Cosmological argument (the argument from contingency)

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
I didn’t say that matter is made of particles with a defined value of both momentum and position. Quantum particle simple exists though.
Click to expand...
No, the point is that quantum particles as well as quantum fields are only elements of an abstract mathematical model we use to make predictions about natural phenomena. Your error is to assume that to every element of the mathematical model must correspond an element of the physical reality. The model is to be considered in its entirety, as a single entity. I am not saying that the physical reality (which includes matter) does not exist at all; however, what science shows is that such physical reality has an intrinsic mathematical structure, and that such mathematical structure is the only means we have to describe the physical reality at the microscopic level, because every other analogy or idea is inadequate.
STT said:
The question of this thread is how God could sustain matter.
Click to expand...
God is omnipotent by definition. Besides, it is God who conceives the universe as a mathematical model and such mathematical model includes the uncertainty principle. I see no problems.
 
Last edited:
Mmarco said:
Besides, it is God who conceives the universe as a mathematical model
Click to expand...
That’s simply because He has no choice in the matter. Anything that has any type of order to it, must be amenable to mathematics.

Which means that whether it’s God’s consciousness that creates reality, or my consciousness that creates reality, it’s going to be describable by mathematics.
 
lelinator said:
That’s simply because He has no choice in the matter. Anything that has any type of order to it, must be amenable to mathematics.
Click to expand...
Quantum physics has clearly proved that the (arbitrary ) assumption that “anything that has any type of order to it, must be amenable to mathematics” is false.
In fact, there is no possible mathematical model able to predict the outcome of a single experiment in quantum mechanics; a single quantum system is intrinsically not amenable to mathematics.
Nevertheless, the universe is ordered and mathematically structured.
 
Mmarco said:
In fact, there is no possible mathematical model able to predict the outcome of a single experiment in quantum mechanics; a single quantum system is intrinsically not amenable to mathematics.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s amenable to mathematics, it’s just probabilistic not deterministic.
 
lelinator said:
40.png
Mmarco:
In fact, there is no possible mathematical model able to predict the outcome of a single experiment in quantum mechanics; a single quantum system is intrinsically not amenable to mathematics.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s amenable to mathematics, it’s just probabilistic not deterministic.
Click to expand...
False; a probability theory is totally useless for a single experiment. Therefore, a single quantum system is not amenable to mathematics.
 
lelinator said:
40.png
Mmarco:
False; a probability theory is totally useless for a single experiment.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but could you provide an example to demonstrate that claim?
Click to expand...
The fact that a probablitity theory is totally useless for a single experiment is a well known fact; for example, probability theory provides no information about the outcome of a single round of a roulette.
The difference between classical and quantum physics is that in the first case the unpredictibility is due only to our lack of detailed knowledges about the initial conditions of the system, while in the second case it is intrinsic to the system itself.
 
Mmarco said:
The difference between classical and quantum physics is that in the first case the unpredictibility is due only to our lack of detailed knowledges about the initial conditions of the system, while in the second case it is intrinsic to the system itself.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Which is why in the first case it’s actually a deterministic system regardless of whether or not you have the information necessary to predict the outcome. While in the second case it’s a probabilistic system, because the information simply doesn’t exist, but a probabilistic system is still amenable to mathematics. The outcome of any individual round on the roulette wheel is probabilistic, and that’s still mathematics.
 
Mmarco said:
No, the point is that quantum particles as well as quantum fields are only elements of an abstract mathematical model we use to make predictions about natural phenomena. Your error is to assume that to every element of the mathematical model must correspond an element of the physical reality. The model is to be considered in its entirety, as a single entity. I am not saying that the physical reality (which includes matter) does not exist at all; however, what science shows is that such physical reality has an intrinsic mathematical structure, and that such mathematical structure is the only means we have to describe the physical reality at the microscopic level, because every other analogy or idea is inadequate.
Click to expand...
Matter is a substance since it affects you.
Mmarco said:
God is omnipotent by definition. Besides, it is God who conceives the universe as a mathematical model and such mathematical model includes the uncertainty principle. I see no problems.
Click to expand...
How He could sustain the universe?
 
lelinator said:
Totally agree. Which is why in the first case it’s actually a deterministic system regardless of whether or not you have the information necessary to predict the outcome. While in the second case it’s a probabilistic system, because the information simply doesn’t exist, but a probabilistic system is still amenable to mathematics. The outcome of any individual round on the roulette wheel is probabilistic, and that’s still mathematics.
Click to expand...
Simply false. As everybody who understands what a probability theory is, knows, a probability theory provides no information about a single outcome. Therefore a single quantum system is not amenable to mathematics at all, which is sufficient to prove that your idea that every kind of order is amenable to mathematics is false.
 
Mmarco said:
Simply false. As everybody who understands what a probability theory is, knows, a probability theory provides no information about a single outcome.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you claim that it’s simply false, but can you provide an example of a single outcome that demonstrates this claim?
 
lelinator said:
40.png
Mmarco:
Simply false. As everybody who understands what a probability theory is, knows, a probability theory provides no information about a single outcome.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you claim that it’s simply false, but can you provide an example of a single outcome that demonstrates this claim?
Click to expand...
Actually I have already given you a classical example. Anyway, there are so many examples in quantum physics, e-g- the final position of a single electron double slit experiment.
 
Mmarco said:
Actually I have already given you a classical example. Anyway, there are so many examples in quantum physics, e-g- the final position of a single electron double slit experiment.
Click to expand...
If I’m not mistaken both the roulette wheel and the double slit experiment are probabilistic systems. So I assume that it’s your contention that a probabilistic system isn’t amenable to being described by mathematics. Is that your contention?
 
STT said:
How He could know when our finest measurement cannot tell us what it is.
Click to expand...
Because God is not constrained by the limitations of human scientific knowledge or ability.
STT said:
The very fact that the finest measurement cannot tell us where is the particle means that it does not have a defined position.
Click to expand...
No; it merely means that at the present, we do not have the knowledge or ability to do so.
STT said:
Yes, redness is a mental property of matter.
Click to expand...
Then it’s a non-physical entity. It’s a mental entity.

Moreover, without the observer, there’s no “redness”. (That’s patently absurd.)
 
Gorgias said:
Because God is not constrained by the limitations of human scientific knowledge or ability.
Click to expand...
No, He is constrained by any logical principle.
Gorgias said:
No; it merely means that at the present, we do not have the knowledge or ability to do so.
Click to expand...
When I said the finest measurement then it means that we cannot know the position and momentum of a particle precisely. It is not a matter of advancing in apparatus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top