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.
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"?
Perhaps. But that doesn't mean we know nothing - if quantum mechanics is true, then there are limits on what it means for anyone, even God, to 'know' something.You are comparing technical information to God? haha. Well if you even tried to understand the complex cells in a human body and what each cell does, that God created each of these cells and everything else including those complex bacteria to the unknown source of the sun, then you are just standing on the little twig of what God knows.
Almost certainly.Your quantum mechanics is not right either,
I'm not a fan of Santilli's ideas.research the other fringe sciences such as Hadronic Mechanics and see where that takes your mind.
Allegedly. I'll grant you that conciousness exists, and we know next to nothing about it, but I don't believe we have souls. And, if we did have one, I don't believe it would be beyond scientific scrutiny.We haven't even touched anything close to what God knows. Yet, one thing stands untouched, the soul. It cannot be studied, it cannot be explained by science and yet we have one.
We don't know everything, but we do know logic. Even God is subordinate to logic.Don't put God to limits, for God is unlimited and the Creator of everything and understands everything and even things we cannot even fathom or understand in our lifetimes. God is all knowing. Don't let a science fiction movie fool you, or a science book, or some teacher, or some other technical manual lead you into thinking we know everything, for we haven't even touched what God knows. God Bless.
I find quantum mechanics quite fascinating, at least I find the idea that sometimes, particles do not behave as they should, and this really confounds scientists. I think you put it very succinctly in that there are limitations for us on how accurately we can predict things. As a game programmer myself, I am experienced in creating systems that have equally random and unknowable effects. These systems are designed to provide variety, without actually upsetting the overall balance of the world I create. In many respects I feel this is analogous to our current understanding in a theistic worldview of God and the limitations you talk about. God being the designer, and the limitations of accuracy being not enough to upset the balance of the world, but enough to provide variety within it.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).
Another idea I would venture is that our knowledge of these things is within time, on a timeline such that we predict based on our understanding and observations what will happen and in QM we are sometimes wrong, even though 99.9% of the time we are right. This is because we are limited by time, I myself subscribe to the idea that God is timeless, and that time, space and matter in our universe was created by God. So the idea that God is constrained in the same way we are, I find to be untrue. Where we can see only one linear branch of time forward or back, God can see every branch, at every moment, and as such there is simply no need for prediction or observation according to how we use and implement them.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"?
YoWow I remember this thread. Hi WC o/
It's a good way of thinking about it. I never posed this question as a way of refuting the possibility of a designer; this could very well be the way God chose to create the world (not that I think it was created, of courseAfter have deliberated some of these questions myself, I have to say I quite like this question.
I find quantum mechanics quite fascinating, at least I find the idea that sometimes, particles do not behave as they should, and this really confounds scientists. I think you put it very succinctly in that there are limitations for us on how accurately we can predict things. As a game programmer myself, I am experienced in creating systems that have equally random and unknowable effects. These systems are designed to provide variety, without actually upsetting the overall balance of the world I create. In many respects I feel this is analogous to our current understanding in a theistic worldview of God and the limitations you talk about. God being the designer, and the limitations of accuracy being not enough to upset the balance of the world, but enough to provide variety within it.
If it's wooden, would that count as an idol?In fact I would also suggest that we should be humble in our assertions of the world around us, we know from history that things which we did not understand years ago, we do now, sometimes they end up being quite radically different to what we thought. Whilst I agree we are developing and evolving our knowledge, it seems that the limits are just a bar that is being pushed every further back. Which is fine, but I find it quite believable that in decades time, we may have some very sound theories within QM but there is a new puzzle to solve. Such is, from my point of view, the wonderful universe that God gave us to explore.
So I think there are two things, potentially our understanding is incomplete or inaccurate, and that even if it is, it's of no effect to the entire picture or design of the world. Unless you adhere to the most wooden and literal understanding of an all-knowing God.
'Tis indeed. God exists outside time, sees everything that was, is, and will be. What will be is inherently quantum mechanical and random and all the rest, but God simply knows what it will be. Predictably unpredictable. It's like omniscience and free will: I believe that the two are not mutually exclusive. That God knows what we will choose doesn't change the fact that we are the ones who will make that decision.Another idea I would venture is that our knowledge of these things is within time, on a timeline such that we predict based on our understanding and observations what will happen and in QM we are sometimes wrong, even though 99.9% of the time we are right. This is because we are limited by time, I myself subscribe to the idea that God is timeless, and that time, space and matter in our universe was created by God. So the idea that God is constrained in the same way we are, I find to be untrue. Where we can see only one linear branch of time forward or back, God can see every branch, at every moment, and as such there is simply no need for prediction or observation according to how we use and implement them.
Hope that is understandable to you. :>
Why do you divide by zero if you set t = 0? How do you 'compute the uncertainty principle'? Why does this mean the equation breaks down? What does it mean for an equation to 'break down'? What's the relevance to the OP?If you set t=0 when computing the uncertainty principle, you will eventually hit a process where you would divide by zero (when computing velocity specifically) and the entire equation breaks down.
I... don't understand. "Anyone attempting to measure both can in velocity and change in position cannot"? What does this mean?Also, it's the observer effect that seems to play the role, whereas any one attempting to measure both can in velocity and change in position cannot because they will disrupt the position of the subatomic particle simply by observing the change.
How do you stop time?Again, if you stop time, then this is no longer the case.
Well, he stopped the Sun in the sky for an hour (or a day, I forget), so that the Israelites (or whoever) could finish slaughtering their enemies. Does that count as trivial?Time is a man made construct, God outlined time in Genesis for our own understanding, but He is beyond time and I believe can "stop time" if need be. I'm sure he doesn't bother with something so trivial though
Yeah I guess my natural inclination is to assume where an argument is heading. Seeing as you provided a thread though, you must believe the world was created in some sense, if not by a conscious mind?It's a good way of thinking about it. I never posed this question as a way of refuting the possibility of a designer; this could very well be the way God chose to create the world (not that I think it was created, of course). The world is predictably unpredictable, for better or worse.
Only if you worship it in the same way you don't worship God, sure.If it's wooden, would that count as an idol?
Yeah I don't see any reason to see that it will not move as you say. But I don't think it should impact anyone's belief in non-naturalistic things. It seems a huge amount of effort has been invested in to creating this idea that religion wars with science.I agree with you that science will move inexorably forward. Quantum mechanics will be proven wrong, and a new theory will spring up out of its ashes. But I think the next paradigm will be a refinement of the current quantum mechanical one, just as Newton's classical paradigm was refined with a hefty dash of quantum hoo-hah. Newton was essentially right, especially at certain scales, we've just vastly improved since then.
Yeah I can't disagree with that, I'm sure I've made that argument in the past somewhere too heh.'Tis indeed. God exists outside time, sees everything that was, is, and will be. What will be is inherently quantum mechanical and random and all the rest, but God simply knows what it will be. Predictably unpredictable. It's like omniscience and free will: I believe that the two are not mutually exclusive. That God knows what we will choose doesn't change the fact that we are the ones who will make that decision.
This reminds me of AV1611VET's idea that everyone is a Creationist: he believes in creation ex deus and I believe in creation ex materia. So, in that sense, yes, I believe the world was created. I believe the world is one of several aggregates formed from the primordial dust cloud, under wholly naturally processes, about 4.5 billion years ago.Yeah I guess my natural inclination is to assume where an argument is heading. Seeing as you provided a thread though, you must believe the world was created in some sense, if not by a conscious mind?
I don't see that they should clash, either. Arguably, if God isn't a trickster, religion and science should converge on The Truth. If spirituality is a sort of short-cut to the truth that science is aiming for, then they should be in complete agreement.Yeah I don't see any reason to see that it will not move as you say. But I don't think it should impact anyone's belief in non-naturalistic things. It seems a huge amount of effort has been invested in to creating this idea that religion wars with science.
I tend to believe in creation ex nihilo. I remember talking to you about this before, where you were saying that big bang cosmology doesn't actually posit that time and matter were created at a finite point in the past. I still maintain that it does, the universe has an absolute time, and infinite regress is impossible as is an infinite start point. It always confused me how someone obviously intelligent and enthralled with the mechanics of the universe never ended up seeing an inescapable case for God in it.This reminds me of AV1611VET's idea that everyone is a Creationist: he believes in creation ex deus and I believe in creation ex materia. So, in that sense, yes, I believe the world was created. I believe the world is one of several aggregates formed from the primordial dust cloud, under wholly naturally processes, about 4.5 billion years ago.
I like that you put a 'tm' on that, I tend to call that Ultimate Reality, which is essentially the same thing that you are hinting, the ultimate truth.I don't see that they should clash, either. Arguably, if God isn't a trickster, religion and science should converge on The Truth. If spirituality is a sort of short-cut to the truth that science is aiming for, then they should be in complete agreement.
That said, if science and religion do disagree, then I would err on the side of science.
Well, I believe that too, but for entirely aesthetic reasonsI tend to believe in creation ex nihilo. I remember talking to you about this before, where you were saying that big bang cosmology doesn't actually posit that time and matter were created at a finite point in the past. I still maintain that it does, the universe has an absolute time, and infinite regress is impossible as is an infinite start point.
Aw, shucksIt always confused me how someone obviously intelligent and enthralled with the mechanics of the universe never ended up seeing an inescapable case for God in it.
'Wrong' doesn't mean 'useless'. Chemists use a simplified model of atoms to model all of chemistry. Does that mean chemistry is a bunk science? No. It means that their model is good enough. It might be false in the details, but it's still pretty damn close to the truth.I like that you put a 'tm' on that, I tend to call that Ultimate Reality, which is essentially the same thing that you are hinting, the ultimate truth.
That being said, I take an opposite stance with your idea of accepting the observations from science, over that of anything else. I always find this a scary proposition, as I think it opens itself up to error as has been shown in the past with scientific findings, that have later been shown to be completely wrong, or partially wrong. I mean it's the nature of scientific inquiry really, in that at some point it has to be wrong or partially wrong in some areas to evolve to a higher level of understanding.
I just find the idea terrifying that you could rely on something that has been shown to be wrong, for something that may be incredibly important.
I remember you from the early days of this thread, welcome back
Thanks, good to be back
Why do you divide by zero if you set t = 0? How do you 'compute the uncertainty principle'? Why does this mean the equation breaks down? What does it mean for an equation to 'break down'? What's the relevance to the OP?
To measure the change of velocity you compute this:
as you can see, if t=0 then you cannot compute this formula. Thus in the uncertainty principle,
This would then mean 0 would be >= h/2 which can never be true
also expressed in
Which would cause you to divide by zero
Thus the formula breaks down.
I... don't understand. "Anyone attempting to measure both can in velocity and change in position cannot"? What does this mean?
read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
I had my hair cut about half an hour ago. It was clearly more instrumental to my intellect than I thought
How do you stop time?
We cannot stop time, God can, for with Him all things are possible, like measuring the position of subatomic particles
Well, he stopped the Sun in the sky for an hour (or a day, I forget), so that the Israelites (or whoever) could finish slaughtering their enemies. Does that count as trivial?
In the scope of this thread, yes
That's not the change in velocity, nor is it even velocity itself. It's the average speed of something that travelled a distance Δx over a time Δt.To measure the change of velocity you compute this:
Except t doesn't exist in any of the above equations. dt and Δt exist, but they are not the same as t. Δt is a finite length of time, the duration between two points in time. dt is an infinitesimal change in time intimately linked with limits.as you can see, if t=0 then you cannot compute this formula.
Agreed, though zero will never be on the left hand side. The whole point of the inequality is to show that the product of the uncertainty in x and p[sub]x[/sub] must be larger than half the reduced plank constant.Thus in the uncertainty principle,
This would then mean 0 would be >= h/2 which can never be true
also expressed in
Which would cause you to divide by zero
I'm well aware of the observer effect. My point was that your sentence made no sense. "Anyone attempting to measure both can in velocity and change in position cannot" is neither grammatically nor syntactically correct, to the point where I can't even guess what it is you were trying to say.I... don't understand. "Anyone attempting to measure both can in velocity and change in position cannot"? What does this mean?
read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
If he knows the exact position of a particle, does he also know its exact momentum?How do you stop time?
We cannot stop time, God can, for with Him all things are possible, like measuring the position of subatomic particles
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"?
My point exactly. So, if God is omniscient, what does he know about atoms? Does he know their position? Their momentum? What are the values of Δx and Δp[sub]x[/sub] from his point of view?The point of quantum mechanics is that we cannot know past the limit, because there is nothing to know. It is not a problem of insufficient technology, which include also insufficient brain (not having omniscience).
Well, it is the longest thread in EC(sorry, no time to read the whole thread)
Ah, I see, you thought 'dt' was 'd times t'!Yeah, I botched that formula...my bad. What I have essentially failed to understand is dt as a derivative, thus setting t=0 means that there is no change in time and therefore NOT APPLICABLE to solving this formula at all (or aiding to my case). I see what you're saying finally. Thank you for the corrections (I need to go back to school and retake calculus)
If he can see its exact momentum, quantum mechanics requires that he know nothing about its position.Can God see it's exact momentum? Sure, if you could see infinitely far into the future and be omnipotent then seeing momentum would not be a problem.
My point exactly. So, if God is omniscient, what does he know about atoms? Does he know their position? Their momentum? What are the values of Δx and Δp[sub]x[/sub] from his point of view?
Ah, I see, you thought 'dt' was 'd times t'!
If he can see its exact momentum, quantum mechanics requires that he know nothing about its position.
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?