B Theory Of Time...

[JimL]

You think the ruler only exists at one of the lines at a time, but then the next line comes into existence and the last one disappears. Constant creation and destruction.

What you are descibing there is A-theory, Sparko, not B-theory.

[Sparko]

What you are descibing there is A-theory, Sparko, not B-theory.

I know Jim. Learn how to read.

[JonathanL]

No, that wouldn't be omniscient. He would just be just really good at guessing. It would also mean your actions are entirely predictable and you have no free will.

No, I'm pretty sure that would still count as being omniscient. If the future does not even exist to be known you're not any any less omniscient because you don't know something for which there is no knowledge to be had. Omniscient simply means having all possible knowledge. If the future is not part of the domain of "possible knowledge" God wouldn't be less omniscient for lacking that "knowledge".

[JonathanL]

You think the ruler only exists at one of the lines at a time, but then the next line comes into existence and the last one disappears. Constant creation and destruction.

That would only be true under certain views of A-theory. But if you believe that "time" is not a real thing in itself, but simply a way of describing the rate of change at various locations in the universe, then there's no need to speak about any sort of "constant creation and destruction". It wouldn't be the case then that we move from one moment of time into the next, instead there would be one single constant moment, which we could call the "now", that is in constant flux.

[Sparko]

No, I'm pretty sure that would still count as being omniscient. If the future does not even exist to be known you're not any any less omniscient because you don't know something for which there is no knowledge to be had. Omniscient simply means having all possible knowledge. If the future is not part of the domain of "possible knowledge" God wouldn't be less omniscient for lacking that "knowledge".

Except the bible says God knows the future. Heck, prophesy relies on it. Unless we don't have free will so God knows exactly what we will do because we are just puppets.

[Sparko]

That would only be true under certain views of A-theory. But if you believe that "time" is not a real thing in itself, but simply a way of describing the rate of change at various locations in the universe, then there's no need to speak about any sort of "constant creation and destruction". It wouldn't be the case then that we move from one moment of time into the next, instead there would be one single constant moment, which we could call the "now", that is in constant flux.

You can imagine that if you will, but then all of current scientific knowledge would be wrong. Including relativity. Which has by the way already been tested.

[JonathanL]

You can imagine that if you will, but then all of current scientific knowledge would be wrong. Including relativity. Which has by the way already been tested.

Nah, what it would mean is that a different interpretation of relativity, like Lorentz Ether Theory, which is experimentally identical to SR, would be true. SR is preferred over LET, not because it has greater experimental support, but because of other, philosophical, considerations.

[JonathanL]

Except the bible says God knows the future. Heck, prophesy relies on it. Unless we don't have free will so God knows exactly what we will do because we are just puppets.

My point was simply that God not knowing the future under A-theory, wouldn't mean that He was not omniscient. The actual extent of God's knowledge in the actual world is a different thing from theoretical considerations of what would count as actual omniscient in different versions of reality. I'm also not sure if knowing the future is impossible under all versions of A-theory, or just some of them.


Your claim is that A-theory makes it impossible for God to know the future unless He manipulates everyone like puppets, but I'm not sure what argument you're basing that claim on. It can't be that A-theorists can't explain how God would know the future unless everyone is a puppet, because being unable to explain how something is the case is not a good argument that something isn't true. If that were the case then atheists would actually have a point when they brought up all of the evil in the world and claimed that unless the theist can explain the existence of evil in a satisfactorily manner if it means a good God can't exist together with evil. Not being able to explain how X is possible is not an argument against the possibility of X.

[JimL]

I know Jim. Learn how to read.

Right, but we're discussing the nature of B-theory. It's not about what I think, it's about what the theory posits. B-theory posits that you are real at every point in time, that the past and future "you's" are just as real as the present "you." Not only that, but like the markers on a ruler, and the cells on a reel of film, those "you's" at different locations in time have been real as long as the universe has been real. It seems that you are somehow trying to fit A-theory into B-theory, but they are contradictory theories, in the latter all of time, and all of space for that matter, is real, in the former, only the present is real.

[Jim B.]

No, that wouldn't be omniscient. He would just be just really good at guessing. It would also mean your actions are entirely predictable and you have no free will.

No, that's not the omniscient part. What I mean is that God would know all past and present facts and in that sense, if the future is not real, assuming some version of A-Theory, then He would still be omniscient. He would know all that is knowable. It would not mean our actions our entirely predictable, just probabilistically knowable to varying degrees.

[Jim B.]

There is only one "time" and you exist in it for a certain number of "moments" - it's you all the way, from birth to death, and you only experience each moment "once" at that particular moment in time. It's all you. And every moment of your time you think of as "now" - You thought it was "now" when you wrote your post, right? and you think it is "now" when you are reading my post. Both instances, it was YOU.

But this might be the crux of the confusion we're having, or at least that I am having. I thought the whole point of B-Theory was that there is no physical basis for "Now." That the experience of "Now" must be a psychological trick of some sort that's not accounted for by physics (?) If every moment of my life is coextant and on an absolute parity with every other moment, why is there this spotlight on just one small cluster of moments that seem to be moving in time? Why wouldn't my experience be distributed equally across my life? and why does the world seem to be made up of lives at all, ie life cycles, births and deaths, etc?

[Sparko]

Nah, what it would mean is that a different interpretation of relativity, like Lorentz Ether Theory, which is experimentally identical to SR, would be true. SR is preferred over LET, not because it has greater experimental support, but because of other, philosophical, considerations.

The Michealson-Morley experiment proved that there is no aether. And yes, relativity has been proven. You use it every time you use your GPS.

[Sparko]

My point was simply that God not knowing the future under A-theory, wouldn't mean that He was not omniscient. The actual extent of God's knowledge in the actual world is a different thing from theoretical considerations of what would count as actual omniscient in different versions of reality. I'm also not sure if knowing the future is impossible under all versions of A-theory, or just some of them.


Your claim is that A-theory makes it impossible for God to know the future unless He manipulates everyone like puppets, but I'm not sure what argument you're basing that claim on. It can't be that A-theorists can't explain how God would know the future unless everyone is a puppet, because being unable to explain how something is the case is not a good argument that something isn't true. If that were the case then atheists would actually have a point when they brought up all of the evil in the world and claimed that unless the theist can explain the existence of evil in a satisfactorily manner if it means a good God can't exist together with evil. Not being able to explain how X is possible is not an argument against the possibility of X.

Well, if God didn't KNOW the future and he didn't manipulate people, then prophesy can be wrong. God can be wrong. All it takes is for a person to choose to do something that God didn't know he would do. What you are describing is open theism. A God who is not omniscient. Just really smart.

[Sparko]

Right, but we're discussing the nature of B-theory. It's not about what I think, it's about what the theory posits. B-theory posits that you are real at every point in time, that the past and future "you's" are just as real as the present "you." Not only that, but like the markers on a ruler, and the cells on a reel of film, those "you's" at different locations in time have been real as long as the universe has been real. It seems that you are somehow trying to fit A-theory into B-theory, but they are contradictory theories, in the latter all of time, and all of space for that matter, is real, in the former, only the present is real.

No, Jim. I was explaining with my ruler post that you felt you had to comment on, that in A-theory, the ruler doesn't exist, just the line, which has to be created and destroyed every moment. Since the future doesn't exist (and neither does the past) then the future has to be created constantly and the past destroyed constantly in order for "time" to progress.

[Sparko]

But this might be the crux of the confusion we're having, or at least that I am having. I thought the whole point of B-Theory was that there is no physical basis for "Now." That the experience of "Now" must be a psychological trick of some sort that's not accounted for by physics (?) If every moment of my life is coextant and on an absolute parity with every other moment, why is there this spotlight on just one small cluster of moments that seem to be moving in time? Why wouldn't my experience be distributed equally across my life? and why does the world seem to be made up of lives at all, ie life cycles, births and deaths, etc?

It isn't a spotlight on one part of your life. You feel that "spotlight" at every instant of your life. You felt it when you were making that post, didn't you? And you feel it now when you are reading this post. You feel it at every part of your life. It doesn't "disappear"