- #31
Alexander
It is not boundless, it simply has LOWER bound instead of UPPER.
Unpacking the Quantum Universe: God's Knowledge and the Role of Observations
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the compatibility of God's omniscience with the principles of quantum uncertainty. Participants argue that if the future is not predetermined in a quantum universe, it challenges the notion of a God who knows all outcomes. They explore the implications of determinism versus randomness, suggesting that if God created a quantum universe, He may have relinquished control over its future. The conversation also touches on the nature of free will and the unpredictability of events, questioning whether a deity can exist in a system governed by chance. Ultimately, the debate highlights the tension between religious beliefs and scientific understanding of the universe.
It is not boundless, it simply has LOWER bound instead of UPPER.
- #32
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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).
- #33
HazZy
- 100
- 0
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?
- #34
wimms
- 489
- 0
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..
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".
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.
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?
- #35
Alexander
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #36
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).
- #37
wimms
- 489
- 0
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.
- #38
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #39
HazZy
- 100
- 0
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.
- #40
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.
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.
- #41
plus
- 166
- 1
There is nothing to say that if there were a God, it would comply with any major religion.
- #42
HazZy
- 100
- 0
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?
Last edited:
- #43
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.)
Nope, it won't. Because you always limited in resolution/accuracy of your measurement, you won't be able to notice any difference.
{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.)
Nope, it won't. Because you always limited in resolution/accuracy of your measurement, you won't be able to notice any difference.
- #44
HazZy
- 100
- 0
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.
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.
- #45
Alexander
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #46
wimms
- 489
- 0
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?
- #47
wimms
- 489
- 0
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.
- #48
heusdens
- 1,736
- 0
Simple answer: because God does not exist, so there is no need to know.
- #49
Alexander
Because, as I have shown above, logic IS universe itself (anything existing is logic by definition of logic).
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").
- #50
Alexander
What is the difference?
- #51
wimms
- 489
- 0
Amazing. I'd never expect scientist to say that out so clearly. We don't disagree here. But this is unexpected you said that, to me at least. You realize that this claim has enormous implications?
But, its not science, its fundamental claim and thus belongs to philosophy/religion domain.
So, logic IS universe. Fine. Then all material stuff is in fact logical concepts, and all interactions logical operators, time is concept of order, and entropy iterative differentiation, reason for inflation.
But question creeps in - is logic destructible in principle? bet not. Its abstract idea. Actually, all that exists is abstract ideas. There is no difference between mathmatical concepts we imagine and logical concepts that exist. Then, even your wildest imagination is actually real. And so on..
And it [logic] creates ALL that there is, it controls all that there is, it is allpervasive and eternal.
Pretty much definition of god, if you scrap all that personification attached to it by dogmatic egomaniac mortals.
This is not answer, this is selfreferential and repeating yourself. We map out logic of universe by observing it, noticing patterns and assigning labels. Then we go ahead and use those labels with assumption that those patterns are universal. As we've not observed contradictions, we call it fact. But how on Earth can you say that logic of universe comes from our labels, our observation? It exists without our presence.
Our human logic we use to describe universe is inherently boolean. Logic of universe isn't necessarily boolean at all. To describe it by our boolean logic, it's enough that its logic (any kind) is merely internally consistent, that's THE common property of any logic system. That allows us to describe universe, however difficult it might be for our boolean logic. Maybe in some other internally consistent logic system it might be described much more simply.
Still, whatever the universe logic is like, we can only observe its expression, but can never know the reason why it is this way. Why is logic of universe even internally consistent at all. There is no reason for that, it could be equally completely acausal without any capacity to create objects. Yes we are here, but that doesn't answer why. At best we could describe 'how', but not the reason 'why'.
Can you see my point? Logic is god of science. Religions being unable to reason or not even wanting to, attach all kinds of suitable labels to it, and call that monstrum a god. Its hope and wishful thinking that if they pray to logic, it'll listen to them and grant them heaven. Whats a point in arguing about 'properties' of religious god?
While religious people would say that logic itself is creation of god, scientists will simply stop here and say that reasons for internally consistent logic of universe is unanswerable question in principle, and science doesn't deal with that, science only uses it. And that's it: science stops here, and religion takes over beyond that point.
There's always room for god.
- #52
wimms
- 489
- 0
From dictionary:
infinity:
1. The quality or condition of being infinite.
2. Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
3. An indefinitely large number or amount.
4. Mathematics. The limit that a function f is said to approach at x = a when f(x) is larger than any preassigned number for all x sufficiently near a.
infinite:
adj.
1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
3. Mathematics.
. a. - Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
. b. - Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
. c. - Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.
n.
Something infinite.
- #53
HazZy
- 100
- 0
is there any distinct difference between "unbounded" and "boundless"? they seem one in the same to me; I've always thought of both infinite and infinity as boundless ideas anyway.
- #54
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
I'll answer for Alexander here, though I don't really agree with him.
What is is implying is that the universe is in fact a network of rules. These rules do not create the universe as a god may, but ARE the universe. What we see as matter is the physical action of these rules, and these rules are completely real and non-abstract.
If we say the universe is real, and logic is the universe, we get the idea that all true logic are represented in reality. They are independently real. They are not the same as ideas. So we are not saying there is a creator, but a fundamental material of which all things are made, which contains the information of these rules. Like DNA does for life, perhaps.
At the same time, we through knowledge have gained an understanding of these rules, which form all our knowledge. So, while it is true that everything we think of came from maths or logic, it is not true that everything we think is real. We say that absolute rules exist in the universe, and the imperfect way we understand them creates the "ideas".
What Alexander is saying is that a true set of physical rules exist, and they are absolutely universal. Our understanding of these come from our labels, but they are based in what is real.
Why is the universe internally consistent? Because internal consistency is automatic. Where does our analysis of consistency come from? The real logic. So, the universal logic just cannot be internally inconsistent as if then, the inconsistency would be the new consistency. Our idea of what is consistent would simply be different.
Speaking as myself:
No, logic is not the God of science. Do religions shackle their gods, weird them in a hand and use them to detect things? Logic is a tool. God is an entity. While religions discourage selfish prayer, and say that the point is to work for god, not expect god to work for you, science uses logic only because it is useful. Do you consider your car a God, since you use it?
And since your own knowledge of mechanics does not give you the working of how that car works, do you delegate to religion?
But you have a point. Science describes the laws, not always how they are made. But then, does religion do anything different? Can an explanation using God hold any superiority to an explanation holding no god, when there is no evidence for both. There may be a niche for God, but it would appear to be hiding within the margins of uncertainty...
- #55
Alexander
No, science does not stop here. It goes one step futher.
Notice that logic comes from the fact that something EXISTS (anything, it does not matter exactly what - a phenomenon, an object, a human, a rock, a space, a time, etc). So, if ANYTHING (say, a rock) exists, then we immediately can label it as "1", or "+", ot "true", or "yes", etc. The LACK of this rock is labeled as "0", or "-", or "false", or "no", etc. We have (binary) logic. So, foundation of logic is just the fact of EXISTENCE of anything.
Therefore, if anything exists it shall then obey logic by the very definition of logic. Math is just advanced form of logic, that is why it is so correct in not only describing but also in PREDICTING behavior of existing things.
Is not this obvious and well known fact from materialism?
Last edited by a moderator:
- #56
wimms
- 489
- 0
Here you make step backwards. You say there is material which then interacts. You just moved the fundamental question elsewhere. Question where does it come from creeps in immediately. While its possible to construct all from logic alone.
check out this 'mad' scientist: http://ebtx.com/ntxtoc.htm
Alex, you might find it interesting too.
Yes it would. This is interesting matter in itself - consistently inconsistent logic is .. consistent. But then our whole math would be different. Have you thought about any other possible kind of logic? Try. imo, human mind simply doesn't bend enough to come up with something. Mainly because our only tool to evaluate consistency of other logic, is our logic. We can only evaluate it in context of our logic that may be unable to see internal consistency of other, in context of other logic itself. To really construct some other internally consistent logic, you'd need to THINK in context of other logic. And that's the real difficulty, we can't escape our own logic, to do that you'd need to go frankly nuts.
Yet, where from comes restriction to real logic, what rejects possible acausal disappearance of sun? I mean, in terms of deep logic of universe - why it stays the same, everywhere? What holds it in piece? Why it doesn't change randomly like in worst LSD dreams?
Imo, you are abit too excited about definitions. There is myriad of assumptions and observations in simple term EXISTS, as is also claim that 'it shall then obey logic'. What you repeatedly try to put into me, is just source of our human logic, based on observation of macro world. I don't object that, I simply don't agree that its universal simply by our definition. You can ponder about term 'exists', because you can imagine and define nonexistent. But how on Earth must universe evaluate term 'not exist'? In universe, everything can only exist, for that which doesn't, is outside of universe and doesn't participate in 'logic'.
All that exists necessarily interacts, or, infact, to exist is to interact. Then logic of reality is not in fact of existence, but in kind of interactions.
Think about photon. Does it EXIST in yes/no and stationary form? No, it can exist only at speed of light, only via interaction, and only through probabilities. If our macro world behaved like that, our 'foundation of logic' would be completely different. So, we are trying to apply our logic to QM world that doesn't actually follow our logic exactly, yet we are successful in describing it.
Logic as a tool is actually indifferent to how reality behaves, all it does it to evaluate validity of claims from given assumptions, in context of logic rules. It even handles okay claims such as photon partly exists, and partly doesn't, that it sometimes obeys logic and sometimes doesn't. If you as scientist restrict possibilities by postulates, then, you describe the world in context of those postulates, and instead of partly exists you get energy barriers, entanglement, probabilities, etc.
And still, again, you talk about FACT that its so and so, and that we use that fact as our basis. And you evaluate possibilities in context of our logic. You do not allow even possibility that there might be other logic, by which EXISTS might not necessarily mean obeying logic.
Last edited:
- #57
Alexander
I wonder, if logic (and thus math)is even more fundamental than anything. Indeed, even "nothingness" can be labeled by logical/mathematical symbol (say, as "0" or as "none" or "-").
- #58
LogicalAtheist
From scratch I'll comment. Not going to bother with anything said beyond this, as it's probably nothing that will ruin my points.
1. future is not set. I have a theory, a long one but simple, that proves the future is completely definied by the past (past being none future, considering no time as present). I have yet to post it here, as I feel it's something I want to share only with physics gurus. Point being saying future is set might not be true
2. Why it might not be true theoretically (meaning not using my theory) is that QM and GR don't mix. from this I would say that on an ultimate level QM and GR might not work more than we think they don't work. While we know some things don't work in each outside of their element, perhaps in a much LARGER element, nothing in them works at all. Just a perhaps...
3. God is a mythological character. This is the superimposition error. When superimposing mythology onto reality, all bets are off. It's something to do after bong hits (and I don't smoke) because it has no "purpose".
4. God does know all that comes. That fact is made evident in any mythology which states "God knows all that comes". If the mythology says it it's true. But true only in that mythological system. NOT in reality. Superimposition.
- #59
Alexander
I agree that Santa the Clause knows about needs of each and every child in universe. Or that Draculas multiply by biting virgins. As long as this remains outside of reality.
Future can't be set even theoretically, because waves are mathematically blurry objects by definition (and everything in universe is wave).
Future can't be set even theoretically, because waves are mathematically blurry objects by definition (and everything in universe is wave).
- #60
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
I was answering for Alexander... sort of. The point is that there is not material which they reacts, but that laws exist (or are randomly evolved) which force what we consider as material to come into existence.
What do you think happens when you take LSD?
But now we enter into the realms of the truly pedantic. Why should the real logic change randomly? And if it does, how would we know? How do we know the deep logic stays the same, everywhere? We assume that, but I dare say it would be tough to confirm that...Similar threads
- · Replies 13 ·
High School
Estimates — True Size of the Universe?
- · Replies 17 ·
- · Replies 18 ·
- · Replies 10 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
High School
Question about "our observed universe"
- · Replies 15 ·
- · Replies 37 ·
High School
Observable universe and overlapping spheres
- · Replies 15 ·