Q&A: Time and Free Choice
Time and Free Choice
Question
Have a good week!
1- After Einstein discovered that time is space, meaning that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously, and each time only a segment of the expanse is revealed to us (you could compare this to watching a movie. And seemingly this is Kant’s intention as well). If so, it is difficult for me: free choice cannot exist, since the future already exists (something like the question of divine foreknowledge and free choice)?
2- Another difficulty I have: if the Holy One, blessed be He, is above time, then seemingly the definition is that for Him, at the same time, we are both leaving Egypt and receiving reward, and in fact He is כביכול stuck in an infinite loop? Notice that for Einstein there is no meaning to the question of the world being created and dissolving at the same time, since indeed this is spread out over space, but regarding the Holy One, blessed be He, this is difficult because He has a relation to our existence.
3- Another difficulty I have is that if the Holy One, blessed be He, has no time, is that not a deficiency? I mean that He is, so to speak, frozen and static?
Thank you very much!
Answer
- It seems you are being fed by rumors.
- Being above time is a concept that requires definition. Beyond that, it is not identical with simultaneity.
- No. But He has other deficiencies too (for example, that He cannot perfect Himself).
Discussion on Answer
Einstein did not discover that time is space. Nor did he discover that the present, past, and future exist simultaneously. Other than that, everything is correct. 🙂
Your claim that Einstein did not supposedly discover that time is space is of course correct. But regarding your second assertion, that in Einstein’s view the present, past, and future do not exist simultaneously, I would ask for clarification. I know that Einstein’s statements on this issue can in fact be interpreted that way. And in more technical language: my understanding was that the worldline of objects in Minkowski space is given in advance, and thus every event the object passes through on that timeline occurs simultaneously (even though we do not experience it that way, but rather as if the events are arranged in temporal order, that is, along the arrow of time). If my interpretation is mistaken, I would be glad if you would tell me where.
This is not the place to get into the nuances of relativity theory. I’ll only say that a worldline is a line in a space of length and time, meaning that there are different moments along the line. That itself says there is no simultaneity here. As for the philosophical implications of relating to a worldline instead of discrete events, there Einstein has statements as though this is something static (as in his well-known letter to the family of his friend Besso. And I disagree with him on this). The very concept of simultaneity assumes that there is a time axis, and two simultaneous events occur at the same point in time. If everything occurs at the same point in time, then everything is simultaneous and in fact there is no time, and therefore the term simultaneity also has no meaning.
In my question I was referring only to the formal side of relativity. From your answer here it seems that you agree with me that on that level Einstein tried, at least, to eliminate the distinction between past, present, and future (“something static”). Except that now you are also adding a philosophical reflection, which I think is correct, and pointing out that this view is not coherent.
No. This is a completely coherent view, since a claim about the static nature of time (which in my opinion is not well defined) is not equivalent to a claim about its simultaneity (which is not coherent). Einstein claimed that it is static, not that everything is simultaneous. The question of the distinction between past, present, and future is altogether a different question, since there is a certain dependence on the observer’s frame of reference, but not that the distinction between past, present, and future has been completely abolished (certainly not outside the light cone).
Good morning!
Regarding the first question, I don’t understand what is incorrect about my definition.