ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

Cause and effect. If you know *all* that is happening *right now*, then you will know what *will* happen.

Actually, that only holds for classical physics. Following quantum mechanics, a particle can be in more than one state at once. It is not until it affects something that it solidifies into single state. Thus you could know the states of all the various particles at a single moment, but not know what will happen.

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
Actually, that only holds for classical physics. Following quantum mechanics, a particle can be in more than one state at once. It is not until it affects something that it solidifies into single state. Thus you could know the states of all the various particles at a single moment, but not know what will happen.

I think you meant to say "until it is observed", not "affects something".

Any entity that might be able to know the quantum states of every particle in the multiverse might also not be subject to our current understanding (aka physics) of how probability waves collapse. By definition, if you "know" the quantum state of a particle you've already collapsed its wave. We're positing a deity that can observe at the quantum level without interacting (affecting) what's being observed (something we don't currently believe is possible). Another way of looking at this is that according to quantum mechanics you cannot have an all-knowing deity. Which means that either one believes in such a deity and quantum mechanics is wrong, or the science is correct and what many modern religions posit is absurd. I've never been fond of the absurd ... especially my current theocratic government.

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

I think you meant to say "until it is observed", not "affects something".

Any entity that might be able to know the quantum states of every particle in the multiverse might also not be subject to our current understanding (aka physics) of how probability waves collapse. By definition, if you "know" the quantum state of a particle you've already collapsed its wave. We're positing a deity that can observe at the quantum level without interacting (affecting) what's being observed (something we don't currently believe is possible). Another way of looking at this is that according to quantum mechanics you cannot have an all-knowing deity. Which means that either one believes in such a deity and quantum mechanics is wrong, or the science is correct and what many modern religions posit is absurd. I've never been fond of the absurd ... especially my current theocratic government.

Fair enough, it goes back to the definition of omniscient. If knowing the states of every particle at a single moment is not omniscient, it still seems rather impressive and god-like, so what do you call it?

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
Fair enough, it goes back to the definition of omniscient. If knowing the states of every particle at a single moment is not omniscient, it still seems rather impressive and god-like, so what do you call it?

Fantasy. Absurd. (take your pick)

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

Fantasy. Absurd. (take your pick)

I'm not saying someone has that ability, but it certainly seems more reasonable than your definition of omniscience, so it seems it should have a distinct term....

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
I'm not saying someone has that ability, but it certainly seems more reasonable than your definition of omniscience, so it seems it should have a distinct term....

Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?

But since you insist on calling "my" definition of omniscience unreasonable, I'll point you to Merriam-Webster Online's definition. Please note that definition #1 is "infinite awareness", and definition #2 is "universal or complete knowledge". I believe "my" definition fits within both of those official definitions.

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?

But since you insist on calling "my" definition of omniscience unreasonable, I'll point you to Merriam-Webster Online's definition. Please note that definition #1 is "infinite awareness", and definition #2 is "universal or complete knowledge". I believe "my" definition fits within both of those official definitions.

I never said your definition was unreasonable, only that applying such a concept the universe was unreasonable. My only point is that the less extreme version is as deserving of a word for it as the normal definition.

Anyway, I've got to get to sleep, so I'm afraid we will have to shelve our definition nitpicking session for now

[TheSelfishGene]

Arryn said:

Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?

But since you insist on calling "my" definition of omniscience unreasonable, I'll point you to Merriam-Webster Online's definition. Please note that definition #1 is "infinite awareness", and definition #2 is "universal or complete knowledge". I believe "my" definition fits within both of those official definitions.

Why is it incompatable for an omniscient being whom *exists outside of the universe* to be able to know everything about said universe without affecting it? Arguing that God doesn't exist because Quantum Mechanics limits him seems like a particularly pedestrian argument.

[Scott Hebert]

Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?

I would say that omniscience is a basic concept. The fact that we cannot know everything can easily be juxtaposed against a theoretical 'someone' or 'something' that can know everything. That is an omniscient being, and nothing I've said even touches religion.

Also, I believe that my religion is eminently reasonable.