Does God play dice?

[Furrowed Brow]

So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

Hawking is talking about the uncertainty principle viz., it is is not possible to exactly know both the position and momentum of a particle.

Does anyone still deny the uncertainty principle? Not sure if they do. Let's test that.

Does belief in an omniscient God contradict the uncertainty principle?
Can the uncertainty principle be true and there still be God?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 12 by Guy Threepwood]

I simply refuse to believe in any invented natural causes for the universe, until proven otherwise.

In my view, hypotheses regarding natural causes are generally NOT beliefs.

Beliefs are what people have for imagined supernatural causes.

And are often invented by imaginative people as answers to causes they can't otherwise formulate natural hypotheses for.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Furrowed Brow]

Does belief in an omniscient God contradict the uncertainty principle?

I think the uncertainty principle is related to not being omniscient, therefore the principle is understood from that perspective.

As to belief in an omniscient God contradicting the uncertainty principle, I do not see how it should do, as it would not apply to an omniscient being, even that it would apply to beings who are not. Whether they believe in such a being or not has no bearing on that.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 21 by StuartJ]

In my view, hypotheses regarding natural causes are generally NOT beliefs.

Like steady state, , healing magnets/ crystals etc, string theory, phrenology, big crunch, telegony, trepanation, global warming/cooling (whichever you don't currently believe in) , Piltdown man, multiverses, Nessie, bloodletting/ leeches?

Beliefs are what people have for imagined supernatural causes.

And are often invented by imaginative people as answers to causes they can't otherwise formulate natural hypotheses for.

'can't otherwise formulate natural hypotheses for.' is how they concluded the Rosetta stone was the result of intelligent design, or how forensic scientists and archaeologists do their work

is this all 'supernatural' reasoning?

If you consider creative intelligence itself 'supernatural' I would agree in a sense- it transcends what nature can otherwise achieve.

The Big Bang was considered supernatural pseudo-science by many atheists for this same reason- the intelligent design implications they saw in such a specific creation event. While phrenology for example was touted as 'the purest form of science'

So the far more interesting question is not whether a theory is currently classified under 'supernaturalism' or 'materialsim'.. or 'science' or 'pseudo-science'... but whether it is actually 'true' or 'untrue'

would you not agree?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 23 by Guy Threepwood]

The English language needs a word other than "belief"

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 23 by Guy Threepwood]

The English language needs a word other than "belief"

Well we all have lots of them, & as long as we recognize them as such, we can all get along.

Declaring beliefs 'undeniable truth' , 'proven fact' is where the problems usually begin, would you not agree?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 23 by Guy Threepwood]

The English language needs a word other than "belief"

Well we all have lots of them, & as long as we recognize them as such, we can all get along.

Declaring beliefs 'undeniable truth' , 'proven fact' is where the problems usually begin, would you not agree?

I do not have ANY beliefs.

Accepting gravity as a plausible theory is NOT a belief - IMHO.

Accepting Jesus as the creator of the universe IS a belief - IMHO

We should NOT use the same word for both - IMHO

I have a neologism - a portmanteau - that I shall offer for consideration in due course.

I love language and its evolution.

Evolution is such a marvellous phenomenon ...

Would you not agree ...?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 23 by Guy Threepwood]

The English language needs a word other than "belief"

Well we all have lots of them, & as long as we recognize them as such, we can all get along.

Declaring beliefs 'undeniable truth' , 'proven fact' is where the problems usually begin, would you not agree?

I do not have ANY beliefs.

Accepting gravity as a plausible theory is NOT a belief - IMHO.

Accepting Jesus as the creator of the universe IS a belief - IMHO

We should NOT use the same word for both - IMHO

I have a neologism - a portmanteau - that I shall offer for consideration in due course.

I love language and its evolution.

Evolution is such a marvellous phenomenon ...

Would you not agree ...?

It sure is, the word 'marvelous' even grew another L !

But that's okay, let him without aim cast the first stone as they say..


We agree gravity is a plausible theory
we can observe physical apples falling from trees

we agree adaptation is a plausible theory
we can observe genetic apples falling not far from their trees also

The belief that both superficial observations, can be extrapolated into comprehensive explanations, were both beliefs of a Victorian age/ classical view of reality

Science has evolved a long way since then!

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 27 by Guy Threepwood]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... marvellous

In Oz, our honourable defence against those who criticise our British spelling is to make a connexion with humour. 😊

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 27 by Guy Threepwood]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... marvellous

In Oz, our honourable defence against those who criticise our British spelling is to make a connexion with humour. 😊

C'mon, getting rid of all those redundant pommy letters was half the point of independence - keeping them would be almost like keeping the queen on your money!!


But I do stand corrected: Apparently 'Marvellous' lost a letter, it didn't gain one

That's evolution for you!

[mgb]

Bohr said it is meaningless to say where a particle is unless it is detected. In fact it is 'nowhere'.
Uncertainty is about where the particle is in classical spacetime. (Likewise with the 'randomness' of radioactive decay.)
There are two universes, the Classical universe of macroscopic objects and the quantum universe of 'particles'.
From a geometric point of view these are essentially two distinct spacetimes; particles live in one and large objects live in the other.
This seems to resolve what Bohr said about detection; it is meaningless to say where the particle is until it is detected. In this case 'where' is referring to a position in classical spacetime. But the particle is not in classical spacetime, it is located in quantum spacetime (both spacetimes are in the same local, ontological space, 'here', but they are geometrically distinct.)

So uncertainty is about where the particle is in terms of a position in classical spacetime. In the spirit of what Bohr said we might say it is 'nowhere' because it is not in classical spacetime at all. When the particle is detected it is because it leaves a trace effect in classical spacetime (eg, a spot on a photographic plate). But this trace effect is a classical object and we might point at the trace effect and say 'it was there'. But again, 'there' is a position classical spacetime. All that is really there is a trace effect. And as such it is necessarily a classical object. As for the particle - it was never really 'there'. It lives in its own spacetime.

So when it comes to uncertainty, the uncertainty is with respect to classical spacetime, and that poses problems and questions; if we can't say where it was in classical spacetime, we have even bigger problems saying where it is in quantum spacetime, because we don't yet know the structure of quantum, n-dimensional spacetime.

In short, no, none of this makes a jot of a difference to God. To ask the correct question, or to decide if there even is a question, you need to get into quanum spacetime. But you can't do that because you are a classical object.