T-Nation Atheists

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
576

Jere’s one I found. (I just did a search on “wavefunction collapse”!)

[quote]
OK this is a big one so try to follow. One of the first tenants of quantum physics is that any system exists only as a mathematical set of probabilities called the wave function until that system passes a state of irreversibility (something that causes one of the specific possible states to be “chosen” or to become real). The basic thing that quantum physicist described that caused a system to pass a state of irreversibility was for it to be observed by a mind capable of making a choice about what kinds of observations to make (ie an experiment). The implication was that it requires a mind advanced enough to chose to make a particular kind of observation (experiment) versus other observations to make the wave function of a system collapse and become “real” or in other words for one from the myriad of “probabilities” to become the real state. Some have argued that that’s okay, but the intelligent mind’s observation was already determined by or written in the laws of physics. The problem is that something called the “Bell theorem” proved that the laws of physics could not contain the information needed to determine which choice such an intelligent mind would choose, so the choice cannot be DETERMINED by even a complete evaluation of the laws of physics.

Now, the biggest system is the universe itself. The conclusion is that the entire universe existed only as a wave function outside of the boundary of an irreversible choice. So, the wave function containing all of the probabilities of the universe collapsed and became “real” only when it was first observed by a mind capable of choosing to make a particular observation versus others. The wave function then collapsed, propogating out at the speed of light from the point of the experiment.

In a real sense, it suggests the possibility that the universe became real (relative to us) when the first human being made the first choice observation. Again, in a real sense, the universe could have become “real” only a few thousand years ago, and still be billions of years old! The multidimensional “origin” of the universe need not be at time zero and wasn’t according to this model because time zero became real only when people started making choice observations. The other conclusion is that there was an outside observer who made the wave function collapse by caring to observe the mathematical wave function. This is not science fiction but perhaps the real ultimate question facing quantum physicists today.[/quote]

From beginning to end BS. I like how you bastardized Bell’s Theorem so show that observers who wear ladies’ underwear on their head can see the true meaning of existence, or whatever. I mean, we all understand the probalistic nature of QM. Why do you have to use complicated explanations when a simple one would do just as fine?

577

[quote]haney wrote:
Yes, but He can’t keep that being from sinning if it has free will. Which means it is impossible to create a sinless free will being that can’t screw it up.[/quote]

So we have something that is impossible for God to accomplish.

Also, since a free willed being will sin, as it is in it’s nature; is it fair to hold it against him?

[quote]I think it was implied by something you phrased, then again I could have read into it.
A = yes
B = It appears He does have free will but all indications in the scripture seem to put Him under certain self imposed rules. (i.e. Fair judge, can’t lie, can’t be unjust, etc…)[/quote]

But God does lie (usually through some agent or another) in the Bible.

The “can’t be unjust” part is equally hard to defend for passages like 2 Kings 2:23-24…

It could be. I’d like to be shown where my understanding is wrong, and not just told it is.

L. Ron Hubbard pulled Scientology out of his ass and that religion still has many followers; here in Quebec, we’ve got an ex-race car driver and journalist from France who started the “Raelians” movement, where they believe aliens came to earth and created us through cloning technology.

Deception is not that hard. In fact, the bigger the lie, the easier it seems to have people accept it.

As a book that professes to be “The Word of God”, you’d expect it to contain very few errors. It does claim to be “The Truth” with a capital T after all. But some of the errors are enormous; not attributable to some “translation” mistake.

That’s another point we need to clear up. What’s the status of the OT? Should we ignore it completely? If so, why is it still in the Bible. If not, why do believer avoid discussing it when it comes up?

Most of the bad, evil stuff is in the OT. Don’t take away my toys. :slight_smile:

If someone who tought the table was fair played with you at your table; and you played to the best of your ability; you’d clean his clock in both cases. Rigged or not, the end result would be the same: for each spin, you’d know beforehand whether black comes up or not.

Or you can see it this way: The rigging was done at the moment of Creation.

The scary part is that some of you, by your own admissions, would go postal were the fear of eternal damnation removed. Killing, plundering, raping, etc. With a God giving you values, it appears that some of you would be happy with a reign of terror and destruction.

It could be. God should write what he means. With enough interpretation, you can make Nostradamus appear accurate.

578

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Jere’s one I found. (I just did a search on “wavefunction collapse”!)
[/quote]

Okay, check me if I’m wrong here. The wavefunction collapse thing really goes back to one of the fundamental difficulties in dealing with particle measurements:

You cannot simultaneously measure the speed and the direction of a moving particle. (ie measuring the speed will alter the direction and vice versa).

Todd

579

Pookie-you’re the best, man. Keep right on going.

580

[quote]makkun wrote:
jsbrook,

jsbrook wrote:
Are you really trying to assert that Chrisitanity is responsible for the Nazi’s actions? That is ridiculous. Its influence if any pales in comparison to other influences and Hitler’s warped worldview that melded them together? Are you just trying to agitate? There have been plenty of real atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christianity. But even there you can’t really blame the relgion. You have to blame the corrupt, Godless, power-hungry men who purported to be men of God and good people. If it hadn’t been religion there would’ve been some other instrumentality they used to seize power.

I don’t exactly think whom you are referring to, but I would like to offer my view on this: I agree with you that you can’t normally blame the religion itself for the atrocities committed in it’s name. But you can and have to blame it’s supporters and the organisations representing it.

For example, in the 3rd Reich, the churches - representing christianity - pretty much bowed to the nazi government, and pretty much everyone who voted for them and let them into government were christian. On the other hand some of the most influencial critics of the system were priests (both protestant and catholic). But the two big religious organisations themselves pretty much caved in and contributed to (not caused) the nazi regime.

I would argue that it makes sense to be sceptical of claims for moral leadership by any (religious) organisation, as corruption and hunger for power will inevitably compromise the moral values of the faith.

Makkun[/quote]

I would agree. And some of those professing to be good Christians and godly have been some of the most corrupt people on this planet. History has shown this particularly true for politics. Anytime a politician goes on about religion and morality, I am immediately on guard and distrustful. They are usually less moral and more self-serving than those who don’t make it part of their agenda. Even Ronald Reagan’s son said at his funeral that his father was a deeply religious man but did not wear it on his sleeve.

581

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
Jere’s one I found. (I just did a search on “wavefunction collapse”!)

Okay, check me if I’m wrong here. The wavefunction collapse thing really goes back to one of the fundamental difficulties in dealing with particle measurements:

You cannot simultaneously measure the speed and the direction of a moving particle. (ie measuring the speed will alter the direction and vice versa).

Todd[/quote]

Well, sort of. You are talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It states that you cannot simultaneously know (i.e. cannot simultaineously measure) a particle’s velocity and position. Or, you can only know each to a limiting certainty: (delta_x)(delta_p) > h/2Pi, where x is position, p is momentum (which is a function of velocity), and h is Planck’s Constant.

However, let’s say we do a measurement of position: Quantum mechanics tells us that our particle will be in a superposition of many possible states, governed by probablistic rules, but when we measure the particle’s position, we just get ONE answer. So, through our measurement, whe have FORCED the particle to have a specific position. And of course, your first response should be (and rightly so) that the particle was at that position the whole time. However, this not the case, because if you do the experiment over and over again, with exactly the same setup, you will get different position measurements (and then you can make a histogram of the results, and see the probability distribution, i.e. your wavefunction (technically the square of your wavefunction)).

But, with respect to the uncertainty principle, once you make your measurement of position, ALL momentum infromation is destroyed!

These phenomena have given rise to a lot of philosophical discussions about the nature of reality, and the meaning of the probablisitic nature of QM.

582

[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
This is a very simple model of how free will and the absolute power of God can coexist and in fact it is all a semantic game on your part to create the dicotomies.

In your view, is God subject to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle?

[/quote]

God (except when he enters into creation) is not-he is the observer. He is not made out of matter so there is no uncertainty in any of his attributes (as mass is required for uncertainty calculations). His universe is subject to the uncertainty principal. Its the only way to allow free will and be all powerful.

Before we get into what it means to be “all powerful” can we all agree that:

A) humans have free will

and at least that

B) quantum uncertainty is a potential explanation of free will.

My “proof” for A is that if we have no free will, then the moment we conclude that we have no free will, we have to also conclude that we had no choice but to conclude that we had no free will, even if it is a completely illogical conclusion, and so logic fails and nothing can be proved.

583

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
In the theory of relativity, matter moves through space and time in conjunction at a finite rate. The faster matter moves, the less time passes. Light has no reference frame.

Not true! The true statement would be “Time passes slower for a moving observer with (observer A), according to the clocks of a stationary observer (observer B).” Time passes at its normal rate according to observer A.
…[/quote]

Your right in your statement of course. I am talking about the combined vector rate of movement through space AND time which is constant, but granted is not conventionally used.

This is based on a model that as the wavelength of light approaches the planck length, its mass will approach that of a black hole with a compton wavelength equal to the planck length. In other words, it will become a self-trapping singularity or quantum black hole if you wish. This is proved on the other thread by the way. When these black holes move relative to each other, they create wormholes, worm “pockets”, or gravitational wells depending on the orientation.

These are the fundamental particles of physics (I think). When they evaporate, they emit a photon. In this model, the only truly fundamental particles would be photons, and possibly time folds/wells, and space folds/wells that are caused by the gravity of the photons.

[quote]
Anyhow, since I really don’t want to bicker back and forth much more, I’d like to say that the idea of intelligent observers being the only collapsers of wavefunctions is interesting. What comes to mind is this: You set up an automatic Stern-Gerlach experiment, and send it off into space. It seems to me that the film (or whatever records the two beams of electrons), would still have two marks from the spin-up and spin-down electrons. Since a piece of film is a macroscopic object, I find it hard to claim that the record of collapsed wavefunctions isn’t there, regardless of any observers being present.

It seems to me that the experiment itself has collapsed the wavefunctions, not any observers. But you could argue that since intellingent observers created the experiment in the first place, then they somehow set the collapsing into motion just by setting up the experiment…[/quote]

I think that the current model would be that the experiment remains in a superposition until it is tested somehow.

(I know that light is light like, I said time becomes space-like, not light.)

584

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Jere’s one I found. (I just did a search on “wavefunction collapse”!)

OK this is a big one so try to follow. One of the first tenants of quantum physics is that any system exists only as a mathematical set of probabilities called the wave function until that system passes a state of irreversibility (something that causes one of the specific possible states to be “chosen” or to become real). The basic thing that quantum physicist described that caused a system to pass a state of irreversibility was for it to be observed by a mind capable of making a choice about what kinds of observations to make (ie an experiment). The implication was that it requires a mind advanced enough to chose to make a particular kind of observation (experiment) versus other observations to make the wave function of a system collapse and become “real” or in other words for one from the myriad of “probabilities” to become the real state. Some have argued that that’s okay, but the intelligent mind’s observation was already determined by or written in the laws of physics. The problem is that something called the “Bell theorem” proved that the laws of physics could not contain the information needed to determine which choice such an intelligent mind would choose, so the choice cannot be DETERMINED by even a complete evaluation of the laws of physics.

Now, the biggest system is the universe itself. The conclusion is that the entire universe existed only as a wave function outside of the boundary of an irreversible choice. So, the wave function containing all of the probabilities of the universe collapsed and became “real” only when it was first observed by a mind capable of choosing to make a particular observation versus others. The wave function then collapsed, propogating out at the speed of light from the point of the experiment.

In a real sense, it suggests the possibility that the universe became real (relative to us) when the first human being made the first choice observation. Again, in a real sense, the universe could have become “real” only a few thousand years ago, and still be billions of years old! The multidimensional “origin” of the universe need not be at time zero and wasn’t according to this model because time zero became real only when people started making choice observations. The other conclusion is that there was an outside observer who made the wave function collapse by caring to observe the mathematical wave function. This is not science fiction but perhaps the real ultimate question facing quantum physicists today.

From beginning to end BS. I like how you bastardized Bell’s Theorem so show that observers who wear ladies’ underwear on their head can see the true meaning of existence, or whatever. I mean, we all understand the probalistic nature of QM. Why do you have to use complicated explanations when a simple one would do just as fine?[/quote]

There are a lot of conjectures here, but it was intended as a conjecture. I think Pookie responded back then that there could be other causes of irreversibility-to which I agreed, but you can’t just throw a blanket BS out there when each separate point has a scientific foundation. If there are specific errors or questions in the conjecture let’s talk about them. That’s why I posted it back then.

585

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
Jere’s one I found. (I just did a search on “wavefunction collapse”!)

Okay, check me if I’m wrong here. The wavefunction collapse thing really goes back to one of the fundamental difficulties in dealing with particle measurements:

You cannot simultaneously measure the speed and the direction of a moving particle. (ie measuring the speed will alter the direction and vice versa).

Todd[/quote]

Not measurements, but actual quantities. The position and momentum of a particle cannot both BE precise at the same time.

586

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Matter/particles are composed of light which is bound by a force. There is a general tendancy in the universe for this light to become unbound. Once it becomes light, its reference frame is undefined and time ceases to be a valid variable for it.

Is this a reference to mass-energy equivalence? Matter is not “composed of” light, just as light isn’t “composed of” matter. Remember, in nuclear reactions, while some of the mass-energy is carried away by photons, some of it is carried away by neutrinos and other nuclei.
[/quote]

http://universe-review.ca/R01-07-quantumfoam.htm

587

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
Well, sort of. You are talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It states that you cannot simultaneously know (i.e. cannot simultaineously measure) a particle’s velocity and position. Or, you can only know each to a limiting certainty: (delta_x)(delta_p) > h/2Pi, where x is position, p is momentum (which is a function of velocity), and h is Planck’s Constant.

However, let’s say we do a measurement of position: Quantum mechanics tells us that our particle will be in a superposition of many possible states, governed by probablistic rules, but when we measure the particle’s position, we just get ONE answer. So, through our measurement, whe have FORCED the particle to have a specific position. And of course, your first response should be (and rightly so) that the particle was at that position the whole time. However, this not the case, because if you do the experiment over and over again, with exactly the same setup, you will get different position measurements (and then you can make a histogram of the results, and see the probability distribution, i.e. your wavefunction (technically the square of your wavefunction)).

But, with respect to the uncertainty principle, once you make your measurement of position, ALL momentum infromation is destroyed!

These phenomena have given rise to a lot of philosophical discussions about the nature of reality, and the meaning of the probablisitic nature of QM. [/quote]

Thank you for the explanation.

So, if we were to extend the reasoning to state that all animals (and plants and minerals for that matter) affect the actions of particles at all times, right? And, of course, any time a particle is acted upon, the wave function should collapse, if I’m not mistaken. Doesn’t this ultimately lead to “a tree falls in the woods” scenario? Just because an observer isn’t present (or the results aren’t directly measured in a lab) doesn’t mean that we should expect that the results of reactions should be any different.

How about this? For years people subscribed to the idea that the sky was a dome over the world. If human perceptions really had the ability to change reality, it should also work on the macro scale and all rockets ships and satellites should have bounced off the dome. Or maybe I’m just talking out my ass.

Todd

588

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Here’s one I found. (I just did a search on “wavefunction collapse”!)
[/quote]

Here’s a good site that presents many different models.

http://www.bowmain.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QM/Quantum_Reality.htm

589

[quote]pookie wrote:
haney wrote:
Yes, but He can’t keep that being from sinning if it has free will. Which means it is impossible to create a sinless free will being that can’t screw it up.

So we have something that is impossible for God to accomplish.

Also, since a free willed being will sin, as it is in it’s nature; is it fair to hold it against him?
[/quote]
I didn’t say that a free will being has sin in its nature.

I only know of one reference that you could use to go with that claim, and it is in 1 Kings. It gives a description of a vision a prophet had. The vision isn’t an actual meeting of God with Angels/agents at all merelt how Micaiah conveyed a message to the Ahab. If you know of another one than please let me know, and I will go from there.

Why not? You are taking the verse at face value.
There are several issues to consider.

  1. how old were the youth? (old enough to know better than to make fun of a prophet of God.)
  2. It is very possible they were a thuggish group that was into robery.

If you want to find out more Archer covers this in his book “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”

Not trying to tell you it is wrong. I am giving you my answers/descriptions of some hard topics. You either see it as possible or you don’t. I may not be doing the best job, then again you could just be extra tough on my descriptions.

Followers aren’t the only key to why I find it convincing. Merely one of the convincing parts.

sometimes, I will say that most cults like scientology don’t seem to have overcome the things Christianity did. They also don’t seem to have the same type of intelectual that the early Chruch had. Tom cruise isn’t the brightest guy.

You would be surprised what gets translated and confused. There is a verse in the NT which uses a greek word that specifically refere to the roman empire, and is translated in the english as World.

There is a big difference between the two.

It should stay, but most believers need an education in how to read the Bible. I am not avoiding it. The topics that you want to discuss could get side tracked if we chased that rabbit down the hole

I won’t!

Yeah, but God spun the wheel and just watched He didn’t place any bets.

don’t get me wrong I see where you are coming from. I have just reconciled this problem for myself. If you can do the same great. I hope you have a different perspective on this topic now. If not, well I tried.

This may just be an impassible subject.

I think that is a typical reaction/reasoning of a person who is trying to use logic to to persuade an atheist to his side. I don’t think many would actually go through with it. There might be a few, but we already thought they were nuts anyway.

[quote]
That would mean you read the Bible the way they do. :wink:

It could be. God should write what he means. With enough interpretation, you can make Nostradamus appear accurate.[/quote]
He does. It is just the last generation of believers is a take it for what it says type of group.

We follow the principle that the Bible clarifies the Bible ( or interprets the Bible). People now days instead of reading it for what the author is trying to convey to them (exagessis), they interpret it to what it means to them (isagessis). Interpretation isn’t so tough for the most part. There are a few places where some extra background info is required, but for its purpose it is pretty straight forward when you read it correctly.

You reading though, and a believer reading it are two different things. Remember we hold that the Holy Spirit reveals things to us. You wouldn’t have that convenience.

That is another topic though.

590

Pookie,

Ive got to address this point on your claim that the bible has errors. Your mentioned the flat earth, pie=3, sun revolving around the earth. I totally disagree and will answer these objections for you.

Flat earth:

Here is a online response to this accusation-Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four corners” of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun’s rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the “language of appearance,” just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. [DD]

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - “the circle of the earth.”

Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]

Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth “within 50 miles of the present estimate.” [Encyclopedia Brittanica]

The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]

The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth’s spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]

The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, “In that day,” then in verse 34, “In that night.” This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously. [JSM]

I have to take off but Ill answer the other objections when I get back.

591

Todd,

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
[…]
Overall, I think you and I agree more than we disagree, but thanks for keeping me honest. :stuck_out_tongue:

Todd[/quote]

We do. :wink:

Makkun

592

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
Here’s one I found. (I just did a search on “wavefunction collapse”!)

Here’s a good site that presents many different models.

http://www.bowmain.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QM/Quantum_Reality.htm
[/quote]

Pretty good.

Here’s another interesting one with lectures by Hans Bethe: http://bethe.cornell.edu/ for those who prefer video or audio to text.

593

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
In your view, is God subject to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle?

God (except when he enters into creation) is not-he is the observer. He is not made out of matter so there is no uncertainty in any of his attributes (as mass is required for uncertainty calculations). His universe is subject to the uncertainty principal. Its the only way to allow free will and be all powerful.[/quote]

So is that a yes or a no? :slight_smile:

It’s not clear.

You say “God is not”, that would mean “No, he’s not subject to HUP.”

Then you say “He is the observer.” Is that a yes now? It is the observer who can’t be certain of both position and motion.

As for what is God made out of, anything said about that cannot be other than pure speculation… Though on a philosophical basis, there is a lot of uncertitude about God. :slight_smile:

And you finally say His universe is subject to the HUP. Yes, but is God also bound by the HUP even if he’s not part of the Universe? And if He is bound by it, is it voluntary, or obligatory?

[quote]Before we get into what it means to be “all powerful” can we all agree that:

A) humans have free will[/quote]

Let’s assume so.

[quote]and at least that

B) quantum uncertainty is a potential explanation of free will.[/quote]

That point is a bit more difficult to evalute. QM, as succesfull as it is as a theory, is not without weird unresolved questions. In many of your posts involving QM, you seem to take the stance that’s its pretty much the “final word” in physics and that we can safely assume that “reality” perfectly conforms to QM.

Depending on which interpretation of QM one chooses to apply, the waveform goes from being real to simply virtual, the observer varies from a conscious entity to simply the classical-quantum boundary, etc.

QM, to this day, remains irreconcilable with Relativity; and Gravity is still not well understood (notwithstanding overenthusiatic String Theorists). Basically, there remains a lot of work to be done in regards to understanding our universe or “reality.”

So any discussion of omnipotence or free will involving QM will be subject to myriads of questions and/or doubts about QM’s interpretations. Basically, for any point made by either side, there will always be an “exit door” available.

But still, give us the gist of your argument and we’ll see where that takes us.

Hmmm. A bit shaky; it’s like that “God is perfect - Existence is a perfection - ergo God exists” proof. Sounds good, but does not really “prove” anything.

For those who like those types of “proofs”:

Over 300 proof of God’s existence: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

and

Over 300 disproof of God’s existence: http://www.tektonics.org/guest/300proof.html

Those are in mostly tongue-in-cheek, but a few are interesting to ponder.

594

[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
In your view, is God subject to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle?

God (except when he enters into creation) is not-he is the observer. He is not made out of matter so there is no uncertainty in any of his attributes (as mass is required for uncertainty calculations). His universe is subject to the uncertainty principal. Its the only way to allow free will and be all powerful.

So is that a yes or a no? :slight_smile:
[/quote]
It depends on what you mean by “subject to” and which QM interpretation you accept. My viewpoint could change, but I currently see the experimental object as being subject to uncertainty. It is not a limit in our ability to observe, it is a limit in the actual ability of a particle to HAVE a precise momentum and position, in my opinion. So we can work on this, but for now I guess I’d say that

  1. There is an inherent uncertainty in our future/in the “outcome” of the universe.
    2)The uncertainty is real.
  2. It is not a limit on God’s ability to observe, it is merely a limit on an objects ability to be.

It is the object being observed that cannot HAVE a certain position and momentum.

I think that based on my description of uncertainty inhering in the object being observed, this question goes away. He chose to create a universe that has uncertainty.

I agree that our understanding is insufficient to say that consciousness causes collapse/reality, but we both agree on human free will-that we make choices, and we have no other proposed mechanism of choice.

Although I’ll buy that it doesn’t prove free will, its not a tautology or a play on words at all like the examples you present. I would say that it shows that logic is invalid in a deterministic universe, but since we both agree that we have free will, let’s not worry about that. In fact, I would say that the argument against God’s existence (that he can’t be “all powerful” and still allow free will) is a play on words. It shows that our words are limited. Let’s define free will?
[/quote]

595

Why did God allow men to write the Bible? Couldn’t he have avoided all the confusion by carving the whole bible into the side of a mountain? He carved the “Ten Commandments” on to a stone, why not everything else.

Speaking of the “Ten Commandments”, why did God only give them to the Jews? Shouldn’t he have given a similar tablet to all the major cicilizations, or at least write the “Ten Commandment” in all the major languages of the time?