God, if He exists, cannot be omniscient, Proof Options

[Rick]

A world view that denies the property of divinity in the universe is called atheism, and a theistic world view affirms divinity. So deciding which is true requires determining whether or not there is divinity in the universe. The problem comes down to answering the question "is a world without divinity observably different than a world with that property?"

In physics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, accepted as true by all practicing physicists, holds that for a quantum particle, knowledge of position precludes knowledge of momentum. More precisely, the more we know about a particle's location, the less we can know about its momentum. However, an omniscient being would, by definition, know both position and momentum of all particles, in violation of known physics.

Further, in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (the majority view of physicists), a state of quantum superposition, in which particles can exist in two states simultaneously, requires that a particle's quantum state be unobserved. Hence, the existence of an omniscient being would short-circuit attempts to establish ambiguous quantum states, as is routinely done in physics research laboratories.

Therefore, the question above is answered in the affirmative, if we assume divinity involves omniscience: we can tell there is no divinity in the world because if there were, quantum mechanics would be very different than what we have found to be the case. QED.

[Rick]

If the universe has always existed, when was it created?

If there were something outside of the universe, and we could observe it, it would be interacting with us and would be part of the universe by definition. If we could not observe something outside our universe, it makes no sense to talk about it because it would be mere speculation and a waste of time. Therefore, it makes the most sense to assume our universe is all there is and that it always existed. This gets rid of the need to assume there is an unknowable creator, simplifying the scientific problem greatly.

Parallel universes of cosmology and infinite worlds theories of quantum mechanics are mere speculation at this stage of the game. When somebody discovers how to connect to these theoretical worlds, then they will fall into the realm of knowledge as opposed to the world of fantasy.

[Quantum]

If the universe has always existed, when was it created?

If there were something outside of the universe, and we could observe it, it would be interacting with us and would be part of the universe by definition. If we could not observe something outside our universe, it makes no sense to talk about it because it would be mere speculation and a waste of time. Therefore, it makes the most sense to assume our universe is all there is and that it always existed. This gets rid of the need to assume there is an unknowable creator, simplifying the scientific problem greatly.

Parallel universes of cosmology and infinite worlds theories of quantum mechanics are mere speculation at this stage of the game. When somebody discovers how to connect to these theoretical worlds, then they will fall into the realm of knowledge as opposed to the world of fantasy.

Ah Rick, I like you a lot already. I hope you will continue to honor me with your wisdom.

I do not believe the universe has always existed, I believe the Big Bang brought it into existence, but by whom and for what purpose? It may be useless to speculate on such matters, but I can not help myself. For now, I'm willing to put that matter aside.

You say that parallel universes are only speculation, but from what I have read supersymmetry is now on the menu at higher education institutions. The fact that it is being taught to college students is enough for me, so please humor me and share your thoughts on the matter, although I agree it is essentially fantasy for the time being. Here is what I understand- the behavior of our universe does not quite add up, according to the sum of all the mass that we can account for. There needs to be at least twice as much mass in our universe in order to explain it's expansion, and the behavior of celestial bodies in it. If we can blame the missing mass on a parallel universe, it would also conveniently explain where the nuclei of atoms disappear to when they are not here.

From what I am reading, string theory goes one step further and suggests that there may be 5, 10, or even 12 dimensions to our universe. I am having a little trouble imagining that. We exist in 3 dimensions, do we not? X, y, and z. How would you picture a universe with 5 dimensions, for example? Do you picture totally separate realities, or additional information in our own reality that we are unable to observe and interact with?

[Rick]

I do not believe the universe has always existed, I believe the Big Bang brought it into existence, but by whom and for what purpose? It may be useless to speculate on such matters, but I can not help myself. For now, I'm willing to put that matter aside.

If you run the film of the big bang backwards you see the universe being compressed into an (almost) infinite density. Einstein's general relativity suggests that time dilation is a function of gravitational field, so as we go back in time to that singularity, time slows down to zero, so the universe may have been existing forever. A recent issue of Scientific American discusses a new theory of a "big bounce" in which the bang is a rebound from a prior collapse, again with the universe existing forever.

You say that parallel universes are only speculation, but from what I have read supersymmetry is now on the menu at higher education institutions. The fact that it is being taught to college students is enough for me, so please humor me and share your thoughts on the matter, although I agree it is essentially fantasy for the time being. Here is what I understand- the behavior of our universe does not quite add up, according to the sum of all the mass that we can account for. There needs to be at least twice as much mass in our universe in order to explain it's expansion, and the behavior of celestial bodies in it. If we can blame the missing mass on a parallel universe, it would also conveniently explain where the nuclei of atoms disappear to when they are not here.

Supersymmetry is a feature of the "standard model" and does not address the idea of gravitons "leaking" into higher dimensions.

The "dark matter" which is so far unaccounted for is responsible for keeping galaxies from flying apart due to their rotation. A slight modification to Newton's law of gravitation does the same thing: assume it's linear at long distances.

It's dark energy that is used to "explain" the expansion of the universe. Those theories are a bit wobbly too. An upcoming astronomical space mission may get data from the cosmic background distribution to confirm of disprove some aspects of dark energy theories.

From what I am reading, string theory goes one step further and suggests that there may be 5, 10, or even 12 dimensions to our universe. I am having a little trouble imagining that. We exist in 3 dimensions, do we not? X, y, and z. How would you picture a universe with 5 dimensions, for example? Do you picture totally separate realities, or additional information in our own reality that we are unable to observe and interact with?

String theory could possibly be used account for the relative weakness of the gravitational force (one of the four fundamental forces of nature, the others being the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic forces) by somehow allowing gravitons to "leak" into higher dimensions. If that is true, then these higher dimensions have an effect on us that can be observed and verified, and so are part of our universe. By the way, the graviton is a theoretical particle that has never been observed.