Uncertainty Principle

Quote:

Why can't he reach beyond our space-time dimensions and simply observe things without having to use throw atoms against atoms?

If there is a god, we wouldn't know how He works...

If you're talking about us, well I think that we are made of atoms and so we have to obey the laws of physics...

Quote:

I still feel that, if you know all starting conditions, you know the outcome.

I don't think that's possible though. Causes will lead to further causes, and there will always be external factors affecting our experiments. We can't see without photons, etc.

0 Replies

Re: Uncertainty Principle
ReX
You ask why reality should be bound to our ways of experimenting and observing experiments.
I dont see any problem. Reality is the way we experiment and observe. That means we represent reality as human reality. We would never be able to know a reality that didn't adequate to our sensorial and mental conditions. We perceive things in space and time, causaly related, in multiplicity. That is the way our perception works, and the way our mind works. So reality must be adjusted to the observer. If not, it just cannot be observed.
It's not only a matter of quantum physics. When you think of a tree, your idea is not a tree. When you look to a tree, you see the configuration that your eyes give you from an external stimulus.

If reality is a mental and sensorial representation, the fact that we organize, configure external stimulus is already an interference with reality, creating it. (attention, this has nothing to do with solipsism).

If you enter a dark room you have a reality. If you switch the light on you have another reality.

0 Replies

Re: Uncertainty Principle
ReX
You ask why reality should be bound to our ways of experimenting and observing experiments.
I dont see any problem. Reality is the way we experiment and observe. That means we represent reality as human reality. We would never be able to know a reality that didn't adequate to our sensorial and mental conditions. We perceive things in space and time, causaly related, in multiplicity. That is the way our perception works, and the way our mind works. So reality must be adjusted to the observer. If not, it just cannot be observed.
It's not only a matter of quantum physics. When you think of a tree, your idea is not a tree. When you look to a tree, you see the configuration that your eyes give you from an external stimulus.

If reality is a mental and sensorial representation, the fact that we organize, configure external stimulus is already an interference with reality, creating it. (attention, this has nothing to do with solipsism).

If you enter a dark room you have a reality. If you switch the light on you have another reality.

0 Replies

As Ray noted...we don't even know if there is a God...so speculation about what any god is like...is futile.

But I do want to note that you presented your "... if you know all starting conditions, you know the outcome..." thesis in a much more logical way than you did in the other thread. The inclusion of the words "...I still feel that..." is an excellent improvement.

0 Replies

My point was, if there is any such entity, why would it be bound to this principle? How could this be proven? I've read because hidden variables (experiments point out) cannot exist, even God(if there is such a thing, I'm letting go of agnostic modality because it's handy) could not predict the future. A rather bold philosophical statement if I ever heard one.

0 Replies

Rex: Now that the agnostics have had thier word - Let's assume we don't know there is a God - or what he is like. We can still make certain validations of what he would have to be be like to not adhere to the uncertainty principle. Hopefully that will quell the - you can't know anything about him - noise.

The uncertaintly principle only holds for beings who use particles to sense material.

Humans apply to the uncertainty principle because they use the particles of light (and others) to 'see' thier objects. Thus when light is applied to a sub atomic particle you cannot be sure of both its location or its direction of movement.

God only has to adhere to the uncertainty principle if he uses particles to 'see' other particles. If he does not - i.e if he is 'pure thought' like many religions describe him as - then he does not 'see' at all. In the Universe in a Nutshell Hawking admits to this quirk of the uncertainty principle when it is applied to God.

TTF

0 Replies

Right, so even though they're massless, we're still talking about using particles to 'see' or 'measure' (the Universe and/or anything in it).

And thought (as many 'religions' indeed ascribe him to be or use) does not require any such instrument? Does thought not influence reality in a '(belief') system where god is consciousness or consciousness is reality or creates it (take your pick, if you feel you need to choose Smile

)

0 Replies

It is not only that we are influencing the particles when we observe them; we are actually determining what qualities they have. If we accurately determine a particles position, then it simply does not have a specific velocity. It is not that it is just unknown to us; it does not EXIST as far as we are concerned.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Humans apply to the uncertainty principle because they use the particles of light (and others) to 'see' thier objects. Thus when light is applied to a sub atomic particle you cannot be sure of both its location or its direction of movement.

This is not a scientifically correct view of the uncertainty principle.

This comment reflects a common oversimplification of Quantum mechanics, but this explanation doesn't really explain anything about the science.

The uncertainty principle is a mathematical and theoretical objection to what we can know. It has nothing to do with the methods we use to "see" objects. The real idea is much deeper (and "stranger").

To explain this better, we would need to talk about the experiments used to develop Quantum Mechanics. I always recomend the book "The Search for Schrodingers Cat" as a very good laypersons explanation.

I would be happy to start a thread if anyone wants to talk about the science...

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

To explain this better, we would need to talk about the experiments used to develop Quantum Mechanics. I always recomend the book "The Search for Schrodingers Cat" as a very good laypersons explanation.

I would be happy to start a thread if anyone wants to talk about the science...

Excellent book. Not light reading at all...but understandable.

0 Replies

I never understood how theists could claim god as pure thought. Explain please.

0 Replies

Read some Plato/Augustine/Aquinas.

0 Replies

Etruscia wrote:

I never understood how theists could claim god as pure thought. Explain please.

Anyone...including theists...can claim anything they want.

I cannot understand how you can not understand that!

0 Replies

Etruscia:

In many modern conceptions of God - the entity (he?) is elevated past simple anthropomorphic concepts. Thus, if God has the quality of being omnipresent - He can't do that without loosing the concept of a physical body.

Thus, to fulfil the definition of God, God must have a quality of being everywhere, all truth, all good and so on. The only thing that has those qualities is the concept of pure thought.

Who knows if that is how God actually is - but to humans - that is only way we can conceptualize of him.

TF

p.s. I think this post supports Franks position oddly enough. Wink

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Etruscia:

In many modern conceptions of God - the entity (he?) is elevated past simple anthropomorphic concepts. Thus, if God has the quality of being omnipresent - He can't do that without loosing the concept of a physical body.

Thus, to fulfil the definition of God, God must have a quality of being everywhere, all truth, all good and so on. The only thing that has those qualities is the concept of pure thought.

Who knows if that is how God actually is - but to humans - that is only way we can conceptualize of him.

TF

p.s. I think this post supports Franks position oddly enough.

Way ta go, Jason.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU....AND TO EVERYONE HERE.

0 Replies

Gotcha

Frank: Just wanted an explanation. Did not understand what people meant when saying that. Pure thought is not thought at all.

0 Replies

Pure thought - I think describes thoughts without a mind. The believers of old had God's that were physical and did physical things - as the understanding (or creating - if you are so inclined) became more advanced - people could not be restricted to a God who was physical. This is why the early christian church made sure that everyone knew that they did not believe Jesus was a God in himself (he was part of a triune). If you go back and look at the various creeds (Niceane Creed and the like) you see the early Catholic church laying out what they think God is.

The evidence of the New Testament is that God could take physical form - but I think, to the Catholics, this would have restricted God. So they made sure the world knew Jesus was not to be considered an 'avatar'.

This has led many believers and faiths through a retooling of what they think God is - and pure thought is where many end up - it seems as unrestricted as we can conjure.

TF

0 Replies

This is called the Hidden variable theory - that a famous mathematican called John Bell proved 20 years ago from memory, as mentioned by Hawkins in the the Universe in a nutshell.

Basically, let's say you believe in God - fine, but he can't interact with his universe using his God powers without totally destroying its continuity. He has to obey the laws of his own creation (as he knows them) and its limitation else he corrupts and undoes it, or worse he breaks his promise of free will by intervening with consequences that end up denying or minimising free will.

Posted in more detail by me in several threads here in 2004 here in this section - try the search key!

0 Replies

Uncertainty Principle

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know