KontinMonet

Presumably, He uses the results of Valentini's ideas <a href="http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0776/valentiniabs.html" target="_blank">http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0776/valentiniabs.html</a> and others. But then He always was capable of changing the laws of physics in an ad hoc fashion. Refraction of light only started to occur after the Flood, for example: Gen 9 v 12-16.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: KontinMonet ]</p>

beausoleil

This reminds me of my many worlds experiment with the experimenter in the box - in some other recent thread hereabouts. At the end of it I suggest, if we knew anything we'd know that either a benevolent God exists or that the many worlds interpretation is correct.

I think your conclusion is a little strong. I don't see anything inconsistent with asserting that God can affect the outcome of a quantum event - miracles are rare, almost by definition, whereas QM results are statistical. All we can say is that within the margin of error we've not seen anything inconsistent with QM. Of course, this idea of intervention is outside the realm of science, which is where God belongs.

gunkel

If I understand Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle correctly (I am not an expert), it does not say that a particle doesn't have definite values of position and momentum, but that it's impossible to determine both of them, because measuring one will affect the other.

This should also apply to an omnipotent being, thus limiting its omnipotence, but I'm not sure about an omniscient being (ignoring all the other problems omniscience poses), especially when its also the one who set everything in motion.

beausoleil

Bell's theorem experiments show that there are no local hidden variables - the particle literally does not have a definite value of a property until it is measured. That's why electrons give interference patterns even when they approach two slits one at a time.

Answerer

I saw quite a number of other arguments before but I still prefer using scientifical methods to show my point even though they may not be a good one.

Answerer

Well, not necessary, even if many-world interpretation is wrong, this doesn't mean God exists. Anyway, you spoke of God interfering with the QM results, in this case, you are obviously combining religion with science which is not desirable or relevant within a scientifical debate.
Furthermore, I will like to know the method God use to interfere with QM results. Hypertelepathy or hyper-dimensional shift?

beausoleil

You have to survive being in the box over a time for which the chance of the decay not happening is insignificant before you know that one or the other is right. If you don't survive, by definition, you don't know anything.

God is kept out of science insofar as his proposed effects are untestable - if a test is proposed then he becomes observable.

Clutch

Couldn't the theist just reply like this?

Either particles have definite position-momentum property co-instantiations, or they don't.

If the former, then our QM math amounts to the measurement-theoretic view that there are facts we cannot know. But if God is omniscient, he can know them -- by definition he knows all facts. (This would merely show that God's knowledge is not based on conducting measurements.)

If the latter, then it's no indictment of God that he can't know facts which do not exist.

echidna

Yes. If definite position-momentum property co-instantiations logically don’t exist, then for God to know them, is as absurd as whether he can make a 4-sided triangle.

Echidna’s bad proof of God’s non-existence :

This statement is wrong.

Answerer

Well Beau, apparently, you are trying to link science and your religious beliefs together but this isn't the way science works and its best if you keep them apart.