Originally posted by Starrmancould have been.... but I was thinking about the idea of westling with God, and the idea of using the metaphor of 'logic' wrestling with the 'supernatural'; it's no contest! supernatural is outside logic, therefore it's like mixing oil and water....
Jacob wrestled an angel, is that what you mean?
[edit] yes I know you can have colloids... bad metaphor the oil and water bit... lol.
Interesting discussion! I would add that you're trying to put GOD in a box. In reality, GOD is so far beyond our capability of understanding, that this is an exercise in futility. GOD exists outside of time, we exist in a linear time frame that move in one direction (forward). As such, that is the frame of reference that we have to use. GOD sees everything, ALL possibilities. We see just one, ours. GOD knows the plan he has for each of us, but we have free will, which we exercise daily. GOD knows every possible outcome of our lives, but leaves it up to us to determine which way we go. If we ask HIM, he'll guide us toward the plan he has for us. If not, we get to where our choices lead us.
Another way of looking at is this: a shadow is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3D object. A 3D object is a shadow of a 4D object and so on. Infinite dimensions. We live in the 3rd dimension, can see the 2nd dimension, and get glimpses of the 4th, but beyond that is speculation. GOD sees ALL dimensions.
Originally posted by knightmeisterDo you understand the difference between a program with a variable as in x=2+y and a single unique run of that program where y=3?
I am taking your description at face value and it works. Now I want to see how it applies to time. If you can't apply it or make it relevant to time itself then what exactly is your point? You must be able to relate your model to reality in some way or it is just abstract and self contained. My model (eg harry) may seem difficult to contemplate but at ...[text shortened]...
I understand that if Y=3 then x must be 5 (was it) . So now explain what this proves please.
Do you agree that when discussing the single unique run, it is incoherent to claim that x has potential values?
Do you see that if someone obtains knowledge of x's final value, by whatever means, then x is predetermined?
Would you agree that the computer in question has no free will?
I would like to discuss another way of looking at the issue at hand. Lets look back at the title of the thread:
knowing proves nothing at all....
Now lets look at probability and randomness and all that:
We are playing cards, I deal five cards to each of us, face down on the table. There is a set of rules that determines the winner based on which cards we each have.
1. The values of the cards is unknown to us at this time.
2. It is possible, based on the rules of the game and knowledge of cards in the deck, to calculate the probability of me winning.
3. However, whether or not I win is up to chance, we could say it is random.
4. However, we must remember that as random as it may seem, it is nevertheless predetermined - ie, my cards do actually already have a winning or loosing value.
I peep at my cards.
Now, suddenly:
5. All randomness disappears, as I now know whether or not I have won or lost.
So, does knowing prove nothing at all?
My point is that a predetermined situation may have the appearance of randomness / chance / free will etc but may not be. Knowledge of the outcome proves that it is predetermined. Randomness and free will are only meaningful if knowledge of the outcome is not possible.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy point is that a predetermined situation may have the appearance of randomness / chance / free will etc but may not be. Knowledge of the outcome proves that it is predetermined. Randomness and free will are only meaningful if knowledge of the outcome is not possible.-----whitey-----
I would like to discuss another way of looking at the issue at hand. Lets look back at the title of the thread:
[b]knowing proves nothing at all....
Now lets look at probability and randomness and all that:
We are playing cards, I deal five cards to each of us, face down on the table. There is a set of rules that determines the winner based on w ...[text shortened]... mined. Randomness and free will are only meaningful if knowledge of the outcome is not possible.[/b]
However , a 5 dimensional being could in theory know the outcome of a quatum event. More than this human beings DO know the outcome of some uncertain quantum events already. Does the fact that the outcome of an uncertain quantum event is known by us mean that it must have been determined and not uncertain?
Let's say you have just witnessed uncertain quantum event X . Now you now know the outcome of that event . It is a unique event on one of your "unique" single timelines that has occured in time. Ok , so you know the outcome of the event. According to your logic , the fact that the outcome is known automatically means the event cannot be random does it not?
You seem to always pre assume that either a dimension beyond time is impossible or a non determined universe is impossible. However , the concept of God and free will make neither of these assumptions in the hypothesis I am putting forward and you are trying to refute.
"IF" free will exists AND "IF" God is eternal then he CAN theoretcially know our future free choices. The only way you seem to be able to refute this is to change the "ifs"
Originally posted by twhitehead5. All randomness disappears, as I now know whether or not I have won or lost.---whitey---
I would like to discuss another way of looking at the issue at hand. Lets look back at the title of the thread:
[b]knowing proves nothing at all....
Now lets look at probability and randomness and all that:
We are playing cards, I deal five cards to each of us, face down on the table. There is a set of rules that determines the winner based on w ...[text shortened]... mined. Randomness and free will are only meaningful if knowledge of the outcome is not possible.[/b]
How exactly does the randomness suddenly dissappear? Do your eyes or brain have special powers? How does your brain (simply by knowing the outcome) affect the randomness ? Is it telepathy of some sort?
You see you say this but you do not describe the process of how it happens. If something random occurrs then it ...erhem....occurs and that's that. If I become aware of the outcome of the event surely that changes nothing at all. I don't see at all how the random event can be "undone" or "dissappear" just by knowing the event. It seems a very incoherent idea.
If you imagine your cards are selected via a random process using quantum uncertain particles then no amount of peeping is going to change the fact that a random event has occurred.
It seems to me that all your models always pre-assume a mechanistic determined universe.
Originally posted by knightmeisterActually, no. It is impossible for a being of any kind to know the outcome of a quantum event. Quantum physics dictates that knowledge of the outcome affects the event.
However , a 5 dimensional being could in theory know the outcome of a quatum event.
The whole wave/partical duality of light and other electromagnetic waves is dependent on the unpredictability of quantum events. If God watched electrons going through the two split experiment, the pattern would be changed.
But honestly, you really don't want to bring quantum physics into this discussion.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou think God needs a torch to see and know things?
Actually, no. It is impossible for a being of any kind to know the outcome of a quantum event. Quantum physics dictates that knowledge of the outcome affects the event.
The whole wave/partical duality of light and other electromagnetic waves is dependent on the unpredictability of quantum events. If God watched electrons going through the two split exper ...[text shortened]... be changed.
But honestly, you really don't want to bring quantum physics into this discussion.
If its impossible to know the outcome of a quantum event how did Heisenberg come across his theory? Has a quantum event never been witnessed then?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe whole wave/partical duality of light and other electromagnetic waves is dependent on the unpredictability of quantum events.---whitey---
Actually, no. It is impossible for a being of any kind to know the outcome of a quantum event. Quantum physics dictates that knowledge of the outcome affects the event.
The whole wave/partical duality of light and other electromagnetic waves is dependent on the unpredictability of quantum events. If God watched electrons going through the two split exper ...[text shortened]... be changed.
But honestly, you really don't want to bring quantum physics into this discussion.
But can quantum events be known after the event has occurred? I understand that uncertainty means they cannot be predicted but can they be known as past events?
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhen a light particle passes through a two slit experiment, it could have passed through either slit. This causes the interesting effect of affecting the probability of where it hits the detector. We often interpret this to be 'wave like' behavior in that we say that the particle goes via both slits and interacts with itself. But that interpretation doesn't add up either unless you admit the possibility of being able to change the past. If we put detectors on each slit, we never detect a photon going both ways, and the pattern disappears. Weird but true.
But can quantum events be known after the event has occurred? I understand that uncertainty means they cannot be predicted but can they be known as past events?
It is impossible for anyone (even God) to know which slit it passed through even after the event. If anyone was to find out, the pattern would disappear affecting the past!
Originally posted by twhiteheadWould the same thing hold for nuclear decay? If not then it is still theoretically possible for a quantum event outcome to be known whilst still in theory being random.
When a light particle passes through a two slit experiment, it could have passed through either slit. This causes the interesting effect of affecting the probability of where it hits the detector. We often interpret this to be 'wave like' behavior in that we say that the particle goes via both slits and interacts with itself. But that interpretation doesn ...[text shortened]... n after the event. If anyone was to find out, the pattern would disappear affecting the past!
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think the problem is I misunderstood the meaning of 'quantum event'. I was thinking about Schrödinger's cat and quantum entanglement ie situations where we say we do not, and cannot know the current state of a particle or cat.
Would the same thing hold for nuclear decay? If not then it is still theoretically possible for a quantum event outcome to be known whilst still in theory being random.
As for nuclear decay, I do not know that it is truly random, I don't think we have a solid enough theory of quantum dynamics to make that call yet.
But that is not the issue anyway. I am not claiming that events are not random, any more than you are. I tried to prove to you in the past that free will was random, and you disputed that, so your free will, is not random is it?
What I am disputing, is whether an atom that decayed in 5 milliseconds could, in fact have chosen to decay in 6, and whether discussion of such a possibility is meaningful in a universe in which it decayed in 5.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think the idea that a non sentient particle chosing to decay or not decay is silly , but of course you know that.
I think the problem is I misunderstood the meaning of 'quantum event'. I was thinking about Schrödinger's cat and quantum entanglement ie situations where we say we do not, and cannot know the current state of a particle or cat.
As for nuclear decay, I do not know that it is truly random, I don't think we have a solid enough theory of quantum dynamics ...[text shortened]... ether discussion of such a possibility is meaningful in a universe in which it decayed in 5.
The simple point I am establishing here is that if there are any known random events in the universe (eg nuclear decay is currently believed to be random) then those events can be known to have happened. If they can be known as one event in time then it would prove that a known event in time does not HAVE TO BE determined , which would then punch a hole in your argument.
This means that the only way your argument can possibly work is if one preassumes that the universe is devoid of randomness and is totally hard- wired. This of course is something we cannot know but recent science seems to suggest strongly that there is an element of randomness or indeterminacy in the universe.
So , if you are honest , what proportion of scientists would say that the universe was probably hard wired 100% and what proportion would say that randomness is almost definitely a factor?
In the end there is no way you can prove that the universe is hard wired as you believe and therefore there is no way you can prove that a decaying particle is not a random event - and if you can't prove that then you also can't prove that a non-determined event in time cannot be known and if you can't prove that then you can't also prove that a known time event HAS TO BE determined just because it is known.
Which all goes to prove that "knowing proves nothing at all" .....which is what I have been saying all along and all along you have been digging yourself deeper into a hole.
one line of thinking is that if "god" knows what youre going to do before you do it, he'll have an infinite amount of time to respond to man's actions since he exists outside our constraints of "time."
i think it takes more than "freewill" to determine our destiny/fate. if I have no knowledge of the outcomes of my decisions how can i say that i have freewill. for example, if i look both ways before i passe an intersection and drive, i'm obeying the law of man. yet if some huge vehicle which moves faster than i can react to it and comes from around the corner (beyond my ability to see it) then an accident occurs.
if i had freewill, i wouldn't have had the accident. if i could see all the possible combinations at any or all given points of time and their variations, then that information would lead to less accidents. i would be more in control since i could see further than most. if someone, or perhaps a few people can see this kind of way, would they not appear as "god." if they determine that that vehicle should pass at that given point in time by controlling events beyond our awareness, then we would have no proof that it (the accident ) was intentional or that these few people ("god"😉 even exists. they didn't control our freewill to move yet they affect the outcome of situations. Freewill must exists on levels of awareness to what is going around us at any/all time and our ability to act on it even if we Could see beyond the constraints of "time" as we know it.