Time travel and God

I was utterly fascinated with the novel The Time Machine by H.G. Wells as a teenager.

Now I see some of you relating the concept of Time Travel to spiritual matters.

Let me ask your opinions then, if what Well's imagined were possible could not a Time Traveler then run into himself in his travels? That is so that there would be TWO of him at some moment? i.e. he travels back to a earlier time in his life.

What do you think? This might have spiritual implications which are important to me.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't care how "deep" you've contemplated this. That doesn't change what you are saying, nor does it add any meaning to what you're saying.

I also think the example of Hitler is a very contrived and poor example. Hitler is dead so has no future choices so let's move onto something that is easier to talk about in th e AND know the future, you can't have any real choice in what you are going to do.

At least you are having a stab at an argument which is more than some others are doing.

Ok, one thing to pick up on here is that your view is based on the idea that time is constant and not relative. For you time only exists in the present moment in which you are alive and Hitler is dead. However , from Hitler's perspective you are not born and he is alive. From someone living in the 24th century you are long dead and they might argue that the only "now" is the "now" they are living in.

But what if you see time as a series of "nows" that are strung out together and all as equally valid as each other. In this way of seeing time each person has their own "now" in which they are living.

"How can a god know what's not set if it is not set? Explain that." -Psychopawn---

This is a great question because my argument would be to go back to Hitler. How do we know what Hitler is about to do? We know because his time frame is different from ours. We have a different relative position within time that enables us to know his future actions. BUT (and this is utterly crucial to understand) for Hitler as long as his "now" is free and he can choose what he likes then he can have free will and can set the future by his free choices.

His future does not have to be determined for us to know it because for us it's not the future it's the past . So Hitler could have done anything and we would still know his future because of our relative position in time. The important point here is that as long as Hitler is free at that precise moment (in his "now" NOT yours) to choose then the fact that we know his choice makes no difference to the potential freedom of that choice.

We could ask the question is there such a thing as a "now" within all time ? Is the "now" we are living in march 2008 the only "now" that exists?

The point is people in the 24th century don't exist yet FOR YOU - I REPEAT - FOR YOU , but how do you know that this means they don't exist in their "now" equally as validly as you exist in your "now"?

If you time like some train line along which a train is moving and that train is some newtonian constant called "now" which is the only thing that exists because it happens to be you then you will never get this Try and think of time as like a train line of sorts but made up of trillions of trains and trillions of "now"s with each train laying down the track as it goes.


As you move through time you experience it as present with past existing and future not existing. But don't forget that this is only YOUR very very limited experience of time. There's no rational reason to assume that your experience of time reflects the nature of time itself.

For you there is only one "now" and that's the "now" you are living in. What you have done is turned that into some universal "now" and proclaimed that no-one else's "now" exists at all , whereas infact it's just that you experience them as not existing "yet" purely from your own tiny corner of time.

For God those 24th Century people might well exist and are making choices in their own little "nows" which he is watching at the same time (for him) as he is watching us.

Originally posted by knightmeister
At least you are having a stab at an argument which is more than some others are doing.

Ok, one thing to pick up on here is that your view is based on the idea that time is constant and not relative. For you time only exists in the present moment in which you are alive and Hitler is dead. However , from Hitler's perspective you are not born and he ...[text shortened]... the same time (for him) as he is watching us.

Your ideas are nothing new. Nor do they seem to be really meaningful, frankly.

From hitler's perspective, back when he was alive, yes, I don't exist anymore. That is meaningless though. Now, his perspective doesn't exist because he's dead.

This has NOTHING to do with the concept of free will, which is what I was talking about.

Your post is irrelevant to the idea of why if god both knows the future AND is infallible then free will can't exist.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Your ideas are nothing new. Nor do they seem to be really meaningful, frankly.

From hitler's perspective, back when he was alive, yes, I don't exist anymore. That is meaningless though. Now, his perspective doesn't exist because he's dead.

This has NOTHING to do with the concept of free will, which is what I was talking about.

Your post is irr ...[text shortened]... the idea of why if god both knows the future AND is infallible then free will can't exist.

I'm sensing that you are threatened by the fact that I actually have a coherent and in depth argument to make on this. You offer only statements in response to my arguments and cannot show how your "now" is more valid than Hitler's "now" (or any now for that matter) . What I am presenting is in step with some theoretical physics on time and is suppoerted by Eintein's idea of time being relative and not Newtonian.

You forget that the onus is on you not me to show that free will and God's omniscience are totally incompatible. All I have to show is that it might be possibly compatible for a being who lives outside of time as we know it.

You seem to have no ability to stretch your mind beyond the constraints of your own relative position in time and you can't even get your time frames right. For Hitler you don't exist yet (you said don't exist "anymore" - which places you in Hitler's past?????!!!). His perspective doesn't exist anymore FOR YOU - is what you could say if you saw time was relative.

I know that you would prefer that my post is irrelevant because you probably want to cling to your restricted Newtonian time concepts and make God seem implausible. That's your perogative . But don't pretend to yourself that you can win an argument by repeating statements over and over again.

I have shown you how it is possible for one sentient being (YOU) to know the future choices of another sentient being (Hitler) without it showing conclusively that free will cannot exist for Hitler. If you have conclusive proof that you knowing Hitler's future choices means that he could not have had free will then please share it with us all. If not then stop pretending you have an open and shut case when you obviously don't.

The reason why time being relative is important is because of God's relative realtionship to time. He does not see your life choices as past , future choices etc , for him it's like a series of equal "nows" . He is equally present in your past as he is in your future . He is watching you right now choose to do something in what for you is 10 years from now. But for him it's not 10 years in the "future" it's as real and present as this present moment is for you. Do you get this yet? He is in your future right "now" so to speak. He knows the free choice you are making right "now" .

For you it has not happened , but for him it is happening and has happened. Your position and relationship to 2018 is not the same as his relationship to 2018. Don't you see why this is important to conceptualize? It's because it gets rid of these silly notions of God "foreseeing" things that "will" happen. If that's what I thought that God was like I would think it was a dumb idea too , but I don't , that's the point!!

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm sensing that you are threatened by the fact that I actually have a coherent and in depth argument to make on this. You offer only statements in response to my arguments and cannot show how your "now" is more valid than Hitler's "now" (or any now for that matter) . What I am presenting is in step with some theoretical physics on time and is suppoert ...[text shortened]... t was a dumb idea too , but I don't , that's the point!!

KM - can you please refrain from telling me what I think? You aren't good at it and that is apparent.

I am NOT threatened by you or your supposedly "coherent" arguments.

cannot show how your "now" is more valid than Hitler's "now" (or any now for that matter)

My now is more valid to me because it exists to me. Hitler's "now" doesn't exist to me because he's dead and has no now "relative to me" or you!

What I am presenting is in step with some theoretical physics on time and is suppoerted by Eintein's idea of time being relative

You throw "relative" and "Einstein" around as if you actually understand it, yet you haven't shown any real in depth knowledge of it.

You forget that the onus is on you not me to show that free will and God's omniscience are totally incompatible. All I have to show is that it might be possibly compatible for a being who lives outside of time as we know it.

Your arguments consistently diverge from having a real point. I have consistently brought the conversation BACK to the concept of God and you go on about Hitler making choices - and make arguments that have nothing to do with the concept of God or omniscience. In fact you consistently ignore and don't even respond to what I actually post.

You seem to have no ability to stretch your mind beyond the constraints of your own relative position

Once again, you're not very good at interpreting what I "seem" to be.

I know that you would prefer that my post is irrelevant because you probably want to cling to your restricted Newtonian time concepts and make God seem implausible. That's your perogative . But don't pretend to yourself that you can win an argument by repeating statements over and over again.

False. You refuse to even address what I have actually said - hence I repeat myself.

I have shown you how it is possible for one sentient being (YOU) to know the future choices of another sentient being (Hitler) without it showing conclusively that free will cannot exist for Hitler.

No you haven't.

If you have conclusive proof that you knowing Hitler's future choices means that he could not have had free will then please share it with us all.

This isn't my argument. It's what you think my argument is.

The reason why time being relative is important is because of God's relative realtionship to time. He does not see your life choices as past , future choices etc , for him it's like a series of equal "nows"

...and what is your actual evidence for this? (no, Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't say anything of God's relative relationship to time).

Can you:

1. Ask me what I think instead of trying to deduce it? (you obviously aren't very good at it).

2. Address what I actually say.

I am not threatened by you, you are not "shaking" my idea of reality even a bit.

I understand what you are saying about the timeline and I think it's not a bad way of seeing the timeline - HOWEVER, most of that view does not say anything about god, nor does it say anything about free will. That is the part you have not clearly addressed.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I fail to see how you can prove that hitler's choices MUST have been determined because we know them , because if they were free choices we would also know them. Please explain your proof and stop just stating your position as if stating it makes it true.

Its quite simple, though in the past you have refused to see it.
If it is possible to treat our physical universe, including the full time dimension as a static entity ie to observe it from some external point of view the way we observe history then:
1. Hitlers future is and always was static.
2. To talk about whether or not Hitler had free choice at a given point in time is inconsistent with our model as you are implying that the timeline is not static.
Part of the confusion is that we all define the term 'free will' differently.
So let me put it this way:
Hitler appeared to have Choices A and B before him. He chose A. In the model above he could not choose B. In fact, by your understanding of free will, he did not actually choose. His actions followed a fixed, predetermined path, that is fixed into a static universe.

If my model is wrong, then you cannot use it to explain Gods ability to foretell the future.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its quite simple, though in the past you have refused to see it.
If it is possible to treat our physical universe, including the full time dimension as a static entity ie to observe it from some external point of view the way we observe history then:
1. Hitlers future is and always was static.
2. To talk about whether or not Hitler had free choice at a ...[text shortened]...
If my model is wrong, then you cannot use it to explain Gods ability to foretell the future.

I don't see choices as neccessarily static or "set" in front of Hitler because until the point Hitler makes his choice nothing has been set for him. At that moment in time he can choose A or B and until he chooses A or B the choice is not certain for him at all. I see the model as fluid like a landrover ploughing a track through the desert (rather than a train on a "static" track).

In this model Hitler is not following a static track of fixed choices but is choosing as he goes. The track becomes fixed BY his choices rather than his choices being fixed BY the track. However , because of our unique , relative position in time to these choices we can see his choices. But , and this is important , all we see is the way Hitler chose in a series of present moments (for him) , for us it looks like a fixed track in front of him but in fact for him he still has to make those choices. It's only the fact that he did make those choices at those moments in time that means we can know anything about them.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't see choices as neccessarily static or "set" in front of Hitler because until the point Hitler makes his choice nothing has been set for him. At that moment in time he can choose A or B and until he chooses A or B the choice is not certain for him at all. I see the model as fluid like a landrover ploughing a track through the desert (rather tha ...[text shortened]... id make those choices at those moments in time that means we can know anything about them.

From our perspective, the tracks in the desert are railway lines. They are fixed and not fluid.
The only way that they can be fluid from Hitlers perspective is if we are not necessarily part of his future. In other words he must have multiple futures for his tracks to remain fluid. And that does not fit my model or yours.

You really cannot have it both ways. You want a static model and a fluid model combined, but that is self contradictory.

But then you have tried that in nearly every discussion we have ever had: create a model that is incoherent.

Originally posted by twhitehead
From our perspective, the tracks in the desert are railway lines. They are fixed and not fluid.
The only way that they can be fluid from Hitlers perspective is if we are not necessarily part of his future. In other words he must have multiple futures for his tracks to remain fluid. And that does not fit my model or yours.

You really cannot have it bot ...[text shortened]... have tried that in nearly every discussion we have ever had: create a model that is incoherent.

That's the whole point. It's relative . The model works in two ways at the same time. It works in one way for Hitler because for him his future does not exist until it is in the present for him but for us it does exist because we are in a different relative position in time.

The model seems incoherent to you because you are not moving your perspective around accordingly. A square for example looks different from different angles depending on which part of the 3 dimensions you are on and what part of the square you are on.

I agree Hitler must have multiple potential futures for free will to exist but I see no logical reason why those futures need to exist in reality. If time /choices works like a landrover driving through the desert then it has potentially many different routes it could take but in it's future it will can only make one track , however , in a real sense the track cannot exist until the landrover gets there.

For Hitler his future does not actually exist and in a very real sense it doesn't exist. For us it does exist. These are both true. That's what makes it incoherent to you because if time is relative then we have to hold two opposing truths together at the same time. As long as you cling to some fantasy of constant Newtonian time you will always be looking for a consistency that can never be.

Originally posted by knightmeister
For Hitler his future does not actually exist and in a very real sense it doesn't exist. For us it does exist. These are both true. That's what makes it incoherent to you because if time is relative then we have to hold two opposing truths together at the same time.

But Hitlers future does exist, even for him, whether he knows what it is or not. Whether time is relative or not, two opposing truths, can not, ever be simultaneously true as was endlessly discussed in the thread on the universality of logic. The moment you claim that two contradictory truths are true, you become incoherent ie you are talking nonsense.

At point T in time, Hitler either has multiple futures or one single unique future, if he has multiple futures then it is necessary that those futures exist or they are not futures. The perspective is irrelevant. Either he will choose option A or he wont, or he will choose both A and B on different time lines.

As long as you cling to some fantasy of constant Newtonian time you will always be looking for a consistency that can never be.
As long as you cling to some fantasy notion that you can bend logic in any direction so long as it doesn't violate your beliefs, you will always be inconsistent and incoherent. Logic dictates that someone who says true=false is talking nonsense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But Hitlers future does exist, even for him, whether he knows what it is or not. Whether time is relative or not, two opposing truths, can not, ever be simultaneously true as was endlessly discussed in the thread on the universality of logic. The moment you claim that two contradictory truths are true, you become incoherent ie you are talking nonsense.
...[text shortened]... consistent and incoherent. Logic dictates that someone who says true=false is talking nonsense.

But for Hitler you do not exist , and for you he is dead. These are both true facts. Although they seem to be opposing they are actually not.

How can you say the time you live in is more real than the time Hitler is living in. For someone in the 24th century you are long dead. Does that mean you are dead? Of course not , it's just a matter of relative perspective.

Hitler's "now" is just as real and valid as your "now". Unless you think that there is some vast , newtonian all encompassing universal "now".

Time is relative and some things are true from different perspectives in time. For you Hitler is dead , for him in 1944 he is alive. Why is your position in time more valid than his? Is he dead or are you not born yet? Who is right? Or are they both true?

Think about it and stop this patronising rubbish you come out with.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But Hitlers future does exist, even for him, whether he knows what it is or not. Whether time is relative or not, two opposing truths, can not, ever be simultaneously true as was endlessly discussed in the thread on the universality of logic. The moment you claim that two contradictory truths are true, you become incoherent ie you are talking nonsense.
...[text shortened]... consistent and incoherent. Logic dictates that someone who says true=false is talking nonsense.

At point T in time, Hitler either has multiple futures or one single unique future, if he has multiple futures then it is necessary that those futures exist or they are not futures. ---whitey---


Hitler may have multiple POTENTIAL futures that may happen but (and here's the rub) unfortunately he can only choose one future to make real.

The potential futures may need to exist in order for hitler to choose them or they may not. You state catagorically that they must exist in reality in order for them to be potential choices.

In short you have yet to prove this claim of yours and since it is you that is saying that free will is incompatible with a known future the onus is on you to prove it , and all you seem to do is just state your position over and over again.

Me ? I just keep asking you lot why me knowing what hitler actually did in 1945 proves that he HAD to do what he did in 1945. The reason why I ask this is because you seem to think that simply knowing someone's future proves that their future was inevitable. However , I still see no proof for this argument . I see you only restating what you THINK must be true rather than really thinking about it.

How does the mere fact that I know Hitler's future prove that it was inevitable? How can you prove that at 1945 he had no potential to do anything else at all?

The problem you have with this is that if hitler did have free will and did have a potentially different choice he could have made then we will never know what it was. All we will ever know is what he did. So how does knowing what he did prove anything?

I know that you must realise I have a point here. I understand your position and it's entirely valid , what I don't understand is how you seem to think it's an open and shut case without any proof.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But for Hitler you do not exist , and for you he is dead. These are both true facts. Although they seem to be opposing they are actually not.

How can you say the time you live in is more real than the time Hitler is living in. For someone in the 24th century you are long dead. Does that mean you are dead? Of course not , it's just a matter of relat ...[text shortened]... they both true?

Think about it and stop this patronising rubbish you come out with.

I have thought about it, and you are still wrong. Yes the statements in your post are mostly correct and I agree that a statement is true based on its context (its context is part of the statement). However that is not what you were claiming. You were claiming that statements can be both true and false and that is incoherent nonsense.

I have not claimed that any position in time is 'more valid'. I am claiming that if we are his one and only future then any position is equally valid and he has only one possible future and only one result to any decision he believes he is making.

Calling on vague references to relativity wont get you out of it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Hitler may have multiple POTENTIAL futures that may happen but (and here's the rub) unfortunately he can only choose one future to make real.

What do you mean by 'multiple POTENTIAL futures'. Define it in terms I can understand then maybe we can communicate better.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What do you mean by 'multiple POTENTIAL futures'. Define it in terms I can understand then maybe we can communicate better.

A potential future might be a future that could exist but doesn't. It's impossible to bump into a potential future because if it became real it would not be potential anymore.

I suppose it's like quantum uncertainty. A quantum particle could be said to have many potential futures but only one of them actually comes into existence. If you agree with quantum uncertainty then a past obsevred quantum event must have had another potential event that could have happened but didn't. The problem is we only get to know that future that became a reality.