Creation evolves deterministically from God point of view

[DanAl]

It can be shown that omniscience, God knows actions of all beings, would lead to a deterministic picture of creation from God point of view. Here is the argument:

1. God knows actions of all beings in creation in every given situations (omniscience)
2. God knows the state of creation in a later time given the state of creation in earlier time since it know actions of beings in creation
3. God knows the state of universe in every given time by knowledge of state of creating in its starting
4. This means that creation evolves in deterministic manner from God point of view

I Agree with what you said If you mean that there’s no “surprise” as to how things will unfold from God’s point of view. It does not follow from God’s knowing what will happen that nature is determined, though.

 

[Bahman]

And what is the meaning of that wave function? Why do we care about it? Well, its square is the probability density of some event, isn’t it…?

Yes, it is possible to find a deterministic interpretation of those laws. But it is also possible to find a probabilistic interpretation. Therefore, I don’t think you can act as if the determinism that does not concern with free will has been proved.

Its square is the probability density of observing a particle at specific position and time. Nevertheless there is no randomness in quantum mechanics so the picture is deterministic as the Schrodinger equation is a deterministic equation.

Good. Maybe it would be a good time to restate the argument, “officially” adding this premise (that “things” act deterministically)…?

Please read the following.

It does not address my point. You have tried to offer a watertight and formal proof that all creation (both “things” and “beings”) acts deterministically (didn’t you?). Now, if “things” were acting completely randomly, your conclusion would be false and that possibility is not ruled out by anything in the argument. Therefore, the argument as stated does depend on that premise. You can change the argument so that it would only consider “beings”, but then you have to restate it again.

My initial argument didn’t include things. And yes I wanted to show that beings actions are determined from God point of view. In fact knowledge of our actions means that they are determined.

In that part I was stating what was wrong with your “two lines” argument. That argument tacitly took “determinism of things” as a premise. Thus it cannot prove “determinism of things”. You need another argument to prove it. Or you can declare that argument to be conditional on that premise.

No. In fact I just use of God omniscience which readily lead to determinism. I repeat argument again:

1. God omniscience means that God knows how things move (including random events)
2. God omniscience means that God knows how beings act
3. Creation is made of beings and things
4. Things and beings are evolving deterministically from God point of view

“What exactly do you mean by ‘God has the knowledge of these phenomena’?” - “This means that the those events are deterministic from God point of view so they deterministic from our point of view as well.”… You sure use language in strange ways… If that is really what you meant, I wouldn’t have guessed it…

I meant that those random phenomena are known deterministically from God point of view. We just cannot find the proper law of nature to describe those random phenomena.

 

[Bahman]

OK, so, how is this statement related to your argument? Is it one of its conclusions, one possible explanation why it is not wrong, one of skipped steps, or one of previously hidden premises…? Or is it mostly “offtopic” - in which case it would be a good subject for a new thread…?

By the way, a new thread would be a good idea even if that was a premise, for I don’t see why it should be granted without an argument…

I already provide the argument in post #82. Please let me know what is your opinion?

 

[DanAl]

And yes I wanted to show that beings actions are determined from God point of view. In fact knowledge of our actions means that they are determined.

Where’s the** causal **connection between foreknowledge of a proposition and a fact?

 

[MPat]

Its square is the probability density of observing a particle at specific position and time. Nevertheless there is no randomness in quantum mechanics so the picture is deterministic as the Schrodinger equation is a deterministic equation.

So, would you say that the event of observing a particle somewhere is necessarily “deterministic”, given that it has a “probability density”…? The point is that there are possible probabilistic interpretations of those laws and you cannot just implicitly assume that “determinism of things” has been conclusively demonstrated by finding them.

My initial argument didn’t include things. And yes I wanted to show that beings actions are determined from God point of view. In fact knowledge of our actions means that they are determined.

And it was supposed to conclude something about “creation” that included “things”, without even addressing them…? Well, at least its new version does not do so…

No. In fact I just use of God omniscience which readily lead to determinism. I repeat argument again:

1. God omniscience means that God knows how things move (including random events)
2. God omniscience means that God knows how beings act
3. Creation is made of beings and things
4. Things and beings are evolving deterministically from God point of view

So, the original argument was different. Yet all those versions are still vague.

Most importantly, since the argument does not include any “inference rule” or premise that connects anything like “Y knows how X moves” with “X are evolving deterministically from Y point of view”, the conclusion simply does not follow. If you want it to follow, state the “inference rule” explicitly and precisely in the argument. And be ready to defend it for all values of X and Y.

I meant that those random phenomena are known deterministically from God point of view. We just cannot find the proper law of nature to describe those random phenomena.

So, it is “What exactly do you mean by ‘God has the knowledge of these phenomena’?” - “Those random phenomena are known deterministically from God point of view.”.

OK, lets take the original statement:

Second, these type of randomness are not random from God point of view as God has the knowledge of these phenomena.

After writing in the new meaning we get: “Second, these type of randomness are not random from God point of view as they are known deterministically from God point of view.”… It would look rather circular for an argument, doesn’t it…? Perhaps, given what you were trying to answer, simple “The kind of determinism I am trying to demonstrate also includes the lack of true randomness.” would have been a better answer…? It does not pretend to be an argument and thus it is not fallacious. And it actually answers my original question more directly…

I already provide the argument in post #82. Please let me know what is your opinion?

My opinion? Then “offtopic” perhaps…? Nothing about the time (or being outside of it) is explicitly in the argument.

Hint: don’t leave decisions about what is relevant to your argument to someone who is trying to get you to clarify it.