Since Quantum Mechanics destroys the materialistic theory of a "mechanical", self-sustaining universe requiring no outside help, has Einstein's theory of relativity (along with most of his work) become completely obsolete? How can "classical physics" still exist in a universe that's so clearly defined by Quantum Physics?
Also looking for more books that show how quantum mechanics strongly points to the existence of God. Thanks.
>Also looking for more books that show how quantum mechanics strongly points to the existence of God.
Geg, how about starting with Calculus 1 and a first semester physics book on mechanics, brainlet?
God?what God. Quantum mechanics points not to God,but Buddhism. Check for your self
Ce n'est pas un argument.
Any person of deep philosophical contemplation and firm reason will find that Buddhism is nothing but a shallow, meaningless pseudo-philosophy with no profound wisdom or innovation of thought.
Nothing in your post makes any sense.
>Any person of deep philosophical contemplation and firm reason will find that Buddhism is nothing but a shallow, meaningless pseudo-philosophy with no profound wisdom or innovation of thought.
>Also looking for more books that show how quantum mechanics strongly points to the existence of God. Thanks.
Why? So you can indulge in your confirmation bias?
>Quantum mechanics proves there's a conscious, unpredictable force behind subatomic interactions in the universe.
>Quantum mechanics proves that Einstein's theory of relativity is now trash, and the universe isn't some sort of "self-sustaining machine" with no need of "outside" interference
>Please suggest books for further exploration
What could possibly be hard to understand?
>Quantum mechanics proves there's a conscious, unpredictable force behind subatomic interactions in the universe.
I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what quantum mechanics is.
It's not some sort of biased jump towards a belief that I desire. People who pretend that QM doesn't point to an external force having influence on the universe is the definition of disingenuous.
How? Why would it have to be external, and furthermore why would it have to be conscious?
>it's "quantum mechanics """""prove""""" that god exists" season 4 episode 7
Because it changes its subatomic interactions in ways that can't be predicted off past data, and is influenced by human observation of the phenomena.
It shows not only that the universe can never be fully understood, and all attempts to do so have ended in failure; but that humans influence subatomic interactions, despite us desiring for that not to be so because it complicates our understanding.
and how does that point to existence of Gd?
dude, if you want to believe in god, then it's your own fucking problem. I understand you completely, a human truly needs something to believe in, but grounding your beliefs by means of subject you have no experience in, with help of buzzwords like QM and other sophistry is really fucking disgusting and stupid.
There's, ultimately, no other proof of god's existence than one's feelings. You feel that god exists? -- Good then. Now scoot.
Now that's what I call disingenuous.
The more nervously inclined should be held speculatively, in that necessity trumps curiosity.
To add in attendence to topic, consider the quantum enigma in relation to the statement above.
>hurr durr I can't hear you
dare to explain your vision of god supported by qm then?
>The more nervously inclined should be held speculatively, in that necessity trumps curiosity.
What does this mean? Practicality overrides theoretical speculation when one determines how they should view the universe?
What if one can't fully have a stronger understanding of reality if they're ignorant of the more incomprehensible workings of the universe? Wouldn't that make aiming for mere practicality to be impractical?
> conscious
not even close
behavior of any conscious animal or person can absolutely be predicted by past data. something that is absolutely random you cannot predict. that implies no consciousness.
and just because something changes based on observation doesn't imply consciousness either. to measure something you have to effect it in some way.
Observing a phenomenon is changing it in Quantum Mechanics.
And just because you can predict future patterns of behavior in an individual human by knowing his past, doesn't mean you could predict future actions of a conscious, supernatural force. Nor is the inability to predict future actions of such a force a sign it has no consciousness.
I think there is a science in feeling.
Humans might have an instric notion of, what logic should be a derivation of.
Also, we should be able to key into states of our existence that we see fit based on what we perceive life to be. In that, i can pick up a ball, drop a ball and never have a ball all at the same time.
As well, a paranoid view of existing on a timeline and a striving for an articulation of what it is, is directly related to the finding of a solution. More, the driving factor.
I don't understand.
>it changes its subatomic interactions in ways that can't be predicted off past data
not unless you keep rerunning the experiment
Fuck off to Veeky Forums you moron.
Can somebody explain the OP image to somebody who barely has any idea on QM etc etc?
Theory of relativity suggests a "closed-circuit" universe with no need for a god, since is sustains itself. Quantum Mechanics completely blows that out of the water.
So Heisenberg was saying that since QM strongly points to the existence of God, he would ask God in the afterlife why would he create a universe where it appears it has no need of external forces, despite the fact it clearly does.