The Quantum World Veiw & Materialism

[ateista]

Because neuroscience has not–at least not as yet–demonstrated the actual physical mechanism of thought, any more than advocates of the soul can demonstrate a mechanism by which the soul produces thought. No one denies the necessity of the entire body and particularly the brain in the process of intellection; even theists state a body/mind composite. But biology and biochemistry can fully explain the mechanics of walking. It cannot explain the mechanics or biochemistry of thinking.

If however, all of thought, all intellection, all decision making, has a biochemical basis, then any given thought process, any concept, say quantum theory, produced as a result of intellection, ought to be describable in terms of biochemistry. This entire thread, with it’s twists and turns, should be reducible to and describable in detail by, a series of physical reactions. So, ultimately, should all of human history. Relativity and quantum theory, then, would have to be seen not so much as triumphs of human thinking as the culmination of centuries of biochemical interactions.

Yes, in theory that is true. Also true that we are very far from the necessary knowledge of actually doing it. There is a very interesting mathematical theorem and proof about finite automata, namely that no finite automaton (and the brain is exactly that) can ever explain its own “transition function”. Of course that does not preclude to building of some very advanced AI system which can crack that particular problem.

As to the Turing Test, it may be a little too simple. Machines can and do simulate reality. A 3-D movie with perfect sound and 360 degree projection may give one the impression of being in a totally different environment, yet the underlying reality has not changed.

But if an AI becomes capable of discussing the philosophical implications of quantum theory, or even the motivations of Hamlet intelligently, I might be convinced. (Actually, those are a little too specialized; maybe just participating in internet discussion forums would be a better test.)

Indeed. I can hardly wait. Though I have this sneaky suspicion that I will be long dead and forgotten before that happens. Nevertheless, I suspected the same thing before a computer program will defeat the world’s chess champion and I was spectacularly wrong in my prediction. So, who knows?

 

[MindOverMatter]

As you say, the thoughts are the “activity” of the brain.

I never said thoughts are the activity of the brain, at least that’s not what I meant. But what I mean to say is that a specific kind of physical activity occurs when we “choose” to engage in philosophical thought; in other words certain parts of my brain are activated in respect of different activities. As far as science is concerned, this is all that has been proven. Philosophically speaking, there is not, and there has never been, a physical orange or any other external object in my brain; nor have they ever been perceived by a group or mass of atoms. “Just think about it”, how can a physical object perceive a non-existent entity, unless it exists in another form which is not physical? I can in fact manifest immaterial ideas which I have produced by the power of thought; but the idea in its self has no “physical location”. This much is “self-evident”.

Another problem arises when we apply thoughts to brains states alone. If a person does not transcend his or her brains states, then that would mean that everything you do would be the result of a biological occurrence. It would mean that it is not really you that is thinking about our conversation, but some biologically-predetermined state, and you are really just an illusion. It cannot be that you “caused” it, because you are merely the state that is being “caused” by prior-causes, and everything and anything that happens after such an event, is merely the result of that cause rather then a “free-will” of some sort. All literature, including this philosophical debate, would merely be the unthinking produce of cause and effect; not you. This unfortunately means the removal of free-will.

The odds of this being the case, that all ideas and perceptions of self represent a predetermined “physical pattern” in space and time”(which they would have to be if we are in fact physical brain states), are not only beyond astronomical calculation in respect of chance, its simply ridiculous to think that every conversation, war, human rights campaigned, and relationship that we have ever had, was the result of a finite but ancient intermingling of atoms. Given that my experiences tell me that “I” do have some kind of freewill, and that “I” can manifest real ideas, and that “I” can tell my body what to do, given this evidence, I cannot accept materialism. It contradicts my experiences, and since it is “I” that is in fact experiences theses “brain states”, it must be that “I” transcend them in nature, at least in respect of the “physical processes” of the brain. .

But the word “refer to” is confusing here. “Walking” is the activity of the legs, it cannot be separated from the physical existence of the legs. There is no such ontological object as “walking”. The same with the thoughts and the brain states.

There are two objects in existence that we call “legs”. Sometimes they are evidently in the process of “moving”. The word “Walking” is an application of “meaning” which we “humans” give to the processes of movement that apply only to the objects we call “legs”. Meanings are concepts or ideas. Movement is the true activity of the legs, and they are happening in “physical reality”; it is evident that physical reality is in a state of “motion” or “movement”. Although some Greek philosophers in the past have denied the reality of “motion/events” and called them illusions in order to make our Universe the first principle of all things, these events are certainly real. All things that are physical, are “physically real”; but thoughts and ideas are “spiritually real”. If the idea of “walking” is not “spiritually real”, then how is it possible that one can perceive something that does not exist? It appears evident to me that they do existence, even if their existence is limited to my thinking them. To think that they do not exist, is an absurd observation, just as much as it is absurd to think that there is a physical orange or a banana skin in my brain. “Out of nothing, comes nothing.” .

How can you “decouple” them?

One is event is physical, the other is not. .

Sure, but they cannot be separated from the brains.

Nobody has ever said that the two do not work together in respect of the processes of thinking. The two are evidently united. However, the suggestion or claim that human ideas and the processes that we find in nature, are of two different realities, is not with-out evidence, since it is made immediately evident when we engage in the activity of thinking.

I accept this as true on the basis that nothing can appear to the mind unless they have a reality of being, whether they are caused, created, or are themselves first principles. Being that the idea of an orange is not physically present in my mind, I can only assume that the object does exist, but has a “different nature of existing”; and this is all I can assume, since it is impossible that I can perceive something as real in my mind, when at the same time it does not exist in some form or another. Out of nothing comes nothing. If I think nothing, then I am not thinking. So, while it is true that ideas do not exist “physically”, there is absolutely no logical reason to think that therefore ideas do not exist. .

 

[MindOverMatter]

Do not confuse the physical infrastructure and the activity of the infrastructure.

Ideas evidently exist. They either exist physically, or spiritually. They cannot just exist but then at the same time not exist. Your belief to the contrary, is not based on logic, but is based on your materialistic belief system.

Incorrect. The Big Bang is merely the starting point of **this particular form** of the Universe.

Is this a scientific statement, belief, or a philosophically sufficient and consistent view point? If it is a “scientific statement”, then I am unaware that this is the current-accepted understanding of Big bang Cosmology. Given that you are probably making a “scientific statement”, I would be very grateful if you freely choose to provide me with the relevant empirical data. Please do not waste your time giving me a “speculative paper”, since this has not been and probably cannot be proven empirically, and so is not acceptable to me so far as you are making a “scientific statement”.

However, if you are making a “philosophical statement”, then please give me the reasoning behind you convictions. I do hope you are not exercising “blind faith”, since I get the feeling that this is exactly what your accusing the “Theist” of doing. .

In the singularity the concept of “time” is not defined.

Time begins at the singularity. .

Space and time are the properties of the Universe.

I agree. .

To speak of “outside” or “before” the Universe is exactly as meaningless as speaking about the “place” which is to the north from the North Pole.

I agree, but let me point out to you that the North Pole South Pole argument applies only to physical reality. There can be no “physical before or cause”. It is meaningless, just like its meaningless ask what is beyond the space time continuum. What is the Universe expanding into? That is a meaningless question. However, although it is meaningless to speak of a “physical first cause”, God, by the virtue and attributes of being “timeless”, “space-less”, “immaterial” and pure actuality, can principally exist “simultaneously” to the beginning of our Universe. God can be a “simultaneous first cause”. And thus, God does not have to exist before or outside of the universe. Although this is mind boggling, it is a hundred more times reasonable then supposing that reality simply exist, and at the same time it is expanding from an infinitesimal point from which it began to exist for absolutely no reason.

If you are going to prove God as “meaningless”, you are going to have to do a whole lot more then quote the old North Pole South pole argument. Given Gods attributes, it simply does not apply to God. It is meaningless.

Let me also point out to you that I never spoke of a “before” in the post that you quoted. Which tells me that it is likely that you are not really reading my posts; and probably skipping through them assuming before hand that “you are right” and “I am wrong?” The short bursts of absolute conviction with no explanation or presentation of the logic that underlies your philosophy, tempts me toward this conclusion. However to be fare, you have attempted at least some logical swordplay that would have left a weaker and younger version of me wounded, and you have done far better then those who I have spoken to before. But rhetoric aside, back to the debate at hand.

If I spoke of a “before” or “outside”, then given the rest of what I said in respect of Gods attributes, I obviously did not mean it in the sense that you are implying. And if I confused you, then I apologize. However, let me put it to you that “no” knowledgeable Theist speaks of a “before”, except as a “maker” in order to define the existents of a “first cause”. For the Theist, the fact that there was no “before”, proves that there was no prior “physical” cause to our universe; and then the Theist, given the absence of a physical cause, exclaims that “out of nothing, comes nothing”. By doing this the theist has set up a strong foundation, based on the singularity, to posit another reality, a space-less timeless, immaterial cause, a pure being which is pure actuality, which is justified by the fact that such a cause is the only possible cause given that no physical cause can be the first absolute cause. And I think the evidence explains as such, so that we have to admit that the universe is defined by the reality of “motion”, “object”, and the “process of becoming”, and therefore cannot find in itself an “ultimate physical reason” for its existence. The Theists speak of a first principle that is Immaterial, space-less, timeless, with out dimension, and is pure actuality with an eternal “will”, “mind” and “intent”. None of these require an “Outside” or “before” .

Space-less and timeless “reality” is an undefined concept. And we don’t assume that the world “arrived” from nothing either. The Universe simply exists.

Science explains to us, in no uncertain terms, that our Universe began to exist. A space-less and timeless reality is defined by the fact that it has no dimensions and neither does it exist in time. A reality such as this is the very being in which time is rooted and is able to move from one moment to the next. God is existence, the first principle, and the foundation of time.
The singularity event is a true mystery, but not because we haven’t got a clue. Nobody knows what is happening at the singularity precisely because “physical reality” including the “laws of physics”, break-down at the singularity and become meaningless or immeasurable so far as “causality” is concerned. All measurements are after the singularity, because that’s where time exists; it does not exist “before”. .

 

[MindOverMatter]

Kant was the first one. Of course most believers agree when they assert the necessity of faith. If God’s existence could be “proven” at least logically, there would be no need for faith.

You cannot just list the names of people that disagree with my position and expect to disprove my position by the waving of hands or a voting booth. You have to show me the correct reasons for why you think my arguments are flawed. Otherwise, all you are doing is making assertions. You could subscribe to Kant if you like, but “you” have not demonstrated to me how his ideas disprove any of “my” arguments; and if I am not mistaken, Kant himself believed that the existents of God can be reasonably inferred from the existents of an Objective Moral Law. If there is a universal moral truth that exists apart from the reasoning of human beings, then it is reasonable to think that there is a Moral Lawgiver.

“Faith” is a slightly different concept to “belief”, and I we leave it to you to find out from somebody else what that means. While “scientific certainty” of God can never be acquired, Gods existence can be understood by reason, and my faith is that God will save me. .

Hmmm, so you believe that the claims in Bible are not absurd, but I am pretty sure that you would deem absurd the similar claims in other “sacred scriptures”. Think about the reason for this.

I obviously do not think that the other miracles or ideas of salvation expressed in other holy books are absurd. I merely think that that they are mistaken or untrue. In other words, they do not give a true representation of the real “image” and nature of “God” and the root of miracles. All religions (accept for maybe a few) have images or an image of a God and what they believe Gods nature to be. I agree with them on the principle that there is in fact such a thing as “supernatural realites” which transcend our own; but what those realities consist of, and how they describe them, and what there relation is to us, is where we get up and walk separate paths. I believe that Christianity, or more inclusively monotheism, contains the most reasonable and accurate “image” of God, the supernatural, the nature of God, and the destiny of human beings. My reasons for disregarding the rest might very well be prejudiced or as simple as choosing between flavors. I might not have very good reason for placing Christianity above the rest and may simply see the issue as a matter of faith. Or it might be the case that I really do have good reasons for believing that Christianity is the true religion; such as the resurrection accounts of Christ. But this issue is beside the point. .

“Your” reasons for believing that the supernatural is absurd or that miracles cannot happen, are based, first on a lack of belief, and secondly, in the principle of “defense”, your arguments are based on a baseless “belief” that such things can’t or don’t happen, or do not exist. Your disbelief as far as I’m concerned, is not reasonable, supportable, or scientific, in anyway shape or form. The disproof of religious stories is not the disproof of God. It could be that all religions are merely imperfect human attempts to communicate with the first principle which is God, the Father. I would agree with you that some “religious concepts” of the supernatural, in respect of their scriptural narrative, do seem unworthy, such as blue elephants; I can’t prove that God is not a blue elephant, but it seems more reasonable to suppose an ultimate eternal immaterial being who caused physical reality, rather then something that we have seen in physical reality such as an elephant. This is what I mean by “false image”, but as far as the concept of a principle first cuase/creator is concerned, most religions are in agreement with the idea that reality is not just a pointless being that exists for no reason with no moral law what-so-ever.

“Absurdity”, is something coming out of nothing or nowhere for absolutely no reason. “Absurdity” is when 2+2=10. This is absurdity. The existence of God, miracles, or the supernatural, are not logical absurdities, they are different kinds of powers and beings. A miracle is something “you” can’t do, but God can. God is something that you are not, but God is. The supernatural is a transcendent reality that you cannot see, but never-the-less exists. Your complete disregard of all faith systems and supernatural philosophies is not evidence of their absurdities, but rather your “prejudice”. Yes…I think prejudice is the word you’re looking for. .

Of course it does, otherwise what would be the need for faith?

Like I said, science cannot prove Gods existence; however we can acquire good reasons for believing in a first principle or God. But even if an immaterial first principle was proven scientifically; atheism would simply turn into a form of deism; and the arguments and prejudices surrounding the God debate would simply take a different form. In this respect, a reasonable-faith in a personal theistic God who promises to save the righteous would still be required. .

 

[a_priori]

It acts differently when we are watching?
But how do we know how it acts when we are not watching?

When you fire electrons through double slits they hit the film in a wave interference pattern of light and dark bands. So they are waves.

But if you observe the EXACT same process, you get two bands of hits directly opposite the slits just like particles.

If you don’t observe them they are waves. If you merely observe them they are particles. How do they “know” to do that? That’s the good part.

 

[ateista]

However, although it is meaningless to speak of a “physical first cause”, God, by the virtue and attributes of being “timeless”, “space-less”, “immaterial” and pure actuality, can principally exist “simultaneously” to the beginning of our Universe. God can be a “simultaneous first cause”. And thus, God does not have to exist before or outside of the universe.

My problem with these attributes that they make no sense for me. Spaceless existence I can fathom, after all concepts do not exist as ontological objects. Of course that kind of existence is “inert”, it can have no impact on the physical world.

But timeless existence is a different matter. Any action presupposes some kind of “time”, it presupposes a “before” the action and “after” the action. And since God is assumed to have acted, the timeless attribute is sheer nonsense. Mind you, the “time” where God dwells, could be very different from our time. But a timeless existence is total “stasis”, unchanged, unchangable, inert, and completely indistinguishable from non-existence.

Of course some proponents said that “action” in this case is metaphorical, and when we speak of God’s “activity” it actually means that “God eternally willed” that something to happen. What the heck does that mean? The proponents substituted one nonsense with another, both lacking any explanatory value.

Although this is mind boggling, it is a hundred more times reasonable then supposing that reality simply exist, and at the same time it is expanding from an infinitesimal point from which it began to exist for absolutely no reason.

You see, it is pefectly reasonable for me. Since we both agree that our current understanding of physics does not “penetrate” the singularity, we can make no assumptions about the properties of the singularity. Therefore I don’t even contemplate what could have brought about the change. It would be empty speculation.

Though I have been chastized before, the whole “goddidit” explanation is just a euphamism for the honest and straightforward utterance: “an unknowable being using unknowable means made it magically happen”. That is the theist’s assertion if we strip it of the “fluff” of timeless and spaceless and immaterial “existence”.

In another thread I asked: “what does the word ‘existence’ mean when applied to God?”. The flippant answer was: “God is”, and then pointed out that I should ask former president Clinton about the details of “is”. Which is cute, but without informative value.

 

[Just_Lurking]

If you don’t observe them they are waves. If you merely observe them they are particles. How do they “know” to do that? That’s the good part.

Quantum decoherence provides a different perspective on this phenomenon. The electrons are always waves – waves that start off having a certain phase. If there is no observation, then the wave function evolution along the two possible paths remains in phase, and so create an interference pattern. If there is an observation, then the interaction with the observing photon knocks the phase evolution out of sync, thus destroying the interference pattern.

This view also explains the phenomenon whereby an inaccurate observation with a low-energy (long wavelength) photon causes a blurring or fuzziness in the interference pattern, but does not destroy it altogether.

 

[a_priori]

Quantum decoherence provides a different perspective on this phenomenon. The electrons are always waves – waves that start off having a certain phase. If there is no observation, then the wave function evolution along the two possible paths remains in phase, and so create an interference pattern. If there is an observation, then the interaction with the observing photon knocks the phase evolution out of sync, thus destroying the interference pattern.

This view also explains the phenomenon whereby an inaccurate observation with a low-energy (long wavelength) photon causes a blurring or fuzziness in the interference pattern, but does not destroy it altogether.

That would make sense. Do you have a link?

 

[Just_Lurking]

That would make sense. Do you have a link?

I think it is from QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman. I’ll take a closer look tomorrow to see if I can find it.

 

[a_priori]

I think it is from QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman. I’ll take a closer look tomorrow to see if I can find it.

I’ve read treatments of this issue that were written after Feynman’s death and still maintained it is unresolved. So I’m very interested in anything you have on the issue.

That having been said, there remains enough weirdness surrounding quantum theory (i.e. entanglement) to leave us scratching our heads.

Thanks for the “heads up.”

 

[Just_Lurking]

I think it is from QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman. I’ll take a closer look tomorrow to see if I can find it.

Nope, I was wrong. The QED book gives a great description of how the time evolution of quantum phase along the various paths contributes to the interference pattern, in order to motivate the next step to path integrals in quantum field theory, but still treats the observed, non-interfering two-slit experiment in the traditional, pre-decoherence manner.

The Wikipedia article on decoherence (see here) isn’t all that great, but it does have some very good references and links at the bottom.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I’ve read treatments of this issue that were written after Feynman’s death and still maintained it is unresolved. So I’m very interested in anything you have on the issue.

In my opinion it is still unresolved today. I haven’t read anything that makes complete sense of all the issues. The consistent histories approach comes the closest, but it still doesn’t leave me satisfied. Griffith’s book (see here) does a good explanation of this approach.

 

[MindOverMatter]

You see, it is perfectly reasonable for me. Since we both agree that our current understanding of physics does not “penetrate” the singularity, we can make no assumptions about the properties of the singularity.

We can make no “Scientific” assumptions about that which is impossible to know “Empirically”, but we can legitimately engage in reason and logic based on what we do know; and scientists know that time space and energy began to exist, or better yet, the Universe, when reversed, shrinks back to an infinitesimal point which is “zero”.

Because the Universe began to exist, as in space time and energy, then the universe, according to reason, is not and cannot be “Ultimate reality”; in which case, philosophically speaking, the first principle must be “immaterial” in nature, and therefore one can legitimately posit a being such as God. Why? Because with out a “natural cause”, the only other kind of cause we know of, is a “will to create”. .

“God eternally willed” something to happen?

It means that Gods nature is the same as his will, and his will is an “eternal act”; which also means there is no beginning or end to Gods will. As humans in space and time, we take time to think about things, God on the other hand is “All Knowing”. Where as we think about what we will create in the future, God has always created. Physical Reality is an “eternal expression” of Gods being. God is an eternal and “perfect” expression, for in “perfection” there can be no “change” or “beginning”; so therefore humanity is an eternal expression of Gods “love”. That which takes time to be present in human beings is already present in God; it would be a mistake to think that Gods nature is different from the nature of perfection, love, or being. God is being. God is perfection. God is existence. What is Existence? Existence is God.

Taking into account the finite limits to our nature and understanding, its not so much about understanding what it means to be timeless or what it is to be the Ultimate Reality, so much is it is about recognizing that Gods attributes or “natures” are absolute “necessities” when describing how a Universe such as ours can possibly begin to exist; God is the only sufficient cause or “terminator” which conforms to the reality of a Universe that has a “beginning”. In other words, according to the principle that “Out of nothing comes nothing”, God must exist, given that there is no other possible first causes so far as we can define. God is the only possible explanation if we assume,

(1). "Out of nothing comes nothing.” (2). “Anything which begins to exist needs a cause”. Or, (3). Something must have “timelessly” existed in order for something to begin to exist, and that thing is “existence” its very-self; and thus time and the Universe cannot be synonymous with “existence” in and of itself, since our “Universe”, so far as it is “time” “space” and “matter”, is “finite” in its dimensions.

The description that arises as a result, fits the God of Christianity. Thus men, women and children are being wholly faithful to “reason” so far as they believe in a God that created everything. Of coarse I could be wrong, but since all the evidence is pointing toward God, then it is reasonable to have a reasonable faith.

The Atheist is simply “refusing” to accept that when reason is used “un-prejudicially”, on the bases of what we know about the universe, it leads to God. The most common rejection that I hear from Atheists is based on a fualty concept of “empiricism”, the idea that we are not allowed to accept “reasonable un-empirical truths” if it leads us to God, and thus they take on the Agnostic’s belief system, so as to avoid the end result of “unprejudiced reason”. Given any other topic which does not deal with the supernatural or works against the supernatural, the right to reason is allowed and is perfectly fine. The unrelenting refusal to accept the supernatural is not based on reason, but is based on a perversion of science and materialism. The cosmological argument on the other hand is about “necessity”, God must be the case if physical reality is to remain “reasonable” and “intelligible”; otherwise it becomes irrational. I would rather believe in an incomprehensible being that willed everything in to existence, rather then resign myself to a materialistic concept of reality which leads to “absurdities” such as the removal of “freewill” and the denial that ideas are real when they patently are (we would not be able to express such ideas into our art or designs if they where not real, since how does one comprehend that which does not exist; out of nothing comes nothing). God is certainly meaningful to me, although I do not fully understand God my self.

Also, let me point out to you that nobody has said that all things concerning Gods nature are fully understandable, and Christians have always said that there are in fact incomprehensible “Divine Mysteries” which are beyond are ability reason, which is exactly what you would expect given the enormity of God. The things we can reason about God are only a thin slice of what God is.

This type of argument, such as the cosmological argument is only one among many others. It is obvious that we are not going to agree. Thanks for the converse. Peace and God bless .

 

[ateista]

It is obvious that we are not going to agree. Thanks for the converse.

Thank you, too.

 

[bobzills]

It means that Gods nature is the same as his will, .

How is His Nature exactly the same thing as His will? Is it God’s Nature and will that the innocent suffer?

 

[MindOverMatter]

How is His Nature exactly the same thing as His will? Is it God’s Nature and will that the innocent suffer?

Hey Bobzills

 

[MindOverMatter]

Who is innocent in the eyes of perfection?

I suggest you make another thread for your question.

 

[MindOverMatter]

How is His Nature exactly the same thing as His will?

If you asking me “how”, i cannot tell you, since as a finite being such a reality is beyond my comprehension and experience.

If your asking me why i say that Gods will is one and the same as his nature, then i can say with confidence that such a function is neccesary to God as a “timeless Creator”. God is pure actuality. God, being one and the same as his perfection, means that his “will to create” has no “beginning”; it simply is God. Creation is an eternal expression of his “being”, “will” and “nature”.

 

[fhansen]

Why would you say that? The whole point I was making is that those are precisely the kinds of propositions we have no basis for offering.

I’m not sure if it’s more precise or not, but it’s an unjustified condition, in any case.

See, we cannot even express your ideas without invoking “internal” language to do it. When you say “be a time”, you’ve just made it a tautology, as time is a “something [to] exist”. If you have time, you have some form of existence. Like saying if you have a “bachelor” , you have some form of marriage in place to give the term “bachelor” meaning.

It’s very difficult to avoid the conceptual “traps” of our own local existence in the universe, when talking hypothetically about the “dynamics” (and see! even that word “dynamics” is loaded with semantic freight from this universe) of the metaphysic.

-Touchstone

My point was that since all we know is existence rather than non-existence or nothingness, the term “nothing” being “internal” language for a concept we can’t relate to-the absence of something-and everything that exists in our experience came from something already existing, then its not unreasonable for us to assume that something always existed, while it is unreasonable for us to believe that something came from nothing. The fact that we’re limited to a language derived from our finite minds to describe finite realities doesn’t preclude the fact that other realties exist.

 

[bobzills]

If you asking me “how”, i cannot tell you, since as a finite being such a reality is beyond my comprehension and experience.

If your asking me why i say that Gods will is one and the same as his nature, then i can say with confidence that such a function is neccesary to God as a “timeless Creator”. God is pure actuality. God, being one and the same as his perfection, means that his “will to create” has no “beginning”; it simply is God. Creation is an eternal expression of his “being”, “will” and “nature”.

But He willed the Incarnation, which would not have been willed had there been no original sin? So His Nature is not exactly the same as His will as you assert.