The Observer-Dependent Universe: Quantum Mechanics, Consciousness, and God
[Thread]
What if I told you that when no one is looking at the moon, it doesn’t really exist? Unless you have some background knowledge in quantum mechanics (QM), you’d say I’m crazy. So... am I?
[Thread]
What if I told you that when no one is looking at the moon, it doesn’t really exist? Unless you have some background knowledge in quantum mechanics (QM), you’d say I’m crazy. So... am I?
Before we go deep in the rabbit hole, the conclusion of the 1927 Double Slit Experiment must be understood. This experiment shook the foundations of science like no other. It concluded that particles don’t exist in a definitive way unless observed. Otherwise,
/2
/2
it exists as a “wave function,” or a ‘field of probabilities.’
This is called superposition, a state in which a particle exists in all possible locations. Take for example an electron in an atom. The probability clouds below show where there is a 90% chance to find the electron
This is called superposition, a state in which a particle exists in all possible locations. Take for example an electron in an atom. The probability clouds below show where there is a 90% chance to find the electron
In fact, when 2 atoms bond, the shared electron doesn’t actually “move” between both atoms. It exists merely as a spread out cloud of probable locations, defined by the wave function, and a true location is ONLY existent once the electron is consciously observed
/4
/4
This is basic QM. The act of observation collapses the wave function, and *gives* the electron a position. That is, it didn’t have one until then.
This conclusion shook the world of science and philosophy. One of the most profound thought experiments that came from it is
/5
This conclusion shook the world of science and philosophy. One of the most profound thought experiments that came from it is
/5
known as Schrödinger’s Cat. It plays on the superposition idea mentioned before. Simply, put a cat and radioactive bomb in a sealed box. Morbid, okay, but cats have 9 lives, so.
Anyway, there is no info coming into the box, and none coming out. Since the bomb is radioactive,
/6
Anyway, there is no info coming into the box, and none coming out. Since the bomb is radioactive,
/6
and radioactive decay is a probabilistic quantum event, there is a 50/50 chance it will decay within the hour, with no determinable way to know for sure if it will.
If it does, the cat dies. If not, it lives. So, after the hour, is it dead or alive?
/7
If it does, the cat dies. If not, it lives. So, after the hour, is it dead or alive?
/7
Well, according to QM, the cat is neither dead nor alive. It actually exists in a superposition of both dead *and* alive, since the radioactive bomb didn’t, and did, decay, in a superposition of possible outcomes. Since there was no observation to collapse the wave function,
/8
/8
both outcomes exist. Only when we open the box and look does the probabilistic nature of reality pick a side, dead or alive.
Schrödinger’s cat already does a good job at showing us reality is dependent on an observer, but there is a deeper, more alluring truth embedded in it
/9
Schrödinger’s cat already does a good job at showing us reality is dependent on an observer, but there is a deeper, more alluring truth embedded in it
/9
Observation determines existence, so I determine the cat’s fate. But in the same way, then, who determines mine? Who’s consciousness observes me?
Let’s say I’m in a lab running the test, and I determine the cat is alive. A friend, outside of the lab,
/10
Let’s say I’m in a lab running the test, and I determine the cat is alive. A friend, outside of the lab,
/10
awaits for my response. To him, the cat is still both dead/alive, as he hasn’t observed my observation yet. Thus, until he observes me, I too, should be in a superposition state, with one of me knowing the cat is dead, and the other me knowing the cat is alive
/11
/11
I’ve become a quantum system, and so a definitive reality of myself will not exist until I am observed by my friend outside of the laboratory.
But then who determines my friend? And then who determines him? And so on...
/12
But then who determines my friend? And then who determines him? And so on...
/12
The fact we don’t exist in a superposition means there has to be some cosmic collapse to the wave function, by something in the position of an ultimate witness. This witness was termed as “Wigner’s Friend.”
Professor of theoretical physics, Michio Kaku, discusses its implication
Professor of theoretical physics, Michio Kaku, discusses its implication
This brings a deeper understanding to the verse:
“We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?” [41:53]
/14
“We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?” [41:53]
/14
Notice the last sentence, how Allah uses the word Shaheed (witness, observer, etc), while in the context of showing us signs. Is this not a sign enough, now that we know the universe requires a cosmic observer for it to exist at all?
/15
/15
So, what’s the atheists response? To make the claim that that the universe is observer independent. How do they do that? By assuming (through faith) that any time the universe has X quantum probabilities, it branches into X new universes, one with each outcome being reality
/16
/16
In this way they try and avoid the need for an observer to collapse a wave function, by assuming ALL possibilities exist independently in new, branching universes. That means the cat is dead in one universe and alive in another. It also means, the universe branches
/17
/17
an unimaginable amount of times, being that every particle gets to exist in every position. This is called the Many Worlds Interpretation. It has too many problems to list (such as where do these universes exist, how did energy get created, etc), but it also has some vital
/18
/18
logic problems that are unsolved, being that the need for an observer always finds its way back in. Many Worlds is also unobservable, and thus unscientific, but atheists will have an unrelenting bias towards it despite this hypocritical issue
/19
/19
In the end, the overwhelming evidence suggests there is no independent physical reality, and observers, us, play a fundamental role in the universe. This is an atheist’s nightmare. We should merely be a random blip in the universe, and not seem to have some inherent purpose
/20
/20
within it.
But we know Allah created us for a reason, and so it makes sense our very being is woven into the fabric of the universe. So, if we’re not looking at the moon, does it exist? Well, without us, it has no reason to 😉
But we know Allah created us for a reason, and so it makes sense our very being is woven into the fabric of the universe. So, if we’re not looking at the moon, does it exist? Well, without us, it has no reason to 😉
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you.”
-Werner Heisenberg, a father of Quantum Mechanics
-Werner Heisenberg, a father of Quantum Mechanics
If you benefitted from this at all, retweet to spread the knowledge and follow for future posts similar to this.
JzkAllah khair :^)
JzkAllah khair :^)
Loading suggestions...