If God does exist

[lawtonfogle]

I hope i put this in the right place.

The uncertantity principle means there are things which we (humans) will never know. Yet it allows someone who knows all (God) to still know all. Basicaly, what I mean is that we can never know where the electron is, but God, given that he knows where the electron is, and its direction and speed, can tell by the way the particle shot at it is 'bounced' off in relationship to how it is shot the new direction, position, and speed.

What I am trying to say is that when Einstein said 'God does not play dice' he was right (in the non-literal way he meant it). The uncertinity principle aplies only to those with limited knowledge, but not to those with unlimited knowledge. If the uncertinty princleple is true (which is what is currently accepted), it does not say there are things God does not know. Using this reasoning, it seems Einstein tries to prove quantum mechanics wrong were based on a faulty reasoning. If he had thought of this, would he have still tried to disprove quantum mechanics. Einstein tried to disprove quantum mechanics so that the universe would not really off chance, yet the universe does not run off of chance, it only appears to to one who does not know everything.

It is like the dice above mentioned. They appear to be thrown at chance, yet to one with the knowledge (and a really big, really fast computer :rofl: ), the chance can actualy be predicted, at least in theory.

Now in this post, I take for granted God exist. Please do not agrue this for I take it from Einstein's belief that God does exist, and to think like Einstein, we must believe like Einstein.

 

[z-component]

Please do not agrue this for I take it from Einstein's belief that God does exist

You're drawing too much from Einstein's beliefs. He never said that a God exists. What he did say he believes is that the harmony and nature of the world behave like a God but in no way having to do with religion.

and to think like Einstein, we must believe like Einstein.

You should take your own advice then, seeing as you're telling us not to debate your opinion.

I'm sure others would be happy to discuss this with you, but please... when you state an opinion, expect some debate. :)

 

[BoTemp]

The uncertantity principle means there are things which we (humans) will
never know. Yet it allows someone who knows all (God) to still know all.

Not true. You may've heard the argument about measuring a particles
position to greater accuracy means using smaller wavelength, which means
higher frequency, so less accuracy in momentum, and vice versa. That's not
really where it comes from. One can derive it mathematically, starting from
the definition of standard deviation (what uncertainty actually means), and
the definition of position and momentum operators, which come from the
schrodinger equation.

Anyway, the uncertainty principle actually applies to many things,
position and momentum are simply the most widely known.
According to current quantum theory, an electron doesn't have
a definite position or momentum, ever.

 

[eNathan]

I hope i put this in the right place.

The uncertantity principle means there are things which we (humans) will never know. Yet it allows someone who knows all (God) to still know all. Basicaly, what I mean is that we can never know where the electron is, but God, given that he knows where the electron is, and its direction and speed, can tell by the way the particle shot at it is 'bounced' off in relationship to how it is shot the new direction, position, and speed.

What I am trying to say is that when Einstein said 'God does not play dice' he was right (in the non-literal way he meant it). The uncertinity principle aplies only to those with limited knowledge, but not to those with unlimited knowledge. If the uncertinty princleple is true (which is what is currently accepted), it does not say there are things God does not know. Using this reasoning, it seems Einstein tries to prove quantum mechanics wrong were based on a faulty reasoning. If he had thought of this, would he have still tried to disprove quantum mechanics. Einstein tried to disprove quantum mechanics so that the universe would not really off chance, yet the universe does not run off of chance, it only appears to to one who does not know everything.

It is like the dice above mentioned. They appear to be thrown at chance, yet to one with the knowledge (and a really big, really fast computer :rofl: ), the chance can actualy be predicted, at least in theory.

Now in this post, I take for granted God exist. Please do not agrue this for I take it from Einstein's belief that God does exist, and to think like Einstein, we must believe like Einstein.

This is the exact conclusion which I have drawn concerning QM. I think of it like this.

We cannot figure out the knoledge of everything everyplace in one moment of time, but if you already know the exact cords of every element of spacetime, you could then calculate its exact future's cords. Only God can know the exact Cords of every element of spacetime, and therefore can know everything, and can also calculate every even that will ever happen in the future. But that gets into the concept of "free-will" which I don't want to debate right here.

 

[emotionalmachine]

Why think of free will at all? Sounds limiting to me.

 

[mathwonk]

i think this is in the wrong place. i suggest the epistemology forum.

 

[lawtonfogle]

first, what is epistemology?

second, what i am trying to do is express a thought i had, which never comes out the way you think it. I am not trying to make a debate, I am just trying to show that when Einstein tried to disprove quantum mechanics because it meant the universe was based on chance, he did not think that the universe is not based on chance, but it only appears not based on chance to some greater being that knows how the universe started (the postions, speeds, directions, ect.) of all matter.

just like those dice, the universe appears based on chance unless your really smart. And just concerning the dice, those mathematics would take much brain power, so how much more would the universe take.

Third, does two electrons in two different atoms that are very close together affect each others orbit.

 

[lawtonfogle]

This is the exact conclusion which I have drawn concerning QM. I think of it like this.

We cannot figure out the knoledge of everything everyplace in one moment of time, but if you already know the exact cords of every element of spacetime, you could then calculate its exact future's cords. Only God can know the exact Cords of every element of spacetime, and therefore can know everything, and can also calculate every even that will ever happen in the future. But that gets into the concept of "free-will" which I don't want to debate right here.

now this is what I am saying that Einstein should have drawn, it does not disprove God (used in the meaning of a all knowing being). One might could say this actualy requires God (in the above meaning) so there is someone out there who actualy knows where everything is. And as for free will, I only want to ask you this, can you make yourself do something else than what you will do?

 

[jackle]

I think Einstein believed there were hidden variables that caused the exact outcomes of quantum experiments. Perhaps the hidden variables are God.
This would explain why physicists have so much trouble isolating them.

 

[Kube]

I thought electrons were actually waveforms and not actual particles. Just that sometimes the 2 forms are interchangeable in the context of use.

IMO, God is merely a concept of the human mind, used to explain what cannot be currently explained. Perhaps it's the HUMAN MIND that's God! For isn't reality and perception, or even CONSTRUCTION, of the human mind? But that's a topic for a different thread.

 

[Ivegottheskill]

Why think of free will at all? Sounds limiting to me.

Is that an oxymoron? (i.e. Free will is limiting)

:tongue:

 

[luxv66]

I think Einstein believed there were hidden variables that caused the exact outcomes of quantum experiments. Perhaps the hidden variables are God.
This would explain why physicists have so much trouble isolating them.

That's sort of a god of the gaps idea BUT if God does exist then you should be theortetically able to reduce everything down until you see his fingerprint.

As a theist I'd be careful about making claims like that because it's not much different in principle from the "hidden variables" that caused thunder and lightning for ancient peoples. I think it's more likely to find the "fingerprint" in the realm of metaphysics than in physics.

 

[DaveC426913]

The uncertinity principle aplies only to those with limited knowledge, but not to those with unlimited knowledge. If the uncertinty princleple is true (which is what is currently accepted), it does not say there are things God does not know. Using this reasoning, it seems Einstein tries to prove quantum mechanics wrong were based on a faulty reasoning. If he had thought of this, would he have still tried to disprove quantum mechanics. Einstein tried to disprove quantum mechanics so that the universe would not really off chance, yet the universe does not run off of chance, it only appears to to one who does not know everything.

It is like the dice above mentioned. They appear to be thrown at chance, yet to one with the knowledge (and a really big, really fast computer :rofl: ), the chance can actualy be predicted, at least in theory.

Right. So what you're doing is attempting to fit quantum mechanics into a classical framework. Your last sentence, about the really fast computer is the quintessential argument about a classical universe, that, in theory, one can predict the postion, motion and thus future of every particle.

Quantum mechanics says *no*, not even in theory. QM says that chance is built into the very structure of the universe.


You should read about Bell's Hidden Variables. The argument has always been posed "What if there are variables that we just don't know about? Variables that would explain these seemingly chance events, and make everything predictable again?"

Bell shows that there cannot be any variables we haven't considered. In effect, he is showing that God cannot know more than we do about these events.

 

[Iacchus32]

If "God does not play dice," how does change occur, without the mechanism already set in place? Which is to say, things do not evolve, in-as-much-as they unfold ...

 

[selfAdjoint]

Bell shows that there cannot be any variables we haven't considered. In effect, he is showing that God cannot know more than we do about these events.

Not quite. The failure of experiments to satisfy the Bell inequalities rules out hidden variable theories with locality, that is, obeying relativity. Bohm's theory is a hidden variable theory that doesn't obey locality, and it isn't ruled out by the Bell inequality experiments.

If "God does not play dice," how does change occur, without the mechanism already set in place? Which is to say, things do not evolve, in-as-much-as they unfold ...

If you take the four dimensional spacetime continuum seriously, this is precisely what it asserts.

 

[jackle]

...Perhaps the hidden variables are God...

...As a theist I'd be careful about making claims like that because it's not much different in principle from the "hidden variables" that caused thunder and lightning for ancient peoples...

If the hidden variables are God, I would envisage them being in control of the thunder and lightening, but just behaving very very predictably (once you know the rules) like they do everywhere and everywhen. This would create the illusion of deterministic causes without needing to consider any hidden variables. On closer examination this could be probabilistic causality with your hidden variables/God still in control. I'm not worried about sticking a God in the gaps just like poeple have always done. Thunder and lightning, fine that's God too.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The uncertantity principle means there are things which we (humans) will never know. Yet it allows someone who knows all (God) to still know all.

Why assume God, if there is one, knows all? A point I've made before is that if God has brought about the universe, all logic indicates is that he/she/it is knowledgeable enough to pull of the universe and its contents, not that God is all knowing.

What I am trying to say is that when Einstein said 'God does not play dice' he was right (in the non-literal way he meant it). The uncertinity principle aplies only to those with limited knowledge, but not to those with unlimited knowledge . . . Using this reasoning, it seems Einstein tries to prove quantum mechanics wrong were based on a faulty reasoning. If he had thought of this, would he have still tried to disprove quantum mechanics. Einstein tried to disprove quantum mechanics so that the universe would not really off chance, yet the universe does not run off of chance, it only appears to to one who does not know everything.

I don't think that is why Einstein said "God does not play dice." First, it is generally accepted that Einstein was an atheist, or at least agnostic. His statement mostly reflected his belief that physical laws are invariable and not random, and likely had nothing to do with theology. To Einstein, as someone used to representing reality precisely with principles and mathematics, and who helped pioneer modern physics, uncertainty seems to have been a disturbing concept. A lot of other concepts were initially disturbing to pioneering physicists too--the expanding universe for instance. It just reflects how people in power tend to resist ideas that venture outside what's generally believed to be true at the time.

. . . If the uncertinty principle is true (which is what is currently accepted), it does not say there are things God does not know.

True. However, I think quantum uncertainty is misapplied when it comes to some thinkers' claims that it undermines certainty in macro operations. We work with chemistry all the time, for example, and achieve exactly as we mean to even though quantum uncertainty is part of every bit of it. Quantum uncertainty doesn't appear to result in chance on the macro level, and therefore it wouldn't affect God's ability to create whether he/she/it knows where an electron is or not.

 

[Gir]

Not true. You may've heard the argument about measuring a particles
position to greater accuracy means using smaller wavelength, which means
higher frequency, so less accuracy in momentum, and vice versa. That's not
really where it comes from. One can derive it mathematically, starting from
the definition of standard deviation (what uncertainty actually means), and
the definition of position and momentum operators, which come from the
schrodinger equation.

Anyway, the uncertainty principle actually applies to many things,
position and momentum are simply the most widely known.
According to current quantum theory, an electron doesn't have
a definite position or momentum, ever.

yes, but any being existing outside of our 4 dimensional space-time would, at least to us, seem to be a god. they would be aware of all events that ever happened, past of present and would be able to seemingly travel through time at will. it could perform surgery on you without tools, littlerally reach into your body and fix whatever the problem was.

IF there were a god, it would know where every particle is going to be before it's there, he would not have to measure it, he would just know. it's a hard concept to grasp, but that's why we arent gods. we have to rely on what our insterments tell us is happening.

 

[Gir]

Why think of free will at all? Sounds limiting to me.

if you talk about free will and god in the same sentence you have to talk about a multiverse. if we really have free will then time can not be on a set path. I am not sure how free will is limiting, Id say without it we're much more limited.

 

[Gir]

I thought electrons were actually waveforms and not actual particles. Just that sometimes the 2 forms are interchangeable in the context of use.

IMO, God is merely a concept of the human mind, used to explain what cannot be currently explained. Perhaps it's the HUMAN MIND that's God! For isn't reality and perception, or even CONSTRUCTION, of the human mind? But that's a topic for a different thread.

god, if you remove any religious elements to the word, could be anything.

 

[Canute]

The issue is further complicated by the possible truth of panpsychism, aka hylozoism or microphenominalism. If God is everything, if everything is an emanation of God, as some assert, and if, as Empedocles said, all things have a portion of thought, then the electron itself is a part of 'God' and in some sense conscious. In this case 'God', in the guise of the electron, knows all about its position and momentum, spin and charge and so on, at all times. Not a sparrow falls without His knowledge and all that. (This would not entail that the electron knows it is God of course, anymore than than it would for a human beings if he or she were in the same position).

Perhaps when an electron has a momentum it does not have a position, and vice versa. This would mean, whether or not panpsychism is the case, that neither God nor the electron can know both of these quantities at the same time, since they are measurements of mutually exclusive properties, in an ontological sense, and cannot both exist at the same time. In the same way an electron cannot know, and we as observers of it cannot know, that it is a particle and wave at the same time, for it cannot be both at the same time. But this is to muddle up complementarity, uncertainty and the wave-particle duality, and I usually get told off for doing that.

I share Les's view of Einstein's position on God. Einstein talked about Him a lot but he thought highly of Buddhism, which is not theistic. Presumably by his famous remark he just meant that Nature does not play dice, nor God if there happens to be one.

 

[jackle]

Quantum uncertainty doesn't appear to result in chance on the macro level, and therefore it wouldn't affect God's ability to create whether he/she/it knows where an electron is or not.

If we disregard quantum uncertainty completely and assume that the universe is purely deterministic, God is deemed to have kicked the universe off (perhaps with a big bang) in such a way as to fulfill his purposes. If he wanted to do anything different, he could have changed the starting parameters. God would only have to "create" once in order to be in full control. I don't like this version of God very much (it seems a bit Victorian) but determinism wouldn't detract from God's power or abiity. Such a belief in God is still common today.

 

[Tisthammerw]

You're drawing too much from Einstein's beliefs. He never said that a God exists.

Einstein was actually a theist, though he did not believe in a personal God (like Christians and Muslims do).

 

[Intuitive]

now this is what I am saying that Einstein should have drawn, it does not disprove God (used in the meaning of a all knowing being). One might could say this actualy requires God (in the above meaning) so there is someone out there who actualy knows where everything is. And as for free will, I only want to ask you this, can you make yourself do something else than what you will do?

If you rolled snake eyes at 1:00 pm on Saturday of september 28th 2005 then snake eyes was destined to be rolled, you cannot change the fact in any way, Rolling snake eyes is fate, not a random chance, it only seems to be random, think of it from a time travelers point of view and you are just an observer. The future may not exist yet but it has already been written by destiny, the path will not veer. Everything you have done and will do in the future is already written in stone. Most people don't believe in fate because they don't believe the future exists yet. The future and past exist on a temporal level that we can't preceive, even a person who could see the future could not change anything that is destined to happen because anything that person did, he/she always did in all temporal frames.

 

[jackle]

...think of it from a time travelers point of view...

All the interesting sci-fi shows adopt an approach where the past can be changed, and this can be self consistent. This was first demonstated in the film "Back to the future" (a very good first attempt to express these ideas in science fiction) and the same approach to time travel has been adopted in Star Trek, Dr who etc. etc.

Of course, there isn't a shred of real scientific evidence one way or another. We don't know how causality paradoxes would be resolved if you could time travel. We don't know how many time-like dimensions actually exist for instance. Most physicists I know seem to think that time travel is impossible and always will be. Hawking asks "Where are all the time travellers from the future?".

This renders the speculation worthless because it can never be tested in principle. All views will remain valid for eternity because they can never be tested but it won't excite many physicists.

We do know that time dilation is real and space-time can be curved and this can be tested and confirmed.

 

[Blahness]

Time travel theory: Infinite(or huge) numbers of time strands, with travelers having to go between strands, but unable to visit an earlier point of your own strand.

Theory said by several sources, which I can't seem to remember right now.

However, it'd solve the "Where are the time travelers", and most paradoxes caused by time travel.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If we disregard quantum uncertainty completely and assume that the universe is purely deterministic, God is deemed to have kicked the universe off (perhaps with a big bang) in such a way as to fulfill his purposes. If he wanted to do anything different, he could have changed the starting parameters. God would only have to "create" once in order to be in full control. I don't like this version of God very much (it seems a bit Victorian) but determinism wouldn't detract from God's power or abiity. Such a belief in God is still common today.

I can't see how creating something is the same thing as being in full control. I can turn a fan on a pile of feathers and create a feather storm, but I can't control what each feather does. I might create an airplane, but the plane is subject to gravity, weather, etc. as well, which are not under my control.

It doesn't follow that if there is a creator, it can do anything it pleases just because it was powerful/creative enough to bring about creation. A creator might be subject to laws more basic than itself, and have to work with materials that have to be used a certain way to produce anything. If ants compared what they can build to what humans can build, ants might believe humans are able to control all they create. But that's just because they can't imagine what consciousness is like for humans.

 

[jackle]

I can't see how creating something is the same thing as being in full control...

No it doesn't automatically follow. If God isn't all knowing, he might not have a clue how his universe will turn out.

 

[jackle]

Just to be clear, I think it does follow from certain religious beliefs. Specifically it follows from God being omnipotent and omniscient (even in a deterministic universe).