JFL at thinking the double slit has nothing to do with consciousness. (edited)

[reptiles]

@AdamLanza
@OwlGod


Consciousness did seem to have an affect on the wave particles change when being observed as predicted the ratio began to decrease and they even took all other factor into consideration.

A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the
collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral
power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward
the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced
attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s. Data
contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on
average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=-4:36, p=6·10-6). Another 250 control
sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures
for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0:43, p=0:67). Variables including temperature,
vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast,
factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of
focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly
correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results
appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement
problem.






As we can see consciousness did have an affect of the change JFl the experiment does have a lot to do with consiousness jfl at denying
this at this point.

Here are some extra points.

P1 Electrons are dualistic they can be both a wave and a particle.
P2 electron's when not being observed act as a wave.
P3 when being observed electrons act as a particle
P4 the interference pattern in a electron acts as a particle when being observed which means it become's smaller.
P5 human conscious thought has an affect on a electron.
conclusion if we were to redo this experiment consious observation should make sure every time that the interfereance pattern went smaller when observed and sure enough it did.

A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the
collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral
power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward
the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced
attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s. Data
contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on
average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=-4:36, p=6·10-6). Another 250 control
sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures
for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0:43, p=0:67). Variables including temperature,
vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast,
factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of
focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly
correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results
appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement
problem.







This is not psedo sciece i take a different view than the conclusion provided that consciousness lead's to the change i think it's more the particle is conscious itself same with wave's in the physic's context i think all particles are a part of the mind of god vibrations are a part of the mind of god we are all part's of the greater one we are all technically projection of god we are all in the platonic mind of god.


P1 The world is made of quantum bit's.
P2 those quantum bits change when being observed.
P3 those quantum bit's change specifically when observed by a human.
P4 we have 250 repeated experiments proving it is when conscious thoughts are applied.
P5 at the quantum level everything is conscious.
P6 the universe as a whole then follows at-least at the quantum level is conscious.
P7 god is a super quantum mind or computer could be either.
P8 we are in the mind of god.

 

[BrettyBoy]

XD

 

[reptiles]

View attachment 91736
XD

Praises me

 

[SayNoToRotting]

The double slit?

You mean fucking your mom's vagina and asshole at the same time?

 

[Zygos4Life]

Didnt read shit thread kys

 

[Tsukuyomi 🌙]

The double slit?

You mean fucking your mom's vagina and asshole at the same time?

 

[FatJattMofo]

I noticed this a while ago.

OP I want to help you ascend truly. you are probably the only truly high Intelligence user here apart from me and maybe some others.

 

[reptiles]

The double slit?

You mean fucking your mom's vagina and asshole at the same time?

Nah i mean getting a dildo and shoving it up your fucking mouth

 

[pisslord]

I slightly agree.

 

[reptiles]

I slightly agree.

Fair enough

 

[Vitruvian]

Double slit your wrist

 

[reptiles]

Double slit your wrist

This is your life and it's ending second by 2nd letting you know that know

 

[Deleted member 2227]

@AdamLanza
@OwlGod


Consciousness did seem to have an affect on the wave particles change when being observed as predicted the ratio began to decrease and they even took all other factor into consideration.

A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the
collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral
power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward
the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced
attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s. Data
contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on
average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=-4:36, p=6·10-6). Another 250 control
sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures
for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0:43, p=0:67). Variables including temperature,
vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast,
factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of
focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly
correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results
appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement
problem.






As we can see consciousness did have an affect of the change JFl the experiment does have a lot to do with consiousness jfl at denying this at this point

Do you have more fonts?

If God is everywhere, then why does double slit only have an effect when it has an observer (human)? if god exist then we would never know that double slit has an alternative, which means there is no god.

paulanlee.com

Dit domein kan te koop zijn!

www.paulanlee.com

"An excellent definition can be found in the book Quantum Enigma by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner: “Whenever any property of a microscopic object affects a macroscopic object, that property is ‘observed’ and becomes a physical reality.” For example, when a microscopic photon hits the macroscopic screen in the double-slit experiment, then that will reduce the quantum superposition state of the photon to a single value (the single mark it leaves on the screen). This explains why we do not see bizarre quantum superpositions — such as a cat being both alive and dead at the same time — in the human-scale, macroscopic world. So as long as there is a macroscopic effect from a quantum entity, that object can be considered to be “observed” or “measured” — with no need for a conscious human observer.

In the double-slit experiment, the electron is “observed” by the detector at the slit. The state of Schrodinger’s Cat is “observed” by the air it breathes (or not) inside the box, which is “observed” by interacting with the molecules of the box, which is “observed” by interacting with photons in the rest of the universe. The simple act of a particle *interacting* in any way with other particles in the universe, means it is “observed” by the universe. It’s quantum state (or wave function) collapses at that point; indeterminacy becomes resolved."

"
Consciousness plays no role in that observation.

If you want to see quantum indeterminacy on the macroscale, you need to completely isolate the thing you are observing from the rest of the universe. That’s hard to do. Even the deepest vacuum of space has light (photons) passing through it. Plus, virtual particles arise constantly even in a quantum vacuum devoid of any other particles of matter (including photons). Isolating something from the universe would require it not to even be capable of interacting with any of the real or virtual particles of this universe. But then it would be completely separate form this universe, including any of its observers. The question of the “observer effect” would become irrelevant in this universe.

The physicist Richard Feynman said, “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.”

So, those who claim observers *create* reality in this universe can only be true if either 1) the universe is a simulation; or 2) they live in a solipsistic universe."

@AdamLanza
@OwlGod
P1 The world is made of quantum bit's.
P2 those quantum bits change when being observed.
P3 those quantum bit's change specifically when observed by a human.
P4 we have 250 repeated experiments proving it is when conscious thoughts are applied.
P5 at the quantum level everything is conscious.
P6 the universe as a whole then follows at-least at the quantum level is conscious.
P7 god is a super quantum mind or computer could be either.
P8 we are in the mind of god.

"Some philosophers misinterpret the observer effect because they don’t realize that “observation” simply means a quantum event is converted to a macro-event by interaction with the rest of the universe.

I’ve read articles where people extrapolate their misunderstanding of the observer effect to deny the basic objective reality of the universe. There are two common ways in which this is done: 1) by speculating that the universe is a simulation (the Matrix model); or 2) by suggesting that nothing is real except their own experience (the Descartes model).

Objective reality, the fact that stable matter actually exists and interacts with other matter in a consistent way, should be considered one of the true wonders of the universe (some people already do). Now that we’ve invented sophisticated computers and gaming systems, it’s not so hard to imagine how we could all just be programs running on an even more advanced CPU. The idea is attractive because it is almost possible to understand, to relate to things in our own world.

But its attraction is deceptive. Let’s imagine it was true, that we live inside a sophisticated simulation and we have no way to prove that we are simulated, except perhaps by “breaking out” of our coded environment. Until we break out, everything about our reality seems perfectly real to us. Now we break out to a “higher level.” We wake up in a different reality, knowing that we were inside a simulation, but now we’re not. Now, we’re outside in “reality.”

Or are we?
By definition, until we “break out,” we have no way to prove that our reality is simulated. Therefore, we have to consider the possibility that we have simply broken out into a “higher level” simulation. We should immediately attempt to break out into yet a higher level. Once/if we do, we should immediately start trying to break out to a higher level.

Where does it end? Does it end? Is it simply simulations all the way up? How would you ever know that you’d reached “reality” at the top level?

This highlights the logical endless regression inherent in the view that we live in a simulation. It doesn’t disprove it, but it suggests that it’s unlikely. One reality makes sense, infinite realities make sense, two (or some other small number) doesn’t make sense.

Some people extend the idea of living inside a simulation so far, that they claim the only thing they can know exists is their own mind. As René Descartes said, when trying to demonstrate his own existence, “Cogito ergo sum.” (I think, therefore I am.) Descartes may have found this satisfying, but I find it surprising anyone would be comforted by it today.

First, one’s mental experience is limited to themselves. If you were to make the claim, “I think, therefore I am” and hope that would convince me of your existence, I have no experience of your thinking to substantiate your claim. Second, with all we know about how fallible the human experience of reality actually is, how memories of experiences can be “hacked.” Dreams, schizophrenia, and hallucinatory drug experiences add to the idea that the human experience of reality is very plastic, indeed."

 

[AdamLanza]

I appreciate ya effort homie, its a pretty long text. But tbh, I don‘t have the time to read and react to it now. But i‘ll do sooner or later!

 

[reptiles]

I appreciate ya effort homie, its a pretty long text. But tbh, I don‘t have the time to read and react to it now. But i‘ll do sooner or later!

Alright

 

[Ritalincel]

Ded srs?

 

[reptiles]

If God is everywhere, then why does double slit only have an effect when it has an observer (human)? if god exist then we would never know that double slit has an alternative, which means there is no god.



I should have made this more clear god is not everywhere in the physical sense cause the physical world is bound by the law's of motion were talking about a different world altogether the quantum law's behave differently their notice i said quantum god i never said heaps of electrons are conscious i said single individual ones are when isolated as when observed we have evidence that other factors did not come into effect moreover we found conscious thought had influence on the quantum this means at least at the quantum all things are conscious however most people think of consciousness as 1 single thing wrong a plant has conscious consciousness has units to it a small electron has a single unit of it the argument of it is that since their are octillions of them in everything all together they combine to make a single super mind your misunderstanding the argument and to be fair it is my fault for not clarifying consciousness properly consciousness has units it's a feed back loop and awareness i believe we are in a quantum super mind


1 the universe is made up on quantum bit's
2 consiousness has units of measurement in other words you can measure it.
3 a single isolated electron has units of consciousness.
4 the larger universe in general combine to make a single super consciousness.

This is not the same as saying particles have free will rather the universe as a whole is just a thought of quanta bits.

The question of whether or not there is an objective reality has plagued philosophers for centuries. It still does. How do we know any of what we see or hear is real? Do we construct our world with our perceptions? Or is there really something there? Robert Lanza’s recent book “Biocentrism” takes the stance that conscious life *creates* the universe, that there is no reality other than that which we create. This post will show why he is wrong.

Very first step you already have a problem i never made the argument physical perception makes up physical reality i did make the argument a electron has a single unit of consiouness that shared out over a light year distance leads to a super mind and their is evidence the universe the universe is transfinite a his argument is addressing consious being's inside of the mind rather than the mind itself.


To think about how the observer is vaguely or incorrectly specified, we should ask ourselves, “When precisely does the observation actually occur?” Is it when the photons from the slit-detector first reach the light-sensitive molecules in our retina? Or when sound stimulates the ear drum? When that causes an electrical signal in the optic nerve or the cochlea? When that signal reaches the occipital cortex or temporal lobe? When it is transmitted to the frontal cortex? Or only when the (likely nonexistant) soul is informed?


A i never made the argument for the soul i never even suggested human consciousness what was found when we shot the double slit experiment showed when some form of mental attention this is the key here even an animal can do this but when we applied the premise it seemed to line up with the findings that leads us down the road of not consciousness creates reality quite the contrary rather quantum bits have single units of consciousness.


as for the other argument when we can assume the measurement or obseration is correct i leave this here
If information is gained—by any
means—about a photon’s path as it travels through two
slits, then the interference pattern will collapse in
proportion to the certainty of the knowledge gained


The measurement is when the last first travels through remeber the argument is not self awareness creates reality the argument is at the quantum level particles behave differently when observed.


''Is consciousness required for the observation? Experiments with severing the corpus callosum demonstrate that one half of the brain can identify an image without the conscious awareness of the other half. ''

Few problems here as well we are assuming that the dual consciousness theory is even real it's quite a controversial theory and assuming the dual consciousness theory is true that still means your conscious again their is different units of consciousness the brain doesn't have to fully agree with itself to be conscious human consciousness is a higher tier the argument was mere conscious awareness changed the finding's that's it when observed by some form of consciousness could be even an animal has a form of consciousness tbh.


And the dual consciousness view has it's own problem if both the left and right are required for consciousness how are you even sure you can in what you see if both the right and left have to agree on something wouldn't that again suggest what you see is dependent on what you brain agrees on this leads down to solipsism dude you have to trust what your left and right brain sees are the same so how can reality even be real ?.


So, the answer seems to be that consciousness is not required for observation. Or, at best, that “consciousness” is so poorly understood that saying it is *required* for the universe (or any part of it) to exist, is simply another form of “god of the gaps” mysticism.


I mean if he is to accept this view of the dual consciousness he would also have to accept the implication of sense reality is based on trust between 2 points of a brain this inevitable lead down towards if reality is based on trust all our senses could be lying to us this again leads to logical error to do away with the consciousness paradigm he invokes hard solipsism.


''Bishop Berkley was confused about cause and effect and so is Robert Lanza. More than anything, these “observer effects” are all arguments to support the (perhaps unspoken) claim that “consciousness” is special, whether human consciousness or the conscious intent of a Creator. In essence, the argument says, “Look! Here’s something we don’t understand (physical existence). Let’s take something else we don’t understand (consciousness or a Creator) and say that the first thing depends on the second thing.”


Didn't he do the exact same thing suggesting a theory that we don't fully know the details off and making a conclusion based of that didn't he do the exact same thing and his attempt at refutation is again invoking hard solipsism if consiousness is connection between the left and right points how can you again trust your brain is telling the truth it could be lying to you.

an excellent definition can be found in the book Quantum Enigma by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner: “Whenever any property of a microscopic object affects a macroscopic object, that property is ‘observed’ and becomes a physical reality.” For example, when a microscopic photon hits the macroscopic screen in the double-slit experiment, then that will reduce the quantum superposition state of the photon to a single value (the single mark it leaves on the screen). This explains why we do not see bizarre quantum superpositions — such as a cat being both alive and dead at the same time — in the human-scale, macroscopic world. So as long as there is a macroscopic effect from a quantum entity, that object can be considered to be “observed” or “measured” — with no need for a conscious human observer.

Again the defintion assumes the experiment is measured after the physical impact no the wave function seems to change before the impact itself ''As long as we measure the photon's path before its arrival at a detector is finally registered, we lose all interference. '' again we have evidence of this with the experiment. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physics again this doesn't require a observer this was never the argument the argument is when someone measures it before it finally registers on the screen itself it seems to change.

In the double-slit experiment, the electron is “observed” by the detector at the slit. The state of Schrodinger’s Cat is “observed” by the air it breathes (or not) inside the box, which is “observed” by interacting with the molecules of the box, which is “observed” by interacting with photons in the rest of the universe. The simple act of a particle *interacting* in any way with other particles in the universe, means it is “observed” by the universe. It’s quantum state (or wave function) collapses at that point; indeterminacy becomes resolved.


If again this were the case it would turn to particles specifically when observed assuming when both electrons go through the slit it can act as a wave or particle it should not change specifically when observed by the user cause we get different answers when the do the 2 sepereate experiments quantum super position seems to decrease when we look at it know you can argue the smallest quantum bits at the molecular scale helps influence this but again if this were the case why does it changed when measured by an observer cause when their was no observer their it acted as a wave when we observed it it acted as a particle just as the experiment showed us the one observing the box itself was us also another problem i find is that if it's the particles interacting with the electrons wound't that mean it should behave as a particle rather than a wave assuming their is something stopping it at a molecular scale shouldn't it act like a particle ? i mean when you throw a ball through a double slit on the macro scale it goes straight as a particle shouldn't this occur for the quantum world ? if something truly was stopping it like the molecules interacting with it then it should follow it should be a particle but that's not what we see when it was left unobserved we saw a wave surely it should have hit the wall rather than going through either of the slits this kinda defeats the argument it's just quantum molecules cause if that were the case it would have just hit the wall itself know you can make the argument when the particle went through the slit it behaved as a wave creating a interference pattern but what was it interfering with ? other particles well i mean patently absured as this is a electron and the space orbiting a electron is vast it should only behave as a particle but it behaves as a wave know this gives rise to a very deep metaphysical truth's

1 Physical reality or the macro world has different laws.
2 The quantum world behaves immaterially and seems to defy the law's of classical physics as when you shoot a ball through a slit assuming it's in the macro world it is a vector that goes straight it acts as a physical particle.
3 the affects of physical reality change at the quantum level the law's begin to bend the law's of logic begin to collapse.
4 physical reality is non material.
5 PHysical reality is dependent on quantum matter.
6 wave particle dualism breaks the rules of reality.
7 Quantum matter breaks the law's of logic.
8 We live in a unnreal world.


If you want to see quantum indeterminacy on the macroscale, you need to completely isolate the thing you are observing from the rest of the universe. That’s hard to do. Even the deepest vacuum of space has light (photons) passing through it. Plus, virtual particles arise constantly even in a quantum vacuum devoid of any other particles of matter (including photons). Isolating something from the universe would require it not to even be capable of interacting with any of the real or virtual particles of this universe. But then it would be completely separate form this universe, including any of its observers. The question of the “observer effect” would become irrelevant in this universe.


First problem what causes virtual particles to arise out of nothing in a vacuum which has no particles that confuses me.Also this is begging the question what creates virtual particles out of nothing ? He's also missing the argument the argument is not consciousness creates reality the argument was conscious thought helps influence the movement electron's and we have evidence of this we even looked into the fact that the temp helps influnce it or vibrations so this btfo's that claim

The physicist Richard Feynman said, “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.”


Fair point that's not the argument though were merely asserting conscious thought helps influence it we even looked through the other factor's such vibrations temp.

"Some philosophers misinterpret the observer effect because they don’t realize that “observation” simply means a quantum event is converted to a macro-event by interaction with the rest of the universe.

That makes no sense we already established the basic fact that particles are dualistic they are either a wave or a particle they cannot be 2 at the same time they have to be one or the other in other word's when it passes through the slit it will create an interference pattern or it will go straight so a quantum event can't be converted to a macro event cause the law's used are fundamentally different on the quantum scale so when it leaves a physical mark on the screen it still is well quantum the law it followed was still quantum so the effects still remained especially when observed and i mean by a physical user.

There are two common ways in which this is done: 1) by speculating that the universe is a simulation (the Matrix model); or 2) by suggesting that nothing is real except their own experience (the Descartes model).


I take a 3rd option that the universe is a mind rather than a simulation in fact i think all particles at-least at the quantum level are conscious but not fully think of quantifying consciousness human beings posses a very high unit of consciousness same with particles but to lesser level's the argument never was sense perception makes up reality the argument was sense perception helps influence certain events like the double slit experiment the whole micro converting into macro makes no sense when we specifically observe the effects after it should objectively be either a wave or a particle but instead it seems to change when we specfically observe it.

Objective reality, the fact that stable matter actually exists and interacts with other matter in a consistent way, should be considered one of the true wonders of the universe (some people already do). Now that we’ve invented sophisticated computers and gaming systems, it’s not so hard to imagine how we could all just be programs running on an even more advanced CPU. The idea is attractive because it is almost possible to understand, to relate to things in our own world.


Well i mean for your flash memory work that is dependent on the fact of quantum tunneling showing thing's can pass through physical reality at the quantum level that in itself makes you question realism or physical-ism know i take a couple of views on this simulation theory,the universe itself as a thought in the mind of god,This reality being a shadow of a much greater reality and that lead's to so much possibilites objective reality is a con man's if it truly was objective electrons would not be dualistic their would be no quantum tunneling their would be no quantum super position physical reality would reflect to the quantum level's this leads down toward's the 3 options even if we were to accept for a second the law's of logic are objective even if that were true that still would lead you down the path of their are more layers to reality and this one is but a shadow of the greater one so either way it leads down towards god.

But its attraction is deceptive. Let’s imagine it was true, that we live inside a sophisticated simulation and we have no way to prove that we are simulated, except perhaps by “breaking out” of our coded environment. Until we break out, everything about our reality seems perfectly real to us. Now we break out to a “higher level.” We wake up in a different reality, knowing that we were inside a simulation, but now we’re not. Now, we’re outside in “reality.”


''Or are we?
By definition, until we “break out,” we have no way to prove that our reality is simulated. Therefore, we have to consider the possibility that we have simply broken out into a “higher level” simulation. We should immediately attempt to break out into yet a higher level. Once/if we do, we should immediately start trying to break out to a higher level.

Where does it end? Does it end? Is it simply simulations all the way up? How would you ever know that you’d reached “reality” at the top level?''


Issue with that is if phyiscal reality were to be true it would follow all the law's of logic that means in all aspects including the quantum world if it's fake then it's leads down to this reality is false.

Where does it end? Does it end? Is it simply simulations all the way up? How would you ever know that you’d reached “reality” at the top level?


A how do you tell a dream from an illusion does it have consistent objective law's that is how the infinite regress game doesn't work if the entire universes law's are objective know it could be going down trans-finitely it had a begging point as logic asserts all things have a begging as everything has cause and effect that being said this quantum chain could be going up trans-finitely and the measure for which we observe something is true is if a certain law is universal we can see this is not the case in 3d reality the problem of infinite regress never pop's up cause the question assumes we don't have an objective system to measure the truth.

This highlights the logical endless regression inherent in the view that we live in a simulation. It doesn’t disprove it, but it suggests that it’s unlikely. One reality makes sense, infinite realities make sense, two (or some other small number) doesn’t make sense.


Correct but the argument is not infinite regress it's transfinite it's a number so damn big one can compare to infinite but it isn't necessarily 100% infinite to accept infinity in anything gives of very scary metaphysical implications mathematically and problematically you don't want it to be infinite is what i'm saying.

Some people extend the idea of living inside a simulation so far, that they claim the only thing they can know exists is their own mind. As René Descartes said, when trying to demonstrate his own existence, “Cogito ergo sum.” (I think, therefore I am.) Descartes may have found this satisfying, but I find it surprising anyone would be comforted by it today.

Yes i don't fall into this.

First, one’s mental experience is limited to themselves. If you were to make the claim, “I think, therefore I am” and hope that would convince me of your existence, I have no experience of your thinking to substantiate your claim. Second, with all we know about how fallible the human experience of reality actually is, how memories of experiences can be “hacked.” Dreams, schizophrenia, and hallucinatory drug experiences add to the idea that the human experience of reality is very plastic, indeed."


Again yes this leads down solipsism i'm not making this argument either i am arguing 3 thing's simulation theory,this reality being a shadow of a greater 1,this entire realm as being a thought in the mind of god himself know your gonna ask what changes if this being exists couple of things it motivates us to explore the possibilities further and it gives us a incentive to look towards the creator.