(8/10) God and Cosmology I - God's Shadow

Episode 1: Gods Shadow

Here we examine the fundamental basics of quantum mechanics that have been discovered by physicists over the last 100 years, starting from particle nature of the photon to quantum entanglement. Of course, all topics cannot be covered, and those that are covered have a specific purpose both for this episode and future episodes. The primary focus is on the probabilistic nature of matter at its most basic level. Thus, there is a heavy emphasis on Copenhagen school of thought and related experiments. After that, we compare what we have learned in nature to classical descriptions of God (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence), and see if we can identify these qualities as conceptually possible. The Episode ends by answering the question:

If God exists, how could we possibly learn anything about Him when He is so far beyond our experience that it borders on the incomprehensible?

(8/10) Discussion on how omnipresence and omniscience is conceivably possible. For the former, we discuss two separate domains of thought, and use physical phenomena observed in nature to validate the idea of omniscience as a plausible idea. For the latter, we discuss two barriers to omniscience proximity and time and handle individually. We build a comprehensive picture for how omniscience is also a plausible idea.

0:01 - We demonstrate that our second domain as identified in part 7 is correct by pointing out the double slit experiment, especially with reference to how matter has been shot through the double slit in such a way where the only describable behaviour is that of a superposition of locations in space.
0:23 - Since omnipresence falls within the second domain, which has now become the established domain of reality, we can say that without arguments to the contrary, omnipresence is conceivably possible. Furthermore, again without argumentation to refute the notion of omnipresence, it cannot be rendered absurd for arbitrary reasons precisely because weve seen something be in more than one location at the same time.
1:52 - We move onto omniscience. We identify two limitations to knowledge, as was previously outlined in part 6: Proximity and time. We first see how omniscience can be validated as conceivably possible with omnipresence. We then examine the EPR experiment to see how it is possible to overcome these two barriers without the assumption of omnipresence.
3:11 - I clarify what information means within the context of the EPR experiment. Some have suggested that non-locality violates Einsteinian relativity. I provide a solution to this problem as a suggestion for how the viewer should consider information. Specifically, I suggest that particles can transfer information, but that we cant know what that information is.
4:32 - We move back to the question of omniscience, and we tackle the first barrier of proximity. We identify in the EPR experiment that distance is not a consideration in how the two particles intact. Thus, we know that in all considerations of how things interact with each other, we know considerations of distance/proximity needs not be defined as a limitation for how they interact. We dont always have to consider distance in describing the transfer of information between two things, and we know this since we observed it in nature. Thus, we know that without argumentation to the contrary, we know that it is conceivably possible that a Being exists which can receive information from far away.
7:54 We then tackle the second barrier of time. This problem is approached logically. If it takes five minutes to transfer a message, and you have five minutes, how many messages can you transfer. What if it took zero minutes? Not only could an infinite quantity of information be transferred, but it would take zero time to receive that information. When we combine this with the non-locality we discussed three minutes ago, we get a comprehensive picture for how omniscience can be conceptually possible.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Omniscience
• Omnipresence
• Omnipotence
• God
• Conceptual
• analysis
• philosophy
• Science

[theatheistguy]

But surely omniscience also includes knowledge of the future not just the past and present?

[UNFFwildcard]

I noted that in the next segment. I promise to cover that, but it can't be done in this episode :(

[xtremerandomness]

There is one problem with this logic - The information can be transferred in 0 time, yet proximity is still an issue: those spin-particles still have to travel a great distance, which DOES take time

[UNFFwildcard]

True, those particles take a finite period of time to travel, but the whole concept is about when the information is actually transferred. This is akin to whether you send the radio message from Toronto or NewFoundLand. I don't care how you got to either place, I care about how long it takes to send a message to Edmonton from either place.

[coldarc]

bla bla bla ugh.

[JohnnysAgent]

These are great videos; thanks for making them. I have the last two to view yet.

Relative to your arguments on omniscience and omnipresence, isn't it true that the characterists/phenomenon you describe in support of it have never been observed in anything larger than a particle? Wouldn't it follow that the most one could say is that a being could exist that is omniscient and omnipresent, but that being couldn't be larger than a particle?

Can you help me through this?

Thanks.

[st9mm]

You can’t use science to make a claim and then abandon it. When you say that I cannot deny Gods existence I agree (I am just nearly certain it doesn’t). It has never been the goal of science to completely exclude any possibility. The power of science is its ability to test its ideas. How can we test yours? What if we reversed this strategy and tried to prove scientific principals with theological philosophy? Please go back to making science videos. I would love to see one on spin direction.

[39knights]

@nusphere I was trying to differentiate between concepts of infinity using digital reality (ie. numbers, distance, etc.) and saying something like God is infinite. To say we are finite and God is infinite means more than He is capable of doing an endless amount more 'things' than we are. The same way eternal means something quite different than having an endless amount of time (infinite time) on your hands.

[nusphere]

@39knights what are you on about? The number system (i.e. counting numbers 1,2,3,4 onwards)IS infinite (in one direction), mathmatical proof for this was given long ago!

[LooksAeterna]

There is - AFAIK - no physical evidence that instantaneous interaction happens non-locally unless particles are entangled.

[AlloBruxelles]

I also believe that God is omniscient and omnipresent in a magnified way that cannot be understood by humans and can definitely NOT understood through the laws of our universe to which God is not subjected. God's omniscience includes knowledge of the future, but that does not preclude free will since the decision is free at the time it is made even if it is known by God.

[AlloBruxelles]

@theatheistguy Yes, omniscience includes knowledge of the future, but that does not exclude free will at the moment the decision is made.