Which is?

He could, if OP, stimulate your brain in all possible ways. And that paralyzes him. Just imagine. You could walk to the other side of the street in all possible ways. Not via all paths, but actually walking in all possible ways. Which way would you apply?

Why can't God walk with measure? — ToothyMaw

They can walk with all measures, if omnipotent. And that's the problem.

And that's the difference with your example. You can walk in infinite ways to the circle. But not with infinite measures. You're body-bound.

Why can't God walk with measure? — ToothyMaw

Because they need music to walk on.

Infinite choices doesn't imply that one cannot deliberately choose a course of action — ToothyMaw

That's a false comparison. All ways to walk are equal. If you can walk without measure you can't walk at all.

That yes. But how he would do it not. She would not even know how to start.

Its over, Eugene, Bartricks has the high ground. — ToothyMaw

What is that supposed to mean? Her arguments haven't convinced me. Maybe they convinced you but not me. Everything can be argued away with omnipotence. And that includes omnipotence. Simple as that.

I guess what I'm saying is that if the consequences or parameters of a decision or course of action can be measured, we could theoretically have chosen otherwise; it could have been different — ToothyMaw

Exactly. And having no measures means impotency.

No, the world 'monster' is clearly being used in a morally loaded way. That is, it is being used to express the idea that God is immoral. But that's a contradiction. God is morally good, not morally bad. A morally bad person is not God anymore than a married man is a bachelor. — Bartricks

To do only good is just as bad as to do only bad. Both ways are monstrous.

he could do it in every way he couldn't.
— EugeneW

Nonsense. Are you a Buddhist? — Bartricks

Then how does he walk to the supermarket? No I'm not a Buddhist.

What? That makes no sense at all. God can walk to the supermarket if he wants to. — Bartricks

If he could do it in every way he couldn't.

He's morally perfect. — Bartricks

A monster, that is.

Not to me it isn't. You said you'd be unable to walk if you were omnipotent. That's false. An omnipotent being is able to walk. You can walk, yes? It is clearly confused to think that an omnipotent being is unable to do something that even you can do. That would make them lack an ability you possess - yet they're omnipotent and so anything you can do, they can do too — Bartricks

I you could walk in infinite ways to the supermarket, your omnipotence would make it impossible. So the very fact that you

can

do anything makes you incapable of actually doing it.

↪EugeneW
No. I said you could walk in infinite ways.
— EugeneW

No, you said that if you were omnipotent "
I wouldn't even be able to walk
— EugeneW
See? You did not say "I could walk in infinite ways". You said "I wouldn't even be able to walk" — Bartricks

Now it's getting confusing. Allright. Let's consider the stone to lift. You could lift every possible weight. There is no boundary between what you can lift or not. This means there are no heavy or light stones for you. All stones would weigh the same for you, rendering you uncapable of lifting it.

don't think the ability to choose between infinite options would render one incapable of choosing. — ToothyMaw

If you could lift every stone and have infinite power, your behavior would be random. You couldn't discern a heavy stone from a light one.

Nuff but not nuff... Maybe the direction of time is proof of God.

Yeah, but the point is that they are not the same thing. Energy fields are interaction fields, gauge fields, if you like. Matter fields couple to them to interact.

Matter is not the same as energy. Equivalent yes, the same no. Pure energy particles are different from massless matter particles. Pure energy particles, like photons, are responsible for interaction. They exist between massless matter particles, together with two other fields, and are an aid for matter to interact with and reach out for other massless matter particles. The particles have a drive.

I don't say you can't walk.
— EugeneW

Yes you did. — Bartricks

No. I said you could walk in infinite ways. Im not talking about all possible things you could do, like smoking a cigarette or arranging spoons, but one thing in particular, You wouldn't know how to choose the right way. Your omnipotence would destroy itself. Your omnipotence would paralyze its potency.

I'm pretty sure the only way that could happen is if fairy dust were involved — T Clark

Normal matter is fairy dust in a universe where all moves opposite. The laws of TD are asymmetrical in time not because fairy dust is involved but because of initial conditions. Why are they not the reversed end conditions? Why not is the end of our universe a begin in reverse? Why not is the end the begin and aren't we heading back to the begin? What's so special about the begin? That its ordered? But why is that special? Does a reversed universe heading for the singularity needs incredible finetuning? So the stone jumps from the floor, together with broken glass and reversed sound, a window gets healed, and the stone is caught by a boy?

What does it mean to be physical?
— Harry Hindu

To be made up of matter and energy — Philosophim

But what is matter? What is it that propels it?

That...doesn't make any sense — T Clark

No, it doesn't. But it is exactly what would happen.

I can only say that it is a problem only for those that posit that time is something that moves, forward or otherwise. — noAxioms

Don't the hands of the clock move forward in time? 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock... Could be 3, 2, 1. But it isn't.

We cannot say if the clock moves forward in time or backward. Its direction is defined in the context of particles evolving towards constellations that change asymmetrically. That is normally towards constellations that have more possibilities to be realized than those preceding them, like the gas corpuscules in a container evolving towards uniform distribution. But this can only happen when the initial distribution ordered, like the state of the plasma after the big bang (which seems to be a disordered gaseous state, buth isn't). Why isn't the begin situated in the disordered state of the disordered state of photons in which the universe finally evolves. The problem is that their momenta, and all other motions had to be exactly the opposite. But if they get a momentum at the big bang, they could also get (a reversed) one, at the big rip. The second law of thermodynamics would then be the inverse of the current one (evolution towards more entropy, constituting forward time):

Second law of TD in time-reversed universe:

All closed physical systems evolve towards lower entropy (with local patches evolving to higher entropy, but these don't constitute time reversion).

Did he die? Almost 100, so I saw on Wiki. If only time run backward.

Yes yes and yes again. The state of gas corpuscules being together in one corner of a container can be realized in way much less ways than them being all over it. That's no issue. The issue is why all motions of particles have the direction they have (which turns out to be compatible with the chances). Why don't they have the opposite velocities, so they meat in a corner?

Finding new things in math hasn't stopped yet!
26m — ssu

Maybe it just began. It needs new approaches to prove (or disprove) the Collatz conjecture. You cannot simply apply the recipe (3n+1) to all n and see if it holds for all.

The continuum hypothesis baffles me. How can a line have the same number of points as a plane? Or a plane the same number of points as a volume? Aleph one, that is. Has a line the same number of points as a point? Is a point the same as a line, as a plane, as a volume? They are continuous structures. But not the same. Still they have aleph one in common.

If Carl Sagan used "God" instead of "science" in his talks, he would be a master missionary. Which he is.

Why has sophistry that negative load? Why is falsehood emphasized? Does philosophistry exist?

however, conceptual nonsense (i.e. just making any "what if"-shit up) pawned-off as "speculation' is vacuous sophistry, — 180 Proof

Sophistry:
"Subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation."

Isn't physics subtly deceptive? It assigns objective existence to weird things like Calabi-Yau manifolds, superstring landscapes, mass-energy equivalence, flux tubes, degenerate vacua and vacuum expectation values, virtual particles, good and bad ghost particles, Goldstone bosons being eaten by massless vector particles, AdS/CFT correspondence and related emergence of gravity, Norton domes, local gauge invariance, adiabatìc cooling, flavored and colored particles, non-local entanglement, collapse of the wavefunction, loop gravity, soft hair horizons, not to speak of mathematical stuff made up and accompanying them. They would be considered off-line, deviating, mentally derailed, or having a psychotic episode in a society that doesn't value what they value. They would be given a warm and dry place, shelter, and something to eat, practicing daily therapy to get back to their senses before returning to society.

There are even kinds of infinity. Not every infinity is the same.

I think we agree that there are no dark colors involved. And because we share brains you might think we see the same colors. I noticed that I saw red differently with both eyes after holding small colored christmas tree lights close to one eye. It affected the perception. But under normal conditions, we all see colors alike.

What I (think) I know: Entropy gives time direction. The rule looks to be rather simple: If you're told the entropy is x at time T1, y at time T2 and y > x, then T2 is the future and T1 is the past — Agent Smith

Yes, my beloved! But why not the other way round? Why don't things evolve from the future to the past? Universe starting from a reversed big rip, black holes becoming white, matter and light reversing to condense into a red giant, which gets smaller to become our Sun, Earth appearing, creatures raising from the dead getting younger, entering the womb with a screaming going inside their mouth, buildings torn down, planes flying backwards, the atmosphere getting cleaner, devolution to amino-acids, and finally a big crunch. Could have happened...

Non-local hidden variable theories offer the same outcomes as standard interpretations. Interactions between particles offer the key to collapse and entanglement. The cat in the cage is entangled wìth the device of doom not with a state being alive and one being dead. The cat enters the cage alive, and the device is in a superposition. If there is any kind of interaction in the device, internal or with an external source, there is a collapse which might kill the cat or not. In hidden variable theory, the cat, or the past of the Earth, simply are not in superposition states until measured.

You're wrong. Please don't go spreading your ignorance — T Clark

Again, probability has nothing to do with it. It explains why time goes forward given initial conditions. If a flipped coin lands 10 000 000 times on the floor with heads up, and 2 times on tails, is the reason it lands on heads so often that it has a higher chance? No. The reason is the die itself. Likewise for time. The basic question is why the begin state of the universe is not situated at its end with all motion reversed.

I don't say you can't walk. You could walk in infinite ways! Try choosing... Omnipotence paralyzes. "But if he's omnipotent, he could choose". He could. But he could choose infinite ways. Which is the best way? "But he could, if he's omnipotent". Yes. But then who says we are not omnipotent too? I just don't wanna show it... What use is omnipotence if not using it? Why not walking in all possible ways if he could? How does he even know he's omnipotent? So either he's human, meaning he could walk normally, or he's an inhuman monster, shape-shifting and being all over the place. You have read to many superman stories...

But “infinity” means that, beyond the observable universe, you won't just find more planets and stars and other forms of ... — Gnomon

I think beyond the observable universe there are lots of planets. The universe extends beyond the horizon as Earth extends beyond the horizon. The universe seems flat but it is a closed 3d sphere. You will come back where you started (if you got the energy). Maybe the (4d) space in which it expands is infinite... Will we ever know? We can speculate! And that's the fun.

we were all symmetrical spheres, it would be impossible to tell whether time is running forwards/backwards i.e. time would lack a direction — Agent Smith

Good day, my beloved! Kudos! Wouldn't we notice time if we are symmetrical spheres? Imagine a transparent box filled with bouncing solid metal spheres in interstellar spaces. We videotap the scene with a camera that shows every physical process in and around the box. Then we show the tap in two directions, forward and reverse. Is there a difference? Could it be we tapped a time-reversed scene in the first place? If we reverse the tap, shouldn't we include what happened before and after? Can parts of reality start running backwards in time? If time ran backwards could it start running forwards? ‍♀️

Well, gods or a life after this life (or before this life) is something which I can imagine at least, and if considered closer the only logical conclusion, if all gaps are closed. If a woo of the gaps is to be considered, I'd go for the MWI...
:cool: