Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing.

You may be right, but I don't believe you. You don't provide any reason to think that this is true.
There is, however, a reason to believe that God does not exist -> the fact that nothing seems to require God. Repeating yourself with capitalization doesn't add any value to your words. Yes, very much so. How does this point to God? True (...enough, anyway).
But, again, how does this point to God?
Even you just said (twice, even... sometimes with CAPTIALS) that there is nothing except for God.
But now you're saying the world is mostly nothing... and not showing any God. You're arguing against yourself.
So, what is it? Is there mostly nothing in this universe, or is there mostly God? What you've said here, is that there's mostly nothing.But, apart from your own confusion... all this means is that our original concept of the physical world was incorrect.
Things are not solid, they simply feel solid because of the fields they produce... not because they are continuous.But just because fields exist doesn't mean God exists. It means fields exist.
How does any of this point to God? You have a false dichotomy here.
I agree that the world is not physical in the sense that objects are solid, impermeable matter.
But that knowledge doesn't create a mental entity in any way.
It creates a way that physical objects exist to us such that they feel solid even though they are not. This is explained by all the interacting fields (gravity, electric, energy...). Or, viewed in it's entirety for free here: The mental Universe by Richard Conn HenryThat's not what decoherence is. Decoherence is this: the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundaryAll that means is, basically: "when things get big enough that we no longer require the specific equations of quantum mechanics to describe the physical motions... the equations of Newtonian mechanics work just fine."Or, again: "when things are large enough that they act in the way we're used to experience things acting in our everyday lives."The term has nothing to do with the human mind. I promise. Someone's trying to make a fool of you, and you're letting them. I know about it.
It's taught rather normally in university physics courses. Maybe electricity and magnetism courses? Maybe quantum mechanics courses... I can't remember. It's not a secret, though. No, I don't think you understand.
Quantum mechanics are a fact, yes. But jumping to a "mental universe" just because things are not solid as you previously thought... with no other reason to use the term "mental" in any way... with no evidence to suggest any sort of consciousness within the universe apart from known humans and animals... that's silly. And that's what's "not talked about."But it's not laughed away because it's not desired.
It's ridiculed because there's no evidence pointing towards that conclusion in any way.Find some evidence, and people will listen. Just like they listened to Galileo... because he showed them the evidence. Again, no.
The wall doesn't feel solid because of God.
The wall feels solid because of the fields it creates as described by quantum mechanics.We have a wall that feels solid.
No God is necessary.
We used to think the wall felt solid because of solid physics.
The wall still feels solid.
No God is necessary.
We now think the wall feels solid because of the interactions of the fields created by all the components of matter as described by quantum physics.
The wall still feels solid.
No God is necessary.Maybe one day we'll find some evidence pointing towards God.
Maybe not.
Maybe one day we'll find some evidence pointing towards another God-not-required explanation that replaces quantum physics.
Maybe not.Either way... currently, there is no evidence pointing towards a "mental universe" in the context that God is required for it's existence.
And the wall still feels solid.

Sure. Quite possible. What about probable, though?
Also quite possible -> The universe is created from the egg of a turtle. Probable? So far... not so much.We can think of all sorts of ideas that do not contradict what we see. That makes them possible. What makes them probable?Currently, the best technique we have for determining if any particular idea is probable or not is to find evidence that points towards that idea.So far, there's no evidence for a Creator God.
So far, there's no evidence for a turtle egg universe.
So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that God is not required.
So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that turtle eggs are not required.So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that God does not exist.
So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that turtle egg universes do not exist.It's the same evidence. The more we discover, the more we learn:
...we discover and learn non-God techniques for why things are the way they are.
...we discover and learn non-turtle-egg techniques for why things are the way they are.If we want to follow the evidence... then the evidence currently says that God does not exist.
If we want to follow the evidence... then the evidence currently says that turtle egg universes do not exist.Is it possible to discover God in the future? Of course it is. But how likely? As likely as it is to discover turtle-egg universes, it seems. Sure does.
Who wrote the Bible? Right... people. No God required, again. We already know that people are capable of talking about things that sound a bit like invisible atoms... it happens every day. Remember... thinking of ideas that do not contradict what we see are meaningless. In order to support an idea as probable you need to give a unique reason why it should be considered. Otherwise, the possibility remains as unlikely as turtle eggs creating universes.

He's making too many mistakes to count Here's two of the major ones:

1. He's correct about "observations" being required for decoherence.
   But he doesn't understand that "observation" here is a very specific term. It's the scientific meaning of the term under the context of quantum mechanics.
   He thinks that "observation" means people looking at it or perceiving it in some manner.
   The "observation" here actually means something more along the lines of "interacting with any other particles."
   ​
   That is... the wall doesn't stay up because humans observe it.
   But... the wall stays up because the wall observes itself.
   ​
   You can think of it as the examples you guys have already provided... the wall exists when you lean on it... when you lean a chair against it... or if a piece of paper blows up against it without any human interaction at all.
   ​
   The wall actually "observes itself" because it has so many "wall-particles" interacting with each other that it's in "constant interaction" and therefore... the wave-function (for the entire wall itself) has no chance to ever collapse into nothingness.
   ​
   If there were just a few particles... it doesn't take much for their (much smaller) wave-function to collapse into nothingness... so it happens much more often.
   But if you "observe" those few particles (eg -> hit them with photons so you can "see" them...) then you're adding particles... when you add particles, you add interactions... when you add interactions... you prevent the wave-function from collapsing.
   ​
   I'm not a quantum physicist by any means. So I probably have some of the terms or processes incorrect. But that's the basic gist of it, anyway.
   ​
2. He's wrong about "a mental universe" meaning consciousness is required in any way.
   The term "mental universe" is not used to mean something like "the world only exists because you're thinking about it!!!"
   It's more used to describe the fact that our mind's idea is a construction of what we think the universe is like.
   ​
   An example will show this better (hopefully..):
   ​
   You see a pen.
   You may think there's an actual thing there that really looks like a pen. (The "real" universe).
   But... there's not. (Or, at least, we don't know that there is..)
   ​
   When you see the pen, it's not direct in anyway.
   Photons reflect off of whatever-the-pen-actually-is.
   Those photons enter your eye.
   Your eye captures those photons in a certain way.
   Your brain interprets those "certain ways" into an image in your head.
   This is the "mental universe."
   ​
   You don't actually see whatever-the-pen-actually-is.
   What you actually see is your-brain's-interpretation-of-photons-entering-your-eye-that-reflected-off-whatever-the-pen-actually-is.
   ​
   So... it's quite possible that "whatever-the-pen-actually-is" is not very pen-like at all. But, because of all the photons flying around and brain interpretations and such... we "see" the pen the way we see it, all the time.
   ​
   Quantum mechanics has allowed us to know that "whatever-the-pen-actually-is" is quite different from what we actually see and feel.
   We see and feel a solid object.
   But the "whatever-the-pen-actually-is" is not solid at all. It's (as Eliyahu said) 0.000000001% solid... mostly empty space. The particles that actually do make up whatever-the-pen-actually-is interact with each other and create fields as described by quantum mechanics. These fields reflect the photons that get interpreted by our brains. Those fields also prevent the fields-of-our-own-hands from passing through each other... thus giving us the sensation of a solid pen.

Therefore... "the pen we see in our brains" is "the mental universe" (because that really only exists in our mind's interpretation of reality).
And "whatever-the-pen-actually-is" is the real universe... mostly nothing physical... but lots of "fields." Calling reality "mostly nothing" when it's really only "mostly nothing physical" is another mistake.Reality is not "mostly nothing."
Reality is "mostly nothing physical."
Reality is "mostly fields resulting from the interactions of whatever particles actually exist."And, again, all it takes is a small correction to the definition of "physical" from "actual, real, solid objects" to "what we perceive as solid objects from the actual, real fields." And you can use the world "physical" just as you always did before.That's why the wall is still solid.
The wall is whatever-the-wall-is... that doesn't change just because our-understanding-of-whatever-the-wall-is has changed.

Says me.And, unfortunately, if you can't figure this one out... there's really no point in trying to discuss anything with you at all.I will try with an example:You say: All ducks can fly!
I say: No, a duck with broken wings cannot fly.
You say: ALL ducks can fly!...but, as I said, repeating yourself with capitalization doesn't add any value to your words.Once you're able to grasp this idea, you'll see how important it is to support the things you say instead of simply repeating yourself in another font.Let me know what you think and I'll see if you're ready to play with the big boys.

Not here, no, it would be off topic.But I can do it here: Message 310
I Know That God Does Not Exist

Not anymore, feel free to add any comments there. Everything I post here is what I think. And I'm the most interesting man in the forum. I think you should try reading it again. And I want some solid proof that God does exist. Neither is forthcoming.
However, we do have one thing... lots and lots of evidence. So, we can go over the evidence we do have and see where it leads us.Following the evidence is a personal choice, no one expects you do so.
It is, however, the best method humans have ever devised for modelling reality. If you're interested in the truth, but refuse to follow the evidence... then your true intentions will be revealed. Here you go: Message 310 from I Know That God Does Not Exist