Could a World Creator's Prescience be limited to statistics?

[Yagon]

Suppose a being or array of beings decided to create a universe.

Please note at the outset, I do not claim our universe is deliberately created in any way. Rather, I suppose a universe (not necessarily ours) with being(s) who learn to create universes, and imagine they create one (not ours, necessarily).

As creators of that universe, they might claim some status as its Creator God.

In many belief systems, Creator Gods can grant Prophecy and see the future.

Could a being powerful enough to create a universe still be limited by data and ultimately only construct a mathematical model of all possible outocmes and their comparative likelihoods?

Could such a God see only possible futures, but never beyond choices that haven't been made? Never know which will be the outcome, except the way a bookie does?

Would such a thing still be God?

[Kartofian]

No,

Creating the universe implies that that being also created the laws for governing said universe (gravity, weak and strong nuclear etc.) and all the matter in the universe. In theory a being like that would not be limited to knowing a multitude of possible mathematical outcomes, but would rather be aware of the one and only outcome.

[Bombadil]

I now imagine God getting bogged down in a debate about biased statistics and studies in NSG..

[User Control Panel]

Congratulations. You have found a way to somehow make a thread's title worthy of TL;DR. Most impressive.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I mean. Depends
If they natives the universe into existence, they would be theoretically omnipotent
If they somehow sciences it together they’d be limited by their knowledge

[Ethel mermania]

I mean. Depends
If they natives the universe into existence, they would be theoretically omnipotent
If they somehow sciences it together they’d be limited by their knowledge

I think you are on to something. It depends on the narrative.

I would think the creators have the powers they have, and it's outside the scope of the creation itself. So what the end result of their abilities, I don't think is predictable

[Ethel mermania]

I now imagine God getting bogged down in a debate about biased statistics and studies in NSG..

Ugh, you have no idea.

[Valrifell]

No,

Creating the universe implies that that being also created the laws for governing said universe (gravity, weak and strong nuclear etc.) and all the matter in the universe. In theory a being like that would not be limited to knowing a multitude of possible mathematical outcomes, but would rather be aware of the one and only outcome.

Not necessarily. You can create the start points of a given system and the rules that would define it and get a completely unexpected result, eventually. Sure, at first you could pretty accurately guesstimate, but with a system as complex as the Universe, after a certain point God is rolling dice.

[Kartofian]

No,

Creating the universe implies that that being also created the laws for governing said universe (gravity, weak and strong nuclear etc.) and all the matter in the universe. In theory a being like that would not be limited to knowing a multitude of possible mathematical outcomes, but would rather be aware of the one and only outcome.

Not necessarily. You can create the start points of a given system and the rules that would define it and get a completely unexpected result, eventually. Sure, at first you could pretty accurately guesstimate, but with a system as complex as the Universe, after a certain point God is rolling dice.

I still disagree. If a being creating the universe is different than me or you creating a system. I can throw a pizza of of a rooftoop and have only a vague notion of what is going to happen. Add a supercomputer to the equation and I might be able to roughly predict the trajectory and the landing of the pizza.

A being that creates the universe- necessarily creates the physical matter of the universe and the laws that govern how that matter interacts (or doesn't) with itself. Having this absolute knowledge (vs mine, and humanity's, ultimately limited understanding of the universe) means that that being must know exactly what the outcome of the system will be. Not the probability of several possible outcomes, but knowing a single inevitable outcome.

[Ethel mermania]

Not necessarily. You can create the start points of a given system and the rules that would define it and get a completely unexpected result, eventually. Sure, at first you could pretty accurately guesstimate, but with a system as complex as the Universe, after a certain point God is rolling dice.

I still disagree. If a being creating the universe is different than me or you creating a system. I can throw a pizza of of a rooftoop and have only a vague notion of what is going to happen. Add a supercomputer to the equation and I might be able to roughly predict the trajectory and the landing of the pizza.

A being that creates the universe- necessarily creates the physical matter of the universe and the laws that govern how that matter interacts (or doesn't) with itself. Having this absolute knowledge (vs mine, and humanity's, ultimately limited understanding of the universe) means that that being must know exactly what the outcome of the system will be. Not the probability of several possible outcomes, but knowing a single inevitable outcome.

I am on the "God shoots craps", side of the debate.

[Pope Joan]

Surely there must be some Asimov fans here?

He posited a world in which a socio-psychology genius, stong on math (Hari Seldon) did predict the course of future events, for the Galactic Empire.

It would have worked out fine, too, were it not for you darned kids
mutations.

By their very nature, we cannot predict or compensate for mutations.

[Kartofian]

I still disagree. If a being creating the universe is different than me or you creating a system. I can throw a pizza of of a rooftoop and have only a vague notion of what is going to happen. Add a supercomputer to the equation and I might be able to roughly predict the trajectory and the landing of the pizza.

A being that creates the universe- necessarily creates the physical matter of the universe and the laws that govern how that matter interacts (or doesn't) with itself. Having this absolute knowledge (vs mine, and humanity's, ultimately limited understanding of the universe) means that that being must know exactly what the outcome of the system will be. Not the probability of several possible outcomes, but knowing a single inevitable outcome.

I am on the "God shoots craps", side of the debate.

Like this?

[Bombadil]

I still disagree. If a being creating the universe is different than me or you creating a system. I can throw a pizza of of a rooftoop and have only a vague notion of what is going to happen. Add a supercomputer to the equation and I might be able to roughly predict the trajectory and the landing of the pizza.

A being that creates the universe- necessarily creates the physical matter of the universe and the laws that govern how that matter interacts (or doesn't) with itself. Having this absolute knowledge (vs mine, and humanity's, ultimately limited understanding of the universe) means that that being must know exactly what the outcome of the system will be. Not the probability of several possible outcomes, but knowing a single inevitable outcome.

I am on the "God shoots craps", side of the debate.

I suspect it would be halfway between.. I mean if you can create a universe then you probably have the power to change that universe if you want. However to create it with no dice involved would be incredibly boring. I'd rather create the general parameters and see how it pans out, with a gentle nudge here and there like wiping out all life aside from some octogenarian drunk, his family and a bunch of animals.

Similar to how I used to turn off the tornado function in Sim City.

[Ethel mermania]

I am on the "God shoots craps", side of the debate.

I suspect it would be halfway between.. I mean if you can create a universe then you probably have the power to change that universe if you want. However to create it with no dice involved would be incredibly boring. I'd rather create the general parameters and see how it pans out, with a gentle nudge here and there like wiping out all life aside from some octogenarian drunk, his family and a bunch of animals.

Similar to how I used to turn off the tornado function in Sim City.

I dunno, maybe one day creating a universe may be part of a college geosciences 101 course. We don't have any idea of what it takes to create a universe, or a multiverse as we supposedly have these days. We have only been at this science business for about 5000 years or so, not even an eye blink in universal time.

[Pope Joan]

You may be interested in Alfred North Whitehead, and in the extrapolation of his thought as Process Theology.

https://www.theopedia.com/process-theology

I have heard this explained as the original divine intention being like a cue ball aimed with great precision at a rack of billiard balls. After the initial impact, a factor of random interaction enters in. But yet there was the original intention, so all is not totally random.

[Ethel mermania]

I am on the "God shoots craps", side of the debate.

Like this?

Not at all

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craps

[Soritarius]

No,

Creating the universe implies that that being also created the laws for governing said universe (gravity, weak and strong nuclear etc.) and all the matter in the universe. In theory a being like that would not be limited to knowing a multitude of possible mathematical outcomes, but would rather be aware of the one and only outcome.

I would be willing to argue against that since we do that with computers (which are extremely predictable as it) and we still sometimes get surprising results.

[Kartofian]

No,

Creating the universe implies that that being also created the laws for governing said universe (gravity, weak and strong nuclear etc.) and all the matter in the universe. In theory a being like that would not be limited to knowing a multitude of possible mathematical outcomes, but would rather be aware of the one and only outcome.

I would be willing to argue against that since we do that with computers (which are extremely predictable as it) and we still sometimes get surprising results.

The reason we get unforeseen results is precisely because we do not know all the factors. A supposedly omniscient universe-creating being cannot not know all the factors, since that would run contrary to the whole omniscient thing. As such, for them there would be no surprises like we get with computers.

The way I see it. The entire question posed in the OP can be summed up as: Can a creator deity foresee the future of their universe, and to what extent? My claim is that in a theistically deterministic universe, the omniscient deity cannot not be aware of the fate of the universe (and every atom, plant, and human inside of it) short using their omniscient powers to forget that they know the future.

Like this?

(Image)

Not at all

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craps

Never mind then.

[Forsher]

You seem to be asking if it is possible for a Creator to create a deterministic universe. That means, if you knew all the variables and how to put them together it would be possible to know exactly what will happen. However, what it really means is that the fundamental "rules" of the universe don't induce uncertainty.

It is obviously possible to conceive of omnipotence without omniscience, which is more the dilemma literally written in the OP. If this is what you mean it is both a much less interesting question and one I can actually answer (or, rather, one I just did answer).

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

No,

Creating the universe implies that that being also created the laws for governing said universe (gravity, weak and strong nuclear etc.) and all the matter in the universe. In theory a being like that would not be limited to knowing a multitude of possible mathematical outcomes, but would rather be aware of the one and only outcome.

The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics gives a practically infinite number of possible outcomes from the universe, at least under the "many worlds" interpretation.

Quantum mechanics is not deterministic. Newton lost.

[Albrenia]

Would depend on the creator deity in question, they tend to vary wildly in power.

[Alvecia]

No,

Creating the universe implies that that being also created the laws for governing said universe (gravity, weak and strong nuclear etc.) and all the matter in the universe. In theory a being like that would not be limited to knowing a multitude of possible mathematical outcomes, but would rather be aware of the one and only outcome.

Eh, A creator doesn't necessarily know everything about their creation. People create babies all the time, but they don't know their future, nor even every biological detail about them.

[Purpelia]

No,

Creating the universe implies that that being also created the laws for governing said universe (gravity, weak and strong nuclear etc.) and all the matter in the universe. In theory a being like that would not be limited to knowing a multitude of possible mathematical outcomes, but would rather be aware of the one and only outcome.

Eh, A creator doesn't necessarily know everything about their creation. People create babies all the time, but they don't know their future, nor even every biological detail about them.

People don't create babies. The automatic part of our bodies that we don't control creates babies and than the tiny part of the body that we call our conscious mind takes credit.


But in principal I agree with the direction you are going, if not for the same reasons. On a fundamental level even if you understand every single law of the mechanical workings of your creation that does not necessarily mean you can practically predict any future state. It might mean that, but it might also not. It all depends on the method of creation and functioning.

If we have a universe created by a god who merely lays out the laws and rules and than pushes a button to get it started the only way he could predict a future state of that universe is by calculating to that state or iterating through a model. Neither of which are necessarily possible due to time and material constraints. Building a copy of our universe and moving it faster to see where it ends up a million years from now is not really a practical proposition even if you build universes for a living.

On the other hand if that universe is being actively maintained by said deity or some machine under his possession there is a possibility that there exists a built in logging mechanism that could allow him to take a snapshot at any given point and calculate from there which would greatly diminish the work required to do this.

Either way though, we are talking about tasks of a monumental nature easily rivaling if not surpassing all but the most manual of creation methods* in terms of effort and time required. Which basically makes them massively impractical to the point of potentially being functionally impossible.


* Most manual being god literally plopping down every rock and tree and human and star down like someone playing with a map editor in a video game.

[Vistulange]

I find it incredibly useless to try to comprehend a being which is meant to be omniscient and omnipresent through human senses. Such a being and its thought processes, as well as its amount of knowledge, would be quite incomprehensible - literally speaking - to our human minds. I'm not going at this from a "we are puny in the face of God" perspective, I'm an agnostic at best.

The only sentient entity we know of are...humans. We - roughly - know the limits of human knowledge, lifespan, mental capacity, biology and whatnot. Therefore, we base all of our discussions regarding other possible entities on ourselves, consciously or subconsciously.

Now, remove all that knowledge. That is a god, "world creator", or whatever you want to name it. Impossible to comprehend, maybe possible to imagine.

[Yagon]

Not necessarily. You can create the start points of a given system and the rules that would define it and get a completely unexpected result, eventually. Sure, at first you could pretty accurately guesstimate, but with a system as complex as the Universe, after a certain point God is rolling dice.

I still disagree. If a being creating the universe is different than me or you creating a system. I can throw a pizza of of a rooftoop and have only a vague notion of what is going to happen. Add a supercomputer to the equation and I might be able to roughly predict the trajectory and the landing of the pizza.

A being that creates the universe- necessarily creates the physical matter of the universe and the laws that govern how that matter interacts (or doesn't) with itself. Having this absolute knowledge (vs mine, and humanity's, ultimately limited understanding of the universe) means that that being must know exactly what the outcome of the system will be. Not the probability of several possible outcomes, but knowing a single inevitable outcome.[/quote]

Are there examples of a system with governing parameters being created in which later emerged behaviors that the system creators did not anticipate or understand?

Suppose there a system where some of its outcomes depend on an observer, and the observer who exists in the system is not physically determined by the initial state of the system? Is that possible?