I'm not sure what you're asking with the first question. As far as the second is concerned, I'm not certain what you mean by "collapse itself", but let me just mention that we know relatively little about quantum mechanics, so I'm reluctant to claim what these waves may or may not be able to do. String theory is not yet certain, let alone understood. But when you say "wave function", are you referring to the actions of sub-atomic particles or the strings that may make up these particles?

If we deal with what we do know (or at least think we know) about about the wave activity of sub-atomic particles, there's simply no reason to put their existence as being something created by any kind of deity. If there was, then most cosmologists would undoubtedly be theistically oriented, which they are not (over 90% in one poll I've seen label themselves as being agnostic or atheistic). As one whom has studied cosmology, although this is outside my main area of anthropology, I see no reason to jump to theistic causes here.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

I can suggest books written by scientists, if you like. Any discussion about the interpretation of facts goes beyond experiment and observation and therefore science. Even if 99.999% of scientists were atheists, it doesn't matter. Anyone with a basic understanding of what QM says is qualified to to interpret what it means. Probably more, since the imaginations of laypeople aren't wearing a straightjacket.

Words like "deity" and "God" have so many cannotations attached to them that they are like straw dogs doused with gasoline just waiting for critics to light the fire. Therefore, I never said we were created by some kind of deity although the facts suggest something more going on than mere "chance" and mechanism. The fact remains: the wave function does not collapse itself. If this sounds contradictory, so does this:

• I can prove an electron is a wave
• I can prove an exectron is a particle

To me, Physicist Amit Goswami goes a little too far in his book God is not Dead, but he does make some good points, points that cannot be ignored. Instead, I suggest Quantum Enigma by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner.

__________________
"Esse est percipii."

I haven't read those. But let me recommendation a few books I've read on the subject recently:

"The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" by Leonard Susskind

"Big Bang: the Origin of the Universe" by Simon Singh

"Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos" by Michio Kaku

"The New Physics and Cosmology" by Arthur Zajonc

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

All evidence needs to be interpreted since that's part of our role as scientists.



I simply do not find any agreement on that at all by most physicists, most of which are also non-theistic, which doesn't mean they're right of course. My position has long been "I don't know" when it comes to discussions about deities. As a long-term subscriber to Scientific American, I have not read a single article by a physicist that suggest an "intelligence" behind what we see.

BTW, here's from Wikipedia, which certainly is not a scientific source but does provide at least some information. Wave function collapse can be caused by interactions between waves, much like anti-matter can collapse matter and anti-gravity can collapse gravity, the latter of which is explained in the November issue of S.A., btw.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Science deals with facts, not neanings. It informs us as to what can and cannot be. It doesn't tell us how thing are.


So what? When "experts" disagree, we can choose our own experts. So can Scientific American.

The fact remains: no one knows what transpires between observations. It cannot be said that waves exist before their observation any more than it can be said particles exist before their observation. The question we pose determines what we see. This is an observational fact with which no physicist disagrees. The disagreement is in the interpretation.

There is also non-locality or "quantum entanglement" to consider and the problem of consciousness.

When driving throught the hills of Southern California in the summer, it looks like you're driving through hills of golden velvet. Up close, you see brambles and thorns. Which is the truer picture? I prefer to stand back from the particulars and look at the whole picture.

__________________
"Esse est percipii."

Science deals with how we go about studying "X" but also deals with the results of our study of "X", therefore it does tell us how things are up to the limits of what we study.



Certainly experts may disagree, but that was not the point. Anytime we can achieve 80-90% agreement amongst experts in their field, then we should be sitting up and listening carefully. No, that does not mean that we have to abandon what we personally believe, nor does it mean that those 80-90% must be correct.

My point was that the vast majority of cosmologists and physicists simply do not interpret the data as to suggest there must be some sort of "intelligence" that somehow created what we see. So, if collapsing waves tells you there must be some "intelligence" behind it all, that's fine and dandy, but physicists certainly are not rallying behind you on this. Nor do I see any evidence as such either.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

No one disputes that in 1932, John von Neumann showed that if quantum mechanics applies universally as claimed (and not one its predictions has ever been shown to be wrong), an encounter with consciousness is inevitable, although, for all practical purposes, the macro and the micro can be treated differently.

"It [is] not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." Eugene Wigner. Who was he? The manager of an ant farm?

__________________
"Esse est percipii."

Not true. There have been many mathematicians and physicists that have disagreed with q.m. and some are still not certain how it is to be defined. It's more of an enigma than an answer at this point. And one of those mathematicians was Einstein, who never bought into it. However, most physicists and mathematicians today do, although with many questions.


I've not read of his take on "consciousness", so maybe you can define it as he would and state what evidence led to his conclusion?

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein