Dilemma of uncertainty principal and God foreknowledge

[RGCheek]

Another philosophy 101 student toying with the concept of god’s omniscience. How many of these threads have been started in this forum?

Read Aquinas, read Kant, read Hegel, read Kierkegaard, then read the greatest of the atheist philosophers, Nietzsche, finally throw in Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness” and then come back.

Then maybe there should be a separate forum for us dilettantes to axe our questions in, Maestro?

 

[MrSnaith]

It seems that is your interpretation. I would be happy to know how did you reach to such a conclusion.

Please read the previous comment.

Uh… I shared a link that demonstrated it… or did you just not bother yourself?

 

[Bahman]

Uh… I shared a link that demonstrated it… or did you just not bother yourself?

I did bother myself. That experiment as I read the content of the link you provided questions causality rather than uncertainty principle. Unless you state otherwise.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What I am saying is very simple: You cannot have the foreknowledge and be free to change it! Am I so unclear!?

For the 20th time, you are just repeating yourself and I have responded. You seem to be laboring under the conviction that is you say something often enough that will make it true. The problem is that repetition does not make anything true or false. I think you better put on a new record, this one is worn out.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

For the 20th time, you are just repeating yourself and I have responded. You seem to be laboring under the conviction that is you say something often enough that will make it true. The problem is that repetition does not make anything true or false. I think you better put on a new record, this one is worn out.

Linus2nd

How the truth could be fixed? How human understanding of universe could be constant? I am trying to bring your attention to the axioms that you accept as truth to show you that there is an inconsistency in your world view but it seems that God is God is enough for sake of any argument!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How the truth could be fixed? How human understanding of universe could be constant? I am trying to bring your attention to the axioms that you accept as truth to show you that there is an inconsistency in your world view but it seems that God is God is enough for sake of any argument!

It is the interpretation some have given this " principle " which is wrong. Because they cannot see a cause, they assume there is none. That is faulty reasoning. The honest answer would be that we can’t determine the cause, we cannot determine the reason for this odd behavior.

Instead, the men who hit upon this problem jumped to the immediate conclusion that God does not exist, which is an irrational conclusion.

God exists and for him there is no mystery about the world, he knows exactly why each little particle behaves the way it does in every moment of its existence. And since he is the cause of all there is no " uncertainty " about anything from his perspective. It is ’ uncertain " only from our perspective.

But I maintain that even from our perspective it should be apparent there is no " uncertainty. " It should really be obvious that when you can only look for one aspect of a particle, that is all you will find. What is uncertain about that? And what about the interference of the testing apparatus? No, there is too much questions about the whole subject and the tests involved.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

 

[MrSnaith]

I did bother myself. That experiment as I read the content of the link you provided questions causality rather than uncertainty principle. Unless you state otherwise.

The uncertainty principle states, very basically, that for two complementary variables, the more precisely we come to know one variable, the less precisely we’re able to know the complementary variable. An example of this is position x and momentum p. That is to say, the more exactly we can p(name removed by moderator)oint the position of a moving mass, the less exactly we can measure its momentum. And vice versa, the more exactly we can measure its momentum, the less precisely we can know its position.

Let us consider this example more carefully. In this set of complementary variables, it must be understood that the uncertainty principle holds with respect to moving masses. In other words, if momentum is zero, the position can be known exactly.

The formula for momentum is MassVelocity, and the formula for Velocity is Distance/Time, making the extended formula for momentum MD/T (for example, 10kilogram meters/second). So, if momentum is zero, it’s because we either have zero mass, in which case there’s nothing there to measure, we have zero distance (travelled), in which case it’s not moving and it’s position can be known, or we the time component is zero, but this is actually an impossible scenario, mathematically, since you cannot divide anything by zero, so to say the time component is zero is actually just nonsense.

So either nothing is moving, or something is sitting still. Either way, position can be known when momentum is zero. But what about when momentum is not zero? So, we’ve got this moving mass, how do we determine its position? Well, that’s the idea behind the uncertainty principle. You can only p(name removed by moderator)oint its position if you stop it, or stop it conceptually, in which case you’ve lost the ability to measure its momentum, because momentum is a measure of its movement over space and through time. But the less you focus on its exact position, the more you’re in a position to measure its momentum because you’re measuring it over a series of positions.

So let’s talk a little bit about position. We normally think about position as a locus of space, a convergence of height, width, and depth. But, the truth is that position is a measure space-time. In reality, everything in the finite universe is always moving. That’s what it means to be in time, in temporality, in a state of the temporary. Movement is change. Even the most stationary-appearing objects are moving, not just as a total mass, but also molecularly and atomically. All particles are in a constant state of motion.

Position, then, isn’t merely a locus in space, but it is also at the same time a locus in time. In other words, this thing is at this spot at this time. Momentum, then, is correctly called a change in position, because it is not merely a change in a locus of space, but its a change over time as well.

So, location might be at a coordination system of (x,y,z,t), while motion is some function of location over time: m=f(x,y,z,t). If we understand momentum to be a function of a motion with respect to mass, then we should understand that it is a function of the change in location (which necessarily includes a time component).

Here’s the bottom line. We are bound by the uncertainty principle due to the fact that we are finite (limited), and must operate within the confines of focus, and presence. I exist with a conscious awareness only of the present moment, with memory of past moments, and a certain predictive capacity for future moments. Moreover, I exist within the limitations of physics and my immediate circumstances. These limits combine to hold me to a certain point of focus. I can either focus on a specific very clearly (which is a function of logic), with which I have the ability to determine (in this example) location, or I can focus on a spectrum indistinctly (which is a function of intuition), in which case I am in a position to measure location over a span of space-time (momentum).

These are human limitations. Angels are not bound by space, though they are still bound by time. So, angels would be much more capable of specificity with regard to multiple mass locations over time than we would be (i.e., less bound by the principle of uncertainty). However, given that they are still bound by time, they couldn’t, for example, know simultaneously and at once, the specific locations of all (or even many) masses over the same period of time.

 

[MrSnaith]

God, however, is of a different nature entirely. His being is not limited in any logical way. We define God as omnipresent. This means that God is present in every possible way, all at once, at all times. Presence is both a term with reference to space and to time. This is because of the relationship of space-time. Thus, when we say that God is omnipresent, we mean that He is present at all moments of time, at all locations of space, at once.

So, to suggest that God is limited by the same laws that subject us to the uncertainty principle is a non sequiter. This is because God’s omnipresence allows Him to be at all locations, at all times, that a mass is travelling through, in time. And because He is omnipresent in this way, it would merely be a matter of calculating in His infinite ability, the momentum of the object over a given time frame, to which He is eternally present.

Ah, but calculate it how? That’s the crux of the question. At this point it is necessary to understand that motion, velocity, only has meaning in relation to other moving objects. We are able to calculate momentum due to triangulation. That is to say, how far is object O moving between point A and point B that I as am observer can measure from point C, and what is the time-lapse with respect to the temporal divisions that I have created from my observations of the revolutions of the earth about the sun? Measurement is always done in relation to some framework. However, human frameworks are artificial - we sometimes arbitrarily assign them (meters, for example), we sometimes assign them by the natural rhythms (a full revolution of the earth, for example, is a day).

If God is omnipresent, and omniscient, then not only is He present to all location and times simultaneously and always, but He is also fully aware of the reality of every location and time simultaneously and always. Therefore, His frame of reference is perfect, and is the absolutely truest reflection of reality that can be had. As such, His measurements are truer than any measurements we could possible make. His certitude exceeds any certitude we could have. So, not only can He be both certain of the exact position of any given mass at any given time, as well as the exact momentum of any given mass, over any given distance, over any given time, but He knows all of this in as perfect a manner as can be had.

 

[Bahman]

The uncertainty principle states, very basically, that for two complementary variables, the more precisely we come to know one variable, the less precisely we’re able to know the complementary variable. An example of this is position x and momentum p. That is to say, the more exactly we can p(name removed by moderator)oint the position of a moving mass, the less exactly we can measure its momentum. And vice versa, the more exactly we can measure its momentum, the less precisely we can know its position.

Correct.

Let us consider this example more carefully. In this set of complementary variables, it must be understood that the uncertainty principle holds with respect to moving masses. In other words, if momentum is zero, the position can be known exactly.

Incorrect. Particle could have any momentum and could be anywhere. The particle could have momentum zero but this doesn’t tell you anything about particle position.

The formula for momentum is MassVelocity, and the formula for Velocity is Distance/Time, making the extended formula for momentum MD/T (for example, 10kilogram meters/second). So, if momentum is zero, it’s because we either have zero mass, in which case there’s nothing there to measure, we have zero distance (travelled), in which case it’s not moving and it’s position can be known, or we the time component is zero, but this is actually an impossible scenario, mathematically, since you cannot divide anything by zero, so to say the time component is zero is actually just nonsense.

Time travel could be infinite too hence you can get zero momentum too. But this is just classical equation. Momentum is give by another formula in quantum mechanics.

So either nothing is moving, or something is sitting still. Either way, position can be known when momentum is zero. But what about when momentum is not zero? So, we’ve got this moving mass, how do we determine its position? Well, that’s the idea behind the uncertainty principle. You can only p(name removed by moderator)oint its position if you stop it, or stop it conceptually, in which case you’ve lost the ability to measure its momentum, because momentum is a measure of its movement over space and through time. But the less you focus on its exact position, the more you’re in a position to measure its momentum because you’re measuring it over a series of positions.

Incorrect. Particle could be everywhere and have zero momentum.

So let’s talk a little bit about position. We normally think about position as a locus of space, a convergence of height, width, and depth. But, the truth is that position is a measure space-time. In reality, everything in the finite universe is always moving. That’s what it means to be in time, in temporality, in a state of the temporary. Movement is change. Even the most stationary-appearing objects are moving, not just as a total mass, but also molecularly and atomically. All particles are in a constant state of motion.

Well? I didn’t get anything from this paragraph.

Position, then, isn’t merely a locus in space, but it is also at the same time a locus in time. In other words, this thing is at this spot at this time. Momentum, then, is correctly called a change in position, because it is not merely a change in a locus of space, but its a change over time as well.

Momentum has a very strict definition in Quantum Mechanics.

So, location might be at a coordination system of (x,y,z,t), while motion is some function of location over time: m=f(x,y,z,t). If we understand momentum to be a function of a motion with respect to mass, then we should understand that it is a function of the change in location (which necessarily includes a time component).

Motion is not a function of position.

Here’s the bottom line. We are bound by the uncertainty principle due to the fact that we are finite (limited), and must operate within the confines of focus, and presence. I exist with a conscious awareness only of the present moment, with memory of past moments, and a certain predictive capacity for future moments. Moreover, I exist within the limitations of physics and my immediate circumstances. These limits combine to hold me to a certain point of focus. I can either focus on a specific very clearly (which is a function of logic), with which I have the ability to determine (in this example) location, or I can focus on a spectrum indistinctly (which is a function of intuition), in which case I am in a position to measure location over a span of space-time (momentum).

That is not correct. Uncertainty principle is not because that we are big and particles in Quantum scale are small.

These are human limitations. Angels are not bound by space, though they are still bound by time. So, angels would be much more capable of specificity with regard to multiple mass locations over time than we would be (i.e., less bound by the principle of uncertainty). However, given that they are still bound by time, they couldn’t, for example, know simultaneously and at once, the specific locations of all (or even many) masses over the same period of time.

Hence you are wrong.

 

[Bahman]

God, however, is of a different nature entirely. His being is not limited in any logical way. We define God as omnipresent. This means that God is present in every possible way, all at once, at all times. Presence is both a term with reference to space and to time. This is because of the relationship of space-time. Thus, when we say that God is omnipresent, we mean that He is present at all moments of time, at all locations of space, at once.

So, to suggest that God is limited by the same laws that subject us to the uncertainty principle is a non sequiter. This is because God’s omnipresence allows Him to be at all locations, at all times, that a mass is travelling through, in time. And because He is omnipresent in this way, it would merely be a matter of calculating in His infinite ability, the momentum of the object over a given time frame, to which He is eternally present.

Ah, but calculate it how? That’s the crux of the question. At this point it is necessary to understand that motion, velocity, only has meaning in relation to other moving objects. We are able to calculate momentum due to triangulation. That is to say, how far is object O moving between point A and point B that I as am observer can measure from point C, and what is the time-lapse with respect to the temporal divisions that I have created from my observations of the revolutions of the earth about the sun? Measurement is always done in relation to some framework. However, human frameworks are artificial - we sometimes arbitrarily assign them (meters, for example), we sometimes assign them by the natural rhythms (a full revolution of the earth, for example, is a day).

If God is omnipresent, and omniscient, then not only is He present to all location and times simultaneously and always, but He is also fully aware of the reality of every location and time simultaneously and always. Therefore, His frame of reference is perfect, and is the absolutely truest reflection of reality that can be had. As such, His measurements are truer than any measurements we could possible make. His certitude exceeds any certitude we could have. So, not only can He be both certain of the exact position of any given mass at any given time, as well as the exact momentum of any given mass, over any given distance, over any given time, but He knows all of this in as perfect a manner as can be had.

Please read post #52.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Please read post #52.

Mr. Snaith has given an excellent response. Too bad you won’t listen.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Mr. Snaith has given an excellent response. Too bad you won’t listen.

Linus2nd

OK, I will give it a try.

 

[Bahman]

God, however, is of a different nature entirely. His being is not limited in any logical way. We define God as omnipresent. This means that God is present in every possible way, all at once, at all times. Presence is both a term with reference to space and to time. This is because of the relationship of space-time. Thus, when we say that God is omnipresent, we mean that He is present at all moments of time, at all locations of space, at once.

Uncertainty principle is an intrinsic property of quantum world and has nothing with nature of the person who is performing the measurement. It is based on very strict logic hence no one can defy it.

So, to suggest that God is limited by the same laws that subject us to the uncertainty principle is a non sequiter. This is because God’s omnipresence allows Him to be at all locations, at all times, that a mass is travelling through, in time. And because He is omnipresent in this way, it would merely be a matter of calculating in His infinite ability, the momentum of the object over a given time frame, to which He is eternally present.

Please read the previous comment. Could God grant freedom and at the same time enforce limitation. That is logically impossible.

Ah, but calculate it how? That’s the crux of the question. At this point it is necessary to understand that motion, velocity, only has meaning in relation to other moving objects. We are able to calculate momentum due to triangulation. That is to say, how far is object O moving between point A and point B that I as am observer can measure from point C, and what is the time-lapse with respect to the temporal divisions that I have created from my observations of the revolutions of the earth about the sun? Measurement is always done in relation to some framework. However, human frameworks are artificial - we sometimes arbitrarily assign them (meters, for example), we sometimes assign them by the natural rhythms (a full revolution of the earth, for example, is a day).

That I know, but your way of thinking is classical which is not applacable to quantum mechanics anymore.

If God is omnipresent, and omniscient, then not only is He present to all location and times simultaneously and always, but He is also fully aware of the reality of every location and time simultaneously and always. Therefore, His frame of reference is perfect, and is the absolutely truest reflection of reality that can be had. As such, His measurements are truer than any measurements we could possible make. His certitude exceeds any certitude we could have. So, not only can He be both certain of the exact position of any given mass at any given time, as well as the exact momentum of any given mass, over any given distance, over any given time, but He knows all of this in as perfect a manner as can be had.

You are thinking classically and that not the way we calculated quantum observable variable.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Uncertainty principle is an intrinsic property of quantum world and has nothing with nature of the person who is performing the measurement. It is based on very strict logic hence no one can defy it.

Please read the previous comment. Could God grant freedom and at the same time enforce limitation. That is logically impossible.

That I know, but your way of thinking is classical which is not applacable to quantum mechanics anymore.

You are thinking classically and that not the way we calculated quantum observable variable.

The problem with quantum mechanics is that it makes unwarranted philosophical/theological conclusions based on the theory of the science. That is inadmissible. Besides that, there are multiple descriptions of the theory of quantum mechanics, there is no unified agreement on the correct one. Furthermore, mathematics does not give an accurate understanding of reality. Not everything in reality can be expressed by mathematics. An equation is by definition a balance between equal quantities. Something in reality is always left out. And what about all those constants? How do they fit into reality?

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

The problem with quantum mechanics is that it makes unwarranted philosophical/theological conclusions based on the theory of the science. That is inadmissible. Besides that, there are multiple descriptions of the theory of quantum mechanics, there is no unified agreement on the correct one.

They are different interpretations. But uncertainty principle rules always.

Furthermore, mathematics does not give an accurate understanding of reality.

This is like saying that logic is unrelated to philosophy.

Not everything in reality can be expressed by mathematics.

I am not sure about this.

An equation is by definition a balance between equal quantities. Something in reality is always left out. And what about all those constants? How do they fit into reality?

Linus2nd

You are unclear here. Could you please elaborate?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

They are different interpretations. But uncertainty principle rules always.

This is like saying that logic is unrelated to philosophy.

I am not sure about this.

You are unclear here. Could you please elaborate?

I stand by everything I have said.

I shouldn’t have to tell a physicist what an equation is.

Linus2nd