Whence Then is Evil?

Re: masadi,

I would repeat PM`s question.

If Universe exists becuase God is observing it, then who observes God?

.Re: # 180

khurram

((((If Universe exists because God is observing it, then who observes God?)))

When we talk about material objects being dependent on our (or for that matter God`s) perception or observation, we are not asserting some sort of ``existence`` of those ``objects``. All we are saying is that it is merely the reflection of our senses or `consciousness`. Even when we talk about the `existence` of God we don`t consider God a material being. God, in that sense, is ultimate consciousness (mind, observer) and He is the ``cause`` of that idea (of existence of material) in human minds. The problem arises because of the usage of the term ``existence`` without describing it.

NOTE: Anybody who is looking into it.... this is by no means an exhaustive answer to his question. Existence` is an incredibly complex philosophical issue and it’s impossible to discuss it here.

PM writes <<< You do realize that you`ve just provided a ``strong`` argument for any and all manner of anti-empirical, counter-intuitive and maybe even illogical theories >>>

You can say anti-empirical but you cannot say illogical. You should talk to leading modern day cosmologists and physicists who have worked out its mathematics to intricate details. It is speculation thus far but does not mean that you use it to ignore the realities of our own universe.

Regarding the existence of uncollapsed wave functions IF God observes everything:

1. Either he chooses not to observe certain things
2. He observes but the collapse in multiverses
3. The athiest version: There is no one observing anything- infinite universes exist and ours happens to be the one where life is formed and we can thus view it

So when you accuse me of invoking ``non-empirical`` unverifiable things, the athiest has taken that non-empirical to the level of absurdity by invoking ``infinite`` unobservable things.
Occam`s razor that you talk about certainly supports the copenhagen interpreteation of God observing and causing the universe rather than an infinite number of universes existing. So by criticizing my limited explanation you actually shoot yourself in the foot.

Philosopher writes <<

For it implies the infinity of matter and energy. Regardless of the paradoxes and the difficulties of its philosophical implication, one thing is clear that it would explode complementary concept of God and the ``uncertainty at quantum level’’ (the Copenhagen’s stance) For if there are multiverses than there is nothing (rational) that can ``necessitate`` the concept of God or even the notion of ultimate reality (even if God `actually` exists) For the ``scientific theology’’ (the one you advocating) to be true there MUST be only ‘’Universe’’ not multiverse….else your own philosophy would be inconsistent. >>>

Not necessarily, I am not talking of the ``multiverse`` as those who try to skirt around the problem of the fine tuning of this universe invoke. I am only talking about the uncollapsed wave functions, the progress of history and human free will and choice, (all limited) existing in alternative histories. As you can see I was trying to combine the Copenhangen with a limited multiverse interpretation as an explanation on why uncollapsed wave functions exist in the universe IF God is observing everything, which was offered as an explanation option of universal observation coexisting with uncollapsed wave functions. If you have a better explanation to choice and multiverse- quite novel on my part, let us hear them.

I argued against the unlimited universe hypothesis in my article http://god.rationalreality.com and I understand what you are saying, I am not advocating that unscientific/unverifiable assertion at all.

You write <<< Mr Masadi....``necessitated`` means complementary to each other >>>

By ``necessitated``, I mean ``necessary cause``, without whose observation the universe could not happen

re. khurram #170:

``This implies that the act of observation not only determines the state of the particle at that time but also its entire history upto the last observation. It is meaningless to say that the universe(or your fish in the dark tank) existed when no one was observing it. Your observation establishes its state, including its history.``

Khurram, I have yet to read the article for which you provided a link. It just occured to me, having read some comments by physicists including Bohr, that a lot of the assumptions or interpretations outside of the purely mathematical domain consititute not Science but metaphysics. For decades now, many eminent Scientists have been questioning the scientific credentials of much on the so-called frontiers of modern physics, including string theory. Philoo bhai has, perhaps unwittingly, made reference to this practice of passing off goobledegook as Science too.

But to return to the question of the fish and its state when not observed... Do we really need some frickin` physicists with wave-function collapse theorizing to tell us what is obvious through a little `deeper` thinking? The idea that `reality` ceases to exist when there isn`t an observer has been around at least since, I think, Berkeley`s time; perhaps much earlier. Russell treats this question of reality and state-persistence excellently, and lucidly, in his Problems of Philosphy. To my understanding, the questions of state-persistence comes down to one`s definition of Reality. As long as reality (including the idea of `state`) is accepted the sum-total of sense-data/perceptions, it seems reasonable to say that a fish would have no state when not observed.

Please correct me if I`m wrong. You seem to have thought through this stuff. :-)

God is or He is not
No Science and no religion can prove if God is or He is not. Because science works on hard facts requiring senses which are too inadaquate and small in comparison to the universe which is thought to be created by God to feel it. On the other hand religion depends upon belief which does not require senses. Both are vague because one can`t visualize beyond senses and the other refuses to use senses to see if He is at all there or not. For scientists God is too vast to feel and the religionists IN FACT don`t want to feel Him, they just believe that what they believe is true.

Samar

khurram:

Thanks for that link. Will visit it later, though, as it`s really late where I am. Here`s a link for you. I haven`t viewed the video myself, but maybe you can do so and tell me if it`s worth it, since I pay a bundle for net bandwidth where I am. :-)

masadi, khurram:

You guys might find this discussion of some relevance to the question of wave collapse causation through observation. I think it nicely clears up questions about objective reality and wave collapse. The gist:

Person A: Can blind people collapse the wave function or is the wave collapse restricted to the sense of sight? Can other senses such as smell, taste, hearing and feeling collapse the wave function?

Person B: Wave function colapses when it is measured. `Measured` is a fairly undefined term. But it is stupid to assume that measuring only pertains to what we see.

Person A: I was reffering to the paradox of Shroedinger`s Cat in which the thought experiment uses the sense of sight to conduct the measurement. The idea of sense collapsing the wave function came from a book (A book on physics and philosophy) and is not my idea. If a conscious being does not collapse the wave function then it must be a purely mathematical abstraction.

Person B: A wavefunction is an algorithm for determining probabilities. It has NOTHING to do with human vision, consciousness, or blind people. Your philosophy book has mislead you.


And here is something from Wiki`s page on the Cophenagen interpretation:

There are some who say that there are objective variants of the Copenhagen Interpretation that allow for a ``real`` wave function, but it is questionable whether that view is really consistent with positivism and some of Bohr`s statements. Niels Bohr emphasized that Science is concerned with the predictions of experiments, additional questions are not scientific but rather meta-physical. Bohr was heavily influenced by positivism. On the other hand, Bohr and Heisenberg were not in complete agreement, and took different views at different times. Heisenberg in particular was prompted to move towards realism.[4]

Even if the wave function is not regarded as real, there is still a divide between those who treat it as definitely and entirely subjective, and those who are non-committal or agnostic about the subject.

An example of the agnostic view is given by von Weiszacker, who, while participating in a colloquium at Cambridge, denied that the CI asserted: ``What cannot be observed does not exist``. He suggested instead that the CI follows the principle: ``What is observed certainly exists; about what is not observed we are still free to make suitable assumptions. We use that freedom to avoid paradoxes.``[5]


Goodnight for now...

Re: PM #166
``See, it`s the same ol ``Does a Tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it fall still make a sound falling?`` question dressed up in Modern Physics garb``

Indeed, it is exactly the same thing. And masadi is giving exactly same answer as Bishop Berkeley. But, the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics holds Bishop Berkely to be wrong. One of the most of the most fascinating thought experiments of quantum mechanics is `Wheeler`s delayed choice experiment`
(see here, http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm)

This implies that the act of observation not only determines the state of the particle at that time but also its entire history upto the last observation. It is meaningless to say that the universe(or your fish in the dark tank) existed when no one was observing it. Your observation establishes its state, including its history.

re. masadi #167
``Of course it does, without observers there can be no reality, so God is necessitated at the quantum level early universe... ``

I guess this makes my point about subjective reality-- the manner in which the `Cophenagens` used the word `real`.

To use ``Allah passes by what he wills and establishes what he wills, with him is the source book`` to mean:

`` ... he chooses to pass over i.e. not observe, which also feeds into the idea of free will for a set time, and the purpose of creation to which one of you is best in deed. ``

is surely a stretch!! But I guess you have the prerogative to use this interpretation, whether or not it passes the Occam`s Razor test, which is surely would not.

``Of course a related option would be that the uncollapsed ``wave functions`` seem uncollapsed to you because of a limit of perception, limited to this universe, they have collapsed in all their potentialities (aalimeen) in multiple universes, that are beyond your field of observation, ``

You do realize that you`ve just provided a ``strong`` argument for any and all manner of anti-empirical, counter-intuitive and maybe even illogical theories, don`t you? It would seem that your `reasoning` takes this form: If it can`t be perceived [or pass logical tests?] here, it`s beceuase of our limitations perceiving, or could be perceived [or proven logically?] in parallel universes. Hello? Where is the falsifiability? Or plausibility? Surely you can`t possibly call this manner of tendentitous, self-serving hypothesising-- beginning with the desired conclusion and working backwards-- Science?!?

In any event, God as original `observer` doesn`t solve the logical problem of infinite regression either. You write:

``... So regardless, it has nothing to do with the fact that in the absence of God, the universe couldn`t have become reality...``

This immediately implies that for God to be/have been reality, he/she/it would have had to have been observed, in turn, by some antecedent being? And so on....

In #167 read <<< So, your answer is that the chooses to pass over >>>

as <<< So, your answer is that he chooses to pass over.... >>>

Khurram writes <<< Actually masadi is right about the Copenhagen interpretation. Only that it does not necessitate God in any way >>>>

Of course it does, without observers there can be no reality, so God is necessitated at the quantum level early universe...

Regarding your other question <<< If God is observing all the time, why do we have any uncollapsed wave functions at all?
Why does human observation collapse the wave function? Why isn`t it collapsed already due to God`s observation? >>>

On this I give you two options, Let me answer you from the Quran:


Allah passes by what he wills and establishes what he wills, with him is the source book

So, your answer is that the chooses to pass over i.e. not observe, which also feeds into the idea of free will for a set time, and the purpose of creation to which one of you is best in deed.

Of course a related option would be that the uncollapsed ``wave functions`` seem uncollapsed to you because of a limit of perception, limited to this universe, they have collapsed in all their potentialities (aalimeen) in multiple universes, that are beyond your field of observation, but the limitless though based on discretion observation by God has collapsed them in all their potentialities in multiverses... So regardless, it has nothing to do with the fact that in the absence of God, the universe couldn`t have become reality...

Re: # 167 Masadi said;

((((Of course a related option would be that the uncollapsed ``wave functions`` seem uncollapsed to you because of a limit of perception, limited to this universe, they have collapsed in all their potentialities (aalimeen) in multiple universes, that are beyond your field of observation, but the limitless though based on discretion observation by God has collapsed them in all their potentialities in multiverses)))))

My Response..;

So you are interpreting ``aalimeen`` as `Multiverses???Mr Masadi...You are swimming in the midst of Atlantic without life jacket...The concept of multiverses would explode the idea of creation and the big bang theory on which at least ``scientific theology`` is based (let me clear, I am not saying that it would necessarily deny the concept of God).

For it implies the infinity of matter and energy. Regardless of the paradoxes and the difficulties of its philosophical implication, one thing is clear that it would explode complementary concept of God and the ``uncertainty at quantum level’’ (the Copenhagen’s stance) For if there are multiverses than there is nothing (rational) that can ``necessitate`` the concept of God or even the notion of ultimate reality (even if God `actually` exists) For the ``scientific theology’’ (the one you advocating) to be true there MUST be only ‘’Universe’’ not multiverse….else your own philosophy would be inconsistent.

Masadi says;

((((because of a limit of perception, limited to this universe, they have collapsed in all their potentialities)))) (((( that are beyond your field of observation))))


Not a sound argument....It is only an assumption or at the most a ``hypothetical possibility``. There is nothing complementary here. If we cannot perceive those events than on what ground would we assume their existence???? You have said that these events are beyond our possibility. Are you deriving it from ``scientific theory``? if you are, you have to have concept of multiverses and in that case we have to face a paradox that i have mentioned above....for it would deny the concept of ``not-being`` and as a result the concept of ultimate reality.

Masadi says;..

(((((((Of course it does, without observers there can be no reality, so God is necessitated at the quantum level early universe... ))))))


Mr Masadi....``necessitated`` means complementary to each other. Well it is easy to say that two concepts are ``complementary`` to each other in human knowledge because we don`t have the definition of that ``necessity``. It is kind of a ``rational dogma`` and itself implies certain philosophical outlook rather than a methodology of analysis..

What these developments on quantum level have done is that, it has exploded the classical materialism on which ``Atheism`` was based. philosophers have been holding this view since the medieval ages that concept of mechanical cause of effect or the independent existence of matter does not necessary deny the concept of God....but second rank thinkers of 18th and 19th century kept sticking to this view and used it as an effective weapon against theology. But even after the demise of classical materialism both on scientific and philosophical level these second rank thinkers came 180 degree that the concept of God is not necessary to explain this phenomenon on Quantum level.(though they are right but didn`t accept when theology was vulnerable to such attacks).

Only hypocrisy has the existence independent of any subject and sense datum. The developments on Quantum level show the limitations and uncertainty of science. Despite being a religious person i am not a big follower of science and religion debate (whether of conflict or reconciliation). In my humble opinion (anybody can disagree with it, and I know I am hitting the hornets net...good luck to my fingers), they both have different frameworks and methodologies. The developments in the Modern physics, however, have revived the confidence of theologians. But i think these developments have contributed to the cause in a `negative` way i.e. it has exploded the classical materialism and left the atheists alone in the desert without a drop of water. It has shown the failure of science in solving the problem of existence and other age old question which have been raised by some of the greatest minds ever to walk this planet. From this point religious epistemology comes into play and picks the thread up from here.(what we have been discussing in God knows how many posts).

Re: # 171

please Read(((((necessitated`` means complementary to each other. Well it is easy to say that))))))

As...((((necessitated`` means complementary to each other. Well it is NOT easy to say that

re. khurram #160:

``Regarding your example, it is meaningless to say that the fish has any state until an observation is made.``

Good observation, khurram. Now, would that be truer had you, or anyone else NOT made it? :-) See, it`s the same ol ``Does a Tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it fall still make a sound falling?`` question dressed up in Modern Physics garb. Berkeley said it MUST make a sound, and that God was the one hearing it (Viola! A proof of His existence!). The error is that sound, like `reality` in the sense used by the Cophenagens is a totally subjective experience, without any meaning outside a reference to a human or some other hearer.

None of this, of course, necessitates some Omnipresent being, unless you ask the wrong question to begin with, which folks in Berkeley`s time obviously were doing. Then ``God`` becomes a self-serving answer (though, as you point out) it creates more problems than it solves). But those too eager to `find` a proof of God often cannot readily see this.

re. masadi #157:

Will get back to you later on the idea of consciousness as a requirement to collapse the wave function. You`re right, I`m a novice at quantum physics but I recall reading an essay by an eminent physicist on one of the biggest fallacies committed by the layman in interpreting Bohr`s quantum menchanic theories. Will locate that and post later... when time permits...

By the way, I did NOT suggest that the quantum theory itself had been debunked.

Finally, re. ``The Quranic verse has complete relevance to this idea, especially the concept of observation, the ``BE`` that coverts quantum potentialities into a specific reality...``


Now, aside from the fact that as I, and khurram, pointed out, a God is totally unnecessary to even your interpretation of wave collapse causation, I cannot see how the ayat, with the verb BE, which you yourself highlight, can be taken as God being an observer-- as opposed to a Creator. Perhaps you will be willing to explain further...

regards