random events and God

[brokensymmetry]

It may be strange that this is my first topic here (aside from a welcome) since I am a theist, but why not.

Here is my challenge. If there are truly random events in the world, as there appears to be, how are we to reconcile that with God's omniscience? Suppose we have a radioactive isotope sitting around. If God is omniscient, then in principle God knows precisely when it will decay. However, the empirically verified models we have of radioactive decay suggest that these events are truly random. Given a single isotope we can only give a probability for a particular event, it is not possible to know ahead of time precisely when it will in fact decay.

Can the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God be reconciled to a universe which has genuinely (no hidden variables) events? if so how?

 

[George-ananda]

It may be strange that this is my first topic here (aside from a welcome) since I am a theist, but why not.

Here is my challenge. If there are truly random events in the world, as there appears to be, how are we to reconcile that with God's omniscience? Suppose we have a radioactive isotope sitting around. If God is omniscient, then in principle God knows precisely when it will decay. However, the empirically verified models we have of radioactive decay suggest that these events are truly random. Given a single isotope we can only give a probability for a particular event, it is not possible to know ahead of time precisely when it will in fact decay.

Can the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God be reconciled to a universe which has genuinely (no hidden variables) events? if so how?

I think a typical answer would be God does not experience time the way we do. Past and Future are all known. He can't be surprised

 

[brokensymmetry]

I think a typical answer would be God does not experience time the way we do. Past and Future are all known. He can't be surprised

Sure, let's grant that. God is aware of all events. I think you'd want to attempt a tact like this if you want to defend free will and the existence of God also, that somehow God knowing the outcome of all events doesn't mean they were predetermined.

Does this seem like a sufficient answer?

 

[Quintessence]

As a polytheist, there's nothing to reconcile, given knowledge of various gods only extends to their respective domains and the like. Further, even if I was a classical monotheist rather than a polytheist, I do not believe there's such a thing as "random" (as in acausal events), thus there still would be nothing to reconcile.

 

[brokensymmetry]

As a polytheist, there's nothing to reconcile, given knowledge of various gods only extends to their respective domains and the like. Further, even if I was a classical monotheist rather than a polytheist, I do not believe there's such a thing as "random" (as in acausal events), thus there still would be nothing to reconcile.

I'm interested in your latter claim. Why would you reject that random events occur?

 

[Quintessence]

I'm interested in your latter claim. Why would you reject that random events occur?

Because I have found no compelling reason to believe that any events are acausal, random, indeterminate... whatever word you want to put to it. I reject the idea of "free will" a an illusory byproduct of non-omniscience, and am a hard determinist. We perceive there to be "randomness" and "free will" because we can't comprehend all the causes as finite, limited creatures.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Because I have found no compelling reason to believe that any events are acausal, random, indeterminate... whatever word you want to put to it. I reject the idea of "free will" a an illusory byproduct of non-omniscience, and am a hard determinist. We perceive there to be "randomness" and "free will" because we can't comprehend all the causes as finite, limited creatures.

What about the empirical evidence in the case of radioactive decays? Truly random events are those that have no 'memory' of past events. The result is that there is a mathematical model which characterizes them (Poisson distribution). To the best rigorous testing to date, radioactive decay events have this sort of distribution.

 

[Quintessence]

What about the empirical evidence in the case of radioactive decays? Truly random events are those that have no 'memory' of past events. The result is that there is a mathematical model which characterizes them (Poisson distribution). To the best rigorous testing to date, radioactive decay events have this sort of distribution.

I haven't studied this, but if this is a variation on that New Age quantum mechanics pseudoscience (no offense intended; pseudoscience when recognized as such has appropriate uses), I like to remind people that patterns at one level of organization are not necessarily applicable at another. At the level of organization that matters (aka, not subatomic), I have found no compelling reason to believe anything is ever acausal.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I haven't studied this, but if this is a variation on that New Age quantum mechanics pseudoscience (no offense intended; pseudoscience when recognized as such has appropriate uses), I like to remind people that patterns at one level of organization are not necessarily applicable at another. At the level of organization that matters (aka, not subatomic), I have found no compelling reason to believe anything is ever acausal.

No... this is a fact about nature. There appear to be no 'hidden variables' here. If there were, we would measure deviations from the random distribution, and we have not.

 

[George-ananda]

Sure, let's grant that. God is aware of all events. I think you'd want to attempt a tact like this if you want to defend free will and the existence of God also, that somehow God knowing the outcome of all events doesn't mean they were predetermined.

Does this seem like a sufficient answer?

I was giving an answer to the question from your dualistic (that God and creation are two) assumptions.

Actually I'm a non-dualist (God and creation are not two).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If there are truly random events in the world, as there appears to be, how are we to reconcile that with God's omniscience?

How does knowing when something will happen necessarily render the event it less random?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

How does knowing when something will happen necessarily render the event it less random?

Depends. Is there still the possibility of being wrong?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It may be strange that this is my first topic here (aside from a welcome) since I am a theist, but why not.

Here is my challenge. If there are truly random events in the world, as there appears to be, how are we to reconcile that with God's omniscience? Suppose we have a radioactive isotope sitting around. If God is omniscient, then in principle God knows precisely when it will decay. However, the empirically verified models we have of radioactive decay suggest that these events are truly random. Given a single isotope we can only give a probability for a particular event, it is not possible to know ahead of time precisely when it will in fact decay.

Can the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God be reconciled to a universe which has genuinely (no hidden variables) events? if so how?

I'm a hard determinist, though by other means (other than theologically).

But to chip in some ideas; perhaps omniscience is only of all of the past and all of the present, none of the future as it does not exist.

If you are omniscient, you don't fundamentally know things that are impossible, however you would know that it is impossible, not a way around the impossible as there simply isn't one.

For example: A man knows everything, but he does not know how to light a cigarette with water. He knows that it's impossible.

The same goes for the future, if you are one of those people who believe it is unwritten (I personally believe that the sum of the past and the present is the future, so it pretty much is unwritten yet at the same time it is determined).

If the future were unwritten, not determined by any means, one cannot know the future because it simply is impossible.

The only time that impossible doesn't come into play is with omnipotence, which is completely unrestricted, the universe would be unconfined chaos, and the omnipotent creature would be the sole basis of all reality and existence, thinner than the strings.

 

[brokensymmetry]

How does knowing when something will happen necessarily render the event it less random?

This is the question I am wrestling with. Take another system, say a spin system. It could be spin up, or spin down, with a certain probability associated with both. Before it is measured, it is in *neither*. After the spin is measured in some direction, it is in a definitive state.

So, here is the challenge. In quantum mechanics you can know everything there is to know about a system, and know nothing about the states of the individual parts. Does God know? If QM is right, then no one knows, including GOd, *until* the measurement. To say that God knows how it will turn out doesn't mean that God knew everything about the system, AND the individual parts of the system, before the measurement is made.

 

[viole]

This is the question I am wrestling with. Take another system, say a spin system. It could be spin up, or spin down, with a certain probability associated with both. Before it is measured, it is in *neither*. After the spin is measured in some direction, it is in a definitive state.

So, here is the challenge. In quantum mechanics you can know everything there is to know about a system, and know nothing about the states of the individual parts. Does God know? If QM is right, then no one knows, including GOd, *until* the measurement. To say that God knows how it will turn out doesn't mean that God knew everything about the system, AND the individual parts of the system, before the measurement is made.

Maybe God's omniscience is limited in the same way as His omnipotence. The same with His omnipresence. The fact that those probabilities can interfere seems to indicate that they are not observed; not even by God.

I think He can create stones that it cannot move. Why not? Not being able to create them does not make Him look any better.

So, it is possible that He can create things he cannot anticipate nor observe.

Or maybe He gave particles free will, too.

Or maybe there is no randomness at all. And all possible outcomes occur and are observed by different instances of the same observer in a superposition of states, but still, nevertheless all existing.

In the latter case, it is thinkable that one of the possible violes in a superposition of states still believes in God and goes to Heaven. Lol.

Who knows?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Tumah]

Is there such a thing as randomness?
If I flip a coin 4 times, so there is a 50% chance that it will be heads of tails. But if I were able to account for the amount of pressure and lift put into my thumb, friction from the air, wind, etc. wouldn't I be able to predict the outcome every time?

I think randomness is our inability to factor every possible variable that would affect the results.

 

[viole]

Is there such a thing as randomness?
If I flip a coin 4 times, so there is a 50% chance that it will be heads of tails. But if I were able to account for the amount of pressure and lift put into my thumb, friction from the air, wind, etc. wouldn't I be able to predict the outcome every time?

I think randomness is our inability to factor every possible variable that would affect the results.

Not in the case of quantum events.

The fact that those probabilities can interfere, unlike coins, seems to indicate that they are truly random.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

What about the empirical evidence in the case of radioactive decays?

As explained below, this randomness really comes down to our inability to predict.

How is radioactive decay random?

Answer:

The underlying truth in radioactive decay is that on an individual basis, no unstable atom will have a predictable time until it will decay. We understand and characterize the decay of radionuclides on the basis of statistical analysis. Only by looking at a large number of atoms of a given isotope of a given element and counting the decay events over time can we quantify the decay rate. The term half-life is used to state (based on the statistics) when half of a given quantity of a substance will have undergone radioactive decay.

Note that atoms are incredibly tiny things, and even if we have very tiny quantities of a given radioactive material, we'll have huge numbers of atoms of that material in the sample. The larger the number of atoms of material and the longer we count the decay events, the more accurate our half-life value will be. Having said all that, no one can predict when a given atom of any radionuclide will decay. Each is different, and that is the basis for the random nature of nuclear or radioactive decay.
source

​

And, even if such events were truly random, they would have no effect on events on larger scales.

(Radioactive decay, also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity, is the process by which a nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting particles of ionizing radiation. A material that spontaneously emits this kind of radiation—which includes the emission of energetic alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays—is considered radioactive.

source:Wikipedia )

​

The mere decay event of a single atom does not affect the composition of the material it helps make up.

 

[viole]

As explained below, this randomness really comes down to our inability to predict.

How is radioactive decay random?

Answer:

The underlying truth in radioactive decay is that on an individual basis, no unstable atom will have a predictable time until it will decay. We understand and characterize the decay of radionuclides on the basis of statistical analysis. Only by looking at a large number of atoms of a given isotope of a given element and counting the decay events over time can we quantify the decay rate. The term half-life is used to state (based on the statistics) when half of a given quantity of a substance will have undergone radioactive decay.

Note that atoms are incredibly tiny things, and even if we have very tiny quantities of a given radioactive material, we'll have huge numbers of atoms of that material in the sample. The larger the number of atoms of material and the longer we count the decay events, the more accurate our half-life value will be. Having said all that, no one can predict when a given atom of any radionuclide will decay. Each is different, and that is the basis for the random nature of nuclear or radioactive decay.
source

​

And, even if such events were truly random, they would have no effect on events on larger scales.

(Radioactive decay, also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity, is the process by which a nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting particles of ionizing radiation. A material that spontaneously emits this kind of radiation—which includes the emission of energetic alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays—is considered radioactive.

source:Wikipedia )

​

The mere decay event of a single atom does not affect the composition of the material it helps make up.

This is because all those probabilities interfere positively only for certain values. That does not take a iota out of the pure randomness of each single event.

A beam of photons, like a laser, looks straight, even though each individual photon follows all possible paths in the Universe in a completely random way.

Ciao

- viole

 

[brokensymmetry]

Is there such a thing as randomness?
If I flip a coin 4 times, so there is a 50% chance that it will be heads of tails. But if I were able to account for the amount of pressure and lift put into my thumb, friction from the air, wind, etc. wouldn't I be able to predict the outcome every time?

I think randomness is our inability to factor every possible variable that would affect the results.

To reiterate what viole shared I think of it this way. You could have two identically prepared systems, identical in every way. But, if they are in a superposition of quantum states, you cannot tell based on anything you can observe about them what will happen if you make a measurement for the observable that is in the superposition of states. In other words, if you tell me that two systems are identical in every way possible, and that their electrons are in a superposition of spin states, you can get two different answers if you measure the spin of the two systems. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is right to the ground.