Been reading a lot about quantum mechanics recently. I'm Buddhist by behavior and a skeptic by ideology. Spent this afternoon reading about the conflict between QM and materialism. I was wondering what people opinions about:
-The idea of theism seeming correlating with a probabilistic universe
and
-The Heat Death fate of the Universe vs Big Crunch
Upvote
Upvoted
4
Downvote
Downvoted
Quantum Mechanics
posted in
Off Topic
Been reading a lot about quantum mechanics recently. I'm Buddhist by behavior and a skeptic by ideology. Spent this afternoon reading about the conflict between QM and materialism. I was wondering what people opinions about:
-The idea of theism seeming correlating with a probabilistic universe
and
-The Heat Death fate of the Universe vs Big Crunch
-The idea of theism seeming correlating with a probabilistic universe
and
-The Heat Death fate of the Universe vs Big Crunch
2:02 PM - ♀Bruhcreative♂: this post
2:02 PM - ♀Bruhcreative♂: was a bad idea
2:02 PM - ♀Bruhcreative♂: i regret
2:02 PM - ♀Bruhcreative♂: this post
2:02 PM - ♀Bruhcreative♂: was a bad idea
2:02 PM - ♀Bruhcreative♂: i regret
2:02 PM - ♀Bruhcreative♂: was a bad idea
2:02 PM - ♀Bruhcreative♂: i regret
i was done with quantum mechanics after i learned they represent dimensions as mixtures
and the whole pure state thing were we can't prove our universe isnt entangled with some other universe/world/dimensions particles is mental
i was done with quantum mechanics after i learned they represent dimensions as mixtures
and the whole pure state thing were we can't prove our universe isnt entangled with some other universe/world/dimensions particles is mental
and the whole pure state thing were we can't prove our universe isnt entangled with some other universe/world/dimensions particles is mental
Ricki was done with quantum mechanics after i learned they represent dimensions as mixtures l
So based on what I was reading I came to think that pure/mixed states only exist in a indeterministic interpertation. From what I understand this (Many Worlds) violates Occam's Razor and what you'd have to conclude that there's some sort of "super observer" that make quantum determinance make sense.
CHERRYWhat's a buddhist behavior?
Trying to be ethical non materialist and consistently open to new ideas or at least their possibilities. I fail pretty hard most of the time but I aspire.
[quote=Rick]i was done with quantum mechanics after i learned they represent dimensions as mixtures l[/quote]
So based on what I was reading I came to think that pure/mixed states only exist in a indeterministic interpertation. From what I understand this (Many Worlds) violates Occam's Razor and what you'd have to conclude that there's some sort of "super observer" that make quantum determinance make sense.
[quote=CHERRY]What's a buddhist behavior?[/quote]
Trying to be ethical non materialist and consistently open to new ideas or at least their possibilities. I fail pretty hard most of the time but I aspire.
So based on what I was reading I came to think that pure/mixed states only exist in a indeterministic interpertation. From what I understand this (Many Worlds) violates Occam's Razor and what you'd have to conclude that there's some sort of "super observer" that make quantum determinance make sense.
[quote=CHERRY]What's a buddhist behavior?[/quote]
Trying to be ethical non materialist and consistently open to new ideas or at least their possibilities. I fail pretty hard most of the time but I aspire.
The idea that there isn't some alternate dimension that has been exactly the same as our dimension up to this moment doesn't make sense to me.
The sheer scale of alternate possibilities from the beginning of our universe is staggeringly infinite with every microsecond, but I have no doubts they exist in some way. This universe isn't the only physical materialistic one.
There was an actiony kind of movie called Source Code that falls in line with pretty much exactly how I feel about alternate universes in relation to time, that if we could pinpoint the exact parallel of our universe at a particular moment in time and enter it, we could use it to predict something in our current universe, and just flip over to the closest parallel universe each time we fail.
The idea that there isn't some alternate dimension that has been exactly the same as our dimension up to this moment doesn't make sense to me.
The sheer scale of alternate possibilities from the beginning of our universe is staggeringly infinite with every microsecond, but I have no doubts they exist in some way. This universe isn't the only physical materialistic one.
There was an actiony kind of movie called Source Code that falls in line with pretty much exactly how I feel about alternate universes in relation to time, that if we could pinpoint the exact parallel of our universe at a particular moment in time and enter it, we could use it to predict something in our current universe, and just flip over to the closest parallel universe each time we fail.
The sheer scale of alternate possibilities from the beginning of our universe is staggeringly infinite with every microsecond, but I have no doubts they exist in some way. This universe isn't the only physical materialistic one.
There was an actiony kind of movie called Source Code that falls in line with pretty much exactly how I feel about alternate universes in relation to time, that if we could pinpoint the exact parallel of our universe at a particular moment in time and enter it, we could use it to predict something in our current universe, and just flip over to the closest parallel universe each time we fail.
ProcreativeCHERRYWhat's a buddhist behavior?Trying to be ethical non materialist and consistently open to new ideas or at least their possibilities. I fail pretty hard most of the time but I aspire.
Thanks for your response, I'm sure you're not failing that much.
Also it's like five precepts right?
[quote=Procreative]
[quote=CHERRY]What's a buddhist behavior?[/quote]
Trying to be ethical non materialist and consistently open to new ideas or at least their possibilities. I fail pretty hard most of the time but I aspire.[/quote]
Thanks for your response, I'm sure you're not failing that much.
Also it's like five precepts right?
[quote=CHERRY]What's a buddhist behavior?[/quote]
Trying to be ethical non materialist and consistently open to new ideas or at least their possibilities. I fail pretty hard most of the time but I aspire.[/quote]
Thanks for your response, I'm sure you're not failing that much.
Also it's like five precepts right?
rowrowThe idea that there isn't some alternate dimension that has been exactly the same as our dimension up to this moment doesn't make sense to me.
The problem with alternate dimensions isn't on the quantum level it's occurs when you try to scale it up to the macro real world scale. The traditional cop out is the Many Worlds theory which like I said seems to be a violation of Occams Razor not because its any less likely but because we have yet to detect these parallel universes in anyway. The idea of some "god" or super-observer would help preserve the idea of some sort physical world exists beyond our observations. The alternative would be solipsism (only my mind exists) which is as fundamentally flawed as materialism or Many Worlds.
CHERRY Also it's like five precepts right?
I too pragmatic to adhere to them to strictly as it would be hard to do that and be a normal Western human being but I try to avoid excess especially in terms of cruelty, cynicism, and self delusion
[quote=rowrow]The idea that there isn't some alternate dimension that has been exactly the same as our dimension up to this moment doesn't make sense to me.[/quote]
The problem with alternate dimensions isn't on the quantum level it's occurs when you try to scale it up to the macro real world scale. The traditional cop out is the Many Worlds theory which like I said seems to be a violation of Occams Razor not because its any less likely but because we have yet to detect these parallel universes in anyway. The idea of some "god" or super-observer would help preserve the idea of some sort physical world exists beyond our observations. The alternative would be solipsism (only my mind exists) which is as fundamentally flawed as materialism or Many Worlds.
[quote=CHERRY] Also it's like five precepts right?[/quote]
I too pragmatic to adhere to them to strictly as it would be hard to do that and be a normal Western human being but I try to avoid excess especially in terms of cruelty, cynicism, and self delusion
The problem with alternate dimensions isn't on the quantum level it's occurs when you try to scale it up to the macro real world scale. The traditional cop out is the Many Worlds theory which like I said seems to be a violation of Occams Razor not because its any less likely but because we have yet to detect these parallel universes in anyway. The idea of some "god" or super-observer would help preserve the idea of some sort physical world exists beyond our observations. The alternative would be solipsism (only my mind exists) which is as fundamentally flawed as materialism or Many Worlds.
[quote=CHERRY] Also it's like five precepts right?[/quote]
I too pragmatic to adhere to them to strictly as it would be hard to do that and be a normal Western human being but I try to avoid excess especially in terms of cruelty, cynicism, and self delusion
How does multiple worlds violate Occam's Razor?
In the event that different times can exist it is the simplest solution. It's the only answer that doesn't become so confounded and abstract since all events create multiple worlds. You seem to be confusing psuedo-scientific bullshit in the realm of metaphysics.
How does multiple worlds violate Occam's Razor?
In the event that different times can exist it is the simplest solution. It's the only answer that doesn't become so confounded and abstract since all events create multiple worlds. You seem to be confusing psuedo-scientific bullshit in the realm of metaphysics.
In the event that different times can exist it is the simplest solution. It's the only answer that doesn't become so confounded and abstract since all events create multiple worlds. You seem to be confusing psuedo-scientific bullshit in the realm of metaphysics.
yea should've figured a buddhist doesn't understand the complexities of the western world
yea should've figured a buddhist doesn't understand the complexities of the western world
I hope you're learning the maths and not just reading a bunch of bullshit.
I hope you're learning the maths and not just reading a bunch of bullshit.
I mean I dont believe in one way or the either that's why I'm asking people opinions.
It violates occams razors because they cant be observed or verified. If anything Many Worlds waxes far more philosophical because it tries to compartmentalize QM by denying the wave-function collapse. That denial though is the main reason I would believe in it though because of all the paradoxes it gets rid of. You're basically trading a bunch of assumptions to solve a bunch of current paradoxes.
SimI hope you're learning the maths and not just reading a bunch of bullshit.
Oh god I wish. I just like playing around with these ideas and trying get a basic understanding. I not trying to come off an egghead this is just fun for me.
I mean I dont believe in one way or the either that's why I'm asking people opinions.
It violates occams razors because they cant be observed or verified. If anything Many Worlds waxes far more philosophical because it tries to compartmentalize QM by denying the wave-function collapse. That denial though is the main reason I would believe in it though because of all the paradoxes it gets rid of. You're basically trading a bunch of assumptions to solve a bunch of current paradoxes.
[quote=Sim]I hope you're learning the maths and not just reading a bunch of bullshit.[/quote]
Oh god I wish. I just like playing around with these ideas and trying get a basic understanding. I not trying to come off an egghead this is just fun for me.
It violates occams razors because they cant be observed or verified. If anything Many Worlds waxes far more philosophical because it tries to compartmentalize QM by denying the wave-function collapse. That denial though is the main reason I would believe in it though because of all the paradoxes it gets rid of. You're basically trading a bunch of assumptions to solve a bunch of current paradoxes.
[quote=Sim]I hope you're learning the maths and not just reading a bunch of bullshit.[/quote]
Oh god I wish. I just like playing around with these ideas and trying get a basic understanding. I not trying to come off an egghead this is just fun for me.
Materialism could also simply be the definition we have for something that may have been overseen by a higher power in control of it all. All the "meshing of matter" that led to our existence may very well have been guided by this power.
One argument made from this uses a metaphor of walking down a forest and seeing a bundle of sticks in a pile. One can safely assume that as a result of weather (heavy storms, wind), the sticks just happened to pile on top of one another. However, if you walk down a forest and see a Fence made from branches and sticks, you would think something put that there intentionally. This example is seen in certain elements as cells, and argues that cells couldn't come to be just from the meshing of matter from outer space.
Going deeper into the origin of cells, it seems odd to wonder how the matter of the universe at the beginning of it all could allow for single celled organisms to spawn, and evolve, to create even more intricate and complex particles that eventually became self-aware.
What would it take to create a living cell if all you had at your disposal was heat and atoms? What calls this into being?
This is going a little off topic, but I'm just kind of talking about my thoughts on materialism being a series of accidents as an unfounded joke
Materialism could also simply be the definition we have for something that may have been overseen by a higher power in control of it all. All the "meshing of matter" that led to our existence may very well have been guided by this power.
One argument made from this uses a metaphor of walking down a forest and seeing a bundle of sticks in a pile. One can safely assume that as a result of weather (heavy storms, wind), the sticks just happened to pile on top of one another. However, if you walk down a forest and see a Fence made from branches and sticks, you would think something put that there intentionally. This example is seen in certain elements as cells, and argues that cells couldn't come to be just from the meshing of matter from outer space.
Going deeper into the origin of cells, it seems odd to wonder how the matter of the universe at the beginning of it all could allow for single celled organisms to spawn, and evolve, to create even more intricate and complex particles that eventually became self-aware.
What would it take to create a living cell if all you had at your disposal was heat and atoms? What calls this into being?
This is going a little off topic, but I'm just kind of talking about my thoughts on materialism being a series of accidents as an unfounded joke
One argument made from this uses a metaphor of walking down a forest and seeing a bundle of sticks in a pile. One can safely assume that as a result of weather (heavy storms, wind), the sticks just happened to pile on top of one another. However, if you walk down a forest and see a Fence made from branches and sticks, you would think something put that there intentionally. This example is seen in certain elements as cells, and argues that cells couldn't come to be just from the meshing of matter from outer space.
Going deeper into the origin of cells, it seems odd to wonder how the matter of the universe at the beginning of it all could allow for single celled organisms to spawn, and evolve, to create even more intricate and complex particles that eventually became self-aware.
What would it take to create a living cell if all you had at your disposal was heat and atoms? What calls this into being?
This is going a little off topic, but I'm just kind of talking about my thoughts on materialism being a series of accidents as an unfounded joke
Occam's Razor is a heuristic, not a proof, meaning that it can't be used in any serious argument or thesis.
Occam's Razor is a heuristic, not a proof, meaning that it can't be used in any serious argument or thesis.
pro's looking at it from a more philosophical perspective, which is where occam's razor is a little more relevant.
pro's looking at it from a more philosophical perspective, which is where occam's razor is a little more relevant.
rowrowpro's looking at it from a more philosophical perspective, which is where occam's razor is a little more relevant.
It still represents the simplest methodology of handling multiple universes in tandem with Chaos theory.
If you're going to oversimplify it, yes, it does complicate it. But oversimplification is a problem in thought.
[quote=rowrow]pro's looking at it from a more philosophical perspective, which is where occam's razor is a little more relevant.[/quote]
It still represents the simplest methodology of handling multiple universes in tandem with Chaos theory.
If you're going to oversimplify it, yes, it does complicate it. But oversimplification is a problem in thought.
It still represents the simplest methodology of handling multiple universes in tandem with Chaos theory.
If you're going to oversimplify it, yes, it does complicate it. But oversimplification is a problem in thought.
there are a lot of uncomfortable things that theoretical physicists can come up with using quantum mechanics just because of how much mathematical gymnastics can be performed and im not quite sure i understand exactly what it is thats making you uncomfortable here but let me just say this
quantum theory is the most successful scientific theory today. no experiment has yet been shown to be inconsistent with it, as long as you take into account relativity when needed. many modern technologies are based, on some level or another, on quantum mechanics
there are a lot of uncomfortable things that theoretical physicists can come up with using quantum mechanics just because of how much mathematical gymnastics can be performed and im not quite sure i understand exactly what it is thats making you uncomfortable here but let me just say this
quantum theory is the most successful scientific theory today. no experiment has yet been shown to be inconsistent with it, as long as you take into account relativity when needed. many modern technologies are based, on some level or another, on quantum mechanics
quantum theory is the most successful scientific theory today. no experiment has yet been shown to be inconsistent with it, as long as you take into account relativity when needed. many modern technologies are based, on some level or another, on quantum mechanics
ComangliaThough it's possible that these quantum fluctuation could possibly create another big bang which also means that our current universe could be MUCH older than we would expect if our Big Bang came of as a result of the heat death of the last universe assuming laws where the same of course.
This idea of the universe dying and reviving itself sounds very nice in a way. If a full reset could happen where the particles get placed in a particular way that makes the next universe start fresh could give hope for time travel to another universe's lifespan feasible
[quote=Comanglia]Though it's possible that these quantum fluctuation could possibly create another big bang which also means that our current universe could be MUCH older than we would expect if our Big Bang came of as a result of the heat death of the last universe assuming laws where the same of course.[/quote]
This idea of the universe dying and reviving itself sounds very nice in a way. If a full reset could happen where the particles get placed in a particular way that makes the next universe start fresh could give hope for time travel to another universe's lifespan feasible
This idea of the universe dying and reviving itself sounds very nice in a way. If a full reset could happen where the particles get placed in a particular way that makes the next universe start fresh could give hope for time travel to another universe's lifespan feasible
ProcreativeI'm Buddhist by behavior and a skeptic by ideology
what does this even mean
[quote=Procreative]I'm Buddhist by behavior and a skeptic by ideology[/quote]
what does this even mean
what does this even mean
THEBILLDOZERProcreativeI'm Buddhist by behavior and a skeptic by ideologywhat does this even mean
ProcreativeTrying to be ethical non materialist and consistently open to new ideas or at least their possibilities. I fail pretty hard most of the time but I aspire.
[quote=THEBILLDOZER][quote=Procreative]I'm Buddhist by behavior and a skeptic by ideology[/quote]
what does this even mean[/quote]
[quote=Procreative]Trying to be ethical non materialist and consistently open to new ideas or at least their possibilities. I fail pretty hard most of the time but I aspire.[/quote]
what does this even mean[/quote]
[quote=Procreative]Trying to be ethical non materialist and consistently open to new ideas or at least their possibilities. I fail pretty hard most of the time but I aspire.[/quote]
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.