Physics

[elijah23]

If God can do anything why can't he make a stone so heavy that he can't move it? :crazy

If you put earth or Mars on a flat surface, they probably would be difficult to pick up.

 

[jasoncran]

If God can do anything why can't he make a stone so heavy that he can't move it? :crazy

oh please,

that question is illogical as if one is all powerful then how can one make something so heavy that you cant move it.

 

[logical bob]

If God can do anything why can't he make a stone so heavy that he can't move it? :crazy

Does it seem to you that God would find heavy things harder to move than light things?

 

[logical bob]

Did the Lord create laws of physics and then just sit back and watch them work, interfering only when he sees fit, or does he himself cause everything to happen?

That's a good question. I think the former option is more plausible because we find causes in nature. If I throw a rock through a window, it's the impact of the rock that causes the glass to break. If I get flu, it's the viruses that cause it. The electric current flowing through the light bulb causes it to light up. It doesn't seem necessary to say that as well as these causes, God makes these things happen. God is redundant here, there's nothing left for him to do.

God is more plausible as an architect or initiator than as the direct cause of everything.

 

[jasoncran]

then he is smaller then the universe, who can something create the universe when said creator is bound the same rules as the universe.

the lord set the universe in order, and the laws are how he decided it should operate.

 

[izzy]

Did the Lord create laws of physics and then just sit back and watch them work, interfering only when he sees fit, or does he himself cause everything to happen?

That's a good question. I think the former option is more plausible because we find causes in nature. If I throw a rock through a window, it's the impact of the rock that causes the glass to break. If I get flu, it's the viruses that cause it. The electric current flowing through the light bulb causes it to light up. It doesn't seem necessary to say that as well as these causes, God makes these things happen. God is redundant here, there's nothing left for him to do.

God is more plausible as an architect or initiator than as the direct cause of everything.

What you are referring to, logical bob, is known as classical mechanics or Newtonian physics. On the macroscopic level, Newtonian physics describes most of what we see on a daily basis in terms of cause and effect and forces. It falls apart, however, when we enter the realm of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Light can be described as both an electromagnetic wave or as a particle. In fact, all material things have a wave component, but usually it is too imperceptible to matter (see Schroedinger's wave equations). Whether light is a wave or a particle depends on what kind of experiment one is running, because it could be either. In fact, it appears that there needs to be an observer or experimenter to define what is the reality of the situation. Schroedinger explained it with an analogy:

Schrödinger's Cat: A cat, along with a flask containing a poison and a radioactive source, is placed in a sealed box shielded against environmentally induced quantum decoherence. If an internal Geiger counter detects radiation, the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. It is both alive and dead until an observer determines the reality.

Here is an excerpt from an online article that summarizes this principle quite wellhttp://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html:

The notion of the observer becoming a part of the observed system is fundamentally new in physics. In quantum physics, the observer is no longer external and neutral, but through the act of measurement he becomes himself a part of observed reality. This marks the end of the neutrality of the experimenter. It also has huge implications on the epistemology of science: certain facts are no longer objectifiable in quantum theory. If in an exact science, such as physics, the outcome of an experiment depends on the view of the observer, then what does this imply for other fields of human knowledge? It would seem that in any faculty of science, there are different interpretations of the same phenomena. More often than occasionally, these interpretations are in conflict with each other. Does this mean that ultimate truth is unknowable?

The results of quantum theory, and particularly of Heisenberg's work, left scientists puzzled. Many felt that quantum theory had somehow "missed the point". At least Albert Einstein did so. He was an outspoken critic of quantum mechanics and is often quoted on his comment regarding the Uncertainty Principle: "The Old One (God) doesn't play dice." He also said: "I like to believe that the moon is still there even if we don't look at it." In particular, Einstein was convinced that electrons do have definite orbits, even if we cannot observe them.

The two philosophies seem incompatible at first. Heisenberg is in good company with famous contenders of idealistic positions, such Plato, Schopenhauer, and Husserl, but so is Albert Einstein. If we take Heisenberg's view for granted, strict causality is broken, or better: the past and future events of particles are indeterminate. One cannot calculate the precise future motion of a particle, but only a range of possibilities. Physics loses its grip. The dream of physicists, to be able to predict any future event in the universe based on its present state, meets its certain death.

If we regard reality as that which can be observed by all, we have to find that there is no objective movement of an electron around the nucleus. This viewpoint would imply that reality is created by the observer; in other words: if we take Heisenberg literally, the moon is not there when nobody is looking at it. However, we must consider the possibility that there is a subatomic reality independent of observation and that the electron may have an actual trajectory which cannot be measured. The moon may be there after all. This conflict is the philosophical essence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Relativity and quantum theory are inconsonant up to the present day, despite great efforts in creating a unified theory capable of accommodating both views. After having published his papers on Relativity, Einstein dedicated the rest of his life to working on such a unified field theory, yet without success. The physicists who followed his lead developed a new model called string theory during the 1970s and 1980s. String theory was successful to some extent in providing a mathematical model that integrates the strong and the weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravitation. In spite of this, it cannot yet be called a breakthrough, because (1) the theory has not been corroborated thoroughly by observational evidence; and (2) there is not one, but five competing string theories. The latter point has recently been addressed by M-theory, a theory that unites existing string theories in 11 dimensions.

Personally, I think quantum mechanics has helped the Christian position, not hindered it. If an observer is truly needed to create reality, then it makes sense that God would have to be the original mind and original observer who not only defines reality, but upholds and sustains the universe on a continual basis because he is the only omnipresent observer.

OK, I realize this stuff is way out there, but I just want you to realize that classical mechanics is not the be all and end all.

 

[jasoncran]

i havent heard schodeingers cat in a while

 

[logical bob]

Personally, I think quantum mechanics has helped the Christian position, not hindered it. If an observer is truly needed to create reality, then it makes sense that God would have to be the original mind and original observer who not only defines reality, but upholds and sustains the universe on a continual basis because he is the only omnipresent observer.

Relativity and QM both imply that there is no such thing as objectivity. Relativity means that what you observe depends on your position and velocity. There is no priveleged "objective" viewpoint from which one sees things as they really are. In QM the act of observing a system changes it, so there is no answer to the question "what is the system really like?" To invoke God as an omnipresent observer is to flinch away from these insights. It is clinging to the old idea that there must somehow be objectivity because we find the alternative uncomfortable.

Since that's a bit heavy, here's a QM joke. A cop pulls Heisenberg over for speeding. "Do you know how fast you were going?" "No," says Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I was."

 

[kpd560]

If God can do anything why can't he make a stone so heavy that he can't move it? :crazy

oh please,

that question is illogical as if one is all powerful then how can one make something so heavy that you cant move it.

Very good Jason, it's meant to show that omnipotence is illogical because there is no logical answer.

 

[jasoncran]

no, that wasnt meant to be that way. dawkins believe that the universe is eternal, if i'm not mistaken

so god created its bad, universe self existing, ok? odd

 

[logical bob]

Hi Jason. I'm afraid I didn't fully understand what you typed there, but I can tell you that Dawkins definitely doesn't think the universe is eternal. I'm pretty sure he'd go with the scientific consensus that it's about 13.7 billion years old.

 

[jasoncran]

Hi Jason. I'm afraid I didn't fully understand what you typed there, but I can tell you that Dawkins definitely doesn't think the universe is eternal. I'm pretty sure he'd go with the scientific consensus that it's about 13.7 billion years old.

he states that the universe is eternal, THAT is his opinion. unless you seem to think that studying nothing did it, and we can learn about how nothing did it, seems logical.

 

[logical bob]

he states that the universe is eternal, THAT is his opinion.

No, seriously, he doesn't. Do you have a source for that?

 

[jasoncran]

i standed corrected, but he does state that aliens seeded the earth.

 

[kpd560]

i standed corrected, but he does state that aliens seeded the earth.

No Jason, he says that it's possible that aliens seeded the earth, a subtle but important distinction.
Do you think it's possible that intelligent life exists other than us?

 

[jasoncran]

no, not outside the bible definition of creator, angels and demons.

 

[izzy]

Since that's a bit heavy, here's a QM joke. A cop pulls Heisenberg over for speeding. "Do you know how fast you were going?" "No," says Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I was."

lol. That's a good one. :rolling

There is no priveleged "objective" viewpoint from which one sees things as they really are. In QM the act of observing a system changes it, so there is no answer to the question "what is the system really like?" To invoke God as an omnipresent observer is to flinch away from these insights. It is clinging to the old idea that there must somehow be objectivity because we find the alternative uncomfortable.

Question. If light is a wave in one system and a particle in the other, does that contradict itself? Isn't it still an objective proposition to state that light is both a particle and a wave? If, in your example of relativity,one observer traveling at a certain speed and another standing stationary see different things, those differences are still connected by mathematical formulas and constants such as the speed of light that create a larger cohesive picture. They are not separate realities, but pieces of reality.

I've taken physical chemistry in university, but I have to admit, I'm still quite lost when it comes to the philosophy of quantum mechanics. As far as I've seen, there are a few interpretations out there and no real conclusions. Is the observer just part of the system and therefore no longer objective, or does the system require Mind to make it real? I still hold to an objective reality stemming from God, but that is due fundamentally to my a priori or basic assumptions about the universe, just like saying that there is no objective truth would be based on a totally different a priori. So if you're a naturalist, your basic assumption would be that the material world is all that exists. Question is, does this basic assumption give you a worldview that actually works? For instance, do good and evil exist? If so, wouldn't this be an objective reality that exists outside of time and changing society?

 

[logical bob]

If light is a wave in one system and a particle in the other, does that contradict itself? Isn't it still an objective proposition to state that light is both a particle and a wave?

No easy answers. It might suggest that light is something that behaves like a particle in some situations and like a wave in others. That would make it something that we currently have no simple way of imagining or understanding. You can see the appeal of the Copenhagen interpretation here: use the results to predict what our future observations will be and avoid the philosophical questions about what things "really" are.

If, in your example of relativity,one observer traveling at a certain speed and another standing stationary see different things, those differences are still connected by mathematical formulas and constants such as the speed of light that create a larger cohesive picture. They are not separate realities, but pieces of reality.

Absolutely. But suppose you have two events, event A and event B. There are situations in which an observer in one position will see A happen before B, a second observer in another position will see them happening at the same time and a third will see B happen before A. What this means is that there is no correct, objective answer to the question of which happened first - it's relative to the observer.

It seems to me that to invoke God as an omnipresent observer at this point is to stick one's head in the sand and say there must be an objective answer. I see no reason to do this rather than to follow through the implications of relativity even if they do sometimes defy our intuitions.

I've taken physical chemistry in university, but I have to admit, I'm still quite lost when it comes to the philosophy of quantum mechanics. As far as I've seen, there are a few interpretations out there and no real conclusions. Is the observer just part of the system and therefore no longer objective, or does the system require Mind to make it real?

Everyone's lost. In the words of Richard Feynmann: "If you think you understand QM, you don't."

I still hold to an objective reality stemming from God, but that is due fundamentally to my a priori or basic assumptions about the universe, just like saying that there is no objective truth would be based on a totally different a priori.

Well, I don't think scientists set out with an assumption that there is no objective truth. These results are deeply disturbing to many; Einstein famously never came to terms with QM. It's more that a lack of objective truth was discovered.

Anyway, you're honest in saying that you've made up your mind a priori, but isn't the answer supposed to come at the end of the inquiry, not the beginning?

So if you're a naturalist, your basic assumption would be that the material world is all that exists.

Not necessarily. But if you find that the material world seems to be a closed system, to work on its own without needing any supernatural or external stimulus, then a non-material reality starts to look like a possibility, but not a necessity.

Question is, does this basic assumption give you a worldview that actually works? For instance, do good and evil exist? If so, wouldn't this be an objective reality that exists outside of time and changing society?

I don't think you should expect to derive morality from science. These are two very different sets of questions and past attempts to mix the two have resulted in unfortunate things like social Darwinism and eugenics.

 

[Andrew]

I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for you have kept these things hidden from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children. Yes Father, for it was your good pleasure to do so.
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things-and the things that are not-to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before Him.
For in Him, and by Him, and through Him; all things were created and have their being, both things in heaven and things on earth.

 

[jasoncran]

I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for you have kept these things hidden from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children. Yes Father, for it was your good pleasure to do so.
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things-and the things that are not-to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before Him.
For in Him, and by Him, and through Him; all things were created and have their being, both things in heaven and things on earth.

that's fine and truthful, but one can look at the universe and see God.

however, are you implying that the search for the creator is fruitless. while the naturalist maynot believe in God , some are sincerly wanting to find out why we are here.