Block Universe Theory

[Herald]

This is a topic that has always interested me. God is the Creator of all that is. This includes time. Can it be said that God beholds all of time (past, present, and future) as constantly before Him? I am not suggesting that God will change the timeline. He created time to order creation. Thoughts to satisfy my curiosity?

 

[Gwallard]

This is interesting! I suppose this is how I've always thought of time in a sense - of course, the problem is that God is above and outside of time AND space, which is profoundly mysterious and makes this "block" merely an analogy about God's knowledge. But, that's the character of all of our ectypal knowledge in reference to God as he is Archetypal in all things.

The problem, then, would be importing a non-Christian materialist form of determinism without allowing for the Reformed caveat of man's freedom of the will and God not being the author of sin. I'm as much an Edwards scholar as I am a physicist (meaning, I'm not a scholar!), but I think that would come close to Edward's view where compatibilism isn't allowed.

Certainly, God "declares the end from the beginning," (Isa 46:10) but the mystery is - as far as I understand it - that Christianity is neither fully deterministic nor fully indeterministic.

Ok the physicist side, I imagine quantum mechanics would make some of them not like a block theory. From the theory of relativity - When is the "now" and all that? Are there multiple, because some near-lightspeed entities do weird things with time?

Edit - that last section is not necessarily from the video, I looked elsewhere and there are other block theories that key it to our perspective, so that the past and present exist as a block, but the future is not, but will be as an expanding block.

 

[No Other Name]

Ok the physicist side, I imagine quantum mechanics would make some of them not like a block theory. From the theory of relativity - When is the "now" and all that? Are there multiple, because some near-lightspeed entities do weird things with time?

Only if the pseudo-philosophers guard their libertarian free will by positing "multiple worlds" interpretation of QM. Take Penrose's Andromeda paradox:

This is used by proponents of the block universe to show that the relativity of simultaneity implies the block universe.

However, the opponents would point out that there may exist some kind of quantum effect in the consciousness of all of the Andromedan "space-admirals" that results in a superposition of launching | not launching to Earth. This would preserve the A-theory of time against the B-theory (block universe).

A-theory of time: "a dynamic theory of time that acknowledges a distinction between past, present and future must be very real, but it must also be recognized that events continually change with respect to their pastness, presentness or futurity."

In other words, what they say is that while the past, present and future are distinct, they cannot exist in reality but they are "unchanging temporal relations between events" and that "the temporal parts of objects cannot persist in time", while the sum totality of the event's relation with time is real and persistent.

Ex: Think of anything that changes like the aging of a dog. The "pastness" or "presentness" or "futurity" of the dog in stages from puppy to limping senior with cataracts is not a real event nor even a list of real events, but that the dog goes through other real events of life and overall, the relation between all those life-events is the aging itself - and that reality is unchanging over time.

B-theory of time: a tenseless proposition of the flow of time. That the past, present and future are all existing in reality and all events in space and time can be framed within the past/present/future categorical sandbox. All change can be expressed as "before-after" terms. The aging of the dog occurs as a long series of single "slices" of variations within the 4-d spacetime manifold (block universe if you will).

Ex: Today the dog experienced aging as Event X, yesterday was aging Event X - 1, and tomorrow is aging event X +1.

Reference: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Image: from Rietdijk–Putnam argument, Wikipedia entry.

 

[Herald]

I am not physicist, nor do I play one on television. However, I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, so maybe...

I tend towards a pastoral view of the block theory. It comforts me to know that the God who created time has set a date for Christ's return (Mat. 25:36). It comforts me to know that the Father chose me in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). It provides me a better understanding of Romans 8:29-30, "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified."

 

[Ed Walsh]

This is a topic that has always interested me. God is the Creator of all that is. This includes time. Can it be said that God beholds all of time (past, present, and future) as constantly before Him? I am not suggesting that God will change the timeline. He created time to order creation. Thoughts to satisfy my curiosity?

Since this is God's big deal–His plan of expanding His goodness by creating Humans and qualifying them as next of kin to the Godhead—the program, which all Christians are a part of, is not just one thing that God is doing; maybe tomorrow, it will be another project. No, no, we are His opus. This is the unique one-time program where He creates, allows us to fall, and redeems us as eternal beings made in His image and likeness. We are not the cover band in this drama.

I have an inkling that although we are tied to this thing called 'time,' we are somehow connected to God's eternity. We are not just one of His ideas among many; Creation and time itself are tied to God's eternity.

THIS IS A BIG DEAL. THE BIGGEST EVER BEFORE OR AFTER.

 

[arapahoepark]

However, I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, so maybe...

Do not stay next door to the fitness center!! I learned the hard way...

 

[Gwallard]

Since this is God's big deal–His plan of expanding His goodness by creating Humans and qualifying them as next of kin to the Godhead—the program, which all Christians are a part of, is not just one thing that God is doing; maybe tomorrow, it will be another project. No, no, we are His opus. This is the unique one-time program where He creates, allows us to fall, and redeems us as eternal beings made in His image and likeness. We are not the cover band in this drama.

I have an inkling that although we are tied to this thing called 'time,' we are somehow connected to God's eternity. We are not just one of His ideas among many; Creation and time itself are tied to God's eternity.

THIS IS A BIG DEAL. THE BIGGEST EVER BEFORE OR AFTER.

That's an interesting subject that I've often wondered about. Scripture is mostly silent on what "happened before" creation, and although we will continue on for eternity, I wonder what kind of things God will do, or we will do for God in his eternal plan.

This is much like what C.S. Lewis did in "Paralandra," where he tells the story of a race of completely new image-bearers of God, but different in look and context and without original sin. Fascinating and very creative.

It's made me wonder about a few things:
First, although we were created after angels, we are the culmination of creation, which is a space-time realm. Anything created after couldn't supersede that, could it? As in, there couldn't be new, more important image-bearers created - how could there when Christ will be in human nature for eternity? Humanity itself is crowned with glory beyond what it could ever dream in that act. This leads me to believe that redemption of man is God's biggest deal.

However, I feel very strange saying that. God is a storyteller, I doubt he will stop creating or telling stories - but stories without suffering - as they will be in heaven - are usually not that interesting to hear, even if we'd love to be in them.

How wonderful to continue in God's plan! So many glorious mysteries!

 

[Ed Walsh]

How wonderful to continue in God's plan! So many glorious mysteries!

Greetings @Gwallard , AKA Grant,

I could easily have quoted your whole post as it was filled with the bright eyes of a wondering child. Of course, everything I said was just a question of what if. But I am on to something I think that many people have mentioned, but nobody has seen it like I have, as far as I know, that is. It's this.

When Greg Bahnsen was discussing metaphysical matters, he asked a question that went like this. "If God is eternal, how did enough eternity ever get piled up so that it got to be now?" This and similar questions are usually passed off as one of those things that God understands but that our minds aren't capable of grasping in our present state. But what if it's more than that? We've all heard of the challenge to our belief in God, which says, "Can God make a stone large enough that he cannot pick it up?" And the simple-minded person who brings the challenge feels proud of himself. But the answer is, of course, He cannot because it is a logical impossibility. Neither is it possible for God to make two plus two equal four and have it equal five simultaneously. We don't have any trouble defending God's sanity in agreeing that these things are, in fact, impossible.

Let's try this on the subject I mentioned at first about how it ever got to be now if God is eternal. Maybe the answer is that it could not have happened. I believe that this occurrence of expanding his family by creating people to appreciate and enjoy Him is the one project of God that has occupied him from eternity. That's why I said we are somehow tied to Eternity in a way we can't possibly understand–now. I don't mean that we had an eternal pre-existence. No, but God chose us before the foundation of the world, which also implies that we should be before anything. Because of what we know about God, we know that God didn't just think this up at some point. The point is this thing we are privileged to be involved with is part of God's plan from eternity. Wowie Zowie, this is a huge deal for us.

You also questioned what we're going to do in our Eternal state. I've thought about that a lot and don't remember hearing anybody else talk much about it. But I'm sure someone will say I've led a sheltered life. But my answer has always been that with Christ as our head and us his bride arm in arm with Him, we will do whatever is worthy of the great God—wonders beyond our comprehension. I think if we could see and be given the ability to perceive a little bit of the meaning of our future, we would probably faint. Maybe even die.

Keep thinking, my friend. You may have wrong thoughts about God, but you cannot possibly have a thought bigger than what God is able to do. One verse in Nehemiah expresses the highest thought I can possibly attribute to the God who loves and fascinates me.

Nehemiah 9:5 KJV
[5] Then the Levites, Jeshua, and Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabniah, Sherebiah, Hodijah, Shebaniah, and Pethahiah said,
Stand up and bless the LORD your God for ever and ever: and blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise.

For me, this is the highest praise I have reached in my present life.

Keep thinking dazzling thoughts.

Ed

PS – I was an elder in the OPC for years.

 

[MW]

Can it be said that God beholds all of time (past, present, and future) as constantly before Him?

Certainly. Calvin: "When we attribute prescience to God, we mean that all things always were, and ever continue, under his eye; that to his knowledge there is no past or future, but all things are present, and indeed so present, that it is not merely the idea of them that is before him (as those objects are which we retain in our memory), but that he truly sees and contemplates them as actually under his immediate inspection. This prescience extends to the whole circuit of the world, and to all creatures."

It is important to remember that eternity is a negation of time, not a quality of duration. It is not time going on and on and on. It is, rather, non-time. When we speak of God's knowledge of time we are referring to His immanence, as when we speak of His omnipresence in relation to space. So far as transcendence is concerned, God is immense. He exceeds the limits of space. Likewise, eternity is without time with respect to the transcendent Being of God.

It is also important to keep distinct the idea of "time" as seen by God and as experienced by men. For men there is no block universe. We experience time as a continual flow. Is there a block universe for God? I would suggest that physicists are trying to take a "God's-eye" view of the universe. This would require them to occupy the essence of God, which is impossible. The distance between the Creator and the creature is infinite.

 

[No Other Name]

I would suggest that physicists are trying to take a "God's-eye" view of the universe. This would require them to occupy the essence of God, which is impossible. The distance between the Creator and the creature is infinite.

Some physicists are definitely trying - even imagining themselves as having fully succeeded - in crafting a model that is "God-independent". Mostly for their idolatry of unlimited free will (they imagine that if they could simply have access to an abundant amount of energy and access to the wave functions of the most basic building blocks of the universe, they could fashion reality as they see fit - for themselves and others).

Historically, most physicists simply wrestled with trying to determine whether time is absolute (Newton) or relative (Einstein) and when Einstein's model prevailed by observation, then how that model could possibly account for how time works for us in light of quantum mechanics.

In physics, the nature of time is at the heart of the measurement problem. These ideas of time are fully within the realm of healthy and curious scientific investigations for models such as: two entangled electrons, or more complex applications like quantum computing.

Not all who speculate and delve deeply are primarily seeking to become as God (if at all).

I am not arguing with you. You are right. Some definitely are. They tend to be the ones who write popular books on "advanced physics" which includes the veneer of real-world advanced physics coating over their half-baked positivistic philosophies and secular-humanistic theologies.

When I talk with other physicists (or if any here talk with physicists) it is important to be careful not to categorize all as trying to become God-like. That may be true; it may not.

I love reading into these things for any possible opening to the Gospel through Genesis 1, Romans 1 etc when it is so obvious there is a Creator transcendent to it all.

Really, most physicists I know and talk with are (by their own claims) not at all trying to occupy the essence of God, and most I know cringe at popular books written by the likes of Kaku and others who question the reality of time itself and ultimately peddle pseudo-science like parallel realities and manifesting conscious desires over the universe around us and lots of other fantasies in between these extremes.

In cosmology, there are even a growing vocal number of physicists decrying the pseudoscience of the "Multiverse", and I was personally wondering if that was going to ever happen.

Pray for physicists. It seems to be a field where some are ripening towards possible harvesting for the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Joshua]

Blocked.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Stephen Charnock in his book on God’s attributes (Vol 1) says,

God knows all things by one intuitive act. . . God knows all things from eternity, and, therefore, perpetually knows them; the reason is because the Divine Knowledge is infinite (Ps. 147:5 KJV “His understanding is infinite”) and therefore comprehends all knowable truths at once. An eternal knowledge comprehends in itself all time, and beholds past and present in the same manner, and therefore his knowledge is immutable. By one simple knowledge he considers the infinite spaces of past and future. (p 323)

 

[Knight]

From the video:

...you can best picture this concept with a cube shape where at one end of the cube is the Big Bang which was the beginning of space-time and at the other end you have the death of the universe in between both sides you have every event that has ever and will ever happen...

Does this imply a finite, definite end? A "final" or "last" event? If so, I would argue the theory is false.

 

[No Other Name]

From the video:



Does this imply a finite, definite end? A "final" or "last" event? If so, I would argue the theory is false.

No, the death of the universe he referred to was not inferred from the behavior of time within the space-time manifold (block) itself but rather the laws governing the finitude of thermodynamic energy across the universe and the extrapolation of that reality across increasing time.

In order to reference the death of the universe, he is presuming the shape of the universe to be flat or hyperbolic. In his model, the cube would represent the flow of time and worldlines of all objects moving from second to second (like watching a video).

He did not need to reference the death of the universe. Many can believe in an closed (spherical) universe and still hold to the block universe theory. I think he referenced it to drive home the "watching this video" analogy which would include a definite end. But he probably believes it as do all who interpret the acceleration of the expanding universe to mean it is basically geometrically flat.

But the shape of the universe is not a necessary condition for this model and the heat death of the universe is not a necessary consequent either.

One could hold the shape of the universe to be "spherical" and without "end" (not infinite but closed) in shape while holding to the block universe theory of time.

In that model, the universe would not "die" but start to contract. Those who hold to block universe would say that the present for different observers is a time-slice of the 4D universe and when it starts to contract, the present moves forward as always.

The citation that some A-theorists hate (because they prefer QM to allow effects to precede causes especially within "big bang" singularities):

• Events in our world are causally related.
• The causal relation is inherently asymmetrical. Effects depend on their causes in a way that causes do not depend on their effects.
• This asymmetry is only possible if a cause's effects are not real as of the time of their cause.
• Causes occur before their effects. "X is earlier than Y" means roughly that some event simultaneous with X causes some event simultaneous with Y.
• Our universe must therefore be a growing block.

Dainton, Barry (2010). Time and Space (Second ed.). Durham: Acumen Publishing Limited. p. 77.

NOTE: I am merely reporting positions as to time as it relates to us (creatures). This is not an endorsement of the current thinking in block universe theory - although I do object to a lot of A-theory for the anti-rational implications that are sometimes subtle, other times bolder.

Nothing here undoes the doctrines of God, His attributes or the stark Creator-creature distinction. If anything, the deeper one looks, the more and more one must marvel at the gulf of knowledge between God and us.

 

[MW]

Historically, most physicists simply wrestled with trying to determine whether time is absolute (Newton) or relative (Einstein) and when Einstein's model prevailed by observation, then how that model could possibly account for how time works for us in light of quantum mechanics.

I admit my statement was too general. But it is a theological issue. I don't think we can extract the "science" from the cosmology. If we look at it theologically it should be obvious (at least to a theist) that a theory which proposes to look on the universe from the outside is effectively assuming the position of God.

It is good to study the theology of the physicists, even those who call themselves atheists. It is useful to know where their ideas come from.

 

[No Other Name]

I admit my statement was too general. But it is a theological issue. I don't think we can extract the "science" from the cosmology. If we look at it theologically it should be obvious (at least to a theist) that a theory which proposes to look on the universe from the outside is effectively assuming the position of God.

It is good to study the theology of the physicists, even those who call themselves atheists. It is useful to know where their ideas come from.

I agree that science must submit to the revelation of God both general and special.

The bolded confuses me.

If by "effectively assuming the position of God" you mean assuming an external view, I guess I agree. (But I would be far more comfortable with framing the perspective of the external view on the universe as assuming the role of any other creature such as angels rather than stating we are looking externally like God does. That is not at all possible.)

If you mean that thinking and postulating on the universe from outside inward must necessarily entail assuming the role and authority of Creator, I disagree.

It is one thing to declare high-minded inquiry or even a discovery in these fields as proof of human divinity (utter blasphemy). We are not God nor even like unto him. All glory is his forevermore.

But I myself have done some high-minded inquiry into the universe. I did my masters' in astrophysics and my thesis in the role of entropy in supermassive black hole Sagittarrius A* (from the perspective that black holes are not singularities but rather pseudo-singularities).

Again, it is one thing to assume sacreligiously that man is like unto God as we point our telescopes into the heart of galaxies and consider higher dimensions and how it all works.

It is quite another thing to take an external look at the universe in the frameworks of time and entropy and geometry and come away humbled by the majesty of a Creator who can not only look from a transcendent view (which we also cannot do) but reign and rule and fashion all of these things from the subatomic to the extra-galactic and all of these perfectly according to his will without one single fraction of a percentage point of error. Mind-blowing.

I am unsure what you meant by the bolded, but it is not necessarily true that science "assumes the position of God" by asking and exploring these questions. If that is not what you meant, ok. All is well.

But if you meant to correct science for overstepping its bounds somehow, then I must respectfully protest.

It is one thing for science to be a handmaid to Queen Theology, all well and to the good of all. May it ever be so.

It is another thing for well-intentioned Theology to slap the handmaid around in correction for doing something wrong that she never actually did.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Brad, AKA @No Other Name
That's some pretty good and clear writing you've done above. I wish I had the knowledge that you have received.

I do have a question about the angels. Although they are privileged to things that we are not, yet they too are part of the creation and are not able to look at it completely from the outside. Is that not correct?

 

[No Other Name]

Brad, AKA @No Other Name
That's some pretty good and clear writing you've done above. I wish I had the knowledge that you have received.

I am honored as I value your thoughts and opinions always. God bless you, brother. All glory goes to him alone.

 

[Ed Walsh]

@No Other Name
I just edited what I wrote and added a question that you may have missed. I'd be interested in your answer.

 

[No Other Name]

Brad, AKA @No Other Name
That's some pretty good and clear writing you've done above. I wish I had the knowledge that you have received.

I do have a question about the angels. Although they are privileged to things that we are not, yet they too are part of the creation and are not able to look at it completely from the outside. Is that not correct?

Correct, which is why I said:

the majesty of a Creator who can not only look from a transcendent view (which we also cannot do)

but as I recall from the systematics I have re: angels they too cannot look with the transcendent view of God; only he can. So I would not assume the position of God as I consider the cosmology rather just another creature with the ability to reason and study within the bounds that God has granted me the freedom to study in.

 

[Knight]

No, the death of the universe he referred to was not inferred from the behavior of time within the space-time manifold (block) itself but rather the laws governing the finitude of thermodynamic energy across the universe and the extrapolation of that reality across increasing time.

In order to reference the death of the universe, he is presuming the shape of the universe to be flat or hyperbolic. In his model, the cube would represent the flow of time and worldlines of all objects moving from second to second (like watching a video).

He did not need to reference the death of the universe. Many can believe in an closed (spherical) universe and still hold to the block universe theory. I think he referenced it to drive home the "watching this video" analogy which would include a definite end. But he probably believes it as do all who interpret the acceleration of the expanding universe to mean it is basically geometrically flat.

But the shape of the universe is not a necessary condition for this model and the heat death of the universe is not a necessary consequent either.

One could hold the shape of the universe to be "spherical" and without "end" (not infinite but closed) in shape while holding to the block universe theory of time.

In that model, the universe would not "die" but start to contract. Those who hold to block universe would say that the present for different observers is a time-slice of the 4D universe and when it starts to contract, the present moves forward as always.

The citation that some A-theorists hate (because they prefer QM to allow effects to precede causes especially within "big bang" singularities):

• Events in our world are causally related.
• The causal relation is inherently asymmetrical. Effects depend on their causes in a way that causes do not depend on their effects.
• This asymmetry is only possible if a cause's effects are not real as of the time of their cause.
• Causes occur before their effects. "X is earlier than Y" means roughly that some event simultaneous with X causes some event simultaneous with Y.
• Our universe must therefore be a growing block.

Dainton, Barry (2010). Time and Space (Second ed.). Durham: Acumen Publishing Limited. p. 77.

NOTE: I am merely reporting positions as to time as it relates to us (creatures). This is not an endorsement of the current thinking in block universe theory - although I do object to a lot of A-theory for the anti-rational implications that are sometimes subtle, other times bolder.

Nothing here undoes the doctrines of God, His attributes or the stark Creator-creature distinction. If anything, the deeper one looks, the more and more one must marvel at the gulf of knowledge between God and us.

I appreciate the attempt to answer my question, but I will say it goes over my head. I have my own reasons for accepting a B-theory (cinematographic) view of time. Mostly, I was convinced by Helm, who does not mention a "block universe" in his works (that I can recall).

 

[MyCrows]

 

[No Other Name]

View attachment 11385

Best post here hands down hahaha

 

[No Other Name]

I appreciate the attempt to answer my question, but I will say it goes over my head. I have my own reasons for accepting a B-theory (cinematographic) view of time. Mostly, I was convinced by Helm, who does not mention a "block universe" in his works (that I can recall).

I have a passing awareness of Helm but have never read him.

Huge difference between

1) Helm's application of B-theory to construct a case for God's eternal timelessness and
2) Roger Penrose who uses B-theory to try to prove the universe itself is eternal and has no beginning. (His would be an example of a closed and cyclical universe - which is another case that is different than the video in the OP to your initial question re: if the death of the universe was a necessary condition of the theory).

 

[Knight]

I have a passing awareness of Helm but have never read him.

Huge difference between

1) Helm's application of B-theory to construct a case for God's eternal timelessness and
2) Roger Penrose who uses B-theory to try to prove the universe itself is eternal and has no beginning. (His would be an example of a closed and cyclical universe - which is another case that is different than the video in the OP to your initial question re: if the death of the universe was a necessary condition of the theory).

Thanks. Have you read D. H. Mellor? McTaggart? Those are a few others whose writings convinced me against the A theory (although McTaggart goes too far the opposite direction).

 

[No Other Name]

Thanks. Have you read D. H. Mellor? McTaggart? Those are a few others whose writings convinced me against the A theory (although McTaggart goes too far the opposite direction).

I read McTaggart's paradox a long time ago and none of Mellor. I am far more a physicist than a metaphysicist like you and others here.

 

[RamistThomist]

Although they are privileged to things that we are not, yet they too are part of the creation and are not able to look at it completely from the outside. Is that not correct?

Kind of. Historically, the church has said that angels have "aeviternity," meaning somewhere between eternal and time-bound. Beyond that, I don't know how that works out in physics.

 

[ZackF]

Kind of. Historically, the church has said that angels have "aeviternity," meaning somewhere between eternal and time-bound. Beyond that, I don't know how that works out in physics.

I’ve understood that as well. Aeviternal beings can/do interact in time but not necessarily like man.

 

[Knight]

Much conversations such as this seem to turn on definitions. What definition both captures our intuitions and also harmonizes with our other beliefs? I am open to refinement, but I define time as "the chain of secondary effects of secondary causes."

 

[MW]

I agree that science must submit to the revelation of God both general and special.

Both of these are limited in perspective. God accommodates Himself to us. He doesn't lift us up to see through His eyes.

If by "effectively assuming the position of God" you mean assuming an external view, I guess I agree. (But I would be far more comfortable with framing the perspective of the external view on the universe as assuming the role of any other creature such as angels rather than stating we are looking externally like God does. That is not at all possible.)

Though angels can move quickly they are only in one place at one time.

If you mean that thinking and postulating on the universe from outside inward must necessarily entail assuming the role and authority of Creator, I disagree.

Looking from within the universe we never gain an external perspective.

But I myself have done some high-minded inquiry into the universe. I did my masters' in astrophysics and my thesis in the role of entropy in supermassive black hole Sagittarrius A* (from the perspective that black holes are not singularities but rather pseudo-singularities).

"From the perspective" gives away the limitation you were labouring under.