Does God know the future?

[Johnny]

Johnny?

Some of us have other things to do. Stop acting as if I've abandon the thread in favor of hiding out because you've made some earth-shattering refutation. I show up when I can.

No comment on why you chose emphasize that it's the measurement of time that is proven relative? I'm quite interested.

If the benefits of the theory of relativity do not allow the ability to interact with future and or past events how on earth could this theory be relevant to open theism?

And the party is all of the sudden over. So sorry!

For starters I'm still not entirely convinced you read my post 1544 thoroughly because you clearly haven't grasped the concepts contained within--or at least you're not presenting any argument against them. The bottom three paragraphs of that post are devoted to explaining why relativity is relevent to the discussion at hand. Open Theism assumes some universal objective "present" that God is stuck in. For this reason, God can only "know the knowable", as some of you put it. He cannot see past certain events in which free will plays an important role in determining the outocme. In order to support this assertion, proponents of OT must accept a universal "present" in which God experiences and we experience. As my post explains, according to special relativity, there is no universal present in which we all experience. Reread my discussion on the "now-lists" in #1544. You can't simply freeze-frame the universe and have everyone agree on positions and locations, because each person is experiencing a different "present reality". Again, read my analogy to the film reel. You are assuming there is a universal frame in which we all exist, but that is not the case. My point is that there is more than one "now" in the universe. There are multiple "nows", and for God to be in each person's present reality He must be at multiple places in time.

Can you theorize a way to use the benefits of the theory of relativity to time travel in a real objective way? In other words, if you had all the benefits of the theory of relativity at your disposal could you accurately predict the winner of the superbowl in the year 2010 and then personally place a bet on that game in Las Vegas this year? (2005)

No. Not possible (at least with our current understanding). But so what? What does this have to do with the "now" situation I described above. You have come in, made a statement, and pretended it has refuted my entire argument. You may be making a valid statement, but that doesn't mean it refutes anything. You haven't adequately explained why it refutes anything I have said. I would much appreciate it if you would take a few paragraphs and explain why what you've said is relevant and how it contradicts anything I've said.

It is also interesting that you added the condition that you had to "personally place a bet on the game in 2005". This implies that you realize it is very well possible for one to travel 5 years into the future in 5 minutes. Let's look at the interaction of an omnipresent God in this situation.

We assume that God is omnipresent, and that He is a unified entity (that is, any interaction at one point in space immediately affects His entire being). I blast off in my rocket ship towards Alpha Centauri at 99.99% the speed of light. Five minutes pass (of my time) passes and I see who wins the world series in 2010 on Earth, even though my clock still says 2005. I tell God who wins. Back on Earth, five minutes has ticked away and it's still the year 2005.

Does God know or not know who wins the world series in 2010?

 

[Clete]

Some of us have other things to do. Stop acting as if I've abandon the thread in favor of hiding out because you've made some earth-shattering refutation. I show up when I can.

Don't get your panties in a wad there Johnny. It's not unheard of for someone to get their feelings hurt over someone getting banned and so if you had decided to find somewhere else to go in reaction to eccl3_6 having been banned, you wouldn't have been the first to do so.
If we made a mistake in thinking you had gone away then I think that it's somewhat of an understandable mistake to make.
Now that we know that you haven't gone away and are a busy guy, I doubt the error will be made again. Personally, I hadn't given up on you yet but I admit that I had considered it a possibility that you had decided to leave on account of eccl's banning. My apologies for having thought it possible for you to be so petty. Actually, now that I think about it, it seems you have been consistently honest and substantive with in your posts and so I really don't know why I would have thought that about you in the first place.

No comment on why you chose emphasize that it's the measurement of time that is proven relative? I'm quite interested.


For starters I'm still not entirely convinced you read my post 1544 thoroughly because you clearly haven't grasped the concepts contained within--or at least you're not presenting any argument against them. The bottom three paragraphs of that post are devoted to explaining why relativity is relevent to the discussion at hand. Open Theism assumes some universal objective "present" that God is stuck in. For this reason, God can only "know the knowable", as some of you put it. He cannot see past certain events in which free will plays an important role in determining the outocme. In order to support this assertion, proponents of OT must accept a universal "present" in which God experiences and we experience. As my post explains, according to special relativity, there is no universal present in which we all experience. Reread my discussion on the "now-lists" in #1544. You can't simply freeze-frame the universe and have everyone agree on positions and locations, because each person is experiencing a different "present reality". Again, read my analogy to the film reel. You are assuming there is a universal frame in which we all exist, but that is not the case. My point is that there is more than one "now" in the universe. There are multiple "nows", and for God to be in each person's present reality He must be at multiple places in time.
No. Not possible (at least with our current understanding). But so what? What does this have to do with the "now" situation I described above. You have come in, made a statement, and pretended it has refuted my entire argument. You may be making a valid statement, but that doesn't mean it refutes anything. You haven't adequately explained why it refutes anything I have said. I would much appreciate it if you would take a few paragraphs and explain why what you've said is relevant and how it contradicts anything I've said.

It really does seem to me that you are committing a logical error here. It really makes no difference what other people will report about what they perceive to be the present. The simple fact is that no matter when you exist if someone else is able to observe you or you them then you both exist at the same time. Nothing you've presented shows that anyone ever leaves the present and thus your argument does no injury to Open Theism at all.

It is also interesting that you added the condition that you had to "personally place a bet on the game in 2005". This implies that you realize it is very well possible for one to travel 5 years into the future in 5 minutes. Let's look at the interaction of an omnipresent God in this situation.

This is a stretch to say the least. A hypothetical given for the sake of argument is hardly a concession of the oppositions position, implicit or otherwise.

We assume that God is omnipresent, and that He is a unified entity (that is, any interaction at one point in space immediately affects His entire being). I blast off in my rocket ship towards Alpha Centauri at 99.99% the speed of light. Five minutes pass (of my time) passes and I see who wins the world series in 2010 on Earth, even though my clock still says 2005. I tell God who wins. Back on Earth, five minutes has ticked away and it's still the year 2005.

This wouldn't work! The fact is the world series in now past in all "time frames". The fact that the events screamed by for you are a rate dramatically faster than those on the Earth doesn't change the fact that those events are in your past as well. You haven't gone into the future you've simply put yourself in super slow motion which has the effect of making it seem as though everyone else is in super fast forward. Time is still proceeding in its ever forward direction and neither you nor anyone else can skip over even a single moment in either direction, you are stuck with the rest of us in the ever present now.

Does God know or not know who wins the world series in 2010?

No, He does not, nor could He if He wanted to without fixing the game Himself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

No, He does not, nor could He if He wanted to without fixing the game Himself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

:thumb:

All the fanciful speculation and science in the world will not change the fundamental nature of time and experience. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity, a logical contradiction. I appreciate it is not easy to get beyond uncritical acceptance of the traditional view, but when one does see it, they will not go back. :juggle:

Determinism is too high a price to pay to preserve exhaustive foreknowledge (which is not a condition of omniscience, properly understood).

 

[godrulz]

In memory of Eccl. I dedicate this:

"...to deny the infinite duration of time would be to betray the very foundation of science..."

- German chemist Walter Nernst (in Jastrow's "God and the astronomers")

http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/nernst.htm

 

[novice]

Some of us have other things to do. Stop acting as if I've abandon the thread in favor of hiding out because you've made some earth-shattering refutation. I show up when I can.

Hey if eccl can act like a complete *** I should be afforded the same luxury.

We assume that God is omnipresent, and that He is a unified entity (that is, any interaction at one point in space immediately affects His entire being). I blast off in my rocket ship towards Alpha Centauri at 99.99% the speed of light. Five minutes pass (of my time) passes and I see who wins the world series in 2010 on Earth, even though my clock still says 2005. I tell God who wins. Back on Earth, five minutes has ticked away and it's still the year 2005.

Hey Johnny, I have this DeLorean with a really cool Flux Capacitor in it that I was thinking about selling on eBay but maybe you would be interested in buying it instead?

Johnny, you can't beat time.

You might be able to "squeeze" a clock but you can't beat time. By the time you saw the winner of the World Series on earth in 2010 everyone on earth would have seen it as well. How else could you see the outcome of the baseball game if it weren't for the players hitting and catching the balls?

Let me say that again so you can catch it....

How else could you see the outcome of the baseball game if it weren't for the players hitting and catching the balls?

One more time . . .

How else could you see the outcome of the baseball game if it weren't for the players hitting and catching the balls?

FOR SALE: One DeLorean equipped with Flux Capacitor built for serious time travel.

Want to see the winner of the 2010 world series? Just jump in and set the dial to November 2010!

Low starting bid with NO RESERVE!!!!

Bid TODAY!!!

 

[Johnny]

Hey if eccl can act like a complete *** I should be afforded the same luxury.

Set higher standards for yourself.

Hey Johnny, I have this DeLorean with a really cool Flux Capacitor in it that I was thinking about selling on eBay but maybe you would be interested in buying it instead?

How clever.

How else could you see the outcome of the baseball game if it weren't for the players hitting and catching the balls?

You missed the entire point of the situation. I realize this, and I understand that the game has been played out. Once again, you make a valid statement but it has little to do with the situation at hand.

Why did you completely ignore my request for you to expound upon why your statements and my statements are not compatible? If you're going to argue with me I urge you to reread 1544 and familiarize yourself with the contents. Agree or disagree with the premises or the conclusion. If you disagree, tell me why. Your one-liners are empty statements which are clearly designed to incite a reactionary response rather than encourage a substative discussion. I asked you upfront for an explanation, which I still haven't seen from you. Here it is again.

"But so what? What does this have to do with the "now" situation I described above. You have come in, made a statement, and pretended it has refuted my entire argument. You may be making a valid statement, but that doesn't mean it refutes anything. You haven't adequately explained why it refutes anything I have said. I would much appreciate it if you would take a few paragraphs and explain why what you've said is relevant and how it contradicts anything I've said."

Clete, I see your post. I don't have any more time here though. I'll be on tomorrow morning to respond.

 

[novice]

Johnny answer the question . . .

How else could you see the outcome of the baseball game if it weren't for the players hitting and catching the balls?

I will give you three days to answer the question, by then I will be back in town.

 

[Clete]

Johnny answer the question . . .

How else could you see the outcome of the baseball game if it weren't for the players hitting and catching the balls?

I will give you three days to answer the question, by then I will be back in town.

It seems he is conceding that he couldn't but that it somehow doesn't refute his argument. I don't get it. Sounds to me like we need to step back and reset because I personally am with you on this one novice, of course you're on my side of the issue so that doesn't really mean anything, but be that as it may, either you and I are seriously confused and Johnny is saying something all together different than it seems like he is saying or vise versa.

Johnny, post 1544 is not your post, it's a really short one by eccl3_6. Are you sure you have the post # correct? How about if you just repost it or post a link to it so we are sure to get the right one.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Johnny answer the question . . .

How else could you see the outcome of the baseball game if it weren't for the players hitting and catching the balls?

I will give you three days to answer the question, by then I will be back in town.

Presentism is more cogent than eternalism.

 

[Johnny]

Apologies, I was trying to reference #1455 in this thread.

That is interesting and all but a more fundamental problem exists with eccl and Johnny's argument which is that the theory of relativity doesn't provide a vehicle or mechanism to leave the present.

I think if you would read carefully you'd see that I understand that no one leaves their present experience. But my present experience and your present experience can be different. There is no such thing as simultaniety for observers in relative motion. That's the point, and the implications are stated below and in 1455. The statement that no one leaves the present (which is relative) and that I can't bet on the superbowl in 2010 are valid statements, but they are not refuting my point.

You haven't gone into the future you've simply put yourself in super slow motion which has the effect of making it seem as though everyone else is in super fast forward. Time is still proceeding in its ever forward direction and neither you nor anyone else can skip over even a single moment in either direction, you are stuck with the rest of us in the ever present now.

Two things are wrong with this statement. By stating that I've put myself in super slow motion, you've assumed a rest frame which doesn't exist. All frames are inertial. It's just as valid to say the earth sped up and my reality is the real one. Second, as I've stated many times, inertial frames do not experience the same present reality. There is no absolute simultaneity. Two events that appear simultaneous in one frame may not be simultaneous in another frame. In one frame the events may appear as AB but in another it may appear as A [250ms] B.

This is why I brought up the instantaneous interaction with God. Assume that for two observers (and God) event B is unknown. For observer 1, AB occurs simultaneously. For observer 2, A [250ms] B occurs. Observer 1 sees the events as simultaneous in his frame and tells God, who then relays to observer 2 what B is before it happens in his frame. Thus, observer 2 knows the future. And no, the point of this isn't some ultra hypothetical situation. The point is that the future, in this case, is knowable.

The other point of that is to bring up the question whose present reality God exists in. If one observer sees two events as simultaneous while another observers sees two events as separated by a period of time, then does God see them as simultaneous or does God see them separate? If you restrict God to a single fame of reference (either way), then you've barred him from complete interaction with the other observer's reality. For example, if you assume that God saw two events as simultaneous, then He can't interact in the time period that observer 2 saw the events delayed.

If you assume that God is in a universal frame of His own, then in order to fully interact with the observers He must see both of their realities. This entails both knowing the future in one observer's reality and existing simultaneously at two places in time (because the events happened at different places in time for both observers).

Just as a heads up, I'll be out of town until Sunday the 30th. I won't be able to write again until then. It would be easier for me if you could condense your entire response into one post (obviously per poster). That way I don't have to follow your train of throught through 8 pages of posts when I return.

 

[novice]

This is why I brought up the instantaneous interaction with God. Assume that for two observers (and God) event B is unknown. For observer 1, AB occurs simultaneously. For observer 2, A [250ms] B occurs. Observer 1 sees the events as simultaneous in his frame and tells God, who then relays to observer 2 what B is before it happens in his frame. Thus, observer 2 knows the future. And no, the point of this isn't some ultra hypothetical situation. The point is that the future, in this case, is knowable.

Your hypothetical is not possible

The theory of relativity provides no mechanism for time travel. The theory of relativity can only supply us with a theory to alter the perception of events that are happening in the present. In other words . . . the theory of relativity could supply us with a hypothetical way to view events that are happening yet view them happening at different speeds. Sort of like mirrors at the carnival can supply us with a fun way to "bend" light and make our reflections appear altered - but once we step away from the mirror we are still the same shape (unfortunately). Length contraction and time dilation are essentially the same thing and neither one of them supply a mechanism for REAL change in time or in size yet only in PERCEPTION of already existing elements.

I have a feeling you have been watching a bit too much science fiction on TV.

Furthermore.... Your above hypothetical simply restates (except in smaller measurements) the question of is it possible to travel into the future see the outcome of the 2010 World Series (for now we will leave out the problem of coming back in time to place a bet on the winner of the series).

Therefore, let me ask yet again....

How else could you see the outcome of the baseball game if it weren't for the players hitting and catching the balls?

Just as a heads up, I'll be out of town until Sunday the 30th. I won't be able to write again until then. It would be easier for me if you could condense your entire response into one post (obviously per poster). That way I don't have to follow your train of throught through 8 pages of posts when I return.

:up:

 

[Clete]

Apologies, I was trying to reference #1455 in this thread.
I think if you would read carefully you'd see that I understand that no one leaves their present experience. But my present experience and your present experience can be different. There is no such thing as simultaniety for observers in relative motion. That's the point, and the implications are stated below and in 1455. The statement that no one leaves the present (which is relative) and that I can't bet on the superbowl in 2010 are valid statements, but they are not refuting my point.

Well after reading your post, I still think they do. Perhaps after reading my response you'll see it.

Two things are wrong with this statement. By stating that I've put myself in super slow motion, you've assumed a rest frame which doesn't exist. All frames are inertial. It's just as valid to say the earth sped up and my reality is the real one.

No it isn't just as valid to say that. Relativity accounts for the slowing of time, not for it being sped up. Which, by the way, is one of the many contradictory things in relativity. It predicts that the faster you go relative to an observer, the slower you time is in relation to that observer. But as you've just pointed out, if I'm traveling away from you at near the speed of light then you are travelling away from me at exactly the same rate and yet I (as the traveler) see your time as going faster not slower even though there is exactly nothing that tells me that I am the one moving and your the one at rest (aside from the roar of my Pu-36 MEGALIGHT Ramjet engines). In other words, you are traveling relative to me regardless of which of us left under power yet your obversance of me is quite the opposite of mine of you. You would think that your time would seem to have slowed to me just as mine appears to have slowed to you but that isn't what happens and Einstein couldn't explain why (at least not that I've ever read).

Second, as I've stated many times, inertial frames do not experience the same present reality. There is no absolute simultaneity. Two events that appear simultaneous in one frame may not be simultaneous in another frame. In one frame the events may appear as AB but in another it may appear as A [250ms] B.

This is irrelevant as was the previous objection.
Let's assume you have two people in relative motion to one another who are observing each other and that they had synchronized their watches while they were at rest relative to each other. Now, regardless of how fast or slowly either of their relative times are passing (how fast their watches are moving relative to each other), let's say we asked them the following question...

Will your subject (the other person being observed) exist when your watch reads 13:45:27 tomorrow?

If the answer to this single question is "Yes", (regardless of what else either observer thinks is going on) then your argument is falsified.

This is why I brought up the instantaneous interaction with God. Assume that for two observers (and God) event B is unknown. For observer 1, AB occurs simultaneously. For observer 2, A [250ms] B occurs. Observer 1 sees the events as simultaneous in his frame and tells God, who then relays to observer 2 what B is before it happens in his frame. Thus, observer 2 knows the future. And no, the point of this isn't some ultra hypothetical situation. The point is that the future, in this case, is knowable.

But niether observer sees either event before it actually happens and when either observer sees either event the other observer exists at that moment whether they are yet observing the same event or not. The point being that what one observer experiences vs. what the other experiences and with what frequency is not relevant to the fact that they both exist at the same time.

The other point of that is to bring up the question whose present reality God exists in. If one observer sees two events as simultaneous while another observers sees two events as separated by a period of time, then does God see them as simultaneous or does God see them separate? If you restrict God to a single fame of reference (either way), then you've barred him from complete interaction with the other observer's reality. For example, if you assume that God saw two events as simultaneous, then He can't interact in the time period that observer 2 saw the events delayed.

God sees them as they actually are. If our two observers have distorted views of reality because of their motion relative to the event, that in no way effects God. God is omnipresent and infinite thus He does not "move" through space and nothing is in motion relative to Him. You are attempting to apply physical laws to the God who created them. That doesn't work. Sorry.

If you assume that God is in a universal frame of His own, then in order to fully interact with the observers He must see both of their realities. This entails both knowing the future in one observer's reality and existing simultaneously at two places in time (because the events happened at different places in time for both observers).

An event occurs when it occurs Johnny. It doesn't happen twice, once for one observer and then again for another observer in motion relative to the first. One way or the other, when you calculate out all the relativistic processes each particular event only occurs a single time. And for more than one person to observe the event they both must exist at the moment when the event occurs regardless of their relative motion to each other or to the event itself.

Just as a heads up, I'll be out of town until Sunday the 30th. I won't be able to write again until then. It would be easier for me if you could condense your entire response into one post (obviously per poster). That way I don't have to follow your train of thought through 8 pages of posts when I return.

I'll look forward to your response.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[novice]

An event occurs when it occurs Johnny. It doesn't happen twice, once for one observer and then again for another observer in motion relative to the first. One way or the other, when you calculate out all the relativistic processes each particular event only occurs a single time. And for more than one person to observe the event they both must exist at the moment when the event occurs regardless of their relative motion to each other or to the event itself.

Spot on!

Fantastic overall post - but the above quote struck me as especially brilliant. :up:

 

[Johnny]

I'll respond in separate posts to you guys to help avoid confusion.

The theory of relativity provides no mechanism for time travel.

You're right. But when you combine special relativity with faster than light communication, then you violate causality . If you believe that God is omnipresent then it is possible for God to violate causality. I will expand on this later when I respond to Clete. For now, suffice it to say that FTL communication violates causility. If you don't believe me, look it up.

In other words . . . the theory of relativity could supply us with a hypothetical way to view events that are happening yet view them happening at different speeds. Sort of like mirrors at the carnival can supply us with a fun way to "bend" light and make our reflections appear altered - but once we step away from the mirror we are still the same shape (unfortunately). Length contraction and time dilation are essentially the same thing and neither one of them supply a mechanism for REAL change in time or in size yet only in PERCEPTION of already existing elements.

Again, you've assumed a special frame. You can't point to a single frame and use it as a reference point to compare all other frames. No frame is priviledged. You've also made a distinction between real change in size and perceived change in size without any sort of elaboration on the difference.

Futher, you are inaccurately comparing special relativity to tricks of light or some sort of optical illusion, because even when you account for your motion and the speed of light you still wind up with time and length contraction. Perhaps you would care to explain how these affects can be accounted for and how the "real" time and length can be found.

How else could you see the outcome of the baseball game if it weren't for the players hitting and catching the balls?

I've answered this several times. You can't. But when this happens is entirely relative. Read my response to Clete's post, because you and him have similar arguments.

 

[godrulz]

Nicholas Wolterstorff in "God and Time: 4 views".

"There's a hint in what he what he says that Alan (Padgett) regards relativity theory as forcing on us the conclusion that our time is genuinely distinct from God's time. I am myself skeptical, however, that relativity theory as such has the ontological implications that are often assigned to it..."

Time is intrinsic to God's life.

"Even if temporal duration is a dimension of the divine existence, God nonetheless creates the cyclic processes that make possible the measurement of time, and temporal duration is nonetheless not itself the divine substance but 'merely' a dimension of the divine life."

Time is not a created thing. Confusing physical time (?) without considering philosophical aspects leads to wrong conclusions. God is not 'outside' of time, yet He transcends it in the sense that He created processes that allow us to measure time. The unique measures of time at creation should not be confused with intrinsic time (duration, sequence, succession) that preceded creation and were experienced in the everlasting relations of the Godhead.

God has a history, before and after material creation. This necessitates that duration/time is an aspect of His experience (will, intellect, emotions are sequential, not timeless). God is from everlasting to everlasting. He is not timeless 'eternal now' (Greek philosophy), but experiences an endless duration of time, without beginning or end.

Revelation 1:8; 4:8; 6:10; 22:1,2 shows that there is time in heaven/eternity. Eternal means endless duration (everlasting= Ps. 90:2 before creation, God existed), not timelessness (incoherent philosophical construct).

 

[Johnny]

No it isn't just as valid to say that. Relativity accounts for the slowing of time, not for it being sped up. Which, by the way, is one of the many contradictory things in relativity. It predicts that the faster you go relative to an observer, the slower you time is in relation to that observer. But as you've just pointed out, if I'm traveling away from you at near the speed of light then you are travelling away from me at exactly the same rate and yet I (as the traveler) see your time as going faster not slower even though there is exactly nothing that tells me that I am the one moving and your the one at rest (aside from the roar of my Pu-36 MEGALIGHT Ramjet engines). In other words, you are traveling relative to me regardless of which of us left under power yet your obversance of me is quite the opposite of mine of you. You would think that your time would seem to have slowed to me just as mine appears to have slowed to you but that isn't what happens and Einstein couldn't explain why (at least not that I've ever read).

This is a common area of confusion. Special Relativity addresses this. It was not a source of confusion for Einstein or for the physics community. The answer to this is simple: Who experienced the acceleration? The reason this occurs is because there is no concept of absolute simultaneity.

"If neither twin has experienced accelerated motion, the effects on the local metric are simply relative and reciprocal: each twin sees the other as younger, that is, as aging more slowly, because each sees the other's moving clock running slowly. Acceleration, however, produces non-relative, permanent, or absolute change in the local metric, due to the directed application of energy (as in a rocket ship or a gravitational field). Acceleration is the equivalent of laying hands on the clock mechanism to slow its action, an effect we feel as inertial force or gravitational "weight". Because energy has been expended upon the metric itself, permanent change results. Thus the traveling twin experiences acceleration both in leaving and returning to Earth, while the stationary twin does not, effecting an absolute (non-reciprocal) change in the traveling twin's aging process (temporal entropy gauge or local clock). Thus the actual reason why the returning twin has aged less than his stationary brother is because some of the traveling twin's entropy has been experienced spatially, rather than temporally, whereas all of the stationary twin's entropy has been experienced temporally."

Will your subject (the other person being observed) exist when your watch reads 13:45:27 tomorrow?

That doesn't matter. So what if they exist? You haven't explained what this says about the nature of the problem we're discussion. That doesn't mean they're experiencing the same moment in time together. Imagine observer 1 looks at observer 2 at time T and notes their position XYZ. Observer 2 looks at observer 1 at time T and notes his position. They won't agree on who was where when, even if they account for the time it takes for light to reach them. This is because the present reality of one observer is different from the present reality of another.

God sees them as they actually are. If our two observers have distorted views of reality because of their motion relative to the event, that in no way effects God. God is omnipresent and infinite thus He does not "move" through space and nothing is in motion relative to Him.

Then how does he interact with my reality which could be different than His? Assume God sees [A] -> 25minutes -> , but because of my motion I see [A] -> 30 minutes -> . Then there's 5 minutes in there of my reality that God can't touch, see, or know. What you've done is restrict God to an inertial frame, which is exactly what I did.

It doesn't happen twice, once for one observer and then again for another observer in motion relative to the first.

You're right, an event happens only once in time. But since two observers will exist at different places in space-time, then the event can be experienced twice (each time an observer passes through that time-frame).

Here's an excellent, excellent article from "Very Brief History of Time" of what I am referring to. Relativity, FTL and causality. If you assume that God is omnipresent and if you assume that a state-change in God's Being is instantaneous, and you accept that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames, then the concept of causality is violated. That is, signals can be sent back in time to observer A before observer A experiences an event. For example, the result of the world series in 2010 can be sent back to me through God.

I can back up my position with tons of literature: Causality is violated when you combine the ability to convey information faster than the speed of light with special relativity. Thus, in order to keep arguing from your position you must either reject special relativity completely or reject the notion that God can have instantaneous state-change and is omnipresent. That's what this whole discussion boils down to.

One last thing I'd like to ask: How does time progress? Let me clarify. One second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at zero kelvins. (link). So we've defined time by the duration between a certain number of state-changes. Then there must be a smallest duration between state-changes, agree (Zeno's paradox applied to time). Do you agree with this? If not, how to you explain changing states and the progression of time?

 

[godrulz]

Scientific speculation is beyond most of our grasps. It does not negate the self-evident truths and simplicity of time. Time travel is logically incoherent. I may concede slight changes, but not the ability to 'travel' eons into the past or future.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Time travel is logically incoherent.

but oh would it be fun

 

[Johnny]

Time travel is logically incoherent.

It may be, but I haven't said that time travel in the sense that you're referring to is possible.

 

[Clete]

This is a common area of confusion. Special Relativity addresses this. It was not a source of confusion for Einstein or for the physics community. The answer to this is simple: Who experienced the acceleration? The reason this occurs is because there is no concept of absolute simultaneity.

"If neither twin has experienced accelerated motion, the effects on the local metric are simply relative and reciprocal: each twin sees the other as younger, that is, as aging more slowly, because each sees the other's moving clock running slowly. Acceleration, however, produces non-relative, permanent, or absolute change in the local metric, due to the directed application of energy (as in a rocket ship or a gravitational field). Acceleration is the equivalent of laying hands on the clock mechanism to slow its action, an effect we feel as inertial force or gravitational "weight". Because energy has been expended upon the metric itself, permanent change results. Thus the traveling twin experiences acceleration both in leaving and returning to Earth, while the stationary twin does not, effecting an absolute (non-reciprocal) change in the traveling twin's aging process (temporal entropy gauge or local clock). Thus the actual reason why the returning twin has aged less than his stationary brother is because some of the traveling twin's entropy has been experienced spatially, rather than temporally, whereas all of the stationary twin's entropy has been experienced temporally."

I think that actually makes sense to me. I don't concede that any of that accually happens but that's a different debate.

That doesn't matter. So what if they exist? You haven't explained what this says about the nature of the problem we're discussion. That doesn't mean they're experiencing the same moment in time together. Imagine observer 1 looks at observer 2 at time T and notes their position XYZ. Observer 2 looks at observer 1 at time T and notes his position. They won't agree on who was where when, even if they account for the time it takes for light to reach them. This is because the present reality of one observer is different from the present reality of another.

It does matter because I not interested in their perception but in reality. If your subject exists at the time you are observing him then regardless of all other possible considerations it cannot be said that he ever left the present; both of you exist at the same time.

Then how does he interact with my reality which could be different than His? Assume God sees [A] -> 25minutes -> , but because of my motion I see [A] -> 30 minutes -> . Then there's 5 minutes in there of my reality that God can't touch, see, or know. What you've done is restrict God to an inertial frame, which is exactly what I did.

No. A happens and then there is a duration of time before B happens. I don't care how distorted your perception of the amount of time is, there was either 30 minutes between the two events or there was 25 but there cannot have been both.
Again, nothing is in motion relative to God. It makes no difference which direction you go or how fast you travel, you are getting neither any closer nor any further away from God, thus if anyone can be said to experience absolute motionlessness and therefore absolute time it would be God. That is, assuming for the sake of argument, that Relativity is describing something that actually takes place.

You're right, an event happens only once in time. But since two observers will exist at different places in space-time, then the event can be experienced twice (each time an observer passes through that time-frame).

Each time? No theory ever predicts the ability for someone to pass through any one "time-frame" more than once. And the point I am making is that the event, the "stationary" observer and the moving observed subject all three exist at the same moment in time, niether the observer nor the observed ever leaves the others present.

Here's an excellent, excellent article from "Very Brief History of Time" of what I am referring to. Relativity, FTL and causality. If you assume that God is omnipresent and if you assume that a state-change in God's Being is instantaneous, and you accept that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames, then the concept of causality is violated. That is, signals can be sent back in time to observer A before observer A experiences an event. For example, the result of the world series in 2010 can be sent back to me through God.

I can back up my position with tons of literature: Causality is violated when you combine the ability to convey information faster than the speed of light with special relativity. Thus, in order to keep arguing from your position you must either reject special relativity completely or reject the notion that God can have instantaneous state-change and is omnipresent. That's what this whole discussion boils down to.

The issue of an instantanious state-change is problematic for you here. There is no such thing. All references to time are of duration. No true instant exists, otherwise motion itself would not be possible. A problem you mention in the next paragraph...

One last thing I'd like to ask: How does time progress? Let me clarify. One second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at zero kelvins. (link). So we've defined time by the duration between a certain number of state-changes. Then there must be a smallest duration between state-changes, agree (Zeno's paradox applied to time). Do you agree with this? If not, how to you explain changing states and the progression of time?

The highlighted section is the conclusion I came to in my High School thesis that I wrote on this exact issue. I was wrong then (it seems) as are you now. It turns out that indeed there cannot be any shortest duration of time or else motion would be impossible. Sounds counter intuitive, I know but I've recently been reading some things on this very issue and have found some fascinating things. Check this article out, I think you'll find it interesting.

Zeno's Paradox's: A Timely Solution

Resting in Him,
Clete