Cosmological argument (the argument from contingency)

[STT]

How the material universe could be contingent and needs a sustainer if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is correct? According to this principle, the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known simultaneously and exactly. This information, the exact position and the momentum of the particle, however, is needed if there is a sustainer. This information however does not exist. Therefore, there is no sustainer.

 

[Gorgias]

According to this principle, the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known simultaneously and exactly.

No… I think we would posit that a human observer cannot know both simultaneously and exactly. Heisenberg wouldn’t have made this assertion about God, though.

Therefore, there is no sustainer.

Invalid conclusion. The appropriate one would be “therefore, there is no human sustainer of the material universe.” I think we can all agree on that conclusion.

 

[lelinator]

According to this principle, the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known simultaneously and exactly.

You’ve slightly misinterpreted the HUP. It doesn’t say that you can’t KNOW both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. It says that you can’t PREDICT both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.

Thus God can indeed know both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.

If you don’t think that this is true, then ask yourself, how do you determine the momentum of a particle? You can’t know the momentum of a particle without also knowing its position.

 

[Mmarco]

How the material universe could be contingent and needs a sustainer if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is correct? According to this principle, the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known simultaneously and exactly.

First of all the Heisenberg uncertianty principle isn’t a principle in the modern version of quantum mechanics, but a mathematical theorem. Besides, the point is not that “the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known simultaneously and exactly” but that quantum particles do not have simultaneoulsy a definite value of position and momentum, a result supported by many experiments about entanglement.

The point is that what we call “quantum particles” are indeed not particles, but “entities” which can be defined only through abstract mathematical structures (and we call these structures “quantum particles”). This was clearly stated also by Werner Heisenberg:

“The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language”

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”

“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct “actuality” of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.”

As a physicist, I think that a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges provides strong and convincent arguments supporting the existence of a personal intelligent Creator. In fact, all what science shows about the universe is that it manifests itself to us as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models (what we call “the laws of physics”). On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of an intelligent God, conceiving if as a mathematrical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of an intelligent and conscious God, i.e. a personal God.

 

[lelinator]

On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of an intelligent God, conceiving if as a mathematrical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of an intelligent and conscious God, i.e. a personal God.

I totally agree with your post up until this point…unless you’re willing to accept the possibility that I’m God. In which case, thanks for the endorsement of solipsism.

 

[STT]

No… I think we would posit that a human observer cannot know both simultaneously and exactly. Heisenberg wouldn’t have made this assertion about God, though.

No, the uncertainty principle is a principle about the intrinsic nature of the quantum world. It tells that even the finest observation cannot give the precise momentum and position of a particle. The uncertainty in the case of the human observer is even worst than what the equation predicts.

 

[STT]

You’ve slightly misinterpreted the HUP. It doesn’t say that you can’t KNOW both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. It says that you can’t PREDICT both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.

Thus God can indeed know both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.

If you don’t think that this is true, then ask yourself, how do you determine the momentum of a particle? You can’t know the momentum of a particle without also knowing its position.

I am aware of definition of Wiki but that is not accurate. Even if we accept that definition then only the initial value of momentum and position are known. You cannot tell where the particle is once you release it.

 

[STT]

First of all the Heisenberg uncertianty principle isn’t a principle in the modern version of quantum mechanics, but a mathematical theorem. Besides, the point is not that “the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known simultaneously and exactly” but that quantum particles do not have simultaneoulsy a definite value of position and momentum, a result supported by many experiments about entanglement.

How physicist can conclude such a thing if they don’t make a measurement.

The point is that what we call “quantum particles” are indeed not particles, but “entities” which can be defined only through abstract mathematical structures (and we call these structures “quantum particles”). This was clearly stated also by Werner Heisenberg:

“The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language”

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”

“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct “actuality” of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.”

I think that matter is a substance otherwise it could not affect our minds.

As a physicist, I think that a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges provides strong and convincent arguments supporting the existence of a personal intelligent Creator. In fact, all what science shows about the universe is that it manifests itself to us as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models (what we call “the laws of physics”). On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of an intelligent God, conceiving if as a mathematrical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of an intelligent and conscious God, i.e. a personal God.

There could be a chaotic universe without any laws. Life is only possible in lawful universe. How about this?

 

[lelinator]

You cannot tell where the particle is once you release it.

And neither can you know what its momentum is. You either know both of them, or you know neither of them. It could be argued that you can never actually know where the particle is at all…you only ever know where it was.

But the point is that you can indeed know both position and momentum at the same time.

 

[Mmarco]

I totally agree with your post up until this point…unless you’re willing to accept the possibility that I’m God. In which case, thanks for the endorsement of solipsism.

I am not interested in discussing solipsism; I do not think that somebody can really think that he is the creator of the whole universe and all other people. Those who make such a claim are simply lying (maybe also to themselves).

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

First of all the Heisenberg uncertianty principle isn’t a principle in the modern version of quantum mechanics, but a mathematical theorem. Besides, the point is not that “the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known simultaneously and exactly” but that quantum particles do not have simultaneoulsy a definite value of position and momentum, a result supported by many experiments about entanglement.

How physicist can conclude such a thing if they don’t make a measurement.

It’s called Bel’s inequality; it’s a mathematical theorem which establishes the possibility for certain kind of experiments to establish whether the properties of the system were determined or not in the initial state (before te measurment). All such experiments have sistematically confirmed that the properties were undetermined in the initial state.

I think that matter is a substance otherwise it could not affect our minds.

The point is that science has shown that such substance (whatever you mean with such term) has an intrinsic mathematical structure.

There could be a chaotic universe without any laws. Life is only possible in lawful universe. How about this?

First of all you shpuld prove that life would not be possible in any non.mathematically structured universe (which you cannot do). However this would be worthless because the point is that the universe is mathematically structured, and the only rational explanation of this scientific result is that the universe is created by a conscious and intelligent God.

 

[lelinator]

I am not interested in discussing solipsism; I do not think that somebody can really think that he is the creator of the whole universe and all other people.

And yet you believe that a conscious being, (God) did indeed create the whole universe and all other beings. So you’re not questioning if such a thing is actually possible, you’re simply questioning the solipsistic explanation for who that being is.

I’m fine with that. I just hope that you understand the somewhat conflicting logic of that position.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

I am not interested in discussing solipsism; I do not think that somebody can really think that he is the creator of the whole universe and all other people.

And yet you believe that a conscious being, (God) did indeed create the whole universe and all other beings. So you’re not questioning if such a thing is actually possible, you’re simply questioning the solipsistic explanation for who that being is.

I’m fine with that. I just hope that you understand the somewhat conflicting logic of that position.

There is no conflicting logic in my position but only the awareness that I am a limited finite being and not an omnipotent god.

 

[STT]

And neither can you know what its momentum is. You either know both of them, or you know neither of them. It could be argued that you can never actually know where the particle is at all…you only ever know where it was.

But the point is that you can indeed know both position and momentum at the same time.

So God cannot sustain a particle.

 

[STT]

It’s called Bel’s inequality; it’s a mathematical theorem which establishes the possibility for certain kind of experiments to establish whether the properties of the system were determined or not in the initial state (before te measurment). All such experiments have sistematically confirmed that the properties were undetermined in the initial state.

So if what you are saying is true and a particle does not have definite value position and momentum then God cannot sustain it. That is true since its position and momentum cannot be known exactly.

 

[Mmarco]

So if what you are saying is true and a particle does not have definite value position and momentum then God cannot sustain it. That is true since its position and momentum cannot be known exactly.

As I said, “quantum particles” are not particles, but abstract mathematical structures that we cannot even imagine; such structures never have a definite value of both momentum and position at the same time.

 

[STT]

As I said, “quantum particles” are not particles, but abstract mathematical structures that we cannot even imagine; such structures never have a definite value of both momentum and position at the same time.

They are confused. The stuff that you experience has a substance otherwise it couldn’t affect you.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

As I said, “quantum particles” are not particles, but abstract mathematical structures that we cannot even imagine; such structures never have a definite value of both momentum and position at the same time.

They are confused. The stuff that you experience has a substance otherwise it couldn’t affect you.

They are not confused at all since they have a specific complex mathematical structure

 

[STT]

They are not confused at all since they have a specific complex mathematical structure

How this has to do with my comment?

 

[Gorgias]

No, the uncertainty principle is a principle about the intrinsic nature of the quantum world. It tells that even the finest observation cannot give the precise momentum and position of a particle.

Here’s the thing, though: we do not posit that God “observes” the universe. He simply knows it, fully. So, my point still stands.

So God cannot sustain a particle.

** sigh **
Still? No.