Omnipotence

[Stranger]

The future can't be known with certainty, because it doesn't exist yet. How difficult is that to understand?

Regarding this and some subsequent posts about the past and future - is this discussion somehow taking place in the nineteenth century?

There is certainly no such thing as a universal 'now' that is valid for all observers see: Relativity of simultaneity.

We don't have all the answers about time but the quaint Newtonian idea that we can divide everything neatly into past, present and future is dead.

[SusanDoris]

Bluehillside

Thank you.

On a general point, I don't think I ever realised, until I joined message boards over ten years ago, just how much ignorance of evolution abounds.

[Stranger]

Would someone please tell me who l'Eau was before,-  if he was, as Synthetic Dave finds this very difficult to pronounce, and I have no idea who he is/was. Thank you.

He was SteveH.

[I'm assuming that doesn't break any rules as it's easy enough for any forum member to find out.]

[Shaker]

On a general point, I don't think I ever realised, until I joined message boards over ten years ago, just how much ignorance of evolution abounds.

Is it covered in schools? I'd be surprised. It wasn't when I was at school and I'm not that old.

It's never touched upon in any documentaries either as far as I'm aware - that evolution is a reality is stated but exactly how it works is never gone into in any detail, probably because the specifics are very complex and to understand them you do need some fairly thorough genetics under your hat.

[SusanDoris]

Stranger

Thank you for your post.

Shaker

I was thinking more in general terms, not detailed biological terms. 

[Shaker]

Shaker

I was thinking more in general terms, not detailed biological terms.

I didn't mean quite as much detail as perhaps my previous post suggested - but even so, I can't think of any broad platform for the general public that covers it.

It's not something that most people think about often or indeed ever I suppose - trouble is, neither do the ones who make the most noise about it.

[Stranger]

It's never touched upon in any documentaries either as far as I'm aware - that evolution is a reality is stated but exactly how it works is never gone into in any detail, probably because the specifics are very complex and to understand them you do need some fairly thorough genetics under your hat.

Darwin managed to formulate the theory without knowing any genetics at all. The specifics may be complex but the basic idea of natural selection is really very simple and it's one of the few theories in modern science that you don't need complex maths for.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Regarding this and some subsequent posts about the past and future - is this discussion somehow taking place in the nineteenth century?

There is certainly no such thing as a universal 'now' that is valid for all observers see: Relativity of simultaneity.

We don't have all the answers about time but the quaint Newtonian idea that we can divide everything neatly into past, present and future is dead.

For observers with location We must agree but this discussion is marked God who is omnipresent.
So the question is is this discussion taking place in some God resistant chamber buried deep within the earth?

[Shaker]

Darwin managed to formulate the theory without knowing any genetics at all.

Not quite as simple as that. He had to hypothesise - invent - some as yet unknown unit of biological inheritance by which heritable traits could be passed along for NS to work. He called it a gemmule ... a hundred-odd years before somebody called it a gene.

[Stranger]

For observers with location We must agree but this discussion is marked God who is omnipresent.

Being omnipresent at a particular (single) moment wouldn't make much sense - there is no universal concept of 'now'.

[Stranger]

Not quite as simple as that. He had to hypothesise - invent - some as yet unknown unit of biological inheritance by which heritable traits could be passed along for NS to work. He called it a gemmule ... a hundred-odd years before somebody called it a gene.

He managed to write On the Origin of Species without ever mentioning them.

My point is that you can get across the basic idea of natural selection without to going into that sort of thing (as Darwin did in Origin).

[Shaker]

He managed to write On the Origin of Species without ever mentioning them.

True - though his hypothesis was in place in his next book nine years later.

My point is that you can get across the basic idea of natural selection without to going into that sort of thing (as Darwin did in Origin).

Absolutely. Doesn't seem to be done, though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Being omnipresent at a particular (single) moment wouldn't make much sense - there is no universal concept of 'now'.

It makes no sense from the point of view from a located observer but that is not the case for an omnipresent observer.

Also what located observer would not have a present and a past and a non existent future?

That must be the case wherever you are in the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where in the universe has the future already happened?

[Shaker]

Where in the universe has the future already happened?

That depends on the theory of time that you happen to adhere to. Some people would say: everywhere.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That depends on the theory of time that you happen to adhere to. Some people would say: everywhere.

''Tis true.

[Stranger]

It makes no sense from the point of view from a located observer but that is not the case for an omnipresent observer.

The problem is that there is no place to put an omnipresent observer in space-time. Even ignoring general relativity and just concentrating on special relativity, space and time are a single continuum and it doesn't have a single time direction through it.

The geometry is Minkowski not Euclidean but you can see the problem if we just assume it is Euclidean (that's ordinary school geometry).

Imagine space is just two dimensional and that we represent space-time with a third direction. The Newtonian picture would have moments of time like sheets of paper stacked on top of each other with the future being in (say) the up direction. Then something can be omnipresent just by being on the sheet that represents 'now'.

The problem is that with relativity, there is no absolute future direction. If we consider one observer, and try to divide space-time into moments with the stack of paper again, that division is only true for that observer. Another observer (moving relative to the first) would have their stack of moments at an angle to the first - so their present extends into the first observer's past and future. There is no way to say that one observer is 'right' or privileged - so where/when are you going to put your omnipresent being's 'now'?

[wigginhall]

Great stuff, Stranger.   There is a notion in Buddhism of no point of view, which obviously is not located!    But it's very difficult to grasp intellectually, as we just seem rooted in the body, and its point of view.    The issue then is letting go - famous koan, there is no time, what is memory?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem is that there is no place to put an omnipresent observer in space-time. Even ignoring general relativity and just concentrating on special relativity, space and time are a single continuum and it doesn't have a single time direction through it.

The geometry is Minkowski not Euclidean but you can see the problem if we just assume it is Euclidean (that's ordinary school geometry).

Imagine space is just two dimensional and that we represent space-time with a third direction. The Newtonian picture would have moments of time like sheets of paper stacked on top of each other with the future being in (say) the up direction. Then something can be omnipresent just by being on the sheet that represents 'now'.

The problem is that with relativity, there is no absolute future direction. If we consider one observer, and try to divide space-time into moments with the stack of paper again, that division is only true for that observer. Another observer (moving relative to the first) would have their stack of moments at an angle to the first - so their present extends into the first observer's past and future. There is no way to say that one observer is 'right' or privileged - so where/when are you going to put your omnipresent being's 'now'?

Two points. That there is no place for an omnipresent is surely a given because it is everywhere.
No absolute future direction.......is that the same as no existent future which is what I've been arguing for.

I think talking about what is true for a located observer has no bearing for an omnipresent one. In which case could I respectfully ask you to limit yourself to what might be true for an omnipresent observer.

[Stranger]

Two points. That there is no place for an omnipresent is surely a given because it is everywhere.

Perhaps I should have said no time for an omnipresent observer. Omnipresent would be a two dimensional sheet in our picture of 3d space-time - representing one moment in time and everywhere in space. Yes?

There is no way to determine what said sheet's orientation should be in the (3d in our model) space-time. Wherever you put it, only one frame of reference will consider it to be now - to other observers it would extend into their past and futures.

You simply can't separate space from time in relativity. There is no single concept of 'now' that divides an absolute past from an absolute future.

No absolute future direction.......is that the same as no existent future which is what I've been arguing for.

Nothing like it at all. You have to think of space-time as a block - in the Newtonian picture one direction would be time. In relativity one observer's "arrow of time" points in a different direction to another observer's.

I think talking about what is true for a located observer has no bearing for an omnipresent one. In which case could I respectfully ask you to limit yourself to what might be true for an omnipresent observer.

I am specifically talking about an omnipresent observer - or rather the impossibility of such a being. Located observers have their own ideas of 'now' that is well defined for each of them (even though they don't agree).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps I should have said no time for an omnipresent observer. Omnipresent would be a two dimensional sheet in our picture of 3d space-time - representing one moment in time and everywhere in space. Yes?

There is no way to determine what said sheet's orientation should be in the (3d in our model) space-time. Wherever you put it, only one frame of reference will consider it to be now - to other observers it would extend into their past and futures.

You simply can't separate space from time in relativity. There is no single concept of 'now' that divides an absolute past from an absolute future.

Nothing like it at all. You have to think of space-time as a block - in the Newtonian picture one direction would be time. In relativity one observer's "arrow of time" points in a different direction to another observer's.

I am specifically talking about an omnipresent observer - or rather the impossibility of such a being. Located observers have their own ideas of 'now' that is well defined for each of them (even though they don't agree).

I suspect a bit of a leap from the science to the impossibility of an omnipresent observer not least since you are still talking about two located observer. The impossibility you talk of still looks like a put up job.
An omnipresent observer would be in all places and all nows surely.
We cannot talk about two locations relative to each other and also talk about there being no place.
An omnipresent observer would not be subject to relativity since what would it be relative to?

But I also have a scientific query or perhaps one raised by scientists.
A few years ago Krauss raised the question of the possibility of man hastening the end of the universe as we know it by mans observations of it.Tegmark stated that I believe the effect would be negligible since the universe had been observing itself.
The universe is surely then an omnipresent observer

Looking forward to your response and appreciate your posts.

[Stranger]

An omnipresent observer would be in all places and all nows surely.

I first commented on this because it was suggested that god wouldn't know the future because it hadn't happened. My point is that there is no such thing as a universal now, so not knowing the future doesn't make sense - with no universal now*, there is no universal future to not know.

The idea of a god who knows the whole of space-time actually makes more sense - although that would be yet another blow (as if more were needed) to any notion of 'free will' from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

An omnipresent observer would not be subject to relativity since what would it be relative to?

Well as soon as you try to give it a 'now' you are trying to embed it in space-time which is governed by relativity. The idea of a moment in time (such as 'now') doesn't make sense unless it is relative to something (in some frame of reference relative to other stuff) and, as you say, what would an omnipresent observer be relative to - how would you define its frame of reference? Which is exactly the problem I've been trying to describe.

But I also have a scientific query or perhaps one raised by scientists.
A few years ago Krauss raised the question of the possibility of man hastening the end of the universe as we know it by mans observations of it.Tegmark stated that I believe the effect would be negligible since the universe had been observing itself.

Sounds more like a quantum mechanics question than a relativity one (perhaps relating to the vexed question of what constitutes an observation?). It rings a vague bell but I don't recall any details, do you have a link?

* There is actually no concept of 'now' in accepted physics at all - what I'm talking about is identifying a single moment in time that might be regarded as now. As far as physics is concerned 'now' has no more significance than 'here' (the two being bound together in space-time).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I first commented on this because it was suggested that god wouldn't know the future because it hadn't happened. My point is that there is no such thing as a universal now, so not knowing the future doesn't make sense - with no universal now*, there is no universal future to not know.

The idea of a god who knows the whole of space-time actually makes more sense - although that would be yet another blow (as if more were needed) to any notion of 'free will' from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

Well as soon as you try to give it a 'now' you are trying to embed it in space-time which is governed by relativity. The idea of a moment in time (such as 'now') doesn't make sense unless it is relative to something (in some frame of reference relative to other stuff) and, as you say, what would an omnipresent observer be relative to - how would you define its frame of reference? Which is exactly the problem I've been trying to describe.

Sounds more like a quantum mechanics question than a relativity one (perhaps relating to the vexed question of what constitutes an observation?). It rings a vague bell but I don't recall any details, do you have a link?

* There is actually no concept of 'now' in accepted physics at all - what I'm talking about is identifying a single moment in time that might be regarded as now. As far as physics is concerned 'now' has no more significance than 'here' (the two being bound together in space-time).

I take your points and certainly God knowing the whole of space and time is a trope in theology.
Nevertheless I have talked about all nows in acknowledgement of possible differences.
What I don't find clear is whether any location has an actual future and whether that future actually exists. Therefore my general point is that the future does not exist even for an omnipresent observer.
Are we perchance in agreement.

[Stranger]

Nevertheless I have talked about all nows in acknowledgement of possible differences.

I'm obviously not getting this across. I assume by all 'nows' you mean god would know everything about every observer's now. Here is the problem: if we consider one reference frame at one point in time - call it X - then the immediate future of X (say X in ten minutes time) is already in the past of another (equally valid) reference frame.

There is an example that illustrates the point. If two people, A and B, walk past each other on Earth at a time T, their relative velocities mean that what happened simultaneous to T in the Andromeda galaxy in A's reference frame differs from B's reference frame by several weeks*. So if T is 'now' - when is the 'now' in Andromeda that an omnipresent (but time located) god would be aware of?

It all makes sense for located observers because of the causality structure of space-time - no information can travel faster than light. An omnipresent observer screws that up bigtime and leads to contradictions. Information travelling faster than light leads to the same sort of problems as time travel (because it is time travel in a sense).

What I don't find clear is whether any location has an actual future and whether that future actually exists. Therefore my general point is that the future does not exist even for an omnipresent observer.
Are we perchance in agreement.

As I put in a footnote in a previous post - there really is no concept of a now in any fundamental physical theory. Even in Newtonian physics, 'now' has no more status that 'here'.

General Relativity stands as the theory of space and time (and it is very well tested) and it treats space-time as a manifold. Space and time are not separate - there is no flow of time and no 'now'. It's sometimes referred to as the 'block universe' picture, where all of space-time (the manifold) just is.

Of course, GR is still to be reconciled with quantum field theory so it isn't the last word, but the evidence supporting it means that it is at least a very, very good approximation to how space, time and gravity work.

* I don't guarantee the exact figures - I haven't done the sums or looked it up again - and I'm working from memory.

[torridon]

Cracking post, that, Stranger