You are raising two different issues, so I will address them in two different posts but please read this post first.
I say so-called because your so-called scientific proof demonstrates the level of your scientific training.
I do admit that my PhD is in Engineering and not in Theoretical Physics. However, I believe that one doesnít even need a PhD to have common sense and that one must continuously improve his/her scientific training.
What you do not seem to understand is that hypertime marches on just like regular time. There is a before and an after in hypertime, even though that time is compactified. [/QUOTE]
Nothing there contradicts what I said. Again, you didnít address my proof that it is possible for us to have free will and at the same time for The God to know what is ahead of us. Let me humbly make it clearer for you:
- A one-dimensional being cannot create a two dimensional thing. More generally, an n dimension being cannot create an n+1 dimensions thing.
- An n-dimensional being cannot create an n-dimensional universe.
We know that there are at least 2 time dimensions (one we all know about and the other is compactified/hidden from us). According to my assumptions, this implies that the Creator of this 2D time is at least in a 3D time domain. Here is what I said before:
ďIn a 3D time, you would be able to see all the outcomes available.Ē
Therefore, it possible for us to have free will to make a decision and the same time for The God to know the outcome of this decision and all other possible outcomes. This also agrees with Chrisís excellent example.
Regarding hypertime, since the consensus in scientific circles are that this dimension is compactified, then there can be no sidewise movement in it,
Your conclusion is correct, but your logic is not. Let me humbly correct you. There can be no sidewise movement in a dimension because you need 2D for sidewise movement and NOT because it is compactified.
Our own 3D + time dimensions could be compactified. We just donít know it because we are living in them. In fact, it has been proved that space is curved. This is consistent with a compactified, curled up universe from the point of view of an external observer.
When we make a decision, we are simulating a sideway movement in a discrete (non-continuous) 2D time, since we are moving from an outcome to another. Conceptually, we are just moving along one time dimension that bends a little when we make a decision to follow a different path. If we had access to the extra time dimension, we could have potentially moved sideways (but not back) to the other paths that we didnít select.
I say not back because of the unidirectional nature of time. So I believe that a 2D time would be like an infinite wave all moving in one direction. The surfer can move forward with the wave, sideways, or diagonally in the direction of the wave.
Much of what can happen in the future is predictable using physical theory and mathematics. That is the non-choatic Lorentz invaraint portion of nature. That is what allows scientists and engineers to predict everything in technology.
Let me humbly correct you. Much of behavior is predictable using physical theory and mathematics, not actual outcomes. We can only assign probabilities to a limited number of parameters of future outcomes. A future outcome is simply defined as a future state of the universe that has an infinite number of parameters.
God has the same resources.
Canít you see that you are using a circular argument to prove your hypothesis? You are saying that The God has the same resources (i.e. is not omnipotent) to prove that S/He is not omnipotent (The God be most exalted above that description).
But God gave us the opportunity to change the future by way of our individual choices. So God, confined by S/His own creation of time, cannot predict the future exactly.
We change the future because The God gave us the opportunity/freedom to choose different paths amongst the possible outcomes. We do not CREATE the future. Only The God knows all the possible outcomes/futures (Including the futures we did not select).
I hope that I was able to clarify and thank you for helping me improve my proof by providing your counterarguments.
I will now move on to address your second point.