TE: "I have purposed it, I will also do it." This is an explanation of how God can know what's going to happen in the future.

MM: This only applies to God’s future behavior. He is simply saying what He will do. It doesn’t address what FMAs will do.

What I wrote was addressing God, so of course it's not addresing CFMAs. What it points out is that God can known what's going to happen in the future by influencing it. In fact, that exactly what He said.

TE: [A] Therefore God knows [the future] as open, meaning that He knows every possible thing that can happen. I would say this is knowing. [B] Anyway, my answer would be no, there's nothing of which God is ignorant.

MM: “A” and “B” above are not compatible. According to this theory God doesn’t know ahead of time exactly what will happen. Knowing a zillion possible outcomes only means God is the ultimate smartest guesser.

I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying that if the future is open and not fixed, that means God can't know it? Well, you say, He doesn't know "exactly" what will happen. It sounds like you're just restating what we're discussing. Is the future open or fixed? Your correct that if the future is open, God can't know "exactly what will happen," if by "exactly what will happen" you mean what would happen if the future were fixed.

The way our prof derived the quantitative expression for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was by analyzing the effect of a photon on an electron (transfer of momentum, random recoil, etc). Sure enough, it came out just like the book had it (after quite a bit of arm-waving).

But, as I understand the principle, the uncertainty is not truly caused the the act of observation; the uncertainty is an inherent part of nature. The current theory is that no matter how you gain the information, whether through bombardment of photons or some exotic, non-interacting way (presumably something God can do), improved accuracy in one aspect results in degraded accuracy in the other. From a human perspective, since physics does not involve itself with things beyond the human perspective, infinite precision is theoretically impossible. (Feynman describes an experiment that demonstrates this with the double-slit. I think it was in his book on Quantum Electrodynamics, which was a surprisingly easy read.)

Anyway, if we say that God can have infinitely precise knowledge of an electron's present momentum and position concurrently, then that violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as we know it today. More, it violates Quantum Mechanics as we know it today.

But that's not to say that the concept is wrong. All it says is that it is not compatible with our current understanding of QM (just like General Relativity is not compatible with QM).

That reminds me that Einstein was also uncomfortable with the idea that uncertainty is an inherent part of nature. As he wrote to Max Born, "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." So, to say that QM is an incomplete theory (since one would be foolish to say it is wrong, considering its remarkable accuracy in describing physical phenomena) would put one in illustrious company.

OTOH, the other side of the fence has its share of luminaries. Niels Bohr told Einstein, "Quit telling God what to do." Stephen Hawking said, "Not only does God play dice, he throws them where we can't see them."

Assuming that you will continue to hold the belief that God's knowledge of the present is not limited in precision, I'll go on to the double-slit. Next time.

Yes, I have heard of Heisenbugs. But I have never been infected by it, since I always initialize my variables.

In the double-slit experiment (click here for a good explanation), an electron gun shoots electrons randomly toward a wall with 2 slits in it, and another wall behind it to catch the electrons that make it through. If the electrons acted like regular bullets, you would expect that the ones that make it through the slits will end up on the part of the wall behind the slits. Instead, what we find, assuming the slits are set up properly, is that there is an interference pattern, with electrons ending up where they should not be, and no electrons where they should be. (That's a really weak explanation, so I suggest going to the links.)

Anyway, if you send the electrons through the slits one at a time, each electron will obviously hit the back wall at one point along the wall. The electron will not be smeared. In that sense, it acts like a regular bullet. But as you continue to shoot electrons, the interference pattern will build up.

QM makes very reliable predictions about the interference pattern. We can calculate very precisely what kind of pattern we will see based on the size and location of the slits, energy of the electrons, etc. Shoot a trillion electrons and the pattern will match what QM predicts.

But QM is unable to predict the path of any individual electron going through the slits. The probabilities all work out fine for a big pile of electrons. But for one electron, we have no idea where it will end up. So, if we shot just one electron, all we can do is guess.

As that one electron is travelling toward the slits, does God know where it will end up?

This is from Wikipedia, so it can't be wrong:



Notice that is speaks of measuring. This goes along with my understanding of it. Since God can know these things without measuring them, He can avoid the problem.

Regarding the slit experiment (I'm pretty sure I've actually observed this one in a physics lab; I did OK in the theoretical part of the courses, but stunk at labs) I think that Quantum theory is accurate in its explanation of the movement of particles being statistical in nature, and that God would respond to the question, "Where will the particle go" the same way a physicist would. I think God created things this way because He loves spontaneity.

This is quite a statement of confidence. :pIs there not a level of contradiction between the first and the secound boldened statement?

If we take Wikipedia as authority, here's part of that wiki:

The observer effect is what you are talking about. The HUP, really has nothing to do with observation, but with the nature of the universe.





If God can know a particle's exact position and momentum concurrently, He violates the HUP.

Back to electron bullets. You can ask a physicist, "Where will this particular electron go?" He will have to answer, "I can tell you where it's likely to be, but I have no idea where it will actually be. It could end up behind the slit, or on your nose, or in the Andromeda Galaxy."

Are you saying that God would be as clueless as the physicist? IOW, when the electron lands, God will learn something He did not previously know.

TE: [A] Therefore God knows [the future] as open, meaning that He knows every possible thing that can happen. I would say this is knowing. [B] Anyway, my answer would be no, there's nothing of which God is ignorant.

MM: “A” and “B” above are not compatible. According to this theory God doesn’t know ahead of time exactly what will happen. Knowing a zillion possible outcomes only means God is the ultimate smartest guesser.

TE: I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying that if the future is open and not fixed, that means God can't know it? Well, you say, He doesn't know "exactly" what will happen. It sounds like you're just restating what we're discussing. Is the future open or fixed? Your correct that if the future is open, God can't know "exactly what will happen," if by "exactly what will happen" you mean what would happen if the future were fixed.

MM: From God's divine hindsight perspective the future is neither fixed nor open - it is what it is. The future, for God, is like history, like watching a rerun. He knows exactly, precisely what will happen because He has already watched it happen.

But history is fixed. Isnt it?

There might be. I don't think so. I feel more certain about the second statement than the first. It would be interesting to get an opinion from a physicist.

TE: [A] Therefore God knows [the future] as open, meaning that He knows every possible thing that can happen. I would say this is knowing. [B] Anyway, my answer would be no, there's nothing of which God is ignorant.

MM: “A” and “B” above are not compatible. According to this theory God doesn’t know ahead of time exactly what will happen. Knowing a zillion possible outcomes only means God is the ultimate smartest guesser.

You're assuming that God can't know what will happen ahead of time unless the future is fixed. I don't agree with your assumption.

TE: I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying that if the future is open and not fixed, that means God can't know it? Well, you say, He doesn't know "exactly" what will happen. It sounds like you're just restating what we're discussing. Is the future open or fixed? Your correct that if the future is open, God can't know "exactly what will happen," if by "exactly what will happen" you mean what would happen if the future were fixed.

MM: From God's divine hindsight perspective the future is neither fixed nor open - it is what it is.

It's obviously fixed if He can look at it like a T.V. rerun. Imagine watching an old I Love Lucy rerun you've seen dozens of times, and all of a sudden Lucy starts doing something different. That's not possible, right? Why not? Because what Lucy will do is fixed. If the T.V. rerun analogy holds, then the things which God is watching are as fixed as Lucy's behavior.

The future, for God, is like history, like watching a rerun. He knows exactly, precisely what will happen because He has already watched it happen.