God Exists

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Members,

While the focus is on Quantum Mechanics, let me say that there is a need to define concepts at the very basic level such as what is energy, what is mass? etc. In quantum mechanics there is the notion called wave-particle duality. That anything exhibits the properties of a wave and a particle though at different times. So nothing can be classified completely a wave or completely a particle. For example light is thought to behave like a particle sometimes and as a wave sometimes.

A particle is something which is like normal matter and wave is something which spreads and travels like a ripple in water. There are some specific properties exclusive to a wave and to a particle. So this wave-particle nature was a conundrum initially. But later it came to accepted as natural and thus this wave-particle duality concept was established.

In quantum mechanics one can only say that such and such a thing can be measured or observed with such and such a probability. There is no determinism. For example if a photon is sent through a slit in a screen to impact on another screen behind, the event of the photon going in a straight line and hitting the center of the screen is given only as a probability. There is also the probability that the photon will hit somewhere on the side of the screen though that probability is low.

Now comes a contentious part. What QM says is till the photon is measured or observed the events remain as a probability. That is the photon can hit anywhere on the screen but each with differing probability. Only when a measurement is made or when it is actually observed the probabilities collapse into an actuality and is observed at a point. That is only when it hits or is observed that the probability collapses . In QM it is known as wave collapse.

Now I will give my views on the above with a concept of a wave:

As Energy travels, it region of presence along the three dimensions increases. This I would say is because anything that moves begins to lose its harmony. When the energy has not yet entered the realm of matter this manifests as a sort of splitting i.e., duplication of it and so it seems to spread. BTW, in the case of a particle the loss of harmony is expressed as increase in mass.

Also and pertinent to the discussion is that the amplitude of the wave keeps varying with time. So when the amplitude is low, there is less frequent occurrence of energy at distant points because low amplitude energy traveling to distant points is less likely, and so the probability of occurrence of them at distant points would seem to be low as described by the mathematical wave equations.

So my view is that, what is seen as probability is more due to a real phenomenon of variations in amplitude as in the case of observing a photon etc. at a particular position. Probability in measurements of other properties may be due to similar reasons.

 

[subbudu1]

Whole of Science is an evolving field. But that doesn't mean it violates its earlier knowledge. Any new development is inclusive of earlier knowledge gained and verified.

For the purposes of science, an observer/probe/measuring device are all the same. That is the point I am driving at. Any purist in Science will agree that there is no difference between a human eye or a telescope lens for the purpose of visible observation. Your belief about some instrument 'disturbing' an external event seems a bit off-track as you tend to feel that is what is causing that event. There is no cause/effect here, but if you want me to make that distinction then I must say the observer isn't causing that event, but completing it. The observer is required to define that event as having occurred.

May be if I used the word "observation" instead of "observer" you might not bother so much into declaring instruments and people are different. For physics, they are the same.

Barani you are talking in thin air without responding to my cited works on quantum theories and without answering what is so invalid or superficial or less reputable about them.

Exactly my point for physics human body and instrument are the same. Hence Physics cannot include any discussion on consciousness at this point of time or for a few more decades. You can use only one line of argument at a time either a discussion on consciousness, when human is a different subject or a discussion without consciousness when human is the same subject.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

I was having so much problem logging in TB the whole day and the page was just not opening for me and I was only able to write a little in the morning.
Thank God its ok now.I been having lots of technical problems logging in here for example I will have to log in some 10x and only then can come in and cant get in again.
Just hope its doesnt happen again.I dont want to miss the fun here.

The subject-matter of discussion is - whether God exists ? And you are thanking
God !

 

[sravna]

The point of my previous post is to support the interpretation of determinism and say that there is no need for the probabilistic interpretation as given by QM.

 

[DrBarani]

Barani you are talking in thin air without responding to my cited works on quantum theories and without answering what is so invalid or superficial or less reputable about them.

Exactly my point for physics human body and instrument are the same. Hence Physics cannot include any discussion on consciousness at this point of time or for a few more decades. You can use only one line of argument at a time either a discussion on consciousness, when human is a different subject or a discussion without consciousness when human is the same subject.

You are mistaking me for Sravna, Mr.Subbudu, I have never made any argument about "consciousness" yet. I am only trying to set the rules of argument on common ground.

Right now, it is about an "event". From what I know, events cannot be defined without an observer. That is proven Science. No need for new models. As I said, hundreds of models may exist, no need to fight over them. One model is already consistent and it has convinced many of us that in order for an event to "occur" (only observer declares whether an event occured), an observer is required. That is the whole point about Schrodinger Cat paradox. By fixing the walls around the cat, no information was passed outside. Therefore, it is impossible to define that inner state, in Classical Physics. In Quantum Physics, that inner state is described as a wavefunction.

Once it is agreed that an observer is needed for an event, one may go back to Big Bang and then "pre Big Bang" for analysis. I haven't gone deep into that argument. Sravna is already there, if you have an urgency about the Consciousness issue.

 

[ShivKC]

Those who are familiar with the circumstances know ShivKC was the one hounding HappyHindu about her NB identity. It was at this time I asked him to apply the same standard on himself and clarify whether he is a Christian or not. I even offered to apologize if he would categorically reject Jesus as his Christ. He never did.

Whether he is a Christian or not is of no importance to me. In fact I support missionary's right to go out and "save" as many "souls" as they want, just as long as they do it within the law of the land. All I wanted from ShivKC was to not hound HappyHindu. He was made to stop, and I left the matter as is.

Cheers!

sir, please put your spectacles and start searching your drawing room. you may find there 2 sets of foot scales, one measuring 5 1/2 inches and another 17" .. please be reminded, a foot scale is only 12 inches long, for all in this world.

since you have brought up HappyHindu issue, let me explain my view.

you hounded me, very often and tried all tricks with your smart writing skill to brand me as a christian and asked me to reveal the identity. I can dig the archives again and post all of them( too big,it may spam here). it all started, when I dug up one of HH's posts from archive and exposed her changing double-standard about EVR/Anti-brahminism, like how i did to you recently,on the 'middle finger' subject. how much one covers it up trickily, the truth hurts right!

in nut shell, you are the one who supported HH's alleged claim that i was one among the threesome (swami etc) who were running behind her identity, which i was not, i was not, i was not in to asking her identity. i challenged her to prove it, but you and HH went on gathering sympathy loaded with crocodile tears. in that game, you pitched in and portrayed me as a christian , and forced me to offer an open declaration against christianity, and i did so. you made a tricky thing, that you are ready to offer an apology.. you did the damage to me, but can a billion apology compensate that damage? still you kept on hounding and harping on me, and until one fine day, i offered myself to moderator (sh.krs) to have him verified my credentials.

sir, please read this line of your carefully. "He was made to stop, and I left the matter as is" again cleverly scripted by you. you never stopped it, but it me, who stopped YOU, by appealing to sh.krs-SM to get my credentials verified..

though i also dont wanna run behind any ones identity, but i wanna know, why you are against sh,tks asking yamaka's id, where as you yourself were once behind mine? i bet you gonna give a new convincing answer, like, comon' you hounded HH for id, so i retaliated, where as yamaka is not behind any ones id, so please dont ask? (like how you tried to cover the middle-finger issue saying no living person is hurt by your mf statement) sir, please dont tilt the platform..

once again im reminding, a foot scale is 12" only,12" only,12" only. thats the rule of the game and thats how the world goes

sir, shall we leave this useless discussion and move on to the topic which most of us are discussing seriously. im sick and tired of this childish stuff and see if you could attempt to respond at least one of Dr.Barni's post.i would appreciate that

 

[ShivKC]

Folks, Most of us here are not interested in participating or watching a food fight. So, I shall restrict myself to clarifying a few facts.

!

how can a thread be so active to remain on top chart with 600 posts in a short span, if most of the people here, were not interested. who are those "most of us'? நாஸ்திகர் you mean?

this is not www.நாஸ்திகர்.com

 

[DrBarani]

how can a thread be so active to remain on top chart with 600 posts in a short span, if most of the people here, were not interested. who are those "most of us'? நாஸ்திகர் you mean?

this is not www.நாஸ்திகர்.com

The world has 50% Christians, 40% Muslims and 10% Hindus (including Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs etc).

Of the 10%, less than 1/10th is Brahmins.

That is less than 1% of World population is Brahmins.

If you understood நாஸ்திகர்s correctly, then they hate "evil christians", "evil muslims", "evil brahmins" but they are such cowards they won't spend their time in christian forums or muslim forums to call them "evil". They get to be a wolf only among the bovine brahmins who practice sanadhana dharma.

 

[renuka]

how can a thread be so active to remain on top chart with 600 posts in a short span, if most of the people here, were not interested. who are those "most of us'? நாஸ்திகர் you mean?

this is not www.நாஸ்திகர்.com

Didnt Brahin say someone took a bet with him that if he starts a thread with a "dumb joke" and it will be the most active thread?

See the Mahima of God? So that shows Atheist dont exists cos how can anyone argue about something that doesnt exists in the first place!!

 

[subbudu1]

You are mistaking me for Sravna, Mr.Subbudu, I have never made any argument about "consciousness" yet. I am only trying to set the rules of argument on common ground.

Fair enough consciousness is out of scope then.
So if consciousness if out of scope please define an observer.
My definition is systems which accept information process information and produce output.
In otherwords a processor. Let us talk in terms of processors and why they should make a difference in outcomes.

 

[Nara]

.....What does our scriptures say about the origins of other planets?

Dear narayan sir, if you look to scriptures for answers you may find that moon and sun are planets with sun closer to earth than moon, earth is kept aloft by some eight elephants, and much more such stuff.

Skepticism and rejection of blind faith is nothing new to our ancient forefathers. There was Jabali who was given a severe dressing down by none other than Lord Sri Rama himself. The rebuke was so severe Jabali was made to retract all his statements and made to meekly submit to the establishment view.

Charvaka philosophy was systematically annihilated to the extent we have none of the original text extant. The bits and pieces of the text that remain are found only as poorva-paksha in other texts.

The nAstika Kallabahars (Jains or Bouddhas) who once ruled much of southern India for several centuries, a time during which relative peace prevailed, have been demonized and made to look as bandits.

For all its limitations only scientific process can find an answer to the extent any definitive answer can be found, not from Scriptures.

Cheers!

 

[subbudu1]

Dear narayan sir, if you look to scriptures for answers you may find that moon and sun are planets with sun closer to earth than moon, earth is kept aloft by some eight elephants, and much more such stuff.

Skepticism and rejection of blind faith is nothing new to our ancient forefathers. There was Jabali who was given a severe dressing down by none other than Lord Sri Rama himself. The rebuke was so severe Jabali was made to retract all his statements and made to meekly submit to the establishment view.

Charvaka philosophy was systematically annihilated to the extent we have none of the original text extant. The bits and pieces of the text that remain are found only as poorva-paksha in other texts.

The nAstika Kallabahars (Jains or Bouddhas) who once ruled much of southern India for several centuries, a time during which relative peace prevailed, have been demonized and made to look as bandits.

For all its limitations only scientific process can find an answer to the extent any definitive answer can be found, not from Scriptures.

Cheers!

Here as well atheists have been made to look like demons with choicest of titles being applied, yet the response from the so-called demons has been anything but demonly.

 

[Nara]

Here as well atheists have been made to look like demons with choicest of titles being applied, yet the response from the so-called demons has been anything but demonly.

Thank you sir, I appreciate it.

narayan sir, sometime back you pointed out that numbers mean nothing when it comes to determining truth, and I would add honesty, compassion, love, etc. As I responded then, I agree, wholeheartedly. In this respect I would like to state, I value subbudu sir's post, and your own honest stand in these matters, even if we disagree in the periphery, than the apparent majority here.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

.... Let us talk in terms of processors and why they should make a difference in outcomes.

Dear Subbudu sir, First, I appreciate your knowledge of QM.

From what little I have read about this subject, (QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman) I gather the scientists have a fairly good grasp of what is happening, but not so sure why.

Yet, from what I understand, nothing these scientists are trying to figure out is about a creator god. Whether an event occurs only when observed by a conscious observer or by an inanimate probe, neither situation speaks to a conscious and purposeful creator god, like the one described in the Upanishads, or the Scriptures of other religions.

The proponents of superstitious beliefs make so much hay from the uncertainties to which science readily admits, it is beyond certainty that they will bring the roof of every building down if QM could say anything positive about the reality of a creator god. The very fact this has not happened is proof positive that the only rational position to take at this point in time is one of technical agnosticism and practical atheism.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

In our puranas,even so called demons never rejected God.I have yet to come across a so called demon that was an Atheist.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Subbudu sir, First, I appreciate your knowledge of QM.

From what little I have read about this subject, (QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman) I gather the scientists have a fairly good grasp of what is happening, but not so sure why.

Yet, from what I understand, nothing these scientists are trying to figure out is about a creator god. Whether an event occurs only when observed by a conscious observer or by an inanimate probe, neither situation speaks to a conscious and purposeful creator god, like the one described in the Upanishads, or the Scriptures of other religions.

The proponents of superstitious beliefs make so much hay from the uncertainties to which science readily admits, it is beyond certainty that they will bring the roof of every building down if QM could say anything positive about the reality of a creator god. The very fact this has not happened is proof positive that the only rational position to take at this point in time is one of technical agnosticism and practical atheism.

Cheers!

Barani was totally unable to accept that there are different directions in which quantum theory is evolving. The consciousness based approach is not the only approach. All said and none of these assertions on consciousness is provable vis-vis science. We first got to introduce to this subject during college.
Fifteen years back I read in the Bhavan's Journal, lectures by some sadhu ( forget the name ) from RK Mutt speaking about quantum theory, faster then light connections and consciousness. It is no doubt true that measurement of a quantum particle leads to a supposed wave collapse.

What I found interesting was that the scientist Everett challenged the very fact that we as observers cannot stay outside the limits of the experiment. The moment we disturb we are part of the environment which is in the quantum particle experiment. The fact that we may or may not have consciousness is incidental. I say this because if there was something like a universal god or consciousness, he is already there even before measurement looking at the quantum observable. According to Vedanta the individual consciousness has the same essence as the brahman. So if the individual consciousness could disturb the experiment, so could our god. So regardless of whether consciousness or god is there, the wave collapse occurs under certain conditions. Why only when being measured? This is an unanswered riddle and as expected unanswered riddles have many claimants for a solution.

There is a problem with all the solutions. The old approach popular and espoused by Barani has the problem that nothing is predictable in this universe until the dawn of the homo sapiens. (I am not using this sentence, it has been taken from a research article ) which means the universe should have been a quantum wave until some life came. If even objects like bacteria could cause the collapse of the wave, they still must have a measuring probe. But as we know no bacteria or microbe could do that. The other possibility was that when the universe or big bang started, a conscious observer came with a measuring probe and caused the collapse of the wave. But then Religion says that god was the only conscious observer at that time in which case there should never have been a need a wave collapse observed at so late of time in the Universe. All these are absurdities which need to be replaced

As a result people came up with different ideas like Multi world phenomena, the concept of some hidden variables. What is this concept of hidden variables. The concept of hidden variables is that the quantum particles /observable have some hidden properties which do not allow us to clearly pinpoint the particle. So what is seen as a collapse is actually a pseudo collapse. This I would have favored but scientists have found drawback with this theory and find it inadequate

The theory I like is that of Everett when he says that at the moment the observes observes the observed he himself splits into many states and he is aware of only one of the states, as he has become part of the quantum wave. This is then posed as a problem for people in the field of psychology. However this theory is accepted to be consistent with the experimental facts.

All in all , there are problems with all the existing approaches in quantum theory and the field is evolving. We cannot replace an unknown thing, and propagate an idea which needs sufficient proof, as a given thing.

 

[DrBarani]

Barani was totally unable to accept that there are different directions in which quantum theory is evolving.

This is a lie. I would like you to point out where such rejection was made.

I have argued that for the purpose of defining an event the existing knowledge of QM is sufficient, and no new unproven theories or models are required. I gave you reference book that I follow (Schiff) to make that claim.

And stop assuming that I tried to prove God with my lessons on quantum mechanics. I have only tried to explain the meaning of "events" which is widely misunderstood. For that matter, my position on wholesome deterministic events went contradictory to that of Sravna.

My suggestion is, in any thread you must keep the debate with only one person, or else you end up getting confused with different arguments. Please complete your debate with Sravna and then get back when done.

Also any blatant assertion about my statements may kindly be directed to me. Indirection is a sign of insecurity.

 

[ShivKC]

i tried earlier cause-effect to prove the existence of god. this time, its about 'Intelligent design' of nature.

what does it mean to assert that the universe is the product of an intelligent designer? scientists who glorifies rationalism and chance, what empirical evidence could possibly support such a claim? einstein once attempted to an universal forumlae to that, but couldnt.

an engineer who designs put a clause,that he has no control on nature.

most of the scientific constants, including gravitational force are still not precise in toto.

why nature alone.. can we look out for an universal solvent or universal connector for molecules?

like how we plan and build our house, has any one made blue print for our universal habitat?

 

[C RAVI]

. So obvious, why am I not seeing it, I must be obstinate, like Ravi says below.

Ravi, you probably know what truth is and therefore are confident that the other side is wrong and determined to not to know. I can't speak for all who have argued with you, but as far as I am concerned, I can assure you that the position I am presenting is not one based on a determination not to know the "truth" that you are so confident that you know and are presenting.

Cheers!

Ayya,

You are perfectly right with your comments about me, for my statement in earlier post, responding Shri Sravna - "Basically You can make a person understand who wants to know. But you can't make a person understand who has determined, not to know".

My statement is non unilateral. It is applicable on and for both the parties.


But I would say that, theists have more clarity, understanding and acceptance than atheists and don't require any other Scientist's theories and research works to establish whether God exist or not.

We don’t need scientific evidence to prove the existence of GOD.

Because we have confidence on our self, the tendency to indulge in self realization, experience & value spirituality and could understand without a doubt that, God exist.

We could well understand that humans are just trying hard to evolve towards betterment by exploring the hidden intelligence. We all know very well with our open eyes and broadened brain that, the rule of the nature, the exclusive designing of each living beings, the uncontrollable natural behaviors, the unalterable uniqueness of the nature etc. etc are all beyond human intelligence.

We know well that the human "BRAIN" with which humans are progressing and designing mathematical / scientific / logical concepts and theories, is the whole some product that is not developed by humans themselves

We are not blind folded with superstitious belief that "BRAIN OF THE SCIENTISTS" is so designed by the scientists themselves, so as to explore and achieve technological developments.

We theists have accepted to understand the intelligent force, the divine energy that is subtly paving way for technological advancements and leading to destruction through the same, the supreme creator and controller who can alone give peace, pleasure, love and harmony to each human.

We know that money, science, technology etc are all can give us only comfort and fulfill our desires, but can not give us the sense of peace, love, compassion and harmony. These senses are pure and divine and ruled by “GOD” that are all the prerequisites and continues requirements for humans to be humans and get liberated.

We agree that, these senses of peace, love, compassion and harmony prevail among many atheists too and they are too the creation of GOD. And that’s the reason that we consider them no different than us.

Theists have different acceptance & understanding level and perceptions AND Atheist have different.

For Theists “GOD” exists and for Atheists “GOD” doesn’t exist. But for “GOD” both exist and are the same. We present our self to “GOD” as two different groups and not the other way round.

 

[suraju06]

Dear folks,

These are Mr. Nara's words in his post #611 above and my comments. I do not comment on Mr. Nara's posts usually. But this is one of the exceptions.

Charvaka philosophy was systematically annihilated to the extent we have none of the original text extant. The bits and pieces of the text that remain are found only as poorva-paksha in other texts.

If a philosophy has inherent strength it will stand the test of time. If Jain and Budhdhist philosophies, which also do not accept a creator God, have stood the travails of time because of their logical strength there was nothing which stood in the way of Charvaka philosophy. There was only its hollow/empty arguments for it to buckle under the weight of them. However, the Charvaka arguments, though hollow, were based on the acceptance of certain ground rules ( as one can glean from the purva paksha summing up by our great acharyas) whereas the arguments of our present day atheists reminds one of the antics of a drunk monkey bitten by a poisonous wasp ( I am only using an example and do not intend to offend the atheists personally). Most of these arguments are nihilistic in nature and content, dragging every one towards that 'wonderful night' in which 'all cows are black in color'.

The nAstika Kallabahars (Jains or Bouddhas) who once ruled much of southern India for several centuries, a time during which relative peace prevailed, have been demonized and made to look as bandits.

If kalappirars (Kallabahars as given here) are talked about here, the contention is vide off the truth. There is no historical evidence to prove the existence of peace and tranquility during their rule. The only history available is that there is no history about this period and that is why it is called the "dark period". In the almost continuous history of language and culture this is the only interregnum in which there were no literary or cultural outputs, which indicate the quality of the civilization and this is the reason why Kalappirars are demonized by historians.

For all its limitations only scientific process can find an answer to the extent any definitive answer can be found, not from Scriptures.

This argument has been dropped long back by scientists themselves. Considering the fact that I came in only to comment, I do not want to take a lot of space here. I would just reproduce here this.Stress in italics mine:

"In Benjamin Franklin's time the handful of scientists trying to understand electricity could choose their own first principles--indeed had tne researcher might consider attraction to be the most important electrical effect thinking of electricity as a sort of "effluvium" emanating from substances. Another might think of electricity as a fluid , conveyed by conducting material. These scientists could speak almost as easily to laymen as to each other because they had not yet reached a stage where they could take for granted a common , specialized language for the phenoumena they were studying By contrast a 20th century fluid dynamicist could hardly expect to advance knowledge in his field without first adopting a body of terminology and mathematical techniques. In return , unconsciously, he would give up much freedom to question the foundation of his science."

 

[Nara]

....But I would say that, theists have more clarity, understanding and acceptance than atheists and don't require any other Scientist's theories and research works to establish whether God exist or not.

Thanks Ravi....

 

[Nara]

.... This is an unanswered riddle and as expected unanswered riddles have many claimants for a solution..

Dear Subbudu sir, this captures the essence of theist's arguments. From the time humans invented god, it has always resided in the space beyond the frontier of human knowledge. That space is slowly shrinking. Unfortunately, limitations of human ability may never be able to eliminate that space, giving room for god to continue to fascinate the imagination of people, leading some to extreme delusions or worse.

Thanks for your balanced presentation, I appreciate it.

Cheers!

 

[Yamaka]

"The proponents of superstitious beliefs make so much hay from the uncertainties to which science readily admits, it is beyond certainty that they will bring the roof of every building down if QM could say anything positive about the reality of a creator god. The very fact this has not happened is proof positive that the only rational position to take at this point in time is one of technical agnosticism and practical atheism." - Nara wrote.

Very well said.. Thanks.

 

[subbudu1]

This is a lie. I would like you to point out where such rejection was made.

My expectation is better from you. Before nicknaming people as liers please refer to your own statement which is a mis-representation of my own, though I believe it is largely a misunderstanding

Subbudu is not convinced that quantum mechanics is how world behaves.

Further this post is not addressed to me. It is addressed to shiv. So you must check your own source of insecurity.

I understand that all these exchanges sometimes happen in the height of a debate, so let us not digress.

I will discuss your definition of event and observer later. But I understand that you define event as something which actualizes at the point observer steps in. This is in rough set of words. I laid hands to the book you quote but I need to get to the exact definition. In any case this is my understanding of your position. There is more to this concept of event and observer which I will discuss later.

Today I learnt something new, that Heisenberg and Bohr had serious differences on quantum theory. More about this later.

Thanks,

 

[Nara]

....I understand that all these exchanges sometimes happen in the height of a debate, so let us not digress.

Very well handled Subbudu sir, I shall eagerly wait for your posts on this issue.

Cheers!