Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
MY BROTHER,
The "uncertainty principle" deals with events in time and space.
God is outside of time and space--which are His creations for our benefit.
All events are present to Him in the eternal "NOW".
Therefore, the "uncertainty principle" can be true and God's omniscience true also.
ABBA'S BRAT,
ephraim
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"?
I like that article a lot. It's a very satisfying resolution to the dilemma. It also has a rather nifty solution to the problem of omniscience, omnipotence, and free will (I had my own reconciliation, but it's nice to have a spare!).Reasonable Faith: Question 138 - Divine Sovereignty and Quantum Indeterminism
Excellent response to a similar question raised by the OP by none other than William Lane Craig, I love this bloke.
The OP can also question Mr WLC, he has a Q and A section.
Well, it's more fundamental than mere experimental error. But I have a whole laundry list of questions to ask God if and when I get the chance.There's limitations to how much humans can know, because our measurement teqniques disturb the state. God doesn't have to use our measurement teqniques. But it's a good question to ask Him if you see Him.
Well, it's more fundamental than mere experimental error. But I have a whole laundry list of questions to ask God if and when I get the chance.
I didn't read the rest of the thread. (25 pages?) If god created this entire physical world including it's laws. Then he himself put those limitations there, he can be beyond those limits that he created.
It's not a simple problem of how the information is extracted, it's that the information doesn't exist. It's not that it's (quantum mechanically) impossible to know the precise momentum (say) of a particle, but that it doesn't have a precise momentum.The thoughts presented here seem like rash conjecture. Consider the Universe as a giant computer simulation, with God as the programmer. God need not work by the rules of the simulation to extract information from the simulation. Depending on how it was programmed, he may or may not have sub-particle resolution. No religious text bothers to describe it. But it is certain that he must interact with it from outside, and can be objective since he isn't part of this closed system.
He could or could not. We can't know based on the information we have.
It's not a simple problem of how the information is extracted, it's that the information doesn't exist. It's not that it's (quantum mechanically) impossible to know the precise momentum (say) of a particle, but that it doesn't have a precise momentum.
Thus, the question of omniscience: just what is it God knows? To what level of accuracy does he know how fast a particle is moving? If he knows it has a momentum of precisely p, then he can't know its exact position because it doesn't have an exact position (since it has an exact momentum). Likewise, if he knows its exact position, he can't know its exact momentum.
So, just what does he know about a particle's position and momentum? If quantum mechanics is right, the narrower a particle's momentum range is, the broader its position range is; that is, God's knowledge has an impact on the real world, rather than being a passive account.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the ins and outs of God's omniscience (or your conception of it) more than anything else.
Yes, God does, know everything.According to some, God is omniscient: he knows everything.
You don't propose to limit God, to the inherent limitations of "quantum mechanics" as just another of man's simpleton explanations, do you?But, according to quantum mechanics,
there are inherent limitations to just how much can be known about a given system.
A better question: what do youJust what does God know about the physical observables of a particle?
The assumption that God has to use human means of knowing, & therefore measuring, is logically fallacious - for He evidently works outside "qualifiers".Does this relate to the qualifier, "God knows everything knowable"?
Well, it's more fundamental than mere experimental error. But I have a whole laundry list of questions to ask God if and when I get the chance.
Nonetheless, those 'hooks' would violate quantum mechanics. The point of a collapsing probability wave is that is that you have something to collapse: the hooks wouldn't tell you anything more than that. Moreover, quantum mechanical indeterminism doesn't result from practical considerations of measurement, but from a more general and purely theoretical view: measurement collapses the wavefunction not because it's physically interfering with the particle, but because it's measuring the wavefunction. If you could, somehow, magically conjure a value for a particle's position without physically interfering with it, it would still collapse the wavefunction.That's not likely true. At the quantum level the act of measurement collapses the probability wave because measurement involves bouncing the particle off something or having it manipulate a field with its mass. Experiments like two slit only do show that particles act strangely. However, something outside the system that built the program could have hooks in the particles themselves that tell him where they are.
Without getting into the semantics of as nebulous a term as 'supernatural', I disagree that particles have discrete positions. Or rather, quantum mechanics disagrees.Probability waves are ultimately just a strange artifact of occam's razor. There are real describable locations for these particles (which could be multiple locations) but the means to measure it don't exist. They by definition would have to be supernatural to not alter the particles in any way.
Of course, that presupposes that each variable has a discrete floating point. According to quantum mechanics, particles have a wavefunction to describe them, rather than an array of specific numbers. What you're describing is a naive (in that it's intuitive, rather than deductive), classical (Newtonian, rather than quantum), deterministic (classical causality, etc) n-body problem.Because you can't know within this universe does not mean you can't know from outside it. However, What I find more interesting is that this kind of unknowable wavelike existence when not being observed, then on observation snapping to the quantum grid in quanta of energy as particles is exactly the same kind of thing videogames do when rendering a gameworld.
The whole game is calculated with floating point locations across an invisible universe, an entity not seen will be abstracted down to a marker in space and when it is within the range of the camera it collapses down to the grid of the monitor after being imbued with all of its finer details.
Our universe seems to be optimised for speed and not accuracy.
I disagree. It's not to do with how one acquires the knowledge, but that the knowledge doesn't exist. It's not enough to say that God can know things about particles using different means to us and thus overcome all things quantum. It's like saying God can know my breast size just because he's not human: it's not that he has access to methods I don't, but that I don't have breasts!Again the assumption seems to be that God has to use human means of measuring and knowing. That seems to be logically fallacious.
I used to pray, when I was a Christian. They were never answered.you ever tried praying about it?
Can you elaborate?Yes, God does, know everything.
That, sk8Joyful, is my question to you.You don't propose to limit God, to the inherent limitations of "quantum mechanics" as just another of man's simpleton explanations, do you?
Why is that a better question? I make no claims of omniscience.A better question: what do youknow about the 'non'-physical observables of a particle?
The qualifier was one of logic. Some people define omniscience as knowing everything that can be known (making a distinction from knowing that which can't be known, such as how to make a square circle, or prove 1 + 1 = 3).The assumption that God has to use human means of knowing, & therefore measuring, is logically fallacious - for He evidently works outside "qualifiers".
I have donated blood, which is about all I can do to help other people with my ability to heal.Again Yes, God does, know everything...
Including how we were constructed, including self-healingmechanisms in our system. And a more useful question: How well? have you used this to help yourself, and other people.
I used to pray, when I was a Christian. They were never answered.
Why, do you think God will reveal to me a mathematical model unifying quantum field theory and relativistic mechanics?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?