tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post4882538135984478214..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: In What Sense Are the Angels Like Us?A. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-70290736197460986482009-08-26T08:37:39.389-07:002009-08-26T08:37:39.389-07:00You're making 1982 sound like a world of high ...You're making 1982 sound like a world of high culture, which is not what I recall.On the other hand, compared to today, there were shows like Firing Line that did offer a level of discussion that we don't find today.<br /><br />What amazes me, however, is the fact that Mortimer Adler had a prime time show on the "Great Ideas" back in the 1950s, where he would discuss ideas like "knowledge" or "freedom" or "love" and apparently people would actually tune in and watch. I can't imagine that happening today on any of the 900 channels available for such a thing.<br /><br />Sad, really.Peter Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10710410499391419230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-18159585642473066722009-08-25T11:50:08.832-07:002009-08-25T11:50:08.832-07:00I received an email about this post from a friend ...I received an email about this post from a friend (Glenn) who refuses to open a Google account. So I thought I would share it here -- his remarks are in quotation marks, and my responses follow directly in each case.<br /><br />" If insubstantial angels are in superposition, then an infinite number can dance on the head of a pin."<br /><br />Actually, the number would be limited by their respective spins, even in superposition. There are only so many spins one can have in any dance, and no two angels may have the same spin.<br /><br />"There can be no particle-wave theory of angels? "<br /><br />Who says not? (See Hamlet and Jacob responses below.)<br /><br />"Satan's sin was violating which law of physics?"<br /><br />The Law of Conservation of Energy. He devoted all his energy to being top dog, when there was room in the universe for only one such. He ran out of energy before he could jump to the higher state required, and when he asked for more, God read the Law to him.<br /><br />"Shakespeare meant that waves of angels would escort Hamlet to heaven?"<br /><br />Once Hamlet's earthly wave function collapsed (so that both his position and momentum could be precisely determined -- i.e., he stopped moving and was dead), the angels then took charge of his soul's wave function and helped it propagate in the appropriate dimensions and directions. (God has seen to it that the observation of any wave function by an angel does not cause that function to collapse.)<br /><br />"I wonder how an incorporeal being beat up poor Jacob."<br /><br />We all know that in the Bohr duality model, waves sometimes appear as particles. That was one such occasion.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-12720873092430290202009-08-25T10:45:57.491-07:002009-08-25T10:45:57.491-07:00I agree, Robodoc - the debates over God's free...I agree, Robodoc - the debates over God's free will are outmoded by advances in cosmology and physics. If the many-worlds hypothesis is true, then the question of whether God could "choose" to make any particular universe makes no sense. Why should He "choose"? He simply makes them all -- all possible worlds, that is.<br /><br />I would not necessarily agree that angels, as such, are created "in" any of the multi-verses, for that would mean that there would be some (actually, an infinite number) without any. I think that, like God himself, angels are not "of" any particular world, but are free to move through any of them. So whether or not there are angels does not make any particular multiverse "prettier" than any other; all are prettier because of their existence.<br /><br />The mystery of Lucifer's having free will to "choose" to rebel, while being the topmost angel, is indeed worth examining, and that is what Buckley and Adler do later on, as I shall cover in a subsequent post.<br /><br />Thank you for sharing your insights -- they are very thought-provoking, and I hope others will be moved to do so, too.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-20264041158017871642009-08-25T09:21:35.096-07:002009-08-25T09:21:35.096-07:00Why is it "theologically obnoxious" to b...Why is it "theologically obnoxious" to believe that God was "necessitated to create this world?"<br /><br />I've always taken great comfort from the idea that this universe is the global solution of a massively multi-dimensional optimization problem. Some of the dimensions of the universal error function are obvious from scripture: for example, maximizing the number of people who freely choose to be reconciled with Him and worship Him. Some of the dimensions I believe have to do with God's aesthetic sense: clearly God thinks the universe is "prettier" if we pray to Him. Take the example of God "changing His mind" when Moses pleads with Him not to destroy the Hebrews in the desert and start over again: in the absence of Moses' prayer the optimal action is clearly to reboot and start over, in the presence of Moses' prayer, the optimal action is for events to unfold as they did. What are all the dimensions and their relative weightings and combination? In my opinion, only God can fully know the answer to that. <br /><br />So, does this strip God of free will? In our universe, yes. He is perfect, i.e., He has to choose an optimal solution to the problem He has posed. After all He is the "I am," completely constrained and defined by His own character. But, I believe God did have the most important choice of all: to create or not to create. Perhaps He also had "choices" about the exact nature of the optimization problem, I don't know. I plan to ask Him when I see Him.<br /><br />Anyway, to get back to your question, in this framework the answer to the question, "why angels" is easy: because they make this Universe prettier (i.e., more optimal). Now, how do they make it more optimal? I would conjecture that in most cases God requires an interface to directly manipulate this world, else he reduce its optimality along other dimensions. Angels were created to be that interface. As I've seen with many machine learning/automatic optimization systems, single elements often perform multiple purposes in combination with other elements, so angels were created with parameters that allowed Lucifer to "choose" to be his own God in order to provide us with something to choose other than God in order to suit His ultimate purposes for the universe, i.e., maximize its optimality.<br /><br />So, is this a theologically obnoxious philosophical stance because too many answers boil down to "because that's the way God wants it?" I'm genuinely curious to know the kinds of problems more theologically and philosophically oriented thinkers have with this approach.RoboDochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02665169086700325907noreply@blogger.com