Quantum Science as Indirect Evidence of God?

#1
Does Quantum Science indirectly and more than subtly imply a God? The conclusion that there is a God is the final conclusion in a series of questions regarding the metaphysical. This is because God exists at the highest level of comprehension. The idea that consciousness can be generated from thin air is not new. The hard problem of consciousness as a scientific study is seriously considering universal consciousness to be an inherent property of all matter. Thus we have the idea of matter generating mind being understood in a whole new light. I have always been a champion of the belief that there are no mysteries in the universe and that nothing is strange. And that if one could duplicate the complexity of the human brain down to the last neuron we could generate consciousness. After all, if we had the resources, the proper reconstruction of a conscious mind should be possible. 

The Quantum Sciences seem to be the field in which the Quantum mind and consciousness is explicated. Inherent phenomenon such as entanglement seem to escape full comprehension but are recognized as real nevertheless. These Quantum phenomenon, if they were fully explained in the future, may be accomplished by tying and integrating them into an explanation on consciousness. For if consciousness is not exclusive to living things, then perhaps it can be applied in general to a wide array of scientific fields.
Reply
#2
A belated welcome to "Alternative theories". This is indeed the correct sub-forum for posting topics (in the upper half of the board) which conflate areas of science like quantum physics with God or God discussions. It was originally introduced to accommodate CTMU-like theories, models, hypotheses, and speculative proposals.

There is zero problem with you appropriating "Alternative theories" as a platform for as many threads expressing your special interests as you want. Just note that any other pamphleteers who come along can likewise share space in the subforum as well. But given the usual, subdued presence of registered members at SciVillage as a whole or the amount of their visible traffic, you'll probably seldom if ever be rubbing shoulders with old or new competitors.

~
Reply
#3
Why only quantum science? Took a whole lot of science just to get to this point. When our ancestor used a twig to extract a few termites, was s/he indirectly on the way to the discovery of the quantum world. Even though I think you're out to lunch with your question, I say let's give a big hooray for.science anyways.
Reply
#4
(Jul 16, 2018 05:19 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Why only quantum science?  Took a whole lot of science just to get to this point. When our ancestor used a twig to extract a few termites, was s/he indirectly on the way to the discovery of the quantum world. Even though I think you're out to lunch with your question, I say let's give a big hooray for.science anyways.

In Quantum science, there exists the phenomenon of virtual particles popping into existence from nothing. If we extend this concept to consciousness, then the idea of a universal consciousness popping into existence from nothing isn't far-fetched.
Reply
#5
Probably wrong but I was always under the impression that virtual particles were the result of a field disturbance. IOW its the disturbances that imitate/resemble the presence of real particles. So if virtual then there is no particle whatsoever to speak of. If that is the case and I stand to be corrected then here we have evidence of something that isn't.. Not sure if you want evidence for God associated with that tidbit.. I have no problem with a virtual God or consciousness but not.sure if you feel same.way..
Reply
#6
(Jul 16, 2018 07:02 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Probably wrong but I  was always under the impression that virtual particles were the result of a field disturbance. IOW its the disturbances that imitate/resemble the presence of real particles. So if virtual then there is no particle whatsoever to speak of. If that is the case and I stand to be corrected then here we have evidence of something that isn't.. Not sure if you want evidence for God associated with that tidbit.. I have no problem with a virtual God or consciousness but not.sure if you feel same.way..

It is an excitation in a field caused by a disturbance in that field, so yes, you are correct. My analogy is that of a Being that arises from non-material means. It is not material. Pure mind. So this can be compared to a field of consciousness.
Reply
#7
(Jul 17, 2018 02:42 PM)Ostronomos Wrote:
(Jul 16, 2018 07:02 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Probably wrong but I  was always under the impression that virtual particles were the result of a field disturbance. IOW its the disturbances that imitate/resemble the presence of real particles. So if virtual then there is no particle whatsoever to speak of. If that is the case and I stand to be corrected then here we have evidence of something that isn't.. Not sure if you want evidence for God associated with that tidbit.. I have no problem with a virtual God or consciousness but not.sure if you feel same.way..

It is an excitation in a field caused by a disturbance in that field, so yes, you are correct. My analogy is that of a Being that arises from non-material means. It is not material. Pure mind. So this can be compared to a field of consciousness.

Exploding God theory still looking good.

So all of us little consciousnesses do what....excite the field of consciousness(god)? Are we virtual consciousnesses, in the sense that we are really a part of the overall field belonging to the Being, Mind, God? I think you would have to admit that the pure entity is not.omniscient or else there would be nothing to be gained by collecting my data/experience. God is like a multi-port for countless.USB connections. Your descriptions make me think of a computer, so have you been influenced by modern tech, does it help guide your philosophy?
Reply
#8
Quote:
Quote:Probably wrong but I  was always under the impression that virtual particles were the result of a field disturbance. IOW its the disturbances that imitate/resemble the presence of real particles. So if virtual then there is no particle whatsoever to speak of. If that is the case and I stand to be corrected then here we have evidence of something that isn't.. Not sure if you want evidence for God associated with that tidbit.. I have no problem with a virtual God or consciousness but not.sure if you feel same.way..

It is an excitation in a field caused by a disturbance in that field, so yes, you are correct. My analogy is that of a Being that arises from non-material means. It is not material. Pure mind. So this can be compared to a field of consciousness.


Exploding God theory still looking good.

So all of us little consciousnesses do what....excite the field of consciousness(god)?



Or we could be excitations of that field. Where it is known by us to be the source.


Quote:Are we virtual consciousnesses, in the sense that we are really a part of the overall field belonging to the Being, Mind, God? I think you would have to admit that the pure entity is not.omniscient or else there would be nothing to be gained by collecting my data/experience. God is like a multi-port for countless.USB connections. Your descriptions make me think of a computer, so have you been influenced by modern tech, does it help guide your philosophy?
You can make such an analogy indeed. And I don't think God always exists, only sometimes. For instance, when generated, God knows all that is occurring in that space and time He exists in. But not beyond. For example, if your miniature mind generated God's overmind in a hallway at a hospital for example, it would know all that is going on at that moment in that place. I know this doesn't sound like it would qualify for a God, but I suppose it does not deviate from realism. That's my theory.
Reply
#9
I'm going to quote part of news editor Francis P Church's reply to a young girl named Virginia over 100 years ago. She questioned the existence of Santa Claus, so while you read this portion of his answer try substituting God for Santa and tell us if you either agree or adhere to his philosophical approach.

Quote:Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither chil­dren nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can con­ceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and un­see­able in the world.
Reply
#10
(Jul 17, 2018 04:12 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: I'm going to quote part of news editor Francis P Church's reply to a young girl named Virginia over 100 years ago. She questioned the existence of Santa Claus, so while you read this portion of his answer try substituting God for Santa and tell us if you either agree or adhere to his philosophical approach.

Quote:Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither chil­dren nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can con­ceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and un­see­able in the world.

I certainly agree. I hold to the idea that all that we see before us is not all there is.

https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/why-a-g...ntum-level

https://www.learning-mind.com/quantum-th...ter-death/

Hameroff and Penrose are two genius scientists that believe they have found evidence for the soul. Basically, structures known as microtubules which exist in the brain, are carriers of quantum information. These structures collect information during the person's life and are "drained" into another universe at death. The information is stored in these microtubules which exist in each and every neuron in the brain. Consciousness, Penrose says, is like superposition in that qubits of information exist in multiple states and instantaneously congregate to produce a calculation. The immaterial soul, after the body dies, is transmigrated into a parallel universe which Everett proposed.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)