Unpacking the Quantum Universe: God's Knowledge and the Role of Observations

[Alexander]

In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?

And yet it seems the higher the "intelligence factor," the less likely things are apt to occur by chance. In other words you seem to have put the "cart before the horse."

Whereas if I see a car driving down the road, and I know that road only goes one place, say to the end of town, then I could fairly reasonably "predict" the car is going to the end of town.

How much more difficult do you think it would be for God to do, if in fact He understood "the principle" to all things?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Iacchus32


Whereas if I see a car driving down the road, and I know that road only goes one place, say to the end of town, then I could fairly reasonably "predict" the car is going to the end of town.

Only with some probability (car may ran out of gas or oil, or skid into trench at turn, tire may blow, driver may get important call, or realize that this is dead end, etc etc). That is exactly what our world seems to be - uncertainty and probability. Thus no way of knowing exact future - it is not set yet.

Thus, uncompartibility of such "knowing-it-all" God with our universe.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Only with some probability (car may ran out of gas or oil, or skid into trench at turn, tire may blow, driver may get important call, or realize that this is dead end, etc etc). That is exactly what our world seems to be - uncertainty and probability. Thus no way of knowing exact future - it is not set yet.

Thus, uncompartibility of such "knowing-it-all" God with our universe.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that things which are governed by "higher principles" (on evolutionary scale if nothing else) are less subject to chance? If so, doesn't that make them "more predictable?"

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Alexander
In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?

Because God is the source of the quantum-universe, and we must presume that God knows where his own energy (body, so to speak) is going to 'act'.
I cannot predict what my next post shall be. But the words I use shall be of my own will. Get the drift?

 

[Alexander]

Once god made universe quantum, then he lost all control over its futher future.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Alexander
Once god made universe quantum, then he lost all control over its futher future.

That's like saying that once God made his own thoughts unpredictable, that he lost control over his own thoughts.
But even my thoughts are unpredictable. Yet I know what I shall say when I want to say it.
Your thread is defunct.

 

[FZ+]

If you can control your thoughts, then your thoughts are simply not unpredictable for you...

(Newsflash: recent experiment shows that there is a change in brain impulses about 100 miliseconds before an action is consciously considered. Is this evidence of a mind before a mind? Or a subconscious puppet master?)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?

You can create a calculator that doesn't make mistakes can't you? It would just be a matter of understanding the "principles" that go into creating it. Therefore, if God understands the principles that go into all things, why can't He also understand how everything turns out in the end?

 

[plus]

Quantum is only unpredictable to us. It may not be to any God, if one existed.

 

[jackle]

I think atheists want it both ways. We seem to be damned if it is and damned if it isn't. Are you now saying the world is *unpredictable*, but still there is no place for God? As I remember it, in the 19th centuary you proclaimed that the universe was purely mechanical and *predictable* with no place left for God.

 

[FZ+]

So we are damned if it is and damned if it isn't.

Pretty much...

There a different problem, depending on which way you look at it.

Absolute determinism -> no free will -> morality etc do not make sense -> irrelevance of God

No determinism -> no predictability -> contradiction with omniscience clause -> God is irrational

Or so it seems...

EDIT: ie. it isn't a matter of there being no place for God now, but that he is inconsistent with the things we observe. The laws of quantum uncertainty, for example...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Pretty much...

There a different problem, depending on which way you look at it.

Absolute determinism -> no free will -> morality etc do not make sense -> irrelevance of God

No determinism -> no predictability -> contradiction with omniscience clause -> God is irrational

Or so it seems...

EDIT: ie. it isn't a matter of there being no place for God now, but that he is inconsistent with the things we observe. The laws of quantum uncertainty, for example...

And yet the higher the "faculty of reason," the less one is likely to make mistakes ... albeit there was probably an "initial choice" to be reasonable in the first place.

You see if perfection existed then that would be determinism, for there would be "nothing" to determine. And yet in order to achieve perfection (or, allow for its potential), then you have to have free will.

 

[HazZy]

programmers add randomness to games to make them more interesting, yet they still control every aspect of the game and can add and subtract from it as they wish . saying god can't exist in a random universe is like saying "this game has randomness, therefore it could not have been programmed by a programmer." we know the programmer exist outside of the computer therefore he could have created randomness in the game from the beginning. so if god can exist outside of our universe why couldn't he create a random universe and then meddle around with it as he sees fit?

 

[Alexander]

To make my point more clear let's consider the following example. Suppose, we have a quantum wavetrain of 1 mile long (say, a red He-Ne laser photon). Does God know exact position of this wave?

Even math does not know that (simply because it is not defined), how God can?

On the other hand, if God does not indeed know position of wave better than "somwhere within the mile" then He does not know where a photon will be absorbed (triggering some alternative events depending on location) thus what is the outcome of absorbtion.

Because our universe is a bunch of wavetrains, it is inherently unpredictable (better say, only predictable down to uncertainty principle limits), thus its future too is only predictable statistically.

The "light cone" of unpredictability (so to speak) makes future events exponentially less and less predictable with time down into future.

That is what I mean by "future in not set yet".

So, no God can "know all what comes" in quantum universe.

 

[jackle]

I think a God who is no more than mathematics would be no God at all. If God has escaped your perception until now, is it reasonable to assume anything about him?

 

[megashawn]

Regardless of which dimension/universe god resides in, if he expects me to believe him without any proof of his existence, and will punish me after I die if I do not believe, then I, as a decent person, would gladly except that punishment and smile in his face.

If god is mathematics, then I'd say god is not a conscious being. If he is quantum, then obviously he is in a world which we shall not meet with him. Hey, maybe someday we will. Untill that day, I'll take the high road and appreciate life for what it is, not worrying about what happens when I die. One thing is for certain, I'll have an infinite amount of time to do so.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Alexander
In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?

Alex. Your question is easily answerable. The god of whatever religious mythology you speak of can know ONLY and EXACTLY what the mythology says that God knows. If the mythology does not address a certain piece of information that this god knows, the only answer is you cannot know weather this god knows it or not.

The answer is undefined.

Again, please see my sig. Don't superimpose (religious) mythology on to reality.

 

[Alexander]

Yeah, of course. I think that most here understand that religions (=widely spread system beliefs WITHOUT factual/logical background) are just kind of moxture of superstition and mythology - whether it is about Santa or Jahove or Jesus, or about flat Earth or even about real persons like Elvis.

What I try to analyse here - is there ANY room for god(s) in physical world, or by its very definition God is outside of it. By other words, which laws of Nature we have to "cancel" by assuming existence of God?

It seems to me that most of them.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
Even math does not know that (simply because it is not defined), how God can?

The "light cone" of unpredictability (so to speak) makes future events exponentially less and less predictable with time down into future.

Do you know the true reason for that unpredictability? your answer is no, and you can't use that argument.

What I try to analyse here - is there ANY room for god(s) in physical world, or by its very definition God is outside of it. By other words, which laws of Nature we have to "cancel" by assuming existence of God?

Lets face it, god is undisprovable. Thus its axiom, assumption that can be either true or false. Its probability of being either is exactly 50%, no less, no more. How we define god is factually irrelevant. Sad part of most religions is that they've been used as weapon against human mind, to lock it. Those who lock onto concept of god, are lost to progress of civilization and are stuck in vegetative indulging. Luckily there are not too many. Healthy amount of doubt and independance of any mantras allows one to have open mind for any possibility. To argue about definitions of god is completely fruitless, and attempt to convert people is aggression. Given our childish state of understanding of god, colored by only myriad of idiotic religions, it can be only very very personal matter, very bland discussions.

Any room? There's always room. As long as there exists one single axiom, there is room. Maybe logic of universe and time are not quite that, but they're as close as you can get to common part of all definitions of god, trinity. They are literally everywhere.

 

[FZ+]

Its probability of being either is exactly 50%, no less, no more.

No. The probability varies from observer to observer, depending on experience, genetics etc. To have an unified probability that is true for everyone kinda defeats the point of having probabilities in the first place...

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by FZ+
No. The probability varies from observer to observer, depending on experience, genetics etc. To have an unified probability that is true for everyone kinda defeats the point of having probabilities in the first place...

wow, that's kinda deep. Probability of encountering god after death varies from observer to observer, location, etc..
Quantum god in universe?

 

[FZ+]

And hence, gentlemen, is the proof for the wave-particle duality of Divine Entities.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
Do you know the true reason for that unpredictability? your answer is no, and you can't use that argument.

Of course, I do. The reason is that many systems obey specific kind of differential equations which solution is exponent (of time). And exponent is DIVERGING (with time) function. Thus very small (subatomic) change in some initial condition today may result in completely different behavior of such system tomorrow.

Lets face it, god is undisprovable.

Incorrect. God is undefinable simply because it does not exist. Define Him, and I'll prove to you that He does not exist. Make sure you definition is acceptable (=complies with Bible or at least with major dogmas of religion).

Now, if God is undefinable, then He does not exist by definition. There is NO god(s) yet unless you define it (them).

So, God does not exist simply because He is undefinable. No object (or subject) yet. Nothing to discuss existence of therefore.

Any room? There's always room. As long as there exists one single axiom, there is room. Maybe logic of universe and time are not quite that, but they're as close as you can get to common part of all definitions of god, trinity. They are literally everywhere.

Any fact to substantiate your "observation" of everywhereness? I think you have too rich imagination which does not let you to separate facts from illusions.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by FZ+
And hence, gentlemen, is the proof for the wave-particle duality of Divine Entities.

Indeed. And it vanishes every time observer takes a look. Collapse of Divine wave fuction, you know.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms


Its probability of being either is exactly 50%, no less, no more.

It depends on tools you use to analyse existence of God(s). If you use a tool called logic, this probability asymptotically reaches zero.

 

[HazZy]

Now, if God is undefinable, then He does not exist by definition. There is NO god(s) yet unless you define it (them).

infinity is undefinable, so therefore by your logic infinity doesn't exist? that parallel universe article seems to disagree.

 

[Alexander]

Incorrect. Infinity is clearly defined: more than anything.

 

[HazZy]

well my dictionary (it's old, that might be be the problem) defines "define" -- To determine or clearly exhibit the boundaries of; to mark the limits of. infinity as i know it is boundless, therefore, how do you define it?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
It depends on tools you use to analyse existence of God(s). If you use a tool called logic, this probability asymptotically reaches zero.

I think if we are to "experience" God, then it should be from the standpoint of "wholeness." The use of "logic" by itself -- i.e., without "intuition" -- won't do.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by HazZy
well my dictionary (it's old, that might be be the problem) defines "define" -- To determine or clearly exhibit the boundaries of; to mark the limits of. infinity as i know it is boundless, therefore, how do you define it?

It is not boundless, it simply has LOWER bound instead of UPPER.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wimms
wow, that's kinda deep. Probability of encountering god after death varies from observer to observer, location, etc..
Quantum god in universe?

Yes, especially if there is a heaven and a hell. Those who are in heaven turn towards God (which in heaven is portrayed as The Sun), while those who are in hell face away (from the encounter).

 

[HazZy]

Originally posted by Alexander
It is not boundless, it simply has LOWER bound instead of UPPER.

well see again I am thrown in between your definition and websters. Infinity: 1. Unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity; eternity; boundlessness; immensity.

anyways doesn't a lower bound specify it being equal to or less than another number in a set? and a upper bound a number equal to or greater than another number in a set? therefore since infinity^2=infinity there is no upper or lower bounds to inifinty (there both equal), it's boundless. am i missing something here?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
-- Do you know the true reason for that unpredictability? (wimms)
Of course, I do. The reason is that many systems obey specific kind of differential equations which solution is exponent (of time). And exponent is DIVERGING (with time) function.

Your mind is closed when discussing such subject, isn't it? What you know is:
1. that many systems obey specific kind of differential equations
2. that specific kind of differential equations which solution is exponent, etc.
3. that reality can be to a certain degree be approximated by these equations

What you DON'T know is reason why the hell reality you observe can be approximated by those specific equations.

But you don't want to consider difference..

Incorrect. God is undefinable simply because it does not exist. Define Him, and I'll prove to you that He does not exist. Make sure you definition is acceptable (=complies with Bible or at least with major dogmas of religion).

I don't care a about definitions of any dogmas. Why you need stupid religions? Dogmas are brainwashing tools. I don't really care about god or its definition.
But I gave my take: god is 'logic that rules behaviour of universe'. Disprove that "definition".

Now, if God is undefinable, then He does not exist by definition. There is NO god(s) yet unless you define it (them).

Only defined stuff exists, only what fits your mind? Oh well. Or what you mean by 'undefineable'? There is difference, whether its undefineable today or in principle.

Any fact to substantiate your "observation" of everywhereness? I think you have too rich imagination which does not let you to separate facts from illusions.

So much of bland discussions.. It always ends right there.

Your remark is so off my sanity scale that I really don't know what you want to see as answer. Maybe you think I'm defending existence of god? No, I'm not a believer. What I said was not to 'proove' god or something. What I said, is that 'time' and 'behavioural logic' are everywhere. You say that I need to give a 'fact' to proove that?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by HazZy
well see again I am thrown in between your definition and websters. Infinity: 1. Unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity; eternity; boundlessness; immensity.

anyways doesn't a lower bound specify it being equal to or less than another number in a set? and a upper bound a number equal to or greater than another number in a set? therefore since infinity^2=infinity there is no upper or lower bounds to inifinty (there both equal), it's boundless. am i missing something here?

Lower bound means "bigger than...", infinity is what bigger than any essential parameter of your particular problem. Say, you measure area of your runch. Because Earth radius is much bigger than your runch, you can neglect its curvature completely and use plane Earth geometry to calculate ranch area - much easier than to mess with Lobachevsky tensors.

Or for car, plane or Shuttle flight you can safely assume that speed of light is infinite - then Einstein SR turns into Newtonian mechanics which is a little easier to digest.

So, infinity is indeed very convenient and extremely useful for practical applications concept.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms

What you DON'T know is reason why the hell reality you observe can be approximated by those specific equations.

Of course, I do. I studied nature a lot. Can explain it to you. But it is no easy task (for you, not for me), you need to have certain background to understand many concepts here. (And, unfortunately, layman logic is quite useless here).

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
Of course, I do. I studied nature a lot. Can explain it to you. But it is no easy task (for you, not for me), you need to have certain background to understand many concepts here. (And, unfortunately, layman logic is quite useless here).

Wow, so we have answers to all questions? No more theoretical physics searches ever needed? Every postulate is reasoned? No more questions of challenge? Now that's something. Of course I would like to hear about it. I've so far lived with that stupid assumption that we're not quite there..

Lets start with trivial things. Explain please WHY is universe consistent, and explainable in terms of logic and math?

As you raise really interesting issue for me, I'm ready to update my background if needed.

 

[Alexander]

Quite easy. Basic premises of logic come from nature itself. Say, existence of something. It seems quite trivial that there is existence of something (in nature). But it makes interesting impact. We label this existence as "yes" or "+" or "true" or "1", and the lack (of this "something") - as "no", or "-", or "false", or "0". This is the foundation of logic (and math).

So mathematics (which is just advanced logic) correctly predicts behavior of things in nature - because foundation of both (of math and of nature) is same.

 

[HazZy]

Originally posted by Alexander
Lower bound means "bigger than..."

i think you're confused...

and if you think by saying that since we approximate v/c=0 for slow speeds is in any way recognition that infinity is bounded, you're way off.

so go for it, show me the bounds of +-infinity.

 

[Alexander]

Then you simply don't understand infinity correctly. Infinity = much bigger than any important parameter. In some cases just a few times bigger is already infinity.

Say, solenoidal formulas (for magnetic field inside solenoid, as well as for inductance) are derived for INFINITELY long (compared to diameter) solenoid. But they work quite well for a solenoid which is only 5-10 times longer than its diameter. So, in this case 5-10 is already infinity.

 

[plus]

Originally posted by Alexander

Make sure you definition is acceptable (=complies with Bible or at least with major dogmas of religion).

There is nothing to say that if there were a God, it would comply with any major religion.

 

[HazZy]

Originally posted by Alexander
Then you simply don't understand infinity correctly. Infinity = much bigger than any important parameter. In some cases just a few times bigger is already infinity.

Say, solenoidal formulas (for magnetic field inside solenoid, as well as for inductance) are derived for INFINITELY long (compared to diameter) solenoid. But they work quite well for a solenoid which is only 5-10 times longer than its diameter. So, in this case 5-10 is already infinity.

you can't say infinity is simply "a few times bigger", that denotes infinity as actually being a finite number, which it is not.

a solenoid may work well when it is long with a small diameter, but it will ALWAYS work better if it's longer. the solenoid is never perfect until it reaches infinity, which it can never reach. you're trying to set some finite number to infinity, it's ridiculous.

first you tell me infinity is a lower bound, now you say infinity is finite, what's next?

 

[Alexander]

Ok, once again: infinity = much bigger than biggest important thing in your system. How much bigger? Big enough to not notice any difference if you futher increase it. Sometimes only few times is enough, like in many cases in physics.

{I am trying to explain to you the concept of infinity EXACTLY how mathematicians and scientists understand it and how they use it.

How laymans understand (or don't understand) it, or how philosophers complicate/fog it, or what they mean by it, I don' know and am not responsible for.)

Originally posted by HazZy


a solenoid may work well when it is long with a small diameter, but it will ALWAYS work better if it's longer.

Nope, it won't. Because you always limited in resolution/accuracy of your measurement, you won't be able to notice any difference.

 

[HazZy]

Originally posted by Alexander
Ok, once again: infinity = much bigger than biggest important thing in your system. How much bigger? Big enough to not notice any difference if you futher increase it. Sometimes only few times is enough, like in many cases in physics.

i simply can't accept something as infinite just because it's much bigger than something else. that's like calling the universe infinite just because it's "much bigger than biggest important thing in your system", that's just not logical.

Nope, it won't. Because you always limited in resolution/accuracy of your measurement, you won't be able to notice any difference. [/B]

just because we can't measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. whenever you make the solenoid longer it has less error, no matter how miniscule. the error is never zero until the solenoids length is infinity, that's how physics uses the concept of infinity. the error dimishes with distance, therefore at infinite distance there is no error.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by HazZy
just because we can't measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. whenever you make the solenoid longer it has less error, no matter how miniscule.

That is exactly what matters in the concept of infinity - various limits and constrains. You always have either instrumental errors, or something else starts messing around as you make solenoid longer (say, wire size is not fine enough or wires are slightly bent, or atoms of wire are too big, etc), or inherent natural mathematical limitations like Heizenberg uncertainty principle, etc. You simply can't then distinguish between, say, magnetic field in 1"x10" solenoid and in 1"x20" one.

Infinity is NOT an object. It is an approach in measurements and calculations, nothing else.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
Quite easy. Basic premises of logic come from nature itself. Say, existence of something. It seems quite trivial that there is existence of something (in nature). But it makes interesting impact. We label this existence as "yes" or "+" or "true" or "1", and the lack (of this "something") - as "no", or "-", or "false", or "0". This is the foundation of logic (and math).

So mathematics (which is just advanced logic) correctly predicts behavior of things in nature - because foundation of both (of math and of nature) is same.

Of course you didn't understand the question. What you described is identification and counting, not logic or any foundation. If you say that aristoteles logic comes direct from nature, then that's bs.
And yet, even if it was true, question was not IF we can describe nature in terms of logic and math, but why it is at all describable, consistent and reliable, predictable. It IS, that's not an issue. Question is why it follows any consistent logic AT ALL? And why this particular one? You said you know the reason. And all you said is that it IS because it IS.
So, by you, we use logic of nature to describe nature. Q: where does this logic come from in first place?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
Ok, once again: infinity = much bigger than biggest important thing in your system. How much bigger? Big enough to not notice any difference if you futher increase it. Sometimes only few times is enough, like in many cases in physics.

{I am trying to explain to you the concept of infinity EXACTLY how mathematicians and scientists understand it and how they use it.

Geez, Alexander, is it that hard to point out that you make huge distinction between infinity vs infinite.
What they mean by infinity is largest meaningful thing. For eg, north pole is North infinity, there is no more point north from north pole. Largest value your calculator can show is infinity. Gees, even point at circle radius is at infinity. So you can actually get there. But you can't get to infinite distance.

I'd bet that this stupid usage of infinity is causing quite abit of confusion in scientific community aswell.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?

Simple answer: because God does not exist, so there is no need to know.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
Question is why it [universe] follows any consistent logic AT ALL?

Because, as I have shown above, logic IS universe itself (anything existing is logic by definition of logic).

So, by you, we use logic of nature to describe nature. Q: where does this logic come from in first place?

Once again: from the fact that something (like any object, or any phenomenon) exists (we then label this "something" as "yes", or "+", or "1" or "true").

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
Geez, Alexander, is it that hard to point out that you make huge distinction between infinity vs infinite.

What is the difference?