Mathematically Speaking?

[Bobber]

I happen to know, from a lot of personal experience personally, because He has shown me over and over again, many, many times, etc, that He always knows where everything is going to be/what it's going to be doing/what way it's going to be choosing, everywhere at all times personally, etc.

I've had similar experiences I know what you're talking about. That still doesn't mean you can establish as an absolute understanding of how all that plays out.

 

[Bobber]

God simply "sees" everything - past, present and future - which is an alien concept to us, especially the future. We all have a known past and present but not a known future.

Like us the devil can't see the future either but God can.

I know many say God knows the future. I believe he does but for a certain reason many have not considered. But many say God is in the future for the reason that if he didn't that would to them mean God has a limitation.....so they default to a position that would be impossible.

But what is the future? If it exists, as we might say, that would mean I am in that place we could say RIGHT NOW. So there's a physicals body of myself in two places at the same time? Or we could ask.....is it a limitation for God not to be in a place that's not a reality? If I asked is God in the world or universe of Star Wars right now.....If I said no I would be right to say no for such a place is a fictional concept.....it's not a reality. Is the future a reality BEFORE it occurs. I'd say not. (more could be said)

 

[Bobber]

That’s the opposite to what I meant. But going with that approach: if a being could model everything perfectly or simply being aware of the future (but unable to affect it) then the universe would be deterministic and free will would not exist.

I'm not sure you could say that as an absolute.

Let's bring in Mr Time Traveler. In "his present time) he observes events. He sends back through time the knowledge of the events. He warns a certain person what he sees about them. Who are we to say they can't make a change in what they do.....so the future plays out a different way?

 

[Bob Crowley]

I think God has blocked off time travel for that reason, so we can't change our choices or those of others. Also we seem to have no evidence that time travel has occurred.

I haven't seen any 25th century travellers with their mini-nuclear-fusion power cross-space-time cell phones, or Romans from the past forgetting to toggle their togas for trousers.

It might be all right for Hollywood to dabble in it but I think that's as far as it goes.

Bobber posted the following paragraph above - "But what is the future? If it exists, as we might say, that would mean I am in that place we could say RIGHT NOW. So there's a physicals body of myself in two places at the same time? Or we could ask.....is it a limitation for God not to be in a place that's not a reality? If I asked is God in the world or universe of Star Wars right now.....If I said no I would be right to say no for such a place is a fictional concept.....it's not a reality. Is the future a reality BEFORE it occurs. I'd say not. (more could be said)"

If it comes to that "But what is the past?" For us it's just a sequence of choices or events that led to our present. But for God it's a real and living memory which He retains.

I think a similar comment could be made about the future. For us it is an unknown but for God it is a vision which He can see as clearly as He can see the present and the past.

I remember reading somewhere that when people have visions, time seems to telescope. What appears to take an entire weekend in a vision can be take merely a few seconds of real time for the actual observer.

I think for God the visionary future might be compressed in His memory or foresight, waiting to unfold. He sees it though it hasn't happend yet. That's one of the many reasons we regard God as "completely other".

As 2 Peter 3:8–9 reads:

‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day...

 

[tdidymas]

Here's a couple questions you may find intriguing:
i) What does it take to notice 'a series of changes' or 'iterations' in a physical universe?
ii) If that 'noticing thing' there doesn't exist, would time exist? Why?

Ludicrous question. It's the same as "if a tree falls in the forest and no one notices it, did it really fall, or does it make no noise? Laws of physics aren't determined by someone "noticing".

 

[tdidymas]

Perhaps one could say that, but I would then ask you to define, without a trace of ambiguity, "series" and "change".

The definition of series might include the idea that events (we would need to define "event" also) either follow or precede each other. However, we know from relativity that the order (definition please) in which events seem to occur is dependent upon reference frame (more definitions) and the like. As I said, it's well above my pay grade.

Sounds to me like you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[SelfSim]

Ludicrous question. It's the same as "if a tree falls in the forest and no one notices it, did it really fall, or does it make no noise? Laws of physics aren't determined by someone "noticing".

Time is not a Law of Physics.
If there are no observers, then there's nothing supporting any such notion now, is there?
This tells us that its us humans who need time in order to make sense of our perceptions. We invented the concept.
Try making any sense whatsover, without invoking the human concept of time.
You will fail in the attempt.

 

[tdidymas]

Time is not a Law of Physics.
If there are no observers, then there's nothing supporting any such notion now, is there?

I don't agree with you. Time is fundamental to physics, and is included in such things as the general theory of relativity. In the basic Newtonian laws of physics, time is assumed.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sounds to me like you can't see the forest for the trees.

Certainly. I much prefer acknowledging the complexity of a problem that has been debated and discussed for centuries with no firm resolution, than go with a simplistic definition that ignores that complexity and appears to make use of a "common sense" approach, by disregarding what facts we do appear to know about time.

 

[Neogaia777]

Certainly. I much prefer acknowledging the complexity of a problem that has been debated and discussed for centuries with no firm resolution, than go with a simplistic definition that ignores that complexity and appears to make use of a "common sense" approach, by disregarding what facts we do appear to know about time.

The most simplistic definitions or explanations that cannot be refuted by logic or reason are usually the most correct ones, no matter how hard others try to deny them, or not take notice of them, etc.

Post #37 & #38 of this thread.

God Bless.

 

[Ophiolite]

The most simplistic definitions or explanations that cannot be refuted by logic or reason are usually the most correct ones.

Post #37 & #38 of this thread.

God Bless.

I have refuted the simplistic explanation by logic and reason. The non-simultaneity of events in difference reference frames takes care of that.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't agree with you.
Time is fundamental to physics, and is included in such things as the general theory of relativity. In the basic Newtonian laws of physics, ..

Agreement is irrelevant. What I've said is based on the results of abundant objective tests using the scientific method.
Whenever you speak of 'time', or 'Physics', what do you mean? Where do you think the meaning those words convey came from? Perhaps aliens or something?
See, none of your words have meaning in the absence of a human thinking mind ... and what 'time' means, is no exception.
Yet you use those terms pretending that we won't notice a forum (or a planet) full of human minds who are constantly perceiving meanings from written words like 'time'.
Go ahead try to show me wrong by producing objective evidence, and in so doing, make sure you exclude meanings added by human, thinking minds. You will fail miserably (as many others before you, already have).
I predict the production of exactly *zip* objective evidence .. in support of your claims about time.

.. time is assumed.

Nope .. the scientific method deliberately starts out by making no assumptions .. otherwise it immediately ceases being science, and becomes something completely different.
Its a very common error.

 

[Bobber]

Bobber posted the following paragraph above - "But what is the future? If it exists, as we might say, that would mean I am in that place we could say RIGHT NOW. So there's a physicals body of myself in two places at the same time? Or we could ask.....is it a limitation for God not to be in a place that's not a reality? If I asked is God in the world or universe of Star Wars right now.....If I said no I would be right to say no for such a place is a fictional concept.....it's not a reality. Is the future a reality BEFORE it occurs. I'd say not. (more could be said)"

If it comes to that "But what is the past?" For us it's just a sequence of choices or events that led to our present.

Good question. So if God is in the past, present and future....that would have to mean I have three physicals bodies in what we could call right now. Does any of that make rational sense. For sure not. So what is the future. If it's not real until it occurs then never could it be said there's a limitation in God to say he's not in it. If something is not real it's not real period. So where does that leave us?

 

[Neogaia777]

The non-simultaneity of events in difference reference frames takes care of that.

No, it doesn't, because it is impossible for all events to all happen simultaneously, etc.

So the fact that they don't, or it doesn't, shows absolutely nothing, and has absolutely nothing to do with, or no bearing on, choice, and knowing or not knowing it, and simple basic cause and effect.

 

[Neogaia777]

If a choice is known 100%, then all other possibilities of that choice are always 0%, but if it is not 100%, then it is or cannot be known 100%, which would mean there are (or were, until some time passes, etc) some things or choices or possibilites that cannot be known 100%.

So far, I've seen nothing that can refute this here, etc.

God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

Ludicrous question. It's the same as "if a tree falls in the forest and no one notices it, did it really fall, or does it make no noise?

So, 'If a tree falls in the forest and no one notices .. does it make noise?'

The answer is: Of course it does! .. because what we mean by a tree, doing what we mean by falling in a forest, does what we mean by making noise.
The human mind dependence of all of that, could not possibly be more obvious, it's a hypothetical tree for crying out loud!

 

[Neogaia777]

And all this talk about time is garbage, etc.

Time can either move faster or slower based on where you are at in the universe "for you", etc, but it does not ever change the rate at which everything else is flowing, or is going ever, etc, and time can not ever go backwards, or even forwards (as in time travel, etc) but can only move at a faster or slower rate for you based upon how fast you are moving or are going through various reference frames, how close you are to a very, very strong gravitational pull, or where you are at.

 

[Neogaia777]

I believe each universe contains only one possibility, or only one way it can ever go ever possibly, etc, and that those are all known by a being there/here, who predetermined it respectively, etc. But now moving into the realm of very, very loose, very, very unprovable/unknowable and highly theoretical theory, etc. Other universes could be another (4th) dimension, and could contain other possibilities, etc, but still all at the same time still possibily, so that you have all possibilities of all that can happen at this time all happening at the same time (or at one point in time) as one additional (4th) dimension possibly. And then all possibilities at all possible times all going on at the same time being possibly a 5th dimension possibly, which would be all possibilities at all possible times, all happening at the same time (which would also include at the same space in time) all happening in or at the same place/space in time always, respectively.

But I am only talking about this universe here right now though, etc, which I believe to be only one possibility, and never excceding any more than just only one possibility among possibilities, if there are other possibilities, etc.

And that if you want to add any other possibilities, then you're talking about adding more universes, or another dimension, etc, and then "at all possible places/spaces in time on top of that", etc, yet another dimension would need to be added respectively, which three dimensional beings cannot know or perceive or conceptualize of yet respectively, etc.

And each time you add an additional dimension, it is supposedly infinite supposedly, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, it doesn't, because it is impossible for all events to all happen simultaneously, etc

I did not state that all events happened simultaneously. ***

I noted that the apparent timing of events depends on the reference frames of the two events. This refutes the claim that time is just the passage of a series of events. As I also noted, discussion of time is really above my pay grade, so I'm not surprised you misinterpeted my statement. This wikipedia article may make more sense to you.

*** Although you haven't considered the possibility that all events happen/happened/will happen/will have happened/are happening simultaneously, but that we perceive them in sequence. This seems a good match for your pondering of God perceiving the past, present and future at the same time. (You see our vocabulary imposes the belief that time is just that simple sequence of events in series. It is not constructed to deal with time as it is. I imagine that's why physicists use mathematics to talk about it.)

 

[Neogaia777]

I did not state that all events happened simultaneously. ***

I noted that the apparent timing of events depends on the reference frames of the two events. This refutes the claim that time is just the passage of a series of events. As I also noted, discussion of time is really above my pay grade, so I'm not surprised you misinterpeted my statement. This wikipedia article may make more sense to you.

*** Although you haven't considered the possibility that all events happen/happened/will happen/will have happened/are happening simultaneously, but that we perceive them in sequence. This seems a good match for your pondering of God perceiving the past, present and future at the same time. (You see our vocabulary imposes the belief that time is just that simple sequence of events in series. It is not constructed to deal with time as it is. I imagine that's why physicists use mathematics to talk about it.)

Events are right now separated by time and space, what time they are happening matters not, because they are still separate events still separated by time and space.

Time is also just time, and not a sequence of events.

And whatever reference frame they are in also doesn't matter, or matters not, and is not applicable to this discussion here.

In order for reference frames to apply, they would have to be separated by a lot of time and a lot of space.

Which much more locally, they are not here, etc.

God Bless.