random events and God

[Skwim]

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.

And you know this is "pure" randomness because . . . . ?

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.

That's pretty hard to swallow. What da ya got for a source?

 

[brokensymmetry]

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

Or that God observes them, knows everything there is to know about them, but it's just not possible to know everything there is to know about a system so that's it? I already do not think that God can do logically impossible things. Perhaps it is possible, in principle, to extend that concept.

Yes, viole in the next universe over is a devout, young earth creationist, believer.

 

[brokensymmetry]

And you know this is "pure" randomness because . . . . ?

That's pretty hard to swallow. What da ya got for a source?

The source for that is Richard Feynman. I suggest you could look up his path integral formalism to quantum mechanics. It's definitely worth it.

He gave some talks to the general public about it. I believe they may be on you tube. If not, the lectures are in book form, QED.

 

[Amechania]

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

If I shoot a pair of dice, I cannot know what number will roll, because it hasn't happened yet. It has already happened for God, but what rolled was every possible number that can be rolled on a pair of dice. In one scenario, I win my bet and use the money to pay off my debts. In another I lose my bet and get my legs broken. It only matters to me. God has seen all possible outcomes, but to God it matters not at all. It's not random to God, it's only random to me.

 

[brokensymmetry]

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.

I am not sure why you think this is a response to my challenge. A single radioactive decay event is technically random. I never said that macro-scale events are (though perhaps you could think up something clever here!)

 

[brokensymmetry]

If I shoot a pair of dice, I cannot know what number will roll, because it hasn't happened yet. It has already happened for God, but what rolled was every possible number that can be rolled on a pair of dice. In one scenario, I win my bet and use the money to pay off my debts. In another I lose my bet and get my legs broken. It only matters to me. God has seen all possible outcomes, but to God it matters not at all. It's not random to God, it's only random to me.

Shooting a dice isn't analogous to the randomness inherent in quantum systems. Dice are classically described because they are macroscopic objects. Quantum systems (can) have a deep intrinsic probabilistic nature.

 

[Amechania]

Shooting a dice isn't analogous to the randomness inherent in quantum systems. Dice are classically described because they are macroscopic objects. Quantum systems (can) have a deep intrinsic probabilistic nature.

Are the possibilites associated with quantum systems infinite? If so an infinite God can see all possible outcomes simultaneously. Are quantum systems any more random to that God as is our perception of cause and effect?

 

[nazz]

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?

Just because we might not know when something will happen does not mean an omniscient deity would not. Also unpredictability does not necessarily equal random.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Are the possibilites associated with quantum systems infinite? If so an infinite God can see all possible outcomes simultaneously. Are quantum systems any more random to that God as is our perception of cause and effect?

God could know every possibility perfectly about a quantum system, but here is the thing. THe formalism of quantum mechanics tells us that you can know all there is to know about a system yet know nothing about the states of the individual parts inside it. So, if quantum mechanics is true about the world, and so far it certainly seems to be, there is a profound question in my mind about what that means about GOd's omniscience. God knowing all there is to know about an entangled system wouldn't allow God to know the states of the individual parts.

 

[Amechania]

God could know every possibility perfectly about a quantum system, but here is the thing. THe formalism of quantum mechanics tells us that you can know all there is to know about a system yet know nothing about the states of the individual parts inside it. So, if quantum mechanics is true about the world, and so far it certainly seems to be, there is a profound question in my mind about what that means about GOd's omniscience. God knowing all there is to know about an entangled system wouldn't allow God to know the states of the individual parts.

Perhaps my understanding of quantum systems is not so adroit as your own. I am a layperson, and only know so much as I have read, and that is limited. However, I can concieve of a God who can be untidy, indeed a kind of soup of possibilities. This is this God's normal state. God may know what is possible, but to this God nothing is impossible. Why is it important that God know precisely what the individual states of that which comprises an entangled system are, if that God knows what they are potentially?

 

[brokensymmetry]

Just because we might not know when something will happen does not mean an omniscient deity would not. Also unpredictability does not necessarily equal random.

An omniscient observer would not, in principle, know. That's why the question is interesting to me. Random events are ones that occur without a memory. That and unpredictability are closely related conceptually.

 

[Skwim]

I am not sure why you think this is a response to my challenge. A single radioactive decay event is technically random. I never said that macro-scale events are (though perhaps you could think up something clever here!)

In response to Quintessence's post:

"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."
​

You asked,

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

To which I explained the lack of relevance of random radioactive decay.

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

How is radioactive decay random?

Answer:

The underlying truth . . . ."
​

 

[brokensymmetry]

In response to Quintessence's post:

"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."
​

You asked,

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

To which I explained the lack of relevance of random radioactive decay.

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

How is radioactive decay random?

Answer:

The underlying truth . . . ."
​

We are unable to predict it because it's inherently probabilistic. This isn't a matter of us needing better equipment or dealing with 'mere' complexity.

 

[Skwim]

We are unable to predict it because it's inherently probabilistic. This isn't a matter of us needing better equipment or dealing with 'mere' complexity.

But predictability wasn't the issue Quintessence raised. It was the non-existence of acausal, random, indeterminate events.

"Because I have found no compelling reason to believe that any events are acausal, random, indeterminate... whatever word you want to put to it."
​

Let's stay focused.

 

[brokensymmetry]

But predictability wasn't the issue Quintessence raised. It was the non-existence of acausal, random, indeterminate events.

"Because I have found no compelling reason to believe that any events are acausal, random, indeterminate... whatever word you want to put to it."
​

Let's stay focused.

I reject that randomness entails acausality. You'd have to demonstrate that. I have clarified that by random I mean in the technical sense that events follow a particular mathematical distribution. Each event in the system has no memory of previous ones.

 

[Tumah]

God could know every possibility perfectly about a quantum system, but here is the thing. THe formalism of quantum mechanics tells us that you can know all there is to know about a system yet know nothing about the states of the individual parts inside it. So, if quantum mechanics is true about the world, and so far it certainly seems to be, there is a profound question in my mind about what that means about GOd's omniscience. God knowing all there is to know about an entangled system wouldn't allow God to know the states of the individual parts.

Why would G-d not be described as knowing about the states of the individual parts inside it?

 

[viole]

Or that God observes them, knows everything there is to know about them, but it's just not possible to know everything there is to know about a system so that's it? I already do not think that God can do logically impossible things. Perhaps it is possible, in principle, to extend that concept.

Well, if the indetermination principle is a universal, then yes, not even God can know the parts of a system without violating the principle. He cannot know both momentum and position of a particle with arbitrary precision.

It could also be that knowing means doing. If the indetermination principle is isomorphic to some geometry of the universe, as I suspect, it could be that violating it is equivalent to squaring a circle. And we know He cannot do that.

iOW, it could be that pure randomness is a necessary entity, like spheres or triangles, that can be used to create universes but cannot not violated without contradictions.

Yes, viole in the next universe over is a devout, young earth creationist, believer.

God forbid. That would be enormously unfair, lol.

Observing God in person would definitely collapse the wave leaving me no escape from living in that suboptimal state of affairs for all eternity.

Ciao

- viole

 

[brokensymmetry]

Why would G-d not be described as knowing about the states of the individual parts inside it?

Because if you have something like a maximally entangled states they are literally unknowable. Once one part of the system has a definitive value for some observable, then yeah, you can infer what the other parts of the system are *now*, after the measurement in question has taken place. Before that they are neither here nor there.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Well, if the indetermination principle is a universal, then yes, not even God can know the parts of a system without violating the principle. He cannot know both momentum and position of a particle with arbitrary precision.

It could also be that knowing means doing. If the indetermination principle is isomorphic to some geometry of the universe, as I suspect, it could be that violating it is equivalent to squaring a circle. And we know He cannot do that.

iOW, it could be that pure randomness is a necessary entity, like spheres or triangles, that can be used to create universes but cannot not violated without contradictions.



God forbid. That would be enormously unfair, lol.

Observing God in person would definitely collapse the wave leaving me no escape from living in that suboptimal state of affairs for all eternity.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah so the idea that perhaps there is some nomological necessity here is what seems like the solution with the most promise. God does not know as a result of how the physical laws are constructed. God knows all there is possible to know, but that is not one of those things which is possible to know about.

I'm curious about the isomophorism in question.

So, your wavefunction collapses into the eigenstate |viole believes>, or is it that you become entangled in a larger system?

 

[viole]

Yeah so the idea that perhaps there is some nomological necessity here is what seems like the solution with the most promise. God does not know as a result of how the physical laws are constructed. God knows all there is possible to know, but that is not one of those things which is possible to know about.

That was basically my defense before turning to full blown naturalism.

I'm curious about the isomophorism in question.

I suspect there is one. I take it on faith that everything is geometry. Need more work on Hilbert spaces and probabilistic tensor fields. After all we can model such fields with operators (tensors) in the spacetime manifold. Since metrics is also driven by tensor fields, it is possible that the concept is generalizable.

But probably all we observe is the push-back of some covariant tensor field defined somewhere else.

So, your wavefunction collapses into the eigenstate |viole believes>, or is it that you become entangled in a larger system?

The pressing question, of course, is with what eigenstate |viole does not believe> gets entangled with

Ciao

- viole