Well, thank you for that epiphany. If you read past the first few lines you would have found the following in my post "And Christian God does not deceive." But, then, that would deprive you from an opportunity to unload your usual barrage of unrelated verses and a sermon to boot.
The point of my post was simple and did not accuse God of lying. I disagreed with your interpretation that we can be led by God to believe that we have free will but in reality we don't. I said that would be a deception and God doesn't deceive.
Only mortal reasoning would presume that they must be mutually exclusive
And you are not moral, I presume? You offer theory that two mutually exclusive concepts are not exclusive. But you offer no proof.
Will we never learn? Even wave/particle duality stands as evidence against such presumptions
Humanity has done a great deal of learning in its history. I think it is both self-debasing and untrue to say that humanity doesn't learn. It's drama, as usual.
And then you spout your usual wave/particle theory as "proof," and I say to hat what I said the first time I read it: both are human models; both are mutually exclusive. Those who harp on it in a literalistic manner, the way some read the Bible, indicates more their lack of understanding than knowledge.
Light seems to behaves as a particle only if it is represented as a vector. It seems to behave like a wave if we consider its refractive properties.
Both instances are human observational models. One can design optical systems using only one, or both, depending on the intended use of an optical system.
And, what's more important with respect to the topic, they are very much mutually exclusive. They are not interchangeable, and their results are not mutually useful.
You can design a perfect optical system in one model that is a complete failure in the second model.
The refractory calculations produce a more "realistic" rendition of the radiomagnetic behavior as it could be observed, while the vector (particle) model accurately predicts position of "particles." For accurate, distoritonless, flat-field anastigmatic optics you entirely depend on the "particle" model. For maximum contrast on extended objects, the wave model minimums must be met. Two different criteria; two different models. Two different results and purpsoes. Neither represents what light really is. Both are man-made models for man's applications.
But you will continue to twist things around and even persuade the uninformed.
Thanks for your sermon.
I see... you are a Cosmology lawyer..
You seem to litigate the infinite..
It seems you will adopt the inverse to almost any stance..
With a hard know it all arrogant style..
I like that.. Challenging views to make them better supported..
But then I give you the benefit of the doubt..
In which case, the answer is not so much as some.
As to wave/particle duality - it stands as a great example of the observer problem. What the observer sees depends on the observation made.
So does the uncertainty principle, by the way, stand as a great example. The observer can know momentum or location but not both.
Man is not the measure of God.