Quantum Physics and Free Will, Omniscience, and Determinism

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Just a minor technicality: it seems that neither of you have very much training in physics. That’s OK, neither do I, I just read widely. An alpha particle is not Helium, it is a helium nucleus, i.e. He2+ i.e. 2 protons and 2 neutrons. It is a very serious misconception to think that the alpha particle is neutral.

A mistake I always end up making too, believe it or not. You are right, the alpha particle has no electrons. But in any event, the fact that there are 4 particles of roughly the same mass is what gives it a larger mass than the single proton.

Either you’re contradicting yourself here, or you misunderstand what carn means by “God cannot”. Points b and c conclusively prove that God cannot, at least in the sense that carn is using the word, create a circle with some points at different radii or create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it.

He cannot in the sense that it is not a circle. Point (d) still stands.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Alberti

No, an omnipotent being cannot create a circle with some points at different radii because a line with varying radii is not a circle, a clear contradiction if you think about it.

You are a trifle confused here. It is not that an omnipotent being cannot make a circle with some points at different radii; it is that God has designed and willed creation to make such a thing impossible. His will be done.

An omnipotent God can will to design and create a universe, even though we cannot begin to fathom how it was done. An omnipotent God can do things we cannot do. We should not impose our limitations on Him … that is arrogance.

I do not believe I have imposed any limitations on him. All I have stated is that if he were to create a round object that had varying distances from the center point, it is not a circle by the very definition of a circle.
The contradiction is that carn wants to define a circle as including an object with varying distances from the center point, something the definition of the circle clearly disallows.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Alberti

**… something the definition of the circle clearly disallows. **

… since God made everything, He also made the definition of a circle.

We are powerless to alter what is done by His omnipotence.

 

[carn]

I do not believe I have imposed any limitations on him. All I have stated is that if he were to create a round object that had varying distances from the center point, it is not a circle by the very definition of a circle.
The contradiction is that carn wants to define a circle as including an object with varying distances from the center point, something the definition of the circle clearly disallows.

It seems our differences regarding omnipotence are purely illusional, because i can agree with the first part and i can say, that i never intended to do what is suggested in the second and if have done so, it would be a mistake.

@Charlemange II

Your argument currently only is that God can alter the definition of circle or that he could have created the universe such, that the definition would have been different. Certainly he could change the meaning of words (even we can do that).

But the moment, “circle”, “distance”, “center”, “equal” and “point” (and maybe some other terms i forgot) are defined, then given the definitions a circle with points of non equal distance to the center simply cannot exist.

And while God certainly can make it so, that the above words have a different meaning and circles with unequal distances of points are possible, then we would have just to adjust the words to the new defintions and could still say that such an object cannot be created.
E.g. if its instead of “circle”, “distance”, “center”, “equal” and “point” it should be called “blob”, “gark”, “wummy”, “korid” and “hasla”, then we could say a blob with haslas of non korid gark to the wummy simply cannot exist and we could be absolutely certain God would never create such a blob with non korid gark.

 

[tonyrey]

Alberti

No, an omnipotent being cannot create a circle with some points at different radii because a line with varying radii is not a circle, a clear contradiction if you think about it.

You are a trifle confused here. It is not that an omnipotent being cannot make a circle with some points at different radii; it is that God has designed and willed creation to make such a thing impossible. His will be done.

An omnipotent God can will to design and create a universe, even though we cannot begin to fathom how it was done. An omnipotent God can do things we cannot do. We should not impose our limitations on Him … that is arrogance.

The claim to understand omnipotence presupposes omniscience!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

carn

Your argument currently only is that God can alter the definition of circle or that he could have created the universe such, that the definition would have been different. Certainly he could change the meaning of words (even we can do that).

That seems to be something you read into my remarks. I did not say that. In case I was not clear, what I meant to say is that God defines a circle. It is God’s will that the radii have equal length from their center for a perfect circle. To say that God cannot do otherwise, is only to say that God has made us in such a way that we cannot imagine him doing otherwise. But He also made us in such a way that we cannot imagine how He created the universe. It is beyond our power of reasoning, but is in the WILL OF GOD. Obviously God alone understands how Creation began, even if the event would seem totally irrational to us.

Why would God bother to change the definition of a circle? Why should we bother to be concerned whether He would or He wouldn’t, whether He can or He can’t?

On the other hand, miracles are a clear sign that God can do what we cannot imagine being done … such as walking on water or rising from the dead. He can do these things because He wills to do them, not because He can or can’t.

We should be satisfied that He wills to do certain things and wills not to do other things.

 

[carn]

It is God’s will that the radii have equal length from their center for a perfect circle.

Is it?
How do you know?

Eukledian geometrics is not part of divine revelation and therefore could be something developed by humans. And taking the definitions from that, God cannot create a circle with varying radii. Thats because if something has varying radii, its not a circle, but something else.

Something that is both A and the excluding opposite of A cannot exist. Why should we claim God can create it?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

carn
**
Something that is both A and the excluding opposite of A cannot exist. Why should we claim God can create it? **

God does what He wills. If God enters Creation in the person of Jesus Christ, it is because
He wills it, not because He can.

By your reasoning God cannot both be God and not God (Man).

Can or cannot has nothing to do with God. Whatever God wills, it is so, whether or not we understand why it is so.

Are you an atheist? It would help to know, as it might explain why you are so keen on human logic and not so keen on what God wills or does not will.

It is typical of atheists to impose their human logic on God. That’s man’s presumptuous brain always trying to call the shots.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If something cannot be created, it is only because it contradicts the act of reality (esse) in which the universe is sustained (is contingent) and has its being. God is the act of reality (esse) in which the Universe is sustained (is contingent) and has its being. God cannot contradict God; thus a square-triangle cannot exist; it is nothing and therefore meaningless. This is not a limitation on reality, but rather it is an expression of Gods perfect act of reality and order; thus making God the literal antithesis of absolute nothingness.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

God cannot contradict God; thus a square-triangle cannot exist; it is nothing and therefore meaningless.

Exactly. It is because God does not will it that it does not exist.

However, God can will Himself to be both God and Man in the person of Jesus Christ.

Which seems more impossible: a square triangle or a God-Man?

 

[carn]

By your reasoning God cannot both be God and not God (Man).

We have no reason to assume man is the excluding opposite of God. (Considering that man is made in His image, there could be some sort of tiny overlap)

We have reasons to suspect that God cannot be God and satan at the same time. God and men do not seem to be exclusive.

Are you an atheist? It would help to know, as it might explain why you are so keen on human logic and not so keen on what God wills or does not will.

Fascinating.
In some atheist forum i discuss some things, most suspect me of being a theist.
Why is it so important to know?

But as an answer:
I prefer not to answer in anyway, as whatever answer i choose, it might still be a lie and the commandment is “You shall not lie.”.
(Now thats a nice contradiction, if i am an atheist, why should i care, what is written in the commandments? But fortunately contradictions in the human mind are no problem.)

It is typical of atheists to impose their human logic on God. That’s man’s presumptuous brain always trying to call the shots.

You noticed my above quote of summa theologica, in which Thomas Aquinas says the same just in other words. (And MindOverMatter2 restated it in different words.)

 

[carn]

Which seems more impossible: a square triangle or a God-Man?

A square triangle.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

carn
**
A square triangle. **

I think an atheist would find them equally impossible. Or more so the God-Man impossible because while an atheist can concede the certainty of both squares and triangles, he can concede only the certainty of man, but the impossibility of God.

 

[tonyrey]

carn
**
A square triangle. **

I think an atheist would find them equally impossible. Or more so the God-Man impossible because while an atheist can concede the certainty of both squares and triangles, he can concede only the certainty of man, but the impossibility of God.

 

[carn]

carn
**
A square triangle. **

I think an atheist would find them equally impossible. Or more so the God-Man impossible because while an atheist can concede the certainty of both squares and triangles, he can concede only the certainty of man, but the impossibility of God.

Only the lazy or emotional ones.

The careful ones would notice, that while “square” and “triangle” are defined exactly, “Man” is defined not very precisely and “God” barely at all. If two things are not known, one cannot decide in anyway, whether they contradict each other.

From wiki:
“This means that it has four equal sides and four equal angles (90-degree angles, or right angles)”
“a polygon with three corners or vertices and three sides or edges which are line segments.”

As long as three and four are different numbers and as long as the words “triangle” and “square” have the meaning ascribed by wiki, nothing can be a triangle and a square at the same time. And that sentence i think might be even true in light of omnipotence and omniscience.

 

[tonyrey]

The careful ones would notice, that while “square” and “triangle” are defined exactly, “Man” is defined not very precisely and “God” barely at all. If two things are not known, one cannot decide in anyway, whether they contradict each other.

It is not the precision of the terms that is the reason but the fact that God and man are ontologically related.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

carn

**As long as three and four are different numbers and as long as the words “triangle” and “square” have the meaning ascribed by wiki, nothing can be a triangle and a square at the same time. And that sentence i think might be even true in light of omnipotence and omniscience. **

Because omnipotence willed it to be so long before we got around to declaring it.

 

[aquohn]

I think I have distilled the heart of the matter. To put it this way, if we tighten constraints enough, we can create a problem which falls into the same class as the unliftable rock. Basically, if I ask God to create, without changing any definitions whatsoever, a circle with some a different distance form the centre, as I define them now, saying God can bypass this is plain silly. The statements “God cannot know which slit the particle is in” and “God cannot know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time” (with the presumption that he does not modify quantum mechanics [carn, please read that battery of links. Quantum effects are NOT due solely to Heisenberg-microscope-isque events]) are both true, because they describe problems which fall into the same class. Alberti is deluded if he thinks an omnipotent being can do these things under the stringent constraints proposed, and bluffing through with magnipotence and magniscience is, well, bluffing.

Of course, a similar statement would be “God cannot know the outcome of an indeterministic system from initial conditions alone”, which falls into the same class (note that it’s ‘from initial conditions alone’), but extending it such that we classify God as a Laplace’s-demon style entity in a quantum universe is the point of contention.

Once again, the last person who seemed to touch on the issue of the correspondence principle (i.e. you still have to explain the problems which this modification would kill) was greylorn, a couple dozen posts back. You still have to get through that to demolish this point completely.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

aquohn

Before people decry me for heresy, allow me to offer a technical argument in my defence. If God knows everything that is going to happen, he knows exactly when and how I will die. But if I am placed in a situation where my life and death rest on a quantum event (cf. Schrodinger’s Cat), then God cannot know exactly when I will die.

God does not exist in time, since He created time. He is therefore not subject to quantum events. He creates them and knows their outcome even if we don’t see how that is possible.

 

[JDaniel]

carn

Your argument currently only is that God can alter the definition of circle or that he could have created the universe such, that the definition would have been different. Certainly he could change the meaning of words (even we can do that).

That seems to be something you read into my remarks. I did not say that. In case I was not clear, what I meant to say is that God defines a circle. It is God’s will that the radii have equal length from their center for a perfect circle. To say that God cannot do otherwise, is only to say that God has made us in such a way that we cannot imagine him doing otherwise. But He also made us in such a way that we cannot imagine how He created the universe. It is beyond our power of reasoning, but is in the WILL OF GOD. Obviously God alone understands how Creation began, even if the event would seem totally irrational to us.

Why would God bother to change the definition of a circle? Why should we bother to be concerned whether He would or He wouldn’t, whether He can or He can’t?

On the other hand, miracles are a clear sign that God can do what we cannot imagine being done … such as walking on water or rising from the dead. He can do these things because He wills to do them, not because He can or can’t.

We should be satisfied that He wills to do certain things and wills not to do other things.

God already made a shape that has points on its circumference that are not all equidistant from its center point. We call it “oval.”

God bless,
jd