/sci/ - Science & Math

[Tautoulogic No.2249504]

1/4
Why do all of you guys keep denying that souls do exist ?
Even with strong (scientific) indications for it.

You are probebly the same guys ruling out the possibility of a god and free will.
Did you guys even read a sceintific article scince the late 70`s ? ? ?

First of all lets see how a soul can be defied...
A dictionary will tell how the word soul is commonly used and what people exacly mean when referring to it.
We see the word has many meanings.
The idea of a soul is deeply rooted in society becaus it is a fundemantal part of christianity, judaism and islam.

I like this defenition most:

soul (s??l)
1. the spirit or immaterial part of man

So whenever i use the word soul in this thread i mean:
>soul = immaterial part of a human/ other being.

[Tautoulogic No.2249507]

2/4
QM has revealed that matter is not made out of some tiny tiny bits of matter, it is something much more complex.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Just pointing out here, scince we barely know what the universe/matter is made of it is retarded to rule out the possebilety of a soul.

I am not here to agree a consensus on what coases the wave form of particles to collapse. And don`t claim to know all about the sceince of quantum mechanics.
I`m just repeating what prominent sceintists already concluded.
So if you self-declared QM specialists think it`s a rediculous idea, faggory, new age bullshit, popsceince, impossible, should kill myself etc... just contact these prominent researchers in stead of ruining this thread.

Anyway pretty much all quantum physicist think copenhagen interpretation (which implies an immaterial element of an intelligent obeserver) is most likely.
Because that`s where modern QM is based on.

[citations]
>According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997[7], the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.
>Wigner designed a though experiment to illustrate that consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement process.
>it is an extension of the Schrödinger's cat experiment
[/citations]

See the copenhagen interpretation suggests the collapse of particle in it`s wave form is not ultimately caused by interaction with surrounded particle`s,
But ultimately collapses because of observation by a living being (interaction with a particle that has been/is going to be observed by a living being).

[No.2249508]

Cool evidence you have there.
/trolled

[Tautoulogic No.2249509]

3/4
>The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies(or suggests) that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

So as long as there`s no interaction with particle`s that never did interact with an intellegent observer, the cat would technically still be in a closed system.

Although a lot of interactions take place, The cat would still be in superposition as long as it`s not obseved (by an intelligen being) AND doesn`t interact with a particle that deterministicly traces back to an intelligent observer.

note the last requirement is impossible in practice, but not in theorie. That`s where a lot of people here go wrong.

That`s what the Copenhagen interpretation says and thats what is considered the most likely interpretation of QM by prominent sceintists all over the world.
It seems, there is some immaterial element of an observer(human being/ other being) involved.

[Tautoulogic No.2249511]

4/4
So stop being a pathatic fuck and accept the fact that some thing seem miraculous.

Why are sceintists so sure about this interpretation?
Because of this experiment sucessfully performed in 2006... i remember reading about it in new sceintist.

>they claim that this experiment definitively rules out all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, except the Copenhagen and the Bohm interpretation.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=174876

Not claiming it a soul exactly as discribed in the bible though.

Sadly most people here think they are too smart to "believe" in something like this. Even with hard evidence.

See on Wiki how it is a disputed subject and people are trying to make the measurement effect more likely by saying most sceintists belief that explanation.
>From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system.[citation needed] A significant minority[who?] still find the equations point to an observer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)


But they won`t speak this out loud oftenly and defently won`t call it a soul.
Although when they mean the same when referring to an immaterial element of the human observer.
They prefere to ignore this subject because they want to be taken seriously be as much people as possible and don`t want thier findings to be abused by new-age scam and people who`ll not understand it and blow things up.

Anyway thanks for listening.

[Anonymous No.2249512]

Fuck you OP your a shitty troll, if you don't believe in souls or god that's fine this is a science board afterall but making believers look like honks is a asshole move

[Anonymous No.2249528]

To say there is an effect we can't explain doesn't mean God and free will exist, your first paragraph makes claims your evidence doesn't back up.

Your definition is also quite weak - I put it to you that 'My belief that I wear glasses' is a 'soul', since it is an immaterial part of me


> Also, while I commend you going out and finding some sources, a 1997 QM paper has very little relation to a 2010 QM interpretation.

[Anonymous No.2249537]

tl;dr, troll, etc