Omniscience and quantum mechanics

[razeontherock]

I hear ya, and it sounds kinda blue ... (LOL)

 

[DoctorJosh]

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"?

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. Your quantum mechanics is not right either, research the other fringe sciences such as Hadronic Mechanics and see where that takes your mind. 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. 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.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

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.

Your quantum mechanics is not right either,

Almost certainly.

research the other fringe sciences such as Hadronic Mechanics and see where that takes your mind.

I'm not a fan of Santilli's ideas.

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.

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.

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.

We don't know everything, but we do know logic. Even God is subordinate to logic.

 

[Digit]

Wow I remember this thread. Hi WC o/

After have deliberated some of these questions myself, I have to say I quite like this question.

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).

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.

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.

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"?

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. :>

 

[98cwitr]

again...(Ill post this on every page until I get proven wrong)

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. 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. Again, if you stop time, then this is no longer the case.

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

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wow I remember this thread. Hi WC o/

Yo

After 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.

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.

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.

If it's wooden, would that count as an idol?

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.

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. :>

'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.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I remember you from the early days of this thread, welcome back

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.

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?

I honestly don't know what you're on about.

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.

I... don't understand. "Anyone attempting to measure both can in velocity and change in position cannot"? What does this mean?

I had my hair cut about half an hour ago. It was clearly more instrumental to my intellect than I thought

Again, if you stop time, then this is no longer the case.

How do you stop time?

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

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?

 

[Digit]

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.

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?

If it's wooden, would that count as an idol?

Only if you worship it in the same way you don't worship God, sure.

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 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.

'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.

Yeah I can't disagree with that, I'm sure I've made that argument in the past somewhere too heh.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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?

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 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 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.


Yeah I can't disagree with that, I'm sure I've made that argument in the past somewhere too heh.[/quote]

 

[Digit]

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 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.

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.

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.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Well, I believe that too, but for entirely aesthetic reasons . The Big Bang theory doesn't define a beginning to the universe, but neither does it rule it out.

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.

Aw, shucks . I've just never seen anything in the universe that points to an intelligent, transcendent being at the root cause of it all. There are some fascinating and thought-provoking arguments for such a being, of course, but I haven't yet found one that's convincing.

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.

'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.
Likewise, future theories that supersede the ones we have now will just be refinements. Relativistic and quantum mechanics are refinements on classical mechanics, but that doesn't mean the latter is inherently useless and nowhere near the truth.

Consider the fact that you're using a computer. Computers work because our models of the universe are very accurate. If reality is different from how we model it, it only differs very minutely, since our models correctly predict the behaviour of computers.

So I don't find it terrifying to rely on models that are a) accurate, b) useful, c) supported by literally all data and experience known to man. And it's that latter point that makes me support science over religion, whenever they disagree: science has the data to support its claims. Some religions disagree with science as to the age and shape of the Earth, but science's inherent flaws pale in comparison to its evidence and explanatory power.

So, yea. It's comforting, rather than terrifying, to rest one's beliefs on evidence and logic.

 

[98cwitr]

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

commented, see bold.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To measure the change of velocity you compute this:

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.

The correct equation for the change in velocity is: a = dv/dt.
The correct equation for velocity itself is: v = ds/dt.

The use of vectors and differentials is very important, things which your formula omits.

as you can see, if t=0 then you cannot compute this formula.

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.

So you can't set t = 0, and even if you could, it wouldn't affect any of the above equations one bit.

Thus in the uncertainty principle,

This would then mean 0 would be >= h/2 which can never be true

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.

also expressed in

Which would cause you to divide by zero

I don't see how this equation would cause you to divide by zero. Δx is a finite length, it is unrelated to time.

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'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.

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

If he knows the exact position of a particle, does he also know its exact momentum?

 

[Rao]

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"?

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).

(sorry, no time to read the whole thread)

 

[98cwitr]

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 )

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.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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).

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?

(sorry, no time to read the whole thread)

Well, it is the longest thread in EC

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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 )

Ah, I see, you thought 'dt' was 'd times t'!

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.

If he can see its exact momentum, quantum mechanics requires that he know nothing about its position.

 

[Rao]

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?

Actually I read my previous post and notice that perhaps I was thinking more about the Schrödinger's Cat paradox rather than the Heisenberg principle itself.

However, the Heisenberg principle is related to "knowing" in the sense of "measuring", and its intuitively explanation is that the limit in knowing has to do with the impossibility of measuring things without interacting with them in some way and therefore disturbing them, thus adding some margin of error. If you try to measure one thing only, the disturbance is technology-related only, so you can always hope to decrease the error by improving your technology. If you try to measure two things at once and those two things happen to be quantistically paired (possibly this is not the correct expression, sorry but I'm not a physicist ) - like velocity & position - then the errors of the two cannot be both decreased without limit due to the nature itself of the particle.

Notice that the term "measuring" is often misleading because it makes us think of a human observer, and then wonder if the situation would be different for a particle that was far away from us (or other intelligent life), and no one would want to "measure". The problem remains if generalized in terms of "interacting" with the particle by anything else, another particle or object. When considering a particle-crashing scenario, the second particle could for example "find" the first particle in different places and with different momentums, i.e. multiple values (in a range that is limited, but cannot be shrunk to zero for both the velocity and position).

However God would have absolutely no problem in knowing both the position and the velocity of the particle, because he doesn't need to interact with it in any way. He could just know. Only something that belongs to the material universe is required to interact, a God could clearly just watch from beyond the material universe.

However......

Back to my previous post... There is a problem in what we think a particle is. It is not a dot, which would have clearly a position. It is not a small ball (or whatever shape), which would have a position of each of its points. It might be something akin to a small "cloud", with no clearly identified surface: in such case, we cannot talk about a "position" clearly, we can say that some points are certainly occupied by it and others certainly not, but there is no points where exactly the cloud starts or end. Often in quantum physics, particles are "wave packets" which are however pretty complex objects to imagine, but once again where do they start and end is pretty much without answer. So if something does not have an answer, God doesn't know it, but He obviously isn't at fault, and in any case He certainly know that the answer is "there is no answer". If we see this as a problem or as fault, it's only because our own logic doesn't get it.

I hope I didn't say too many brutal things... I'm not a physicist so my opinion doesn't have any solidity.

 

[98cwitr]

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.

Haha, yes...my blundering mistake has been made apparent

You're still thinking about it in the present tense, imagine that you could see into the future...then what is present can be any point in the past on a linear timeline. Therefore, it's more about literal observation than trying to compute the two.

 

[Digit]

To be honest, and whilst I find the entire discussion quite interesting, something you said earlier is that you find the talk of an intelligent designer fascinating and stimulating, but not convincing which I find quite amazing, but I am lead to ask what you would find convincing?