I am a novice with quantum mechanics, and it has been awhile since I've seen Schrodinger's wavefunction equation. Could you spell out what you mean by "evolves" and "quantum state?" It will help me evaluate the implications of your statement.

admitting the autonomy of inertial motion — SophistiCat

Going to have to disagree with you here as it appears to me that all motion, including inertial motion (by which I understand you to mean constant velocity) depends to some degree on another. In fact, all motion is relative motion and insofar as it is relative to another, all motion, including inertial motion, depends on another. But then all that means is that the metaphysical foundation of everything, God, cannot be in motion.

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation --

"Conceptually, the Schrödinger equation is the quantum counterpart of Newton's second law in classical mechanics. Given a set of known initial conditions, Newton's second law makes a mathematical prediction as to what path a given physical system will take over time. The Schrödinger equation gives the evolution over time of the wave function, the quantum-mechanical characterization of an isolated physical system. "

Going to have to disagree with you here as it appears to me that all motion, including inertial motion (by which I understand you to mean constant velocity) depends to some degree on another. In fact, all motion is relative motion and insofar as it is relative to another, all motion, including inertial motion, depends on another. But then all that means is that the metaphysical foundation of everything, God, cannot be in motion. — NotAristotle

You seem to be equivocating between "dependence" as being a function of something else and being grounded in something else. And your conclusion doesn't seem to follow from anything.

The point I was trying to make is that in citing the example of a billiard ball, you seemed to be satisfied that it can move of its own accord, as long as it doesn't alter its motion. That's the Galilean insight, which diverges from the Aristotelian doctrine that prevailed earlier.

You seem to be equivocating between "dependence" as being a function of something else and being grounded in something else. — SophistiCat

Sorry to interrupt. I believe I also confuse the use of "dependence" as being a function or as being grounded in something else. This is metaphysics, and I am aware that it holds a lot of complexity to reach a clear conclusion. But I would like to know if understanding the distinction between "dependence" in terms of function or grounded could help us approach God's existence from a metaphysical view. Is this where we should start?

There is a sense in which the motion of a body depends on other bodies in both senses: If there was only one body in the world, then the very idea of motion would be senseless, since there would be nothing against which motion could be detected. So, for there to be any motion, there has to be more than one thing. But as long as that basic condition is satisfied, you don't necessarily need anything else, any other, to bring about and sustain motion. A planetary system, for example, can spin all on its own, without anyone pushing planets around. And the same is true for just about any dynamical system, be it mechanical motion, temperature changes, chemical reactions, or anything else.

Interesting input, thanks.

As I shared previously, it could be hard to approach God in any kind of system. Your example could fit in order to try to prove his existence from a metaphysical perspective. God could be that planet that spins all on its own, and "we" orbit around him due to motion or due to how he makes us spin or move in any other mechanical motion.

But I still believe that my point above can't approach God's existence; if we accept God is a thing with a system himself, then it means he is a set of elements, and if an element is left behind, then God is at risk to no longer existing or working. As I understand it, it seems that set (as the planetary system) works because the elements are always together.

According to many believers, God is above all that. It is more abstract than a set of quantum elements. For this motive, I believe that God's existence could be understood in an epistemological view.

Then, I think we should try to elaborate an argument using epistemology. Whether with truth, belief, or justification. I don't have the necessary and sufficient knowledge to elaborate on this. Probably in the near future.

Because that's definitely contentious. I would be hard pressed to find any philosopher who argues the universe is necessary. I would believe atheist philosophers would simply accept its brute contingency. If you want to argue its necessity in some sense, you would be pitched right back into the nature of metaphysical necessity and the contingency argument for God.

IMO, necessity demands ontological non-composition and non-changeability. I don't think we can ascribe those to the universe, since the universe is a set of space-time events with no substantial existence beyond its components. — Bodhy

Good comment. In my experience, atheist philosophers don't provide any justification either for the possibility of brute contingencies, nor for the assertion that the universe is one. The notion of brute contingency is as far as I can see, a contradiction.

IMO, necessity demands ontological non-composition and non-changeability. — Bodhy

I'd be interested in hearing why you think this? I'd agree that necessity implies that it doesn't change since necessity means to have no alternate truth value. But a necessary structure could have stratified levels of organization, such that variables are included. The structure itself would be necessary, but the values of the variables would be contingent.

What I'm more interested in though is why necessity implies non-composition? I say this because it doesn't seem that composition entails dependency. A structure could have composite parts, but the parts could be recursively defined, like sets and relations. Or, like the relationship between logical negation and either of the laws of noncontradiction and that of the excluded middle. By recursive definition between parts, I'm talking about a composite structure where each part requires the others for the structure to work, where the parts collectively constitute the "necessary structure".

LET God = the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life.

IF you exist the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life exists.

You exist.

THEREFORE God exists. — unenlightened

Righteously spoken by someone with true knowledge of enlightement!

In "Thus Spoke Xarathustra", the great ones and Xarathustra were huddled in a cave, and the great ones worshipped a donkey. You are now that donkey, good sir, for the duration of this discussion. You have earned it.

Can anyone prove a god, I enjoy debates and wish to see the arguments posed in favour of the existence of a god. — CallMeDirac

No. "God" and "existence" belong to different category of worlds. Existence negates God. God negates existence.

If you mean there is no physical proof of a metaphysical entity, then we're in agreement.

If you mean there is no physical proof of a metaphysical entity, then we're in agreement. — LuckyR

:ok: