God is out of our jurisdiction...Follow

So Smash. You're saying that you can prove absolutely that the future does not exist?

Yes. Physics proved this in about 1943. The fact that you won't understand the math underpinning it unfortunately doesn't make it not so.

Geez Joph. I practically handed that one to you gift wrapped.

I've been waiting for someone to make the whole time-cube reference...

Huh. 'Cause I'd probably avoid intentional comparisons between myself and some internet nutcase.

To each their own, I suppose.

Which is odd, considering I'm the one describing complex multi-dimensional theories, and you're the one sputtering "But I'm right, dammit!" over and over...

I know exactly the argument you're making. The problem is that neither your nor anyone else has provided any logical support for the base assumption your argument starts from. Hence, you keep repeating the assumption "you can't have free will if there's an omniscient being" over and over and some how missing that that's the very assumption I'm challenging.




Not specifically in those terms (been a long time since I've taken classes on this subject), but I get where you're going.

I know the difference. But here's the issue. The logical argument in this case rests on an assumption that two specific things can not both exist inside the universe. By it's nature this requires that we evaluate our model of the universe to see if that's a true assumption.

I'm not confusing the two, I'm using the model to show how the logic of the assumption is false. When we construct theoretical models the only invalidating feature is an existing proven fact that contradicts the proposed theoretical model. So if my model requires that rain travel upwards rather then downwards, you could say my model is invalid and thus any argument I'm using that's based on it is also invalid.

In this specific case, I theorized a model of the universe which included an interaction of space-time that allows for all possible future events to exist as "real" events that could be perceived (but not by us). I then argued that within this model an omniscient being could see all of those points in space-time (meeting the criteria for "omniscience"), yet since that knowledge would in no way limit the choices of us humans, it would not infringe on our free will.

The model meets the criteria of disproving the assumption about the impossibility of omniscience and free will coexisting. The next test is to determine if this model contradicts any actual known facts of the universe as we know them. I *assumed* (yeah, dangerous I know) that when you and Smash both stated that the future was not "real", that this was your attempt to disprove my model. Hence, why I countered that you could not prove that the future didn't exist, and thus could not disprove my model.


If you'd care to find any other known proven facts about the universe we live in that invalidates my model, please do so. But if you can't, then you can't disprove the model. And if you can't disprove the model, then the model is "possible". And if the model is possible, and the model contains a reality in which it's possible for omniscience and free will to coexist, then those things also *cannot* be "impossible".


Do you follow the logic and see the reason for the model now?

Edited, Oct 4th 2007 8:06pm by gbaji