→ Naturalist:當然有fact阿 fact就是當你在做實驗時 有沒有電子的訊 01/31 01:46
→ Naturalist:號 01/31 01:47
推 dans:@#$^%*(^$#%*!@%^@&%^ 真是朽木不可雕也 01/31 01:47
→ MathTurtle:no fact AS TO WHERE THE ELECTRON IS 01/31 01:48
→ Naturalist:but there is a fact that whether you can detect the 01/31 01:50
→ Naturalist:electron at certain location or not ? 01/31 01:51
→ MathTurtle:that fact, God certainly knows 01/31 01:56
→ MathTurtle:if there is one 01/31 01:57
→ Naturalist:you can claim that, but that violate QM 01/31 01:58
→ MathTurtle:it is you who claim that there is a fact 01/31 02:01
→ Naturalist:well, are you saying "detecting an electron at 01/31 02:03
→ Naturalist:certain location" is not a fact?? 01/31 02:04
→ MathTurtle:A fact is what is the case...If it is the case that 01/31 02:07
→ MathTurtle:you can detect the electron, then there is a fact 01/31 02:07
推 dans:Since you two men's English is so good, how about speak 01/31 02:09
→ dans:English all article 01/31 02:09
→ dans:article use Chinese and reply use English is difficult 01/31 02:10
→ dans:read just a little suggestion 01/31 02:10
→ MathTurtle:i.e. God knows that you can detect (if it is the 01/31 02:11
→ MathTurtle:case that you can detect)... 01/31 02:11
→ MathTurtle:if it is the case that you cannot, then God knows 01/31 02:12
→ MathTurtle:that you cannot detect... 01/31 02:12
→ hermitwhite:你們輸入法都壞了嗎 01/31 02:14
推 dans:Something getting wrong about the reply of Math龜 01/31 02:16
→ dans:The eletron is hard to project, according to the Quantum 01/31 02:17
→ dans:力學; however, the God can PROJECT somehow. 01/31 02:18
→ dans:Using project rather than detect, and the way God know 01/31 02:18
→ dans:about the eletron is definitely not same as the way the 01/31 02:19
→ dans:human know(actually, detect). if it is only one way, you 01/31 02:21
→ dans:put the God paralleled to human, thus no divine God 01/31 02:22
我並不特別反對這種講法。
我要講的只是, 按照某種對QM的詮釋,
並不只是你基於人類知識的有限性而不知道電子在哪,
而是there is no fact, 這就是為什麼他們會宣稱「連上帝也無法知道」,
但這宣稱與全知無關, 因為where there is no fact, God has no knowledge.
※ 編輯: MathTurtle 來自: 86.30.200.214 (01/31 02:28)
推 dans:我比較注重的點是『人用detect』『神用know、project』 01/31 02:30
→ dans:神用detect代表神的"先不知" 用詞是有點問題的 01/31 02:31
→ dans:還有神知道的方式不一定是人檢測的方式 01/31 02:31
→ dans:『全知全能的神』可能有其他方式能突破人的窘境 01/31 02:32
→ dans:抱歉 不是故意挑你毛病 是因為你程度比較好 01/31 02:32
→ Naturalist:no！ the fact is whether you can get a electron at 01/31 02:36
→ Naturalist:certain location? yes or no? two choice !! 01/31 02:37
→ MathTurtle:A fact is what is the case, not whether something 01/31 02:39
→ MathTurtle:is the case.... 01/31 02:39
→ Naturalist:and what QM claim is there is no way to 01/31 02:39
→ MathTurtle:I think most people would say that you cannot get 01/31 02:40
→ MathTurtle:it...but what's wrong about it? 01/31 02:40
→ Naturalist:fundamentally predict that! because the result have 01/31 02:40
推 dans:他完全聽不進去我們的話 不知道他現在論述的問題在哪 01/31 02:41
→ dans:他以為只要堅持用科學的手法就能解決 但問題不在手法 01/31 02:41
→ Naturalist:to and only can describe by probability 01/31 02:41
→ dans:而是出發點 自始用這手法就是錯的了 他害我們陪他跳針 01/31 02:42
→ dans:所以我很堅持的就是他必須知道他這問題是屬哲學範疇 01/31 02:42
→ dans:此外關於預測電子的我懶得跟他爭論 01/31 02:43
Yes, QM claims (according to one interpretation) that there is no way to
predict that because the result has to be described probabilistically,
what's wrong about God's knowledge?
If there is a fact as to where the electron is, then God knows it,
if there is only a probability as to where it is, but NO FACT,
then God knows the probability, and does not know the 'FACT' which is
no existing!
※ 編輯: MathTurtle 來自: 86.30.200.214 (01/31 02:48)
→ Naturalist:which means it fundamentally retort determinism 01/31 02:45
推 dans:『不可被確定』不代表『未來也是不可被確定』 01/31 02:47
→ dans:人的『不可被確定』也不代表神的『不可被確定』 01/31 02:47
推 dans:我不太認同第二個if就是了 我認為"機率"是囿於時間的不可變動 01/31 02:50
→ dans:但神不囿於時空 所以不可準用於人的機率 對神而言只有"必然" 01/31 02:50
※ 編輯: MathTurtle 來自: 86.30.200.214 (01/31 03:04)