Creation in Backwards Time

[Neil_Anthony]

Premise 1:
The laws of physics can work in either direction in time - given perfect knowledge of the present condition of the universe, physics can predict future events as well as it can say what past events were. For example, the laws of gravity that determine the orbits of the planets let us predict where they will be in the future, and where they were in the past.

Premise 2:
God is outside of time, so all points of time are equally present to Him. The direction of time as moving from past to present to future that we see, is arbitrary to God. God can see future then the past then the future again.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the point of “creation” where God set the “initial conditions” of the universe need not have been at the earliest time. It could have been at the most future time, or any other time in between. The laws of physics God created could determine the whole sequence of time from start to end given an initial condition at any point in time.

Is this correct? If it’s true, we could say that “creation” occurred at any point in time, even in the future.

 

[geometer]

Premise 1:
The laws of physics can work in either direction in time - given perfect knowledge of the present condition of the universe, physics can predict future events as well as it can say what past events were. For example, the laws of gravity that determine the orbits of the planets let us predict where they will be in the future, and where they were in the past.

Premise 2:
God is outside of time, so all points of time are equally present to Him. The direction of time as moving from past to present to future that we see, is arbitrary to God. God can see future then the past then the future again.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the point of “creation” where God set the “initial conditions” of the universe need not have been at the earliest time. It could have been at the most future time, or any other time in between. The laws of physics God created could determine the whole sequence of time from start to end given an initial condition at any point in time.

Is this correct? If it’s true, we could say that “creation” occurred at any point in time, even in the future.

Premise 1 is false. Since some systems like huricanes at times are critically determined their history cannot be reversed or repeated with the same result.

Premise 2 is false, in its first part. God is omnipresent… But then again there are three more premises in number 2.

 

[Drawmack]

Premise 1:
The laws of physics can work in either direction in time - given perfect knowledge of the present condition of the universe, physics can predict future events as well as it can say what past events were. For example, the laws of gravity that determine the orbits of the planets let us predict where they will be in the future, and where they were in the past.

Premise 2:
God is outside of time, so all points of time are equally present to Him. The direction of time as moving from past to present to future that we see, is arbitrary to God. God can see future then the past then the future again.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the point of “creation” where God set the “initial conditions” of the universe need not have been at the earliest time. It could have been at the most future time, or any other time in between. The laws of physics God created could determine the whole sequence of time from start to end given an initial condition at any point in time.

Is this correct? If it’s true, we could say that “creation” occurred at any point in time, even in the future.

Neil,

God exists outside of time. To God, time is a dimension that may be moved within, so to speak.

We, humans, have only three dimensions we can move within. Height, depth, width. If I move to my left, do something, move to my right, then move back to my left is is appropriate to say that I did something on my right? No, I did it on the left.

Just because God can transcend time it doesn’t mean that things in our past are actually in our future.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Just because God can transcend time it doesn’t mean that things in our past are actually in our future.

Of course not, why would it??

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Premise 1 is false. Since some systems like huricanes at times are critically determined their history cannot be reversed or repeated with the same result.

You’re correct that some systems aren’t repeatable. But the problem of repeatability is the same in forward or reverse time. While your point is valid, does it really affect the point of the premise, which is that the laws of physics can work in forward or reverse time?

Premise 2 is false, in its first part. God is omnipresent… But then again there are three more premises in number 2.

Which part of premise 2 is false?

 

[reggieM]

Conclusion:
Therefore, the point of “creation” where God set the “initial conditions” of the universe need not have been at the earliest time. It could have been at the most future time, or any other time in between. The laws of physics God created could determine the whole sequence of time from start to end given an initial condition at any point in time.

Is this correct? If it’s true, we could say that “creation” occurred at any point in time, even in the future.

Interesting idea. I think Premise 2 alone is enough to support a modified version of your conclusion.

Premise 2:
God is outside of time, so all points of time are equally present to Him. The direction of time as moving from past to present to future that we see, is arbitrary to God. God can see future then the past then the future again.

I think it’s not only a question that God sees the future – but we have to accept that God already created the future. The entire creation occurred in a moment, outside of time. So, the entire string of events – with all the possiblities that humans have to freely choose within that string, was not gradually created as a sequence. In other words, God is not waiting to see what will happen.

Creation is an expression of one idea from God – and the entire thing occurs at once (from His perspective).

That is just as difficult to understand as the idea that God could have created the universe sometime after the earliest time of the universe’s beginning.

The interesting thing is that God didnt’t set the rules in the beginning alone – but in the past, present and future all at the same time.

Maybe we could think about it as a function of speed.
The entire history of the universe, which we see as billions of years – is less than one second of God’s time. So, in the time it takes to create the laws and set the rules and conditions – the life of the universe is already over.

That might be another way to look at your argument. That the act of creation took the same amount of time as the entire life of the universe – so the laws and the beginning-middle-end of the universe all came into existence at the same time.

 

[Drawmack]

Of course not, why would it??

Your initial postulation is that it’s correct to say creation occurred in our future. It did not, it occurred in our past.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Your initial postulation is that it’s correct to say creation occurred in our future. It did not, it occurred in our past.

You’ve expressed the received viewpoint, but you haven’t pointed out any flaws in the logic of my alternative viewpoint

 

[Drawmack]

You’ve expressed the received viewpoint, but you haven’t pointed out any flaws in the logic of my alternative viewpoint

Yes I did, then you agreed with me and asked why it would, so I answered that question.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think it’s not only a question that God sees the future – but we have to accept that God already created the future. The entire creation occurred in a moment, outside of time. So, the entire string of events – with all the possiblities that humans have to freely choose within that string, was not gradually created as a sequence. In other words, God is not waiting to see what will happen.

Creation is an expression of one idea from God – and the entire thing occurs at once (from His perspective).

Yes, its an amazing epiphany when a person comes to understand this! I’m glad I’m not the only one. I was starting to fear I might be crazy - no one agreed with me.

That is just as difficult to understand as the idea that God could have created the universe sometime after the earliest time of the universe’s beginning.

The interesting thing is that God didnt’t set the rules in the beginning alone – but in the past, present and future all at the same time.

I suppose… God must hold the rules in place at all points in time.

This can be so confusing because everything you say has to be qualified as our time or God’s time. When we say “the beginning of the universe” we mean at time t=0… which we call the beginning but to God is just one of the edges of the time-space universe that he created.

Maybe we could think about it as a function of speed.
The entire history of the universe, which we see as billions of years – is less than one second of God’s time. So, in the time it takes to create the laws and set the rules and conditions – the life of the universe is already over.

That might be another way to look at your argument. That the act of creation took the same amount of time as the entire life of the universe – so the laws and the beginning-middle-end of the universe all came into existence at the same time.

Yes I think so!

Here’s another fascinating thing you can do with this theory: Imagine that the point of creation was the instant after man’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden was a quite different place from our Earth… God decides to expel man from the Garden, and puts them at a point in space-time in our universe, at 4004BC by our time. God sets the initial conditions at this single point of time, and the laws of physics unfold forward to infinity and backward to the big bang instantaneously in God’s time, and whamo, man has this messed up world that he’s been expelled into with its own history and future based on laws of physics that allow for corruption and death.

 

[masterjedi747]

Premise 1:
The laws of physics can work in either direction in time - given perfect knowledge of the present condition of the universe, physics can predict future events as well as it can say what past events were. For example, the laws of gravity that determine the orbits of the planets let us predict where they will be in the future, and where they were in the past.
…
You’re correct that some systems aren’t repeatable. But the problem of repeatability is the same in forward or reverse time. While your point is valid, does it really affect the point of the premise, which is that the laws of physics can work in forward or reverse time?

Sorry, I’m still lost on what the hell “reverse time” is? How is it not patently absurd?

Let’s take your example of universal gravitation, for example… all bodies attract each other with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. So let’s start out with a ball one mile above the surface of the Earth, and drop it. Universal gravitation now describes the path of the ball, and a few minutes later it hits the ground, bounces, and comes to rest. Then we let it rest for another minute… and push the “reverse time” button.

NOW what happens, and why? Explain to me how this is supposed to work, even in theory, because it makes absolutely NO sense to me. Gravity itself is certainly not reversing – all bodies are not suddenly repelling each other with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

So yes, it certainly seems easy enough to posit that, for the first minute, the ball will be riding through “reverse time” at rest. But THEN… why is it suddenly popping up into the air, bouncing higher and higher, and flying up to a point one mile above the surface of the Earth? What possible cause is there for this in 'reverse time"? How is this not completely defying universal gravitation for no reason whatsoever?

Your argument that the law of gravity somehow enables us to determine the position of the planets in the past is flawed, for similar reasons. Assuming the regularity of their motions as a given, yes, we can predict their locations in the past to a greater or less extent… but that can only go so far, at best only to the formation of the solar system. But if we don’t know that a huge random asteroid flew by Pluto and threw off its orbit a million years ago, then our calculations are going to be flawed. Hitting the “reverse time” button isn’t going to magically fix everything either… if you reverse the course of the asteroid and being it back closer to Pluto, it should just pull it off of its orbit even more, not magically push it back to its original orbit.

No offense, but it just seems to me like this is clearly an absurd product of the imagination… I can’t imagine why you’re seriously considering it as a real possibility?

 

[buffalo]

There is some thinking that each instant in time the universe is created anew.

 

[reggieM]

There is some thinking that each instant in time the universe is created anew.

That would be correct also. When we say that God “sustains” the universe, it means that creation is occuring constantly.

Another way to put it – God cannot “wait” for something to happen. He created a universe where we experience the idea of waiting for events in the future to unfold, and to think back in the past.

We should think about the offering of Mass also. When we say that Christ’s sacrifice is “re-presented” to the Father at every Mass – it means that the past is made present again.

 

[masterjedi747]

There is some thinking that each instant in time the universe is created anew.

…you would have to be very careful in what exactly you mean by that, because there are also huge philosophical (and possibly theological) absurdities involved with the idea that time is not continuous, and is instead made up of an infinity of consecutive “instants”.

It’s far, far better to simply speak of creation as being continuously sustained from one moment to the next, rather than “created anew at every instant”, just because that sort of language seems to be implying that there is a “next instant” immediately after “this instant”, with no amount of time in between… and you end up buried in philosophical absurdities very quickly.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Sorry, I’m still lost on what the hell “reverse time” is? How is it not patently absurd?

Well, I gave one example in the initial post where it made sense, so there’s one time where its not patently absurd But I agree you raise a good question. But it has an answer. Let me explain:

Let’s take your example of universal gravitation, for example… all bodies attract each other with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. So let’s start out with a ball one mile above the surface of the Earth, and drop it. Universal gravitation now describes the path of the ball, and a few minutes later it hits the ground, bounces, and comes to rest. Then we let it rest for another minute… and push the “reverse time” button.

NOW what happens, and why? Explain to me how this is supposed to work, even in theory, because it makes absolutely NO sense to me. Gravity itself is certainly not reversing – all bodies are not suddenly repelling each other with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

This is an example where it would be very difficult to foresee what would happen in reverse time. But there are examples like that in forward time too. In forward time, a weather pattern with lots of clouds and raindrops all of a sudden produces a lightning bolt that destroys a tree. Who could predict exactly when and where the lightning bolt would strike?

In the same way, it would be hard but not impossible to predict the ball rising up from the ground in reverse time. Look at it in more detail in forward time: when the ball hits the earth, the energy from the ball goes to a few places: 1) into the ground, resulting in a series of tiny seismic waves or shock waves that gravitate out from where the ball hit 2) similar waves in the air and possibly 3) kinetic energy in the form of bits of dirt flying away from where the ball hit. In reverse time, the waves described in 1 and 2 would converge on the impact site so that they would generate a thrust against the ball, sending it flying into the air. The particles in 3 would also converge on the impact site.

Admittedly, the waves in the ground and air would quickly die out and be transformed into heat energy. But heat energy is just the movement of particles, which obey laws of physics, and put into reverse, would result in the heat turning back into shock waves and then back into a force against the ball. But it would be next to impossible to predict in reverse time, unless you were omniscient. Kind of like how weather forecasters will never be able to predict exactly where lightning will strike.

So yes, it certainly seems easy enough to posit that, for the first minute, the ball will be riding through “reverse time” at rest. But THEN… why is it suddenly popping up into the air, bouncing higher and higher, and flying up to a point one mile above the surface of the Earth? What possible cause is there for this in 'reverse time"? How is this not completely defying universal gravitation for no reason whatsoever?

I hope it seems less absurd now

Your argument that the law of gravity somehow enables us to determine the position of the planets in the past is flawed, for similar reasons. Assuming the regularity of their motions as a given, yes, we can predict their locations in the past to a greater or less extent… but that can only go so far, at best only to the formation of the solar system. But if we don’t know that a huge random asteroid flew by Pluto and threw off its orbit a million years ago, then our calculations are going to be flawed. Hitting the “reverse time” button isn’t going to magically fix everything either… if you reverse the course of the asteroid and being it back closer to Pluto, it should just pull it off of its orbit even more, not magically push it back to its original orbit.

This example is much easier to explain… in reverse time that asteroid that flew by would fly by in reverse direction, completely un-doing what it did in forward time.

No offense, but it just seems to me like this is clearly an absurd product of the imagination… I can’t imagine why you’re seriously considering it as a real possibility?

Did I clear it up for you?

 

[masterjedi747]

Did I clear it up for you?

…sort of, but not quite, unfortunately. I’m afraid you might have just shifted the source of the problem further away, rather than actually addressing it.

Look at it in more detail in forward time: when the ball hits the earth, the energy from the ball goes to a few places: 1) into the ground, resulting in a series of tiny seismic waves or shock waves that gravitate out from where the ball hit 2) similar waves in the air and possibly 3) kinetic energy in the form of bits of dirt flying away from where the ball hit.

…right. So the ball hits, and the energy from the energy of the impact is distributed into other objects and/or converted into other forms of energy in the process.

In reverse time, the waves described in 1 and 2 would converge on the impact site so that they would generate a thrust against the ball, sending it flying into the air. The particles in 3 would also converge on the impact site.

OK… but why, in reverse time, is all of this previously-absorbed energy suddenly being converted back into seismic waves, and simultaneously converging on the location of the ball? What possible cause could there be for this, from the perspective of reverse time? I mean, yes, if we look at “reverse time” with reference to a prior idea of “normal time”, we can certainly imagine all of the proper steps happening in reverse… but if you simply consider a universe running in “reverse time” as a given reality in and of itself, I don’t see how anything in that universe could ultimately be intelligible. Perfectly-coordinated-for-no-reason seismic waves can just spontaneously arise and converge to launch an object into the air. It just seems to me that you really are positing the existence of a fundamentally irrational universe (like something straight out of Alice in Wonderland) where things can happen for absolutely no natural reason at all.

But heat energy is just the movement of particles, which obey laws of physics, and put into reverse, would result in the heat turning back into shock waves…

I think this is part of the problem with your scenario… you definitely seem to be working under the assumption of a fully deterministic Newtonian physics. However, I think you’re going to run into huge problems here, particularly with regard to quantum mechanics. This is pretty much exactly the kind of thing that geometer was talking about when he said that “some systems are critically determined by their history and cannot be reversed or repeated with the same result.” Even if you assumed that it was possible to “reverse” the movement of these particles, there’s simply not going to be a natural reason within the reverse-time universe for the heat energy of that particular molecule (never mind the billions and billions of other molecules nearby) to spontaneously convert itself back into shock waves directed at a particular object. It’s not just “very difficult to foresee” or “next to impossible to predict”… it’s literally happening for absolutely no good reason, and on a macroscopic scale to boot.

Kind of like how weather forecasters will never be able to predict exactly where lightning will strike.

In forward time, a weather pattern with lots of clouds and raindrops all of a sudden produces a lightning bolt that destroys a tree. Who could predict exactly when and where the lightning bolt would strike?

There are definitely surface similarities here, but I don’t think it boils down to quite the same thing. Even with something as unpredictable as lighting, there are still natural reasons, at least in general hindsight, as to why lighting tends to behave in the way that it does. For instance, we know that tall trees and tall metal objects tend to draw lightning, because the taller and more conductive objects in the given area will tend to connect with the step-leaders first. There’s still a whole lot of unpredictability built in, yes… but it’s nowhere near as irrational as a universe in which thunder precedes lighting, objects are launched into the air by spontaneously-coordinated seismic waves, and animals un-decompose and grow younger only to be dragged back into their mother’s womb and unfertilize themselves. You really do just end up chucking natural causality out the window… and yeah, I really do think that’s rather absurd.

 

[masterjedi747]

Well, I gave one example in the initial post where it made sense, so there’s one time where its not patently absurd

I think the planet orbit example is misleading, honestly… it seems like it could support your idea on first glance, but that’s only because you’re using a very particular example (celestial orbits) that involve rather unique conditions (being incredibly long-lasting and repetitive) which make the mathematical predictions pertaining to these orbits spectacularly accurate for the most part. Render those conditions irrelevant however, by taking a sufficiently large time scale, and the heightened mathematical predictability of our solar system’s past (or future) based on current orbits will start running into walls very quickly, insofar as these orbits do not necessarily conform to only one mathematical equation over the course of time.

…in reverse time that asteroid that flew by would fly by in reverse direction, completely un-doing what it did in forward time.

…this still seems like a rather huge inconsistency to me. If the law of universal gravitation itself is not reversing as a whole, then where is the repulsion between Pluto and the asteroid coming from? Won’t bringing the asteroid back into the vicinity of Pluto simply screw up Pluto’s orbit even more? Let’s say the asteroid initially passed by Pluto from beyond its orbit, and thus pulled Pluto slightly further out, and expanded its orbit slightly. Not we put “reverse time” into play… and the asteroid once again passes by Pluto from beyond its orbit, only this time slightly closer. How do you propose that Pluto’s orbit going to shrink back to its original size the second time around, and not just get expanded once again? Indeed, if it shrinks, why do you have universal gravitation working perfectly normally in the ball example (it rests on the ground until the seismic shocks roll in and slam it upward), but not in the case of an asteroid flying past Pluto (they repel each other the second time, so that Pluto can get pushed back into its original orbit)?

I sincerely apologize for responding to you at such length… but I truly felt that it was necessary, in order to adequately address both the number and the extent of the problems that I still see with entertaining such a position. At the very least, please understand that even if I was willing to grant you a perfect Newtonian universe for the sake of argument, there are still going to have huge philosophical problems with the implications that would necessarily follow from such an assumption, especially in “reverse time”. In all honesty I just don’t see the possibility of such idea actually being able to work out in the end.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

…sort of, but not quite, unfortunately. I’m afraid you might have just shifted the source of the problem further away, rather than actually addressing it.

Perhaps. I’m not a physicist and I don’t have a degree in philosophy, I came up with this idea that seemed plausible but it could be wrong. But please humour me: I did try to think of problems with it for a few days before posting, and I think I already came up with answers to what you’ve pointed out so far…

…right. So the ball hits, and the energy from the energy of the impact is distributed into other objects and/or converted into other forms of energy in the process.

OK… but why, in reverse time, is all of this previously-absorbed energy suddenly being converted back into seismic waves, and simultaneously converging on the location of the ball?

Are you asking for a physics answer to why… or a rational answer to why? I suspect you understand the physics, that the particles bouncing around would, out of their apparent chaos, result in these circular waves that formed big circles converging on a point for no apparent reason… but if you need me to explain that in more detail I can. Instead I’ll address the question of rational why below:

What possible cause could there be for this, from the perspective of reverse time? … I don’t see how anything in that universe could ultimately be intelligible.

It would certainly be a very different world from what we experience in forward time. There would be very unpredictable things like a ball or a rock suddenly bouncing off the earth into space.

Or, maybe with enough time to get used to backward time, we would start to see patterns. In reverse time, the rock that fell from space would “start out” being covered with plants and soil, and would slowly rise to the surface and become clean of the soil and dirt that was on it… people who were used to reverse time might look at it, see that it is out of place and think “that stone is going to take off soon”. That’s just an example.

It might be a very confusing place, and maybe that’s why God makes us travel through time in forward time. Maybe God wants us to see time in the less confusing way. But that doesn’t mean that backwards time isn’t valid.

Also, there are things in forward time that are very unpredictable too. It’s not unique to backwards time.

I think this is part of the problem with your scenario… you definitely seem to be working under the assumption of a fully deterministic Newtonian physics. However, I think you’re going to run into huge problems here, particularly with regard to quantum mechanics.

I agree with geometer, that due to quantum events, things are not completely predictable. But that problem applies to the laws of physics either in forward time or in backward time. If you run the same sequence twice in forward time it won’t turn out exactly the same, and if you run it twice in backward time it won’t turn out exactly the same. So it doesn’t make forward time any more natural than backward time.

Even if you assumed that it was possible to “reverse” the movement of these particles, there’s simply not going to be a natural reason … it’s literally happening for absolutely no good reason, and on a macroscopic scale to boot.

I answered that earlier… maybe that’s why God sent us through time in the forward direction, also there are unpredictable things in forward time too, and maybe there are rules in backwards time that we could work out to predict macroscopic events that we can’t think of in the few minutes we spend writing these posts.

There are definitely surface similarities here, but I don’t think it boils down to quite the same thing… You really do just end up chucking natural causality out the window… and yeah, I really do think that’s rather absurd.

Well, let me take your examples one at a time:

1. a universe where thunder precedes lightning: actually this universe would be even more predictable than ours. We would use the laws of backward-physics to be able to know when a lightning strike was about to occur. Why is that irrational? Isn’t the whole point of science to be able to predict natural phenomena?
2. seismic waves - addressed that earlier
3. animals un-decomposing: the formation of an animal would be a lot easier to understand in this direction. We would find a skeleton and think “this is going to come alive into an animal some day!” and if we watched the skeleton, flies would come and deposit rotting meat on the bones which would form itself into healthy meat, skin and fur would form, and the animal would start slowly moving. It would make a kind of sense.

Anyway, why does it even matter if backwards time would seem irrational? To God, it wouldn’t be unpredictable… and I’m not saying that God plans to send man to travel through time backwards.

I’m just saying that initial conditions + physical laws can generate all of time from any point within time. An omnipotent God could determine the whole universe from any point in time, not just from the “earliest” point in time.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think the planet orbit example is misleading, honestly…

…this still seems like a rather huge inconsistency to me. If the law of universal gravitation itself is not reversing as a whole, then where is the repulsion between Pluto and the asteroid coming from? Won’t bringing the asteroid back into the vicinity of Pluto simply screw up Pluto’s orbit even more? Let’s say the asteroid initially passed by Pluto from beyond its orbit, and thus pulled Pluto slightly further out, and expanded its orbit slightly. Not we put “reverse time” into play… and the asteroid once again passes by Pluto from beyond its orbit, only this time slightly closer. How do you propose that Pluto’s orbit going to shrink back to its original size the second time around, and not just get expanded once again? Indeed, if it shrinks, why do you have universal gravitation working perfectly normally in the ball example (it rests on the ground until the seismic shocks roll in and slam it upward), but not in the case of an asteroid flying past Pluto (they repel each other the second time, so that Pluto can get pushed back into its original orbit)?

In backwards time, gravity would still attract, not repel.

It’s really hard to talk about this without being able to share a drawing. Anyway, I drew a circle on a napkin representing the planet’s orbit. The planet is at the top of the circle, travelling counter-clockwise. There’s also an arrow to the left of the circle, pointing towards the top of the page. This arrow represents the path of the asteroid in forward time.

In forward time, as the asteroid flies by it attracts the planet. Since the planet is already travelling to the left, it speeds up. This results in the planet entering a higher orbit, represented by a dotted line following along the outside of the left of the circle, showing where the planet will travel.

In reverse time, the planet is in the same location, but is travelling clockwise. The dotted line shows the path the planet has just finished following (the higher orbit). The asteroid flies by backwards (top to bottom of the page) and attracts the planet. Since the planet is travelling clockwise, i.e. to the right, this attraction slows the planet down. The planet settles into the orbit indicated by the circle with the solid line.

Hope that clears it up!

I sincerely apologize for responding to you at such length… but I truly felt that it was necessary, in order to adequately address both the number and the extent of the problems that I still see with entertaining such a position. At the very least, please understand that even if I was willing to grant you a perfect Newtonian universe for the sake of argument, there are still going to have huge philosophical problems with the implications that would necessarily follow from such an assumption, especially in “reverse time”. In all honesty I just don’t see the possibility of such idea actually being able to work out in the end.

I appreciate your long reply, thats why I posted here, to see if the idea can stand up to scrutiny and see if I can defend it (and in case someone else finds it helpful, of course)

 

[JDaniel]

Premise 1:
The laws of physics can work in either direction in time - given perfect knowledge of the present condition of the universe, physics can predict future events as well as it can say what past events were. For example, the laws of gravity that determine the orbits of the planets let us predict where they will be in the future, and where they were in the past.

Premise 2:
God is outside of time, so all points of time are equally present to Him. The direction of time as moving from past to present to future that we see, is arbitrary to God. God can see future then the past then the future again.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the point of “creation” where God set the “initial conditions” of the universe need not have been at the earliest time. It could have been at the most future time, or any other time in between. The laws of physics God created could determine the whole sequence of time from start to end given an initial condition at any point in time.

Is this correct? If it’s true, we could say that “creation” occurred at any point in time, even in the future.

No. Time as the measure of continuous motion is a continuum. As a continuum, it is divisible. The potentially smallest piece of time is not the Now. The Now is the termination of the prior time-slice and the principle of the ensuing time-slice. It is the place of connection between two extremely small, yet still divisible, time-slices on the continuum.

For God, being an Eternal Now, He is not a Now in the sense of the “time” of Physics and the “time” of Philosophy. He is a Now that overlaps and overlays any and all continua of time. So, He doesn’t “look” backward or forward as we do.

In our language – which is our best description of our reality - we have recognized that there have been things or, events, that have taken place in the past but not necessarily at the same time in the past (although it wouldn’t matter). Using the materials of our language, we speak of the relation of two past events using the past perfect tense. That tense clearly signifies that both occurrences have already occurred, in the past. They are completed. They are thus perfected. If some chance event also happened, it happened in the past so that the results are what they are perfectly.

Also, in our language, we have a tense called the future perfect tense. It is a use of the materials of our language to describe an event of the past, present, or future, in relation with time or events in the future. As such, the event has taken place (or, is taking place, or, will take place) but the time or event we relate it to has not yet taken place. This does not, and must not, destroy the past (or the currently-taking-place) event. It is or, has or, will have, occurred and will have always occurred at any time in the future, whether or not anyone is there to remember it. Thus, as you can see, the comparative future cannot be farther in the past than the event that is the subject of our sentence. So, the continuum can only proceed in one direction - for us and for Physics.

We can, by the use of mathematics, extrapolate to where moving bodies were with reference to each other, in the past and, by the use of mathematics, we can predict where those same moving bodies will be, in the future. But, the moving bodies are not yet at their predicted positions, in the future. At any point before they are related with scientific precision, in the future, an event of chance could take place that changes the situational loci of the moving bodies. For example, suppose two celestial bodies are predicted to be on a collision course with one another. However, before the collision, an asteroid, vicariously blown by some random solar wind, is directed towards one of the moving bodies. After its chance collision with one of the celestial bodies, that body goes off in another direction and for the original two bodies, no collision takes place.

Now, you could say, as you did in your post, that this could have taken place in the past. Of course it could. But, the event would already be perfected. It would be a completed event. Determining how and when that event might take place is merely hindsight. It is nothing more than the current study of a past event or effect. That that chance event might take place cannot be predicted, except in the most general of ways. In other words, one could say, “Well, you know . . . some chance thing could rise up and alter our prediction.” However, we understand that this is no prediction at all.

Coming back to the Now: as we saw, the Now is a kind of connector between two tiny slices or, lines, of time or, the two complete lines of time, in the same manner that a line is made up of very small lines, but, the line itself only analogously represents the continuum of time. The Now is separate from time and the continuum. That is why we cannot grab hold of it. That is why we can recall the moment before it and the moment after it, in some way, but, cannot recall IT. If time could go in reverse, we might be able to come back to it, perhaps over and over again, in order to try to grasp it. But, we can’t.

What you are alluding to is that God could have started the continuum whenever He wished. That is, of course, true. But, I rather doubt that He would begin Creation before its beginning. That would be an exhibition of the misuse of language the purpose of which would only be to confuse us. I have not seen that to be that case, in my readings of Scripture. It would be tantamount to Him lying to us. So, while it has no meaning, per se, to us, it has powerful meaning to His communication with us.

jd