Is the double slit experiment proof of original sin?
- Thread starter pittsburghjoe
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
He says sin cannot happen without physicality yet angels are not physical
still he claims Satan was the first sinner. A&E -according to him- were not
physical either when they first sinned, but he is too scared to look his
contradictions squarely in the face and acknowledge them for
the nonsense they are. He cannot imagine being wrong
still he claims Satan was the first sinner. A&E -according to him- were not
physical either when they first sinned, but he is too scared to look his
contradictions squarely in the face and acknowledge them for
the nonsense they are. He cannot imagine being wrong
He says sin cannot happen without physicality yet angels are not physical
still he claims Satan was the first sinner. A&E -according to him- were not
physical either when they first sinned, but he is too scared to look his
contradictions squarely in the face and acknowledge them for
the nonsense they are. He cannot imagine being wrong
still he claims Satan was the first sinner. A&E -according to him- were not
physical either when they first sinned, but he is too scared to look his
contradictions squarely in the face and acknowledge them for
the nonsense they are. He cannot imagine being wrong
limitless like a dust vapor that can walk through walls, molecular structured to be in one place 1 second and then to be somewhere like the other side of the Universe from just thought, but yet tangible to eat and drink and be full of emotion except for [fear and doubt]. Yeah, it's going to be pretty sweet!
I think Dark Matter is matter-waves that can not collapse.
God needed Dark Matter Waves to hold Galaxies together. He needed it so that physical fallen history would lead up to Adam causing Original Sin with wave collapse. Is Dark Matter showing us the hand of God because it doesn't collapse? Would this reality exist without Dark Matter Waves?
Time ..History ..can be baked into the first wave collapse ..Original Sin.
Could Dark Matter Waves remain waves even when collapsed like a wave packet?
God needed Dark Matter Waves to hold Galaxies together. He needed it so that physical fallen history would lead up to Adam causing Original Sin with wave collapse. Is Dark Matter showing us the hand of God because it doesn't collapse? Would this reality exist without Dark Matter Waves?
Time ..History ..can be baked into the first wave collapse ..Original Sin.
Could Dark Matter Waves remain waves even when collapsed like a wave packet?
for the 50th time you didn't answer.
Satan was in heaven when he sinned. therefore sin is possible in heaven, but has no place in it - therefore war, and Satan was cast out, along with his angels - which had also sinned after him, in heaven.
ergo you're wrong about whether non-physicality is inherently sinless, wrong about physicality being equivalent to sinfulness, and wrong about indeterminacy being equivalent to spiritual goodness.
we all see it.
Satan was in heaven when he sinned. therefore sin is possible in heaven, but has no place in it - therefore war, and Satan was cast out, along with his angels - which had also sinned after him, in heaven.
ergo you're wrong about whether non-physicality is inherently sinless, wrong about physicality being equivalent to sinfulness, and wrong about indeterminacy being equivalent to spiritual goodness.
we all see it.
DM is kind of like the big ocean of the Universe. From Creation to the start of the ever expanding Universe, DM covers roughly 85% So, you're calling DM a stabilizer. I see it as the ocean of the Universe.
DM is the Stabilizer in your theory. I'm not so sure I want to disagree here.
It would be more like a current blockage to energy flow. There's no history because it's designed to be a continual flow. Like a hose to water to destination
DM is the Stabilizer in your theory. I'm not so sure I want to disagree here.
It would be more like a current blockage to energy flow. There's no history because it's designed to be a continual flow. Like a hose to water to destination
Not at all. The double slit experiment shows the mystery at the heart of quantum mechanics. There's no sense of judgement here: light behaves as a wave under certain parameters, as a particle under others. But then people like Feynman would have held that we can't grasp the quantum mechanical world - though the Theory of quantum electro dynamics works. It's got nothing to do with fallen reality, and the fact that we can theorise about and go so deep into nature is part of the goodness God has given us, and the wonder of Creation.
-
1
- Show all
not at all, in fact, the opposite.
time is a derived measure of the relative position of all the matter & energy in the universe.
any 'instant' of time, the "present" or "now" is perfectly coherent because by nature of being independent of the relative motion of all the matter and energy in the universe, each possible pairing or n-tuple of individual components of the universe in a "present state" has invariant phase difference.
so by the very definition of coherence ((invariant phase difference)) all "moments" are individually universally 100% coherent. the "present state" is completely coherent.
cyclicity is a word that only makes sense across a time interval. not all sequences are cyclical.
a probability distribution can be formed by a cyclical sequence mapped to a continuous function with cyclical properties & viewed as a time sequence. by definition in such a case every 'instant' ((representing a particular value in the integral probability distribution function)) has probability P(t) = 0
because the function is cyclical there exist x & z in the time sequence for which P(x) ≠ P(z) -- therefore the system is decoherent.
so there's an instance where your 1st hypothesis fails, and your 2nd hypothesis is disproven by definition.
time is a derived measure of the relative position of all the matter & energy in the universe.
any 'instant' of time, the "present" or "now" is perfectly coherent because by nature of being independent of the relative motion of all the matter and energy in the universe, each possible pairing or n-tuple of individual components of the universe in a "present state" has invariant phase difference.
so by the very definition of coherence ((invariant phase difference)) all "moments" are individually universally 100% coherent. the "present state" is completely coherent.
cyclicity is a word that only makes sense across a time interval. not all sequences are cyclical.
a probability distribution can be formed by a cyclical sequence mapped to a continuous function with cyclical properties & viewed as a time sequence. by definition in such a case every 'instant' ((representing a particular value in the integral probability distribution function)) has probability P(t) = 0
because the function is cyclical there exist x & z in the time sequence for which P(x) ≠ P(z) -- therefore the system is decoherent.
so there's an instance where your 1st hypothesis fails, and your 2nd hypothesis is disproven by definition.
-
1
-
1
- Show all