It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Wave function collapse dismisses evolution outright.
The observer collapses wave function at the quantum level. Material reality cannot create consciousness since consciousness creates material reality at a local level for us, but at a macro level for the God. It's all choice, chance and the actions of others for us. For God, it's all possibility at rest. Chance is merely providence form the original observer. The original observer is all of us and God as one.
Corinthians 13. Read Genesis 1 (Light). Read John 1 (Wave). Read the Bible for all it's worth.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SuperiorEd
Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Wave function collapse dismisses evolution outright.
No, it doesn't. The fact that you seem to have this odd idea that 'observer' necessarily means 'entity' in quantum physics means that you really don't understand wave function collapse.
The observer collapses wave function at the quantum level. Material reality cannot create consciousness since consciousness creates material reality at a local level for us, but at a macro level for the God. It's all choice, chance and the actions of others for us. For God, it's all possibility at rest. Chance is merely providence form the original observer. The original observer is all of us and God as one.
Again, you're just demonstrating that you don't understand quantum physics. An 'observer' which can collapse a wave function would be...anything interacting with the system. A hunk of quartz can act as an 'observer' in a system.
And it's really funny that the people who seem most certain about quantum physics are those theists trying to use it to justify their beliefs...when there are downright experts in the field who wouldn't make statements that are anywhere near as certain on the same things you are saying.
I'm going to skip over the rest of the ramblings because you just don't know what you're talking about. You've been exposed to theistic and new age spin on very serious science that has been very seriously misrepresented to you.
Corinthians 13. Read Genesis 1 (Light). Read John 1 (Wave). Read the Bible for all it's worth.
The Bible isn't worth anything on matters of science. Your attempts to post hoc rationalize the insanely scientifically inaccurate story of Genesis 1 as having something to do with quantum mechanics is laughable.
I repeat, the Bible isn't worth a damn thing in matters of science.
Try reading some college level books on quantum mechanics instead.
Don't discount my theory on the basis of bias alone.
Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Thank you for the perspective. Genesis 1 says Fiat Lux. Let there be light.
John 1 describes the Word (Logos) that created it all. This is the duality of light, both particle and wave.
All particles have an associated wave. In the Bible, light and wave are used as the primary means to creation. What physics is still learning will eventually come to light.
Particles gain mass through information. The double helix in DNA is only a shadow of the information in the light that created the animated and living matter. Vortex mathematics supports this claim. We see one dimension of the light as it appears to our view. The Higgs Boson is the last particle and associated wave to be found and will demonstrate that light has another dimension that we do not see. It is in a double helix, just like everything else. The golden spiral is evidence of this as the primary means of creation. All dimensions have an opposite hidden side.
Try reading Einstein sometime and you would call him a nut too. I am not the author of this theory. I'm just observant enough to notice.
Please explain how matter creates the process of wave function collapse. Not how it collapses the wave function. I'm after how it created the process.
Evolution should explain it with ease.
My theory is no more or less plausible than anything else. My theory is merely an implication of what we already know.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd
Don't discount my theory on the basis of bias alone.
We're discounting "it" because "it" isn't really a theory (maybe not even a hypothesis). For that you'd have to present us objective evidence of divine intervention or god's existence in general....but you don't. Simply put, all you're doing is saying "this is really complicated...ergo god did it". Typical god of the gaps
Originally posted by linliangtai
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
No one can ever prove me wrong in :
ireport.cnn.com...
wretchfossil.blogspot.com...
Fools see new stars forming. They are not proven, period. Science can never prove new stars, idiots.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SuperiorEd
Care to provide some academic works instead of some blogs and websites and a video? I'd like to see some actual hard mathematics...I'd give it to someone I know who can actually do the mathematics for me as I'm not up to snuff on calculus or anything else that advanced, but I'd at least like to see an academic work instead of popular works.
Originally posted by bain22
reply to post by edsinger
Your fact number 9 is also off base - how do you know there is no life on mars?
Light is the fundamental particle and wave of creation.