AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Except if we live in a universe where there are multiple different timelines for every possible event that branch out forever.

Because in that situation we do have choices and the ability to change our lives even if someone can see every timeline, because while they can see every timeline and can see every event, they're watching them all happen at the same time.

To us, however, we can only see the timeline that we're in, and what matters to us is the timeline that we are in. We make choices based on that, we live based on where we are, and we do have a choice even if someone knows all possible choices. If there is more than once choice, they have no idea which one you will pick and could never know, because technically, from a point outside of time, you picked all of them.

That's still not a "choice". That's just you happening to experience a universe where you are a part of a very particular set of occurrences.

Also, why on earth would we assume that we live in such a weird, convoluted place?

You've never heard of the idea of alternate universes? The idea that for every action and reaction, there is a universe where that action did not happen? It's a pretty basic idea.

It's not something I'm assuming either. It is, right out, one of the possible options. The other would be that we're in one timeline that is fixed, and if that's the case, then there's bodaciously no such thing as choice, just what you happen to experience as a pre-set conditioned thing.

Alternatively, if the timeline does experience splits, then we do have choice, because bodaciously anything we can do creates a new timeline. However, the amount of things we can do is fixed by reality and our previous choices, it's a finite amount technically. It's just there's such an overwhelmingly large amount it couldn't be counted by anyone.

I've heard of alternate universes, I just think they're a little ridiculous and make things needlessly complicated.

But let's assume for a while that it's actually true

Before we continue, in the way you're describing the alternate universes, does God know all past and future choices/timelines, or does he only know the past/present ones as the number of universes grows exponentially as different choices are made?

Generally, as a rule, the universe is complicated.

So ignoring a very valid concept because it's complicated sort of sounds like you're not entirely clear on that.



That would depend on your definition of omniscience.

I mentioned before true and inherent omniscience. True omniscience is knowing everything always no matter what. Inherent omniscience would be more controlled, a being who is inherently omniscient could purposefully limit their own knowledge of events.
In fact, some people believe a christian god to be inherently omniscient, not totally. A god limiting their own knowledge to allow for free will (we have gone over why this is false).

Because inherent omniscience is kind of weird and would rely on us knowing exactly what knowledge is being held back and isn't even a problem, I've been assuming it's been true omniscience. So it would be knowledge of all events, past, future, present, across the entire infinite span of possibilities.

I've also not really been arguing that it's God, so much as any omniscient being. Though, to be fair, once you know everything ever and always, you've already met the qualifiers for godhood.

Yes, to be truly Omniscient, God would have to know everything that was, is, and would be in the universe, meaning they'd have inherent knowledge of every alternate universe.

And in addition, if we assume there is a truly infinite number of alternate universes, eventually we will stumble upon an alternate timeline where every decision, every sub-atomic particle, everything in that universe, behaved the same way as our timeline. Now, there will be a lot of timelines that are very similar to ours but not exactly like them because of events that changed the timeline maybe on another planet, but assuming we can find an exact copy of our timeline out there, it's still possible for free will to exist in the universe, as there isn't just a rigid "yes/no/third option" splitting going on where you had no choice because the yous in the other timelines chose the other options).

To make it simple, assuming there's only one timeline for each decision, each of the yous would have to make different choices. If the other me's chose Charmander and Squirtle, I'd have to choose Bulbasaur.

But if there were multiple copies of the same exact timelines because of the infinite nature of timelines, thousands of my would be able to choose Bulbasaur, or Squirtle, or Charmander, and I'd be able to choose whichever one I felt like.

It's a lot more freeing because my decision does not impact the fact that there are others who can fill the niche I refused to fill.

The thing to remember is that bodaciously anything would split the timeline. In another, almost infinite number of timelines, you always picked Charmander. But, somewhere else in the infinite expansive reality, something else happened as tiny as one particle moving an almost impossible to measure way.

I'm calling it alternate universe, or alternate timelines, to be more clear. However, in reality, this would all still be one timeline. We see time from a different standpoint, a linear thing. Time is a subjective matter, and can be seen in ways we would find impossible to comprehend. An omniscient being wouldn't see time like us. It would see time in a way we could never in our lives be able to comprehend or even imagine, because they'd have every possible point of view on time at once.

Yes, but at the same time, if there is a truly infinite number of timelines, eventually you'll be able to come across a repeat of a single stream of time (from the beginning of the universe to infinite time) that matches it exactly, down to the movements of sub-atomic particles.

It's the same principle of thinking where if the universe is infinite, there's an infinite amount of Earths with the same exact past, present, and future to ours, you just might have to travel an astronomically long distance to reach it.

But... no?

This is a really confusing thing I'm saying so lets break this down a little bit.

The idea that a timeline branches out, and has multiple timelines starting from a single point, is what is often called "alternate timelines" or "alternate universes" that are comprised of any and every possible changes to ever exist in any point in time. The amount of possible changes is infinite, but not the amount of changes at every point that branches out.

There is a finite amount of timeline branches for every point in time, but each branch has it's own finite amount of branches. So, yes, the amount of branches is infinite, because there will always be more. However, there cannot be repeats, because it all started from a single point when time began. Each branch is, by it's very nature, different from all the other infinite branches.

In a universe that is truly infinite, then yes there is a chance of repeating things. But a branching timeline is an infinite amount of finite things, which cannot repeat because every timeline would be by definition different, even in some way that is so minuscule it changed nothing else.

Now, if there is an infinite number of entirely unconnected timelines that have their own, individual beginnings, yes there would be repeats. But not otherwise.

Please stop treating Homestuck as scientific fact

What Chinmaster and I are saying is that if anyone knows what's going to happen, then that's what going to happen and no amount of decision making can change that unless they're wrong. (ie not omniscient)
And what you're saying is that there might be alternate timelines. If this is true, then there are two options.
The first option is that there is some guy who knows what might happen. This is not omniscience.
The second option is that in each timeline there is a separate version of the hypothetical omniscient being who knows what will happen in that specific timeline. There are two issues with this - first of all, free will is still impossible in any given timeline. The second problem is that this effectively negates the relevance of alternate timelines.



Also, uh, this has stopped being a taboo topic.

Edit: also what on earth are you talking about with "finite branches" and shit
Do you realize we live in an analogue universe governed on a minute scale by quantum phenomena, ie the only truly random variables known to exist? That whole "finite" bit is absurd to state as fact.

Wow no. If you think Homestuck came up with the idea that a timeline can branch out, you maybe need to rethink some things. Specifically that idea.

If the timeline is fixed and stable, it doesn't matter if someone can see what will happen it will happen anyways. That is the purpose and nature of something being fixed and stable.

If there is alternate timelines, an omniscient being isn't just seeing one. They're not going "oh so this happened at this spot where a bunch of things could have happened", they're seeing every possible anything that could happen at once. Their knowledge, being omniscient and all, is not limited to just the one timeline. They may know which timeline they are on, but to them that would be an irrelevant thing, because all of it would be clear to them.

This still does not make free will impossible. I've stated repeatedly why, and people can only seem to say that "no it would make it impossible because knowing things changes things" and I have gone over repeatedly why this is wrong.

If we do live in a constantly branching timeline, we have enough choice to actually dictate which one we're currently on, to a point. By making choices, we actually change what timeline we currently live in. That is not free will, no, but like I said before, free will isn't a real thing. We do not have the ability to even grasp at truly free will. We cannot do whatever we want simply because there are things that are impossible.

Someone sitting and only watching events cannot dictate where your consciousness will go. So any ability you have to make a choice isn't affected by the omniscient being.



We are still technically talking about what would be affected if God exists.



I'm sorry, I thought that the fact that there are things that cannot happen made it pretty obvious that there cannot be a truly infinite number of branches. Thus, there would be a finite amount.

Let's not go here.

Theories about alternate timelines and timeline splits have been a part of scientific theory and discourse for well over 50 years. It's certainly not proven yet, but it's very rude to disregard their work and postulation in a discussion just because pop culture has picked up on it.



And what if they change what happens and know exactly what their influence will result in before they even make the change? Granted, I don't think a God with omniscience would change anything about their universe because ultimately helping out with miracles and such would create problems down the line, and a branching timeline would mean that while you may have a crappy life, there is a you out there that had an amazing one, so a God wouldn't feel obligated to intervene.

Even so, the possibility exists that God is omniscient about the universe and any potential effects they have on it.



Neither of these things are inherently the only options. God is very likely wholly removed from the universe, as the laws of it do not apply to them. God would be removed from the effects of time, which means rather than living through it in a linear fashion, they'd be aware of every possible moment of time, even moments in our future, at once. This does not necessitate a new omniscient being for every timeline, nor does it mean God loses omniscience just because you have choice. God would know exactly what choices you're capable of making and their results before you even made them.

Not that I'm trying to mod here (oh god forbid I try to mod sweet lard)

But is there anywhere this conversation can really go? I mean this is basically a discourse pertaining to the unknowable ways of the universe that science as a whole barely understands as it is. There's no real concrete fact when it comes to alternate universes and timelines or time travel at all so I kinda fail to see the point of a laymans debate about the whole thing when nobody can really be said to be right or wrong at the end of the day. That pertains to omniscience as well, really. I mean we have idea about what an omniscient being may be like if one was known to exist, but who's to say with our lowly pitiful three-dimensional brains that we'd even be alble to understand such a thing.

Iunno conversations like this come off as sort of dumb and useless to me.

In response to the responses to my comment about Homestuck: I'm specifically talking about GM's frequent reference to certain "facts" established in Homestuck that are not necessarily true and have never been seriously postulated by serious philosophers - for fresh example, the idea of a fixed timeline. You can't have a fixed timeline and the possibility of others unless you either A] aren't talking about anything or B] are applying, consciously or not, Homestuck's policy of creating branching timelines in specific situations.

Also, in response to GM's incorrect comment about impossible things limiting the number of branches a timeline might have: please think about these things before saying them.
First of all, very few thing are impossible. On that front you're basically limited to surefire creation of mass or energy. Anything else is physically permitted by the universe and therefore possible.
Here's the kicker: that whole last paragraph doesn't even matter in the context of the statement being wrong. Infinity minus one is still infinity. Infinity minus a trillion is still infinity. Any number of impossible events doesn't actually limit the number of possible events.

But from here, I agree with Vax. Even this post is useless because it's arguing things that still aren't taboo in any way.
(Discussion of god, especially in hypothetical terms, isn't really taboo. It was taboo when it was about rape. There's nothing socially unacceptable about pondering free will.)

I'm not saying that fixed and alternate timelines exist at the same time. In fact that's the opposite of what I'm saying, which is that they're so different they would change the relevance of an all-seeing being, and I'm not sure how you came across the idea that I was saying anything else.

I've been applying both because, like every other human being in the world at the moment, I don't actually know what kind of ways time works. These two are the most basic, and generally when people think about time, they consider one or the other. The idea that time is fixed, that events will happen no matter what, is not new in any way.

So, still, maybe be sure that you understand what someone is saying before you dismiss it.



Except for this key fact that infinity bodaciously means something without limits.
The second there are limits then it's not infinite it's just very very very very big at best.