remember, even the person who discovered the phenomenon wasn't using intuition primarily, but math.

We curious among the mortals will continue to try though, it cannot be helped

OlaAjia:
Quantum collapse is very intuitive actually, you might laugh if I say what I think of it. It is nothing more than a scientific way to express uncertainty. It fundamentally means all possibilities within the framework of possible eigenfunctions are true. As you may know, Schroedinger's equation deals with both temporal and spatial evolution. Hence the only possible outcome you observe depends on the operator (spatial/temporal) you choose to apply to your wave functions.

THE MOON IS THERE WHEN I'M NOT WATCHING!! GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE!! ETC ETC. (Btw, this is what we mere mortals consider intuitive)

Assuming I understand you correctly, this is mind over matter. Surely you can understand why this could be hard to digest? It's potentially too much for one, but let's take it slowly, if you'll indulge me please ie. How does uncertainty imply quantum collapse? What other implications of uncertainty are similar to collapse? (I'll assume 'everything is a wave' is one of the implications of uncertainty. That makes sense, no? And actually, also aids the case of the physicist that insists waves are the more accurate, 'true' scenario)

wiegraf:
(Random note: Yes, I know. Frankly, there's no way he can be absolutely sure. And when did science begin dealing with absolutes? Especially in cases such as this. But I do love love his blog because (and like you) he tries not to insult the intelligence of his readers. Then again, most of us (and unlike you) are mere mortals. Catching 22 all round..)

You give me more credit than I deserve. I'm a mere error prone mortal who is just a research student, nothing more. I don't know or see things any better or clearer than you.

wiegraf:
For us lay folk, visualizing say curving spacetime alone can be quite the task, and when compared to the nano world where weirdness is the norm, curving spacetime seems like child's play. I'm not sure if some of these things can even be intuited, as sometimes even the people who discover them do not intuit them per say. From playing with some formulas, they discover that the math says this particular weirdness must occur. They then test this out in the field, and to the consternation of a great many oftentimes including even themselves, it's true! Physical evidence right there! And I'm not sure the math can be translated to 'common sense', though you all do try.

One could accept these axioms, sort of like cramming them, but cramming is usually rather useless. One would not, for instance, be capable of making (what should be) simple predictions of what could happen in a given scenario, as he'd have no real understanding of how it works, and does not possess the tools (usually the math, 'years upon years of training needed' math) required for the task. Remember, even the person who discovered the phenomenon wasn't using intuition

All of the above is true. Sometimes, they even campaigned against the implications of their heuristic derivations. An example is the Schroedinger's cat allegory, which was intended as a polemic to the Copenhagen declaration, but served the opposite purpose. My reference to intuition was in retrospection.

wiegraf:
THE MOON IS THERE WHEN I'M NOT WATCHING!! GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE!! ETC ETC. (Btw, this is what we mere mortals consider intuitive)

Assuming I understand you correctly, this is mind over matter. Surely you can understand why this could be hard to digest? It's potentially too much for one, but let's take it slowly, if you'll indulge me please ie. How does uncertainty imply quantum collapse? What other implications of uncertainty are similar to collapse? (I'll assume 'everything is a wave' is one of the implications of uncertainty. That makes sense, no? And actually, also aids the case of the physicist that insists waves are the more accurate, 'true' scenario)

Uncertainty does not imply Quantum collapse, but the idea of quantum collapse presupposes uncertainty before observation, from the observer's point of view. So the eigenstates are all simultaneously existing prior to perturbation (observation, measurement or probing). However, when you perturb the system, since your perturbation operator can presumably only measure a single (not strictly speaking) property of the total eigenstates, the observation at that point will just be one of the numerous possible eigenvalues associated with the unperturbed state, perhaps alluding to a stochastic nature of the wave functions, hence, quantum collapse has occurred. The determinism we observe in classical physics is probably because certain kinds of perturbations will always result in predictable kinds of responses.

'Mind over matter' or otherwise, is a philosophical take on all that. I simply am not well informed enough to claim that it is an accurate representation of Quantum collapse. Here's my philosophical musing (unscientific claim) which might lend some credence to 'mind over matter': Imagine us (human observers) to be mechanical devices with so many sensors attached to us with which we use to perturb the systems, which then result in quantum collapse. Our sensors of course, cannot sense outside of what they have been conditioned -by nature or other forces- to sense.

Forgive this response. It was a rush job, and I haven't given it as thorough a thought as I would love to because like you, I'm really busy.

OlaAjia:
All of the above is true. Sometimes, they even campaigned against the implications of their heuristic derivations. An example is the Schroedinger's cat allegory, which was intended as a polemic to the Copenhagen declaration, but served the opposite purpose. My reference to intuition was in retrospection.

It would be even funnier if einstein were around to see how he inadvertently aided their case as well. Via EPR and bell playing around with probabilities ie.

I know it's not over though, einstein might still ultimately have his day and we'll stumble upon determinism, but still funny, for now..

OlaAjia:
Uncertainty does not imply Quantum collapse, but the idea of quantum collapse presupposes uncertainty before observation, from the observer's point of view. So the eigenstates are all simultaneously existing prior to perturbation (observation, measurement or probing). However, when you perturb the system, since your perturbation operator can presumably only measure a single (not strictly speaking) property of the total eigenstates, the observation at that point will just be one of the numerous possible eigenvalues associated with the unperturbed state, perhaps alluding to a stochastic nature of the wave functions, hence, quantum collapse has occurred. The determinism we observe in classical physics is probably because certain kinds of perturbations will always result in predictable kinds of responses.


'Mind over matter' or otherwise, is a philosophical take on all that. I simply am not well informed enough to claim that it is an accurate representation of Quantum collapse. Here's my philosophical musing (unscientific claim) which might lend some credence to 'mind over matter': Imagine us (human observers) to be mechanical devices with so many sensors attached to us with which we use to perturb the systems, which then result in quantum collapse. Our sensors of course, cannot sense outside of what they have been conditioned -by nature or other forces- to sense.

But how does the gaddem universe know it is measured?! There's the quantum eraser experimenting I think.. In which a measurement is made, but the results are destroyed before it gets to the observers. However the measurement is indeed made. Upon viewing the system eventually, results? Weirdness. How the hell did it figure out the measurement results were destroyed??!

But, and I'm sure you wouldn't notice, you just put it in one of the simplest and clearest ways I've seen it yet. I'm just going to have it at the back of my mind that the other events do play out, we just notice only one of the possible outcomes. The universe doesn't know it's been measured, we simply inadvertently do the measuring. Suddenly, many worlds doesn't seem like complete madness.

I'm not saying you subscribe to many worlds mind you, I'm just saying from reading your synopsis (and the hard data obtained), I can now see why many consider it reasonable.

OlaAjia:
Forgive this response. It was a rush job, and I haven't given it as thorough a thought as I would love to because like you, I'm really busy.

I probably have enough actually, ty for your time. There are books I should get off my a$$ and read as well. If there's more though please don't hesitate to add when free. I, at least, but likely many others as well, will definitely find it useful.

Thanks again

wiegraf:

It would be even funnier if einstein were around to see how he inadvertently aided their case as well. Via EPR and bell playing around with probabilities ie.

I know it's not over though, einstein might still ultimately have his day and we'll stumble upon determinism, but still funny, for now..



But how does the gaddem universe know it is measured?! There's the quantum eraser experimenting I think.. In which a measurement is made, but the results are destroyed before it gets to the observers. However the measurement is indeed made. Upon viewing the system eventually, results? Weirdness. How the hell did it figure out the measurement results were destroyed??!

Wow thanks for directing me to the emboldened. It made me chuckle so hard that the looks on my research partners' faces betrayed how much of an insane man they must have thought I have become! I've never actually heard of that experiment, but it sounds like a very nihilistic thing to do. I have nothing against nihilism of course, but by definition or so I tell myself, even when it is right, it is definitely wrong!
Have you come across Paul Davies' literatures? He has some pot n' shrooms kindda weird philosophies, but I find them interesting nonetheless. You might too!

OlaAjia:

Wow thanks for directing me to the emboldened. It made me chuckle so hard that the looks on my research partners' faces betrayed how much of an insane man they must have thought I have become! I've never actually heard of that experiment, but it sounds like a very nihilistic thing to do. I have nothing against nihilism of course, but by definition or so I tell myself, even when it is right, it is definitely wrong!
Have you come across Paul Davies' literatures? He has some pot n' shrooms kindda weird philosophies, but I find them interesting nonetheless. You might too!

Lol.. Nature has gone mad is what many would think.. Quantum 'weirdness' as a whole is a discovery on par with say stumbling across alien life, ie even ignoring obvious, practical benefits like modern electronics. But alas, most of us will miss it.

And I'd never heard of paul davies, he does look rather interesting, thanks for that... Will definitely be doing some reading soon...

God dosent reveal Himself to man on man's call. The complexity and orderliness of our vast universe should be the first heart call to a magnificient Creator- going on from there in a leap of faith and sincerity would help. But to claim with all assurance that there is no God (on every account) is utter foolishness.

lol...hilarious
https://www.nairaland.com/1824358/lets-us-brainstorm-learn-each

cold: Yep true,i was a devout Christian for many years. Living by his word,never questioning because i was made to understand his ways were not our ways. I prayed without ceasing,diligently payed my tithes & offerrings,endeavoured to read my Bible everyday & the other pamphlets & Bible commentaries. Watched tele-evangel programmes,even touched the TV screen more than once as instructed for prayers. Sent monies to keep such tv programmes alive because according to them,keeping such programmes on satellite was an expensive venture.
Then on one quiet night,whilst praying fervently like the prayer warrior i usually am,it hit me! I've been talking to myself. It was my epiphany moment. All these years i've been sold a dummy..gosh ((facepalm)). Suddenly the picture became clearer,everything began to fall in place,i could see clearer now. The Bible turned out to be one big fraud & God..oh well just one big joke. We've all been trolled...
1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was in Hebrew.
3. It had no references.
4. It wasn't published in a refereed journal.
5. Some even doubt he wrote it by himself.
6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9. He never applied to the ethics board for permission to use human subjects.
10. When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it by drowning his subjects.
11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
13. Some say he had his son teach the class.
14. He expelled his first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students failed his tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.
17. No record of working well with colleagues.