Re: God Vs Science

Posted by Pasti on Mar 14, 2004 at 15:39

Re: God Vs Science (Measurement)

D.A.Morgan:"If an entity knows everything [THAT CAN BE KNOWN] it cant't learn anything new, it can't discover something, there can not be any conceivable situation in which it doesn't already know the outcome, and therefore ... it can not think."

Measurement:"Now, ignoring the [logical] probability that no such being as a J/C god exists, consider again your statement if modified only by my bolded edit and in consideration of quantum uncertainty."

Let's consider now Dan's modified statement,incorporating the concept pf quantum uncertainty.

It is my guess that what you wanted to say (and do correct me if I am wrong)was that Dan's statement, with your emphasis, in fact proves that such an entity, if it existed, could not apriorically know everything, because quantum uncertainty would principially prevent that.

I am not trying to defend Dan,or religion or anything like that, but the conundrum is worth debating.Bear with me, if you don't mind.

Let's consider a quantum particle, never mind which,WHICH PROPAGATES FROM A TO B.And let's focus on it's trajectory.According to the uncertainty principle(and disregarding the fact that the measurement process influences the state of the particle)at any moment in time you cannot exactly measure the momentum and position, or the energy.

So,along this line of reasoning,at every moment in time you DO NOT accurately know either of its position,momentum or energy, which means, among other that you don't know its trajectory.And if you don't know it's trajectory, you actually don't know if it started from A and it in fact it will arrive to be.In fact, you don't even know it is moving.Which means that in fact, starting with a definite motion,you have arrived at the conclusion that this motion could in fact not happen.So you have prettymuch hit a contradiction.
(this is one of the classical examples of contradictions in QM).

The reason for this contradiction is that you assume you could KNOW MORE than quantum mechanics is able to tell you, or that there is more to be known about the particle at every instant than quantum mechanics tells you.You are using classical concepts to understand quantum objects,and this is incorrect.

What quantum mechanics tells you IS everything there is to be known,at least according to the Copenhagen school of thought).Moreover,you could measure alternatively the position and the momentum, and you could interpolate a trajectory, for example.But quantum mechanics is nicer than that.The trajectory doesn't matter really, what matters is just the transition amplitude between initial and final states, the latter appropriately defined,which amplitude at a higher level in QED is given by the average of the propagator between these initial and final states.

The reason of this exercise si the following.Accepting this interpretation of quantum mechanics, it doesn't really matter if you consider quantum uncertainty relative to Dan's statement, since even with this quantum uncertainty,is possible to have complete knowledge as QM gives it to you.

And in fact, incorporating quantum uncertainty in the context of Dan's statement,does not prevent the above entity, if it existed, to know everything.

I am not sure how clear the argument is,but the bottom line is that in fact,using the basic assumptions and premises of quantum mechanics, you cannot invoke quantum uncertainty to prove that such an entity cannot apriorically exist.
The argument is not correct.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]