What is Reddit's opinion of The Ultimate Observer?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

> I'm not seeing where this is evidence of the existence of a god.

I don't think I can explain it well since I'm slugging through the math myself all over again to sort it out. But I'll try to explain as best I can.

So for now, I'm accepting the quotes from respected physicists including Richard Conn Henry from my graduate Alma mater.

So I'll fumble through my understanding as best as I can...

When we study a single system, like say an electron. Our observation can bring its position into existence. The quarrel between Einstein and Bohr was to the effect, "does the moon have to be observed in order to exist." Well the usual answer is "no", but in the quantum atomic world, it's "yes". Observation creates a collapse of the ordinary evolution of hypothetical probabilities and brings to existence the position of the electron. The mathemagicians and physicists said this is the most consistent way to model experimental results. Hence, we have paradoxes like Shrodinger's cat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

So the cat is not made dead or alive till it is observed. Of course that seems to not make any sense! But at the atomic level, that's par for the course.

>Schrödinger intended his thought experiment as a discussion of the EPR article—named after its authors Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen—in 1935.[9] The EPR article highlighted the bizarre nature of quantum superpositions, in which a quantum system such as an atom or photon can exist as a combination of multiple states corresponding to different possible outcomes. The prevailing theory, called the Copenhagen interpretation, said that a quantum system remained in this superposition until it interacted with, or was observed by, the external world, at which time the superposition collapses into one or another of the possible definite states. The EPR experiment showed that a system with multiple particles separated by large distances could be in such a superposition. Schrödinger and Einstein exchanged letters about Einstein's EPR article, in the course of which Einstein pointed out that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states.

Now in the world of quantum computing, we try to leverage this sort of strangeness. So it's more than a mere academic curiosity, but has now practical applications. The difficulty is preventing the quantum bits from "collapsing" in the wrong way by an inadvertent "observation" or "measurement". This creates a hardware nightmare of creating such an isolated environment....

Ok, so suffice to say, some mysterious act of observation brings to life a hypothetical position of an electron into a definite position of the electron.

By way of extension, at the beginning of the universe, some observation brought to life the laws of physics and matter. That observation is in the future, because in Quantum Mechanics the future is causal of the past. We see this especially in the Double Slit Delayed Choice experiment. http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/qphil/qphil.htm

>Psychic Photons

>The astronomer's choice of how to observe photons from the quasar here in the present apparently detemiines whether each photon took both paths or just one path around the gravitational lens-bdhons of years ago. As they approached the galactic beam splitter, the photons must have had something like a premonition telling them how to behave in order to satisfy a choice to be made by unbom beings on a still non-exstent planet. The fallacy giving rise to such speculations. Wheeler explains is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomer observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the quasar or only one way. Actually, Wheeler says, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense, the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago that 'to be is to be perceived.

I actually worked in a nano-systems group and one of my co-workers was working on the problem of ensuring quantum computers would be sufficiently isolated from future events such that present time computation are not affected by future events. This may sound bizarre, but in the atomic world, this is par for the course.

So one unsolved mystery is why the macroscopic world behaves so classically but the atomic world so bizarrely.

But in any case, if one can accept the notion that observation brings something into existence that was in an indefinite amorphous spooky condition, then by way of extension some observation brought the universe into existence.

Some have hypothesized a Universal Wave function. That is the Schrodinger equation encompassing all of material reality. You can see it is mentioned here in the last column which interpretations accord with the existence of the Universal Wave function:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations

This is discussion of that Universal Wave function: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction >The universal wave function is the wavefunction or quantum state of the totality of existence, regarded as the "basic physical entity"[8] or "the fundamental entity, obeying at all times a deterministic wave equation."[9]

So if there is a universal wave function, there is the possibility of an Ultimate Observer (aka God) who will observe this function and bring it to life much like we bring the existence of electron position to life through the act of observation.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003XF1EKO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Is this proof airtight? No. But it puts an option on the table.

This was what I said over at r/creation: https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/82osbh/laws_of_physics_especially_qm_suggests_the/dvegfrw/ >If I may point out one of my reasons for taking this line of inquiry.

>It would be easy for someone to imagine and believe in imaginary beings that could work all sorts of wonders. This would be akin to fairy tales.

>Now, if have something like life that couldn't naturally evolve, then we could invoke such an imaginary hypothetical being with all sorts of magical powers to explain life. At least that is a little more justifiable.

>But when atheistic physicists make a 180 degree turn toward ID because solutions to their physics equations imply God, I really take notice! At that point, when physics can be used to argue for the existence of God, then ID becomes far more legitimate in my mind than kids inventing fairy tales. It provides the missing element to ID, a Designer. But up until that point most design arguments are God of the Gaps with no other line of reasoning except the gap itself. I wanted something more to point to God than a mere Gap. Quantum Mechanics provided an alternate argument for God than just mere gaps.

So this is not a PROOF of God or ID, it is a feasibility argument from physics and math. The feasibility argument was how I could alleviate worries that I was just making up fairy tales in my own mind. Whether ID is ultimately true, I do not think a formal resolution of the question is possible, we can only examine the evidence and form our best guess or belief.