Does the superposition lead to parallel universes in your view?
I like to consider the problem with the beginning of uneventful time, and if time is said to begin with the first happening, it only seems to beg the question.
Absolute time or whether space is infinitely divisible is not a hill I’m going to fight a great deal over, but there is certainly an absolute relation over all things.
Sounds like a reference to the Everett many worlds interpretation of quantum physics. You should know that one of the reasons physicists take it so seriously is because of the robust mathematics.
You could say that mine is a different interpretation of the mathematics of the many worlds interpretation, combining it with the (non-philosophical) Copenhagen interpretation. This is to say that these so called other worlds are simply the real possibilities of the future. But only one of these becomes the actual world in the present moment.
Furthermore, I believe that this transition from many possible futures to a single actual present is an essential part human consciousness. For otherwise you would only have the characters is a book which have no consciousness. …and the many worlds interpretation would only be an infinite collection of such books also without any consciousness.
That is incoherent. Time is simply an ordering of events. Thus without events there is no time.
I’m not seeing the idea I believe you are suggesting, being QM is a probable randomness and the future is unwritten.
This again assumes a nature of a God’s awareness is confined to time in which He must react instead of something being baked in from the beginning.
In a poor but best example I can find (read between the lines). We know when a baby is given the chance they will clear a coffee table, we do it first, and then they grow out of if. Physically, much of what we physically do is baked in such as death alone has manifested medicines, anti-aging, philosophies, and this forum. All predictable? Self-fulfilling prophecies/forecasts based on the state of things and some good Fourier transitions may get us there.
I see superposition as probabilistic as I crudely virtualized part of it in a logic design. The design was to use a single number for multiple feature states by assigning on-off to each bit within the number. Knowing the desired need, I can predict the probability of features of the selected resource from the available pool of resources. The selection is based on a pre-identified need that is then matched to a prioritized set of features such as speed, free space, security, recoverability, cost, etc. by creating an options map for each feature of required, preferred, or no preference, or never that best satisfies the need. In the actual selection, required is a given, but a preferred feature being on is more probabilistic given resource availability, and a no preference is even less probabilistic. FYI: The map of user preferences ordered the features bit position [100 v 010] if higher priority and then generated number for each resource in the pool can be sorted to find the best available resource.
The idea is even though it is probabilistic, it is not random. Bob can calculate the probability of a state but Alice already knows since she peaked. It’s only probabilistic until we look.
I’m not officially trained but see QM being Quantum or Quanta (e.g. number vs value or qualia) meaning a number of states residing together as my bits=single number example. But unlike my example of detached resources, the atomic level QM states are balanced with their neighbors, the basis for quantum computing.
Coming back; I’m not seeing the idea I believe you are suggesting, being QM is probable randomness and the future is unwritten.
Seems the root questing is either God knew back then and prophesied it, or He is fixed in time with us, not knowing and having to intervene on the fly.
Not insisting anything. a strawman.
Nope. Whether you are inside our measure of time or outside of it is irrelevant. Like I said before it is like a reading a book. You can’t read the ending unless the book is already written. And you being inside the book or not is irrelevant.
This is a simple logical contradiction between seeing the future and participating in the present. How can you see the future when you haven’t even decided your own participation in creating that future? Is your participation in the present without effect on the future? And if your participation is all planned out then seeing the future is no problem because your contribution to the writing of the present is done. But that way of avoiding a contradiction is Deism, and I am not Deist. I believe in a God who participates in the present as part of a real relationship with people.
Frankly all this nonsense is the childish demand to have your cake and eat it too.
I absolutely do too, though it is interesting how he orchestrates the real actions of real people in the past to effect future situations, accomplishing his providential interventions without violating anyone’s free will.
Either those people are just puppets (we know they are not), or God is not bound by time – past, present or future. He dynamically relates to people in all three tenses instantaneously. Did someone say “omnitemporal”? (And it sounds like you are denying the possibility of any true prophesy.)
No, because he is dynamically relating there too. Remember Judas – he was responsible for his foreknown actions.
Don’t bind God with conventional thinking. (Remember, just today you allowed a new word you heretofore denied.) And it appears (from Discourse’s tally of all of 1) that you did not watch the short video* excerpted from a PBS NOVA in Steve @revealing’s post in the other conversation. It helps conceptualize how God can be omnipresent and omnitemporal, but it does not make it any less wonderful!
*It’s not conspicuous – it‘s near the bottom just above the last block quote bar.
ETA: Embedded link to the video… and bolded text. (Why didn’t I do that in the first place? 
)
Decision, freedom. This seems to be the core focus to talk about. So I will.
Not disagreeing, just sharing that I have demoted the concept of Freedom of Choice as I found it errant as the foundation for freedom.
I see choice is heavily based on naivete. Freedom of choice is a statement of naivete. As in “I’m not sure, this seems best”. We even misconceive in our choices and not free of the result.
Freedom does not come from the ability to choose since we are not free of its consequences. Freedom comes when no one objects, no obstacles.
The idea that our freedom is based on our ability to choose appears errant, as well as freedom of choice (to act in naivete) will negate a prophecied ending.
Especially considering the ending describes a time of revealing, When revealed, what choice remains when the right one is obvious? Shall we pick a less ideal solution to preserve our freedom to choose? I think not as our freedom to choose is often fleeting in that once it’s made, we may not get a second chance to choose again. What is a choice, except to choose, and then it’s gone once made.
The real issue I see being objected to by all is the idea of a God that knows the ending is a puppet story. I always question boundaries and wondered if they can be reconciled together. Is it only either-or?
One possibility I’m toying with and have mentioned before is the prophesied end is indeed a temporary puppet story with a needed purpose being our preparation for its removal. The idea accepts the puppet story having both a purpose and ending as outlined in Ro 8:20-21 where our choice is an apparent functionally useful illusion provided by our naivete. The story continues that at the coming conclusion, when the purpose has been fulfilled, a new heaven and earth are created and eternal lacking an end to prophesy about. Our natural laws may not be so fixed and predictable that we can indeed create our own future without cautions, constraints, and prophetic endings. A nice idea that accepts today’s repeated testability of science and guaranteed outcomes, predestination, adding an improved universe where we are indeed free to choose (no one objects). Perhaps even nature will bend to our will as in saying to the mountain, move, and it will.
The purpose seems to not remove naivete as it keeps eternity fresh, nor our choice to explore, but the ill intent we sometimes choose out of our naivete is removed through revealing in the days of lawlessness that does seem to be approaching as promised.
Not saying I’m right, but when science and prophecy both suggest the end is predestined, it gets hard to argue otherwise. Often suggesting we’re looking at it wrong. The biblical continuation suggests an answer to our puppet delimea if I’m not missing something.
It seems you are thinking how the word is used. I was thinking of the origin of the word and why it was invented.
I read that the first one using it in a (latin) text was Tertullianus. After that, it slowly spread and was adopted to the vocabulary of theologians. If I understood right, the idea of trinity was made an ‘official’ part of the doctrine in the council of Constantinople (aD 381) and the word appeared in the Athanasius creed that was written later.
Why was the word invented and spread among theologians?
There were theological debates about the nature of Jesus with the supporters of Areios and (later) Nestorios. There was also some debate about the nature of the Holy Spirit as the matter was dealt in the Council of Constantinople. In the debates, it would have taken much time and space to explain the idea in detail, separately for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The first creeds made that but in the discussions, it was handy to have a word that incorporated the idea.
I call it squeezing the idea (concept) into one word. It was like using the words ‘biological evolution’ in biological sciences, the idea (concept) is ‘squeezed’ into two words.
What was the idea (concept) that was represented by the term?
I read that the third ecumenical council agreed that there is no need to form a new statement of the doctrine, what had been accepted in the first ecumenical council and formulated as the Nicene creed remained the generally accepted creed. This means that also the content of the term ‘trinity’ had to follow from the Nicene creed (completed by what had been accepted in Constantinople about the Holy Spirit).
‘Trinity’ did not include everything that was known about God but it had to include the parts of the creeds that described what the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were (the nature or essence of God).
1 Like
Biblical prophesy is not fortune telling. Biblical prophesy is mostly political comment along the lines of "if you do (or don’t) then this will (or won’t).
Apocalyptic prophecy is different inasmuch as it is seen as the long term goals of God.
Daniel’s visions are vague but usually associated with the Maccabean period of Jewish History and it has even been suggested that they were retrospectively written during that time.
On the other hand, I see no problem with God knowing all. That would seem to go with the job description. What He does with the information is for Him not me to decide.
When we start speculating on how God does this or reacts to that we are doing just that, speculating. We can neither be certain, nor judge Him. And to a greater or lesser extent that applies to His make-up. The Trinity is more academic than useful.
Perhaps it is best to trust Him and leave it at that?
Richard
1 Like
As a Christian, I accept the teaching about God that is represented by the word ‘trinity’. Yet, I have to say that I do not understand the essence of God. There is so much that is beyond our capacity to understand, or at least beyond my capacity.
If someone understands the essence of God, fine. I hope that I can learn something from the discussions with those who think that they know.
One reason why I am reluctant to use terms like ‘trinity’ is that I do not fully understand the essence of God. If I do not understand it, why would I try to concentrate on it when talking with others? Knowledge does not save, although knowledge may help in the search of the will of God and in getting the faith that can save.
2 Likes
Nice.
For the same reason the law doesn’t save. Neither will change our heart and leave us in bondage knowing one but desiring the other. The only solution is in changing our desire to doing whats good to which we are free to do. Brainwashing? Not if we agree there are no laws against happiness, kindness, love, respect, mercy and others. These are good desires to have. And it’s not about any words or deeds, but the intent behind them. Self-serving or caring? “I did it out of…”
(from His faithfulness).
It’s like quantum mechanics. Anyone who thinks they do, doesn’t. Really, really doesn’t. Below zero.
1 Like
The unmistakable reality of consciousness and not experiencing some branching effect was a thought when the theory was first presented to me. The other thing I figured, with respect to the mathematics in support of it, is that the math works the same irregardless of the direction the video is played.
And without objects there is no space?
You don’t need to instruct me on the creeds or church councils, as we studied them in our church theology classes.
All disciplines develop specialized vocabulary for the concepts they study. It doesn’t matter when the word “Trinity” was first used. People were talking about the nature of God before that word was used. Just as people talked about the nature of Christ before they had the word Christology. We also have the terms “patriology” (study of God the father), “pneumatology” (study of the Holy Spirit), and “patristics” (study of the church fathers). And so forth.
1 Like
@mitchellmckain: You seem not to have replied to this above: How does the trinity work? - #58 by Dale
I can see how my question got lost in the shuffle, but you raised a compelling issue here, and I’m very interested to see if this also means there is no space, if there are no objects.
1 Like
Space is also an ordering of events. Space and time are interconnected.
We certainly don’t know of any space without objects. All space is filled with virtual particles.
Space and time are measures but there is nothing to measure without events.
Virtual particles are fascinating. It’s as if one can occur and have a miraculous effect at any moment.
I understand space always appears to contain something, as if nature abhors a vacuum, and in peering beyond the quarks, what else will then show itself to be there.
If space is nothing, then it would still be infinitely divisible.
1 Like
There is no space where particles cannot appear, but there is still space to encompass them.
1 Like
