Well, I've been thinking about this for a while.

The measurement problem is intriguing to me. If you don't know what the measurement problem is, I don't feel like explaining it, so here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/v/yhYBwLysvB8&hl

Obviously I'm no quantum physicist, and my knowledge of the subject is limited, but here's what I've come up with:

The wave function collapse only occurs when a conscious observer attempts to measure it. How does this disprove God? Well, if God is omniscient and omnipresent, then God, as an intelligent and conscious observer, should always be aware of the wave function. The problem here is that we, as humans, see the collapse occur. But if God is aware of everything and is everywhere, then the electrons should always behave as particles, because the wave function collapse is constantly occurring (as a result of God's observance). The fact that we see the collapse proves that there isn't another conscious being who notices it. Therefore, God does not exist.

I'd like to hear your thoughts about this.

Superham wrote:The wave function collapse only occurs when a conscious observer attempts to measure it.

Is this strictly true, or are you getting all Deepak Chopra on us?

CookieJon wrote:

Superham wrote:The wave function collapse only occurs when a conscious observer attempts to measure it.

Is this strictly true, or are you getting all Deepak Chopra on us?

It's not true. "Observer" in QM doesn't have anything to do with consciousness.

What's it have to do with then? Observation?

edit *I don't think that consciousness had to do with it. But, is it just strictly observation that causes that?

Mantisdreamz wrote:What's it have to do with then? Observation?

Yes, it's a placeholder for anything from which information can be derived about the situation. It doesn't matter whether it's a camera or a person with a microscope.

At the smallest scale "observation" requires interaction, bouncing photons or such off of the thing you are observing, which affects the system you are observing.

I wonder if say, an insect observing it would effect the electron

Mantisdreamz wrote:I wonder if say, an insect observing it would effect the electron

Yes.

As for God affecting wave-functions, this would not occur; God is a nonphysical being and therefore wouldn't collapse the wave-function. Wave-function collapse doesn't require conciousness. An observer can be something as simple as a single photon. However, I encourage your creativity.

Besides, if this "God" indeed refers to the Xtian Multiomniguy in the Sky or another of his multiomnicapable ilk, then it's certainly no problem for such a being to simply uncollapse any wave function he saw fit even if he had seen fit to collapse one it first place

I provisionally believe that nothing science can discover can ever disprove such thingees.

Philosophy might have a better chance but I don't think I've seen anything really heavyweight coming from that direction either. Obviously I haven't looked very closely, for the fear my eyes start to burn.

The label "observer effect" is a misnomer as the observation conducted by the conscious agent is only a secondary action, the primrary action is that of interaction. In the most famous case, Youngs double slit experiment, the waveform of the electron being measured is collapsed by its interaction with the photon used to detect it. The misunderstanding arises because of the experimenter is essentially interferring with the experiment in the act of measuring the desired phenomenon.

It's a bit like switching a light on to see how dark it is.

If anything it's this factor that could be used to argue against a god because if a conscious observer is required to collapse a waveform then an outside agent would be required to collapse any waveform that describes the universe. If no conscious agent is required for this action then any "outside" observer is rendered unecesssary... at the quantum level god is surplus to requirements.

Of course, nothing can disprove some theist's wet dream. Having said that, some sort of natural variation being present allows for a non-uniform universe, where there are local concentrations of matter/energy. Local higher densities [even if slight can translate into energy/matter gradients. From there, natural filters can select for [and fine tune] logical laws. Obviously if gravity is too high, [or too low] then an anthropic universe is not possible. So it will all be some sort of emergent process where the interaction of simple inputs, [like density gradients arising out of quantum uncertainty] give emergent behavior: gas clouds, stars, galaxies, etc.

It is analogous to natural selection in biological evolution, being "Bottom-up". That doesn't disprove god, but it removes god as the only plausible "first cause" [if one needs one] for the origin of the universe.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I realize that this doesn't actually disprove God (nothing can), but it certainly was fun to ponder. And, although I posted a clip from "What the Bleep Do We Know?", I would discourage anyone from watching it if you're looking for scientific value. It tends to hang about in the realm of philosophy rather than science, and the questions it raises are generally rubbish.

Superham wrote:Thanks for the replies, everyone. I realize that this doesn't actually disprove God (nothing can), but it certainly was fun to ponder. And, although I posted a clip from "What the Bleep Do We Know?", I would discourage anyone from watching it if you're looking for scientific value. It tends to hang about in the realm of philosophy rather than science, and the questions it raises are generally rubbish.

Too late, I've already seen What The Fucking Bleep and had some interesting discussions over at RD.net before the fall.

The whole arena of quantum woo is based on a misunderstanding of the observer effect (a term that is misleading to begin with), the problem is that this tends to get ignored as the whole edifice would come crashing down as a result. Both Deepak Chopra and the Ramtha school of enlightement (the makers of Bleep) have too much invested in this misunderstanding.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5D7q1O1Uk[/youtube]

hackenslash wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5D7q1O1Uk[/youtube]

The comments on the video are hilarious:

#
GordonWolters: If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

Ryosuke1208: Conciousness:
Is the superposition of al possibilities....
Now WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT!??

It is not like a human observer can watch with the eye the path of a photon or electron. These observations that affect the experiment all add energy to the particle observed, and it has been demonstrated that the less energy used to make the observation the less the results change. It is not that particles are observed by a conscious entity and that effects their behavior, it is the amount of energy added to the particle by the observing device that matters.

The same thing goes for the uncertainty principle. It is not some metaphysical rule. It is pragmatic. To know where a particle is we basically have to stop its direction of momentum and its velocity, and if we do that then we can know where the particle is but not where it is going or how fast.

On the other hand if we know where a particle is going and how fast there is no place along that line or in an orbit where we can say that it exists.

Using QM to try to prove the non-existence of God is as futile as trying to use QM to prove the existence of God. It does not work.