From: cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Christopher Christensen)
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 13 Nov 92 11:50:01 GMT

cnc = (me)
ingles = ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)

[deleted assertions by Dave Weaver about extra dimensions allowing
omniscience]

cnc:
>Not true.
>Additional dimensions of space, while concievable, would not change
>matters any.  Why would relativity apply to the 3 dimensions of space
>that we now know, but not to "additional" ones?  Special relativity
>can be trivially generalized to an n-space universe.  It still prevents
>omniscience.

ingles:
>Of course, we have no reason to suppose that relativity *does* apply,
>either... and some reason to suppose not.

I'm assuming that the extra spacial dimensions are just that--spacial
dimensions no different than the 3 we know of, only for some reason
we can only percieve 3 of them at a time.  If relativity does not apply
to the extra spacial dimensions, then perhaps we'd be better off calling
them by a different name to distinguish between the two types of spacial
dimensions.  I had the "flatlander" parable in mind which I'm sure you've
heard of (i.e. flatlanders live in a 2D world, can only see in 2D, are
ignorant of the third spacial dimension, etc...).

>Or, at least that it might not be relevant.
>Heard of the wormhole idea?

I'm somewhat familiar with the idea of wormholes.  Basicallly, an
object's mass distorts the timespace close to an object.  The greater
the mass, the more distortion of timespace there is.  A wormhole is
where the distortion somehow creates a connection between 2 points
in timespace.  The 2 points can allow stuff to travel from one point
to the other, permitting time travel forwards or backwards and faster-
than-light travel.  (Please correct me if any of that is wrong..)

cnc:
>Additional dimensions of time sounds like nonsense to me.  Time is a
>fundamentally different dimension than space.

ingles:
>Uh, you *are* aware of four-vectors, where the lorenztian transforms
>are characterized as rotation in a four-dimensional space of which
>time acts as the fourth spatial dimension?

I don't doubt that time and space are related and interact.
Nevertheless, the dimension of time is quite different from the
dimensions of space (at least from our point of view).

cnc:
>We can move freely
>through space, but not time.  Time has a direction, we can only move
>"forward", to move "backward" through time introduces logical
>impossibilities.

ingles:
> I have sitting here in my desk a number of papers, published in Physical
>Review & Physical Reveiw Letters, which talk about 'global causality
>violations' that can result near ultradense, rotating objects like black
>holes, under some interpretations of general relativity. I.e. time travel.
>"Global Structure of the Kerr Family of Gravitational Fields," by Brandon
>Carter (Phys. Rev., Vol 141 #4, Jan. 1966) & "Quantum Mechanics Near Closed
>Timelike Lines" by David Deustch, Phys. Rev. D, Vol 44, #10, 15 Nov. 1991
>are pretty good ones. I don't claim to understand all the math in these
>papers, but the abstracts are fairly clear...
> #1: "...It is shown that in all but the spherically symmetric case there is
>nontrivial causality violation... [in certain cases] this causality violation
>is of the most flagrant possible kind in that it is possible to connect any
>event to any other by a future-directed timelike line."
> #2: "In classical physics the existence of such lines [closed timelike
>lines, or causality violations] in a spacetime imposes 'paradoxical'
>constraints... In quantum mechanics the first of these pathologies [paradoxes]
>does not occur."

Well I'm glad to have in this discussion someone who knows something about
this.  Are these "closed timelike lines" not considered a paradox under QM?
If the paradoxes cannot be resolved, doesn't that indicate a problem with
the theory?

As an example of a paradox, let's assume that we have a wormhole with
the endpoints spacially close but separated by a time of 1 hour.  I jump
into the wormhole and travel backward in time by an hour to await my own
arrival.  When the 1-hour younger "me" arrives to jump in the wormhole I
stop him from going in.  Is there any consensus among theorists as to what
happens?

My opinion is that one of 2 things must be true:
either
(1) closed timelike lines and other paradoxes are not possible, indicating
   a problem with the theory.  (i.e. wormholes, etc are impossible for
   reasons not yet understood)
or
(2) the universe has an extra dimension, turning the closed lines into
   something like a spiral..

In the case of (2), the paradox above is resolved because when I go through
the wormhole and wait for an hour I am at the same place in 4-space that
I was before, but in 5-space I am actually somewhere else.  That is, I have
travelled to a parallel universe or something like that.  To observers in
the original universe (before the wormhole), I disappear into the wormhole
and cease to exist.  To observers in the alternate universe, an "extra" me
pops out of a wormhole and prevents the 1-hour-younger me from going in,
hence there are now 2 "me"s in the alternate universe.
  There may be other possibilities, but I can't think of any.  I'd
love to hear an alternate explanation.. :-)
Is there anything similiar to this 5-space idea in the literature
perchance?

cnc:
>It is the dimension of time which limits our possible knowledge of
>the universe.  By the time you get information about a part of
>the universe, you have moved inexorably forward on the time axis and
>your information is out of date.  By giving this wanna-be-omniscient-
>being more dimensions of time, it only imposes more restrictions on
>the being's knowledge.

ingles:
> As the papers above show, there can be regions where, by moving forward in
>your own subjective time, you can essentially move into the past relative to
>the rest of the universe. Maybe. If we're right about general relativity.

Perhaps a formal version of this "subjective time" could be the extra
dimension in my "5-space" hypothesis above.  I just can't accept the
paradoxes inherent in time travel in a 4-dimensional universe.

cnc:
>Besides, there is no reason to assume the existence of additional
>dimensions of space or time unless there is some way for us to interact
>with them.  The dimensions that we know of seem to have a great deal of
>interaction between them.  Seeing no evidence for interaction with
>extra dimensions, I have to assume they do not exist.

ingles:
> We don't generally hang out in highly stressed spacetime such as
>around a rapidly rotating black hole, either.

True.  What I meant is that we should not postulate additional dimensions
unless they help explain the evidence at hand.  Occam's razor..

cnc:
>Conclusion:  Omniscience is impossible.
>Corrolary:   So is omnipotence.

ingles:
> Well, I kinda agree, but I think it's impossible in practice and not in
>theory. Mind you I don't believe in a God, but I think this is an incorrect
>way to argue against it...

Well I stand by my conclusion.  These paradoxes must be resolved, of the
2 possible resolutions that _I_ can see (see above), neither one would permit
omniscience.  Interesting how when you eliminate the paradoxes, you also
eliminate omniscience.. hmmm.  :-)
I'm quite interested to hear your response.

Cheers,
Chris

--
|  Christopher  |  Computer Engineering graduate student, UC Irvine  |
|  Christensen  |  cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu                            |
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20746 talk.religion.misc:20560