Science without religion is lame,

[McCulloch]

What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #176]

Energy is a word we invented to describe something (the capacity of a physical system to perform work), but I don't see how it has an "essense" in terms of some intrinsic nature or indispensable quality. A word like love might fit that description, but energy to me seems like more of a cold, hard word describing a physics or chemistry concept.

Take for example an Electrons, muons, tauons, quarks, and gluons they are more like events that happen. They appear with a certain amount of energy. But they do not have an actual physical form. So matter in its very basic form is nothing but energy.

Wave-particle duality states that everything at the subatomic level stays in a probabilistic energy wave state until it is observed.

Saying that energy is the ability to do work makes sense at the macro level but on the subatomic level that definition of energy just does not describe what is observed.

So who observed energy at the beginning of time to break the probabilistic energy wave state.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #180]

Call something 'woo-woo' as if that somehow casts a spell of protection over ones sensibilities.

Who called something "woo-woo"? It wasn't me.

What we can know though, is that information which Einstein projected into the world was carried along by consciousness, was useful to consciousness.

It was carried along by documentation, oral presentations, radio and TV, and all the communication methods of the time. It was conscious humans who absorbed the information and passed it on via these same communication methods to subsequent generations of conscious humans. You're describing it as if consciousness is some kind of stanalone entity that can exist outside of a brain, and I can't buy into such a far fetched notion for consciousness.

Maybe it is worthy of being called 'special' and even 'magical' out of simple respect for it's existence, rather than through materialistic spitefulness, intent on worshiping the container while belittling what is contained, as if consciousness was merely a bi-product of the main event.

It isn't materialistic spitefulness ... it is simply lack of belief in an idea that I don't see any evidence for. Is everyone who doesn't view consciousness as you do a materialistic spiteful person? I simply don't believe your view is correct ... it has nothing to do with spite. I don't believe that gods exist, but it isn't because of spite for people who do. I just have never seen any convincing evidence to believe that gods do exist so I presently don't believe that they do.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #181]

So matter in its very basic form is nothing but energy.

As Einstein showed ... E = mc^2

Wave-particle duality states that everything at the subatomic level stays in a probabilistic energy wave state until it is observed.

This is collapse of the wavefunction upon observation (prior to that a superposition of states exists), not wave particle duality (which states that things can be described as either a particle or a wave, but doesn't describe superposition). These are two different things.

So who observed energy at the beginning of time to break the probabilistic energy wave state.

There was no "who" at the beginning of time (if time has a beginning). But "observed" in the context of wavefunction collapse does not require a human or other entity with senses to do the observing. Anything that breaks the superposition collapses the wavefunction. Just ask anyone trying to build a quantum computer ... it takes great effort to keep their qubits in superposition.

[William]

Energy is the demonstration of something silent and otherwise unseen.

Onions do that to me.

[William]

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #182]

This is collapse of the wavefunction upon observation (prior to that a superposition of states exists), not wave particle duality (which states that things can be described as either a particle or a wave, but doesn't describe superposition). These are two different things.

There could be no superposition if there was no wave-particle duality. Wave-particle duality creates the superposition. This is why the wavefunction can collapse.

So who observed energy at the beginning of time to break the probabilistic energy wave state.

There was no "who" at the beginning of time (if time has a beginning). But "observed" in the context of wavefunction collapse does not require a human or other entity with senses to do the observing. Anything that breaks the superposition collapses the wavefunction. Just ask anyone trying to build a quantum computer ... it takes great effort to keep their qubits in superposition.

"In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation""

If the universe was made from nothing then there was nothing to collapse the wave function.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #186]

There could be no superposition if there was no wave-particle duality. Wave-particle duality creates the superposition. This is why the wavefunction can collapse.

No ... wave particle duality just says that some things (eg. photons) can behave both as a wave and a particle, so both descriptions apply. Superposition is the simultaneous existence of multiple states and is not "created" by wave-particle duality. Quantum superposition is created by the existence of multiple solutions to a given wave equation, which can all exist at the same time. It has nothing to do with the phrase "wave particle duality."

"In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation""

If the universe was made from nothing then there was nothing to collapse the wave function.

Look at the part you quoted above ("initially a superposition of several eigenstates"). This is what superposition is. Can you write down the Schrodinger equation for the state of the universe before it existed?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #182]

This is collapse of the wavefunction upon observation (prior to that a superposition of states exists), not wave particle duality (which states that things can be described as either a particle or a wave, but doesn't describe superposition). These are two different things.

There could be no superposition if there was no wave-particle duality. Wave-particle duality creates the superposition. This is why the wavefunction can collapse.

So who observed energy at the beginning of time to break the probabilistic energy wave state.

There was no "who" at the beginning of time (if time has a beginning). But "observed" in the context of wavefunction collapse does not require a human or other entity with senses to do the observing. Anything that breaks the superposition collapses the wavefunction. Just ask anyone trying to build a quantum computer ... it takes great effort to keep their qubits in superposition.

"In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation""

If the universe was made from nothing then there was nothing to collapse the wave function.

This is why some have said that reality doesn't exist until we observe it, we - the observer - our consciousness - is inextricably entwined. Physical "reality" requires consciousness.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #188]

This is why some have said that reality doesn't exist until we observe it, we - the observer - our consciousness - is inextricably entwined. Physical "reality" requires consciousness.

Are you claiming that physical reality did not exist on our planet before consciousness existed (ie. before brains evolved)? What about the first 3 billion or so years when microorganisms dominated life on Earth, which had no brains and therefore no consciousness? Or can you provide an example of a living thing that possesses consciousness but which has no working brain? What is your definition of consciousness?

[William]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #188]

This is why some have said that reality doesn't exist until we observe it, we - the observer - our consciousness - is inextricably entwined. Physical "reality" requires consciousness.

Are you claiming that physical reality did not exist on our planet before consciousness existed (ie. before brains evolved)? What about the first 3 billion or so years when microorganisms dominated life on Earth, which had no brains and therefore no consciousness? Or can you provide an example of a living thing that possesses consciousness but which has no working brain? What is your definition of consciousness?

I can see the logic in that - without consciousness - there is nothing else existing which could acknowledge the physical reality as existing.

Therefore, since the physical reality has mind, it is able to be acknowledged as 'real' and furthermore, utilized - primarily - through consciousness interacting with it as an interactive environment.

We cannot say that consciousness isn't behind the formation of said universe from the go-get, but we can indeed say that it is certainly active on this one planet.

The truth is, reality cannot exist if there is no consciousness also existing which can observe it as existing and acknowledge it as existing. It takes consciousness alone, to be able to achieve this.

Therefore, I see little point in arguing that the universe would still exist if consciousness did not, because it may as well not exist, since it is ONLY consciousness [MIND] which is able to make the call.

Which is to say. it is very accurate to say that without consciousness, [MIND] nothing which is known to exist, could actually be said/acknowledged to exist.

_______________________________
Bacteria have no brains yet their behavior suggests consciousness is an aspect of their makeup...Jellyfish also appear to have no brains, but still behave as if they have consciousness.

We would not conclude therefore that they acknowledge the reality of universe in the same way humans do although I think we should acknowledge that they do so within the scope of their abilities...as do humans.