So it’s random then.
To gain the whole world, and yet lose your soul.
The gospel is too good to not be true for a wretch such as myself, and so is a triune God. I don’t think there is any other idea of God that I could take comfort in.
And it’s a wonder to sometimes think about a lonely God, and how it might create a world, and be cast into it. To experience even brief flickering moments of love, but how long before the world pushes back against such naive boyish wishes.
2 Likes
I don’t think you are suggesting that is why the God who is created what he did, are you?
Person A: Clouds are made out of cotton candy.
Person B: No, they are made out of tiny water droplets.
Person A: So they are cotton candy then.
A lonely God would be motivated by that and so create a bunch of people with free will so he could be genuinely loved.
But I am a trinitarian, and so God truly is perfect.
1 Like
Right. So it’s theoretically possible to know everything there is to know about tumbling dice. By what theory? To what degree of precision necessary to know how they’re going to fall? That it’s not random?
Yes.
By the theory that the universe is measurable.
Depends on the system.
All that matters is if something can theoretically be modeled by classical physics. If it can, then it isn’t random.
So classical physics, which is a C17th approximation, has no stochastic component and maps to indeterminate reality?
Just because miracles cannot be predictably reproduced, does not mean they have never occurred.
3 Likes
Whether or not someone would agree with that depends rather hugely on their presuppositions.
You would have to define what you mean by stochastic components and indeterminate reality.
Keener was memorable on Hume and the healing of Blaise Pascal’s niece Marguerite Perrier:
“Hume points out that this miracle was public, organic, and medically documented, far better attested than any miracle reported in the Bible. So how does Hume respond to Perrier’s healing? He does not really offer an argument. Rather, he basically says, 'We know that this miracle could not have happened, so why would we be tempted to believe any other accounts?””
Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World by Craig S. Keener
1 Like
Like I said… ; - )
1 Like
The standard definitions. Is Brownian motion classical?
The problem thus far is that what you consider standard definitions are not standard definitions.
What, of the impossibility of measurement to predict the motions of just three gravitationally connected bodies for example? Or is that not true chaos but only, mere, ‘functional’ chaos?
Well he was arguing with Protestants and that was a Catholic miracle (supposedly caused by a touch of a thorn from Jesus’s crown on the cross, it was a cure of a lacrimal fistula) so one they were likely to reject. He also pointed out pagan miracles by Vespasian (vouched for by Tacitus).
From my understanding, that is just a matter of how accurately you can measure mass, velocity, and the changes that occur to each body as they orbit.
That sounds like another journey down the definition rabbit hole.
1 Like
I recommend “how God works” by Marshal Brain. In the book, Marshall explains how scientists determine whether something is real, using an example of modern medicine and double blind experiments.
Ah. Chaos isn’t random. That’s where I’ve been going wrong. My fullest possible apologies.