[Rich]

The new Testament' s a silly joke. Its authors can't even agree on the most basic details. Where was Jesus conceived? Did he ever live in Egypt? Did Jesus institute the Eucharist at the beginning of his ministry or at the end. Was Jesus baptised by John the baptist? Who were his closest disciples? Who were the twelve Apostles? Was Jesus last supper a Paschal meal or not? Its like the most important person in your life dies and you can't remember whether your last meal with him was Christmas dinner or not. After he died did he appear to the eleven (not Judas) as in Acts or to the Twelve as in Paul's letter?

If Jesus did exist he must have been the most unmemorable bland nobody that ever existed.

[Potemkin]

The reverse is also true. Art and religion are capable of leading to modes of understanding not encompassed by empirical induction. They are also capable of radical deception. Funny, ain't it?

Indeed. Science gives us knowledge without understanding, and religion gives us understanding without knowledge. Funny old world, ain't it...?

[Donna]

Such writings only have value for what they tell us about the nature of the human condition, not about the nature of God. Perhaps this is what it's all about anyway.

If the human being is understood as a microcosmic image of God, then it would reveal more about the nature of God than you would think. As Eliphas Levi said, "Man is the God of the world, and God is the man of Heaven."

The Human Body in Symbolism by Manly P. Hall

[Saeko]

Actually, there is. Scientists and mathematicians often know that something is true without actually understanding it. For example, fundamental particles behave either as particles or as waves, depending on the experimental apparatus with which we observe them. Nobody even pretends to understand this, though we know (from observation and from the mathematical logic of our theories) that it must be true.

That's just pop-sci nonsense. Of course physicists understand quantum mechanics. But some people have a philosophical prejudice that a particle must always be either a wave or a particle, and it is their attempts to reconcile QM with their prejudices that leads to confusion. Quantum systems of one particle are described by simple wave functions. And a wave can be more wave-like or more particle-like depending on its state.

[Potemkin]

That's just pop-sci nonsense. Of course physicists understand quantum mechanics. But some people have a philosophical prejudice that a particle must always be either a wave or a particle, and it is their attempts to reconcile QM with their prejudices that leads to confusion. Quantum systems of one particle are described by simple wave functions. And a wave can be more wave-like or more particle-like depending on its state.

I see. Then how do you explain the so-called 'classical cut', and what do you imagine triggers the collapse of the wavefunction whenever an observation is made? Human consciousness? The will of God? Magic?

[Saeko]

I see. Then how do you explain the so-called 'classical cut', and what do you imagine triggers the collapse of the wavefunction whenever an observation is made? Human consciousness? The will of God? Magic?

What the hell is a "classical cut"?

I see. Then how do you explain the so-called 'classical cut', and what do you imagine triggers the collapse of the wavefunction whenever an observation is made? Human consciousness? The will of God? Magic?

Quantum Decoherence

[Potemkin]

What the hell is a "classical cut"?

It is the 'cut', or conceptual discontinuity, between the experimental apparatus (which is presumed to be in a classical state) and the quantum system it is observing (which is presumed to be in a superposition of quantum states until the act of observation using the classical apparatus collapses the wavefunction). Without the 'classical cut', no observation would be possible, because the wavefunction of the quantum system would not collapse.

Quantum Decoherence

So you think the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the answer...?

Ah yes, here we are....

However, decoherence by itself may not give a complete solution of the measurement problem, since all components of the wave function still exist in a global superposition, which is explicitly acknowledged in the many-worlds interpretation. All decoherence explains, in this view, is why these coherences are no longer available for inspection by local observers. To present a solution to the measurement problem in most interpretations of quantum mechanics, decoherence must be supplied with some nontrivial interpretational considerations (as for example Wojciech Zurek tends to do in his Existential interpretation). However, according to Everett and DeWitt the many-worlds interpretation can be derived from the formalism alone, in which case no extra interpretational layer is required.

Quantum decoherence merely explains why we do not observe quantum interference effects on a macroscopic scale. It does not solve the so-called "measurement problem". When we make an observation, the quantum system we are observing suddenly changes from a superposition of quantum states (each with a different value for the observable) to a state with a single value for the observable. Why? How does it do this? What triggers the collapse of the wavefunction to a single value for the observable (a single value, moreover, which seems to be randomly selected, with a probability determined by the modulus squared of the normalised wavefunction). Quantum decoherence still leaves us with multiple possible values for the observable. Yet we know that we only ever observe one value for the observable. Why? How?

[annatar1914]

What happens if you pick the wrong God, and the true God happens to be a jealous God, who prefers Atheists to idolaters?

Cute.

Actually I think that would depend on whether the person was an Atheist (remember, my idea that most of us are to one degree or other in our natural state), or an Anti-Theist (and that person is simply pathologically against the very Idea of God).

Which one are you?

Recall, the real 'wager' is 'infinite gain versus infinite loss', or nothing, if the Atheist or Anti-Theist is right. Infinite gain=acceptance, if not understanding of one's Creator, and infinite joy with Him after death. Infinite loss=rejection of eternity and it's meaning, which is the torment of Hell, the sign of the inability to love, something which happens-if the Theists are right- if people chose willingly the 'nothing' option. Nothing='something' which only applies if the Atheist or Anti-Theist is right. But if the Atheist or Anti-Theist only realizes that they 'lose' nothing by acceptance, even if they're proven right later....

[mikema63]

potemkin, aren't you a physicist?

[Saeko]

It is the 'cut', or conceptual discontinuity, between the experimental apparatus (which is presumed to be in a classical state) and the quantum system it is observing (which is presumed to be in a superposition of quantum states until the act of observation using the classical apparatus collapses the wavefunction). Without the 'classical cut', no observation would be possible, because the wavefunction of the quantum system would not collapse.

Ok, but what does that have to do with anything?

Quantum Decoherence
So you think the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the answer...?

Ah yes, here we are....

Quantum Decoherence by itself does not solve the measurement problem. However, I think that wave-function collapse is simply an approximation to whatever is actually going on, and that quantum decoherence is then the real reason that we observe that the macroscopic world is classical.

[annatar1914]

The new Testament' s a silly joke.

No.

Its authors can't even agree on the most basic details.

If they did, folks like you would-in your 'a priori' bad faith against Christianity-accuse them of suspicious conspiratorial agreement, would you not? Don't lie, you would and you know it.

Where was Jesus conceived?

Wherever Mary was.

Did he ever live in Egypt?

Yes, after the events in Bethlehem.

Did Jesus institute the Eucharist at the beginning of his ministry or at the end.

Yes and no, both really.

Was Jesus baptised by John the baptist?

Yes....

Who were his closest disciples?

Saints Peter, James, and John.

Who were the twelve Apostles?

Twelve pretty ordinary, even stupid, venal, obnoxious guys (at first), to show that God's strength is perfected in weakness, so none should have reason to boast of God's gifts.

Was Jesus last supper a Paschal meal or not?

No, it wasn't, but the Pasch was a shadow and symbol of the Last Supper.

Its like the most important person in your life dies and you can't remember whether your last meal with him was Christmas dinner or not.

No, it isn't.

After he died did he appear to the eleven (not Judas) as in Acts or to the Twelve as in Paul's letter?

Another misrepresentation. Acts covered when Jesus appeared to the Eleven, who were 'Eleven' because they hadn't replaced Judas yet, and St. Paul's letter covers the appearance to the Twelve, who were 'Twelve' and no longer 'Eleven' after St. Matthias had been chosen to replace Judas.

If Jesus did exist he must have been the most unmemorable bland nobody that ever existed.

If you've come out of this exchange having only lost what was once my high respect for you, than you'll be well off, and I hope for your sake that this is the case. As it is, I find your Anti-Christianity rather juvenile, and you've thus shrank considerably in my estimation.

[ComradeTim]

Nice dodge....

[Potemkin]

Ok, but what does that have to do with anything?

The point is that the "classical cut" is arbitrary. It is a conceptual discontinuity in quantum theory (or, more accurately, in our interpretation of quantum theory). In other words, we don't understand how we get from the quantum world to the quasi-classical world which we see around us, other than by imposing an arbitrary "classical cut". This is the equivalent of saying, "...and then magic happens...."

Quantum Decoherence by itself does not solve the measurement problem. However, I think that wave-function collapse is simply an approximation to whatever is actually going on, and that quantum decoherence is then the real reason that we observe that the macroscopic world is classical.

In other words, we don't understand quantum theory, which is the point I was trying to make. We know quantum theory, and it is the most accurate scientific theory ever devised, but we cannot say that we understand it. This is my point.

@Mike: In a previous life, I studied nuclear physics at postgrad level, and obtained an MPhil. I then switched to film studies (lol!), in which I obtained a PhD. I therefore have some understanding of theoretical physics.

[Saeko]

In other words, we don't understand quantum theory, which is the point I was trying to make. We know quantum theory, and it is the most accurate scientific theory ever devised, but we cannot say that we understand it. This is my point.

No, we understand the theory itself. The problem is that we do not yet know exactly how or why a wave function collapses (if it does at all) since the process is unobservable.

[Potemkin]

No, we understand the theory itself. The problem is that we do not yet know exactly how or why a wave function collapses (if it does at all) since the process is unobservable.

We know the theory, yet we cannot be said to understand it. Why does matter, with its observable attributes, have only a tendency to exist and seems to require the act of observation in order to have actual existence? Why is this tendency to exist expressed in the form of a probability wave? And what on Earth is a wave of probability anyway? We have knowledge, but no real understanding.

[quetzalcoatl]

Scientific knowledge is riven with discontinuities at every level. How do quarks integrate with molecules? Gravity and electrodynamics? Determinism and thermodynamics? Molecules and anticipatory systems (biology)?. Nature, as we experience it, is continuous and without arbitrary borders - science is not. This is not a knock on science, only a recognition of the limits of the analytic method.

If I take a hammer and smash the watch, do I understand the watch? Perhaps, but only if I can put the pieces back together.

[Potemkin]

Scientific knowledge is riven with discontinuities at every level. How do quarks integrate with molecules? Gravity and electrodynamics? Determinism and thermodynamics? Molecules and anticipatory systems (biology)?. Nature, as we experience it, is continuous and without arbitrary borders - science is not. This is not a knock on science, only a recognition of the limits of the analytic method.

If I take a hammer and smash the watch, do I understand the watch? Perhaps, but only if I can put the pieces back together.

As Einstein put it: "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison."

That pretty much sums it up.

[mikema63]

Molecules and anticipatory systems (biology)?.

Actually our understanding of this is quite good in most cases (with gaps obviously for certain mechanism but we have no indication that we wouldn't be able to figure it out), the main problem in biology is figuring out how consciousness works.

[Saeko]

We know the theory, yet we cannot be said to understand it. Why does matter, with its observable attributes, have only a tendency to exist and seems to require the act of observation in order to have actual existence? Why is this tendency to exist expressed in the form of a probability wave? And what on Earth is a wave of probability anyway? We have knowledge, but no real understanding.

The theory is not supposed to explain the things it uses to explain the phenomena it is supposed to explain. That is an issue of not knowing, not a lack of understanding.

[Potemkin]

The theory is not supposed to explain the things it uses to explain the phenomena it is supposed to explain. That is an issue of not knowing, not a lack of understanding.

No, I think it is a problem with any possible interpretation of the theory itself. As I said, the "measurement problem" means that we cannot understand how the quasi-classical world we see around us results from the quantum theory which describes the behaviour of subatomic particles. Quantum decoherence merely explains why we don't observe quantum interference effects on a macroscopic scale; it doesn't explain why we measure only one (random) value for a given observable rather than the ensemble of multiple values predicted by quantum theory, other than by imposing a post-hoc and arbitrary "classical cut". We know that quantum theory is 'true', in the sense that it correctly predicts phenomenal observations to an unprecedented level of accuracy, but we cannot say that we actually understand it. We have to impose non-trivial layers of interpretation on top of the theory, in a rather ad hoc fashion, to be able to make any sense out of it.

The point of all this, of course, is to underline my point that we can know something to be true, without necessarily being able to understand it or interpret it. It is possible, in principle, for knowledge without understanding to exist. And vice versa.