There is a God

[byron]

In physics, "observation" doesn't refer to a conscious mind noticing something, it means a physical interaction. Like, a particle interacting with a detector or measuring device.

So, a particle doesn’t interact with the slits? Why do the slits result in an interference pattern if not through interaction?

 

[Sooty Soot]

In other news, I have high Izzat.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

From Google:

To quote the thing you quoted:

It is also criticized for lacking empirical evidence

The primary challenge is the "combination problem"—explaining how many small, separate consciousnesses (like those of atoms) combine to form a single, unified, complex consciousness

Regardless, if the problem is how micro-experiences combine into one unified subject, then

God or a higher order might provide the “glue”

only helps if you can say what that glue is, what it does, and why it yields this specific unity rather than any other. In other words, a mechanism with constraints. Otherwise, it's the same pattern as above. "We don't know how X works, therefore a higher mind does it".

I'll also call out how you abandoned

The double slit experiment proved God.

in favor of

Science doesn’t weigh in on God

In case it's not obvious, these things exclude each other. If science doesn't weigh in on God, then the double split experiment did not "prove" God.

Since you brought up panpsychism: Even if it were true, it does not entail theism. Panpsychism is compatible with "no personal creator, no afterlife, no reward for believers". Your original claims do not follow from panpsychism, they're like a separate payload attached to it.

---

So, a particle doesn’t interact with the slits? Why do the slits result in an interference pattern if not through interaction?

Yes, the particle does interact with the slits. That interaction by itself does not destroy the interference pattern.
When a particle passes through the slits without any path-detecting interaction, its wave function remains coherent across both paths (interference appears). But when the particle interacts with something that records (or could record) which slit it went through (like a detector), coherence is lost and there is no interference.
Like, the slits shape the wave function, but they don't record path information. It's the detector that does. Regardless, in none of these cases is consciousness involved.

 

[byron]

Yes, the particle does interact with the slits. That interaction by itself does not destroy the interference pattern.

In that case, I think you need to modify this statement, which you made earlier:

[The wave function is collapsed by "observation" which] means a physical interaction.

A photon does interact with the slits ...but this interaction does not collapse the wave function. Thus, the interaction with the slits does not constitute an "observation" ...thus, observation is not "physical interaction"

BTW, just in case we're getting off on the wrong foot, I'm not one of those people who believe that consciousness has anything at all to do with this. As you said above, that's easy to test, and has been tested: the wave function collapses whether a human looks at the observation or not. It's the fact of having a detector on one slit that collapses the wave, not the presence of a conscious person looking at the output of the detector.

Regardless, you used the wrong word. "Interaction" ain't what does it.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

In that case, I think you need to modify this statement, which you made earlier:

Yeah, that was a shorthand
As in, observation in physics is a physical interaction that is record-creating or decohering in a way that makes "which path?" information irreversibly available
Like, the photons going through the slits don't create a durable "which path?" record, so that's not a measurement, although it is a typically coherent interaction
So measurement/observation is a subset of interaction

 

[Let it burn to fuckin ash]

This is a teleological arguement, weak and ill founded.

With respect I suggest you read up on St. Anselms discussion of 3 arguments. You make an error of presuming an outcome from the existence of complexity.

I only suggest you learn about the primary arguments for the existence of God because this one is the same useless, ill-founded, and weak argument which people who believe in simulation theory use. It is riddled with assumption, highlighted over hundreds of years of exposition which you should become familiar with as it provides a false sense of certainty.

With all due respect, faith is the argument for God.

edited for fucking words

 

[We Are The Witches]

That's a lot of words to play around with them, but ultimately speculation that cannot attain truth.

You'll never come to an accurate conclusion (outisde of being lucky, but you won't know) by the rules of logic, all you can say, specially without defining what "god" is, is that something was created at some point from nothing, or that it existed since always.

How or why is unattainable to you.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

What a croc of shit.

Please don't insult my friend Croc like that. He didn't mean to accidentally kill someone while playing pattycake. He's a gentle giant as long as you're careful.

 

[Do Not Touch Me Pls]

The spiritual and divine world is always real. Hence you hear lots of "unexplainable bizzare phenomenon" like curses that befall people who raid Egyptian tombs for relics, Oujia tables actually inflicting seizures and misfortune, and gentile tyrants only able of holding power for around 20 years before people revolt and make their own new regime.

Also if there is a God, it might be once benevolent, but was replaced by a war and death god that pretty much rewards inflicting death and misery but punishes virtue.

 

[Positron]

Because if all existence is tied to observation, one observer created all else.

This is not original; Bishop George Berkeley has proposed it.