(April 11, 2014 at 10:10 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 11, 2014 at 8:44 pm)Chuck Wrote: I never said time equals matter. I said the your implication that matter is conceptually different from events because it consist of fundamental indivisible parts where as events do not is invalid.

Time is an ordering of events, events is changes through time. If events happening within a Planck time of eachother can not in principle be ordered then in principle there can be no meaningful unit of time less than a Planck time. So Planck time is the fundamental unit of time for purpose of sequencing and causality. things happening at Planck time scale is causeless in the mechanistic sense.

Let us say time consist of chronons smaller than Planck time, or even infinite number of infinitely divisible components that adds up to Planck time, so what?
They can not be used to order events to finer than Planck length, so Planck length occurrences remain causeless.

So however they appear from one Planck time to the next is part of the fundamental property of the parts involved, and not an menifestation of deeper property. They are what they are. They are statistically predictable, but mechanistic ally unpredictable at certain scale, even in principle. Ie they are truly random and unknowable individually by nature.

Just because you cannot ascertain an order of events at time intervals smaller than the planck length doesn't mean an order is not existant.

It really sounds like you are saying that on the smallest of scales....causality doesn't exist. I don't believe that is an accepted scientific view.

So is god determined or not?

(April 11, 2014 at 10:11 pm)tor Wrote:

(April 11, 2014 at 10:10 pm)Heywood Wrote: Just because you cannot ascertain an order of events at time intervals smaller than the planck length doesn't mean an order is not existant.

It really sounds like you are saying that on the smallest of scales....causality doesn't exist. I don't believe that is an accepted scientific view.

So is god determined or not?

I ignored this question the first time because this thread isn't about describing God. Is this a case were you feel you lost the argument so you want to change the subject? If you can show that your question is relevant to the discussion at hand I'll consider it.

(April 11, 2014 at 10:25 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 11, 2014 at 10:11 pm)tor Wrote: So is god determined or not?

I ignored this question the first time because this thread isn't about describing God. Is this a case were you feel you lost the argument so you want to change the subject? If you can show that your question is relevant to the discussion at hand I'll consider it.

It's extremely relevant.

(April 11, 2014 at 10:27 pm)tor Wrote:

(April 11, 2014 at 10:25 pm)Heywood Wrote: I ignored this question the first time because this thread isn't about describing God. Is this a case were you feel you lost the argument so you want to change the subject? If you can show that your question is relevant to the discussion at hand I'll consider it.

It's extremely relevant.

So relevant it leaves you speechless right?

If god is not determined randomness exists. So you just moved it to another dimension which accomplishes nothing.

Quote:I don't know or care if God is determined or not.

So why all this bullshit about quantum events then?

(April 11, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: If a supernatural God is throwing the dice for us, I would expect that from our perspective randomness would just appear to be. As this happens to be the case in my mind a quantum mechanical world fits very nicely with theism.

Where does God's randomness come from? How does he generate it?

If you ask a person to think of a random number, it turns out we're super bad at doing that. There's a lot of choice going into picking that "random" number. How is a being that supposedly can make prophesies supposed to generate randomness?

(April 11, 2014 at 8:25 am)Heywood Wrote: It would seem then that randomness is really just a function of ignorance.

I'm not sure what's meant by a function of ignorance, I might give a nod to an expression of ignorance.