The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by hazel So what is the alternative? Many worlds? A universe in which every possible outcome occurs in some world or other but only our observations can determine which of those worlds we are currently in? There was a TV show recently called Devs which used this idea. At one point, someone who badly wanted a job was told to stand on the rail of a bridge, from which he would very probably fall to his death. But there would be a world somewhere in which he didn't fall and in that world he would get the job. If he didn't do it, he wouldn't get the job in any world. So he climbed up onto the rail and fell and that was the end of him.

You could study opposing views on QM such as championed by Albert Einstein and Shrodinger but this is a good intro.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVmeOCJjOU

Originally Posted by hazel Fine, but it knocks the crutches out from under Enorbet's position that you shouldn't believe in God because there's no way of showing that He exists. If there's no way of showing anything about physical reality either, and science merely consists of using models that work in practice regardless of what (if anything) they represent, then why not believe in God, which also works in practice for most of the people who do it?

Hello hazel
I don't think that's quite accurate. I really don't implore anyone to "not believe". That's entirely up to you because I see that as speculation and a rather nice one in most folks these days. The problems begin when it stops being just personal spirituality and becomes "a club". That begins to accrete power and we all know power corrupts. "Divine Right" is one of the worst "plagues" to ever infect humans in my book.

Back down to realty, I'm convinced there is Objective Reality. We as humans living on one little podunk planet just haven't explored enough of it yet. I propose just sticking with what we know and expanding but in very small steps instead of attempting great leaps.

There is considerable evidence that, despite how easy it is to imagine that it could be possible, this Universe we find ourselves in is real and not a simulation. However that ultimately doesn't matter since if it is the results are essentially the same. If we suddenly appear (or born) in some Cosmic Video Game what do we do then? It appears to me the only thing to do is discover the rules and "play the game" to the best of our ability. Thankfully, Life or The Simulation, is multi-player so we can work together to amass a body of experience that gets passed down, the "shoulders of giants" as it were.

Of what possible value is it to Hamlet to discover William Shakespeare is "writing his life"? Hamlet's compelling "job" his raison d'etre, assuming he has some modicum of free will, is to decide what to do about his plotting murderous uncle,what he really values most, the memory of his Father; his relationship with his Mother, Ophelia and possibly all women; his allegiance to Denmark; or people he figures close to him or some larger view of people in general.

If, as it is in Shakespeare's Hamlet , the story is already written, there is no free will, there is no choice. It absolutely must play out from beginning to end as written. No matter how many times you read it or even act it out onstage, it must play out essentially as it was or it is no longer "Hamlet". I think there is compelling evidence that we do have some free will. I think it is more limited than many imagine, but everything doesn't appear written in stone. That we can even ask the question "Could this be a simulation?" or "Might this not be real?" seems some evidence in itself. Hamlet absolutely cannot ask that or any other question not already written. He is rather rigidly scripted. If we are "scripted" at all it is an open plot. The End has not yet been written. How would you like your story to read?

Originally Posted by business_kid I don't think so. A scaled up quantum computer is needed!

Meaning you expect that in the process of trying to scale up a quantum computer, we will discover that it's impossible due to some as yet unknown law of physics?

Originally Posted by hazel If there's no way of showing anything about physical reality either, and science merely consists of using models that work in practice regardless of what (if anything) they represent, then why not believe in God, which also works in practice for most of the people who do it?

I may not take quarks (which I cannot experience) seriously, but I do believe in tables and chairs (which I can). Similarly, I accept the experience of gods but "God" I'm not so sure about.

Many things are proven not to be a scam (germs and soap) many things are... why so many religions and beliefs, opinions and scams every one of them!

But hay, everyone is also a genius at something just don't judge the fish on their ability to climb.

Originally Posted by ntubski Meaning you expect that in the process of trying to scale up a quantum computer, we will discover that it's impossible due to some as yet unknown law of physics?

Am I still being argued with here? I thought everyone was happily off in the ozone tossing ideas about quite happily…

Have you a link to a Quantum computer I can buy?

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann I may not take quarks (which I cannot experience) seriously, but I do believe in tables and chairs (which I can). Similarly, I accept the experience of gods but "God" I'm not so sure about.

No offense meant David but that view can be dangerous as we are seeing a lot these days. I'm referring to the difference between primary and secondary experience and how many find themselves so in doubt and confusion over both the quantity and quality of secondary, they fall back to "what I can see with my own eyes". This sort of "thinking" can lead to Flat Earthers, Evolution deniers, etc. and is a rtaher major problem these days. You actually can experience quarks but only in the secondary category. Unaided senses are good but records show that eye-witness accounts vary widely and sometimes wildly, so they aren't as reliable without the application of critical thinking as many would like to believe.

On the flip side, any apparatus that translates for us, whether an odometer, a speedometer, an oscilloscope or an "atom smasher" likewise requires critical thought to get the most reliable data calibrated and sifted but because they can be duplicated and run repeatedly and checked they can be far more reliable than primary experience, far more than many these days are willing to recognize. In short, if you want to enough to do the work, there are various ways to experience quarks and to a level of confidence many orders of magnitude better calibrated and checked than anything likely direct in most people's lives.

Originally Posted by business_kid Have you a link to a Quantum computer I can buy?

Close as of March 3, 2020.... try https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2020/0...-computer.html

Originally Posted by business_kid Am I still being argued with here? I thought everyone was happily off in the ozone tossing ideas about quite happily… Have you a link to a Quantum computer I can buy?

I'm only questioning your claim that "the physics shows it is impossible to scale quantum computers up". As far as I know, it remains to be seen whether or not it will be possible to scale quantum computers up. And there is currently no physics-based reasoning to say it shouldn't be possible.

I'm not going to argue physics of quantum computers on a faith & religion megathread. The quantum bit has to reside at or neas 0ºK - 1ºK, in a bubble of ≅absolute zero. The electronics have to exist outside the bubble. There are pretty blindingly obvious difficulties scaling that up to me. Show me the hardware, or do your own research.

Remember when cars/computers/airplanes were something "you cannot buy"?

I guess I wasn't specific and clear enough....

---- CLICK THIS, BUY THIS HONEYWELL QUANTUM COMPUTER ----

Ooh. TIL that Honeywell is still relevant.

It's a bit off topic but are we talking here about the kind of computer that you could actually have on your desk (if not now, then in a few years time)? Or is this something that can only operate in a tank of liquid nitrogen?

Originally Posted by hazel It's a bit off topic but are we talking here about the kind of computer that you could actually have on your desk (if not now, then in a few years time)? Or is this something that can only operate in a tank of liquid nitrogen?

The latter (might be liquid helium instead of nitrogen though?). I think IBM has one connected to the internet, so you can submit programs and get back results.