You have a box...
- Thread starter HeXp£Øi±
- Start date
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
It certainly would affect God. In your original forumulation of this hypothetical question, you made it clear that the entire universe was contained inside the box, and there was nothing outside the box. That means that whatever God is, even supposing He somehow has infinite knowledge and memory capacity, is bound to adhere to the laws of physics within the universe. Uncertainty is a proven part of those physics, and it would affect Him just as much as it does us.HeXp£Øi± said:
That's only half of uncertainty. Yes, on a fundamental level our interaction with the world changes it and creates uncertainty. It has also been shown that there is a fundamental uncertainty which can't be overcome, even in principle, even if we don't "look" at something. Multiple experiments have shown this to be the case. At a subatomic level there is a randomness that is built into the fabric of the universe, and nothing can circumvent that limitation.
Even supposing you didn't have to "look" to take measurements (and how would you suppose God got the information anyway... bounce "thought" off of objects? He would have to observe things as well, and is limited to the physics of the universe in which he resides), and were instead handed a magic list of ever position, velocity, charge, spin, etc. of every particle in the universe, that still wouldn't be enough to perfectly predict the future. Not all of the laws of physics are time reversible; no matter how much you know, or how fast you can compute, the laws of physics forbids it.
That's not at all what physics tells us. It's true to an extent - in so far as macroscopic events collectively tend to follow deterministic rules - but on a fundamental level things simply aren't deterministic. It isn't due to a limitation of our ability to make a measurement without disturbing the system, and it isn't a limitation of our memory capacity or computational strength. This limitation is designed into the very essence of space/time.
This line of thinking is interesting to me. I always saw this issue from a oppositely polarized perspective. If one were to actually believe that the laws of physics did make all future actions determined, I would have thought that the natural conclusion would be to decide that physics simply doesn't leave room for God. After all, despite what many Baptists like to preach, predestination flies in the face of the written Bible. Somehow you've reached the opposite conclusion, deciding that the apparent existince of predestination is proof that the universe needs a God to circumvent it.
I think the problem here is that, without really recognizing it, you have placed God outside your hypothetical box... which is against the "rules" you set up in this thought experiment.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
If you're really interested in learning more about this subject, it's going to take a lot of time and effort. Getting a good grip on quantum mechanics is no small challenge, and will require reading several books at a minimum (I've found no single book which adequately covers all aspects and implications). I'm not going to attempt to make a thorough explanation here, because I don't have the time and the server probably doesn't have the space.HeXp£Øi± said:
I'd suggest starting with David Duetsche's The Fabric of Reality, an excellent book that covers quantum mechanics, time, computation theory, evolution/genetics, and more. Unfortunately, though it gives a good overview of quantum mechanics it leaves out many of the important details. I'd follow that with some background on the science and scientists leading up to the quantum revolution... probably In Search of Schrodinger's Cat. After those two, you're ready for more heavyweight material. Perhaps something from Kaku would be a good third resource.
As for providing an example of this unavoidable uncertainty, make sure you cover all the variations of the double-slit experiment - notably the time-delayed double slit variant. I think you'll find the outcomes, and the inevitable conclusion, to be mind boggling!
HeXp£Øi± said:
Not necessarily. Because, I don't believe in God or gods nor the viablility of infinite knowledge, it would be impossible to know
HeXp£Øi± said:
IF one could have that knowledge, it may be possible to predict the future locations of all things. One missing key is the animal. Since our brains don't work on the space time continuum but on thought, it would be impossible to predict what thought, therefore what action an animal (namely human) could take to change any one of those predictions. Similar to the uncertainty principle. Given the infinite knowledge assumption, a prediction can be made on later events. It can not take into account what is not here, now. That's why this is a lesson in frivolity. We do not live in a static universe. Which is where I assumed the question came.
The Chaos Theory only works if the universe stops expanding & begins to retract.
This is, of course, only my very limited understanding of Einstein & Hawkings explanations.
Literally, without limit. Which is, in itself, impossible.Mirlyn said:
dan
New Member
the basic idea:
what you learnt in school about Eienstien and motion and all that jazz is, essentially, a load of crap.
it turns out that while the universe does look like that, it's not really.
there's a whole load of freaky shit that doesn't make any sense, but experimentally turns out to be true, that says the universe is pretty random - randomness is *fundamental*.
even with perfect knowelge, you can't predict what's going to happen
what you learnt in school about Eienstien and motion and all that jazz is, essentially, a load of crap.
it turns out that while the universe does look like that, it's not really.
there's a whole load of freaky shit that doesn't make any sense, but experimentally turns out to be true, that says the universe is pretty random - randomness is *fundamental*.
even with perfect knowelge, you can't predict what's going to happen
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
My belief, and that of almost every scientist, is that thought is a natural byproduct of a hugely complex interaction of events that occur in traditional space/time. No hocus-pocus. Our brains are nothing more than computers, just like a desktop PC, only operating on a scale of massive parallelism and using biochemical and bioelectrical signaling and switching instead of vaccuum tube or transistor based electrical signaling and switching. It may be the nature of these bioelectrical and biochemical elements that quantum uncertainty plays a larger role in the pattern of signals within our brains than within a silicon circuit, but there's no fundamental reason why a human brain couldn't eventually be duplicated in functionality using silicon and copper. It might be orders of magnitude slower, but it would work the same.Gonz said:
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
I don't think you quite comprehend what the uncertainty principle is. The uncertainty principle has absolutely nothing to do with the laws of physics. It mearly states the fact that we as mortal beings have issues observing what happens at sub atomic levels. When we as humans wish to observe something happening on a sub atomic level we shine light(or other electromagnetic radiation) upon the object and the light photons(or other electromegnetic radiation) because they are so large compared to the object(s) we are attempting to observe actually affect the particals we're attempting to observe therefor affecting the results of the observed event. God wouldn't need electromagnetic waves to observe any event since he is all knowing. God would have abolutely no impact on the situation whatsoever.
This might help you understand the uncertainty principle a little more thoroughly.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/uncertainty_principle.html
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
HeXp£Øi± said:
That minimalist interpretation of Heisenberg's uncertainty relations is inadequate if the view is taken that there is no emperical value to statements made about reality when removed from physically possible observations.
This has been debated endlessly for decades, but I tend to side with the interpretations of most current day physicists, Bohr, and even Heisenberg himself. They take the stance that declarations about an underlying reality apart from observation are meaningless.
Excerpts from Bohr: "The unaccustomed features of the situation with which we are confronted in quantum theory necessitate the greatest caution as regard all questions of terminology. Speaking, as it is often done of disturbing a phenomenon by observation, or even of creating physical attributes to objects by measuring processes is liable to be confusing, since all such sentences imply a departure from conventions of basic language which even though it can be practical for the sake of brevity, can never be unambiguous... a sentence like "we cannot know both the momentum and the position of an atomic object" raises at once questions as to the physical reality of two such attributes of the object, which can be answered only by referring to the mutual exclusive conditions for an unambiguous use of space-time concepts, on the one hand, and dynamical conservation laws on the other hand. It would in particular not be out of place in this connection to warn against a misunderstanding likely to arise when one tries to express the content of Heisenberg's well-known indeterminacy relation by such a statement as ‘the position and momentum of a particle cannot simultaneously be measured with arbitrary accuracy’. According to such a formulation it would appear as though we had to do with some arbitrary renunciation of the measurement of either the one or the other of two well-defined attributes of the object, which would not preclude the possibility of a future theory taking both attributes into account on the lines of the classical physics."
The fundamental philosophical question is whether there is a physical deterministic reality apart from our observations. In other words, is it really a limitation of our ability to, even in theory, make measurements of unlimited accuracy, or is it a characteristic of nature itself. The prevailing view in physics, forced upon us by the inability of quantum concepts such as the Schrodinger's wave function to describe an underlying reality but only a 'state of knowledge', is that reality is what we observe... no more, no less.
Now we get into a more subtle issue. You suppose that God is somehow unaffected by this limitation, whether it be ontological or experimental. Why? You formulated your question such that what was inside the box was all that there was to the universe. As such, God, whatever He may be, is a part of that universe and bound by the same laws of physics as we are. His ability to observe has the same limitations on a fundamental level as our own. There is no magical way to gather information on the position, velocity, momentum, etc. of a particle other than by some physical means. I fail to see how you sidestep this point.
So, you can't have it both ways. Either God is within the box as you stipulate, and is bound to the same laws of physics as we are, or there is something outside the box afterall... God. If that is the case, then the question moves from hypothetical to logically unanswerable. You seem to be straddling that line, taking ideas from both lines of thought to make your argument.
Now, as I alluded to earlier, even if one were to somehow be granted knowledge of all fundamental properties of every particle/energy/wave/string/whatever that constitutes our physical reality (yes, this is illogical, not hypothetical, but we'll grant it for a moment in any case) it would still not be enough, according to quantum mechanics, to predict the future in unlimited accuracy.
Why? Because despite your previous comment, probabilistic randomness appears to be a quality of nature on the quantum level. That is to say that some events cannot be predicted from any set of data, even supposing that the knowledge of that data transcends any established limitations of uncertainty. For example, the precise time of decay of an unstable nuclear particle is independent of any quantum property that describes that particle (such as spin, momentum, position, velocity, charge, mass, etc.). Even if every quantum variable were known (ignoring uncertainty) in unlimited resolution, there is no method of calculating when such a probabilistic event will occur. If reality truly has a random component on the quantum level, as all experiments ever conceived and carried out have confirmed, then I don't see how God could circumvent this regardless of any ability to cheat uncertainty. Other examples of probabilistic events are the fall of an electron from one energy orbital to another, and the determination of just which photons will pass through a semi-reflective material and which will be reflected, just to name two. There is no limitation of measurement which negates the possibility of accurately predicting such events... there simply no known quantity to measure which would assist you in making such a prediction. Thus, not only would God have to know all that is knowable, but also that which is unknowable (he would have to exist outside the box).
Quantum mechanics also treats classically derministic values such as mass, position, or velocity as probabilistic, but then you're back to a philosophical debate on whether these are only probabilistic in practice or by nature. It should be noted though that these probabilistic attributes are not of the same kind as those mentioned above.
If you really want to complicate the discussion, we could move from the semi-classical reality we have been assuming and into the multiverse, where not only are probabilistic quantum "possibilities" realized as actual physical realities, but time loses any meaning and each universe in the multiverse is but a static "snapshot" of one "moment" of one quantum reality. The collection of snapshot universes encapsulates all possibile events that ever have or ever will occur. There is nothing to "predict" in the multiverse, because "all of time" has existed since the creation of the universe (and yes, the concept of creation becomes extremely complicated when discussing a universe with no time). If this idea is an accurate description of reality (which I think more completely explains observed phonema than other quantum interpretations) then it would be possible for God in a sense to "know all that is knowable" and predict (or simply observe, whichever way you want to view it) all future events... indeed, all possible future events, even if in our reality they never come to fruition. However, in that case God would again have to be "outside" the box in order to view the collective multiverse in its raw form. Otherwise, he is just as limited as we are in our perception of it.
I still can't believe six people voted yes when it is contradictory to the currently accepted worldview of the physics community.
AlladinSane
Well-Known Member
So am I going to suceed in taking my coworker to bed?Professur said:
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Leslie said:
Professur
Well-Known Member
AlladinSane
Well-Known Member
*looks at the timestamp and tries to recall who I was talking about - got it*
Not really. Too bad for her.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
If this box contains no animate material, I would say that 'yes, you can predict the future within it' - but even the most basic living organisms can change their direction/speed/location sometimes across 3 dimensions, which defeats the basic physics that you'd be using to predict it's position ind interaction in the future.
Imagine a pool ball, struck at a certain angle and speed. Knowing it's speed and the friction it's meeting, you could predict it's future.
..up until the moment it decided to turn left, and back up...in which case, you'd have been wrong in your prediction.
Free will (even the most basic type) will be your undoing. You could still predict the motion of inanimate objects as long as they stay outside of a living organisms' sphere of influence.
Imagine a pool ball, struck at a certain angle and speed. Knowing it's speed and the friction it's meeting, you could predict it's future.
..up until the moment it decided to turn left, and back up...in which case, you'd have been wrong in your prediction.
Free will (even the most basic type) will be your undoing. You could still predict the motion of inanimate objects as long as they stay outside of a living organisms' sphere of influence.