# The movie--Arrival--and the nature of time



## Timmay (Feb 22, 2017)

NOTE: Movie (_Arrival_) spoilers below!!!



Spoiler



In the movie the main character, Louise Banks, comes to experience time non-linearly. She doesn't move back and forward through time but can view it when she wills, merely because an alien language allowed her to think in that way. It is shown that one of the effects of an event has its cause in the future, but for Louise Banks there is neither _past_ nor _future_. _When_ the information is gained does not matter because there is no _when_. This seems to put the nature of casual events out of wack.

Now it seems like God could perceive time in the same way but he orders events in a linear fashion.

But nonlinear time doesn't seem to work because do you really have a cause and effect anymore if it's not linear? Or does cause and effect have to be linear? I am reminded of something C.S. Lewis said. A friend arrives home safely after a plane ride. Hours later and miles away, you pray for the friend to arrive home safely. Let's say God answered your prayer and used it as the means to get your friend home safely, even though your prayer occurred AFTER your friend had already arrived. Because God is outside of time can He not make causes and effects non-linear as it would appear to us?

And then if _we_ could experience time in a non-linear way or _we_ were outside of time, it almost implies that our journey would be fixed because there is no past, present, or future, there just _is_.


Just rambling here based upon what I saw in the movie. Hoping for discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BGF (Feb 22, 2017)

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it’s more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff."

-The Doctor​

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## earl40 (Feb 22, 2017)

The problem with asking for The Lord to do something after the event has passed messes up with how Our Lord works by ordinary means. Do not get me wrong I have thought as CS has here, but now dismiss such out of hand knowing how Our Lord works.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timmay (Feb 22, 2017)

earl40 said:


> The problem with asking for The Lord to do something after the event has passed messes up with how Our Lord works by ordinary means. Do not get me wrong I have thought as CS has here, but now dismiss such out of hand knowing how Our Lord works.



But prayer would be an ordinary means...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## earl40 (Feb 22, 2017)

Timmay said:


> But prayer would be an ordinary means...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Indeed it is. Prayer is for something to happen in the future. Gratefulness is for something that happened in the past.


----------



## Timmay (Feb 22, 2017)

earl40 said:


> Indeed it is. Prayer is for something to happen in the future. Gratefulness is for something that happened in the past.



Does Scripture limit prayer like that?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## earl40 (Feb 22, 2017)

Timmay said:


> Does Scripture limit prayer like that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



in my opinion, yes it does.


----------



## Timmay (Feb 22, 2017)

earl40 said:


> in my opinion, yes it does.



Ok. I'll have to think about that more. 

I would say if prayer works in the way I described, it might give license to praying for the dead. "My prayers for my dead friend will be the means to save him in the past."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BGF (Feb 22, 2017)

> Psalm 139:6
> Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it.



While it may be interesting to speculate about time and causality from God's perspective, we frankly cannot. And perhaps we shouldn't try. Our speculation can easily inform our practice and lead to sin, such as your "prayers for the dead" example.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 22, 2017)

_Eternity_ is God's timelessness, and is distinct from _aeviternity_ (everlasting) in the created realms (which includes heaven). The timeless God interfaces with all forms of time in a superordinant manner; all forms of time being subordinate to Him. God is both "_no-when_" and "_every-when_", just as He is "no-where" and "every-where". God is not subject to creation, so sequential and spatial material and non-material creation do not contain or constrain Him in any parameter of existence and functionality.

Time and space are not things that God is subject to. His existence is both transcendent to, and immanent within, all created parameters of existence; but He is not subject to time or space while everywhere present in all of creation. This is also the distinction between God's uncreated presence in creation when contrasted with the fallacies of pantheism and panentheism.

There is no sequence of _whens_ and/or _wheres_ for God, all is but _equally vivid_ to Him. God is uncreated Self-conscious Self-existence "_before_" He created; but there is no "_before_" for God. There is "_before_" for creation, including time; but there is no "_before_" for God. That's why there is no "_eternity past_". God alone is eternal, and eternity is one of His incommunicable attributes. But time had a beginning. An inception. So there is only _aeviternity_ (_everlasting_/_ness_) going forward from that initial creation of time; hence, no "_eternity past_".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 22, 2017)

Timmay said:


> Ok. I'll have to think about that more.
> 
> I would say if prayer works in the way I described, it might give license to praying for the dead. "My prayers for my dead friend will be the means to save him in the past."


Stump is helpful here (footnote _xxxv_):

"It is obviously absurd to pray in 1980 that Napoleon win at Waterloo when one knows what God does not bring about at Waterloo, but it might not seem absurd— at least not in the same way— to pray in 1980 that Napoleon lose at Waterloo. After all, your prayer and the battle are alike present to God; why should your prayer not be efficacious in bringing about Napoleon’s defeat? But, as a petition addressed to the will of God, a prayer is also an expression of the will of the one who prays it, and any temporal entity who prays in 1980, ‘_Let Napoleon lose at Waterloo_’, is to that extent pretending to have atemporal knowledge and an atemporal will. The only appropriate version of that prayer is ‘_Let Napoleon have lost at Waterloo_’, and for one who knows the outcome of the battle more than a hundred and fifty years ago, that prayer is pointless and in that sense absurd. But a prayer prayed in ignorance of the outcome of a past event is not pointless in that way. (We are thus disagreeing with Peter Geach, when he claims that ‘A prayer for something to have happened is simply an absurdity, regardless of the utterer’s knowledge or ignorance of how things went’ (_God and the Soul_ (London, 1969), p. 90); but we find much else to admire in his chapter ‘_Praying for Things to Happen_’.) On the hypothesis that there is an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent God, the praying of such a prayer would indeed qualify as ‘the only instance of behaviour, on the part of ordinary people whose mental processes we can understand, designed to affect the past and coming quite naturally to us’ (Michael Dummett, ‘Bringing About the Past’, _Philosophical Review_ 73(3) (July 1964), p. 341). We are grateful to members of the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell for pointing out the relevance of Dummett’s discussion. Dummett does not draw on the concept of divine eternality, but, if it is acceptable in its own right, its introduction would lead to a modification and strengthening of some of the claims he makes— e.g., ‘_I am not asking God that, even if my son has drowned, He should now make him not to have drowned; I am asking that, at the time of the disaster, He should then have made my son not to drown at that time_’ (p. 342)"
- Stump, Eleonore and Kretzmann, Norman, 1981, ‘Eternity’, _Journal of Philosophy_78(8): 429–458​A contrary view to Stump: http://www.kevintimpe.com/files/prayers.pdf


----------



## Timmay (Feb 22, 2017)

So then it's only appropriate to pray for things that we don't know the outcome of?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2017)

Timmay said:


> So then it's only appropriate to pray for things that we don't know the outcome of?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not sure I understand this question. Are you talking about, for instance, that Washington crossed the Delaware and to pray that God will ensure that remains the case?


----------



## Timmay (Feb 22, 2017)

Yes. That's what it sounds like Stump is saying. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 22, 2017)

Theology must inform philosophy, not the other way around.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Pete Williamson (Feb 23, 2017)

Timmay said:


> In the movie the main character, Louise Banks, comes to experience time non-linearly.



I've been thinking about the way you stated this. The trouble I have with this discussion - even though I find it fascinating - is that it seems to me that the concept of "time" is limited to a linear progression of events. It's not a really a thing itself, but a way of measuring reality (can't think of a better word right now). Therefore wouldn't it be better to say that she didn't experience time in a non-linear fashion, but that she experienced reality in a non-linear/time-based way. 

Don't mean to be nit-picky, but I didn't start this thread.


----------



## Timmay (Feb 23, 2017)

Pete Williamson said:


> I've been thinking about the way you stated this. The trouble I have with this discussion - even though I find it fascinating - is that it seems to me that the concept of "time" is limited to a linear progression of events. It's not a really a thing itself, but a way of measuring reality (can't think of a better word right now). Therefore wouldn't it be better to say that she didn't experience time in a non-linear fashion, but that she experienced reality in a non-linear/time-based way.
> 
> Don't mean to be nit-picky, but I didn't start this thread.



Perhaps but for one that's not how the movie portrays it. Also, future events are concurrent with the present but yet she still has a present to experience. 
I also think that we do experience time. You know "time flies when you're having fun." It's not that time moved faster, but our experience of it was maybe different than others. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pete Williamson (Feb 23, 2017)

Timmay said:


> I also think that we do experience time. You know "time flies when you're having fun." It's not that time moved faster, but our experience of it was maybe different than others.



I agree with you that we experience something and that there are times (can't get away from that word!) when it seems to us to pass more slowly or swiftly than those around us are experiencing it or in relation to the means we use to measure it (clocks, calendars, etc.). The only point I'm trying to make is that I'm not sure technically that it's _time _that we are experiencing, idioms like "time flies" aside. I'm still not convinced that "time" is something that can be experienced; it's not a thing but a measurement.

Anyway, the reason for bringing this up at all is because I think being clear on what time is helps to disentangle the questions that the movie raised about how we perceive reality from a perspective that is so thoroughly immersed and shaped by a linear understanding of the progression of events.

Hope this makes sense. I don't mean to derail the discussion. Really enjoyed the movie, btw!


----------



## mvdm (Feb 23, 2017)

Hated the movie


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 25, 2017)

In connection with those into UFOlogy, I have sometimes wondered whether we could make an argument that nothing exists except for present events based on the fact that God's knowledge of the future is based on his decree, and it is the decree which is the reason for events that come to pass. The past once existed and the future shall exist. Of course, even if the argument could be made, relativity theory makes matters difficult--if not impossible--to defend that only the present exists (at the very least be making it impossible to define "the present"). Thoughts? If this argument could be made, then it would work for the question of the OP too.


----------



## jw (Feb 25, 2017)

This thread is _still_ going? May I pray that it never happened?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 4


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 26, 2017)

Joshua said:


> This thread is _still_ going? May I pray that it never happened?



I wish you would.


----------



## jw (Feb 27, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I wish you would.


Nahh . . . it was more of a rhetorical question. I'm sure you knew that, though.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 27, 2017)

Joshua said:


> Nahh . . . it was more of a rhetorical question. I'm sure you knew that, though.



Indeed. I was not suggesting you use your ordinary powers of moderation, but rather your extraordinary time-bending power of post-sequential prayer.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 27, 2017)

Joshua said:


> This thread is _still_ going? May I pray that it never happened?


Heh. Apparently, some would claim you may do so:
http://www.kevintimpe.com/files/prayers.pdf


----------



## jw (Feb 27, 2017)

I'll pass.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 27, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Heh. Apparently, some would claim you may do so:
> http://www.kevintimpe.com/files/prayers.pdf


What's that quote about being educated into imbecility? How would you know if your prayers had been answered? You'd be caught in this constant "butterfly effect" of people praying for things to happen in the past that change the present.

Imagine someone praying that their parents never meet...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 27, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> What's that quote about being educated into imbecility? How would you know if your prayers had been answered? You'd be caught in this constant "butterfly effect" of people praying for things to happen in the past that change the present.
> 
> Imagine someone praying that their parents never meet...


Indeed. I suppose it would be argued that the will of God revealed prior to the efficacious prayer towards the past would be revealed by the fact that it all never happened, as no one would but God have the knowledge of the event any longer as it all would just fade away..... 

Then again, such a view smuggles in Molinism's concepts of middle knowledge of true counterfactuals of human freedom. Sigh.


----------



## cloudman (Mar 5, 2017)

I am no expert on this topic by any means, but praying for God to change something that happened in the past is to ask God to change His decree. Why would God change what He has decreed? All the potential answers to that question that come to mind are super heretical.

I think Romans 11:33-34 really speaks to this issue.


----------

