Jesus and Comparative Mythology

[yankee_doodle]

Here’s some youtube videos on the uncertainty principal:

youtube.com/watch?v=KT7xJ0tjB4A

youtube.com/watch?v=Y8IQbL_DnGk&feature=related

A short video illustrating entanglement:

youtube.com/watch?v=hNC9oNZ9ARY&feature=PlayList&p=4E3FDC87FA7A080F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

youtube.com/watch?v=ja0UUKbVlhA&feature=related

And while there is a power of intention:

youtube.com/watch?v=9QcKDvcnZrE&feature=related

(and the power of intention and our subconsciousness is pretty amazing stuff)

It is also true that:

A common layman misuse of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of ‘superposition’, which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger’s cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed. However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger’s seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of ‘observation’ and ‘measurement’ must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no ‘observer effect’, only one vastly entangled quantum system.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics

 

[yankee_doodle]

The laws of the universe work on probabilities.

Final thought here. I never meant to dispute this law; but this view of causality (essentially a random universe i.e. the Copenhagen interpretation of QM) creates problems for theism (as opposed to helping it).

However, I do admit that experiments with random number generators are interesting (i.e. in showing that intent can influence outcomes). There are obviously a number of critiques of this concept (parapsychology), and the methodology of these experiments in general (the statistical modeling was pretty poor & the outcomes had such wide divergence that the experiments aren’t anything we can rely on). Moreover, alleged phenomena like psychokinesis have been essentially debunked at this point.

We know entanglement is a reality, and if everything we know of today as the universe began as a singularity, it makes sense to think everything is in some way entangled with everything else. However, the theory that physics could not have existed without a conscience is one that the majority of the scientific community rejects (although there is a minority who share your view)

Sorry for the numerous responses, but your theory did push me to study up a bit.

 

[abucs]

To say that Christians created Western science is less than the truth, and ignores Christian anti-scientific hysteria.

The obvious thing is that if say muslims or hindus had developed the ideas of empericism; scientific theory; the description of universal mathematical laws of nature; built, funded and promoted the widespread use of schools and universities; facilitated scientific debate; valued and preserved accumulated scientific writings; and gone on to found most of the scientific fields we have today and make breakthrough theories and proofs in everything from the big bang to natural selection, from palaeontology to microbiology, from genetics to a heliocentric solar system then I would feel very silly in arguing that they did not create modern science. I would feel extremely embarrassed trying to argue that these people were actually somehow anti-scientific. For sure, if atheists had done even one of these things we would never have stopped hearing about it.

The simple fact is that Christians did these things. That these things came out of Christian thought. To argue there is some sort of Christian hysteria towards science is a really bad argument.

The flagship for this argument is Galileo. A devout Catholic scientist, like many devout Catholic and Christian scientists of his time working together to try to explain the universe. A man who was deeply ensconced in a Christian scientific community that was actually dominated by clerical scientists. A man that was publicly honoured more than once by Dominican and Jesuit scientists for his scientific reasoning. A man who at 68 years of age fell out with some of his fellow scientific Catholics and after a trial where he could not prove the new scientific theory he strongly argued for (developed by other scientific Catholics) was made to state the current scientific theory. The Pope at the time was a boyhood friend of Galileo and a man himself deeply interested in science. Galileo, the 68 year old man was ‘put under house arrest’, but in reality it meant he stayed with an archbishop for 6 months and then was sent home to his country villa. If this is the one flagship scenario people site from all of recorded history as some sort of basic Christian anti-science stance then it is pretty tame stuff.

For people who make this case and realise how tame it is the next usual step is to fall back to Giordano Bruno, a former Dominican who became extremely anti Catholic. This man at least was imprisoned and executed but the obvious problem there is that it wasn’t for any science that he did. But hey, why spoil a good story ? For people who claim to be rational and look at the evidence in a dispassionate manner, this type of non-sensical argument for some ‘huge Christian push against science’. It looks laughingly poor and reflects very badly on the so-called rationalist.

newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm

For this stupidity, or even pathologically challenged nature of thinking let’s look at Dan Brown’s anti Catholic movie dealing with the same issues. In reality, the evidence for a Christian opposition to science is so poor that they have to take the Illuminati movement, transfer its beginnings back a few centuries and make up the idea that the Christian Church somehow persecuted it, which of course they didn‘t. If there was such evidence of Christian opposition to science in history then this anti Catholic book and movie and all who were associated with it would not have to go to such ludicrous and obviously idiotic lengths to try and provide a coherent case for their story line.

The reason so many people argue against all evidence that Christianity has had nothing to do with intellectual development and science is that if you put it in a box of mythical beliefs then you can more easily dismiss it. The more that people articulate the Christian foundations of western civilisation the more difficult it is to dismiss it. It’s similar to the topic of this thread with Osiris. If you can put Christianity in the same box as Osiris then you can dismiss it without a thought (literally) and just keep telling yourself that Christians must all be stupid which then leads you again to think of Christians as not intellectual enough to have created western science. It is a closed belief system that closes off intellectual engagement.

You should be very careful about blindly accepting the hypothesis of this thread that Christianity was based on the story of Osiris. When I was not Christian a few years ago I looked into this and found that, yes there were mystery religions around at the time Christianity started, but no, the ideas paralleling Osiris and Jesus could not be traced before the year 200 A.D. I found that the opinion of serious scholars was that the Osiris story was probably copied from the successful ideas of Christianity rather than the other way around. I also found that many atheists simply didn’t bother to dig deep enough to discover this because as soon as they had something that they could use against Christianity, their level of inquiry and critical thinking was switched off. That was all their minds were looking for.

It’s been a few years ago no since I looked as the Osiris cult and I’m assuming nothing has really changed. With a quick Google source i came across Twochix (halfway down page) that has done a thesis on the subject and quotes some of the relevant source material.

confidentchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/06/resurrection-myths-vs-resurrection-of.html

It’s a bit like the Gnostic ‘Christians’. The Gnostics were around before Christianity and believed that matter was evil. They also attached their beliefs to the rising Christianity in the late first century and in the second centuries and beyond even wrote their ’Gospels’ such as The Gospel of Eve, The Apocalypse of Adam, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene etc.

In the same way it is very likely that the story of Osiris underwent a similar process.

You might think that all myths must be of a similar basis with support to evidence, but this is not rational. Whether Christianity is true or not, in no way is it possible to suggest that the claims of Christians are on a par with the claims of Thor, Hercules and Osiris. At least Christians point to a specific time in history and claim to have eye witnesses and communities that have sprung directly from those eye witnesses with recorded written testimonies and continued Christian claims down the centuries. Don’t you think there is a more than a hint of delusion in saying Christianity has the same evidence as Thor, Hercules, Osiris or indeed the tooth fairy ? I certainly do.

 

[abucs]

Yankee_Doodle, i would respectfully disagree and say that QM definitely favours Theism over Atheism. Last thoughts from me too…

Regarding your quote - Observation is a macro event. It is how we perceive reality. If you are going to reduce that down to electrons and protons then of course you are going to take the observation out of the equation. The real question is that why a macro event - observation (or consciousness) affects a micro event. You are right to say that many physicists believe this can’t be the case - but the evidence is definitely there to show that it does.

The thinking of the people you quote basically says that ‘hey we are just not going to engage with conscious observation because it blows our philosophy out of the water. Let’s do away with observation by only agreeing to talk about its micro nature.’

Science for the last one to two hundred years was based on delving deeper and deeper into scientific systems and discovering they are based on smaller and smaller scientific systems with regards to the mechanisms of matter. This was done in an effort to explain the workings of the universe and with developments in quantum physics, it has suddenly turned back around and we find that it is the larger systems (observation) that is actually driving the smaller systems. This has been completely unexpected but scientifically demonstrated by experiment. And it basically makes the 19th century philosophy scientifically untenable. Science has been dominated in the last 100 years with people of a 19th century philosophy. Of course they don’t like what the science says.

The comment - ‘ …… must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense’ basically translates into ‘if we do away with the larger system (of observation) by assuming that is has to be completely based on the smaller material system (against the evidence) and we don’t engage with the scientific experiments at the macro level then we can keep our philosophy and tell each other it makes sense. That is a lie.

I understand your reluctance to, as you say, ‘not base your whole life on something you see no evidence for’. That is basically that you don’t want to ‘waste your life’ on any delusions. I understand that because I have gone down the same path. There is a strong basic instinct to not have your mind brain washed by silly things. I ask you to consider that maybe the atheist hypothesis‘ such as the stupid Galileo fairy tale above or the Osiris tale might also be a type of brain washing of silly things. Of course, for sure you have to do what your mind thinks is sensible. But please consider this. The atheist argument is to claim everyone is deluded, including themselves. The atheistic materialist says that all there is, is matter and laws (without saying where they come from). There is nothing else.

All human reactions, thinking, feeling, being inspired, working out truths is all at the ’micro level’ That is that all that is happening is that electrons and protons are obeying the laws of physics as they have no choice but to do. That since the big bang (or whatever start or continuum you believe) all of matter simply reacts in a causal way for which there is no choice. Atheism says ‘I don’t really love my family‘, it is a chemical produced to make me think I do. ‘I don’t really consider how I live my life‘, or in fact consider anything, be it the workings of the universe or what type of car to buy. I am simply tricked or deluded to make it seem that I am doing the thinking when really (at the micro level) it is simply electrons and protons interacting in a way that I have no control over and so I have no control over my thinking, reasoning or feeling. I only think I do. This is what atheism, says.

And we are all going around, according to atheism completed deluded into thinking we actually have a choice in our thinking, reasoning and feeling. This is what we do in our daily lives every second of the day and atheism argues that this is a huge delusion. The idea that some sort of intelligent loving being created our universe is small potatoes as far as delusion goes compared to the delusions atheism says we all have, them included. I say again, atheism argues that everybody is deluded every second of the day. Atheism is properly defined as the philosophy of delusion. That is a completely self (and community) destructive philosophy. It is completely non intellectual, in fact it argues that intelligence doesn’t even exist. Remember everything is at the micro level.

Even if we were to accept this philosophy. And as I have said I don’t think there is any scientific basis to do so - the philosophical question is this - OK, matter reacts in certain ways, OK - matter got lucky and arranged itself in a self replicating way (OK) - this arrangement was so flexible yet so robust that it could adapt and change its own programming, OK - following the principles of natural selection we have humans today,

OK - but why do we think we have a choice in anything at all ? Why indeed do I have even a conscious reality ? Why do I think I have control over what I decide to do ? Maybe this is just an accidental by-product of evolution, OK. But it is not needed unless you argue that thinking itself is an evolutionary delusion or the realisation of your own thinking is a delusion. And the realisation of your own thinking is a higher order thinking that sets us apart from the animals. So in the end atheism argues that higher order thinking is delusional. This is where atheism leads. If you are worried about the antithesis of atheism - theism - then think you should be doubly worried about atheism as your philosophy.

You should be especially worried when this philosophy tries to tear down any opposing philosophy as ‘not rational’ or ‘not intelligent’. You should be wary of having your mind believe stupid things like the Christian world cannot do or is not scientific.
I think you can think Antitheist. I don’t think you are simply a collection of atomic parts that will act in a definite, pre determined way. If you do believe you have the ability to freely choose what to do and consider with objective reasoning, then I invite you to do so with the following links:

quantumtantra.com/bell2.html
ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-321/aflb321m555.pdf
www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html
bottomlayer.com/
bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/RealityFrame1.html
mtnmath.com/whatth/node60.html
cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/NewScientificEvidence.pdf

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yankee_Doodle, i would respectfully disagree and say that QM definitely favours Theism over Atheism. Last thoughts from me too…

Regarding your quote - Observation is a macro event. It is how we perceive reality. If you are going to reduce that down to electrons and protons then of course you are going to take the observation out of the equation. The real question is that why a macro event - observation (or consciousness) affects a micro event. You are right to say that many physicists believe this can’t be the case - but the evidence is definitely there to show that it does.

Your post is interesting. I just want to respond to this portion for now; because this premise is the basis of your entire theory. It’s not only the case that mainstream physicists generally reject the idea that intent can alter outcomes (or physics could only exist in tandem with conscience observation), but they also usually reject the evidence that’s used to support these ideas.

Your rebuttal IMO doesn’t really make much sense. You’re saying most physicists disagree with you because they’re afraid of having their philosophy blown out of the water? However, the scientists who have looked at this and ultimately rejected the idea arrived at their conclusions by examining the evidence. Why should I take your word for it & assume these men had bad motives or even subconsciously rejected the idea due to some preexisting bias. Scientific methodology is designed to deal with individual biases (and mitigate its impact).

With regard to your remarks and assumptions about atheists … they frankly don’t sound very intelligent (in fact they sound quite prejudicial). I don’t believe our emotions (like love) aren’t real things, nor do I believe everyone is deluded. Very few people base their beliefs on actual delusion. Rather they’re raised a certain way, grew up in a certain society, whatever. You seem to infer because most people have religious faith it’s therefore true (which is a logical fallacy). Most people believed the earth was flat at one time.

I’m sorry … while some of your arguments seem good on the surface, ultimately they’re based on bad science and bad assumptions.

 

[abucs]

Yankee,

you shouldn’t believe anything anyone tells you without thinking about it yourself.

So i say to you, look at the evidence and explain it in an blind material cause and effect way. Don’t assume someone, somewhere has an answer for this - you explain it, or reference someone else so that we can all understand the explanantion.

If you can’t explain the scientific experiemental results that seem to directly contradict the materialistic philosophy, then you are putting your faith in someone, somewhere who you believe might be able to explain it. That is faith without not only proof, but faith without evidence. Isn’t this what you are against ?

OK, what is love then if it is not based at the fundamental level of matter interacting with other matter according to necessary laws ? What else do you say that there is, if love is based on something other than that ?

there’s 3 or 4 things in your post that you say ‘i say’ or ‘i seem to be saying’ and i would actually say that i’m not saying that at all.

I’m not saying “physics could only exist in tandem with conscience observation” i’m saying physics has been programmed to take into account of consciousness (observation.
I’m not saying ‘intent can alter outcomes’, in fact i don’t know what you mean by ‘intent’, or in fact what it is you say i am supposed to mean by intent.What i am saying to you is thast most physicists are involved in their own little area of research. They have many different philosophies. Some of them share your 19th century atheist philosophy. The ones who do and who are not directly involved in quantum theory simply ignore the results because it doesn’t pertain to their own area. The atheists that are involved in this area have extremely weak arguments against it - reference some good ones if you disagree.
And finally i did not say that most people grew up in a religious environemt and so therefore it is true. what i am doing is contrasting the very similar view that you have expressed to say that people grow up with different beliefs therefor you can puit them all in a box and say they are not true. I’m simply challenging that silly view and asking you to look again.

 

[abucs]

OK, to tidy up the last part ( i got distracted).

I’m not saying “physics could only exist in tandem with conscience observation” i’m saying physics has been programmed to take into account of consciousness (observation).

I’m not saying ‘intent can alter outcomes’, in fact i don’t know what you mean by ‘intent’, or in fact what it is you say i am supposed to mean by intent.

I’m not saying most physicists have seriously looked at this and rejected it because it disagrees with their philosophy. What i am saying to you is that most physicists are involved in their own little area of research. They have many different philosophies. Some of them share your 19th century atheist philosophy. The ones who do and who are not directly involved in quantum theory simply ignore the results because it doesn’t pertain to their own area and is thus easily ignored. The atheists that are involved in this area have extremely weak arguments against it - reference some good ones if you disagree. They are the ones hanging on for dear life and understand their basic philosophies have been blown out of the water. Atheists in other fields of physics are prone to accepting any materialistic explanation given without looking at it criticially. In this way they can keep their 19th century atheist philosophy without thinking too much about its foundational assumptions and contradicting of modern science. It goes back to the story of Osirus and the closed minds of atheists. Atheists often get to a point which supports their own materialistic assumptions and they do not feel they need to progress further. To me, it is the thinking of atheists who put up the white flag and say ‘that’s been dealt with, i don’t have to think about that any more’. This is unintellectual.

And finally i did not say that most people grew up in a religious environment and so therefore it is true. What i am doing is contrasting the very similar view that you have expressed to say that people grow up with different beliefs therefore you can put them all in a box and say they are not true. I’m simply challenging that silly view and asking you to look again at your underlying basic assumptions of logic.

 

[abucs]

Apart from the links to the Bell’s Theorem Inequality there are of course many other experiments repeated thousands of times which challenge the materialistic 19th century philosophy.
Double Slit Experiment.
Looking at the double split experiment where a particle (electron, proton, even atom, molecule etc) is fired at a wall with two slits on it. The particle’s ending position is measured on the back wall (using sensors). The particle will travel in one of two ways. Either as a wave function (which is a probability) or a concrete particle. The difference is whether someone, you, me, the scientist or the paperboy down the street knows which slit the particle went through. If we don’t know, the formation at the back ball is a wave (probability) function. If we do know, it will virtually be a straight line from the firing gun through one of the slits to the back wall.
We can attach a light to both of the slits which lights up when a particle passes. Because this tells us the position of the particle it will always travelling in a straight line. We can turn the intensity of the light down so that eventually the human eye cannot tell which or whether any light comes on. As soon as it gets to that stage the particles position suddenly changes and it returns to being a wave (probability) function.
Now not everyone’s eyes are the same. But as soon as the particular person says ‘i can no longer see the light on the sensor’ the particles way of travelling goes back to being a probability. If someone with good eyes and someone with bad eyes are watching it changes over always when the person with the best eyes can no longer see the light. As long as ‘someone’ knows, or ‘can know’ the position of the particle it does not ‘collapse’ to being a probability but stays as a ‘concrete’ particle.
This is clear evidence that the behaviour of matter is dependant not only on observation but the knowledge of where the particle has been.
Delayed Choice Double Slit experiement.
We can attach the sensors at the slits and the back wall to a computer and record the information there without looking at the information. We could fire through a billion particles, collect the data and then repeat the exercise many times. We could then come back the next day, or next week or a year from the experiment. When we do, we have the choice of being able to see (in retrospect) where the particle was at the slits or just look at the distribution at the back wall. If we look at where the particle was and then look at the results of the back wall the distribution will be a straight line from the firing gun. If, on the next set of results we destroy the data of which slit the particle went through so that there is no way of ever knowing then the distribution at the back wall will always be a wave (probability) distribution. So we can arbitrarily decide to destroy the first set of data (at the slits) or not and this will affect the distribution results at the back wall. This happens even if the actual experimental testing happened yesterday, or last week or last year. If we have the data at the slits but don’t look at it, but keep the data so that we could look at it in the future, then we look at the data at the back wall it will also be a straight line distribution – BECAUSE WE CAN KNOW WHERE THE PARTICLE HAD BEEN even though we have not yet looked at the data.
This is clear evidence of the secondary nature of matter and its behavioural dependency on the knowledge (conscious realisation) of the preceding position of a particle.

 

[abucs]

Einstein’s thought Experiment
Quantum physics says the behaviour of matter is directly dependant on the conscious knowledge of its position. One of the weird connections between matter and conscious knowledge is shown with the uncertainty principle. The more we know the position of a particle, the less we know about it’s speed. Conversely the more we know about its speed, the less we know about its position. In fact importantly, the more we know of one of the characteristic of something, the more the reality of the other characteristic changes. Again, knowledge changes a matters characteristics. It was originally thought that this may be because of experimental interference, but the mathematical relationship was so exact that many thought it a law of nature – and now it has been proved so. Again, what we as conscious being knew about a particles position affected its speed and vice versa. Einstein designed a thought experiment to test this. He said that if we freeze some material to just above absolute zero then we know its speed is just about zero. Quantum physics says that if we know its speed, its position will be undefined. The ‘common sense’ view would be that if we freeze an object so that it doesn’t move it should be stationary and well defined. After Einstein’s death a series of breakthrough’s meant that it was possible to freeze an object just above freezing. When the scientists did this and looked under the microscope, at just the calculated temperature the molecules of the substance became a condensate and was not well defined. That meant, looking through the microscope the molecules seemed to overlap and be in more than one place at the same time. And this happened just at the exact temperature (speed) predicted by quantum physics to make a difference. And the underlying theory – because we know its speed it position will become undefined held up.
This is another example of the secondary nature of matter, appearing in more than one place at the same time because of the conscious knowledge of its speed.

Quantum Computer.
The prototype for a quantum computer works on much the same principle as the component parts are in ‘more than one place’ at the same time and can therefore, in theory, do many more calculations than a ‘regular’ computer. This type of computer is currently being researched but as yet not close to being in production.

Quantum Electricity Regulation
What is in production and is used in just about all computers is the use of quantum physics in regulating electricity supply. The classical way of regulating electricity supply was to design circuits with varying paths of different resistance. If you wanted only an infinitesimal small amount of electricity to go through a certain path then you give that path a greater resistance and that would regulate electricity supply in proportion to the path resistance. This way of regulating supply eventually wears out the resistor parts (because of electron flow) and the computer breaks down. Because quantum physics says that unobserved matter travels as a probability function where matter pops in and out of existence according to a probability distribution, a circuit was designed with a thin non conductor across one of the paths. Classically the electrons should not go through the non conductor, but Quantum Physics says there is a small probability of the electron popping out of existence on one side of the non conductor and reappearing on the other side. The circuit was built and it works and the engineers can regulate the electricity supply to an almost exact level as the electrons are following laws of probability. What is more, the circuit part NEVER wears out because there are never any electrons travelling through the material. They are re-appearing on the other side.
This shows again that matter is secondary. Something is making it pop out of existence and then making it come back into our 4 dimensional world following exact mathematical laws of probability.

 

[abucs]

Faster than Light.
We can fire a photon (light) from a gun to a back wall (sensor) and of course, it travels at the speed of light. If we fire two at the same time they will arrive at the back wall simultaneously. We can block one of the paths by putting a thin reflective glass just before the sensor (say the lower photon) then this will cause the lower photon to bounce away so that it does not arrive at the back wall and is not sensed. We know from the previous experiment though that matter does not travel as discrete blocks of ‘stuff’ if unobserved and so there is a mathematical probability that the photon will ‘jump across’ the reflective mirror and hit the sensor at the back wall. Experimentation shows this does happen and it happens to exact laws of probability. And the few times it does happen (there is a very small probability) the lower photon always hits the back wall sooner, or faster than the unblocked top photon. So we say that it has travelled ‘faster than light’ even though it is light. And the difference in the speeds can be directly calculated and matched by the width of the reflective mirror. In essence, the lower photon does not travel through the mirror, but ‘jumps’ across it.
This is again evidence that a 4 dimensional view of reality of matter travelling in a 3 dimensional continuous space is not what happens in practice. Nature does not work that way. There is something laying behind the properties of matter that is not in our 4 dimensions and that causes the matter to pop back into our universe obeying precise probability distributions.
Quantum Zeno Effect.
When we have a radioactive substance it decays at a certain rate. We don’t know why it decays yet, but it loses atomic components at a fixed rate (or probability). As time continues the chance that a radioactive substance will decay (lose one of its particles) increases. The theory of quantum physics says that when we observe the particle then it makes it a concrete reality. When we don’t observe it, it becomes only a probability (not a real physical reality). So the theory goes, that if we continuously observe a radioactive material, it will never get into the state of being a probability and will remain as a concrete particle and so will not decay. Of course our eye cannot continuously observe something, It is limited by light photons entering the eye for a start. What we can do is fire an ionised substance into an experimental container and measure the density of the radioactive substance. In this way we can see (or know) how much of the radioactive substance has already decayed. This ‘knowing’, the theory says, should collapse the probability function of the radioactive material back to a concrete reality. This process would then ‘reset’ the probability function and thus delay it’s radioactive decay. And we should be able to measure that exact delay mathematically by the number of times a second we make this ‘observation’. The ionised substance does not have any effect on the rate of radioactive decay. When we do the experiments we find that yes, the number of times we ‘know’ the state of the radioactive substance or ‘reset’ its ‘probability reality’, the longer it takes to decay in exact accordance with mathematical probability calculations.
This tells us again that matter’s interactions works on a probability basis until observed by a conscious being that then ‘knows’ or ‘resets’ or ‘makes concrete’ the ‘reality’ of that matter.

 

[abucs]

Electron Spins – Up and down. Complementarities with the Uncertainty Principle.
Again, quantum physics tells us that matter (everything we know) acts as a probability function until observed. An electron is said to have a particular spin. We can measure this spin with respect to a certain axis. We could measure the spin at axis say 0 (degrees) and the spin can be up or down. We could measure the spin at right angles to this at 90 (degrees) to get a spin of left or right. What quantum physics says is that the measure of electron spin at 0 is complimentary to that at 90. That is, we can’t know the spin at both 0 and 90. Just like above in the Einstein thought experiment we can’t know both the position and speed of a particle. The more accurately we know one, the less the other is actually defined. Knowing close to the exact speed of the atoms for Einstein’s experiment meant that the atoms position was not only not known, but it’s very reality of position was seen to have been compromised. It was in more than one place at a time (like the Quantum computing parts).
If we fire a group of electrons along a path and measure the spin of an electron at 0 then the spin ups and spin downs will be a 50/50 split according to the probability function. If we take all of the spin up electrons and measure them again of course they are all still spin up. If we take this group of electrons and also measure the spin at 90 we find that half of the spin up electrons will be left spinning and the other half right spinning (50/50 split). If we then collect all these spin up electrons back together and measure the spin at 0 again they are no longer all spin up but now are 50/50 spin up and down. The theory says because we know (or can know) the spin at 90 then there is no longer any reality of a spin at 0 and they will go back to being a 50/50 split even though we originally only chose the spin up electrons.
The real interesting find is that if we put a box over the middle part of measuring at 90 so that we don’t actually know whether the electrons are spin left or right, then we get the incredible result that they are all still spin up simply because we do not know the left / right spin and so have not reset the 50/50 probability function. (By putting a box over the middle part i mean that we don’t record the left/right spin). We assume the electrons are still split left right and are separated and then join back along the same path outside of the box to be measured for spin at 0. Everything is the same accept we prevent ourselves from knowing what the left right spin was.
Quantum physics says that if we don’t ‘look, measure or know’ or are in a position to retrospectively ‘look, measure or know’ certain characteristics of an atoms ‘reality’ then it doesn’t actually have a ‘reality’ until we do ‘look, measure or know’ or we interact with it.
These are not thought experiments or ideas outside the square of science. They are science and these experiments have been checked and rechecked thousands of times.
The question is why does it work like this ? My conclusions are that matter is secondary to mathematical law and matter is programmed to react in certain ways to create a reality for conscious beings. It is programmed to give us an almost seamless view of reality that is a physical, local cause and effect nature but this is only programmed to be how it looks to an observer. Much like a programmer giving a user a certain ‘virtual reality’ simulation.
Again, i’m not saying we are in a computer simulation but the evidence for a programmed existence where matter is secondary is overwhelming. If you knew the lengths atheists go to in the field to try and explain these phenomena it is quite poor. ‘Parallel universes’ and ‘time travelling in waves backwards and forwards’ are some of the more intellectual constructs to try to keep another other-dimensional intelligence out of the equation. Ultimately i find their explanations contrived, incomplete, lacking in proof, not credible and basically designed to try and ‘keep God out’.

I think the data shows we will not find the answer to life, the universe and everything within our 4 dimensional existance although we have to keep looking. We know science has limitations. The creators of modern science, the Christians of the 11th to 18th centuries knew this to be the case. They also knew there was an intelligence sitting outside of the material world Who made it, as well as our laws of nature. The atheist philosophers of the 19th century have taken a wrong turn and unfortunately taken a vocal minority of the western world with them. Science and history is against the atheist. At some stage this is going to be common knowledge that this is so. IMHO.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I guess thanks for the summary of physics, but you’re still not digesting what I’m saying. The evidence doesn’t point to a programmed existence (or intelligent design), in fact the exact opposite is true.

Quantum physics shows us the universe is a place where chance governs, and nature is not deterministic. I’m sure you realize a thought experiment has nothing to do with imposing your thoughts or intentions on the physical world. It’s just a way to test a theory.

Again, the idea that consciousness must have always existed in tandem with physics (or preceded it) has been looked at, and rejected by mainstream physicists. Right now theoretical physicists are more interested in trying to find out whether surplus gravitons escape into other dimensions, and why there’s an imbalance in our cosmic architecture (which suggests our universe may not be the first).

The problem is with intelligent design (and its progeny) is it begins with backwards methodology. Take Darwin’s theory of evolution as an example. Darwin created a theory to explain his observations. He didn’t dream up a theory from thin air, or create a theory to explain ancient mythology with no evidentiary basis in the observable world. Theories are explanations of observations taken from the physical world (whether macro or quantum). In the purest sense intelligent design doesn’t even meet the definition of theory.

In a word, it’s is pseudo-science. Could it be possible? I suppose anything is possible (you know – maybe’s there really are little green men out there), so yeah maybe

 

[yankee_doodle]

I meant it’s pseudoscience (not it’s is pseudoscience Ay!)

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yankee,

you shouldn’t believe anything anyone tells you without thinking about it yourself.

man, you sure have a lot of writing energy. But to comment here, dude I was raised Christian, most people around me tell me Jesus is god.

I’m the one whose the skeptic, the critical thinker, whose not willing to go with the flow because it’s easier

So i say to you, look at the evidence and explain it in an blind material cause and effect way. Don’t assume someone, somewhere has an answer for this - you explain it, or reference someone else so that we can all understand the explanantion.

So you think people should pretend they’re no smarter than a cave man when they examine evidence? How can I forget about quantum physics (that tells us the classical view of causation doesn’t necessarily apply to the quantum world).

If you can’t explain the scientific experiemental results that seem to directly contradict the materialistic philosophy, then you are putting your faith in someone, somewhere who you believe might be able to explain it. That is faith without not only proof, but faith without evidence. Isn’t this what you are against ?

For one thing – I’m against gibberish dressed in a costume of substantive information

OK, what is love then if it is not based at the fundamental level of matter interacting with other matter according to necessary laws ? What else do you say that there is, if love is based on something other than that ?

Love is an emotion we don’t even fully understand yet. We know it’s a product of our consciousness and subconscious, part biological and part environmental.

However, yes love is a product of our evolutionary development. There’s no invisible friend in our brain compelling us to love, it’s purely the product of our minds. We love because it feels good to love, it gives life greater meaning, so on and so forth. It’s not something we have to do (in other words we probably could train ourselves not to love, although the thought is disturbing).

I’m not saying “physics could only exist in tandem with conscience observation” i’m saying physics has been programmed to take into account of consciousness (observation.

I’m not saying ‘intent can alter outcomes’, in fact i don’t know what you mean by ‘intent’, or in fact what it is you say i am supposed to mean by intent.What i am saying to you is thast most physicists are involved in their own little area of research. They have many different philosophies. Some of them share your 19th century atheist philosophy. The ones who do and who are not directly involved in quantum theory simply ignore the results because it doesn’t pertain to their own area. The atheists that are involved in this area have extremely weak arguments against it - reference some good ones if you disagree.

What the heck are you talking about? The majority of physicists are atheists (or at least agnostic), and virtually all leading scientists are irreligious (usually atheists), with a few notable exceptions (who, like you, promote weird pseudoscience).

Secondly, saying physics takes consciousness into account is like saying intent can alter outcomes. Furthermore, the indeterminate nature of quantum systems aren’t caused by mystical forces, they’re inherent in the systems themselves.

The Copenhagen Interpretation remains the majority view in quantum physics. If anything (from what I’ve read) you’re relying on a late 19th – early 20th century interpretation of physics (and otherwise just coming up with wild ideas to try and fit physics into your religious views).

The modern point view is there really is no observer effect, just one vastly entangled system. There’s no evidence that entanglement is a pre-programmed characteristic of the universe. All the evidence points to randomness.

And finally i did not say that most people grew up in a religious environemt and so therefore it is true. what i am doing is contrasting the very similar view that you have expressed to say that people grow up with different beliefs therefor you can puit them all in a box and say they are not true. I’m simply challenging that silly view and asking you to look again.

You implied it.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Faster than Light.
We can fire a photon (light) from a gun to a back wall (sensor) and of course, it travels at the speed of light. If we fire two at the same time they will arrive at the back wall simultaneously. We can block one of the paths by putting a thin reflective glass just before the sensor (say the lower photon) then this will cause the lower photon to bounce away so that it does not arrive at the back wall and is not sensed. We know from the previous experiment though that matter does not travel as discrete blocks of ‘stuff’ if unobserved and so there is a mathematical probability that the photon will ‘jump across’ the reflective mirror and hit the sensor at the back wall. Experimentation shows this does happen and it happens to exact laws of probability. And the few times it does happen (there is a very small probability) the lower photon always hits the back wall sooner, or faster than the unblocked top photon. So we say that it has travelled ‘faster than light’ even though it is light. And the difference in the speeds can be directly calculated and matched by the width of the reflective mirror. In essence, the lower photon does not travel through the mirror, but ‘jumps’ across it.
This is again evidence that a 4 dimensional view of reality of matter travelling in a 3 dimensional continuous space is not what happens in practice. Nature does not work that way. There is something laying behind the properties of matter that is not in our 4 dimensions and that causes the matter to pop back into our universe obeying precise probability distributions.

I found an article on this experiment (since I’m sure you won’t listen to me, hopefully the physicists who actually performed this experiment can be more persuasive):

Recent experiments by Raymond Y. Chiao chiao, Paul G. Kwiat, and Aephraim M. Steinberg of the University of California, Berkeley show that photons tunnel through a barrier at velocities considerably greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. The researchers race two simultaneously created photons along different paths down a course. One photon travels unimpeded through air. The other strikes a special kind of mirror, which nearly always reflects incoming photons. On rare occasions, however, a photon may tunnel through the mirror and continue on to a detector.

By comparing the arrival times of a photon tunneling through the mirror and its companion traveling the same distance just through air, researchers can determine how quickly tunneling occurs. The surprising result is that most of the time, tunneling photons arrive at a detector before those traveling through air. On average, photons tunnel through the mirror at 1.7 times the speed of light. Such a speed is possible because, according to quantum mechanics a particle can be represented by a wave packet, whose length corresponds to the intrinsic uncertainty of the particle’s position. The height of the wave packet along its length indicates the probability that the particle occupies a particular position.

Tunneling apparently reshapes a photon’s wave packet, shifting its peak forward, Chiao says. Therefore, detectors that respond to a wave packet’s peak – where the photon is most likely to be found – often end up observing a tunneling photon in advance of its unobstructed companion. This result doesn’t necessarily violate the notion that cause precedes effect. To send a message or cause a real effect, a shutter must be opened or something else happen to create a sharp break in a wave packet. A wave packet’s peak can never overtake this boundary. The front velocity – how quickly the boundary travels – never exceeds the speed of light, Chiao says. It’s this speed that conveys information and ensures that cause comes before effect.

In theoretical studies, Chiao and his colleagues have found a similar faster-than-light effect in another, closely related phenomenon involving photons passing through a certain kind of transparent medium. The researchers are now performing an optical experiment to test their theory.

thefreelibrary.com/Faster-than-light+time+tunnels+for+photons.-a015570666

 

[abucs]

Yankee,

i don’t think you are understanding what the physicits are saying here.

I agree with just about everything that was in the article.

Tunnelling and wave packets mean that the particles (or photons in this case) are definitely not to be thought of as solid bits of matter. (That only happens at observation).

They are a probability. There is a certain probability of the ‘particle’ being at the front velocity’ of the theoretical wave packet. When these (low) probabilities occasions occur then what we think of as the ‘hard physical stuff’ tunnels through the mirror (or jumps across it - same thing) and appears on the other side. The photon is travelling as a non material probability (or wave) that spreads out in space and across to the other side of the mirror. And there is some chance that the photon will completely appear on the other side of the mirror without going through it. This is called tunnelling or as above jumping across space without going through space.

At a sensor (including the human eye) then the reality of the particle will form and be detected and is as we always see it to be.

This is exactly what i am saying. Matter is not to be thought of as hard physical stuff although always on observation it acts as if it is. That is, relative to us in the real world, it is real. If i kick a boulder, it hurts. But the reality of the matter is that scientifically it acts as a probability until observed and can do things such as jump across barriers.

There is an extremely low minute infintesimally small chance that a particle can jump from one side of the galaxy to another. But it can because matter, space and classical (emergent) laws are not the fundamental basis of our reality. There is something else causing this to happen. The fact that is gives us a coherant seemingly cause and effect ‘real’ reality on observation (or more properly onscious knowing) is the big question. Why does it do this ? Why should it care about (according to atheism) an emergent characteristic such as ‘knowing and observing’ by a certain collection of atoms that we call a human being ?

What Chiao is saying here is that if you stop thinking of matter as solid hard real stuff (as it is always on observation) and if you think of it as spread out as a wave probability function, then the front of this probability function (he claims or hypothesises) does not move faster than the speed of light. It is only the actual particle on observation (in our real world) that seems to move at faster than the speed of light because there is a small probability of the particle jumping to the front of the wave packet.

In order to accept this, you have to throw away any notion of matter as hard bits of stuff. You have to start thinking about it as following mathematical probability. You have to start asking why conscious observation though always makes the matter look like and act as hard real stuff. Or the other way around, why matter will always appear as ‘cause and effect hard stuff’ following classical laws when it it consciously observed.

And why does this happen ? In the atheist mind, who cares about conscious observation. Atheism says that we are just a collection of particles ourselves, and that observation is a macro event. Other particles should not know or care what another set of particles knows or observes because according to atheism observing, measuring, knowing, thinking is just an accident of mindless evolution and is not part of the fundamental reality of how the universe works.

Thus the atheist philosophy is done and dusted. It’s wrong !

In order to understand our reality we have to think of basic reality in a non material way.
The writers of your piece are trying to keep cause and effect by hypothesing a wave packet with a definite boundary but have surrendered to the principle that ‘real’ reality is not material - it works on probabilities until observed.

The boundaries of the wave packet are a theoretical postulation by the group. There is no evidence for this but I’m not saying it is not a credible idea. But their idea is based on a non material view of reality.

They don’t really mention observation in the article, but it is simply known that observation is the bridge between what we see as material and the non material.

Got to go.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yankee,

i don’t think you are understanding what the physicits are saying here.

I agree with just about everything that was in the article.

no you don’t … or at least you didn’t until you read it. You thought the photons disappeared into god’s fairy tale wonderland (I guess better than Michael Jackson’s wonderland) and then reappeared.

Tunnelling and wave packets mean that the particles (or photons in this case) are definitely not to be thought of as solid bits of matter. (That only happens at observation).

It just means (in simple terms) that some of the light gets through the transparent material or mirror or whatever.

They are a probability. There is a certain probability of the ‘particle’ being at the front velocity’ of the theoretical wave packet. When these (low) probabilities occasions occur then what we think of as the ‘hard physical stuff’ tunnels through the mirror (or jumps across it - same thing) and appears on the other side. The photon is travelling as a non material probability (or wave) that spreads out in space and across to the other side of the mirror. And there is some chance that the photon will completely appear on the other side of the mirror without going through it. This is called tunnelling or as above jumping across space without going through space.

Dude, you don’t have to re-explain it. The explanation given by the physicists who conducted the experiment & actually know what they’re talking about was just fine.

At a sensor (including the human eye) then the reality of the particle will form and be detected and is as we always see it to be.

This is exactly what i am saying. Matter is not to be thought of as hard physical stuff although always on observation it acts as if it is. That is, relative to us in the real world, it is real. If i kick a boulder, it hurts. But the reality of the matter is that scientifically it acts as a probability until observed and can do things such as jump across barriers.

You’re comparing the macro world to the quantum world. Dude, seriously, your physics sucks (don’t quit your day job at TGI Friday’s).

There is an extremely low minute infintesimally small chance that a particle can jump from one side of the galaxy to another. But it can because matter, space and classical (emergent) laws are not the fundamental basis of our reality. There is something else causing this to happen. The fact that is gives us a coherant seemingly cause and effect ‘real’ reality on observation (or more properly onscious knowing) is the big question. Why does it do this ? Why should it care about (according to atheism) an emergent characteristic such as ‘knowing and observing’ by a certain collection of atoms that we call a human being ?

The experiment didn’t show that a particle can jump to the other side of the galaxy or universe. Tunneling reshaped the the photon’s wave packet, end of story. No god in the background … no boogey man, fairies, or angels (except in your imagination).

What Chiao is saying here is that if you stop thinking of matter as solid hard real stuff (as it is always on observation) and if you think of it as spread out as a wave probability function, then the front of this probability function (he claims or hypothesises) does not move faster than the speed of light. It is only the actual particle on observation (in our real world) that seems to move at faster than the speed of light because there is a small probability of the particle jumping to the front of the wave packet.

well yes, but that happens after the photon’s wave packet is reshaped (which is why it jumps ahead of the other unobstructed photon). This really isn’t that difficult.

In order to accept this, you have to throw away any notion of matter as hard bits of stuff.

well yes, at least the gray matter between your ears

You have to start thinking about it as following mathematical probability. You have to start asking why conscious observation though always makes the matter look like and act as hard real stuff. Or the other way around, why matter will always appear as ‘cause and effect hard stuff’ following classical laws when it it consciously observed.

And why does this happen ? In the atheist mind, who cares about conscious observation. Atheism says that we are just a collection of particles ourselves, and that observation is a macro event. Other particles should not know or care what another set of particles knows or observes because according to atheism observing, measuring, knowing, thinking is just an accident of mindless evolution and is not part of the fundamental reality of how the universe works.

Thus the atheist philosophy is done and dusted. It’s wrong !

wow, you do live in a dream world. Anyway, can you please find someone else to try and sell your silly ideas to

 

[abucs]

Yankee, it seems to me you have a high school grasp of physics.

Have you heard of the saying ’ a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing ?’

Lets quote Chiao in your posted article -

“Such a speed is possible because, according to quantum mechanics a particle can be represented by a wave packet (see diagram), whose length corresponds to the intrinsic uncertainty of the particle’s position. The height of the wave packet along its length indicates the probability that the particle occupies a particular position”.

and just before this he says

“The surprising result is that most of the time, tunneling photons arrive at a detector before those traveling through air. On average, photons tunnel through the mirror at 1.7 times the speed of light”.

Now Yankee, you are not understanding what is being said here.

Lets scale the experiment up to make it easier to explain. Lets use a tennis ball and a brick wall and a blanket. Chiao is saying that sometimes when we throw the tennis ball at the wall at the speed of light, it actually gets to the wall at 1.7 times the speed of light.

Chiao is asking us (and also regular physics) to think of the ball not as material but as a blanket of probability (wave packet). The blanket could be 10 cm squared or 1 m squared or a light year squared. The regular assumption is that it is an infinite wave packet (or blanket).

What Chiao is saying is that when we throw the ball at the wall we shouldn’t measure from where the ball is but where it’s front edge wave packet is (the front velocity). In the case of a 1m squared blanket (or wave packet) then the front velocity (front end of the blanket) gets there (1/2 metre) before the (classical) tennis ball. The front edge of the blanket has not travelled faster than the speed of light (he claims). What happens is that according to a small probability, sometimes the ‘real stuff tennis ball’ will be made physical at the front end of the blanket (wave packet) and on measurement will appear at the wall.

So it looks like the ball is travelling at 1.7 times the speed of light but Chiao is asking us to think of the ball as a wave packet (or blanket) and he is postulating that this blanket is not actually moving faster than the speed of light.

Implicit in his argument though ( AND YOU JUST CAN’T GET PAST YOUR HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS HERE) is that the ball is a probabilty only until it hits the back wall and thus is measured to make it a ‘hard observed reality’.

Dude, as you say, the one link you provide actually supports the common scientific thinking which is what i am saying. You have a belief system about physics Yankee that is outside the regular accepted notions and you can’t seem to get rid of that belief system.

I’m sorry Yankee, but you have a high school idea of physics and you are under a delusion that the world body of physicists share your view. Any attempt to show you that they don’t initiates howls of ‘no you are wrong’ without any intelligent evidence to support your howls. You are outside the accepted view of physics Yankee - and it is your 19th century atheist philosophy that has taken you there.

Be intelligent Yankee - post replies to the above experiments explaining them while keeping your philosophy intact. Don’t go off talking about invisible gods and outer space green men - stick to the science !

You are running away while not questioning your own belief system ! That is typical of what atheists do.

 

[abucs]

Antitheist, you make huge sweeping statements like ’virtually all leading scientists are irreligious‘, that I am promoting ‘pseudo science‘, you refer to me using ‘thought experiments’ and you accuse me of coming up with ‘wild ideas’, following a late 19th century, early 20th century interpretation of physics and you say ‘the idea that consciousness must have always existed in tandem with physics (or preceded it) has been looked at, and rejected by mainstream physicists‘.
.

OK, lots of non supported points there.

First of all the Copenhagen interpretation was early 20th century (late 1920’s) and it was made by a consensus of leading physicists. Unlike your philosophy that was made 40-80 years earlier, not by scientists but by philosophers. Secondly, the Copenhagen interpretation specifically involves observation in the way the universe works. That interpretation was the standard then and is still the standard. It is not pseudoscience. It has been tested more strongly than any other theory. All of the experiments I previously mentioned are all real and the results are as described. My ‘wild ideas’ as you say are sensible conclusions and I was careful to separate my conclusions from the experiment and results. The one time I mentioned ‘thought experiments’ was the one by Einstein and I was clear to say that when the technology progressed to do the experiment, it was actually done. This was in the 1980’s (I think) for the first time and many, many times since. The outcome, as described was supportive of the positional reality changing simply from the knowledge of speed. The Bell’s Theorem was first devised by Stuart Bell in the mid 80’s and I think first demonstrated in the early 90’s. The basic scientific interpretation has held up since 1927 until today. Scientists don’t often repeat these experiments because its been done thousands of times and we know the results. The results are as described in my earlier posts and linkages. Those results invalidate the atheist materialist worldview. And they strongly support the observation (or conscious knowledge) as a main part of how the universe works.

You seem to think I’m making this observation linkage to physics up all by myself. This is not true. It’s well known and has been there from the start.

You have to get this straight in your head Antitheist. It is not me saying that the agencies of observation create reality and that the physical idea of the universe cannot be supported by science, it is the scientific view. For the last 90 years this has been pulled every which way and it still stands. With all of the experiments that have been performed this view has only got stronger. It is so well known that few scientists in the field carry these experiments out any more because we know the results.

You say that “the idea that consciousness must have always existed in tandem with physics (or preceded it) has been looked at, and rejected by mainstream physicists“.

This belies a misunderstanding of how physicists work and organise themselves and is not true anyway. It’s like me saying the idea that Pepsi is better than Coke has been looked at and rejected by mainstream physicists”. They are empty words.

If I said that about the soft drinks I am sure I would be asked, ‘who are the physicists who decided that, when did they do that and what was the reasoning for their thinking’ ?

So I ask you the same questions.

You have not given answers or interpretations to even one of the experimental results that have been presented and the only article you have linked to supports the regular held physics view that matter should not be properly viewed as real physical stuff (except on observation) but should be thought of as travelling in a wave packet probability function (until observed). This is what I’m saying and this is accepted physics. You keep thinking I’m saying something that Is ‘weirdo’. It’s standard. The weirdo bits (if you like) might be insisting on observation as conscious knowledge, but if you look at the results, that is what it is. Observation is conscious knowledge. And yes I am linking the programming to what we observe, but this I believe is quite credible as matter has been shown to be secondary and follows well defined laws of probability. Tell me what is another way of describing a reality that seems to be based so heavily on observation and makes it look to an observer that reality is determinant when it is not, and local when it is actually non local ?The observation bit though is scientific mainstream. The non physical nature of reality is also mainstream. As Einstein said regarding quantum physics, ‘everything has changed with how science has taught us to view the universe and yet we keep going as if nothing had changed’.

You haven’t given or linked to any answers for the experimental results.

I don’t expect you to have any answers Antitheist. I can see you are blustering and repeating wide general common anti theist accusations but you should actually look at this seriously and stop assuming that physics is on your side. You will find that it is not - WHEN you actually spend some time researching and looking at all of the issues.

And I’m not talking about one afternoon on the internet. It will take many months of study, checking and cross checking to get it straight in your head.

The best way to START this is to go searching for intelligent atheist scientific explanations of Quantum Physics. Only when you start to read the thinking of those people, people that YOU trust, will you start to see what is generally accepted in scientific circles and be able to see how credible your current philosophy is.

I can tell you, when you do have a proper look for yourself, if you are honest, you won’t be so cavalier in your rejection of God.

 

[abucs]

Quotes from Niels Bohr, the leader in the breakthrough of Quantum Physics and the Nobel Prize winner for Physics in 1922 when talking about Quantum Physics experimental findings -

“The common sense view of the world, in terms of objects that really exist ‘out there’ independent of our observations’ totally collapses in the face of the quantum factor“.

“an independent reality, in the ordinary physical sense, can neither be ascribed to the phenomena, nor to the agencies of observation.”

Another quote from Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Prize winner for Physics in 1932 -

“If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle, the only thing which can be written is a probability function. But then one sees that NOT EVEN THE QUALITY OF BEING belongs to what is described”.