Time?

[Your Computer]

About God for relegious: God gave humans free choice which means future is not predetermined. What happens though it that he/she/it(?) has access to all the dimensions at once. Think of you. You are a 3D being and you can see EVERYTHING on a 2D surface(paper). A 4D being would see everything in a 3D surface(inside buildings,human bodies etc.). Now an infinite dimensional being like god would have access to all dimensions. Therefore he can "see" all the "times" or "time moments" at once.

I can see why those two statements (which i have highlighted in bold) would not contradict each other for you. You would have to assume that God is in some way ignorant of all events (note, it cannot be of some events, for that would be illogical). However, ignorance implies being restricted by a specific dimension (or even multiple dimensions) of time. "Having access to" does not imply "being restricted to," and "infinite dimensional" i would argue implies "without restriction" since being restricted by all possible dimensions at the same time is illogical, and even if you were to consider restriction only due to choosing to remain within a specific dimension (i.e. not at the same time), it would still show that God is not restricted or limited to.

Yet, even having said that, the first statement which i highlighted in bold assumes that simply knowing implies intervention, therefore no free will. For how can free will be denied without intervention? Is free will truly dependent on our ignorance? Then why does action require some form of knowledge? That is, could you claim that your thoughts are not known to you? Could you claim that thought does not precede action? And, yet, only to the self does intervention not deny free will.

As for your question, "Does time flow?" That can be answered with, "Do events occur?" Even though one could therefore say, "Then time does not exist," since it gives the impression that time's existence is dependent on events. But if that were true, then how could events happen in the first place?

[Danny Boy]

Well these are very interesting points, but my question was "Does time flow? Yes,No and why." and not "Is the future predetermined or not?". However, I am going to tell my opinion about this. I believe that the universe is chaotic and that means it is more than capable of being unpredictable. The future doesn't exist. It just will happen. No one knows what the future holds(God is an exception if you are relegious I will come here later). Simple mathematical equations(the most simple you can think of) with nothing random in them can have outcomes that are entirely unpredictable(eg z = z² + c). Considering this, the universe doesn't need to be predetermined.

About God for relegious: God gave humans free choice which means future is not predetermined. What happens though it that he/she/it(?) has access to all the dimensions at once. Think of you. You are a 3D being and you can see EVERYTHING on a 2D surface(paper). A 4D being would see everything in a 3D surface(inside buildings,human bodies etc.). Now an infinite dimensional being like god would have access to all dimensions. Therefore he can "see" all the "times" or "time moments" at once.

But the thing is. Nothing in the universe is "Random" there is no particle that floats around at random directions (whit the apparent exception of quantum physics but I am not in the mood to explain how they can also be predicted... maybe I'll explain later if i have to). There is the first initial interaction (the big bang) and than there is the consequence (the present and the future). Physical iterations can be 100% predicted. if what you say of the universe being chaotic were true. than the weather forecasters would never have a seemingly accurate prediction for the next day or even the next hour! they would simply trow at us some random results of an infinite list of possible scenarios! and that is not the case in our reality! they can very accurately predict whether it will rain tomorrow or not! the only reason for them not being able to predict 100% the earth's weather for the next 2000 years its due to the lack of data (every life form on earth. every pebble and rock. every atom and electron, etc) and computing power!

You could also say that even though the universe can be predicted, the result would never be the real one due to the fact we have "free will". The is no free will. only the Illusion of it. Its like a rock aware it is falling down a hill, but completely convinced that it is moving itself to the bottom, when in fact its just gravity.

[BAndrew]

As for your question, "Does time flow?" That can be answered with, "Do events occur?" Even though one could therefore say, "Then time does not exist," since it gives the impression that time's existence is dependent on events. But if that were true, then how could events happen in the first place?

Well no. Event A occured at a time t1 and an event B occured at a time t2. The events happened and time exists, but nothing tells you that time flows.

But the thing is. Nothing in the universe is "Random" there is no particle that floats around at random directions (whit the apparent exception of quantum physics but I am not in the mood to explain how they can also be predicted... maybe I'll explain later if i have to). There is the first initial interaction (the big bang) and than there is the consequence (the present and the future). Physical iterations can be 100% predicted. if what you say of the universe being chaotic were true. than the weather forecasters would never have a seemingly accurate prediction for the next day or even the next hour! they would simply trow at us some random results of an infinite list of possible scenarios! and that is not the case in our reality! they can very accurately predict whether it will rain tomorrow or not! the only reason for them not being able to predict 100% the earth's weather for the next 2000 years its due to the lack of data (every life form on earth. every pebble and rock. every atom and electron, etc) and computing power!

You could also say that even though the universe can be predicted, the result would never be the real one due to the fact we have "free will". The is no free will. only the Illusion of it. Its like a rock aware it is falling down a hill, but completely convinced that it is moving itself to the bottom, when in fact its just gravity.

I didn't say the universe is random. I said that the universe is unpredictable. It is described by mathematical rules with nothing random in them and can have outcomes that are unpredictable. Well you know what? The forecasters can't predict the weather. They only use probabilities to estimate how the weather might be in 2-3 days later from that time. How many times did the forecasters say "It will rain" and it doesn't? In my experience many. Their accuracy for 2-3 days is 80-90% so there is a great possibility of what they say will happen, but what about 1 month? They can't predict the weather at 1 month exactly from now. The "luck of data" you refer to means you simply can't predict the weather. It is unpredictable.

[Your Computer]

Well no. Event A occured at a time t1 and an event B occured at a time t2. The events happened and time exists, but nothing tells you that time flows.

Even if Event B did not follow from Event A, would you say that all events are not related to any other event? If not, then what do you mean by "flows"? If math is to allow for variables because not everything is constant, then it should be recognized that time flows.

[Danny Boy]

I didn't say the universe is random. I said that the universe is unpredictable. It is described by mathematical rules with nothing random in them and can have outcomes that are unpredictable. Well you know what? The forecasters can't predict the weather. They only use probabilities to estimate how the weather might be in 2-3 days later from that time. How many times did the forecasters say "It will rain" and it doesn't? In my experience many. Their accuracy for 2-3 days is 80-90% so there is a great possibility of what they say will happen, but what about 1 month? They can't predict the weather at 1 month exactly from now. The "luck of data" you refer to means you simply can't predict the weather. It is unpredictable.

It is predictable because as I said before. they are still stranded by the laws of physics. this laws can be calculated and have a predictable outcome.

And as I said before (and I have the impression you did not fully understood what I said): The only reason for the forecasters to use probabilities is due to the lack of data. They do not posses all the info and data that could affect the weather in the next morning. It is Humanly impossible to ever make a computer to predict by 100% the future of the WHOLE UNIVERSE or even just earth. but the calculations are already done in the universe's "source code" why do you think scientist can predict so accurately if a comet will or will not hit the earth? The physics are there the only difference between a comet's orbit and the earth's climate is simply: complexion. Even if something is incredibly complex it doesn't mean It can't not be calculated. It would just need an incredible amount of data and time.

[BAndrew]

Well no. Event A occured at a time t1 and an event B occured at a time t2. The events happened and time exists, but nothing tells you that time flows.

Even if Event B did not follow from Event A, would you say that all events are not related to any other event? If not, then what do you mean by "flows"? If math is to allow for variables because not everything is constant, then it should be recognized that time flows.

Definetely one event happened before the other. What I mean with "flows" is the notion that time ‘flows’; that time goes by. It is hard to deny the feeling that this is what happens, but having a ‘gut’ feeling about something, however strong that feeling is, is not enough in science. In our everyday language we say that ‘time passes’, ‘the time will arrive’, ‘the moment has gone’ and so on. But if you think about it, all motion and change must, by definition, be judged against time. This is how we define change. When we wish to describe the rate of a certain process we either count the number of events in a unit of time, such as the number of heart beats per minute, or the amount of change in a unit of time, such as how much weight a baby has put on in one month. But it becomes nonsensical to try and measure the rate at which time itself changes since we cannot compare it with itself. People often jokingly state that time flows at a rate of one second per second. This is clearly a meaningless statement since we are using time to measure itself. To clarify this, how would we know if time were to suddenly speed up? Since we exist within time and measure the duration of intervals of time using clocks which, like our internal biological clocks, must presumably speed up also, we would never be aware of it. The only way to talk about the flow of (our) time is to judge it against some external, more fundamental, time.
But if an external time against which we could measure the rate of flow of our own time did exist then we would only be pushing the problem further back rather than resolving it. Surely if time by its nature flows, then why should this external time not flow also? In which case we are back to the problem of needing a further, even more fundamental, time scale against which to measure the rate of flow of external time, and so on in a neverending hierarchy.

Just because we are unable to talk about a rate of flow of time does not mean that time does not flow at all. Or maybe time is standing still while we (our consciousness) are moving along it (we are moving towards the future rather than the future coming towards us). When you look out of the window of a moving train and observe fields rushing by you ‘know’ that they are standing still and that it is the train that is moving. Likewise, we have the strong subjective impression that the present moment (what we call now) and an event in our future (say next Christmas) move closer together. The time interval separating the two moments shrinks. Whether we say that next Christmas is moving closer to us or that we are moving closer to next Christmas amounts to the same thing: we feel that something is changing. So how come most physicists argue that even this idea is not valid?

Strange as this may sound, the laws of physics say nothing about the flow of time. They tell us how things like atoms, pulleys, levers, clocks, rockets and stars behave when subjected to different forces at certain instants in time, and if given the status of a system at a particular moment the laws of physics provide us with the rules for computing its likely state at some future time. Nowhere, however, do they contain a hint of flowing time. The notion that time passes, or moves in some way, is completely missing in physics. We find that, like space, time simply exists; it just is. Clearly, say most physicists, the feeling we have that time flows is just that: a feeling, however real it may seem to us.

What science is unable to provide at the moment is an explanation for where this strong sense we have of passing time and a changing present moment comes from. Some physicists and philosophers are convinced that there is something missing in the laws of physics. I will not go as far as to say that I subscribe to this view, but I do believe we will only make progress when we have a better understanding of how our own consciousness works, and hence why we feel the passage of time.

I should mention that no less an authority than Einstein himself held the view that the flow of time is illusory and even expressed it when trying to console the bereaved widow of a close friend of his, stating that she should take comfort in the knowledge that the present moment is no more special than any other in the
past or the future; all times exist together.

---

It is predictable because as I said before. they are still stranded by the laws of physics. this laws can be calculated and have a predictable outcome.

That doesn't make it predictable. And no they don't have a predictable outcome.

[Danny Boy]

It is predictable because as I said before. they are still stranded by the laws of physics. this laws can be calculated and have a predictable outcome.

That doesn't make it predictable. And no they don't have a predictable outcome.

Draco Striker.... I leave this one for you.

[BAndrew]

Draco Striker.... I leave this one for you.

I am talking about chaotic systems. Read this and hopefully you will understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[DracoStriker]

I was summoned by Danny Boy not sure why. For what he explained to me, I just have this to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.

This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.

Conclusion: We cannot predict because of our computational limitations but the future is in fact determined.

[BAndrew]

I was summoned by Danny Boy not sure why. For what he explained to me, I just have this to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.

This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.

Conclusion: We cannot predict because of our computational limitations but the future is in fact determined.

How did you reach the conclusion that the future is determined? The systems are described by chaotic rules which as you said can still be deterministic, but small differences in initial conditions makes it unpredictable.