Micah Ministries

 Critique of B theory of time In the B theory of time, it is said this is some of the motivations for thinking time travel is possible is time has no inherent directionality, so theoretically at least you could move “forward” or “backwards” in time. However, if we take B theory of time seriously, if we take a theoretical fundamental particle 14.8 billion years in the later than direction, which for arguments sake comprises my 4D block (P2 in figures 1.1 and 1.2) in the present T1. If it were possible to travel back in time to say 50 years in the later than direction, before I was born, my “parts” that make my 4D block are now in potentially multiple different locations or blocks of other objects/individuals (see figures 1.1 and 1.2). More bizarrely, if I could travel in the past, does my 4D block then perdure in now two separate locations? So, it seems at least on the face of it, this would contain at least a paradox and more realistically a contradiction, as the things that consti...

Formal Proof: The RMOA At Best Establishes ¬□g in w0 Objective: My aim to prove that if g (an MGB exists) is metaphysically possible (◇g), the RMOA’s premises P1 (□(g → □g)), P2 (♢g), and P2* (♢¬g) in KT/S4 at best establish ¬□g (it is not necessary that God exists) in the actual world (w0), not ¬g (God does not exist in w0). The derivation of ¬g in w0 is formally valid but metaphysically overreaching, as ◇g implies g is possible in w0, making ¬g possibly false. The conclusion ¬g in w0 requires an unjustified assumption about w0’s metaphysical status, limiting the RMOA’s conclusion to ¬□g. Definitions and Notation: g: An MGB exists, with properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and Omni benevolence. w0: Actual world. w1: A possible world where g holds (for P2). w2: A possible world where ¬g holds (for P2*). ◇p: p is possible (true in some accessible world). □p: p is necessary (true in all accessible worlds). R(w, w’): Accessibility relation (w accesses w’).  KT: Modal logic with ref...