# Is Time Linear?



## Afterthought (Jan 21, 2015)

Is time necessarily linear for a creature? For humans? Or are there only probable arguments against non-linear time or time travel?

Edit: Post that clarifies what I mean by "linear" and what I mean by "for a creature."


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 21, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> Is time necessarily linear for a creature?



One wrinkle is it depends on how fast the creature is going--as described by the theory of relativity. 

Another wrinkle is time perception. One creature perceives time differently from another.

(As an example, when I was a child, one evening I blinked my eyes while lying on a bed. When my eyes opened after what I perceived to be less than a second, it was morning.)

But I suppose you could say, for general purposes on earth, a clock's pendulum swings periodically in such a way that each "tock" would describe a linear function, but only related to something else moving in some way (you need some thing to observe the tick-tocks to sense the linearity). That would be an example of God's ordered creation demonstrating consistency.

I guess what I'm getting at is that, no, it is not necessarily linear for a creature, but creatures can experience it linearally.


----------



## Jeff D (Jan 22, 2015)

If I'm understanding the question, is time linear for a creature ?
I don't believe how we or any other creature experiences time has any effect on wether it's linear or not.

Until man some how gains the capacity to act out certain theories or the hand of God becomes a factor as it did a couple of times in the NT. Jesus & the disciples in the boat & Philip after witnessing to the Ethiopian eunuch would be two cases that come to mind.
But outside of this, laying our sense of it aside, time is always moving forword with out hesitation.

Please feel free to let me know if I'm not quite understanding the question or what lies behind it.


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 22, 2015)

VictorBravo said:


> One wrinkle is it depends on how fast the creature is going--as described by the theory of relativity.


This (and the rest of the analysis in your post) is strictly speaking true, when "linear" is used as a mathematical term. My apologies for not clarifying the question better. From a Google search, it appears those who use "linear" vs "non-linear" time tend to not think about it in such a manner (and for my own part, I wouldn't use the term to describe the concept myself; I simply lifted the vocabulary of those who use it!).

So to clarify: By "linear time," I mean time that has a single past, present, and future, which always moves from past to future. By "non-linear time," I mean time that might not only have more than one past, present, or future, but the direction might also be altered. Further, such time might not have a beginning or an end (might be cyclical). So basically, the question is asking whether it is possible that time for a creature (or a human creature) allows parallel existences for the creature, cyclical time, or time travel. (I know that General Relativity theoretically allows closed time-like curves, although whether they actually exist is unknown).

My guess would be that some versions of cyclical time and parallel existences might definitely be ruled out, but could all of it (e.g., branching timelines or specific cyclical events that eventually end after some number of loops or perhaps cyclical events that are altered slightly each time through and then end)? Or time travel of some sort (maybe as simple as someone experiencing or seeing future events or objects; or past ones that the person could not have memory of)? Or the reversal of cause and effect (e.g., something in the future being the efficient cause of something in the past or present; or some cause being its own effect)?



Jeff D said:


> I don't believe how we or any other creature experiences time has any effect on whether it's linear or not.


This is true. To clarify, I was not talking about the mere subjective experience of a creature but rather what is possible for a creature in relation to time. For the Creator, He is unbound by time.


----------



## Tim (Jan 22, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> But time travel of some sort? Or the reversal of cause and effect (e.g., something in the future being the efficient cause of something in the past or present)?



Why would you suppose this given the sovereignty of God and His ordering of all things and events?


----------



## jandrusk (Jan 22, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> > One wrinkle is it depends on how fast the creature is going--as described by the theory of relativity.
> ...



I think the definition that you provided is trumped by the decrees of God. As what God has decreed is linear in that it cannot have more than one course and cannot be changed nor modified to cause multiple instances of the same event.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 22, 2015)

jandrusk said:


> I think the definition that you provided is trumped by the decrees of God. As what God has decreed is linear in that it cannot have more than one course and cannot be changed nor modified to cause multiple instances of the same event.


 This. Time from our experience is quite different from God's, the creator of time itself.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 22, 2015)

It is only theoretically possible to time travel, alternative time lines, etcetera. But scripture reveals to us one time, one past one future. Is it possible for us to be elect in this time stream but not in alternate time streams? I think not. We have our God's promises and that is more concrete than any theoretical possibility. Our theology guides our science and our philosophy as well as every other aspect of reality and human experience.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 22, 2015)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> > I think the definition that you provided is trumped by the decrees of God. As what God has decreed is linear in that it cannot have more than one course and cannot be changed nor modified to cause multiple instances of the same event.
> ...



So "different" in that God does not experience time outside The Son.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jan 22, 2015)

Well there is also the observable problem of "time dilation." Digital and analog clocks sent into space will read different times upon return than duplicates made at the same time under the same conditions that remained on Earth. If we did not make adjustments for this, our GPS system would not work as fine as it does.


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Jan 23, 2015)

I have another question, if you don't mind. Related to the OP.

I was having a conversation with a friend. He made a statement that once we go home to be with the Lord, we will be with Him in heaven in eternity, which is outside of time. Then I started thinking about created beings somehow being brought out of time. Is that even possible? I know all things are possible with God, but is it possible for a creature that has a starting point in time to, at some point in the future, be brought outside of time? Wouldn't that all of a sudden make the creature infinite? Maybe that's the wrong word... I think I mean, if you're outside of time you are someone that has no beginning or ending. And that place is only for God, and not us. If this is true, then all eternity for us and all things created will be within time; it'll just be forever... 
As I type this I feel like I'm not making much sense. It's hurting my head to think about it.

Anyway, if anyone has any idea of what I'm trying to say, that would be great if you could explain it to me.  Thanks.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 23, 2015)

Pilgrim72 said:


> I have another question, if you don't mind. Related to the OP.
> 
> I was having a conversation with a friend. He made a statement that once we go home to be with the Lord, we will be with Him in heaven in eternity, which is outside of time. Then I started thinking about created beings somehow being brought out of time. Is that even possible? I know all things are possible with God, but is it possible for a creature that has a starting point in time to, at some point in the future, be brought outside of time? Wouldn't that all of a sudden make the creature infinite? Maybe that's the wrong word... I think I mean, if you're outside of time you are someone that has no beginning or ending. And that place is only for God, and not us. If this is true, then all eternity for us and all things created will be within time; it'll just be forever...
> As I type this I feel like I'm not making much sense. It's hurting my head to think about it.
> ...



Two things does scripture ever represent heaven as either timeless or non physical? I can't find that it doesn't. It always reveals to us that we will be both in time and physical.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 23, 2015)

Alex, we will actually be living on the new earth, with no veil between heaven and earth. A finite creature such as ourselves will remain finite. In fact, one of the chief beauties of the glorified state will be that we will experience time for eternity. There is no way for a creature to be drawn outside of time and not become eternal from eternity past as well as eternity future. This would seriously disrupt God's entire creation. Only God remains and will ever remain transcendent to time.


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Jan 23, 2015)

Thank you. That's what I was trying to explain to my friend. Taking a finite creature out of time wasn't making sense to me.

Thanks for explaining it in a better way than I ever could!


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 23, 2015)

The answer from God's decree...does this really necessarily exclude such things, or is it a highly probable argument? What if someone objected that, say, the time travel was part of God's decree and fit in with the rest of the events decreed (perhaps being how the "grandfather paradox" is resolved)? Or, for another example, that the decree sets up many different relations among objects and one of those was to make some things be the efficient cause of events in the past? Or that some events be caught in a time loop that eventually terminates?

I suppose that this objection assumes the real existence of the past and the future (?), but I don't know if that becomes problematic.



Pilgrim Standard said:


> Well there is also the observable problem of "time dilation." Digital and analog clocks sent into space will read different times upon return than duplicates made at the same time under the same conditions that remained on Earth. If we did not make adjustments for this, our GPS system would not work as fine as it does.


This isn't "nonlinear" time in the sense of the OP, although it is nonlinear in a mathematical sense. Time dilation can be used to expand or shrink the time experienced/measured, but the arrow of time remains the same, and the object experiencing time dilation remains on the same timeline (so no new timelines are created and no time travel).


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 23, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> The answer from God's decree...does this really necessarily exclude such things, or is it a highly probable argument? What if someone objected that, say, the time travel was part of God's decree and fit in with the rest of the events decreed (perhaps being how the "grandfather paradox" is resolved)? Or, for another example, that the decree sets up many different relations among objects and one of those was to make some things be the efficient cause of events in the past? Or that some events be caught in a time loop that eventually terminates?
> 
> I suppose that this objection assumes the real existence of the past and the future (?), but I don't know if that becomes problematic.
> 
> ...



How would you know that time travel is part of God's decrees until it actually happened? Theoretical physics is fascinating In my humble opinion but scripture can settle some specific questions along these lines.


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 23, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> How would you know that time travel is part of God's decrees until it actually happened? Theoretical physics is fascinating In my humble opinion but scripture can settle some specific questions along these lines.


You wouldn't. But the objector could simply say that his counter-argument doesn't rely on whether we know time travel has occurred. The objection only intends to show that the argument from God's decrees leaves such as a possibility (i.e., that the argument from God's decrees doesn't necessarily rule out some aspects of "nonlinear" time).


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 23, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > How would you know that time travel is part of God's decrees until it actually happened? Theoretical physics is fascinating In my humble opinion but scripture can settle some specific questions along these lines.
> ...



Your right, what I meant was for our understanding as Christians we can safely rest on God's word. Now as far as dealing with the objector it of course depends on the situation but in general I would point the the fact that theoretical possibilities are not actual events. I wouldn't up front debate with them over such things but point out that theoretical possibilities can just as easily become actual impossibilities very easily so that's basically a draw logically speaking. Why should I believe such things on possibility alone? Make them prove their point first.


----------



## Theogenes (Jan 26, 2015)

Beginning..End. Past, present, future. Seems linear to me...


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 26, 2015)

jwright82 said:


> You're right, what I meant was for our understanding as Christians we can safely rest on God's word.


But does our understanding of God's word rule it out, even as a theoretical possibility?



> Now as far as dealing with the objector it of course depends on the situation but in general I would point the the fact that theoretical possibilities are not actual events. I wouldn't up front debate with them over such things but point out that theoretical possibilities can just as easily become actual impossibilities very easily so that's basically a draw logically speaking. Why should I believe such things on possibility alone? Make them prove their point first.


The objector would simply point out that at this stage in the argument, he is only arguing for the theoretical possibility. If the argument from God's decrees is not conclusive, and no other argument is, then both the objector and the Christian must allow this as a theoretical possibility. One may go in various directions from there, (and I think your response is suitable if one does not wish to discuss whether non-linear time is a theoretical possibility) depending on where the objector wishes to go, but this response seems to indicate that the objector is right: non-linear time is a theoretical possibility. Since the argument from God's word has been admitted to being merely probable on the matter, even the Christian must acknowledge such as a theoretical possibility, although highly improbable to be actual.



Theogenes said:


> Beginning..End. Past, present, future. Seems linear to me..


I'm not sure how this is a conclusive argument though? Since some types of non-linear time allows for these things?


----------

