Sunday, September 30, 2007

Reflection on Life - Point of View

April 6th, 2007
 See Movie in RealPlayer

SP Toh wrote (from above movie submitted by Seng Hong):
It is a fantastic way of extending a helping hand through the symbolism of bridges. What really caught my eye is the final frame with these words: "Everything that happens, happens for a reason." That equation sounded familar doesn't it to: "God does not play at dice." More than that, we are all here for a reason no matter how significant or insignificant.


Focus for the Family said...

Seng Hong wrote: Yes, it was informative. It was a woman who inspired Einstein!

Focus for the Family said...

May Lin wrote: Have any of you watched the documentary on Channel News Asia? apparently a French scientist was one of the first to promulate the theory, which Einstein subsequently was inspired to continue and to develop on it to get to E=MC2.

Focus for the Family said...

Yew Kwok wrote: May I add a few words. Einstein postulated a Grand United Theory of the Universe, but as Boon said he failed. Even Plato admitted that he did not know. These are among the greatest scientists and phlosophers of the West. I have not read the I-Ching but have a rough idea of it. When Jesus was asked when the world will end he replied the Son does not know but the Father.

Focus for the Family said...

hewlee wrote: On the topic of Einstein, I came across this topic of "The Elegant Universe" thro link

physicists are now trying to explain the "String Theory."

Focus for the Family said...

Seng Hong wrote: I saw the dvd of The Elegant Universe last year. Interestingly, the strings theory is strikingly similar to the "qi" as mentioned in ancient Chinese texts like the I-Ching.

I highly recommend all to look thru the show in the website.

Focus for the Family said...

Seng Hong wrote: This was how Einstein got his formula. One night he looked up ...

Please see link ..

Focus for the Family said...

Seow Boon wrote: To share another point of view ...
May I comment on the bits on Einstein and quantum physics?

The famous quotation about God and dice needs to be put into context. Einstein could not accept the philosphical implications of quantum mechanics although he could not fault the mathimatics and the confirmation in some experiments. So he conducted a long correspondence with Max Born, A Danish physicist who, in the "Copenhagen Interpretation" has given us the best explanation of the supposed contradictions quantum mechanics.

Here's the excerpt from Einstein's letter to Max Born:
Jedenfalls binich uberzeugt, dass_der_nicht wurfelt. [At any rate, I am conviced that _He [God] does not play dice.] -- Einstein, Letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926 in _Einstein und Born Briefwechsel_(1969)p. 130. So be clear: Einstein was not answering a question about God.

BTW, Max Born's answer is amusing and should never be omitted from the quotation if it is to retain its flavour.

"Who are you to tell God what to do" --Bohr.
On to the role of observer in quantum mechanics.Before the observer takes a measurement, there is uncertainty as to what is "there" because it can exist in many different "states". When an observation is made, it will "collapse" into the state which is defined by the instrument readings. But, there is always something "there" to be measured or observed. It is an error to say there is nothing there. There is one other niggling point about faith and seeing. Billions of dollars are being spent on building a particle accelerator that can impart enough energy into a particle collision so that we can "create" and observe a Higgs boson. So the scientist have to believe in a Higgs boson before seeing one. And, they have to design and build the instruments that will detect its effects so that its presence can be inferred from esoteric calculations.

The two key points are: you have to believe that something exists and you have to know how to look for it. This is how all the fundamental particles were discovered. The opposite is not true viz. just because scientists believe that a Higgs boson exists does not guarantee its existence. The experiment might fail! It is true that science is a belief system that depends on faith. But, the belief system is based on the prior experiments of others extended by our imagination and controlled by mathematics. Religious faith is based on assertions made in "sacred" texts most of which having no experimental or other physical evidence. The assertions may have an intruitive appeal and so, many believe them. This does not make them true and the simplest definition fo faith is "belief" in statements not supported by evidence."

Focus for the Family said...

SP Toh wrote: I think it is an interesting article wherein a question was asked whether Einstein was a Buddhist? Einstein began his life as an atheist but towards the end of his life, he became a theist, most likely embracing Judaism since he is Jewish. Because he had the best brain the modern world has produced, he was asked his views on God. After some thoughts, he answered: "God does NOT play at dice!" For someone who understood quantum physics more than anyone else in the scientific community, he was not taking any chances.

You have made an interesting statement that the existence of anything depends on whether there is an observer although quantum theory says that there is nothingness and a particle is empty of inherent existence, presumably emptiness as defined by what the eyes can or cannot see. But most scriptures say there are things there, which we do not see - like gravity, the wind. My guess is that what we cannot see is a question of speed and magnetism. So if scientists ever discovered a camera to capture images faster than the speed of light, then we can see more than what our naked eyes can see now.

On whether there is an observer, suppose I say there is, would you agree or disagree? That depends on your faith in what you do not see, other than gravity and turbulence. That observer is none other than Jesus. There are 2 historical texts found, which say so: Matthew 18:20 - "For where two or more come together in my name, there am I with them,"; and THomas Line 77 - "Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there."

Keep searching ...and trust Him, In His love.

Focus for the Family said...

Seng Hong wrote: Both of you (SP and Boon) are great philosophers and had expounded well on that part. I was looking for a physicist to explain the "two slits paradox" and the "Stern and Gerlach's experiments" in relation to the statement "particles have no orientation until it is observed."

Focus for the Family said...

Seow Boon wrote: Okay Seng Hong, we have to get down to the nitty gritty of quantum mechanics. Let me attempt one explanation, and there are many, that doesn't require any math beyond basic algebra. The fundamental idea in QM is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which states that for certain pairs of measurements, the product of the measurement errors is constant.

It is a "Law of Nature" which we have to assume is true to do quantum mechanics. We adhere to this principle because every experimental prediction made when we assume it had been confirmed. There has never been a single case of denial of the principle in any experiment. If there is one, then we have to review our understanding of it and maybe, reject it.

So, sadly, when a question in fundamental physics is asked, the answer is both from physics and from philosophy. The scientific discoveries in fundamental physics in the last century have profound philosophical implications. That is why we must understand the science clearly before applying it to philosophy.

"On to the role of observer in quantum mechanics. Before the observer takes a measurement, there is uncertainty as to what is "there" because it can exist in many different "states". When an observation is made. It will "collapse" into the state which is defined by the instrument readings."

Final conclusion? Whenever the "two slits paradox" and the "Stern and Gerlach's experiments' are performed the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is confirmed and "particles have no orientation until it is observed".

Focus for the Family said...

SP Toh wrote: We need not to put Einstein's quotation into any context be it Max Born or otherwise. He was asked how and where he got his E=MC2, and he said, "It just came to me -from beyond."

The point I want to make is really a great mind accepted that there is a Supreme Being that he knows is there beyond what he cannot see nor scientifically prove. Another great mind named Plato put it differently. He said, "I know that I don't know," So I am not about to prove anything be it science or assertive theories. Suffice to say, there are still many things we do NOT know. What we do know is meant for us to know, and what is NOT meant for us to know, we do not know.