Quantum Theology
Offline Disclaimer: I do not believe anything I am about to write. It is an idea I had in the middle of a 2-hour cycling journey so my brain was obviously starved of oxygen. It does not proove anything and is probably a terrible misrepresentation of quantum mechanics.
I'm just throwing it out there because I'm so sick of the same old theistic arguments I thought I'd try to make up my own. Sorry if this is an another old one. I haven't heard it before.
When you run an experiment on electrons to test for particles they behave as particles, when you run a test on electrons to test for waves they behave as waves. It seems like in quantum mechanics you get what you're looking for. If you're looking for particles you get particles, if you're looking for waves you get waves.
When scientists study the natural world they are looking for naturalistic explanations so that is what they find. This does not mean that it is the only explanation, just as electrons are both particles and waves maybe nature can be explained correctly by both naturalistic and theistic explanations. We see the naturalistic evidence because we are testing for a naturalistic evidence. We don't see theistic evidence because we aren't testing for it.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
That would be because an electron is both a particle and a wave.
Not quite. Due to the fact that it is impossible to know the location and velocity of an electron at point x in time, an electron can either be written as a wavefunction, or described as a particle. However, despite the fact that we cannot know both qualities simultaneously, we can find one and only one at any given point in time x, which means that if we want to find the location, we'll be describing a wave, if the velocity, we'll be describing a particle. Nothing else is allowed under Heisenberg's Principle. So in a sense, we do know the result before we test it (depending on which variable we pick, we know what we will describe the electron as). However, this is not analogous to the process you are suggesting. The correct thing to say is that if we are testing for velocity, we'll get a particle, if we are testing for position, wel'll get a wavefunction.
How would you test for theistic evidence?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
That's the core of the argument, The universe is both natural and supernatural (for lack of a better non-broken term, theistic maybe)
Maybe we cannot symultaneously know the natural and supernatural properties. And we only test for the natural ones.
Well that's where we have a problem. But just because we currently lack the ability to measure something doesn't mean it is not there to be measured.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
How is theistic any less broken than supernatural?
Also, the process is not analogous. QM is not "if you want it, you get it". It's not that we "want" the electron to be a wave when we test for position or a particle when we test for velocity. It just is. We can't just one day decide "well, we want it so that when we measure velocity, we will output a wavefunction, and when we measure position, we will output a particle. It does not work like that. Likewise, we cannot simply decide "Today, we want to test for supernatural entities, so the universe should comply".
But it is a non sequitor! An electron is a particle and a wave, therefore the universe might be natural and supernatural. that's ridiculous! Like I said, it is not that we "want" the electron to be a wave when we test and output a wave, nor a particle for a particle. It just is, we have no choice. We cannot simply decide we "want" to test for supernatural properties and expect them to-poof! just appear. The argument was a fallacy of false analogy. However, I realize this is merely a musing, seeing as your disclaimer said that you did not believe anything you were writing, in which case, fair enough.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Wow, that was a scary insight into the mind of the believer. While arguing I was convinced that you had completely missed the point of my wonderful argument. I think I see now how theists can walk away from an argument with an atheist, in which they were completely destroyed, convinced that the atheist didn't even comprehend what they were saying.
I wonder if Rev Devilin felt the same way while arguing his "Proof that God exists, Without faith".
I'll stop arguing now before I convince myself that I'm talking not talking utter nonsense. I know enough quantum mechanics to understand that my argument relies on a complete misrepresentation and I know that you cannot arbitarily assume that the universe is analgous to an electron in such a way but when I'm arguing the point it's flaws become invisible to me.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
deludedgod you may wish to investigate quantum entanglement in relationship to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ( ps enzymes "cough" )
ParanoidAgnostic I loved it
god of the quantum paradoxes, 
Exactly the same with my argument spooky, ( the Scooby Doo meaning, not the quantum one )
We are quite literally questioning and individuals Psyche ( psychological meaning, not the character from Greek mythology )
For an individual to redefined there own Psyche well it ain't easy, an individual will do almost anything to avoid this (literally anything), my admiration go's out to those individuals that were brave enough, and had enough self-confidence to realize the extent of their own delusion