| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"half_pint" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2003 08:40:09 PM |
| Object: |
Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint
.
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
06 Nov 2003 01:18:44 AM |
|
|
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bocc8h$1cmba9$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
| Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
| intervention and free will?
| Einstein say "God does not play dice".
| However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
| not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
| If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
| rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
| I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
Hehe. Is that like modifiable pre-destiny?
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AaronB" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
06 Nov 2003 06:24:35 PM |
|
|
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bocc8h$1cmba9$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Free will is an interesting (and very difficult) concept to deal with,
since our apparent reality is based only on our five senses. I don't
think Heisenberg really has much to do with it one way or another; the
effects of Uncertainty Principle on macroscopic objects about as
significant as the force of gravity I exert on the Earth. Our free
will, as we see it, may be only an illusion: some psychologist and/or
neurologists suggest that "free will" and the conscious "voice" in our
heads are simply the brain's explanation for actions that it feels it
has to do to keep the body functioning. The conscious "voice" is
suggested to be the outlet of the *incredibly* powerful left brain
rationalizing its actions. Who it's rationalizing its actions to is a
whole nother story (the right brain?, the soul? I'm not sure)... The
idea generally stems from people who have split brains (where the
lobes are no longer properly connected) or partial lobotamies.
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
I believe Einstein actually said something to the effect of: "I cannot
conceive it to be possible that God plays dice with the universe."
That is a VERY different thing.
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
Divine intervention shouldn't be explanable by science. If you could,
it wouldn't be miraculous.
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint
.
|
|
|
| User: "half_pint" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
06 Nov 2003 08:33:49 PM |
|
|
"AaronB" <aaronb@uvic.ca> wrote in message
news:9f8a9f42.0311061624.3d2dcba1@posting.google.com...
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<bocc8h$1cmba9$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Free will is an interesting (and very difficult) concept to deal with,
since our apparent reality is based only on our five senses. I don't
think Heisenberg really has much to do with it one way or another; the
effects of Uncertainty Principle on macroscopic objects about as
significant as the force of gravity I exert on the Earth. Our free
will, as we see it, may be only an illusion: some psychologist and/or
neurologists suggest that "free will" and the conscious "voice" in our
heads are simply the brain's explanation for actions that it feels it
has to do to keep the body functioning. The conscious "voice" is
suggested to be the outlet of the *incredibly* powerful left brain
rationalizing its actions. Who it's rationalizing its actions to is a
whole nother story (the right brain?, the soul? I'm not sure)... The
idea generally stems from people who have split brains (where the
lobes are no longer properly connected) or partial lobotamies.
But because of uncertainty we cannot be completely predictable.
Many events appear to be probability, what determines the exact
event is unknown and unknowable.
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
I believe Einstein actually said something to the effect of: "I cannot
conceive it to be possible that God plays dice with the universe."
That is a VERY different thing.
Sounds exactly the same to me, the only diffference is the ommision
of universe in my quote (which I too for granted as inherently implied).
Changing your quote for mine does not effect the reasoning at all.
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
Divine intervention shouldn't be explanable by science. If you could,
it wouldn't be miraculous.
I am not saying that, I am saying that science cannot explain all in the
Universe
and thus cannot be used to say God does not exist.
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
regards half_pint
.
|
|
|
| User: "AaronB" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
07 Nov 2003 12:42:14 AM |
|
|
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bof09u$1d1bdn$2@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...
But because of uncertainty we cannot be completely predictable.
Many events appear to be probability, what determines the exact
event is unknown and unknowable.
The specific actions of a single human may be hard to predict, even
bordering on random. However, if you look at the actions of one
hundred, ten thousand, a million, humans simultaneously, you will see
a very specific, very exact methodology. Consider a bee hive. It seems
chaotic, totally illogical and random. But in fact, each bee has a
VERY specific, biologically programmed job. There is an uncertain
nature in whether a given bee will live or die on a given day, whether
the hive will be destroyed, etc, but that (aside from NOT being an
example of uncertainty principle, which would never have an effect on
such a large object) too is biologically programmed as part of the
bee. They are extremely precise. Though, for me, I think that, and
biology in general for that matter, is a much stronger case for belief
in God than uncertainty principle could ever be.
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
I believe Einstein actually said something to the effect of: "I cannot
conceive it to be possible that God plays dice with the universe."
That is a VERY different thing.
Sounds exactly the same to me, the only diffference is the ommision
of universe in my quote (which I too for granted as inherently implied).
Changing your quote for mine does not effect the reasoning at all.
It changes it significantly, and you of all people should be aware of
the difference. The difference is uncertainty, of course. Saying "God
does not play dice with the universe" is a statement of authority;
saying the other is an opinion: it implies that the author cannot
believe such a thing to be true, but does not say that it is not true.
Einstein has been misquoted on this count many times, for brevity's
sake and to make the statement appear more authoritative. In its
original form, I think the quote is much more interesting anyway. How
can we say something is definitely uncertain, if the universe is
uncertain?
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
Divine intervention shouldn't be explanable by science. If you could,
it wouldn't be miraculous.
I am not saying that, I am saying that science cannot explain all in the
Universe
and thus cannot be used to say God does not exist.
It's impossible to prove impossibility: again, uncertainty. There is
no way I can say, without a doubt, that (for instance) octopi don't
play chess at the bottom of the ocean. Evidence may lead to a trend
for whether or not it is likely, but proof of non-existence is
virtually impossible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "half_pint" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
07 Nov 2003 01:00:21 AM |
|
|
"AaronB" <aaronb@uvic.ca> wrote in message
news:9f8a9f42.0311062242.af2b038@posting.google.com...
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<bof09u$1d1bdn$2@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...
But because of uncertainty we cannot be completely predictable.
Many events appear to be probability, what determines the exact
event is unknown and unknowable.
The specific actions of a single human may be hard to predict, even
bordering on random. However, if you look at the actions of one
hundred, ten thousand, a million, humans simultaneously, you will see
a very specific, very exact methodology. Consider a bee hive. It seems
chaotic, totally illogical and random. But in fact, each bee has a
VERY specific, biologically programmed job. There is an uncertain
nature in whether a given bee will live or die on a given day, whether
the hive will be destroyed, etc, but that (aside from NOT being an
example of uncertainty principle, which would never have an effect on
such a large object) too is biologically programmed as part of the
bee. They are extremely precise. Though, for me, I think that, and
biology in general for that matter, is a much stronger case for belief
in God than uncertainty principle could ever be.
Both perhaps?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
I believe Einstein actually said something to the effect of: "I cannot
conceive it to be possible that God plays dice with the universe."
That is a VERY different thing.
Sounds exactly the same to me, the only diffference is the ommision
of universe in my quote (which I too for granted as inherently implied).
Changing your quote for mine does not effect the reasoning at all.
It changes it significantly, and you of all people should be aware of
the difference. The difference is uncertainty, of course. Saying "God
does not play dice with the universe" is a statement of authority;
saying the other is an opinion: it implies that the author cannot
believe such a thing to be true, but does not say that it is not true.
Einstein has been misquoted on this count many times, for brevity's
sake and to make the statement appear more authoritative. In its
original form, I think the quote is much more interesting anyway. How
can we say something is definitely uncertain, if the universe is
uncertain?
God can make things certain or uncertain as he chooses?
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
Divine intervention shouldn't be explanable by science. If you could,
it wouldn't be miraculous.
I am not saying that, I am saying that science cannot explain all in the
Universe
and thus cannot be used to say God does not exist.
It's impossible to prove impossibility: again, uncertainty. There is
no way I can say, without a doubt, that (for instance) octopi don't
play chess at the bottom of the ocean. Evidence may lead to a trend
for whether or not it is likely, but proof of non-existence is
virtually impossible.
I am not to sure what u mean there, can I prove an elephant is not in my
hand if I open my hand????
If you add an un to uncertainty is it a certainty and so provable???
.
|
|
|
| User: "AaronB" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
07 Nov 2003 06:53:03 PM |
|
|
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<boffsc$1el5su$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...
[snip]
It's impossible to prove impossibility: again, uncertainty. There is
no way I can say, without a doubt, that (for instance) octopi don't
play chess at the bottom of the ocean. Evidence may lead to a trend
for whether or not it is likely, but proof of non-existence is
virtually impossible.
I am not to sure what u mean there, can I prove an elephant is not in my
hand if I open my hand????
If you add an un to uncertainty is it a certainty and so provable???
You can prove that there isn't an elephant in your hand right now. You
can't prove that there won't be one there the next time you check.
It's impossible to prove anything does or does not exist at any point
in time except the present (and even then it's difficult)
Here's something random to think about: uncertainty principle does not
require the universe to be uncertain. If EVERYTHING in the universe
was absolutely predicted, from beginning to end, then uncertainty
would still be valid. That is, if action in the universe, down to the
smallest quark oscillation happened according to a very strict script,
uncertainty would still be valid, because we can't see the script. But
do a higher authority (God), uncertainty may not exist, because the
script has already been written. In that sense, we have absolutely no
free will, but it makes no difference on the ultimate outcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "half_pint" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
07 Nov 2003 07:52:16 PM |
|
|
"AaronB" <aaronb@uvic.ca> wrote in message
news:9f8a9f42.0311071653.5050ca2a@posting.google.com...
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<boffsc$1el5su$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...
[snip]
It's impossible to prove impossibility: again, uncertainty. There is
no way I can say, without a doubt, that (for instance) octopi don't
play chess at the bottom of the ocean. Evidence may lead to a trend
for whether or not it is likely, but proof of non-existence is
virtually impossible.
I am not to sure what u mean there, can I prove an elephant is not in my
hand if I open my hand????
If you add an un to uncertainty is it a certainty and so provable???
You can prove that there isn't an elephant in your hand right now. You
can't prove that there won't be one there the next time you check.
It's impossible to prove anything does or does not exist at any point
in time except the present (and even then it's difficult)
Here's something random to think about: uncertainty principle does not
require the universe to be uncertain. If EVERYTHING in the universe
was absolutely predicted, from beginning to end, then uncertainty
would still be valid. That is, if action in the universe, down to the
smallest quark oscillation happened according to a very strict script,
uncertainty would still be valid, because we can't see the script. But
do a higher authority (God), uncertainty may not exist, because the
script has already been written. In that sense, we have absolutely no
free will, but it makes no difference on the ultimate outcome.
An all powerful God can create a universe which has uncertainty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AaronB" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
09 Nov 2003 03:25:19 AM |
|
|
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bojghd$1er966$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"AaronB" <aaronb@uvic.ca> wrote in message
news:9f8a9f42.0311071653.5050ca2a@posting.google.com...
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<boffsc$1el5su$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...
[snip]
It's impossible to prove impossibility: again, uncertainty. There is
no way I can say, without a doubt, that (for instance) octopi don't
play chess at the bottom of the ocean. Evidence may lead to a trend
for whether or not it is likely, but proof of non-existence is
virtually impossible.
I am not to sure what u mean there, can I prove an elephant is not in my
hand if I open my hand????
If you add an un to uncertainty is it a certainty and so provable???
You can prove that there isn't an elephant in your hand right now. You
can't prove that there won't be one there the next time you check.
It's impossible to prove anything does or does not exist at any point
in time except the present (and even then it's difficult)
Here's something random to think about: uncertainty principle does not
require the universe to be uncertain. If EVERYTHING in the universe
was absolutely predicted, from beginning to end, then uncertainty
would still be valid. That is, if action in the universe, down to the
smallest quark oscillation happened according to a very strict script,
uncertainty would still be valid, because we can't see the script. But
do a higher authority (God), uncertainty may not exist, because the
script has already been written. In that sense, we have absolutely no
free will, but it makes no difference on the ultimate outcome.
An all powerful God can create a universe which has uncertainty.
Can God create a universe that even He can't predict? That's a paradox
which I doubt we'll be able to find any resolution to one way or
another. My gut feeling is that he probably can, but he hasn't with
this particular universe which we enjoy, since God is omniscient,
here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
09 Nov 2003 04:16:08 AM |
|
|
......... ...Uncertainty is absolutely for the creations, for an absolute
recognition to their boundaries.
As, however, for the creator who is absolutely a certain, therefore
everything is a certitude.
As, therefore, everything is a strictly as absolutely determined in an
advance, beyond a space-time.
As, however, none of the creations would be as should be a having any
ability to predict.
........ ...Whether, probabilities as a speculation is an open matter, to
feed the uncertainty!!!!!!!!!!........ ...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"AaronB" <aaronb@uvic.ca> kirjoitti viestissä
news:9f8a9f42.0311090125.5208f634@posting.google.com...
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<bojghd$1er966$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"AaronB" <aaronb@uvic.ca> wrote in message
news:9f8a9f42.0311071653.5050ca2a@posting.google.com...
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<boffsc$1el5su$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...
[snip]
It's impossible to prove impossibility: again, uncertainty. There
is
no way I can say, without a doubt, that (for instance) octopi
don't
play chess at the bottom of the ocean. Evidence may lead to a
trend
for whether or not it is likely, but proof of non-existence is
virtually impossible.
I am not to sure what u mean there, can I prove an elephant is not
in my
hand if I open my hand????
If you add an un to uncertainty is it a certainty and so provable???
You can prove that there isn't an elephant in your hand right now. You
can't prove that there won't be one there the next time you check.
It's impossible to prove anything does or does not exist at any point
in time except the present (and even then it's difficult)
Here's something random to think about: uncertainty principle does not
require the universe to be uncertain. If EVERYTHING in the universe
was absolutely predicted, from beginning to end, then uncertainty
would still be valid. That is, if action in the universe, down to the
smallest quark oscillation happened according to a very strict script,
uncertainty would still be valid, because we can't see the script. But
do a higher authority (God), uncertainty may not exist, because the
script has already been written. In that sense, we have absolutely no
free will, but it makes no difference on the ultimate outcome.
An all powerful God can create a universe which has uncertainty.
Can God create a universe that even He can't predict? That's a paradox
which I doubt we'll be able to find any resolution to one way or
another. My gut feeling is that he probably can, but he hasn't with
this particular universe which we enjoy, since God is omniscient,
here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul M. Koloc" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
09 Nov 2003 03:34:08 PM |
|
|
AaronB wrote:
[snip]
Divine intervention shouldn't be explanable by science. If you could,
it wouldn't be miraculous.
Seems to me the BB was divine intervention, and that problem should
eventually be explainable. It is just that physics isn't yet
generalized enough, and the physicists have not yet developed the
fortitude to tackle the problem.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
06 Nov 2003 03:42:17 AM |
|
|
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bocc8h$1cmba9$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Hi, half_pint!
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for divine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not a particularly good
illustration of the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics. It is
possible to consider the HUP to be a statement of the properties of
Fourier transforms.
We know that matter shows wave behavior, but under some circumstances
waves move a lot like particles. This is nothing new. When he was
pondering his theory of light, Newton considered both possibilities.
The correspondence between the particle and the wave properties of a
wave packet is expressed by the Planck-de Broglie equations:
p_x = hk
p_y = hl
p_z = hm
E = hf
where (k, l, m) is the average wavevector of the packet and f is its
average frequency. Locally, the wave has the form:
A*exp[2*i*pi*(k*x+l*y+m*z+f*t)]
For a small wavepacket of limited duration these particle properties
of a wave packet are not totally well defined. The packet can be
Fourier transformed, and the Fourier transform will have
non-negligible amplitude over a range of values of energy and
momentum. The ranges in energy and momentum are related to the ranges
in space and time by the HUP.
Wave mechanics is, in itself, perfectly deterministic. In fact the
equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum
chromodynamics, etc., are all perfectly deterministic. Where
indeterminacy comes in is the relationship between the wave function
and/or state vector, and the results of a specific experiment. The
wave function of a photon may spread uniformly over the whole of a
piece of film, but when you develop the film you will find a
collection of black dots, each one corresponding to the absorption of
a single photon. The theory does not at all restrict the result of any
individual experiment. It is possible to get a black dot on the film
at any location. It is only when you repeat the experiment a large
number of times under precisely identical conditions that the form of
the wave function starts to appear out of the distribution of the
black dots.
If I were you, I would be wary of anybody who pontificates about what
God does or does not think or do. I would also be wary about putting
your money on a horse.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
05 Nov 2003 09:31:13 PM |
|
|
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in news:bocc8h$1cmba9$1@ID-
204080.news.uni-berlin.de:
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
In that case, why is he always looking for handouts on Sunday mornings?
Lanzlan.
regards half_pint
.
|
|
|
| User: "half_pint" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
06 Nov 2003 09:50:05 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns942BA7FCE38D1LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in news:bocc8h$1cmba9$1@ID-
204080.news.uni-berlin.de:
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
In that case, why is he always looking for handouts on Sunday mornings?
Because he isn't we are.
And charity is not a handout it's a handup.
If you see charity as a handout you are a rather pathetic individual.
Lanzlan.
regards half_pint
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
06 Nov 2003 10:33:06 PM |
|
|
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:bof515$1eku7l$3@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns942BA7FCE38D1LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in news:bocc8h$1cmba9$1@ID-
204080.news.uni-berlin.de:
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
In that case, why is he always looking for handouts on Sunday
mornings?
Because he isn't we are.
And charity is not a handout it's a handup.
If you see charity as a handout you are a rather pathetic individual.
If you want to call giving your money to a fat priest a handup. Go for
it.
L.
Lanzlan.
regards half_pint
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
05 Nov 2003 08:44:28 PM |
|
|
Dear half_pint:
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bocc8h$1cmba9$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Does prophecy leave room for free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
The fact that scientists are not all knowing when making measurements, is
what the uncertainty principle is about.
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
Then it isn't really a *gamble*, now is it?
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "half_pint" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
06 Nov 2003 09:46:29 PM |
|
|
"dlzc@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:gAiqb.17535$PD2.1518@fed1read05...
Dear half_pint:
"half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bocc8h$1cmba9$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Does prophecy leave room for free will?
I would say so. Both free will and devine intervention.
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
The fact that scientists are not all knowing when making measurements, is
what the uncertainty principle is about.
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
Then it isn't really a *gamble*, now is it?
Depends whether you checked the results before you placed your bet.
Of course the only bets which I make which are gambles are the ones
which don't come in.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
08 Nov 2003 03:16:59 AM |
|
|
Hi half_pint , You say :
" If modern physics is correct ,
God is quite a gambler and plays dice rather a lot "
Even though we can never fully observe it ,
Nature is surely infinite in complexity and breadth .
Defining " God " as infinite in any way is meaningless .
Calling nature " God " is patently meaningless .
Besides , _ Genuine _ nature is probably static , spatial .
( And falsely dynamic . )
I've found that most meaningful way
to think of a " Religion " is to call it :
" One hierarchy among many overlapping hierarchies . "
Similarly , The most meaningful definition of " God " is :
" One parent node among many overlapping parent nodes . "
.
|
|
|
| User: "half_pint" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
08 Nov 2003 02:31:54 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:qavkgycy8j4j.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
Hi half_pint , You say :
" If modern physics is correct ,
God is quite a gambler and plays dice rather a lot "
Even though we can never fully observe it ,
Nature is surely infinite in complexity and breadth .
Evidence?
Defining " God " as infinite in any way is meaningless .
Why?
Calling nature " God " is patently meaningless .
Why?
Besides , _ Genuine _ nature is probably static , spatial .
( And falsely dynamic . )
That just sounds like _ bollocks _
I've found that most meaningful way
to think of a " Religion " is to call it :
" One hierarchy among many overlapping hierarchies . "
Thats mumbo jumbo do you ever utter a coherent sentence.
do you call a "car" a "transplantation concepurentor"?
Similarly , The most meaningful definition of " God " is :
" One parent node among many overlapping parent nodes . "
I bet you know some posh expressions for *wanker*
Get a life mate ;O)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
08 Nov 2003 03:08:36 AM |
|
|
Hi half_pint , You say :
" If modern physics is correct ,
God is quite a gambler and plays dice rather a lot "
It's _ Very _ likely that true randomness doesn't exist .
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle only says
we'll always _ Perceive _ randomness .
It makes no statement about
wether that randomness is genuine or not .
Sure , due to our extremely limited powers of observation ,
Nature seem like a casino , where , in the long run ,
everyone , and indeed everything , loses to the house .
All the great physicists know that nature , unobserved ,
is static ... spatial ... immutable , etc. .
" The past , present , and future ,
are only illusions , however persistent . "
_ Einstein on Static Nature and Spatial Time .
" The world doesn't happen , it simply is . "
_ Hermann Weyl , Einstein's colleague .
" In summary , the title of this essay was a question :
' Is everything determined ? '
The answer is yes , it is .
But it might as well not be ,
because we can never know what is determined . "
_ Stephen Hawking in " Black Holes and Baby Universes " ,
University of Cambridge , 1990
WMAP's pictures are
the closest we have ever come to seeing spatial time .
When the high resolution infrared cameras of Nasa's WMAP
looks at scales much bigger than 10 ^ 10 cm ,
it only sees Static Uniformity .
The temperature of the cosmic microwave background
only varies from about 2.749 to 2.751 degrees Kelvin .
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/sg_structure.html
http://map.gsfc.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/L2_990425_120.jpg
http://map.gsfc.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/030624/030624_m.jpg
http://www.gsfc.Nasa.GOV/gsfc/spacesci/pictures/2003/0206mapresults/Full_m.jpg
http://www.loyno.edu/~brans/einstein.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "half_pint" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
08 Nov 2003 02:26:01 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:v4ev34ig3aut$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
Hi half_pint , You say :
" If modern physics is correct ,
God is quite a gambler and plays dice rather a lot "
It's _ Very _ likely that true randomness doesn't exist .
Not even radioactive decay?
Is that predectable, predeterminable?
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle only says
we'll always _ Perceive _ randomness .
What do you mean only?
We only always perceive 1+1=2 WTF do u mean?
Radio active decay?
It makes no statement about
wether that randomness is genuine or not .
Sure , due to our extremely limited powers of observation ,
Nature seem like a casino , where , in the long run ,
everyone , and indeed everything , loses to the house .
All the great physicists know that nature , unobserved ,
is static ... spatial ... immutable , etc. .
????
Thats guess work.
" The past , present , and future ,
are only illusions , however persistent . "
_ Einstein on Static Nature and Spatial Time .
" The world doesn't happen , it simply is . "
_ Hermann Weyl , Einstein's colleague .
" In summary , the title of this essay was a question :
' Is everything determined ? '
The answer is yes , it is .
But it might as well not be ,
because we can never know what is determined . "
_ Stephen Hawking in " Black Holes and Baby Universes " ,
University of Cambridge , 1990
WMAP's pictures are
the closest we have ever come to seeing spatial time .
When the high resolution infrared cameras of Nasa's WMAP
looks at scales much bigger than 10 ^ 10 cm ,
it only sees Static Uniformity .
The temperature of the cosmic microwave background
only varies from about 2.749 to 2.751 degrees Kelvin .
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/sg_structure.html
http://map.gsfc.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/L2_990425_120.jpg
http://map.gsfc.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/030624/030624_m.jpg
http://www.gsfc.Nasa.GOV/gsfc/spacesci/pictures/2003/0206mapresults/Full_m.j
pg
http://www.loyno.edu/~brans/einstein.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
08 Nov 2003 04:17:24 PM |
|
|
........... ...Definitely, it does depends on the contexte over which it
has had been said.
For, the simple reason, that, there is, along that matter, a major part of
a reality.
Whether, it can remains, from a time to another, a just subjective a
matter.
As, however, it would be if it could be, that a certainly God.
Is a generally as a certainly, just using his creations for an eventual
evolution.
As a depending along any cycle for a define as a definite step to the next
step along the Universe.
Something, which it would be as it should be more a credible.
Therefore, when, we do believe - at least - in something, which is as an
essential as a necessary among any definite as a beyomd any objective
matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................. ...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> kirjoitti viestissä
news:v4ev34ig3aut$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
Hi half_pint , You say :
" If modern physics is correct ,
God is quite a gambler and plays dice rather a lot "
It's _ Very _ likely that true randomness doesn't exist .
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle only says
we'll always _ Perceive _ randomness .
It makes no statement about
wether that randomness is genuine or not .
Sure , due to our extremely limited powers of observation ,
Nature seem like a casino , where , in the long run ,
everyone , and indeed everything , loses to the house .
All the great physicists know that nature , unobserved ,
is static ... spatial ... immutable , etc. .
" The past , present , and future ,
are only illusions , however persistent . "
_ Einstein on Static Nature and Spatial Time .
" The world doesn't happen , it simply is . "
_ Hermann Weyl , Einstein's colleague .
" In summary , the title of this essay was a question :
' Is everything determined ? '
The answer is yes , it is .
But it might as well not be ,
because we can never know what is determined . "
_ Stephen Hawking in " Black Holes and Baby Universes " ,
University of Cambridge , 1990
WMAP's pictures are
the closest we have ever come to seeing spatial time .
When the high resolution infrared cameras of Nasa's WMAP
looks at scales much bigger than 10 ^ 10 cm ,
it only sees Static Uniformity .
The temperature of the cosmic microwave background
only varies from about 2.749 to 2.751 degrees Kelvin .
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/sg_structure.html
http://map.gsfc.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/L2_990425_120.jpg
http://map.gsfc.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/030624/030624_m.jpg
http://www.gsfc.Nasa.GOV/gsfc/spacesci/pictures/2003/0206mapresults/Full_m.jpg
http://www.loyno.edu/~brans/einstein.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
05 Nov 2003 09:36:29 PM |
|
|
In article <bocc8h$1cmba9$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>,
half_pint <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
How can you say your will is free if your actions are random, and not
exactly what you want them to be? Are random actions that you can't
control any more free than predetermined actions that you can't control?
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
.
|
|
|
| User: "half_pint" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and God |
06 Nov 2003 09:41:49 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bocfjt$f19$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <bocc8h$1cmba9$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>,
half_pint <esboella@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leave room for devine
intervention and free will?
Einstein say "God does not play dice".
However if we allow for "free will" and "devine intervention" would
not a "certain amount of uncertainty" be appropiate?
If modern physics is correct, God is quite a gambler and plays dice
rather a lot, I have no doubt he likes a gamble on the horses too,
I suspect he has better luck than me :O)
How can you say your will is free if your actions are random, and not
exactly what you want them to be? Are random actions that you can't
control any more free than predetermined actions that you can't control?
Well they might appear to be random but maybe my free will is in the
'apparent' randomness.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: . Our Pride . |
08 Nov 2003 03:44:44 AM |
|
|
Hi Greg , You rhetorically ask :
" Are random actions that you can't control any more free
than predetermined actions that you can't control ? "
We don't have genuine free will ,
but we do have what I call " Pseudo Free Will " .
We also perceive only pseudo randomness and pseudo dynamics .
And each of us thinks we're great ...
Nothing objective about that .
As I recently said in another post :
Humans require an exact temperature ... No more , No less .
Mars is too cold , Venus is too hot .
Likewise ,
_ At 10 ^ -X seconds after the big bang ,
as X approaches infinity ,
the degrees Kelvin probably approaches infinity .
_ And at 10 ^ X years after the big bang ,
as X approaches infinity ,
the degrees Kelvin probably approaches zero .
So humans require not only this exact place ,
but also this exact cosmic time ... Very odd .
And what is it that we do ? We consume . Nothing else .
Just like everything everywhere does . Not very special .
Our pride is very subjective .
.
|
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: . Our Pride . |
08 Nov 2003 06:58:19 PM |
|
|
Dear Jeff Relf:
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:1ak9nuwk0c2ct.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
Hi Greg , You rhetorically ask :
" Are random actions that you can't control any more free
than predetermined actions that you can't control ? "
We don't have genuine free will ,
but we do have what I call " Pseudo Free Will " .
Cute. You should patent this. You have free will. You can feel any way
you wish about the events that unfold around you. Your "heart" is your
domain.
We also perceive only pseudo randomness and pseudo dynamics .
And each of us thinks we're great ...
Nothing objective about that .
I disagree. I think I am large. ;>}
As I recently said in another post :
Humans require an exact temperature ... No more , No less .
Life does not. Does sentience require 20°C? I think not.
Humanity survived through at least one ice age. Not liquid nitrogen I
agree.
Mars is too cold , Venus is too hot .
Likewise ,
_ At 10 ^ -X seconds after the big bang ,
as X approaches infinity ,
the degrees Kelvin probably approaches infinity .
_ And at 10 ^ X years after the big bang ,
as X approaches infinity ,
the degrees Kelvin probably approaches zero .
So humans require not only this exact place ,
but also this exact cosmic time ... Very odd .
We wouldn't be here now, if we couldn't be. Could we have been in the
Universe 12 Gy ago? Galaxies with similar structures (assuming that would
be some type of constraint) have been seen 7 or more Gy ago. I personally
don't see why we could not have evolved elsewhen.
And what is it that we do ? We consume . Nothing else .
Just like everything everywhere does . Not very special .
Our pride is very subjective .
And like I posted elsewhere, we do more than consume.
A poem is more than paper, yet paper is involved. Because the "poem" of
human intelligence is currently written in meat, does that change or limit
the beauty of the poem? I think not.
You are a programmer, correct? How many ways are there to "skin a cat"?
Whether that is navigating a linked list, maintaining the list, or whatever
task you choose. The programmer had to consume. The programmer chose to
write his code to achieve the goal. Did the programmer's need to consume
affect the method he chose? Usually not. Usually he expressed him- or
her-self.
I think you are just being grumpy.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: . Randomness is Purely Artificial . |
09 Nov 2003 01:50:51 AM |
|
|
Hi dlzc , You say :
" You are a programmer , correct ? "
That's correct . And I'm not " just being grumpy " .
( A sample of my code is at the bottom of this page :
http://www.NCPlus.NET/~jeff-relf/ )
Absolute material determinism ( a.k.a. fatalism , fate )
is simply the most likely reality ... That's all .
Life seems very random to me , just like it does to you ...
I'm just saying that that randomness is purely artificial .
You didn't choose to be born , and you won't chose to die .
Death will be _ Forced _ upon you ...
No matter if you play the part of a martyr or not .
.
|
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: . Randomness is Purely Artificial . |
09 Nov 2003 10:19:34 AM |
|
|
Dear Jeff Relf
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:173bp09fhnbqn$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
Hi dlzc , You say :
" You are a programmer , correct ? "
That's correct . And I'm not " just being grumpy " .
( A sample of my code is at the bottom of this page :
http://www.NCPlus.NET/~jeff-relf/ )
No code sample. Sorry.
Absolute material determinism ( a.k.a. fatalism , fate )
is simply the most likely reality ... That's all .
Oh, I don't disagree with this at all. But it does not limit what you
*feel*. This is true free will. Pointless, perhaps, but free.
Life seems very random to me , just like it does to you ...
I'm just saying that that randomness is purely artificial .
Life does not seem random to me. One player does not carry all the scenes,
no matter what one's ego would have otherwise. And one head cannot contain
all the motions and all the relations of all the particles in the Universe.
Constancy is a temporary state, at least for now. ;>}
You didn't choose to be born , and you won't chose to die .
Death will be _ Forced _ upon you ...
No matter if you play the part of a martyr or not .
I believe that I did choose to be born, and I did choose to die in the way
that I will die. It is a package deal. The Play is written. That is what
determinism *means*, and what prophecy implies. What is written into that
play are the actions, and words, of all the players. Your free will
supplies the motivation, and you get to carry away "memories" as souvenirs.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: . Giving Too Much Credit . |
09 Nov 2003 10:19:02 PM |
|
|
Hi dlzc , You say :
" Your free will supplies the motivation "
You're giving too much credit to our pseudo free will ...
And your ignoring too many other factors .
Just like our ignorance forces use to use probabilities ...
Our ignorance tricks us into
thinking that we have a genuine free will .
.
|
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: . Giving Too Much Credit . |
09 Nov 2003 11:52:45 PM |
|
|
Dear Jeff Relf:
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:1l9njfiduz14o.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
Hi dlzc , You say :
" Your free will supplies the motivation "
You're giving too much credit to our pseudo free will ...
And your ignoring too many other factors .
Name them.
Just like our ignorance forces use to use probabilities ...
Our ignorance tricks us into
thinking that we have a genuine free will .
I have free will. But it will not change the Universe *at all*. You may
choose your own beliefs, but I disagree with them, at least in this matter.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: _ Forced _ |
10 Nov 2003 02:47:37 AM |
|
|
Hi dlzc , You say :
" I have free will ...
Name [ the extrinsic forces in my life ] "
You were _ Forced _ to be born ...
And you will be _ Forced _ to die someday ...
In-between you are _ Forced _ to consume .
You have no _ Real _ choices at all .
You just think you do .
I know what your doing to say :
" No , I decided to do all those things . "
And I'm _ Quite _ sure that you're wrong about that .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
