If prophecy or seeing the future were true... think about it...

[robocop (actually)]

Assuming there were such a thing as seeing into the future or knowing future events (not predicting)...

1. If true, it would indicate the future has already happened. Then are we repeating it? In terminator voice... "I'll be back"... "I'll be back"... "I'll be back"...
2. Or the future is predestined or scripted and free will is an illusion? Then are we in a programmed simulation, a virtual reality were anything is possible?
3. Also if seeing the future is possible, then shouldnt seeing the past be as possible? When have you ever heard of prophets doing that?

Reality would dictate that prophecies in the Bible that seem fulfilled, i.e. in the book of Daniel, were written after the fact. We know the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by Jesus was written decades after he was presumed to have said it. More likely Jesus never said it but it was written that way in manuscripts after 70 a.d.

Logically, I think this means that prophecies are avoidable, even with small chance.

 

[Milton Platt]

Logically, I think this means that prophecies are avoidable, even with small chance.

I din’t get the line between predicting the future and knowing the future. How can you make sn accurate prediction without knowing?

 

[robocop (actually)]

I din’t get the line between predicting the future and knowing the future. How can you make sn accurate prediction without knowing?

The idea is that if the future is pre-decided, then what the hell is God doing, but if there is choice somewhere, than there's a purpose.

 

[Milton Platt]

The idea is that if the future is pre-decided, then what the hell is God doing, but if there is choice somewhere, than there's a purpose.

The purpose could have also been pre-decided if there were a god to do so.
If someone can see the future, that is, give a prophecy about a future event, then he/she saw that part of the future, at the least. Unless you are saying the prophecies in the various religious texts were simply blind guesses?

 

[robocop (actually)]

If someone knows the future it cannot be changed.

Physics is built on either multiverses or a Universe... either we choose in the case of a Universe or we don't in the case of a multi-verse.

Basic physics says that everything is in place in space and time and that there is no changing of anything and that the future can be measured more or less accurately by different skill.

 

[Axe Elf]

Yes, but you are seeing it in the moment, and that is what I meant. Barring the speed of light, that is as close as one can get. Light bouncing off of objects and entering the eye is not the same as light being recorded on a film or a light sensor and saved digitally and then observed later. It is disingenuous to make that claim.

Opinions vary, but I AM curious as to the distinction you make between photons bouncing off of "live" objects and entering the eye, as opposed to the photons bouncing off of a recorded medium and entering the eye.

There was also no distinction made about how recent or distant the past events needed to be to qualify as "the past."

 

[Milton Platt]

If someone knows the future it cannot be changed.

Physics is built on either multiverses or a Universe... either we choose in the case of a Universe or we don't in the case of a multi-verse.

Basic physics says that everything is in place in space and time and that there is no changing of anything and that the future can be measured more or less accurately by different skill.

Physics isn't "built" on a universe. Physics is a branch of science that describes how the universe works (part of it, anyway).

I don't understand your second statement. What is "basic physics"? As opposed to what? Are you referencing Newtonian physics?

I would agree that there is either a single universe or more than one. That is simple logic, no physics is needed. There is a minimum of one, because we are in one.
That is not relevant to the question, as far as I can tell.

Yes, everything is in a "place" in both space and time. Again, physics isn't really needed to figure that out. It is a part of our everyday reality. You are wrong that none of it changes. Things move through both space and time. In quantum physics, things pop into and out of existence in the universe.

The faster a thing moves, the slower the time relative to an observer on that thing. So time is perhaps linear, but not a constant.

Now that we have gotten through all the side trips, I ask you again:

How can one make an accurate prophecy about the future without knowing the future? Are prophecies something a prophet knows to be true, or is it a wild guess?
Just give a straight forward answer without all the useless side trips, please.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Things move through both space and time.

I know you want me to focus on your point but things do not move through both space and time. If you have a space-time graph everything is constant on that graph.

How can one make an accurate prophecy about the future without knowing the future? Are prophecies something a prophet knows to be true, or is it a wild guess?
Just give a straight forward answer without all the useless side trips, please.

Well I have made a prophecy about the future that came true and to be honest I don't know whether I knew it was going to come true or not, so I cannot really answer your question.

 

[Milton Platt]

Opinions vary, but I AM curious as to the distinction you make between photons bouncing off of "live" objects and entering the eye, as opposed to the photons bouncing off of a recorded medium and entering the eye.

There was also no distinction made about how recent or distant the past events needed to be to qualify as "the past."

Sure. It is an interesting subject and I am interested in your take, not just trying to beat you up about it. I like playing the devil's advocate and am willing to be shown to be wrong. It's how I learn new things.

You are right that even when we think we are seeing something in real time, we are experiencing a delay, albeit one so small, it would be difficult to measure. And you are right that we do not see objects, but a representation formed by light bouncing off of them and entering the eye and being interpreted by the brain. Not only that, but if we could "see" a physical object as it exists, it would be mostly empty space.
My main objection was just that seeing something that was recorded is not the same as seeing it directly. You are seeing what the medium recorded, which may not be exactly what you would see by observing directly.

 

[Milton Platt]

I know you want me to focus on your point but things do not move through both space and time. If you have a space-time graph everything is constant on that graph.



Well I have made a prophecy about the future that came true and to be honest I don't know whether I knew it was going to come true or not, so I cannot really answer your question.

You are wrong. Are you saying the earth and planets, as well as their moons hang motionless in space? Or do they move through it? Yes, they move in their respective orbits. Can you walk from one room to the next "through space"? Yes, you can.
Time is a tough one to tackle. Time is a dimension which everything moves through, if I get my physics right (not an expert by any stretch). It's not that time moves, it is that things move through time, just like things move through space.

Would suggest you try reading up some more on the physics stuff. Warning: It may make your brain hurt!

If your prophecy isn't certain, it is just a guess, nothing more. If it is certain, then you had to have had foreknowledge of the event, hence you saw the future. No way around that.

 

[robocop (actually)]

You are wrong. Are you saying the earth and planets, as well as their moons hang motionless in space? Or do they move through it? Yes, they move in their respective orbits. Can you walk from one room to the next "through space"? Yes, you can.
Time is a tough one to tackle. Time is a dimension which everything moves through, if I get my physics right (not an expert by any stretch). It's not that time moves, it is that things move through time, just like things move through space.

Would suggest you try reading up some more on the physics stuff. Warning: It may make your brain hurt!

For simplicity, let's say space is two dimensions and time is one. Now through time, matter moves around on the two space axes. But with time, each slice is the state at that time and the whole graph is just a constant.

I have a Master's in Math, so I do not have a problem here.

If your prophecy isn't certain, it is just a guess, nothing more. If it is certain, then you had to have had foreknowledge of the event, hence you saw the future. No way around that.

Like, I said, I made a true prophecy and I do not know if I knew it or not.

 

[Milton Platt]

For simplicity, let's say space is two dimensions and time is one. Now through time, matter moves around on the two space axes. But with time, each slice is the state at that time and the whole graph is just a constant.

I have a Master's in Math, so I do not have a problem here.



Like, I said, I made a true prophecy and I do not know if I knew it or not.

Good for you, I struggle with math.

How can you make a prediction about something you do not know about? It is impossible.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Good for you, I struggle with math.

How can you make a prediction about something you do not know about? It is impossible.

Good question. I half-knew and half-didn't. That is all I can tell you. It's like knowing the Sun will rise, but it's something that is not obvious and in fact seems unlikely, or would seem unlikely to the average person.

 

[Milton Platt]

Good question. I half-knew and half-didn't. That is all I can tell you. It's like knowing the Sun will rise, but it's something that is not obvious and in fact seems unlikely, or would seem unlikely to the average person.

Okay, Robo. It isn't exactly like knowing the sun will rise, though. I have been around for 68 years and it rose every single day of each of those years without fail. I have a long history to reference.
There isn't any half-know. It is actual knowledge or it is a guess or hunch that happened to be correct.

That's okay, though. thanks for participating in the give and take.

 

[joelr]

Well, that's good that they are making progress forward.
Yet, I don't believe it is an honest assessment, to conclude that everything can be known with such limitations, and probabilities, and possibilities which are not currently known, do you?

I agree totally that no human can predict the future. I would never submit to such a theory,

You would have to study the Uncertainty Principle to really see what it is.
It's a very strange reality we live in. A laymans description might involve looking at a particle. (If we could) There are 2 variables to the particle - its position (where is it?) and it's momentum (how fast is it moving) these are complementary variables.
You can never look at the particle, it doesn't "exist" like that, you can measure it's position but you won't know as much about it's momentum so after the measurement you can't say for sure where it is.
If you measure it's momentum you can't get at it's position as accurate. It's like it isn't fully real like an object as we think of them. If you force it to reveal it's momentum it's position will exist less in reality.
If you try to get both you can only get a limited amount of each.

This lack of knowledge means you cannot know the state of subatomic entities and cannot map out an accurate future evolution. There are only probabilities. Hidden variables that guide them are ruled out. Things evolve in time only in a probabilistic way.

It's because of this why many physicists reject block time - the idea that all time already exists.

 

[Axe Elf]

Sure. It is an interesting subject and I am interested in your take, not just trying to beat you up about it. I like playing the devil's advocate and am willing to be shown to be wrong. It's how I learn new things.

You are right that even when we think we are seeing something in real time, we are experiencing a delay, albeit one so small, it would be difficult to measure. And you are right that we do not see objects, but a representation formed by light bouncing off of them and entering the eye and being interpreted by the brain. Not only that, but if we could "see" a physical object as it exists, it would be mostly empty space.
My main objection was just that seeing something that was recorded is not the same as seeing it directly. You are seeing what the medium recorded, which may not be exactly what you would see by observing directly.

Well of course it wouldn't necessarily be exactly the same as what a live observer might see--the camera angle might be higher or lower than your own eye level, it probably wouldn't be stereoscopic, etc., but that seems like such a negligible objection as to be downright pedantic in the context of the discussion. I mean, if someone saw a film that turned out to be a record of something that happened in the future, nobody would bat an eye at the claim that they had seen the future--most would agree that they had, indeed, seen the future.

In like manner, any time you watch a movie, you are seeing the past.

 

[Milton Platt]

Well of course it wouldn't necessarily be exactly the same as what a live observer might see--the camera angle might be higher or lower than your own eye level, it probably wouldn't be stereoscopic, etc., but that seems like such a negligible objection as to be downright pedantic in the context of the discussion. I mean, if someone saw a film that turned out to be a record of something that happened in the future, nobody would bat an eye at the claim that they had seen the future--most would agree that they had, indeed, seen the future.

In like manner, any time you watch a movie, you are seeing the past.

Yes, but the difference should be obvious. it isn't the same to view the event and view the event via a film, or via digital data from a light sensor interpreted by a computer. they aren't the same thing and it in't pedantic to point that out.

As far as an event on a film that turned out to happen later in actuality, You could always say that you did not see the future in the film, but saw the past when the event happened, then, right? I mean if we accept that a film of an event is the same as the event?

 

[Axe Elf]

Yes, but the difference should be obvious. it isn't the same to view the event and view the event via a film, or via digital data from a light sensor interpreted by a computer. they aren't the same thing and it in't pedantic to point that out.

As far as an event on a film that turned out to happen later in actuality, You could always say that you did not see the future in the film, but saw the past when the event happened, then, right? I mean if we accept that a film of an event is the same as the event?

The bartender says, "We don't serve time travelers in here."

A time traveler walks into a bar.

 

[Milton Platt]

The bartender says, "We don't serve time travelers in here."

A time traveler walks into a bar.

LOL....I like that......