God Exists

Argument From Quantum MechanicsMy opponent says that there are some who argue that observation is not practically necessary for the collapse of a wave-function. This seems bizarre, as an observation of some kind is needed (whether conscious, or some other system), or else we do not have quantum mechanics involving wave-function collapse. The interesting point my opponent made was that there are interpretations of quantum mechanics where the wave-function doesn't actually collapse in the traditional sense. This is not true in the Copenhagen interpretation (collapse is real in the traditional sense under this interpretation). The interpretation that has the most support by physicists is the Copenhagen interpretation. The evidence for my statement is the fact that it has been proven by many polls. Here is the most recent[1]: I do not want to just appeal to authority here. I will give good reasons as to why we should adhere to interpretations where collapse is real. Take this experiment for instance:**Quantum Erasure With Causally Disconnected Choice**By physicists: Xiao-song Ma, Johannes Kofler, Angie Qarry, Nuray Tetik, Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow, Thomas Herbst, Lothar Ratschbacher, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Thomas Jennewein, Anton Zeilinger[2]The chief implication of the paper, with regards to our debate is:"No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."Naive realism is the view that reality has concrete existence (particles exist that have definite positions and such) when not being perceived or measured. This is what both the Many-Worlds interpretation, and Bohmian mechanics entails. Thus, this experiment shows that the Copenhagen interpretation is vindicated; wave-function collapse is probably real. Not only that, but scientists have actually captured the wave-function collapse in slow motion[3].Another objection brought up was that there is no good reason to assume that there couldn't be particles and/photons existing outside the universe, which could have collapsed the universe's wave-function. This is a huge mistake. The wave-function of the universe deals with a causally connected space-time region. This means that if there are other regions of space-time which could causally effect our region (our region of space-time since the Big Bang, which excludes any pocket universes spawned after), then they would actually be part of the universal wave-function. However, if there are causally disconnected universes, then they couldn't collapse our universal wave-function anyway (they are causally disconnected after all).Also, the infinite regress isn't just dealing with time, it deals with the idea of an infinite amount of something. Any finite number plus a finite number is always a finite number. If you were going to add up all the universes, there couldn't be an infinite amount. The block universe view was also mentioned, which is completely compatible with my argument as my argument wasn't completely exclusive to the temporal aspect in context. Now, Con says:"Further, there is a way to avoid this regress. First, suppose outside of this universe there exists a physical system which could collapse a wave function that need not be collapsed. Maybe in this other universe, the laws of QM are not applicable, at least not in the same way." - ConThis is ad hoc though, and full of contrived maybes. "Maybe" God planted the fossils and made them so they would be dated wrong, to fool us into thinking evolution is true. Nobody takes this idea seriously because it is merely logically possible. Regardless, this view from Con certianly seems impossible. If the laws of Quantum Mechanics are not applicable in the same way, then there couldn't be a collapse of the wave-function in the same way. "There is no way to know this is false, and therefore, your argument fails" - ConThis assumes that if something is logically possible to the contrary to A, we cannot say A is true. This leads to radical epistemological skepticism (a view no philosopher takes seriously). We would have to say that there is no way to say I am not 100 feet tall, because the demon from the planet Gordoan "could be" fooling us in our measuring ways. Not all truths are logically necessary. Thus, just because it is possible that something is false, that doesn't mean we cannot say with confidence that it is true."There is another possibility. That is that our own observation of the material world creates the past as it were." - ConThis doesn't work for the wave-function of the universe as a whole; collapse must occur by something outside the system. We are a part of the system:"According to the Copenhagen Interpretation (standard Quantum Mechanics), the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured." - Quentin Smith (Philosopher of Physics)[4]My opponent's other objection about an animal collapsing the wave-function, making the term God meaningless, doesn't work for this reason as well."However, how do you know that an immaterial observer even can collapse a wave function by its knowledge? How does a purely immaterial being interact with a material world?" - ConThe Introspection Argument is an argument for Idealism. Under this view, the material world is an illusion and is all mental. This is what solves the interaction problem."A final problem with your argument is that most physicists aren't theists. If it were this simple that our universe needed an observer it would seem that every physicist would be forced to conclude that some sort of god exists." - ConI don't see this as a problem. Perhaps scientists just aren't really taking seriously the philosophical implications of their work. Either way, many scientists only focus on the surface:"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." – Inventor of the Heisenberg Principle, Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) Introspection Argument"You assume that the mind is immaterial without giving argument for it, which means your argument is unfounded."It is self-evident that the mind is immaterial. You cannot weigh a "thought", or cool down a "perception" like you can material things like atoms. "Perhaps, the mind acts as a "formal cause" of actions and the brain as efficient cause" - ConThe brain is made of matter. However, the Introspection Argument shows that matter is an illusion. "Or what if our immaterial mind collapses a wave function within the brain in order to act" - ConThis presupposes matter; what the Introspection Argument shows cannot exist due to the interaction problem. All is mental. "You commit a fallacy of equivocation on "create." In the first instance, you use create to mean some sort of non-realist position, where all that exists is in your mind. This would entail you are deluded as to your sensory perception of some sort." - ConThis is false. All has to be mind because if there is matter, then matter is interacting with mind, but that is impossible because of the interaction problem with substance dualism[5]. The argument shows that the reason we agree upon the same perceptions and cannot change them (I cannot cause the sky to be on fire at will), is because they are grounded in God's perceptions; only he can change them. They cannot be matter, but only mind "stuff". Also, my opponent says I am equivocating, but this is false. The two "creates" are not mutually exclusive. All of Con's objections fail.Sources[1] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...[2] http://arxiv.org...[3] Murch, K. W., Weber, S. J., Macklin, C. & Siddiqi, I. Nature 502, 211–214 (2013)[4] Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325[5] Video Sourcehttp://www.youtube.com...