Omniscience and quantum mechanics

[Wiccan_Child]

According to some, God is omniscient: he knows everything.

But, according to quantum mechanics, there are inherent limitations to just how much can be known about a given system. For example, knowing the position of a particle to a given degree of accuracy places insurmountable limitations on how accurate we can know its momentum (namely, ΔxΔp[sub]x[/sub] ≥ ħ/2).

How, then, can God know everything? This uncertainty principle isn't the result of practical limitations to measurements, but is an inherent property of the quantum mechanical nature of the system. Just what does God know about the physical observables of a particle?
Does this relate to the qualifier, "God knows everything knowable"?

 

[Chesterton]

Are we a little bored today? Sitting around with nothing to do?

 

[MrJDSmith]

The reason for the limitation on measuring Quantum measurments, is when we measure something, we use energy to measure it, This energy is added / modifys what we are measuring. God though can measure without modifying what He is measuring.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Are we a little bored today? Sitting around with nothing to do?

I got the idea from another thread, and I thought I'd pose this puzzler to this board. That's all.

The reason for the limitation on measuring Quantum measurments, is when we measure something, we use energy to measure it, This energy is added / modifys what we are measuring. God though can measure without modifying what He is measuring.

As I said, this isn't to do with the practical limitations to us humans trying to measure quantum systems. These are fundamental limitations to how much one can know, regardless of how one gets the knowledge.

 

[Criada]

There are fundamental limits to what humans can know.
If God is who He says He is, then those limits will not apply to Him.
Omniscience is like that

 

[Chesterton]

The bible says "God is Almighty" and things like "the hairs of your head are numbered". God may very well be omniscient in the strict, absolute way you're thinking of, but I don't think it's a critical matter to believe that. If God created a system where some things at some times could possibly be uknown to Him, it just means He has exercised his power to allow that because He deemed it good and wise to do so.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The bible says "God is Almighty" and things like "the hairs of your head are numbered". God may very well be omniscient in the strict, absolute way you're thinking of, but I don't think it's a critical matter to believe that. If God created a system where some things at some times could possibly be uknown to Him, it just means He has exercised his power to allow that because He deemed it good and wise to do so.

Fair enough.

 

[freeport]

According to some, God is omniscient: he knows everything.

But, according to quantum mechanics, there are inherent limitations to just how much can be known about a given system.

<snip>

You said you believed Buddha. Was he not then knowing everything.

As for any science being complete: no, it is not. Assuming that there is an absolute in any knowledge is a basic fallacy.

Actually, Paul said this best: 'knowledge puffs up, love builds up: we never really know anything as we should'.

Is it then wise to assume that modern understanding of quantum mechanics is so perfect to describe all things. Or wise to assume that something you believe is impossible may not be impossible.

It is a basic logic fallacy to assume that the unknown might be quantifiable. As you admit you do not know God, why try and quantify God.

We speak of God because we know God, but we are not believed.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You said you believed Buddha. Was he not then knowing everything.

I said I believe Gautama existed, not that I believe everything he said.

As for any science being complete: no, it is not. Assuming that there is an absolute in any knowledge is a basic fallacy.

Actually, it's not: I absolutely know I exist, and I absolutely know the laws of logic (and everything derived thereof) are true. Apart from that, though...

Actually, Paul said this best: 'knowledge puffs up, love builds up: we never really know anything as we should'.

Is it then wise to assume that modern understanding of quantum mechanics is so perfect to describe all things. Or wise to assume that something you believe is impossible may not be impossible.

Yes: all the evidence points to quantum mechanics being true, to the universe being inherently probabilistic and indeterminate. If the universe screams, "Giant balls of thermonuclear plasma exist!", is it foolish to believe otherwise?

It is a basic logic fallacy to assume that the unknown might be quantifiable. As you admit you do not know God, why try and quantify God.

Because other people claim to know God. As far as I can see, their specific knowledge of God contradicts our general knowledge of the universe; one or the other has to give.

 

[Chesterton]

Because other people claim to know God. As far as I can see, their specific knowledge of God contradicts our general knowledge of the universe; one or the other has to give.

What do you mean? Are you referring just to creation/young earth ideas, or something more?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What do you mean? Are you referring just to creation/young earth ideas, or something more?

No no, nothing like that, though I can see how you got that. No, I'm talking about how Christians who say that God is omniscient are contradicting our understanding of the universe. A quantum mechanical universe is not deterministic: there are inherent limits on what you can know. An omniscience can't exist because the concept makes no sense in an indeterministic, quantum mechanical universe. Since our best understanding of the universe is that it is quantum mechanical (though that's not likely the end of the story), there's a paradox.

One has to give .

 

[Sketcher]

God isn't limited by his creation. Whatever this system may be is part of his creation.

No, I'm talking about how Christians who say that God is omniscient are contradicting our understanding of the universe.

Maybe we don't perfectly understand the universe. Maybe most of what we think we know about it is wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God isn't limited by his creation. Whatever this system may be is part of his creation.

Since we're talking about his creation, doesn't that seem moot? If his creation has fundamental limitations to what can be known about it, why would God be exempt from that? It's like saying God can violate basic arithmetic: 1 + 1 does equal 2 (in base 10, at least); God himself cannot change that.

Maybe we don't perfectly understand the universe. Maybe most of what we think we know about it is wrong.

Like I said: something has to give. In your case, you appear to give precedence to God: he is omniscient, and its our understanding of knowledge (and, thus, quantum mechanics) that is wrong.

 

[Sketcher]

Since we're talking about his creation, doesn't that seem moot? If his creation has fundamental limitations to what can be known about it, why would God be exempt from that?

Because God is distinct from his creation.

Like I said: something has to give. In your case, you appear to give precedence to God: he is omniscient, and its our understanding of knowledge (and, thus, quantum mechanics) that is wrong.

Right. He is omniscient. Nothing can truly disprove that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because God is distinct from his creation.

The limitations exist nonetheless. If the universe is quantum mechanical, then omniscience is a logical paradox. Even God can't make a paradox. That God is distinct from his creation doesn't change this.

Right. He is omniscient. Nothing can truly disprove that.

Except, of course, a carefully worded refutation .

 

[Sketcher]

The limitations exist nonetheless. If the universe is quantum mechanical, then omniscience is a logical paradox. Even God can't make a paradox. That God is distinct from his creation doesn't change this.

But you're making these assumptions which we don't know are true. God is not bound by what we can determine.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But you're making these assumptions which we don't know are true.

What assumptions, exactly?

God is not bound by what we can determine.

On the contrary, he is: when we use logic to prove this or that, the proven statement is true. It's not just true for 'our' universe, it's true regardless of what else is true (no matter what God does, A is identical to itself).

 

[Chesterton]

On the contrary, he is: when we use logic to prove this or that, the proven statement is true. It's not just true for 'our' universe, it's true regardless of what else is true (no matter what God does, A is identical to itself).

How can you be so confident that the logic which applies in this reality must apply in any possible reality? If you were a two dimensional being living in a two dimensional universe, wouldn't a cube defy logic, and be impossible? I guess you wouldn't be able to even imagine the idea of a cube.

As you increase dimensions, as from a point, to a line, a square, a cube, things become possible which were not possible before. Christianity makes odd claims, no doubt, such as omniscience, and a single God who is three persons, and a being who is fully human and fully God at the same time. But there's a sense in which I think these types of things are almost intuitive. If there's a reality above this one ("above" in the sense of being larger than, and more encompassing and comprehending of this one), I might expect it could very well be like the thing which Christianity vaguely hints at.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How can you be so confident that the logic which applies in this reality must apply in any possible reality?

Because the truth of logic isn't determined by whatever reality the individual finds himself. "1 + 1 = 2" is a true statement, and it remains true without any reference to reality or external factors.

If you were a two dimensional being living in a two dimensional universe, wouldn't a cube defy logic, and be impossible? I guess you wouldn't be able to even imagine the idea of a cube.

But that doesn't mean it's logically impossible. We 3D creatures have evolved to comprehend three spatial dimensions, but have never needed to comprehend a fourth. Using mathematics (ironically), we can completely describe objects in higher dimensions, and even image them. Enter the terrasect:

Counter-intuitivity just makes things hard to imagine. It doesn't make them logically impossible.

But logical paradoxes are impossible. Even if we accept that somehow logic somehow stops working when you get to God's level, there's still one problem: we're talking about the real world, about the world in which logic does apply.

Christianity makes odd claims, no doubt, such as omniscience, and a single God who is three persons, and a being who is fully human and fully God at the same time. But there's a sense in which I think these types of things are almost intuitive. If there's a reality above this one ("above" in the sense of being larger than, and more encompassing and comprehending of this one), I might expect it could very well be like the thing which Christianity vaguely hints at.

Well, that's because you're a Christian . Hindus and Buddhists probably imagine the 'higher' reality to be something more akin to that described by Dharmic philosophies.

 

[Chesterton]

Because the truth of logic isn't determined by whatever reality the individual finds himself.

How can you know this? You've only ever been in the one reality you're working with now.

"1 + 1 = 2" is a true statement, and it remains true without any reference to reality or external factors.

You have to reference every logic statement to this reality, don't you? I mean, you're in it.

But that doesn't mean it's logically impossible. We 3D creatures have evolved to comprehend three spatial dimensions, but have never needed to comprehend a fourth. Using mathematics (ironically), we can completely describe objects in higher dimensions, and even image them. Enter the terrasect:

Counter-intuitivity just makes things hard to imagine. It doesn't make them logically impossible.

Can you explain how a terrasect is 4-dimensional? I only see height, width and length; a cube inside a larger, mishapen cube.

But logical paradoxes are impossible. Even if we accept that somehow logic somehow stops working when you get to God's level, there's still one problem: we're talking about the real world, about the world in which logic does apply.

I agree that a contradiction is impossible, but I don't think that what makes for a contradiction in one time and place has to make for a contradiction in another time and place (or in the absence of time and place: eternity).

Well, that's because you're a Christian . Hindus and Buddhists probably imagine the 'higher' reality to be something more akin to that described by Dharmic philosophies.

It doesn't make sense to me because I'm a Christian; I'm a Christian because it makes sense to me.