Materialism is an atheistic philosophy that says that all of reality is reducible to matter and its interactions. It has gained ground because many people think that it’s supported by science. They think that physics has shown the material world to be a closed system of cause and effect, sealed off from the influence of any non-physical realities. Since our minds and thoughts obviously do affect the physical world, it would follow that they are themselves merely physical phenomena.
Quantum mechanics, however, throws a monkey wrench into this simple mechanical view of things. No less a figure than Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism is not “logically consistent with present quantum mechanics.” And on the basis of quantum mechanics, Sir Rudolf Peierls, another great 20th-century physicist, said, “the premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including [his] knowledge, and consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing.”
You have to define "god" if you want an honest answer to your question.
Perhaps for Quantum Mechanics is enough to explain gold instead of god, which is very difficult to define and almost impossible to believe it corresponds to the present image of it given by the religions. For instance, gold is a very difficult metal to understand how it could arise from the stars factory!
Depending on how one defines God, I have an answer. I have been working far too long in fits and starts on an explanation for memory, still the most crucial tabula rasa. Once cracked then the operation of mind and consciousness and a few other phenomena should follow. It seems a number of physicists and neuroscientists consider that the modus operandi of the mind is most likely connected with quantum entanglement, a subject of which I had not even heard when I started working on a theme of similar structures resonating through time a few decades ago. However there are some surprising correlations with my hypothesis and current entanglement experiments which I find encouraging. Furthermore entanglement is a subject which is very much being researched and developed currently, and not before time.
My thesis for the future is that once the Gordian knot of memory has been cleaved apart, then through reverse engineering, it should be possible to develop AI, and if computers can be networked together, then why not separate minds? If so then it might not seem impossible that the result would eventually be a super intelligent system very much the equivalent of God especially if that super intelligence managed to shed corporeality in a manner about which I can offer no conjectures. But the operation of mind and memory is the last great problem for human kind in my book and we might not be that far off in time before palpable steps are made in the right direction.
Some of the latter I optimistically outline on my RG site under the general description of Duplication theory. Thus the answer to the question posed four years ago by Manuel is yes, probably, and if my thesis on mind and memory is way off the mark, then someone else had better come up with an answer before some tin pot autocrat in a fit of pique explodes a dirty fusion bomb, and the wind does the rest. I have to say that I work on my own and am not in academia so tolerance is required should anyone be inclined to check out my thesis. And then since nobody has offered any half viable solution to memory’s operation as far as I am aware, here at least is an attempt.
See
On the Subject of God
By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., July, 1992
This article is reprinted from the Spring 1993 issue of FIDELIO Magazine.
For related articles, scroll down or click here.
📷
Fidelio, Vol. II,No, I. Spring 1993
This issue is not the simple assertion, whether God exists, or not; the immediate question is a far more modest undertaking: By what means might human beings have the capability to know with certainty whether God exists? What aspect of Human intelligence might bear upon such a special quality of knowledge? What relevant form of scientific incompetence, commonplace among academicians, has Dawkins exhibited?
According to the daily London Independent of the most recent April 16, the preceding evening's participants in an Edinburgh (Scotland) international science festival had heard an Oxford University professor of biology describe belief in God as a disorder of the brain analogous explicitly to a transmittable “computer virus.” Oxford's Richard Dawkins' address had included the formulation: “These are arbitrary, hereditary beliefs which people are told at a critical age, passed on from your parents rather like a virus.” He had added: “that 'evolutionary theory' has removed any scientific basis for arguing the existence of God, and said that people who believe in a God who is responsible for the order and beauty of the universe are 'stupid.' ”1
Report of Dawkins' address was relayed to the present writer by Charles B. Stevens of 21st Century Science quarterly. Stevens suggested, that several persons, whom he listed at that time, co-sponsor the submission of a rebuttal of Dawkins to the Independent, to consist essentially of a 1960's ontological proof of the existence of God authored by Princeton University's late Professor Kurt Gödel.2
At first glance, that suggested rebuttal was particularly relevant, since the choice of formulation reported by the Independent might imply to a knowledgeable reader that Dawkins had intended to single out Gödel's 1961 ontological proof for attack. Nonetheless, Gödel's work appeared to be inadequate rebuttal on three counts. Firstly, presently available versions of Gödel's proof add nothing significant to the Classical argument by Plato and Leibniz.3 Secondly, it would be disingenuous not to attack directly the shameless illiteracy of Dawkins' rhetoric; this should be a crucial included point to be submitted in refuting him. Thirdly, the best available argument, which Gödel should have been able to offer, but apparently did not, the Classical argument restated from the standpoint of Cantor's Beiträge,4 deserves to be presented as a supplement to the Classical proofs by Plato and Leibniz.....
https://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/931_subject_god.html
I had the great pleasure of working with Eugene Paul Wigner.
Chuck Stevens facebook charles.stevens.1848
The answer would be:
- Consciousness is fundamental
- Consciousness is non physical
- Consciousness creates the "physical" world as a virtual reality having the complete information to be felt as "material".
. The information as wave-function becomes "real in the physical world" when observed.
- Since consciousness is fundamental, consciousness is God, the creator mind of which we are part.
As God is something that knows everything, it is prohibited by QM though the Heisenberg relation in principle. But one can always imagine it if he needs.
@ Khalid Al-Salhie
God is the Most Important, He is the Only "Infinite", the rest is finished, mortal, incomplete, incapable, etc...!!!
You want to solve a problem which exceeds even our infinite, in a space of very reduced dimension!!! All projections components are nulls, what you want to find!!!
وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَعْمَالُهُمْ كَسَرَابٍ بِقِيعَةٍ يَحْسَبُهُ الظَّمْآنُ مَاءً حَتَّىٰ إِذَا جَاءَهُ لَمْ يَجِدْهُ شَيْئًا وَوَجَدَ اللَّهَ عِندَهُ فَوَفَّاهُ حِسَابَهُ ۗ وَاللَّهُ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ (39) أَوْ كَظُلُمَاتٍ فِي بَحْرٍ لُّجِّيٍّ يَغْشَاهُ مَوْجٌ مِّن فَوْقِهِ مَوْجٌ مِّن فَوْقِهِ سَحَابٌ ۚ ظُلُمَاتٌ بَعْضُهَا فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ إِذَا أَخْرَجَ يَدَهُ لَمْ يَكَدْ يَرَاهَا ۗ وَمَن لَّمْ يَجْعَلِ اللَّهُ لَهُ نُورًا فَمَا لَهُ مِن نُّورٍ (40)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics