0 members (),
181
guests, and
2
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Bill, I assume from this that you reject the theories of multiple universes, or an eternal cosmos, either of which would not necessarily involve God or William of Ockham.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Bill, while Occam's Razor has a loud and righteous voice in science, there are times when I don't allow it to dictate my hunches. Given the present limited knowledge regarding the nature of spacetime and consciousness, any such speculative notion is almost bound to be cast into the realm of metaphysics and the waste paper basket of science. In that regard, the idea sits comfortably in this fascinating thread.
Nonetheless, your apparently confident remark that there was "nothing organised enough to have a consciousness" before the Big Bang seems to be founded on faith rather than science. I qualify my notion with "I think it most likely"; perhaps you meant to do likewise.
My aim is not to make dogmatic assertions about matters that are unverifiable by current science, nor to advocate blind belief in some metaphysical doctrine or other, but rather to express an open mind regarding what science may yet verify - Occam's Razor notwithstanding.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Well, one last post on this general subject.
In regard to Occam's Razor. As I recall it basically says that if 2 theories explain an observation equally well, choose the simpler. Now this doesn't rule out the more complicated one. If further observation (testing) shows the simpler doesn't work well, then you should go ahead and try the other one. But the requirement of a consciousness for the universe to exist is not a scientific theory, and there is no known way to test for it.
As far as the requirement for a consciousness. I believe this comes from a misunderstanding of a lot of discussions of the quantum theory (QT). An example is Schrodinger's Cat. QT says that until the box is opened the cat is in a superpostion of both possible states (alive and dead). But when the box is opened and we make an observation then the superposition collapses into just one of the states. It is the requirement that an observation be made that confuses people. They assume that an observation requires a consciousness to make it. But lets do a simple thought experiment.
Assume that there exists someplace a quantity of naturally occurring silver iodide.
Immediately above this is a layer of some naturally occurring polarizing crystal.
At some distance from the crystal, and on a line of sight from it, and from the silver iodide, there is a quantity of florescent material which will emit a photon when a beta particle (electron) hits it.
According to QT the polarization of the photon will be in a superposition of all possible polarizations, until it is detected.
If the photon hits the crystal the superposition will collapse into just one polarization.
QT positively defines the probability that the polarization will be the same as the polarization of the crystal.
If the polarization of the collapsed state of the photon is the same as the polarization of the crystal it will pass through the crystal.
If the photon passes through the crystal it will strike the silver iodide and cause one molecule to decay and leave one atom of silver and its other decay products in its place.
Notice that we now have a absolute change that was not observed by a consciousness, and quite probably never will be. But it will make a change in the universe. Therefore I feel that the need for a consciousness to keep the universe running is an unneeded idea.
And that's all I have to say on this subject.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
If the photon hits the crystal the superposition will collapse into just one polarization. By the same line of reasoning any superposition in Schrödinger's cat box will have collapsed long before it is opened; right?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
If the photon hits the crystal the superposition will collapse into just one polarization. By the same line of reasoning any superposition in Schrödinger's cat box will have collapsed long before it is opened; right? In the cat box there is nothing to select among the possible states of the cat until it is opened. In my thought experiment the crystal initiates the collapse. Then the silver iodide determines if the collapsed state is of the same polarization as the crystal.
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4 |
Schrodinger was simply attempting to demonstrate how QT does not directly correlate with general reality.
Many QTs rely upon probability and uncertainty. At a macro level they have no value.
I am not saying that it's wrong, but in general it seems that the closer we look, the fuzzier it becomes.
Precision and accuracy are not one and the same.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
I believe Niels Bohr maintained that the cat would be either dead or alive long before the box was opened by a conscious observer.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|