Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Does QM prohibit an omniscient being?

  1. Jul 27, 2004 #1
    the title says it all.

  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 27, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    Only if the said being follows normal physical laws, and if we define omniscient in a certain way...
  4. Jul 27, 2004 #3
    Fair enough. How would "omniscient" have to be defined in order that a physical law abiding being would not be omniscient?

    Part of why this is in epistemology is that to be omniscient means to know everything; so how and what we know and what is knowable is important in the definiton of omnicscient.
  5. Jul 27, 2004 #4
    Can QM prohibit what is not understood about it?
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2004
  6. Jul 27, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    The logical impossibility of omnipotence prohibits the existence of an omnipotent being.

    A simple paradox: We have one omnipotent being. He's bored, and since he is omnipotent, he decides to use his powers to create another omnipotent being. They're getting along perfectly well until they see a hamburger they both want. Only one can have it, so the loser wasn't really omnipotent. If it was the first omnipotent being, he was never omnipotent to begin with. If it was the second, not only was he not omnipotent, but the first being was not omnipotent either, as he tried to create another omnipotent being and failed.
  7. Jul 27, 2004 #6
    Is your idea a entire forluma, in the design of the order of operations ?

    If so. Please translate or convert your formula to triangle inequality theorm + Newton's third law.

  8. Jul 27, 2004 #7
    No, words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. This includes words such as quantum mechanics and omniscience. For example, quantum mechanics includes such possibilities as the many worlds theory. On one of them there is someone who is omniscient as far as we are concerned.

    Are they really, really omniscient? Who knows, who cares? Quantum Mechanics is just a theory after all.
  9. Jul 27, 2004 #8
    Quantum Mechanics. By yesicanread.

    I will explain QM. And a Omnesient person/character.

    1.) A plane is composed of a triangle. Or three planar(on a plane) point, that aren't formin a line(colinear), form a "Plane".

    2.) In this triangle is the triangle inequality theorem. So it follows.

    3.) This theorem is composed as Q = Action < Q + A = 2Reaction

    4.) Triangle inequality theorem = Triangle inequality theorem. So, since we act without knowing the answer, we will always be less than the Q & A.

    5.) 1.) through 5.) explain the indetermination in Quantum Mechanics.

    6.) Q & A existed before we asked a Q.

    7.) Q = Q. So who thought before us ? And also knew the Answer to thoughts questions ?

    8.) Therefore QM will never provide a whole Q&A, & the closer we get to one the closer someone else is to seeing the Q.

    Check it out. 1 through 8. I'm not being religious in my points. Just deductive.
  10. Jul 27, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    No it isn't. It's a sentential paradox, not a formulaic paradox. Answer it in sentences.
  11. Jul 27, 2004 #10
    Why couldn't they share the hamburger? :tongue2:

    Does omnipotence imply perfection?
  12. Jul 28, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I had a feeling someone would say this. Someone always does. The point is that there is something they cannot do. If either eats the entire hamburger, they have just proven each other to not be omnipotent. As there is something they cannot do, they are not omnipotent, as an omnipotent being would be able to do anything.
  13. Jul 28, 2004 #12
    Do omnipotent beings neccesarily have to be perfect?
  14. Jul 28, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    No, they just have to be all-powerful. They must be able to do anything. That is the definition of omnipotence.
  15. Jul 28, 2004 #14
    An omniscient being would know what it was going to do in 5 minutes time. It would not be able to use this knowledge to do something else. Hence an omniscient being would not have free will.
  16. Jul 28, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Ah crap, the thread does say "omniscient," doesn't it? Disregard everything I said.
  17. Jul 28, 2004 #16
    Interesting argument for an omniscient being not having free will...

    I was wondering why you were posting about omnipotence. It's a related idea so I didn't say anything; I like your paradox. You're probably waiting for someone to ask why one of the beings couldn't just use their unlimited power to either stop wanting the hamburger and/or create a second hamburger.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook