Originally posted by Anthony Villanueva:
For physics in general and quantum mechanics in particular, the saving grace is its mathematics, which more or less relieves us of the burden of sustaining the science with comforting physical imagery which may be more imaginative than correct, like electron orbits or tiny spinning marbles. (Heck, it doesn't really even spin like an ordinary marble). But when it comes to theology, it's history is proof of how far it has fallen short of delivering its claims.
I mean, I don't see a forum thread here debating on whether or not two bound electrons can have the exact same set of quantum eigenvalues, do you?
Consider even the concept of "knowing". It's a timebound concept. There is a point in time when I not aware of, say, fact A, and then later on, in another point in time, I now become aware. And this constitutes (in a very rash simplification) "knowing". Can we gracefully extract this intuition of a linear progression in time from the concept of "knowing" and still have a usable concept that somehow still captures the essence of "knowing"?
Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
..I just don't believe that there will be mice in heaven.
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Great to see a specialist in quantum mechanics joining us.
"And remember, when you look into the pit, the pit looks back into you."<br /> -- Anonymous INTERCAL hacker
Then 2+2=5. Voila.
God can only do that which is possible and that which does not cause contradiction. Neither can God make 2+2=5, nor can he make square circles.
Originally posted by Anthony Villanueva:
Contradictory with respect to what? To nature? Do you suppose a man coming back to life (in all respects a spectacular violation of the second law of thermodynamics) doesn't qualify as contradictory?
Ever since Hume, we're really not sure if causality is an inherent property of reality or merely a category of the human mind.
He also has great potential as a technical writer![]()
There's nothing about the concept of knowledge that is temporally bound - it's just that the idea of knowledge is usually framed in the context of temporally bound humans who started out knowing essentially nothing, and grew in knowledge from that point. But that's just the default assumption - it's not inherent to the concept of knowledge itself, IMO.
I mean, I don't see a forum thread here debating on whether or not two bound electrons can have the exact same set of quantum eigenvalues, do you?
Hey, sounds like fun. Shura and I did sorta raise the issue here, but were unable to generate a controversial argument out of it.
Actually I do not consider a man coming back to life as positively contradictory per se (as opposed to coming back to life as an iguana, which would be).
The second law of thermodynamics also seems to contradict the theory of evolution (which I pretty much subscribe to) by the way.
Aquinas seemed to have a definite opinion on the subject.
Not so in theology, since base principles there are based on very shaky concepts called "believe" and "perceive". Therefore, with no common ground, it is only possible to merely suggest theories.
The funny thing is, most of the people don't really care that much about quantum mechanics, physics or math. Theology, on the other hand, is one way or other connected to everyone.
Originally posted by Ashok Manayangath:
Did you mean there are people walking around (or driving Mercs or Cadilacs) in Heaven?
"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Jason - OK, that all seems reasonable. But it still seems to me you're choosing rather arbitrary rules for what is "possible" and what is not. I can agree that making 2 + 2 = 5 is impossible (at least in the manner you obviously intended), but I don't see why God is limited by the stricture that "you cannot create something from nothing" but is nonetheless able to transcend time.
I accept that it is possible that these are both true for God, but submit that it's hardly self-evident. You're just making guesses - somewhat reasonable guesses, but guesses nonetheless - about what is and is not possible for God. Which is fine, but it's hardly going to convince me there's something inaccurate about me making different guesses.
All right, let's go with the assumption that God can indeed view all timespace - perhaps because he is timespace itself (or however many additional dimensions God requires) or maybe just because he has a really, really good crystal ball. Absolute preditive ability. In this case, does God himself have any free will? To me, the idea of God looking out at a set of points on a line implies that the points are already there. It sounds like there's really not much for God to do at this point if it's all set in stone. (Or graph paper as the case may be.) Does he have any goals or desires? Any ability to act on them? For me, absolute predictive ability would imply predestination, lack of freewill, and ultimately, irrelevance of individual choices or even thought - not just for humanity but also for God himself. So I'm curious how this model would work for the believers in the crowd.
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
...I said that I didn't think that there would be mice in heaven. I did NOT say that there would be ANYTHING material in heaven. We were talking about souls. :roll: The material stuff was your invention.
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by Anthony Villanueva:
Let's go to the extreme: a decapitated man. Can God resurrect such a man without involving Himself into a contradiction?
But my objection nevertheless is that when we use terms/concepts (that are perfectly fine when used in a familiar context) and project them in as region where the validity of their use is uncertain, an entire chain of reasoning based on these terms/concepts may be possibly inaccurate. Science has a self-correcting mechanism. Theology does not.
Originally posted by Anthony Villanueva:
...And going back to Aquinas, for him, there is an natural progession of knowledge from physics to metaphysics to theology. That is, the conclusions of physics should be the foundations of metaphysics, which deals with all reality, seen and unseen.
Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
Originally posted by Ashok Manayangath:
[QB][/QB]
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Originally posted by me:
I guess you mean that these examples do not apply to real life. I give you one that does. Let's assume that speed of light C is a speed limit. Let's look at Mass. Since our measurements are limited by the value of error (we assume that the smallest we can measure has value of 1), our scale is actually mimics Integer scale, with only difference that we don't have the same distance between numbers, because on a scale from 0 to C Mass values will be in a range from 0 to infinity. Now, for our measurements, the only valid values of + operator are the ones represented on our scale, therefore a+b=int(a+b) - closest value. So, for the simplisity of the case, we can assume that the distance between 0 and 1 is 3, between 1 and 2 is 2.5, between 2 and 3 is 2.1, etc. It is easy to see, how in this physical system 2+2 could actually be equal 5.
-------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
...I am mildly curious what the speed of light has to do with your latest example. I mean yes, I know relativistic mass is related to velocity in an equation that involves the speed of light, but as you didn't mention velocity either I don't see what this has to do with anything. Perhaps you were starting to talk about something else and changed your mind?
Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
when you say soul, then what do you mean ??
Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
SCJP
Visit my download page
Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
I infer this from racquetball.
"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
[b]
Your own description of God's knowledge of the future sounds more like an infallible predictor who exists in the present moment, rather than a being utterly unbound by time. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting here.
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
So I am really just a racquetball to God![]()
![]()
Tony Alicea
Senior Java Web Application Developer, SCPJ2, SCWCD
Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
But there is no god; so what's the doubt or question?
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The question was:
Given that God exists and has divine foreknowledge of everything we will think, say, or do, does Man have free will?
It is simply a conditional problem: (Man's free will | God exists).
As a friend of mine says, not only can God create a rock that He can't move but in fact He has created a rock that He can't move... the human heart.Originally posted by Jason Menard:
7. God could not create a rock which he could not lift because the rock would have to be more powerful than God.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Of course! Foreknowledge of which choice one will make does not exclude free will. God knows everything that will happen because unlike us, God is not subject to time. He does not experience one thing occurring after another thing. For God, all things have happened, are happening, will happen.Originally posted by Anthony Villanueva:
Had Peter a choice to actually do otherwise?
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs. |