18 Feb '09 13:30>1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister….1. G knows in advance that S will do A.
1. G knows in advance that S will do A.
-----lemon--------------------
Given that time is relative and not Newtonian the term "in advance" needs to be challenged here. What does 1) really mean? Somehow God's knowledge is being placed within a time reference which may or may not be accurate.
In the quote below the traveller might be able to kn nds of years, depending on your choice of reference frame." --------------------WIKI
-----lemon--------------------
Given that time is relative and not Newtonian the term "in advance" needs to be challenged here.
..…
You misunderstand relativity here. Relativity does NOT say that what is "in advance" must always be relative! -whether or not it is relative depends on whether or not one event is within the light come of the other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
If event X is within the “past light cone” (see diagram of the link above) of event Y then X IS "in advance" of Y NOT relatively so but absolutely so! (i.e. in ALL frames of reference).
Although the exact time interval between the two events IS relative, this doesn’t change the fact that one event is in the absolute past of the other PROVIDING it is in the past light cone of the other thus "in advance" is not necessarily a relative term.
Your quote from WIKI doesn’t contradict this so lemon’s argument is not erroneous merely because of his use of the term "in advance" -according to modern physics there is nothing wrong in using that term in this context.
Note that this means there such thing as an absolute future and an absolute past but ONLY in the very narrow context of any given event X.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_future#Causal_structure
“…..The causal future (also called the absolute future) ,
….
….
….The causal past (also called the absolute past) …”