Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....the strong and weak atomic forces all required were apparently also ESTABLISHED with the Big Bang from the "Singularity" in those brief moments. ...”
I could be wrong here because I am not an expert but I think “ ESTABLISHED” may be the wrong word here. It may have been 'inevitable' that the forces that exist would exist and exist the way the ...[text shortened]... e perplexity of many disgruntled hard-minded physicists. ...”
why “ disgruntled” ?
It astounds me first that both yourself and tw fail to acknowledge in any serious way the immense discussion amongst scientists as to the apparent connection of consciousness with the collapse of superposition. a superposition that IS commonly explained as the probabilities of wave equations. Where are these "probabilities"? And where is the superposition? It is the fact that underlies the phenomenon of quantum tunnelling phenonenon, being used more and more in applied science, wherein particles get through impenetrable barriers, by correctly appearing on the other side in relation to its probability according to the equations.
Where is this superposition that apparently arises from wave equations?
I am definitely vague when I refer to it, not only because its nature still has not been established scientifically, but also the best examinations of the problem by scientists themselves describe them as "neither there" nor "not there". THIS IS AN OBSERVED PHENOMENON, NOT A THEORY.
In chemistry it has been shown that this very property of "neither there, nor not there" is required for molecular bonding. I expect you do know that electrons are not at all like little "planets" going round the nucleus in nicely described rings and planes. Its impossible to actually locate them at all, but we know they are there somewhere. This is exactly in accord with the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna's exegesis of the necessity for "emptiness" for things to manifest.
The possibility that there is some form of guiding or holonomic "field similar to the qualities of a "mind" IS A THEORY but, contrary to your light dismissal of the whole endeavour, such theories have been discussed in detail and extensively by such as Bohm, Penrose and Pribram and many others. I don't say whichever particular theories are "right" but simply it is ingenuous of you both to skirt or pretend that there is no problem really and can be easily dismissed. You are both failing to show any ability to grapple with the conundrums other than vague disparaging statements.
There is every indication about the weird behaviour of the wave-particle very definitely made by such giants as Wheeler and Planck who grappled with the apparent role of some sort of consciousness connection of the observer.
You may not agree but please do not dismiss the principal discussion in quantum physics with such aplomb or perhaps possible lack of acquaintance with the discussion.
You totally ignore the proven phenomenon of non-locality. How do you fit that into your materialist viewpoint please? Have a go at it, eh? Why and how does this phenomenon exist in a materialistic Newtonian universe? This attitude of total denial of the problem, often by disparagement, epitomises what is known as "shut up and just keep calculating" attitude of materialist scientists because it challenges their whole mechanistic paradigm. It will come down eventually.
Just what is your materialistic explanations of how totally insentient electrons etc change their behaviour according to the intentions of the experiment? They even appear to "know" when they are being tricked into being observed without their "knowing". Its even telling that such experiments have been pursued, do you not think?
How do particles "know" what the other particles fired separately through slit experiments have done, leaving a wave pattern, that normally requires present interacting waves, even though they were fired slowly one after the other? Or else how has one particle gone through two splits at once, one of the other posits?
If its not connected to a mindlike property inherent in existence then what is your easily understood 'cause' of such mysterious behaviours?
The four forces are pretty obviously inevitable, but does that mean they were around before the Big Bang? Where? You have not addressed the time-space conundrum either.
The other thing is the splitting of hairs over when cellular processes and DNA came into being. The point is that such things arose from atoms of one nucleus and one electron, and later, nothing but rocks, and then the essential water. Living and sentient matter came to be from originally totally inert rocks and gases. And if you do not find that amazing, even by the processes of materialistic evolution, I think you are missing out.