God Exists

Argument From Quantum MechanicsI already proved in my last round that the interpretations that don't entail real collapse are false. Thus, mentioning other interpretations doesn't harm my case. "So even though it may be the correct way to look at the results of QM, you haven't shown that it is." - ConYes I have (perhaps my opponent missed it). Interpretations where there is no real wave-function collapse entail naive realism, because the particles exist and have definite positions even when not perceived or measured if naive realism is true:"(Naïve Realism) veridical experiential episodes have mind-independent objects and features as constituents."[1] The experiment I cited shows that naive realism is false. Here it is again:**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"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."[2]This rules out interpretations where there is no real wave-function collapse. Therefore, saying I haven't proven my case is strange indeed.P1: If the wave-function collapse is not real, then naive realism is trueP2: Naive Realism is not trueC: Therefore, the wave-function collapse is realThis is a knockdown argument (it is valid Modus Tollens, and the premises are true); Con hasn't even attempted to refute it. "Second, it is entirely possible that we act as the observers of the function of the universe." - ConNot really. Something outside the system has to collapse the wave-function of the universe, we are part of the system. Therefore, we are not sufficient to collapse the wave-function of the universe. "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)[3]Here is a quote from physicist Alexander Vilenkin:"The orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, which requires an external observer to perform measurements on the system..." - Alexander Vilenkin[4]I already showed the problems with other interpretations of quantum mechanics. Therefore, we should accept the Copenhagen Interpretation. However, this means that something outside the system had to collapse the wave-function, since we are part of the system (not outside it), then we are not sufficient to bring about the universe in context. "It appears as though if you are correct, the physicist should see the obvious necessity of a conscious observer to collapse the wave function of the universe and posit some sort of immaterial, outside the universe, consciousness. Quentim Smith himself who you quote is in fact an atheist."This is because Quentin Smith adheres to the Bohmian interpretation. Since this entails naive realism, and I already showed an experiment that rules that out; Quentin Smith is wrong on that account. My opponent has to understand that this experiment is a very recent breakthrough experiment (from 2012). Also, it doesn't matter if most scientists realize the philosophical implications of their work or not. God exists based on my argument. The fact that other scientists cannot see it doesn't undermine my case one bit. This is just an appeal to authority. Regardless, physicist Sean Carrol explains why many scientists can have a popular opinion which may be wrong:"It is the difference between being a race car driver and a mechanic. In order to drive the car really well and really fast, you don't necessarily need to know all of its inner workings." - Sean CarrolNot all scientists really think deeply about the implications of certain results. If they did, they would know that God exists. "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) This argument that if I was right, more scientists would agree is a cop out. You cannot ignore a sound argument in favor of popularity."What I did was provide logical alternatives that do not involve delusion or anything like that. Therefore, these might be true, we might find out they are true, and they involve no delusion or extreme skepticism." - ConI showed that we have scientific reasons to accept the Copenhagen interpretation. Under this interpretation, something external is needed to collapse the wave-function of the universe. Therefore, the possibility that we can retro-cause this to happen is false. We are part of the system, not outside it; we cannot have been the cause of the collapse of the wave-function of the universe. Thus, these "possibilities" my opponent mentions aren't even really possibilities. Either way, all the evidence we have shows that particles can only exist if a wave-function collapses (by consciousness, or other particles and/or photons). This seems to lead to an infinite regress without consciousness to stop it. There is no evidence that anything needs to collapse to have consciousness. Thus, we can be confident in saying that a conscious observer stops the infinite regress, but not some other classical system. This is why my argument for God still works. Now, not much in life is 100% certain, I did demonstrate my case sufficiently however."Where you go wrong is that this argument shows that you can never count to or reach infinity. Not however that it cannot exist." - ConWe should take Occam's Razor seriously. We only need to assume this universe, and an external conscious observer to collapse the wave-function (2 entities). Assuming an infinite amount of universes is multiplying entities beyond necessity. Also, the idea of an infinite amount of universes is absurd. Someone won the lottery 10 times in a row? Well, it is bound to happen at least once if there are an infinite amount of universes, so we shouldn't suspect foul play! This seems outrageous. Either way, the existence of an "amount" of something, presupposes that if someone was there, they could count them, even if nobody is. The reason that person would never reach infinity; is that it cannot exist."Mathemeticians discuss infinities all the time, as do physicists who postulate infinite universes, an infinitely large universe, and not so much anymore but in the past an infinitely old universe." - ConThey must have never heard of Hilbert's Hotel[5]. The idea of an actual infinite amount of things leads to logical and metaphysical absurdities. Take ∞ - ∞ for instance, and other such nonsense. Introspection ArgumentCon's only objection is that there are "possible" solutions to the interaction problem. However, consciousness being just a formal cause won't work, because if matter exists, then I am controlling it using sufficient causation (not just formal causation). Formal causation is still interaction regardless, so it doesn't dodge the problem. All these other solutions are bound to fail, because the immaterial doesn't share any properties with the material which would metaphysically allow for interaction. If they did share a property, then they aren't really two fundamentally different substances; substance dualism is still false. Property dualism is problematic as well, it violates parsimony (which should be taken seriously), and it entails that material and mental properties are epistemically connected, but this is false[6]:The resolution has been established.Sources[1] http://intl-analysis.oxfordjournals.org...[2] http://arxiv.org...[3] Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325[4] Many Worlds In One, p. 115[5] Video Source[6] Video Source 2 http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...