Quantum Mechanics and Omniscience

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Prove it.

The universe is expanding away from us. (Every point is expanding away from every other point.) Recent cosmological observations have shown the speed of this expansion to be proportional to the distance from the observed object. At a distance exceeding about 14 billion light years, things would be moving away from us faster than the speed of light. (This does not violate special relativity, BTW.) This means that anything outside this 14 or so billion light year bubble is forever causally isolated from us, as causality moves at light speed. Causal connection is required for observation.

Wouldn't that place such things outside this causal bubble outside the Universe?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Odds are good that when the future becomes the present, nothing weird will happen, true. But it's happened before, and will probably happen again eventually.

The properties of time have changed before?

At least once.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Wouldn't that place such things outside this causal bubble outside the Universe?

It depends on what you mean by universe. I can't prove my statement earlier, because what we are discussing isn't based on a disagreement about physical facts. We are simply not using the same terminology.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

That's what troubles me. Does the Universe consist of everything observed, or everything observable?

More than the above.

Prove it.

What about the unobservable? Like, dark matter, for instance. Scientists think it's out there, but they can't find it, even though they say it makes up 95% (citation needed? ) of our universe.

Just because it hasn't been observed doesn't make it unobservable.

But it is unobserved in the present time. Which brings us back to the past vs. present vs. future argument.

But it's observable in the present time.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Odds are good that when the future becomes the present, nothing weird will happen, true. But it's happened before, and will probably happen again eventually.

The properties of time have changed before?

At least once.

If you are referring to the Big Bang, I don't see how time was affected by that.

[Zykorinov]

That's what troubles me. Does the Universe consist of everything observed, or everything observable?

More than the above.

Prove it.

What about the unobservable? Like, dark matter, for instance. Scientists think it's out there, but they can't find it, even though they say it makes up 95% (citation needed? ) of our universe.

Just because it hasn't been observed doesn't make it unobservable.

But it is unobserved in the present time. Which brings us back to the past vs. present vs. future argument.

But it's observable in the present time.

But not from a scientific standpoint. You may be able to see it, but you don't know what it is/can't explain it, so it doesn't exist in scientific terms.

[Kagetora]

Well doesn't the mere definition of omniscience trump any parameters for quantum physics scientists come up with?

Just sayin'...

Not really. The very idea of omnipotence simply doesn't fit with an indeterminate universe. If god is truly omnipotent, then it is simply the case that the universe is deterministic.

*after a flurry of Wikipedia searches...*

Why would God's omnipotence have an effect on whether the universe is deterministic or not?

If he knows the absolute course the future will take then there is no chance in anything. It is entirely deterministic.

But why would God's knowing of the future have an effect on the universe itself (assuming God did nothing to intervene otherwise)?
EDIT-- Just because God supposedly knows how the future will play out doesn't mean that his omnipotence/omniscience determined how it would.

Just popping in and popping out, but one thing here.

If God were merely omniscient, this would be true. However, God is also the creator. Creating something and knowing exactly how it will happen means that you determined that something would happen.

That's my two cents.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

What do you mean by the "properties" of time?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Wouldn't that place such things outside this causal bubble outside the Universe?

It depends on what you mean by universe. I can't prove my statement earlier, because what we are discussing isn't based on a disagreement about physical facts. We are simply not using the same terminology.

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that there's no way to discern the boundary between the Universe and the Observable Universe in much the same way that it's impossible to see beyond the present and for the same reason; causality. Further I'm suggesting that assuming something does exist in the Universe or in the future beyond that limit of perception is baseless.

..unless effect can precede cause. Something that interests me immensely.

[Zykorinov]

Odds are good that when the future becomes the present, nothing weird will happen, true. But it's happened before, and will probably happen again eventually.

The properties of time have changed before?

At least once.

If you are referring to the Big Bang, I don't see how time was affected by that.

Also a possibility: Collapse of the Vacuum. It is possible that another, even more stable kind of vacuum exists, however. As the universe expands and cools, tiny bubbles of this new kind of vacuum might appear and spread at nearly the speed of light. The laws of physics would change in their wake, and a blast of energy would dash everything to bits.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Odds are good that when the future becomes the present, nothing weird will happen, true. But it's happened before, and will probably happen again eventually.

The properties of time have changed before?

At least once.

If you are referring to the Big Bang, I don't see how time was affected by that.

Well, it's kind of hard to tell how time was effected by it, because our dimension of time was created by it. There is no way of knowing what time was like(or if there even was time) before that point. All we can assume with reasonable safety is that it changed.

[Buffett and Colbert]

What do you mean by the "properties" of time?

That the nature of time has changed (at least once) as LG is saying...

But tbqh, I have only the faintest inkling of what I'm talking about. I'm just here for the ride...

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that there's no way to discern the boundary between the Universe and the Observable Universe in much the same way that it's impossible to see beyond the present and for the same reason; causality. Further I'm suggesting that assuming something does exist in the Universe or in the future beyond that limit of perception is baseless.

..unless effect can precede cause. Something that interests me immensely.

There might not be anything beyond the edge of observation now, but there will be eventually. A long (extremely long) time from now, those Hubble deep field objects will have crossed our cosmic event horizon.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that there's no way to discern the boundary between the Universe and the Observable Universe in much the same way that it's impossible to see beyond the present and for the same reason; causality. Further I'm suggesting that assuming something does exist in the Universe or in the future beyond that limit of perception is baseless.

..unless effect can precede cause. Something that interests me immensely.

There might not be anything beyond the edge of observation now, but there will be eventually. A long (extremely long) time from now, those Hubble deep field objects will have crossed our cosmic event horizon.

They'll move beyond our causal bubble?

[Zykorinov]

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that there's no way to discern the boundary between the Universe and the Observable Universe in much the same way that it's impossible to see beyond the present and for the same reason; causality. Further I'm suggesting that assuming something does exist in the Universe or in the future beyond that limit of perception is baseless.

..unless effect can precede cause. Something that interests me immensely.

There might not be anything beyond the edge of observation now, but there will be eventually. A long (extremely long) time from now, those Hubble deep field objects will have crossed our cosmic event horizon.

They'll move beyond our causal bubble?

Which means they are no longer in the realm of our "reality"?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

They'll move beyond our causal bubble?

Yeah.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

They'll move beyond our causal bubble?

Yeah.

Weird.

[Derscon]

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that there's no way to discern the boundary between the Universe and the Observable Universe in much the same way that it's impossible to see beyond the present and for the same reason; causality. Further I'm suggesting that assuming something does exist in the Universe or in the future beyond that limit of perception is baseless.

..unless effect can precede cause. Something that interests me immensely.

There might not be anything beyond the edge of observation now, but there will be eventually. A long (extremely long) time from now, those Hubble deep field objects will have crossed our cosmic event horizon.

They'll move beyond our causal bubble?

Which means they are no longer in the realm of our "reality"?

I like where this is going...

Or am I going where this is liked...

Or this is going where I liked it, or it went where I will like it three years ago

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Also a possibility: Collapse of the Vacuum. It is possible that another, even more stable kind of vacuum exists, however. As the universe expands and cools, tiny bubbles of this new kind of vacuum might appear and spread at nearly the speed of light. The laws of physics would change in their wake, and a blast of energy would dash everything to bits.

And if the energy doesn't do it, the whole "laws of physics are now different" thing would kill things pretty dead.

[Hydesland]

You all forgot to define time.

A quantity similar to the dimensions of space except that it's covariant and contravariant components don't switch sign.

That doesn't really sound like a meaningful definition. That's just a mathematical property.

[Buffett and Colbert]

They'll move beyond our causal bubble?

Yeah.

Weird.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Gotta run. I hope I bent some minds.

[Zykorinov]

Also a possibility: Collapse of the Vacuum. It is possible that another, even more stable kind of vacuum exists, however. As the universe expands and cools, tiny bubbles of this new kind of vacuum might appear and spread at nearly the speed of light. The laws of physics would change in their wake, and a blast of energy would dash everything to bits.

And if the energy doesn't do it, the whole "laws of physics are now different" thing would kill things pretty dead.

True. But then an "all powerful, all seeing god" would miraculously start the progression of life once again, and someday there would be people posting on the NationStates forums once more. Ya know.. in theory..

[Zykorinov]

We shall now lay this benevolent thread to rest, to be resumed tomorrow.

[Tahar Joblis]

Much like omnipotence being carefully defined as being able to do anything which can be done, omniscience can be carefully redefined as knowing everything which can be known.