Home More advice Religion, Spirituality & Folklore
Do you believe God is omnipotent and that people have free will?
Let me backtrack.
Every question I ask is met with various terms used by quantum physics... with no real answer being provided... so I will state my premise once again and ask for your explanation.
I am not offering an explanation. My position is that science is and always will be unable to account for the spontaneity of life. This spontaneity is what I am calling free will. This is spelt out via the uncertainty principle. You accept that both quantum and classical particles are random in nature. How can it ever be determined if an unseen force acts upon the particles? Without determinsm in place you have nothing to measure an effect against. To this you replied
Easy. State your hypothesis about how quantum physics provides for free will, and if it has any measurable effect on the universe, we can test it - such as by detecting non-random collapse of quantum waveforms
Which brings into question your understanding of free will Free will is the spontaneity... There are no tracks with which to ride through life. A non-random collapse would suggest one of two things... observer interference or determinism's validity... but in order for determinism to be truly valid the uncertainty principle cannot be.
But wait... there is more:
You ask for a non random collapsing of the wave function... The double slit experiment demonstrates the observer caused wavefunction collapse theory. When observed... particles exhibit the properties of particles... until observed... particles exhibit the properties of waves... This is not random.
Secondly... the double slit experiment with one slit being detected... meaning only one group of particles entering the monitored slit should have their wavefunction collapsed... results in the particle diffusion pattern of both slits particle groups. This is not random... and is doubly troubling to anyone insisting that some amount of force exhibited by an observer affects a particles trajectory. True of False?
In summary... I am not proposing an explanation... I am stating that an explanation is impossible. If you wish to categorize that as a vague position because I am not offering a scientific theory you can test... explain spontaneity... or do you deny spontaneity? If I am of the mindset that free will cannot be established scientifically... why do you insist on asking me to prove it empirically?
On the other hand... you have stated an absolute... that a god or free will should be able to be tested scientifically... but when science cannot predict the position and motion of particles specifically... what makes you think that any mechanism impacting either properties can be specifically determined?
Again... where did I provide the parameters of the computing device?
Can you show where I provided the mechanism of free will for testing? The fact that there is no scientific theory supporting free will does not speak to the limitations of free will but to the boundaries of science. Is this not the limitation that was found with the double slit experiment?... that there are cetain things that can;t be determined scientifically... You feel otherwise... but yet you can't explain them.
You are familiar with the double slit experiment... Are you familiar with the modified experiment? Can you explain why the wave function collapses when observed and doesn't when it isn't I provided evidence that dispells the position that some impact of the detector influences the results.
I am going to have to take you to task on this. You made the absolute statement that nothing in theory suggests that the wavefunction collapse is anything other than random... How do you account for the pattern?
but 'observation' in the quantum sense, doesn't imply intent, or an intelligent observer
You are going to have to explain this in more detail... how can an observer not be intelligent? Sure a particle detector may not be intelligent... but the one who observes particle detector is.
I say that there will always be gaps that science cannot answer. You are leaving yourself an infinity to prove me wrong however... so I guess we will know the answer when infinity arrives.
The hypothesis that an intelligent deity is interfering with quantum waveforms certainly seems like it ought to be testable, unless said deity goes out of its way to avoid being detected - in which case, how is it practically speaking different from it not existing?
Again... quantum physics concludes that knowing the outcome of a given potential is impossible... How would you... arachnid.. the man... the myth... the legend... set about testing for any manipulation? You will be the darling of quantum physicists everywhere.
You provided this bit of sophistry...
And it's the responsibility of people providing non-parsimonious explanations, that run counter to established understanding to provide the evidence - not of the people defending the simple and sufficient existing explanations.
...when I asked you to provide an explanation.
simple and sufficient existing explanation
yeah... that is what I am asking for... how am I arguing against something that you haven't provided?
We have bickered back and forth here forever it seems on this question. It gripes the hell out of me that my responses accrue so little mileage.
There have been two competing theories on causality... that of determinism and free will. Determinism is the belief that all actions are reactions to previous actions and have the ability to be determined or mapped out beforehand... that it is scientifically possible to deduce from any action in time a predecessor act many steps removed and vice versa. With a large enough computing device... the future should be exactly predictable according to determinism.
As the member Uncle Bob would attest to... determinism was dismantled by the classic double slit experiment. He explained it well enough in his posts... but the outcome was that the closest causality comes to determinism is the wavefunction principle. Science can offer a range of probable outcomes but it is dependent upon an observer to perceive the next outcome from an established cause.
To me this is an argument in favor of free will and as close to a definition of free will as one can get.
It really isnt this simple though... time constraints could one day reverse the course of free will. Time itself could be manipulated and acted upon by some unknown agent in order to fool an observer of this reality into mistaking randomness for the agents manipulations. Would we call the agent god? Would there be a particular agent assigned to every possible observer who can manipulate the outcomes of the wavefunction to produce an indivicual reality taylor made for the observer? Are we dual beings with the manipulator as the Greeks suggested in their belief of the daemonion? Who knows yet?
The same problem with defining a god. If a god exhibits omnipotent properties in the future...and since we are beings who seem to be on a one way time street... could it not be argued that a foregone conclusion is as good as a fact now... and if we are allowed free will for a time can it be argued that the free will never occurred if at some point it must be relinquished. Are we all a manifested offshoot of a supreme god with a proportion of the powers that will one day be reconciled and this the meaning for omnipresence omnipotence omniscience. We could each be individual gods experiencing the only reality that can be proven... subjectively.
Again... where did I provide the parameters of the computing device?
Like I said - it's irrelevant. Just like it's impossible for a computing device to solve the halting problem, it's likewise for a computing device to completely simulate the universe it's in. There's just not enough state.
Can you show where I provided the mechanism of free will for testing? The fact that there is no scientific theory supporting free will does not speak to the limitations of free will but to the boundaries of science.
It's not a limitation of science. If you make a specific claim about the nature of free will, science can test it. If you insist on remaining vague and not clarifying what you mean by 'free will' and how quantum physics would help permit it, then that's not a limitation of science, it's your lack of concrete description.
I am going to have to take you to task on this. You made the absolute statement that nothing in theory suggests that the wavefunction collapse is anything other than random... How do you account for the pattern?
I'm not contradicting the conclusions of quantum physics, which explains exactly how and why this outcome occurs. But quantum physics predicts random collapse of waveforms under certain conditions, which seems to be where you're trying to insert 'free will'. All I'm asserting is that it is random, not driven by some sort of mystical soul or whatnot.
You are going to have to explain this in more detail... how can an observer not be intelligent?
An 'observer' is described by quantum physics in terms of particle interactions - it has nothing to do with the lay-person definition of 'observer' except the general concept.
**How would you... [...] set about testing for any manipulation? **
Easy. State your hypothesis about how quantum physics provides for free will, and if it has any measurable effect on the universe, we can test it - such as by detecting non-random collapse of quantum waveforms.
Did I provide the parameters of the computing device?
It really doesn't matter. You can't simulate the entire universe, inside that same universe. Your simulator would have to be able to simulate another simulator (or several), each containing universes of their own, and so on and so forth.
Quantum physics is a scientific endeavor and free will philosophic...
But when you hypothesize a specific mechanism for free will, that's open to scientific testing - and there's no evidence, nor a viable theory supporting your proposed mechanism.
I'm familiar with the double slit experiment - that's a fundamental part of quantum physics, but 'observation' in the quantum sense, doesn't imply intent, or an intelligent observer.
Perhaps a god... perhaps some yet unknown force... my point is that it isn't known... perhaps can't be known... and it falls upon the shoulders of those arguing against an unknown force to provide an explanation that can be tested and merited scientifically
The problem with god-of-the-gaps arguments is that the gaps are constantly getting smaller. There's always going to be some bit of the unknown you can insert your hypothetical deity into, but it's a pretty weak position to take, because every time a gap gets filled, you have to go "oh, well, not that gap, then...".
And just because certain things aren't currently known doesn't mean they can't possibly be known. The hypothesis that an intelligent deity is interfering with quantum waveforms certainly seems like it ought to be testable, unless said deity goes out of its way to avoid being detected - in which case, how is it practically speaking different from it not existing?
And it's the responsibility of people providing non-parsimonious explanations, that run counter to established understanding to provide the evidence - not of the people defending the simple and sufficient existing explanations. :)
To nitpick, no, it couldn't - any such computing device would have to be part of the universe, and thus not large enough to simulate the entire universe.
Did I provide the parameters of the computing device?
Quantum Physics doesn't allow for free will any more than determinism. Our brains have no control over the outcome of quantum waveform collapse, and there's nothing in any theory that suggests the way a waveform collapses is anything other than random
Quantum physics is a scientific endeavor and free will philosophic... Do you buy your apparel at a grocery?
*** Our minds have no control over collapsing a wave function?***
Can you elaborate?
there's nothing in any theory that suggests the way a waveform collapses is anything other than random
Actually there is...
If you are familiar with the double slit experiment perhaps you are aware of the modified experiment whereby a particle detector is set to monitor which slit a particle enters. but when the results are observed there is no evidence of wave distribution... only the difracted particle distribution... It cannot be argued that interference of the detector affected the trajectory of the slit not monitored... yet the particles entering the second unmonitored slit have had their wavefunctions collapsed. It must then be argued that observation has collapsed the wave function ... observation by process of elimination.
**This is also a classic god-of-the-gaps argument - we can't explain something, so therefore, god did it! **
Okay... so what?
Perhaps a god... perhaps some yet unknown force... my point is that it isn't known... perhaps can't be known... and it falls upon the shoulders of those arguing against an unknown force to provide an explanation that can be tested and merited scientifically
Have at it?... I'm all ears
**With a large enough computing device... the future should be exactly predictable according to determinism. **
To nitpick, no, it couldn't - any such computing device would have to be part of the universe, and thus not large enough to simulate the entire universe. :)
**To me this is an argument in favor of free will and as close to a definition of free will as one can get. **
Quantum Physics doesn't allow for free will any more than determinism. Our brains have no control over the outcome of quantum waveform collapse, and there's nothing in any theory that suggests the way a waveform collapses is anything other than random.
This is also a classic god-of-the-gaps argument - we can't explain something, so therefore, god did it!
There are laws that God has to abide by. His own. This includes the creation of the Earth's creatures, and the organization between them. If he creates a particular kind of animal, say, mammals, with similar physiological and psychological similarities, he could not go and produce a species of that kind of animal that completely defies everything that they are.
The same with the physical laws of the universe regarding the construction of heavenly bodies. Who knows? Earth probably did take quite some time to form, the sun longer than that.
Truly, what would be the point of laying down the law if you weren't willing to follow it yourself?
I see the dichotomy you're driving at. If he's omnipotent, he knows everything we're going to do, and therefore we can't have free will. But if we don't have free will, how can a just god punish us for our misdeeds? And he's not omnipotent, how is he a god?
The solution(s) are simple, though: a) There's no god, therefore no problem. b) There's no evidence that we actually do have free will - just the illusion of it.
Traditonally we define god as being omnipotent and omniscient, but ofcourse we always can contradict this by saying if god has perfect knowledge and power, then can he do something like make 2+2= 5? or does he know our fate '? Then that means we dont have free will ? The real problem is that what god knows depends on where and what form he exits in, does he exist beyond spave and time is he transcendent or eternal ?
Well, this is how I twist it. God's wisdom is infinite, correct? So, in all of his knowledge and power, would that mean that he continues to progress infinitely through time? Wouldn't that mean that he is still learning, in a way?
Yes. All of you Protestants and Catholics come down and start calling me a heretic. I get enough garbage from my own church.
You stated that we have free will to do what we want but our urges to do what we want come from God. Do you mean all urges? Urges to commit murder and incest as well? Please elaborate. I have never heard a theory like this before.
"Well, this is how I twist it. God's wisdom is infinite, correct? So, in all of his knowledge and power, would that mean that he continues to progress infinitely through time?"
What? That doesn't even make any sense.
Yes, God is omnipotent, and He gave us free will. It is our choice to recognize Him as God or not. That only determines our fate, not His.
I'm kinda agnostic (I guess) right now. I have some logistical problems with my religion right now. Thank you for your comment.
I don't believe in God...period.
yeppp
