When I read Shrodinger's example, I simply felt he was offering nothing more than a pro or con theory. Science being theoretical all things are possible or impossible.
I have problems with both of your statements, Lois. I don't know quite what you mean by 'pro or con theory'. Shrodinger.offered his scenario as definite and not just a possibility, as I think you're saying. Science is certainly theoretical but also practical - strongly so. " all things are possible or impossible - I don't know what you mean by this. If you'll expand on that some I'll tell you whether I disagree or not. To anyone following these discussions, two things: Somehow I feel I've been put in a position of being authoritative on these matters. I am not. My knowledge of physics is just a smattering of this and that I picked up in pursuit of my mathematics studies.No doubt a real physicist could put me in my place. I very much appreciate the discussion. SeniorsOnly might be one of the few places on the web that it could even take place.
A word about the concept of observation. In the macro world observation may indeed be passive and.not affect what is being observed. In the micro world things are different. To observe a subatomic particle you must hit it with something or otherwise interfere with it. The key word here is 'interference'. Here, observation is not passive but active and the act of observing changes the observed phenomenom. This is why the double slit paradox is not really a paradox, as I might expand on later.
Okay, let us start anew but from a different angle and through a larger lens. The normal everyday laymen would look at their surrounding in their homes and see nearly everything as static. The couch, the chair, the pictures on the wall and even the windows are static unless someone physically moves them. That is a perceived reality and may I say that a majority of people would not only believe it to be true but know it to be true. They could take time lapse photographs of those objects as proof that they do not move which further solidifies their belief. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you may view it, we have another group of people who can look at the same objects and know that nothing is static but is in constant flux at all times. Everything is moving. We / They believe that the proofs are in the math which makes this group’s perception of reality totally different than the first group. Of course, from that basic source we extend into other areas like space, time, consciousness, entanglement etc. Do forgive me, I digress. Do note, both of those groups are viewed through a wide lens and have 2 distinct differing realities but if we use a smaller lens and view each human we’d find that each person has their own, very distinct, individual “grasp” if you will, of anything they / we may believe to be true. Just as one group knows that the picture never moves and another knows that it is in constant movement, each person has his or her own perception of their surroundings whether it be a room, the sky, the world or the universe and most certainly, about an Eternal Consciousness, or God as it were. My goodness, on the subject of God alone, we all have a different perception of what or who God is and no one’s perception is the same as another’s but to each of us, the image or mental stylings are the basis for the rest of our dealings with whom we hold as a reality. Much depends on the proofs that we are willing or need to accept to ascertain our individual realities but still, though we all come up with the fact that God exists, that existence and form is different for each and every person.
OK, Bobby. I'm getting you finally. Here is where I differ. The proofs we are 'willing' to accept - I just don't get that. All evidence may not be equal but it should all be considered You say that you believe in God because of multiple evidences. if I hearing you right.Yet, how can we find evidence for the supernatural? By its very definition the supernatural exists beyond evidence. Does the supernatural shift between being supernatural and just plain natural? Something like this needs to happen for it to leave evidence of itself. I don't know if I'm stating that clearly enough, but that's the best I can do now. Another related issue ( and again I'm not arguing against a belief in God. I don't know enough to do that. ) is the one of evidence vs. inspiration. One person might arrive at a belief in God because he sees evidence of.God in the world. Another might not rely on evidence at all, but believe God has inspired him to faith.. One relies on his internal, rational cognitive abilities, the other on outside sources. One of the implications of this, if I'm not taking it way too far, is that it's almost beyond our control whether we believe or not, reasons being that the outside source of inspiration may.never visit us or, in the first case,. we may be simply too stupid to see the evidence of God with our internal abilities. I bring this stuff up, even if some of it is offline of our discussion of individual realities, because I'm interested in your take.You're informed and articulate, as I try to be but.often am not.
I thought I'd simplified the stance I, and many others take. I guess not. At any rate, Ward, I am not going to get into a scientific debate on a forum such as this. Nor am I going to mention whether or not God exists. I am here for some enjoyment. Sorry I even responded at all to this thread.
I'm sorry you feel that way, Lois. If I've violated some forum protocol, please let me know what it was and I'll try not to do it again. What is this stance you speak of? Was it your opinion about Shrodinger or another thing? I'm definitely missing something. I, too, am here for enjoyment and if I've spoiled yours in any way, I'm so sorry.
Maybe for a newcomer I've posted too may comments on too may things. I think I'll back off and be quiet for a few days.
You do not need to rest unless you really want to. One thing you can count on when it comes to this forum is that we (for the most part) do enjoy a good conversation but as in all conversations, even among good friends, there’s going to be some dissent every once in a while. Off the top of my head I can’t think of anyone here who is particularly mean spirited, even in the hot topic threads but everyone does have their own opinions which are highly valued but often taken in ways that they are not intended. Of course, there are times when it’s taken exactly as it is intended and if the intent isn’t good, we have moderators or rather, “Greeters” and an Administrator to solve those problems. Bottom line, converse, enjoy and above all, after the smoke clears do know that most of us are friends here and very willing to make new ones.
Don’t have a coronary on us Hal. He took his sabbatical and is posting some good content and building a couple of new threads. All is well.