Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Spacetime and Determinism

In my opinion (which therefore makes it infallible truth, seeing as how Jesus said “Thou art Peter and upon this rock” etc.), the most consistently funny television show of all time was Whose Line Is It Anyway? By which I mean the American version, because the British version wasn’t as funny, although it still had its moments of greatness too. Whose Line was all about improv. There was no script, just a bunch of comedians who acted out sketches on the barest of suggestions.

One of the better sketches was called “Newsflash” and consisted of two members pretending to be newscasters while a third (usually Colin Mochrie) was put in front of a green screen. He didn’t know what was being displayed on the green screen behind him, but had to pretend that he did. By the end of the sketch, based on clues given him, he had to guess what it had actually been showing.

Here’s one of my favorite examples:


Now that you’re back from following the linked videos and getting your fill of Whose Line clips, I’ll appear to randomly change the subject…

When most of us try to visualize time, we tend to think of it from the perspective in which we perceive it. That’s to be expected, of course, but if we think about it in detail, we find flaws with our typical concepts. For example, we tend to believe that what we are experiencing as “now” is now for everyone, everywhere. That it’s some kind of “universal now.”

But this treats time as an objective reality. However, modern physics (and many philosophies) reject the objective nature of time. Time is relative to the observer in physics—there is no constant “speed” of time, and there is no objective “now” for any two observers. Indeed, one observer may view two events as simultaneous while another observer views those same two events as one preceding the other. Both views are equally valid, if you take their relative motion into account.

In the end, time is intricately linked to space. Einstein’s method of treating time as a fourth dimension worked well in math, and typically physics still keeps time as an extra dimension. Even in M-theory, where there are eleven physical dimensions, time is seen as an extra dimension too (so it’s common for someone holding to M-theory to say “There are eleven dimensions plus time”). String theory typically states there are ten dimensions plus time, and so on. Additionally, in theistic views, time is usually seen as having been created by God along with the rest of the universe. Therefore, time is intimately linked with space under theistic views too.

It’s easy for us to visualize space (or at least objects in space) as an abstract quantity. We can imagine any object, say, a desk. It exists in space, and the dimensions of the desk define the dimensions of the space the desk exists within. It is far more difficult to picture time in here as well, but we can imagine a desk as it progresses through time. The desk starts new, then gets scratches, coffee spills on it, kids draw on it, until such point as the wood begins to rot and eventually the desk crumbles away.

While it is easy for us to visualize the special aspect of the desk, we can’t visualize the entire time-line of the desk as a whole in spacetime, as that would require us to view something in at least four dimensions. But while it is difficult for us to view it, it is not at all difficult to write mathematical equations about it and understand how the variables interact with each other.

Since we view only the special aspects, we usually think of various objects as special snapshots within time. We mentally compare a start point with an end point, but we cannot see the time dimension itself. I would like to suggest that in order to view the entirety of the object, one must also take into account the timeline of the object, viewing the whole in spacetime rather than just in space. I would suggest that that is how God views the universe. Obviously we cannot do it, but we can come up with analogies to help us better understand certain concepts.

One of the better analogies has come to us from the movie industry. This is the epitome of a series of snapshots in time, usually at the rate of 24 frames per second (for movies) or 30 per second (for TV). What’s interesting is if you film at, say 48 frames per second, and play back at 24 frames per second, time will appear to take twice as long for the actors involved. Or, if you film at 12 frames per second and play it at 24 frames per second, time will appear to take half as long. Varying the speed at which action is filmed varies the appearance of time, and gives us such things as the “slow-motion” shot. Alternatively, you can alter the speed at which the film is played back (such as when you press fast-forward while playing a movie) instead of when the film is shot.

So suppose you watch a scene of a movie and you set your DVD player to play it in slow motion. The events unfold and seem to take much longer than they normally would; but, from the perspective of the characters in the video, time does not take any longer than normal. That’s because, from the character’s perspective, everything has slowed in relation to each other. Put it this way: if it takes 24 frames for the character to reach a certain point, it will always take 24 frames regardless if you play it at 12 frames per second or 48 frames per second. Changing the frame rate in playback doesn’t affect the number of frames used for the action.

Let us extend the analogy. Suppose that there are four scenes in a movie: A, B, C, and D. Suppose that for the characters, the events unfold chronologically. A happens before B, B before C, and C before D. What would happen if you took D and spliced it between A and B? You would have A, D, B, C (this would be similar to old theaters when the rolls of film got mixed up). The characters at point D know things that occurred in B and C, but D is played before B or C are played. From the point of view of the characters involved, B and C both preceded D even if D is played back before B and C. That is, as far as the characters in the movie are concerned, they have a specific history that is related to the story itself that has nothing to do with how the film is played back. You could actually randomize the entire movie so that there are no two consecutive frames. Pick any frame at random, and the characters in it will have knowledge of the history of whatever went before them, and will know nothing of the future that is ahead of them, within the context of that frame.

This means that, again as far as the characters are concerned, you could completely randomize time and they would not know it. Someone who watches the movie would know, but not the characters in it. Techniques like this (although not as extreme) have been used by many non-linear movies. Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction is an example of such a non-linear story, where the things that occur chronologically at the end of the story are shown in the middle of the movie, etc. As far as the characters are concerned, there is no “jumping” in time—but the audience can see it.

Let’s take that analogy and apply it to reality itself: as long as we have a concept of history, time itself could actually be completely randomized and we would not know it. That is, the “now” that we have could have been preceded by a “now” in the middle of next week, but we wouldn’t know it because we have only the experience of our history in mind at our “now.” While it is certainly unlikely that this is the case, what it shows is once again that our experiences in time do not have any bearing on the way that time actually unfolds from the perspective of an outside observer, such as God. God could have arranged time like a movie director, in that as He “views” the movie of the universe, He might see the Flood occur after the Resurrection. For that matter, time could be flowing backwards.

Of course, such assumes a closed future. That is, it views all objects in their entirety in both space and time. If God views the Flood after He views the Resurrection (on His heavenly DVD player), then the characters at the Flood could not do other than they did do. For God has already seen the Resurrection, which occurred after the Flood in chronological time, and required the actions of the Flood to have already been in the history of the universe at that point, even if it hadn’t yet been viewed.

It is important to note that this truth has absolutely nothing to do with what the people existing in time observe. Again, time could be completely randomized and they would not sense it. This is a function of an outside observer having seen that portion of the spacetime existence of an object, not a function of the character who is in time itself.

In the end, this means that if someone can view a complete object in spacetime, then the future is closed for that object. Whatever will happen is what will happen and it is unavoidable because it has been seen. More importantly, it means that if we exist as objects seen fully in spacetime by someone outside of spacetime, that means that the future is fully, 100% determined for us too! This means that an outside observer could “play” history over and over, just like we do a video, and the same exact results will obtain because the object that exists at any particular point in time (from its perspective) exists in the future and the past as that same object. If it were to change, then it would mean that randomizing time would be observable to people within time.

And this brings me back to Whose Line (bet you thought I forgot). Because of the movie analogy, it is tempting for someone to argue that this determinism is due to a feature of characters following a script. Whose Line has no script, yet the same principals apply. Take a frame from the above video, say one that occurs 30 second into the clip. Colin at that point doesn’t know what is on the green screen. You could splice in a frame from 3:40 in. Colin now knows what was on the green screen. It doesn’t matter what order you play those frames in, nor if you play it forwards or backwards. As far as Colin is concerned within the context of the film clip, how you view it does not alter time for him. You can alter the outside perception of time—play it in slow motion or speed it up—but it will not affect his perception of what went on. When you view the clip, the events are fully determined. The ending will be what it will be as you watch it; it cannot be other than what it is.

Additionally, this does NOT require infallible knowledge on the part of the observer. For instance, if you watch the above clip, it requires a certain history to be true for the characters who have been filmed. This means that if you watch them “now,” it necessitates their history so that they get to that point, yet you are not infallible. And this means that if the last “frame of time” has been viewed by any outside observer, the entire scope of spacetime has been determined, because it must be what it is to get to that last frame.

Ultimately, this means that even if God knows our “future” imperfectly—if He simply knows any of it—determinism obtains up to that point. Whatever God knows from our future requires a certain history for the world to get to that future. If God has seen scene D in the movie, then scenes A, B, and C are determined even if we are only in scene A “now.”

The only way to avoid this is to assert that there is no actual future; there is only the present and an eternally unfolding “now.” But this would require an “objective now” that even God must follow. God cannot have seen the ending, because if He has then all the preceding events are determined even if He didn’t want them to be.

12 comments:

  1. "Ultimately, this means that even if God knows our “future” imperfectly—if He simply knows any of it—determinism obtains up to that point."

    Blasphemous Heretic!! Prepare the stake, bind him up, and blowtorch him until he recants.

    God knows everything PERFECTLY.

    Of course, that's not the point of your post....

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Ultimately, this means that even if God knows our “future” imperfectly—if He simply knows any of it—determinism obtains up to that point."

    Determinism obtains up to that point.

    Determinism obtains up to that point?

    Determinism obtains up to that point!

    (Arminian Face Contortion) Ya mean mah boy inside da space-time continuum dun't have Liberterian Free Will? Dat's messed up.

    Ahh hates you, Pig Pike.

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I couldn't make it past all the skater-brahs racking themselves. I could barely type this sentence. But I'm sure it was a good post, carry on.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seems obvious enough to me, but I majored in physics and took particular interest in special relativity and the generation of electromagnetic radiation as a quantum distortion of space-time relative to the macroscopic perception of time. The differential, I theorize, establishes the speed of light universal constant. This is significant because we use this distortion of space-time to measure events as though they occurred in a consistent flow of time. So our perception is ironically based on an imperceptible function of the temporal universe.

    I have to disagree on one point, however: I thought the British version was better, but then I rather like British humor.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jim said:
    ---
    The differential, I theorize, establishes the speed of light universal constant.
    ---

    I've wondered if that might be so too, although I haven't taken the time to sit down and think it through. Now I have another thing to occupy my mind instead of sleep! :-D

    And I should point out that I also appreciate British humor, but I think Drew Carry was a better host (even though I don't really think he's all that funny). Maybe it's because Ryan and Colin were always on the show in America that made it better.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've not thought this out as carefully, so I may be missing something. I'm not sure I see that determinism follows from the knowledge of exactly how events will play out. God declared the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46). Your thesis sounds like it's at risk of encouraging Open Theism, which doesn't jive with my reading of scripture (I'm new today in following this blog, so I hope you will forgive me in not knowing or assuming where you stand on anything--HT: TeamPyro).

    Just because God knows the ending does not imply that the actors in the "show" don't have the ability to somewhat freely decide what they're going to do, He just happens to know what decisions they made/are making/will make. Colin still gets to make his choices within his time frame whether the audience at home already knows which choices he would make because this episode is a rerun. Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that knowledge of an external observer imposes determinism on Colin. I think, perhaps, the movie analogy here has missed something in explaining it to me.

    I'm quite willing to be convinced so long as you can explain how God remains eternally omniscient and knows and ordains with certainty the ending from the beginning and still exists within an objective present without having seen the actual ending.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zostay said:
    ---
    I've not thought this out as carefully, so I may be missing something.
    ---

    Yup, you are. :-)

    You said:
    ---
    I'm not sure I see that determinism follows from the knowledge of exactly how events will play out.
    ---

    Well, to get the full context, you'll have to sift through a bunch of posts over the past month or so. Basically, this counters the "Freedom = could have done otherwise" coupled with "People are free yet God knows the future" claims, as have been stated by recent Arminian folks.

    Furthermore, I would maintain that no matter what definition you use of anything else, if the same outcome will always obtain every single time no matter what, then the outcome must be determined. This is not like saying "The sun has always come up every morning, therefore it is determined that the sun will rise tomorrow morning too" which would be false as there is a possibility that the sun won't rise in the morning. My argument instead would be like saying: "It is an absolute fact that the sun will come up tomorrow, therefore it is impossible for the sun not to rise, and therefore the sun rising is determined."

    Now obviously *I* can't make the above claim truthfully...but God could.

    You said:
    ---
    Your thesis sounds like it's at risk of encouraging Open Theism
    ---

    Only insofar as the consistent Arminian must become an Open Theist. But just because that's where Arminianism logically leads doesn't mean I encourage that road. I'd much rather an Arminian realize that's the path and, knowing it is unbiblical to go there, have him or her ask Lord Kalvun into their hearts instead. :-D

    You said:
    ---
    Just because God knows the ending does not imply that the actors in the "show" don't have the ability to somewhat freely decide what they're going to do, He just happens to know what decisions they made/are making/will make.
    ---

    It matters if freedom requires the ability to do otherwise. If God knows what they will do, then they have no ability to do otherwise, and thus under many Arminian schemes they are not free.

    You said:
    ---
    Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that knowledge of an external observer imposes determinism on Colin.
    ---

    If Colin cannot do otherwise, then it does impose determinism. Note that this is not saying anything about responsibility, culpability, or causation.

    You said:
    ---
    I'm quite willing to be convinced so long as you can explain how God remains eternally omniscient and knows and ordains with certainty the ending from the beginning and still exists within an objective present without having seen the actual ending.
    ---

    I don't believe that's what God does. My point is simply that if God knows any point in the future such that that knowledge of the future is infallibly true (which does not require omniscience, since His knowledge could in theory be limited to just that point and this would still follow), then the history of the universe up to that point must be determined, for it cannot be otherwise.

    I do not believe God is limited at all in this sense, nor do Arminians. I am pointing out the lgoical implications of even a weaked form of their belief. The reality is that evidence of determinism is quite strong if God knows any part of the future. Thus, the only logical escape for the Arminian would be to embrace heretical Open Theism.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Peter Pike: "I am pointing out the logical implications of even a weakened form of their belief. The reality is that evidence of determinism is quite strong if God knows any part of the future. Thus, the only logical escape for the Arminian would be to embrace heretical Open Theism."

    It was obvious to me that's what you were doing with this post.

    What's an honest Arminian to do? Convert to Calvinism or embrace Open Theism?

    Does the Arminian keep is a priori commitment to Libertarian Free Will or does he surrender it?

    Do he pass gallstones or does he go blind?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Man, that is so many nut-shots... Oy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's obvious it's the speed demons and the dirt devils in collusion to draw attention away from the clear command of God:

    Gen 6:22 Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.


    Gen 8:16 "Go out from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons' wives with you.
    Gen 8:17 Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh--birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth--that they may swarm on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Okay, I think I can see what's happening now. God has blessed me with a good job and a house and a lot of travel this summer, etc., which means I probably won't make time to review the past posts to get the full context.

    However, I think you've just told me that I had actually thought through the issues clearly enough, I just misunderstood what point you were getting at. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete