ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

Cause and effect. If you know *all* that is happening *right now*, then you will know what *will* happen.

Actually, that only holds for classical physics. Following quantum mechanics, a particle can be in more than one state at once. It is not until it affects something that it solidifies into single state. Thus you could know the states of all the various particles at a single moment, but not know what will happen.

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
Actually, that only holds for classical physics. Following quantum mechanics, a particle can be in more than one state at once. It is not until it affects something that it solidifies into single state. Thus you could know the states of all the various particles at a single moment, but not know what will happen.

I think you meant to say "until it is observed", not "affects something".

Any entity that might be able to know the quantum states of every particle in the multiverse might also not be subject to our current understanding (aka physics) of how probability waves collapse. By definition, if you "know" the quantum state of a particle you've already collapsed its wave. We're positing a deity that can observe at the quantum level without interacting (affecting) what's being observed (something we don't currently believe is possible). Another way of looking at this is that according to quantum mechanics you cannot have an all-knowing deity. Which means that either one believes in such a deity and quantum mechanics is wrong, or the science is correct and what many modern religions posit is absurd. I've never been fond of the absurd ... especially my current theocratic government.

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

I think you meant to say "until it is observed", not "affects something".

Any entity that might be able to know the quantum states of every particle in the multiverse might also not be subject to our current understanding (aka physics) of how probability waves collapse. By definition, if you "know" the quantum state of a particle you've already collapsed its wave. We're positing a deity that can observe at the quantum level without interacting (affecting) what's being observed (something we don't currently believe is possible). Another way of looking at this is that according to quantum mechanics you cannot have an all-knowing deity. Which means that either one believes in such a deity and quantum mechanics is wrong, or the science is correct and what many modern religions posit is absurd. I've never been fond of the absurd ... especially my current theocratic government.

Fair enough, it goes back to the definition of omniscient. If knowing the states of every particle at a single moment is not omniscient, it still seems rather impressive and god-like, so what do you call it?

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
Fair enough, it goes back to the definition of omniscient. If knowing the states of every particle at a single moment is not omniscient, it still seems rather impressive and god-like, so what do you call it?

Fantasy. Absurd. (take your pick)

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

Fantasy. Absurd. (take your pick)

I'm not saying someone has that ability, but it certainly seems more reasonable than your definition of omniscience, so it seems it should have a distinct term....

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
I'm not saying someone has that ability, but it certainly seems more reasonable than your definition of omniscience, so it seems it should have a distinct term....

Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?

But since you insist on calling "my" definition of omniscience unreasonable, I'll point you to Merriam-Webster Online's definition. Please note that definition #1 is "infinite awareness", and definition #2 is "universal or complete knowledge". I believe "my" definition fits within both of those official definitions.

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?

But since you insist on calling "my" definition of omniscience unreasonable, I'll point you to Merriam-Webster Online's definition. Please note that definition #1 is "infinite awareness", and definition #2 is "universal or complete knowledge". I believe "my" definition fits within both of those official definitions.

I never said your definition was unreasonable, only that applying such a concept the universe was unreasonable. My only point is that the less extreme version is as deserving of a word for it as the normal definition.

Anyway, I've got to get to sleep, so I'm afraid we will have to shelve our definition nitpicking session for now

[TheSelfishGene]

Arryn said:

Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?

But since you insist on calling "my" definition of omniscience unreasonable, I'll point you to Merriam-Webster Online's definition. Please note that definition #1 is "infinite awareness", and definition #2 is "universal or complete knowledge". I believe "my" definition fits within both of those official definitions.

Why is it incompatable for an omniscient being whom *exists outside of the universe* to be able to know everything about said universe without affecting it? Arguing that God doesn't exist because Quantum Mechanics limits him seems like a particularly pedestrian argument.

[Arryn]

TheSelfishGene said:
Why is it incompatable for an omniscient being whom *exists outside of the universe* to be able to know everything about said universe without affecting it? Arguing that God doesn't exist because Quantum Mechanics limits him seems like a particularly pedestrian argument.

You haven't been reading carefully enough. I did not use quantum mechanics to attempt to disprove the existence of God. I merely said that God and quantum mechanics are incompatible. Quantum mechanics does not, and cannot, be used to disprove the existence of God. Actually, you can no more disprove the existence of God than you can prove any negative.

However, since you seem to be leaning in a certain direction, I'll point out that the burden for showing objective proof falls upon those making the fantastical claims, which are the deists. Anecdotal evidence and belief are not proof. A history book (aka the Bible) isn't proof. Claiming divine intervention for anything that cannot be immediately explained is not proof.

It's an utter waste of time for people to try to argue whether God exists or doesn't. It's up to those who believe in the fantastical to convince those of us who are skeptical with irrefutable proof that they are correct (just as is happening with cold fusion research). Whenever someone tries to pin a believer down, you get a recitation of dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

My apologies to Scott for the continued hijacking of his thread.

[Kristoffer O]

> It's an utter waste of time for people to try to argue whether God exists or doesn't.

No it isn't. I might discuss whether or not Omega-man is the best movie ever without it being a waste of time. The discussion defines me and my views, not the quality of the movie or the attributes of God.

Strange thread BTW. It seems most threads with philosophical discussions end up in a discussion regarding the existance of a God.