Omnipotence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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).

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.

No I get it however :
1: Is it relevant that observers A's  frame of reference is ten minutes in front of observer Bs ?
2: In reality any observer is multilocated. Giving a simple example your left eye is in a different location to your right eye. Therefor, following your argument one eyes future will be ahead of the other.
3: If the above is true then we cannot argue that their cannot be omnilocation due to time difference
4: I agree that the frames of reference of all locations are not adequately represented by a flat sheet but they still can be linked to some kind of surface like a brane perhaps......or a manifold?

[Stranger]

1: Is it relevant that observers A's  frame of reference is ten minutes in front of observer Bs ?

If you want your omnipresent observer to have a defined 'now' then, yes.

I wrote quite a lot but then realized I wasn't really sure what your misunderstanding is, so please can you consider the question again? The A and B example wasn't about ten minutes, it was weeks - but if we consider a point even further away than Andromeda or things travelling much faster than walking pace, it can be as long as you want - years, decades, centuries, millennia even.

I'll repeat it here:-

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?

In other words, if our omnipresent friend's now includes T, when is it's now in Andromeda?

I'll try to explain more, if there's anything you don't understand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you want your omnipresent observer to have a defined 'now' then, yes.

I wrote quite a lot but then realized I wasn't really sure what your misunderstanding is, so please can you consider the question again? The A and B example wasn't about ten minutes, it was weeks - but if we consider a point even further away than Andromeda or things travelling much faster than walking pace, it can be as long as you want - years, decades, centuries, millennia even.

I'll repeat it here:-

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?

In other words, if our omnipresent friend's now includes T, when is it's now in Andromeda?

I'll try to explain more, if there's anything you don't understand.

I am not questioning your science Stranger but you seem to have abandoned my interest in it for your interest in it. I feel you have ignored my points.

For example my point about an observer being effectively multilocated since they have two eyes in two locations has been lost by you. The multi location of a single observer allows IMV a notional omnilocated observer. You haven't even seem to notice that I have stopped using the word now because it vexes you so!

We are now talking at cross purposes therefore. I believe you are what they call "showing off on the beach" I'm impressed but it isn't the point.

[Sebastian Toe]

I am not questioning your science Stranger but you seem to have abandoned my interest in it for your interest in it. I feel you have ignored my points.

For example my point about an observer being effectively multilocated since they have two eyes in two locations has been lost by you. The multi location of a single observer allows IMV a notional omnilocated observer.

We are now talking at cross purposes therefore. I believe you are what they call "showing off on the beach" I'm impressed but it isn't the point.

I belive that your "notional omnilocated observer" is the equivalent of sticking your bare arse up at your car window whilst the bus load of pensioners drive past.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I belive that your "notional omnilocated observer" is the equivalent of sticking your bare arse up at your car window whilst the bus load of pensioners drive past.

That would be a fair representation of the space time manifold involved.

[Stranger]

I am not questioning your science Stranger but you seem to have abandoned my interest in it for your interest in it. I feel you have ignored my points.

For example my point about an observer being effectively multilocated since they have two eyes in two locations has been lost by you. The multi location of a single observer allows IMV a notional omnilocated observer. You haven't even seem to notice that I have stopped using the word now because it vexes you so!

We are now talking at cross purposes therefore. I believe you are what they call "showing off on the beach" I'm impressed but it isn't the point.

It's up to you Vlad, but I'm genuinely trying to explain something to you.

The point with all observers be multi-located is to do with scale. There is an absolute scale involved that is defined by the speed of light. The natural 'fuzziness' in our perception of 'now' caused by the time it takes to gather and process information is far, far larger than any relativistic effects. This is because the time it takes for light to travel between our ears (or eyes) is far, far less than the aforementioned processing time.

In that sense our notion of 'now' is spread out over time.

If you want your omnipresent observer to have information gathering and processing times comparable with the time it takes light to travel across the entire universe, then the same could be true of it - but I'm assuming that you want your god to be able to perceive and think somewhat faster than that?

The basic problem is that space and time aren't separate things. Things can only be located in time to the extent that they are located in space. The bigger something is, the more the notion of a single moment for it is 'spread out' in time - the concept of a single moment will diverge across its spacial dimensions.

So please, if you are actually interested it would help if you tried to answer the question. Alternatively, ask another of your own or give up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's up to you Vlad, but I'm genuinely trying to explain something to you.

The point with all observers be multi-located is to do with scale. There is an absolute scale involved that is defined by the speed of light. The natural 'fuzziness' in our perception of 'now' caused by the time it takes to gather and process information is far, far larger than any relativistic effects. This is because the time it takes for light to travel between our ears (or eyes) is far, far less than the aforementioned processing time.

In that sense our notion of 'now' is spread out over time.

If you want your omnipresent observer to have information gathering and processing times comparable with the time it takes light to travel across the entire universe, then the same could be true of it - but I'm assuming that you want your god to be able to perceive and think somewhat faster than that?

The basic problem is that space and time aren't separate things. Things can only be located in time to the extent that they are located in space. The bigger something is, the more the notion of a single moment for it is 'spread out' in time - the concept of a single moment will diverge across its spacial dimensions.

So please, if you are actually interested it would help if you tried to answer the question. Alternatively, ask another of your own or give up.

I have no issue with any of the above.
None of it though negates multi and omnilocation. Secondly we don't know that not having a single moment rather it being spread out over time is a problem. Given that we are multiilocated and you have acknowledged that....it seems to present no problem with us. Since God is in all locations and is a unity God is omniscient under these circumstances.

And there is still the question of the universe being its own observer.

Thank you for your exposition of the science though which has inspired me to revisit reading around the subject.

A most refreshing and rewarding discussion.

[Stranger]

Secondly we don't know that not having a single moment rather it being spread out over time is a problem. Given that we are multiilocated and you have acknowledged that....it seems to present no problem with us. Since God is in all locations and is a unity God is omniscient under these circumstances.

Now I'm confused.

Surely the point of all this was the notion that god might not know the future? If its 'now' is spread out over vast amounts of time (possibly all of time - it gets complicated with the whole universe, which may be infinite in extent), then at least all of human history would all be in its 'now' which rather negates the point, doesn't it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now I'm confused.

Surely the point of all this was the notion that god might not know the future? If its 'now' is spread out over vast amounts of time (possibly all of time - it gets complicated with the whole universe, which may be infinite in extent), then at least all of human history would all be in its 'now' which rather negates the point, doesn't it?

That would not be a bad summary of omnipresence nor omniscience. In fact that is where I think I came in.

Since this is mainly a science mash with some divine attributes I still find myself fascinated still by the future.
We have hazarded that an  omni located observer would have all of history in its now. If all of history is all there is Then by that observer if it is known then we have omniscience. If there is an existent future though we may not. But does the future exist? How do we know there is one monolithic block of past, present, future or whether it is a growing block.

[Walter]

That would not be a bad summary of omnipresence nor omniscience. In fact that is where I think I came in.

Since this is mainly a science mash with some divine attributes I still find myself fascinated still by the future.
We have hazarded that an  omni located observer would have all of history in its now. If all of history is all there is Then by that observer if it is known then we have omniscience. If there is an existent future though we may not. But does the future exist? How do we know there is one monolithic block of past, present, future or whether it is a growing block.

the future only exists in our minds, the laws of physics allows for the whole universe to suddenly without warning, to instantaneously no longer exist

Stephen Hawking

[Walt Zingmatilder]

the future only exists in our minds, the laws of physics allows for the whole universe to suddenly without warning, to instantaneously no longer exist

Stephen Hawking

I'm inclined to agree.

[Walter]

I'm inclined to agree.

hmmm, whether you agree or not is irrelevant, 'andles.

[Stranger]

But does the future exist? How do we know there is one monolithic block of past, present, future or whether it is a growing block.

Back to the start. Relativity is the only tested theory of space, time, and gravity we have and it suggests the block universe (a four dimensional manifold). The problem with a growing block is, as there is no universal time, how do we define a 'now' from which it can grow?

[Stranger]

the future only exists in our minds, the laws of physics allows for the whole universe to suddenly without warning, to instantaneously no longer exist

Stephen Hawking

Assuming this is a genuine Hawking quote, some context would probably help (reference perhaps?).

[Walter]

Assuming this is a genuine Hawking quote, some context would probably help (reference perhaps?).

no, its me paraphrasing , should have made that more clear . I think its in his book A Brief History of Time , which I cant lay my hands on at the moment.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Back to the start. Relativity is the only tested theory of space, time, and gravity we have and it suggests the block universe (a four dimensional manifold). The problem with a growing block is, as there is no universal time, how do we define a 'now' from which it can grow?

Never mind back to the start. Does your/theirs/anybody's theory establish that anybody's future exists?
And if it does exist how can it be examined empirically?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Back to the start. Relativity is the only tested theory of space, time, and gravity we have and it suggests the block universe (a four dimensional manifold). The problem with a growing block is, as there is no universal time, how do we define a 'now' from which it can grow?

Quite. When someone talks about the "now", "past" and "future" in this context I always want to ask whose "now", "past", and "future"?

I concur with torri by the way - a fist class series of posts from you recently. Thank you. 

[Stranger]

Does your/theirs/anybody's theory establish that anybody's future exists?

At the risk of repeating myself...

In terms of the science we have General Relativity as the theory of space and time^*. The structure of the theory is such that it is impossible to divide the whole space-time manifold up into past, present and future.

Even if we pick one event (point in space-time), although we can identify other events that are unambiguously in its future and others that are unambiguously in its past, we are left with a whole region of events that are space-like separated from it and might be in its future or past depending on what reference frame we look at things from.

Since we can't even identify "The Future", it is difficult to se how we could give it a different status from the past or present.

And if it does exist how can it be examined empirically?

It's not that we can empirically examine the future, it's that our empirical investigation of the nature of space and time has led us to construct a model that rules out assigning a different status to "The Future" simply because "The Future" isn't actually a thing.

^* Leaving aside some eccentric conjectures, even hypotheses aimed at unifying GR with QFT (string theory, loop quantum gravity etc.) approximate to GR at 'low' energies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At the risk of repeating myself...

In terms of the science we have General Relativity as the theory of space and time^*. The structure of the theory is such that it is impossible to divide the whole space-time manifold up into past, present and future.

Even if we pick one event (point in space-time), although we can identify other events that are unambiguously in its future and others that are unambiguously in its past, we are left with a whole region of events that are space-like separated from it and might be in its future or past depending on what reference frame we look at things from.

Since we can't even identify "The Future", it is difficult to se how we could give it a different status from the past or present.

It's not that we can empirically examine the future, it's that our empirical investigation of the nature of space and time has led us to construct a model that rules out assigning a different status to "The Future" simply because "The Future" isn't actually a thing.

Hang on a) This seems to evade a straight answer to the question does it exist b) surely if the future is not empirically examinable it doesn't exist as such. c) if the space time manifold is inscrutable in common sense terms i.e. it proposes existence i.e. ''past, present and future are indistinguishable in the space time manifold'' of some element blended with the space time manifold which is unable to be empirically examined!

If we are to accept something like this then we can chuck out empiricism!!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At the risk of repeating myself...

 if we pick one event (point in space-time), ............. we can identify other events that are unambiguously in its future and others that are unambiguously in its past,

Can you provide an example of this?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Don't say I didn't warn you. You can explain why "the" future is a misnomer until you're blue in the proverbial, but he'll keep repeating it as if you'd said nothing at all. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,

Don't say I didn't want you.

Is this an appropriate place for personal affairs?

You can explain why "the" future is a misnomer until you're blue in the proverbial, but he'll keep repeating it as if you'd said nothing at all.

A misnomer for what?......and yes I am testing your grasp of what stranger has said.

[Stranger]

Hang on a) This seems to evade a straight answer to the question does it exist b) surely if the future is not empirically examinable it doesn't exist as such. c) if the space time manifold is inscrutable in common sense terms i.e. it proposes existence i.e. ''past, present and future are indistinguishable in the space time manifold'' of some element blended with the space time manifold which is unable to be empirically examined!

If we are to accept something like this then we can chuck out empiricism!!!

I think you've misunderstood the nature of the scientific method. General Relativity is a good empirical theory because it makes accurate predictions of the results of experiments and observations. The most recent being the detection of gravity waves.

Modern scientific theory is full of concepts that are "inscrutable in common sense terms" and constructs that cannot be directly examined. If you're having trouble with GR, I'm assuming you've never tried to understand quantum mechanics, in which the most fundamental description of a system, the wave function, is inherently unobservable and laughs in the face of "common sense".

The test - the only test - of a scientific theory, is that it makes falsifiable predictions that can distinguish it from any rival hypotheses and that said predictions are proved to be correct. The more such tests it is subjected to, the more confidence we can have in the theory.

In those terms, GR is a very good theory indeed.

Can you provide an example of this?

I have to go get on with life now - I'll see if I can dig out a diagram or something later...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you've misunderstood the nature of the scientific method. General Relativity is a good empirical theory because it makes accurate predictions of the results of experiments and observations. The most recent being the detection of gravity waves.

Modern scientific theory is full of concepts that are "inscrutable in common sense terms" and constructs that cannot be directly examined. If you're having trouble with GR, I'm assuming you've never tried to understand quantum mechanics, in which the most fundamental description of a system, the wave function, is inherently unobservable and laughs in the face of "common sense".

The test - the only test - of a scientific theory, is that it makes falsifiable predictions that can distinguish it from any rival hypotheses and that said predictions are proved to be correct. The more such tests it is subjected to, the more confidence we can have in the theory.

In those terms, GR is a very good theory indeed.

I have to go get on with life now - I'll see if I can dig out a diagram or something later...

Again the science of what you are saying is sound but as it is not relevant to some of the points I am making i.e. not all my questions have received answers. it is as they say ''showing off on the beach''.

It seems convenient that you seem to have wrapped up past, present and future indistinguishably in the space time manifold which itself must be the mother and father of mysteries wrapped up in an enigma.....having said that I think we are leaning towards futureS.....since there is no ''the'' future....... being theoretical at present.

[Sebastian Toe]

. not all my questions have received answers

Hahahahahahahahahahauahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...............