Omniscience Takes Another Hit
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2012, 07:30 PM
Omniscience Takes Another Hit
I recently read Hawkings' book The Universe in a Nutshell, a surprisingly easy read -- I was so certain that I wouldn't be able to understand a word of what he said. I'd recommend it.

Hawking makes a point when speaking about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. It means that a particle's position and momentum and knowable, but that knowledge is mutally exclusive. You can't know both properties of any one particle, "even if" (in Hawking's words) "you were God Himself".

A second thought about why God's omniscience doesn't make sense in light of science is the Quantum Zeno effect, which basically says that certain radioactive particles won't decay while they're being observed. Why isn't an omniscient being causing the Quantum Zeno effect when we're not?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Starcrash's post
10-09-2012, 08:03 PM
RE: Omniscience Takes Another Hit
I am familiar with the uncertainty principle, but this hardly disproves an omniscient God. Any theist that believes in an omniscient God can certainly argue that God lives outside of our current understanding of physics. Also, I found your title very odd, which is why I clicked on it. Not that I don't 'get it', but any "Hit" to omniscience is all it takes before it's no longer omniscience. Not wrong per se, just odd. In my opinion, a better argument against the possibility of omniscience would certain paradoxes but some paradoxes can be argued against by asserting that parallel or alternate universes are being created or already exist; perhaps all paradoxes...I will have to give this more thought.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2012, 08:16 PM
RE: Omniscience Takes Another Hit
Just a little clarification on the word "observed". They aren't talking about observation as in looking at it, but in terms of using a device to measure and interact with it.

For instance let's say you had a laser range finder and you had device on your door that controlled a series of four locks on the door.
Let's also say that the locking device is set to lock all the locks when it is hit by a laser.
Let's also say that at random times each day a lock would unlock itself and if all four locks should unlock then a radioactive particle from behind the door would decay.
By measuring the distance to door using your laser range finder, you can in essence keep the door locked at all times.

This is what they are talking about when they say "observing" it. It's really a device that is interacting with the radio active particles and keeping them in a state of non-decay

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2012, 08:58 PM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2012 09:48 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Omniscience Takes Another Hit
It does appear to be another argument against a god's omniscience, to me, as the structure of Reality is such that one "cannot" know both position and momentum, and god is limited not by his powers of omniscience, but self-limited, (in a theistic world), by the structure of Reality which it created, (ie limited by the limits of the Plank Constant). That doesn't make sense that a god would limit their own powers of knowledge, and in a sense make himself subject to his created Reality. It's not that god is not "up to the task", it's that the task is not "do-able", in the same way as "can a god make a rock so heavy she cannot lift it", (or Bucky's Paradox : "can a god make a dildo so big he cannot stick it up his own ass ?" Tongue Either the nature of Reality is such that observation collapses the wave function, or it's not, (and if it's not we cannot apprehend Reality).

It's also an argument against omnipotence, as, ... if a god is observing the wave/particle, and if observation collapses the wave function, (even if just a mechanical sort of observation), it means god(s) powers are less than a mechanical observer, whatever that system is, to say nothing of a conscious human.

All the exclusion excuses are Special Pleading, and if they want to use Special Pleading, they can kiss all the arguments using Logic "bye-bye".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-09-2012, 10:08 PM
RE: Omniscience Takes Another Hit
Is this a drinking game?

These "omni" motherfuckers happen 'cause peeps ain't honest with themselves. Do I still love my Gwynnies, obsessing over Kristen? How about this one: am I a social drinker?

I drink to socialize. Then I get drunk. And cops show up. One of the myriad ways "truth" is temporal, situational, contextual. Without a clear identity for I, there can be no "omni" god. I mean, it seems pretty simple from here. We wanna be nice and call ourselves agnostic, but the truth I have found; anything anybody else calls" god," ain't mine.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
10-09-2012, 10:18 PM
RE: Omniscience Takes Another Hit
God plays peek-a-boo with subatomic particles. Dodgy

Which of the 10x500th possible string shapes do you think is his favorite?

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2012, 10:24 PM
RE: Omniscience Takes Another Hit
(10-09-2012 10:18 PM)Thomas Wrote:  God plays peek-a-boo with subatomic particles. Dodgy

Which of the 10x500th possible string shapes do you think is his favorite?

God is a "her" dummy, and it's a string bikini. Duh.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-09-2012, 11:32 PM
RE: Omniscience Takes Another Hit
A while back I made up a comic book character that had a certain kind of nearly all seeing tattoo. The tattoo was the Eye of Ra.
It was really an advanced computer in the shape of a tattoo that sent out a universal pulse that traversed the universe and back within a microsecond.
This pulse would then store the position of every pieces of matter in the universe that it could detect.

My character could then, with a certain amount of concentration, be able to view any place in the universe and see what was currently going on there.
His view of the night sky would be different that anyone elses because he's seeing the sky as it is, not as we see it (as it was).

The thing is, my character is also blind, in the sense that his optic nerves are severed. This tattoo is the only way he can see the world.
The tattoo has a link to the visual centers in this brain and thus everything he sees is artificially generated by the tattoo.

This character exists in the DC Comic book world and in that world there is also a character named Mister Terrific.
My character can't see Mister Terrific because Mister Terrific can't be detected by any artificial sensing devices.

Using ones imagination, you can come up with certain kinds of near omniscience, but it's all imaginary.
And that's what really all this talk of god is, just an imaginary character in a book with powers that we gave him / her.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
11-09-2012, 04:30 AM
RE: Omniscience Takes Another Hit
(10-09-2012 08:03 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I am familiar with the uncertainty principle, but this hardly disproves an omniscient God. Any theist that believes in an omniscient God can certainly argue that God lives outside of our current understanding of physics. Also, I found your title very odd, which is why I clicked on it. Not that I don't 'get it', but any "Hit" to omniscience is all it takes before it's no longer omniscience. Not wrong per se, just odd. In my opinion, a better argument against the possibility of omniscience would certain paradoxes but some paradoxes can be argued against by asserting that parallel or alternate universes are being created or already exist; perhaps all paradoxes...I will have to give this more thought.

That's been played out. We've talked to death about omniscience paradoxes, but as far as I can recall, no one has brought up these specific topics. And seriously... if you want to talk about paradoxes, why not start a thread about it? I'll talk about whatever I want to talk about, thank you.

God can live outside our current understanding of physics all He wants. In fact, you can make this argument about any "paradox" you bring up (He lives "outside" of paradoxes), and I know this because I've heard exactly that argument in the recent past from Ghost. But theists prefer to claim that their God is scientific, and this is just one more thing that makes Him improbable and harder to explain.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2012, 04:31 AM
RE: Omniscience Takes Another Hit
(10-09-2012 08:16 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Just a little clarification on the word "observed". They aren't talking about observation as in looking at it, but in terms of using a device to measure and interact with it.

For instance let's say you had a laser range finder and you had device on your door that controlled a series of four locks on the door.
Let's also say that the locking device is set to lock all the locks when it is hit by a laser.
Let's also say that at random times each day a lock would unlock itself and if all four locks should unlock then a radioactive particle from behind the door would decay.
By measuring the distance to door using your laser range finder, you can in essence keep the door locked at all times.

This is what they are talking about when they say "observing" it. It's really a device that is interacting with the radio active particles and keeping them in a state of non-decay

Point taken.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: