I see no reason why what God perceives with his sense of time should be determinant within a universe that sense time differently.

Rich

I mean it’s fine if you see the next life as a kind of Platonic existence. I just don’t see conflating knowledge of past and future with there being no time. It just seems you’re taking knowledge and treating it as more than that without being able to provide a justification for that.

So I think what you are doing is reading any reference to time as an ontological one when contextually such readings just aren’t reading. So I think reading Alma 40:8 ontologically is just unsupportable. It’s just saying that if there isn’t a single short period for the resurrection it doesn’t matter because it’s all close enough to God. The analogy would be an adult looking at say a kid who wants a popsicle now and can’t fathom why he must wait.

I don’t agree. I think Alma is revealing something about the nature of God and how that nature differs from us. The question Alma is addressing is since men die at different times do they rise at different times or do they all rise at the same time? Alma goes on to say that it doesn’t matter because this way of reckoning time doesn’t exist with God. “all [men’s death and the resurrection] is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.”

I’d add that that it doesn’t say there isn’t time for God. Rather it makes the (common) analogy of something that seems long to us to being a short period to God. Say analogous to how long a day seemed when you were 8 versus when you are 40.

Again, I think you are wrong. This is not about a long period for man and a short period for God. In a society that notes the passing of time in days, to say all is one day is to say there is no time. For time to exist, there must be a second day. Thus Alma is saying “don’t worry about it because God doesn’t reckon time in this manner. It doesn’t tell us how God does reckon time. But Alma seems to be saying, it is not the way man reckons time.

D&C 84:100’s claim of “time is no more” is more about a particular period of probation being over.

But with the end of this probationary time, time ends. Time is associated with this terrestrial state. Once through this probationary period, time, as we know it, ends.

Joseph Smith wrote in Church History, “The great Jehovah contemplated the whole of the events connected with the earth, pertaining to the plan of salvation, before it rolled into existence, or ever ‘the morning stars sang together’ for joy; the past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal ‘now’; [Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p 406]

Past, present, future as one eternal ‘now’ is certainly not how we view time. We don’t know ontologically what time is like for a Celestial being, I certainly cannot get my mind around past, present, future as one eternal now, but the scriptures and writings of Joseph Smith seem to indicate that whatever time is like with God, it is not comparable to terrestrial or physical time.

Rich

So I think what you are doing is reading any reference to time as an ontological one when contextually such readings just aren’t reading. So I think reading Alma 40:8 ontologically is just unsupportable. It’s just saying that if there isn’t a single short period for the resurrection it doesn’t matter because it’s all close enough to God. The analogy would be an adult looking at say a kid who wants a popsicle now and can’t fathom why he must wait.

I’d add that that it doesn’t say there isn’t time for God. Rather it makes the (common) analogy of something that seems long to us to being a short period to God. Say analogous to how long a day seemed when you were 8 versus when you are 40.

D&C 84:100′s claim of “time is no more” is more about a particular period of probation being over.

Regarding physics and ontology I can but caution one adopt a very skeptical approach to things. There’s not even consensus on these matters let alone empirical testing. I have my own preferences (which differ considerably from what you outline) but I recognize that one can’t trust much about it.

It’s funny you should bring up the resurrection. I was sitting waiting for Sacrament meeting to begin when I looked up ‘time’ in my Bible concordance. It led me to Alma and his discussion of the resurrection. Alma 40:8 Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

It would seem the sequencing of events (time), as we see them, is irrelevant to God. This sequencing of events, time, is only relevant to man not to God. As the actual changing from a terrestrial being to a resurrected being, this mornings Gospel Doctrine class may shed some light. We were reading D&C 101 (I think) where ii says during the millennium a man will die and be transformed to a resurrected being in the “twinkling of an eye.” I take that to mean instantaneously. This may also be the case when spiritual beings transform into resurrected beings.

The I came across a reference note in Alma referencing D&C 84:100 “the Lord hath redeemed his people; and Satan is bound and time is no more.” It seems to say that once God’s work is done and his people are redeemed Satan will be bound and physical time will cease.

I have no idea what time is for God but it seems that our time, physical time, is not God’s time. I think there are quite a few scriptures that indicate our time is not God’s time. All this leads me to believe that your assumption may not be correct.

Regarding physical time and QM I confess I’m not quite sure the point you are making. Could you clarify? I’m pretty familiar with most of the philosophical interpretations of QM so it might help if you refer to some of the major interpretations so I can see where you are coming from.

OK? But if it sounds like gobily gook, just remember you asked for it. I understand there is a problem between nonlocality and simultaneity of quantum mechanics and special relativity. Evidently Roderich Tumulka wrote an article in 2006. He suggested that empirical predictions could be made of entangled pairs of particles by a modification of GRW theory. The modification is nonlocal yet fully compatible with space/time of special relativity. There are some problems with this approach but it seems premising.

David Z Albert (one of the authors of the article) has shown that combining quantum mechanics and special relativity requires us to give up the idea that everything that we can say about the universe can be put into a narrative. Because of the way special relativity deals with space and time it transforms entanglements among distinct physical systems into something along the lines of an entanglement among physical situations at different times. This exceeds the sum of situations at distinct temporal times. The result involves the manipulation of wave function. The problem is on deciding what wave function is. However, wave function cannot be represented in anything smaller than configuration space. If wave function is a particle, then fourth-dimensional space/time seems to be an emergent illusion of configuration space. If universe cannot be put into a narrative, and if space/time is an illusion, what then is the nature of time? (Oh man do I have a headache.)

I hope that helps. I am already way beyond my limitations. But this does seem to question the nature of time itself.

Rich

you seem to make certain assumptions about the nature of God that I think are unwarranted. You assume that physical time ontologically exists with Him. I don’t think we have the perspective by which to make such assertions.

I think you’re missing my point. There’s nothing textual to argue that physical time ontologically exists with him and considerable reason to assume it does. (i.e. his interaction with us) If ontological time doesn’t exist with him then the resurrection isn’t really a resurrection since time is essential for embodiment.

I think what you want to say is that God can perceive the future and past the way we perceive the future in a fashion analogous to vision. But that’s a different issue from the nature of time. I think you are conflating the two.

Regarding physical time and QM I confess I’m not quite sure the point you are making. Could you clarify? I’m pretty familiar with most of the philosophical interpretations of QM so it might help if you refer to some of the major interpretations so I can see where you are coming from. I’m not sure what you mean by “instantaneous change” for instance. As I see it the simplest explanation for QM is that there’s simply a single Hamiltonian like evolution for the whole universe and what appears like “simultaneous change” (i.e. change of entangled particles) is just due to this wave equation’s evolution. i.e. it appears odd to us simply because we think in terms of Newtonian causality.

We’re in the same situation. All that we can perceive is our four-dimensional space/time. We do not have the capacity to understand Celestial “space” whatever that is. We do know that physical entities such as ourselves inhabit that “space”. God revealed himself to Joseph Smith. The only information we have about God and the Celestial kingdom is what he has revealed to us. Even there Celestial concept must be converted to Terrestrial concepts before we can have some idea what He is talking about. When He reveals that He is unchanging, it seems clear to me that he is saying that He is different from terrestrial beings. In other words, He is not like us. This does not reveal what He is other than He is not like us. When he says His ways are not our ways. This only tells us He is not like us. It doesn’t say what he is like. And so on, His sense of time is not our sense of time. But we don’t know what his sense of time is or even if there is a sense of time. When He says past, present and future are as one with him. To me it tells me that God does not share our time frame of past, present and future.

For me, I think this is enough to say that the way we perceive physical time is not shared by God. It doesn’t say anything ontological about God. Since this perception is different, all I can do is conjecture as to what a Being who sees past, present, and future as one might mean to the question of God’s foreknowledge. It seems pretty clear what we perceive as foreknowledge is not shared by God. Since God knows all from the beginning to the end, we can ask, “how does he know that?” Of course we cannot answer that definitively. But we can say what are the ramifications of past, present and future as one. I’m guessing of course but it seems logical that the decisions that we made in the past, and what we make in the present and what we will make in the future are all revealed to Him as an aspect of all being one. In other words, everything we have done, what we are doing now and what we will do in the future are all one to him. He has no foreknowledge, as we understand the word. He knows what we will do because he has “seen” what we will do as if it were the past rather than the future. This knowledge is knowledge of what we will do with free will. It is not knowledge of what we will do in the future because for him, the future has already happened. It is knowledge of what we have already done in the future. This knowledge has no influence on our free will because he has seen what we will do with free will. As such, it has no impact on the use of our free will.

Is this correct? Hell-if-I-know. However, it seems to be internally consistent based on the information revealed to us. As such should at least be considered when discussing the issue of Free Will and God’s Foreknowledge. However, this is your world and you can decide what will be considered and what won’t. Me, I’m just a fly spec on your website watching beings smarter than I; trying desperately to understand what they are saying.

As to discussing with you the intricacies of quantum mechanics, I would rather argue with you about chocolate. At least I would have a fighting chance. So I am not going to nay say anything you have to say about quantum mechanics. The issue I was reading was SA March 2009. Here is a quote:

Quantum-mechanical wave function cannot be represented mathematically in anything smaller than a mind-boggling high-dimensional space called a configuration space. If as some argue, wave functions need to be thought of as concrete, physical objects, then we need to take seriously the idea that the world’s history plays itself out not in three-dimensional space of our everyday experience or the four-dimensional space-time of special relativity, but rather this gigantic and unfamiliar configuration space, out of which the illusion of three-dimensionality somehow emerges. Our three-dimensional idea of localty would need to be understood as emergent. The nonlocality of quantum physics might be might be our window into this deeper level of reality.

What I read from this is there may be unknown processes in configuration space that allows instantaneous change between nonlocal particles. If this is correct, it seems to me that it violates the concept of physical time. In physical time change does not occur in time. Sequential change is time. I recognize that all this includes a whole lot of ‘ifs’ and ‘maybes’. If this line of inquiry is correct (and that’s a big if) then it seems that physicists may be challenging the very nature of time.

Then again, it may be something that I ate. By all means, if I have gotten this all screwed up, I would enjoy being show where I went wrong. Making errors is one of the best ways to knowledge.

Rich

Most scriptures dealing with time and God just shouldn’t be read ontologically. Indeed I am of the opinion that one should never read ontology into the scriptures unless it’s crystal clear that is what is being talked about.

Entanglement is a very complex issue. And it is wrapped up with time. But one can’t say it takes place “without time.” I’d be willing to discuss that with you if you care. Rather it is saying that the two measurements are connected. It presupposes time. (The other interpretation is that there is backwards causality or a hidden variable that behaves in an odd fashion) One should be very careful about drawing out philosophical implications from Bell’s Theorem and entanglement.