From: miller_jh@cubldr.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:54:07 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <2B039669.16698@news.service.uci.edu>, cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Christopher Christensen) writes:
> 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                            |


***/Hmmmm, 'alternate' or 'extra' dimensions as a means of Omnipotence are
intriguing, but ultimately more question-begging then answer-providing. In the
Flatlander paradigm even if we 3-D'ers could observe Flatland we would NOT be
Omniscient per se; especially if Flatland were equivalent to our own dimension.
I.e.;15 billion light years long; we couldn't see ALL of it AT ONCE (without
that we aren't Omni"scient!) We also couldn't see into the hearts and minds of
Flatlanders, just their bodies! 
Also, in the mental paradigm by which dimensionality is partitioned by Human
Thought Time and Space are inextricably linked, if only insomuch as each is
used to define the other. (Space as 'distance' between points, implying
movement or interval implying TIME. Time likewise is distance between events,
again interval and an alteration in Space is implied to have occurred. A sticky
mental wicket to be sure, as Einsteins postulates regard the concept of
"Simultaneous" being absolutely Relative hints at!) 
As to Time Travel being 1/2 dimensional, (only forward, not backwards) that too
seems an artifact of Human perception and thought. Like Entropy, "backwards"
Time Travel is a statistical, macro-phenomenon. An electron in orbit
experiences no entropy, and the major impediment to 'backward' Time Travel is an
apparent 'violation' of the concepts of Entropy and Causality. (Both concepts
may not be "real"!) Admittedly Time Travel is a personal fasciation for me, and
some of the "Star-Treks" have elegantly handled some of the nastier aspects of
macro-phenomenom and conciousness questions that arise from 'backwards' Time
Travel. In the Quantum Mechanical view Time has no arrow. Feynmans diagrams
showed Time as having no direction, and Dirac progressed this to postulate
Anti-Matter, which has since proven to be as "real" as anything else in this
Universe.
As to the grander question of Omniscience we may have to leave our
Physical/Material Universe completely and look at the difference between Time
and Eternity! (Eternity is NOT "Forever", it is NO time!) A possible interface
between Eternity and General Relativity may be imaginable insomuch as the'Flat
Rubber Sheet' of Space, distorted by the presence of Mass strongly implies a
cohesive 'element' of 'empty space' strongly reminiscient of 'Eather'. If suh
is the case, if any conciousness at all exists in 'Space' itself it would
contempraneously 'be' everywhere in the Universe 'at once' (or 'eternally' if
you prefer!)  
I would go one step further here to postulate that 'empty Space', or at least
fundamental particles of matter-energy' MUST be possessing of aspects of
conciousness. If not, then conciousness would not be possible at all. E.g.;
that if some element of what we call 'consciousness' is not present at the most
fundamental level (i.e.; the 'conciousness of the electron/proton/photon) then
it could not be present at any higher level of organization either! The order
and arrangement of our Human Brains may generate Human Conciousness, likewise
with Whale, Elephant, Ferengai and Romulan conciousness, but that the only
'difference' is the organization of material elements. All the aforementioned
'concious-entities' have brains possessing electrons/protons/E-M fields. (note;
this would include Data and other 'artificial life-forms' as well!) 
So either there is an intrinsic 'quantum of conciousness' that can be
amplified, modified and organized to 'produce' different aspects of
consciousness OR the conciousness is in the arrangement/organization paradigm
itself. (implying perhaps conciousness in SPACE, i.e.; the pattern, not
necessarily the material!)
In other words, "I think, therefore the Universe is...concious?!"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion