Thanks for figuring out how to nest quotes.
You are welcome
Sorry, but I don't see where in that wiki article on the uncertainty principle / observer effect it says we are actually creating anything. Changing, yes. But that is not the same as creating the phenomena we are observing.
This article proves my point that by observing something you
could change what you looking at.
Not to choose one of many states, but to
change to a different stateThis proves that you were wrong in saying:
DRY_GIN, I've said this a few times now, but I'll say it one last time as confirmation that you're just a close-minded idiot:
Observation does not and cannot cause anything to exist. Quantum physics states that a particle's current state is indeterminable (not undetermined or non-existent) until measured (observed). What you're saying is not true.
Observation
does cause to exist something new, that without such observation
would NOT BE POSSIBLE to exist at allHere is that part from article you did not noticed:
The people conducting the experiment found that when the sensor was turned off, an interference pattern developed, but when it was turned on, the interference pattern was destroyed.
This you destroyed “pattern” or
did something new to the system just by looking.
So
if you not in denial you should stop repeating yourself and admit that observer could change something he looks at. And changing is
always creating new.
Now next question – to what extend observer can make such changes?
Answer is – where are no limits to it.
- go ahead, prove me if I’m wrong – and please put some wiki links or something, not just your words.
I say by observing in special way – you could create Big Bang for example – Prove me if I’m wrong, but I think if you look at nothing in a way that you understand everything inside this nothing when you will force this nothing to become completely fixed instead of all possible ways it were existed before, so you take all the freedom from this system and this freedom will fire up as energy blast creating Big Bang – what’s wrong with this assumption???
Now regarding confusion between God is part of this universe or not:
I can give an example of how I understand this:
Imagine God have eyes and a brain, if he opens his eyes and look around and start thinking (analyzing or in other words spend his
own energy on what is around him – this same amount of energy come to existence around him. Because when he looks he
is part of what he looks at, energy he spend on looking should be balanced by energy created from vacuum around him – so total energy become the same.
When he close his eyes – he his not a part of the system he was looking before, system remain in existence, and energy law and entropy laws come into place.
At least until he looks again.
And how is your presumed god not part of the system? If he's creating or otherwise interacting with our existence, then how can he be both doing that and apart from it?
How do you resolve that paradox? Can you provide evidence for your solution?
This is not the paradox.
“In the beginning where was a word” – this is how new testimony is started.
I’m not a religious person but from every point of view this “word” is information, you can call it whatever you want, if we imagine information placed in emptiness, this information could not disappear by physics law, and it could only be transformed into energy and later to matter and so on.
Again – if you disagree prove it.
So while not been religious (at least in classical sense) I don’t see any contradictions on how world was initially created by “word” this is all scientifically logical.
But where could be many other explanations including word “Creator” without any contradiction to modern science.
