I posted this originally in the wrong context, and so this is a repost.
The subject matter is just basically my irritation with the so-called grandfather "paradox" and the overwhelmingly abundant crappy interpretations of how time travel would work.
time does not flow in a linear fashion... so the grandfather paradox and the "where are the travelers from the future if it can be done?" dilemna don't really apply. This has been illustrated not only in physical models of time, but I think there are a lot of ways it can be illustrated on more philosophical terms. There are probably tons of zen koans about time which illustrate the illusory nature of "common sense causality".
Time does not flow, or that is to say, it SEEMS to flow, but operates much differently than it appears on the surface. There is no moving line forward that becomes a different series of events, causing the universe to implode or something, because you moved through space-time and made alterations. Because THIS time, right now, while you're making the alterations... that moment is it's own special case. It is now. Nature need not make excuses for our tendency to confuse what is now with what is "to be" or "has been". "To be" and "has been" misrepresent time, except when not taken literally and used only out of convenience. If I go "back" in time to 10 years ago, and meet myself, I see no reason for any paradoxes, and I certainly wouldn't expect (like these stupid time-loop synchronistic movie interpretations) to suddenly REMEMBER meeting myself 10 years ago. 10 years "ago" is really 10 years "over there", from a physics standpoint. Another coordinate, if you will. Once it is now, it is neither here nor there, no matter what other space-time memory slices you're associating it with. If you are here, now, it doesn't matter whether it's 1950 or 1970 or 2070. If you kill yourself in 1980 and then jump back to present day, would you really expect to find that you ceased to exist?
I certainly don't completely understand time, but it's weird to me that people get so hung up on the grandfather paradox, that they use it as justification for imposing new restraints on the physically possible. I blame it on this:
Quote from: WIKIPEDIAStephen Hawking once suggested that the absence of tourists from the future constitutes an argument against the existence of time travel—a variant of the Fermi paradox. Of course this would not prove that time travel is physically impossible, since it might be that time travel is physically possible but that it is never in fact developed (or was cautiously never used); and even if it is developed, Hawking notes elsewhere that time travel might only be possible in a region of spacetime that is warped in the right way, and that if we cannot create such a region until the future, then time travelers would not be able to travel back before that date, so "This picture would explain why we haven't been over run by tourists from the future."[10] Carl Sagan also once suggested the possibility that time travelers could be here, but are disguising their existence or are not recognized as time travelers.[11]
Talk about whacked out theories? It's not that I subscribe to one opposing viewpoint. I'm certainly not with the Presentists or the Eternalists (although I do agree the universe is "happening"). But why do we constantly suppose that nature can't possibly contradict our maps, when we already know goddamn well the maps are off. We know enough about time travel to screw with our own notions of causality, and break and bend the rules the same way we have done with lightspeed impedence. But it's as if we are following a map in the woods, and suddenly come upon a lake that isn't marked on the map. We know damn well that lakes exist, but there's no explanation for how THIS lake is right HERE in THIS forest. It's not on the map, so you know what? It's not there. I didn't see a lake, did you? Mere hallucination if you did, because it's not on the map. Besides, how many times have I walked through this same forest. If there were lakes not on the map, then why am I not bumping into them all the time? Why just THIS lake, in THIS forest? My point is, until the limits have been clearly defined (and they never will be), why make skeptical conclusions FIRST? If the contradiction on the map needs worked out, then why still assume that the implications of the contradiction can be
explained by the map?
Theoretically time travel is possible. We haven't seen any time travelers (that we recognized anyway), and we don't know what would happen for an observer to "alter" perceived causal trajectories and then return to his original location in space-time. I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and give my best guess. I'd say that if he returns to his original location in space-time, he's not going to notice a thing. It will appear as if he made no alterations. I'd guess that if his time machine has a better map than we do now, it will know how to follow that new causal trajectory and return him to a DIFFERENT and causally-associated space-time which appears very (maybe) similar to his original starting point (before any of this time-traveling nonsense). This would be the world in which he had never been born, say, due to the alteration he made in a causally connected time slice (killed his grandfather). He may very well find his laboratory is now a gas station.
I don't know, and this is a very MWI sort of guess, but it makes much more sense to me then to suppose that 1)time travel isn't possible despite it's theoretical possibility, BECAUSE we haven't seen people "from the future" and 2)if i went back in time and killed my grandfather, i would go
poof! OR the universe would go
poof! and then
based on that 2nd absurd notion: 3)I can't go back and kill my grandfather after all. The universe isn't "large" enough for processes that
appear contradictory?
Well, anyway... We'll see if anyone is in the mood for this nonsense.
don't you need a device upon where you jumping too
a machine at point A and a machine at point B??
like you can't just jump into nothing
BTW: Please quick simple, practical answer please
i may use the idea in the future....
but please no theoretical hippie crap
I have trouble swallowing any discussion about time travel because there is literally no way to talk about it without heavy amounts of conjecture, logical paradox, and talking out of your ass.
Quotetime does not flow in a linear fashion... so the grandfather paradox and the "where are the travelers from the future if it can be done?" dilemna don't really apply. This has been illustrated not only in physical models of time, but I think there are a lot of ways it can be illustrated on more philosophical terms. There are probably tons of zen koans about time which illustrate the illusory nature of "common sense causality".
:cn:
There's a "physical model of time" which illustrates time not flowing in a linear fashion?
and why do you buy
that model instead of the alternatives?
Quote
[Quotes from Sagan and Hawking]
Talk about whacked out theories?
show me a non-whacked out discussion about time travel, and odds are I'll show you someone who is overly confident in their assumptions. OR people who admit they know nothing.
QuoteI don't know, and this is a very MWI sort of guess, but it makes much more sense to me then to suppose that 1)time travel isn't possible despite it's theoretical possibility, BECAUSE we haven't seen people "from the future" and 2)if i went back in time and killed my grandfather, i would go poof! OR the universe would go poof! and then based on that 2nd absurd notion: 3)I can't go back and kill my grandfather after all. The universe isn't "large" enough for processes that appear contradictory?
If/when someone figures out how to travel through time, I'm guessing that the science which facilitates it is our of our comprehension right now.
Just like how you can't explain to an alchemist why, say, Voice over IP is cool. And a caveman couldn't have invented a typewriter. It's not just that we don't know how time travel would work, the science which facilitates time travel doesn't even exist yet.
'cause right now, Time Travel is a bunch of squiggles on paper,
or a thought experiment
so it seems silly (to me) to talk about how it would or wouldn't work.
Not that it's not a fun topic to think about. Just that talking about it concretely is very difficult.
If I can't go back 2,000,000 years and wipe out every semi-erect primate in central Africa, I'm not interested.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2008, 07:46:47 PM
If I can't go back 2,000,000 years and wipe out every semi-erect primate in central Africa, I'm not interested.
so then we'd get .. lizard people? wolf people? you'd rather have otherkin and furries??
Quote from: triple zero on May 27, 2008, 08:58:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2008, 07:46:47 PM
If I can't go back 2,000,000 years and wipe out every semi-erect primate in central Africa, I'm not interested.
so then we'd get .. lizard people? wolf people? you'd rather have otherkin and furries??
But ... if THEY were the "people", wouldn't that make their equivalent those freaks that dress up like hairless apes for sex?
Quote from: triple zero on May 27, 2008, 08:58:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2008, 07:46:47 PM
If I can't go back 2,000,000 years and wipe out every semi-erect primate in central Africa, I'm not interested.
so then we'd get .. lizard people? wolf people? you'd rather have otherkin and furries??
We wouldn't get anything because we wouldn't be we, oui?
Quote from: That One Guy on May 27, 2008, 09:00:25 PM
Quote from: triple zero on May 27, 2008, 08:58:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2008, 07:46:47 PM
If I can't go back 2,000,000 years and wipe out every semi-erect primate in central Africa, I'm not interested.
so then we'd get .. lizard people? wolf people? you'd rather have otherkin and furries??
But ... if THEY were the "people", wouldn't that make their equivalent those freaks that dress up like hairless apes for sex?
Probably. There is no end to perversion.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on May 27, 2008, 06:28:21 PM
don't you need a device upon where you jumping too
a machine at point A and a machine at point B??
like you can't just jump into nothing
BTW: Please quick simple, practical answer please
i may use the idea in the future....
but please no theoretical hippie crap
From an Einsteinian view, kind of yes maybe, but no. It really depends on the type of time machine we're talking, and even pre-quantum mechanics models of time allow for time travel without a machine at point B. There are a lot of different methods which have been explored.
This is sort of along the lines of what Hawking was talking about when he refuted the possibility of time travel due to the inability for a built machine to satisfy the "weak energy condition".
I'm going to refute this in detail later, or at least summarize Amos Ori's recent refutation.
There are still possibilities to build time machines with positive energy densities, and I'm sure there are at least a handful of models based on this line of thinking, but I'm more interested in Quantum Mechanical models here, and Everett will certainly come to play.
That's part of my frustration. I'd love to see even one movie or book depict time travel as described by Everett, Feynman, and currently Deutsch and Lockwood, among others. We can do away with those nasty paradoxes, as well as the convenient one way set ups.
This is a short reply for you Thurn. I'm long-winded anyway, and time is a complicated subject. I need to do some work
for work at home tonight, but afterwords I hope to elaborate more concisely, and answer cram. I've got some of
that post put together already.
Also, science is
always theories. No hippie crap.
ugh....
In the morning I'll post some form of response to this
Quote from: That One Guy on May 27, 2008, 09:00:25 PM
Quote from: triple zero on May 27, 2008, 08:58:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2008, 07:46:47 PM
If I can't go back 2,000,000 years and wipe out every semi-erect primate in central Africa, I'm not interested.
so then we'd get .. lizard people? wolf people? you'd rather have otherkin and furries??
But ... if THEY were the "people", wouldn't that make their equivalent those freaks that dress up like hairless apes for sex?
This line of inquiry assumes that intelligent life forms are inevitable in our little slice of spacetime.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on May 27, 2008, 06:54:47 PM
There's a "physical model of time" which illustrates time not flowing in a linear fashion?
and why do you buy that model instead of the alternatives?
i don't necessarily. but it seems more sensible to me at this time than the alternatives i know well.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on May 27, 2008, 06:54:47 PM
show me a non-whacked out discussion about time travel, and odds are I'll show you someone who is overly confident in their assumptions. OR people who admit they know nothing.
You can count me as one of the latter.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on May 27, 2008, 06:54:47 PM
If/when someone figures out how to travel through time, I'm guessing that the science which facilitates it is out of our comprehension right now.
Fixxd. Also, I might just be inclined to disagree. But you could be right. Depends on what you mean by right now.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on May 27, 2008, 06:54:47 PM
the science which facilitates time travel doesn't even exist yet.
the science already suggests it's possible. facilitation may not be far.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on May 27, 2008, 06:54:47 PM
I'm not sure the science isn't getting there. The engineering is not there.
But is it
possible?
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on May 27, 2008, 06:54:47 PM
'cause right now, Time Travel is a bunch of squiggles on paper,
or a thought experiment
so it seems silly (to me) to talk about how it would or wouldn't work.
I think some intend to
do it.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on May 27, 2008, 06:54:47 PM
Not that it's not a fun topic to think about. Just that talking about it concretely is very difficult.
I agree completely.
Everett started down a road that offers a much more coherent explanation of time travel as a PHYSICAL possibility. It must be said that there are other interpretations which leave possibilities for time travel... I'm not even going to TOUCH Einstein-Rosen bridges yet. The "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics allows a time traveler to go back in time and "create realities", in the sense that there is an alternative history for every possible outcome of every decision made. Common sense may deem this too absurd, but just examine the model, I say. It dissolves every classical paradox for time travel; an aspect that is merely in an
implication of the theory. Every quantum event is depicted as a split in an infinitely larger and more complex structure than our directly observible space-time physics.
1 I am not endorsing this model at THE correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, but I am suggesting it resolves paradoxes, provides coherent explanations for processes which previously had none, and provides us a more powerful tool for computing probabilities than any piece of technology previously devised.
Anyway, most time travel stories in popular culture are illogical. You can't "change" the past to be different from what it was, because the "past", "present", and "future" only occur once. Therefore, in science fiction and similar scenarios in which time travel is depicted, all the author must do is concoct a coherent scenario in which everything happens once and in a consistent way (the TV show "Heroes" comes to mind as a recent example).
This is partially the cause of my annoyance. If you're going to write science fiction, or talk about time travel, can't SOMEONE devise a plot that utilizes an alternate model to mere logical coherence? Many things are logically possible. While it might make devising a time travel related plot easier, it's relevance towards actually understanding time travel is zero, and for one who take an interest in these ideas, it's quite frankly boring (perhaps like this post). Hence, it becomes a tired old plot device for me, because I'd like to see some enactments of less paradoxical and/or convenient/cliche theories, which imply it is PHYSICALLY possible to travel through time. Though no logical or conceptual analysis may reveal a concept as being metaphysically impossible, there are still innumerable concepts, logically consistent, which are in fact physically impossible*.
Now that I've written this much, I'm rethinking "Back to the Future". I'm realizing
that movie may not have been incompatible with this model insofar as it complied with the known laws of physics. Complied generally, because "engineering" the time machine is a whole other facet of time travel speculation. This is a foggier area for me to make guesses because it relates to human ingenuity. It seems that curiosity and creativity lead to either better models or better engineering eventually... when the models don't permit something we imagine, we seem to either develop workable models that do, or engineer something that works in that model better than we though possible. Newtonian physics suggested new possibilities, and new
impossibilities. We engineered things that made us rethink the possible, and then we developed new models. This introduced new possibilities, etc., Enter Einstein, etc... Kurzweil would call this a "paradigm shift" and I might say any faith I have in the continued manifestation of
current physical impossibilities becoming
current physical possibilities is a product of my part-time optimism. However, physical possibilities which might seem infeasible from an engineering standpoint are limitations of ingenuity, not of physics. In the meantime, the models only seem to be opening up new possibilities on their own.
1. "apparently", but I am going to go into this in another post. I want to cite where we ARE observing it.Citation for Citation Needed = Many WorldsHere's a link more entertaining and straightfoward than this babble: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/21/sciuni121.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/21/sciuni121.xml)
Quote from: darukoThis has been illustrated not only in physical models of time, but I think there are a lot of ways it can be illustrated on more philosophical terms. There are probably tons of zen koans about time which illustrate the illusory nature of "common sense causality".
I'm gonna get to this.
Quote from: Felix on May 28, 2008, 12:42:38 AM
Quote from: That One Guy on May 27, 2008, 09:00:25 PM
Quote from: triple zero on May 27, 2008, 08:58:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2008, 07:46:47 PM
If I can't go back 2,000,000 years and wipe out every semi-erect primate in central Africa, I'm not interested.
so then we'd get .. lizard people? wolf people? you'd rather have otherkin and furries??
But ... if THEY were the "people", wouldn't that make their equivalent those freaks that dress up like hairless apes for sex?
This line of inquiry assumes that intelligent life forms are inevitable in our little slice of spacetime.
Let me know when they show up.
Wouldn't know one if I saw it.
Quote from: Felix on May 28, 2008, 03:53:03 AM
Wouldn't know one if I saw it.
I wish BMW hadn't gone nuts. He would have liked this fread.
I still don't understand how or when BMW went nuts. He seemed fine the last time I saw him posting on the board.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 28, 2008, 04:15:50 AM
Quote from: Felix on May 28, 2008, 03:53:03 AM
Wouldn't know one if I saw it.
I wish BMW hadn't gone nuts. He would have liked this fread.
yah i know
LMNO is going to have to start picking up the slack
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on May 28, 2008, 04:34:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 28, 2008, 04:15:50 AM
Quote from: Felix on May 28, 2008, 03:53:03 AM
Wouldn't know one if I saw it.
I wish BMW hadn't gone nuts. He would have liked this fread.
yah i know
LMNO is going to have to start picking up the slack
I know I can't be bothered.
Quote from: Hoopla on May 28, 2008, 04:33:09 AM
I still don't understand how or when BMW went nuts. He seemed fine the last time I saw him posting on the board.
It was about the point where he started signing his posts under three different names, and referring to himself as a "multiple".
Coincidentally, it was about the time he started taking hormones to "help" with his gender issues.
I miss BMW.
Agreed. I can't pretend to even begin to understand what was going on with him, but I certainly do miss his take on things, especially the science-type discussions.
I miss BMW as well.
And time travel is easy, I do it every Saturday night. I get drunk and automatically am once again a 20 year old badass who can whip the world. 34 year time jump in a bottle.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 28, 2008, 04:40:11 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on May 28, 2008, 04:33:09 AM
I still don't understand how or when BMW went nuts. He seemed fine the last time I saw him posting on the board.
It was about the point where he started signing his posts under three different names, and referring to himself as a "multiple".
Coincidentally, it was about the time he started taking hormones to "help" with his gender issues.
I miss BMW.
Fuck, I thought he was refering to himself and his boyfriend... I didnt realize both names were him. That sucks.
QuoteThis has been illustrated not only in physical models of time, but I think there are a lot of ways it can be illustrated on more philosophical terms. There are probably tons of zen koans about time which illustrate the illusory nature of "common sense causality".
Speaking as a physics student, would you please tell me what the hell you are talking about? FYI Jumping to philosophy and zen koans (that you didn't specify either) is not considered reasoning.
Quote from: Dido on May 28, 2008, 03:17:55 PM
QuoteThis has been illustrated not only in physical models of time, but I think there are a lot of ways it can be illustrated on more philosophical terms. There are probably tons of zen koans about time which illustrate the illusory nature of "common sense causality".
Speaking as a physics student, would you please tell me what the hell you are talking about? FYI Jumping to philosophy and zen koans (that you didn't specify either) is not considered reasoning.
Philosophical discourse and zen koans exist which refer to the non-linearity of time. Not just physical models. In other words, I think there are more ways to discuss or refer to that concept than using physical theories. You disagree? Wait for it, because when I get time here I'm going to cite relevant material, and attempt to narrow the focus on this "flow of time" concept.
This wasn't necessarily meant to be a physics discussion. The central theme was time travel. MWI resolves time travel paradoxes, so I went into that and a tiny bit of science surrounding time travel.
Futhermore, I bitched about the lack of creativity in describing time travel in movies, books, etc., and complained about the overuse of one way logical coherence to sidestep so-called paradoxes, rather than researching and adapting from models that resolve those paradoxes and provide the potential for less cliche fiction.
Then I linked an article that provides an easy read if your interested in the effect of MWI implications on the potential for time travel.
If what I wrote is tl;dr or confusing, just read the article and comment on that. What's your major btw?
"Time is an illusion; lunch-time doubly so." -- Ford Prefect to Arthur Dent
Time travel would be cool, and I have no expertise on the matter.
As for Zen koans, they might illustrate the nonlinearity of time, but they don't explain it very well. In my time machine, I will not have a control dial with options like "flax" and "grasshopper." It will have numbers, probably in traditional order, and I will not be taking a monk with me to fix the technical hiccups.
You are repeating yourself. Would you please give an example for one zen koan and explain why it refers to non-linear time? I know that many things are supposed to do that. Dreamtime is a candidate I am personally rather fond of. Which is to say, I totally "buy" into non-linear time. But vaguely mentioning fields that happen to be en vogue at the moment (such as physics, philosophy and zen) without giving examples is a mode of discourse that tends to end nowhere. Choose one and develop a coherent line of thought please. Or state something as a personal belief and leave it that way (although then you could definitely choose philosophy;-).
I agree with what you said about time-travel in movies, it bores me to tears. And what do you mean with major? I am not aware of having any other major than physics, but I live in Germany and things here are probably different.
I successfully used my bedroom closet as a time machine last night, and went five minutes into the future.
It took me five minutes to get there, but I'm still working on the details.
MPC developed something awhile back. Never really took off however.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=6280.msg219273;topicseen#msg219273 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=6280.msg219273;topicseen#msg219273)
I am quite adept at returning to any stage of infantilism that I feel like reliving. And there is no maths lecture that will not make time stand still.
time travel is irrelevant. what you're really looking for is tourism/escapism. this is why somebody needs to build an industry based on Anton LaVey's "Total Communities" - where entire towns are constructed, for people to live in permanently, which recreate in every detail other worlds or times. We could build a medieval township where people must live as if it is the year 1153 AD, or a Classical Roman township, or whatever else. That way you get a taste of life in the past without the trouble of going there.
Jean Francois Lyotard, the French anarchist and postmodern philosopher has proposed something similar, I believe.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 28, 2008, 04:47:19 PM
time travel is irrelevant. what you're really looking for is tourism/escapism. this is why somebody needs to build an industry based on Anton LaVey's "Total Communities" - where entire towns are constructed, for people to live in permanently, which recreate in every detail other worlds or times. We could build a medieval township where people must live as if it is the year 1153 AD, or a Classical Roman township, or whatever else. That way you get a taste of life in the past without the trouble of going there.
It'll be
hilarious living in one of those towns when the shit hits the fan.
It would be hilarious living in Soviet town.
Because I wouldn't allow anyone to leave, just like a real Soviet country. Even if you didn't know that would happen, or were born there and had no choice in the matter.
PWND!
:lulz:
Maybe they would allow me to create Salazore town?
Quote from: daruko on May 28, 2008, 03:34:02 PM
Quote from: Dido on May 28, 2008, 03:17:55 PM
QuoteThis has been illustrated not only in physical models of time, but I think there are a lot of ways it can be illustrated on more philosophical terms. There are probably tons of zen koans about time which illustrate the illusory nature of "common sense causality".
Speaking as a physics student, would you please tell me what the hell you are talking about? FYI Jumping to philosophy and zen koans (that you didn't specify either) is not considered reasoning.
Philosophical discourse and zen koans exist which refer to the non-linearity of time.
oh dear
most concepts of non linear time come back to different rates of time passing in two places, the topic is pretty much a dead end, the only feasible application of time travel would be use the accelerated flow of time due to speed.
The applications of this to the fishing industry would be enormous. If you could accelerate freshly caught fish to the speed of light its amount of time in transit would seem far less then the rest of the world, and would not spoil as quickly (ignoring the fact that it would arrive at its target destination pretty much instantaneously because of its speed).
So to summarize, I feel all fish should be fired around the world in rockets.
Faust wins the thread!
Quote from: Faust on May 29, 2008, 12:08:02 AM
most concepts of non linear time come back to different rates of time passing in two places, the topic is pretty much a dead end, the only feasible application of time travel would be use the accelerated flow of time due to speed.
The applications of this to the fishing industry would be enormous. If you could accelerate freshly caught fish to the speed of light its amount of time in transit would seem far less then the rest of the world, and would not spoil as quickly (ignoring the fact that it would arrive at its target destination pretty much instantaneously because of its speed).
So to summarize, I feel all fish should be fired around the world in rockets.
you sir are a true scientist
theoretical situation:
A rocket ship takes off from Earth and travels to Neptune at 5x the speed of light.
so.. if you have a telescope on earth looking at Neptune, you could see the rocket ship arrive there before it actually takes off from Earth. Right?
Then, upon arriving at Neptune, the rocket ship immediately speeds back to Earth at 5x the speed of light, returning to the launch site at some point before the launch, the Cosmonauts jump out of the hatch and mow their future/past selves down in a red-hot hail of burning Soviet rage, strap their dead corpses onto the outside of the rocket ship, and then blast off again and crash into the fucking White House, killing President Obama and all 213 of his white servants.
The question is, who is driving rocket ship?
Quote from: vexati0n on May 28, 2008, 04:47:19 PM
time travel is irrelevant. what you're really looking for is tourism/escapism. this is why somebody needs to build an industry based on Anton LaVey's "Total Communities" - where entire towns are constructed, for people to live in permanently, which recreate in every detail other worlds or times. We could build a medieval township where people must live as if it is the year 1153 AD, or a Classical Roman township, or whatever else. That way you get a taste of life in the past without the trouble of going there.
I'd rather just wait a few years for full immersion virtual reality.
Quote from: daruko on May 29, 2008, 06:08:28 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on May 28, 2008, 04:47:19 PM
time travel is irrelevant. what you're really looking for is tourism/escapism. this is why somebody needs to build an industry based on Anton LaVey's "Total Communities" - where entire towns are constructed, for people to live in permanently, which recreate in every detail other worlds or times. We could build a medieval township where people must live as if it is the year 1153 AD, or a Classical Roman township, or whatever else. That way you get a taste of life in the past without the trouble of going there.
I'd rather just wait a few years for full immersion virtual reality.
That is obvious.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 29, 2008, 04:57:21 AM
theoretical situation:
A rocket ship takes off from Earth and travels to Neptune at 5x the speed of light.
so.. if you have a telescope on earth looking at Neptune, you could see the rocket ship arrive there before it actually takes off from Earth. Right?
Then, upon arriving at Neptune, the rocket ship immediately speeds back to Earth at 5x the speed of light, returning to the launch site at some point before the launch, the Cosmonauts jump out of the hatch and mow their future/past selves down in a red-hot hail of burning Soviet rage, strap their dead corpses onto the outside of the rocket ship, and then blast off again and crash into the fucking White House, killing President Obama and all 213 of his white servants.
The question is, who is driving rocket ship?
HIMEOBS
Quote from: vexati0n on May 28, 2008, 04:47:19 PM
time travel is irrelevant. what you're really looking for is tourism/escapism. this is why somebody needs to build an industry based on Anton LaVey's "Total Communities" - where entire towns are constructed, for people to live in permanently, which recreate in every detail other worlds or times. We could build a medieval township where people must live as if it is the year 1153 AD, or a Classical Roman township, or whatever else. That way you get a taste of life in the past without the trouble of going there.
Isn't this LARP?
no. LARPing is for valedictorians. this is for the People.
Quote from: daruko on May 28, 2008, 03:34:02 PM
Quote from: Dido on May 28, 2008, 03:17:55 PM
QuoteThis has been illustrated not only in physical models of time, but I think there are a lot of ways it can be illustrated on more philosophical terms. There are probably tons of zen koans about time which illustrate the illusory nature of "common sense causality".
Speaking as a physics student, would you please tell me what the hell you are talking about? FYI Jumping to philosophy and zen koans (that you didn't specify either) is not considered reasoning.
Philosophical discourse and zen koans exist which refer to the non-linearity of time. Not just physical models. In other words, I think there are more ways to discuss or refer to that concept than using physical theories. You disagree? Wait for it, because when I get time here I'm going to cite relevant material, and attempt to narrow the focus on this "flow of time" concept.
This wasn't necessarily meant to be a physics discussion. The central theme was time travel. MWI resolves time travel paradoxes, so I went into that and a tiny bit of science surrounding time travel.
Futhermore, I bitched about the lack of creativity in describing time travel in movies, books, etc., and complained about the overuse of one way logical coherence to sidestep so-called paradoxes, rather than researching and adapting from models that resolve those paradoxes and provide the potential for less cliche fiction.
Then I linked an article that provides an easy read if your interested in the effect of MWI implications on the potential for time travel.
If what I wrote is tl;dr or confusing, just read the article and comment on that. What's your major btw?
The Map is not the territory.
A Zen Koan or philosophical argument, I think are discussing Map level stuffs... how our perception may cause us to process time linearly, irrespective of what Time is actually doing.
In my opinion, it may be possible to travel through time, some experiments certainly seem to indicate that electrons may be sent "back in time" at least in a quantum sense... but that doesn't necessarily mean that a human could travel through time. Heck, what scientists have called "time travel" in the quantum field, may simply be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the heck is going on, or an artifact of our own perception (if human brains are hardwired to process data linearly, then when non-linear stuff happens... we might process it as happening in the past/future).
There certainly are some interesting models of Reality which would permit 'time travel' in some sense. But, ONLY if those models are anything more than a thought experiment by a crazy person, for example: http://www.specularium.org/index.php (http://www.specularium.org/index.php)
Personally, I think that the question of Time Travel may actually be due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what time is. Maybe there is no such thing as Time, except as a game of Order for humans... or at least for our brains. Maybe there is only ever NOW and we simply remember old NOW as the past and Not Quite Yet NOW as the future. We presume that reality works the way we see it... but I dunno how much stock we should really put into that concept, beyond the occasional barstool, of course...
:barstool:
so.. what keeps the Visigoths from sacking New York then?
Quote from: vexati0n on May 29, 2008, 10:31:33 PM
so.. what keeps the Visigoths from sacking New York then?
Cause they're dead?
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 29, 2008, 10:27:21 PM
The Map is not the territory.
A Zen Koan or philosophical argument, I think are discussing Map level stuffs... how our perception may cause us to process time linearly, irrespective of what Time is actually doing.
In my opinion, it may be possible to travel through time, some experiments certainly seem to indicate that electrons may be sent "back in time" at least in a quantum sense... but that doesn't necessarily mean that a human could travel through time. Heck, what scientists have called "time travel" in the quantum field, may simply be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the heck is going on, or an artifact of our own perception (if human brains are hardwired to process data linearly, then when non-linear stuff happens... we might process it as happening in the past/future).
There certainly are some interesting models of Reality which would permit 'time travel' in some sense. But, ONLY if those models are anything more than a thought experiment by a crazy person, for example: http://www.specularium.org/index.php (http://www.specularium.org/index.php)
Personally, I think that the question of Time Travel may actually be due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what time is. Maybe there is no such thing as Time, except as a game of Order for humans... or at least for our brains. Maybe there is only ever NOW and we simply remember old NOW as the past and Not Quite Yet NOW as the future. We presume that reality works the way we see it... but I dunno how much stock we should really put into that concept, beyond the occasional barstool, of course...
:barstool:
I agree with everything you just said, but I don't understand the first line... where am I confusing the map for the territory here? And also, reading over that last paragraph, I'm wondering, why the hell do you not like Alan Watts? :p
Quote from: vexati0n on May 29, 2008, 10:31:33 PM
so.. what keeps the Visigoths from sacking New York then?
give them time
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on May 30, 2008, 12:32:08 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on May 29, 2008, 10:31:33 PM
so.. what keeps the Visigoths from sacking New York then?
give them time
Visigoths - I can't comment
Hot Topic Kiddie Goths? Well, they couldn't even open a lunch sack, let alone sack an entire city. NY is safe until the Megatsunami hits.
Quote from: daruko on May 29, 2008, 10:58:23 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 29, 2008, 10:27:21 PM
The Map is not the territory.
A Zen Koan or philosophical argument, I think are discussing Map level stuffs... how our perception may cause us to process time linearly, irrespective of what Time is actually doing.
In my opinion, it may be possible to travel through time, some experiments certainly seem to indicate that electrons may be sent "back in time" at least in a quantum sense... but that doesn't necessarily mean that a human could travel through time. Heck, what scientists have called "time travel" in the quantum field, may simply be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the heck is going on, or an artifact of our own perception (if human brains are hardwired to process data linearly, then when non-linear stuff happens... we might process it as happening in the past/future).
There certainly are some interesting models of Reality which would permit 'time travel' in some sense. But, ONLY if those models are anything more than a thought experiment by a crazy person, for example: http://www.specularium.org/index.php (http://www.specularium.org/index.php)
Personally, I think that the question of Time Travel may actually be due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what time is. Maybe there is no such thing as Time, except as a game of Order for humans... or at least for our brains. Maybe there is only ever NOW and we simply remember old NOW as the past and Not Quite Yet NOW as the future. We presume that reality works the way we see it... but I dunno how much stock we should really put into that concept, beyond the occasional barstool, of course...
:barstool:
I agree with everything you just said, but I don't understand the first line... where am I confusing the map for the territory here? And also, reading over that last paragraph, I'm wondering, why the hell do you not like Alan Watts? :p
I like Alan Watts...
Anyway, my Map/Territory comment was basically, just because we can create a Map wherein something may travel in time, it may not be an accurate representation of the territory... wherein our concept of time may be just that, Our Concept. I like to think about the possibilities, but often I come back to the possibility that we're fundamentally wrong about something.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 30, 2008, 01:25:35 AM
Quote from: daruko on May 29, 2008, 10:58:23 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 29, 2008, 10:27:21 PM
The Map is not the territory.
A Zen Koan or philosophical argument, I think are discussing Map level stuffs... how our perception may cause us to process time linearly, irrespective of what Time is actually doing.
In my opinion, it may be possible to travel through time, some experiments certainly seem to indicate that electrons may be sent "back in time" at least in a quantum sense... but that doesn't necessarily mean that a human could travel through time. Heck, what scientists have called "time travel" in the quantum field, may simply be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the heck is going on, or an artifact of our own perception (if human brains are hardwired to process data linearly, then when non-linear stuff happens... we might process it as happening in the past/future).
There certainly are some interesting models of Reality which would permit 'time travel' in some sense. But, ONLY if those models are anything more than a thought experiment by a crazy person, for example: http://www.specularium.org/index.php (http://www.specularium.org/index.php)
Personally, I think that the question of Time Travel may actually be due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what time is. Maybe there is no such thing as Time, except as a game of Order for humans... or at least for our brains. Maybe there is only ever NOW and we simply remember old NOW as the past and Not Quite Yet NOW as the future. We presume that reality works the way we see it... but I dunno how much stock we should really put into that concept, beyond the occasional barstool, of course...
:barstool:
I agree with everything you just said, but I don't understand the first line... where am I confusing the map for the territory here? And also, reading over that last paragraph, I'm wondering, why the hell do you not like Alan Watts? :p
I like Alan Watts...
Anyway, my Map/Territory comment was basically, just because we can create a Map wherein something may travel in time, it may not be an accurate representation of the territory... wherein our concept of time may be just that, Our Concept. I like to think about the possibilities, but often I come back to the possibility that we're fundamentally wrong about something.
oh... that's weird... i seem to remember you saying you didn't on irc, and i blew a raspberry afterwords.
you might be right, but just because it's a map doesn't mean it won't do the trick. we'll
always be fundamentally wrong about something. that's one of the things we use the map for... getting around the territory. sure, we bump into shit that we can't see coming, but luckily we seem to be able to have different maps that help with those obstacles. Example: Classical physics vs Quantum Physics.
having said that... by all means, if you come up with a way to communicate what we're fundamentally wrong about PLEASE tell me. Thanks.
If i ever travel back in time
Im bringing back the Mongol hordes
Quote from: daruko on May 29, 2008, 06:08:28 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on May 28, 2008, 04:47:19 PM
time travel is irrelevant. what you're really looking for is tourism/escapism. this is why somebody needs to build an industry based on Anton LaVey's "Total Communities" - where entire towns are constructed, for people to live in permanently, which recreate in every detail other worlds or times. We could build a medieval township where people must live as if it is the year 1153 AD, or a Classical Roman township, or whatever else. That way you get a taste of life in the past without the trouble of going there.
I'd rather just wait a few years for full immersion virtual reality.
That will be mankind's last invention.
Quote from: Mangrove on May 30, 2008, 12:58:35 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on May 30, 2008, 12:32:08 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on May 29, 2008, 10:31:33 PM
so.. what keeps the Visigoths from sacking New York then?
give them time
Visigoths - I can't comment
Hot Topic Kiddie Goths? Well, they couldn't even open a lunch sack, let alone sack an entire city. NY is safe until the Megatsunami hits Scottish Empire arrives.
Fixd
Quote from: Hoopla on May 28, 2008, 05:34:53 PM
:lulz:
Maybe they would allow me to create Salazore town?
Of course, the problem with the idea is that it allows for free movement of people should the city-state in question fail to live up to expectations. Which was sorta my point with the Soviet thing - it expects everyone to work from a fundamental rule base - a bad starting point indeed. In reality, because you cannot assure that, the idea loses much of its attractiveness. Much in the same way the Libertarian idea being quite literally floated in America currently - to take to the high seas - will suck for those who spend too many resources getting into one onboard community, only to find out it sucks.
"This garbage barge isn't much like the Leif Ericson!!
Quote from: daruko on May 30, 2008, 01:45:37 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 30, 2008, 01:25:35 AM
Quote from: daruko on May 29, 2008, 10:58:23 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 29, 2008, 10:27:21 PM
The Map is not the territory.
A Zen Koan or philosophical argument, I think are discussing Map level stuffs... how our perception may cause us to process time linearly, irrespective of what Time is actually doing.
In my opinion, it may be possible to travel through time, some experiments certainly seem to indicate that electrons may be sent "back in time" at least in a quantum sense... but that doesn't necessarily mean that a human could travel through time. Heck, what scientists have called "time travel" in the quantum field, may simply be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the heck is going on, or an artifact of our own perception (if human brains are hardwired to process data linearly, then when non-linear stuff happens... we might process it as happening in the past/future).
There certainly are some interesting models of Reality which would permit 'time travel' in some sense. But, ONLY if those models are anything more than a thought experiment by a crazy person, for example: http://www.specularium.org/index.php (http://www.specularium.org/index.php)
Personally, I think that the question of Time Travel may actually be due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what time is. Maybe there is no such thing as Time, except as a game of Order for humans... or at least for our brains. Maybe there is only ever NOW and we simply remember old NOW as the past and Not Quite Yet NOW as the future. We presume that reality works the way we see it... but I dunno how much stock we should really put into that concept, beyond the occasional barstool, of course...
:barstool:
I agree with everything you just said, but I don't understand the first line... where am I confusing the map for the territory here? And also, reading over that last paragraph, I'm wondering, why the hell do you not like Alan Watts? :p
I like Alan Watts...
Anyway, my Map/Territory comment was basically, just because we can create a Map wherein something may travel in time, it may not be an accurate representation of the territory... wherein our concept of time may be just that, Our Concept. I like to think about the possibilities, but often I come back to the possibility that we're fundamentally wrong about something.
oh... that's weird... i seem to remember you saying you didn't on irc, and i blew a raspberry afterwords.
you might be right, but just because it's a map doesn't mean it won't do the trick. we'll always be fundamentally wrong about something. that's one of the things we use the map for... getting around the territory. sure, we bump into shit that we can't see coming, but luckily we seem to be able to have different maps that help with those obstacles. Example: Classical physics vs Quantum Physics.
having said that... by all means, if you come up with a way to communicate what we're fundamentally wrong about PLEASE tell me. Thanks.
Well, I don't know that there IS anything wrong... its just that time seems, to me, an awful lot like an interpretation of perception... Our "time-binding circuit" on Full Speed Ahead. Yet, if we didn't have this time binding circuit, or if our time binding circuit worked differently, would we even consider the possibility of time travel? I am reminded of a South American tribe which perceives the Past as in front of them and the future as behind them (they can see what happened in the past, they can't see what will happen in the future...). Could it be that we consider "time travel" because we drew a picture of time as a timeline? I dunno... but I always consider that when the topic of time travel comes up. Could the strange problems surrounding time travel, simply be artifacts of misunderstanding the model?
That is, I see no reason that a person could not (if time travel exists) go back and kill his *insert patriarchal/matriarchal individual*. I see no reason why, if time travel were possible that travelers from the future, would not come back to our time.
Now, maybe there are magical barriers that will stop the bullet from killing Granddad, or to stop visitors from the future from saying "Hey, DO NOT VOTE FOR GWB!"... or maybe the quandaries are simply because the entire topic, its possibilities, its problems, its paradoxes exist because its a made up concept.
Though, I still like reading books on the subject ;-)
Quote from: daruko on May 29, 2008, 06:08:28 AM
I'd rather just wait a few years for full immersion virtual reality.
for the fifth time, it's already there for two decades, and nobody wants it. i've used it, coded some apps for it and it's boring as fuck.
maybe glue yourself to a couch and swallow some shrooms and zap yourself some full immersion TV if you need it so badly?
Quote from: triple zero on June 01, 2008, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: daruko on May 29, 2008, 06:08:28 AM
I'd rather just wait a few years for full immersion virtual reality.
for the fifth time, it's already there for two decades, and nobody wants it. i've used it, coded some apps for it and it's boring as fuck.
maybe glue yourself to a couch and swallow some shrooms and zap yourself some full immersion TV if you need it so badly?
How 'full' is it? Can you taste, smell, and touch things? Can you interact with other real people in it? Does it seem like a whole other world, or is it limited and clunky?
If not, it's not really there yet.
When I think of 'full immersion' virtual reality, I think of Tad Williams'
Otherland series (4 ridiculously long books about a fictional virtual reality), where the technology is such that people can do everything in a virtual environment that we can do in real life. It's the internet taken to its full potential. People can eat, play games, have sex, etc. (all virtually).
We're definitely not there yet, but I can easily see things moving in that direction.
Quote from: triple zero on June 01, 2008, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: daruko on May 29, 2008, 06:08:28 AM
I'd rather just wait a few years for full immersion virtual reality.
for the fifth time, it's already there for two decades, and nobody wants it. i've used it, coded some apps for it and it's boring as fuck.
maybe glue yourself to a couch and swallow some shrooms and zap yourself some full immersion TV if you need it so badly?
i don't think you understand what i mean by "full immersion".
take a look around the room you're in. that's full immersion.
I think we have enough problems dealing with the reality we already have to contend with (BIP).
Spending vast amounts of time, money, brain power and other resources on making total virtual reality is, IMHO, a complete waste.
Ok, so you get to replicate our sensory experience, which we're already having. Big deal. And more to the point, even if you could make absolute virtual reality, if you keep doing what you're doing, you keep getting what you're getting.
That is, putting some emotionally crippled socal retard into a VR suit that costs millions of dollars, then all you've achieved is wrapping a doofus in something expensive. Hell, Paris Hilton et al do that on a daily basis and the technology involved is minimal.
If this sooper VR set-up existed, people would almost inevitably do dumb things with it. If their basic programming is on a low level, they will take the most sophisticated invention ever and continue to be morons.
We need people to be dealing with their present reality in a more effective & constructive way. Unless this technology actually achieved some educational or medical purpose it'll be a bust. Maybe that's why it's been around for 20+ years and no one cares.
Quote from: Mangrove on June 01, 2008, 08:30:16 PM
We need people to be dealing with their present reality in a more effective & constructive way. Unless this technology actually achieved some educational or medical purpose it'll be a bust. Maybe that's why it's been around for 20+ years and no one cares.
oh once it "full immersions" and "complete escapism" they will care
Quote from: daruko on June 01, 2008, 08:17:11 PMi don't think you understand what i mean by "full immersion".
take a look around the room you're in. that's full immersion.
ok so poly rates were a littlebit lower, and there were no other senses except for visuals. adding full-surround sound wouldn't be that hard, but tactile is going nowhere. simulating smell is going to be impossible due to the enormous range of chemicals involved, unless you get a direct neural connection, which, again, is not going to happen. taste could theoretically be done, but without smell it's not that exciting at all.
i now expect you to come up with some link about the latest hyper sooper tactile feedback dataglove or whatever. it's going nowhere, seriously.
oh, right, motion tracking devices. with millimeter accuracy and less than 5ms latency? people tend to forget about those things, but if the image on your VR glasses doesn't move *exactly* right when you move your head around, immersion = RUINED. anything good and affordable?
hey, if you can find some report about people that hooked up Second Life to a real VR Cave or some such thing, i'd be interested to read about their experience. would be the closest thing we got going right now.
although actually, you'd need two locations with a similar setup. then you could virtually talk.
problem is, you'd need motion tracking devices to track body language. we're not there yet, by a long stretch.
i mean, the tech at my university 5 years ago (what i played with) is what might have been on the market right now if anybody really cared, right?
have you ever done any kind of programming, Daruko? graphics programming?
i think if you want some cool sort of semi-VR, get a couple of webcams from different angles, some Computer Vision algorithm that turns that into a very rough representation of your 3D orientation, maps the video image of your body on a polyhedron roughly approximating your posture, simply renders it on a screen (fuck stereo vision really, it's a dumb trick, as i already said), and a skype connection.
oh did i mention you're gonna get a shitload of network latency problems?
Mang- I think it would lead to much more than replication of our current reality. And while I agree with your point about humanity's stupidity, I'm far too much of an optimist and an idealist to not hope that we would do something good for a change. I mean, when I look at what the internet is today...it's certainly got a bunch of crap in it. But it's also chock full of good things, and just the availability of information and communication is phenomenal. That simple thing is leading to exponential leaps in technology and education. Which also means that we don't need to put vast amounts of resources into it. Those who are interested in it, will be able to hook up with others who have the same interests, and they can put their heads together, while leaving the rest of society to do other things.
Damnit 000! I want my smell-o-vision! :argh!:
you know the reason why i think VR is stupid?
i can already build my own communication channels.
i can webcam with you (video)
i can skype with you (phone-over-internet)
i can teamspeak with you and others (conference call-over-internet)
but if we were to communicate, one-on-one, simple text IM (MSN/AIM/etc) is most efficient! have you ever skyped (or VOIPed) with someone you don't know? webcammed? someone you did know? how did that work out? if they were not your girlfriend? how much useful information did you exchange?
now compare to IM, how much useful info did you exchange there?
next up, IRC. tremendously useful, no matter what TGRR says, the amount of stuff we coordinated there, the brainstorming we do, the social cohesion it creates, invaluable. (i forgive TGRR though, i understand his reservations, but IRC served me very well)
adding to that, forums. even better, forums got non linear time! you don't get that in skype, webcam or VR!
Quote from: Roo on June 01, 2008, 09:35:24 PM
Mang- I think it would lead to much more than replication of our current reality. And while I agree with your point about humanity's stupidity, I'm far too much of an optimist and an idealist to not hope that we would do something good for a change. I mean, when I look at what the internet is today...it's certainly got a bunch of crap in it. But it's also chock full of good things, and just the availability of information and communication is phenomenal. That simple thing is leading to exponential leaps in technology and education. Which also means that we don't need to put vast amounts of resources into it. Those who are interested in it, will be able to hook up with others who have the same interests, and they can put their heads together, while leaving the rest of society to do other things.
To tell the truth, I am normally a lot more optimistic about things than my post conveys. :)
It's taken millions of years for the truly incredible sensory mechanisms of humans to evolve - so why spoil it by putting on a glove and glasses, plug into a computer and 'sort of' mimic picking things up?
As I said, I want to see a convincing list of benefits if such a technology existed. I'd be all for it for instance, if there were meaningful therapeutic applications. That'd be something I'd hope for.
I agree with TI - full immersion VR sounds like full escapism. Large potential for horrormirth.
Quote from: triple zero on June 01, 2008, 09:55:45 PM
you know the reason why i think VR is stupid?
i can already build my own communication channels.
i can webcam with you (video)
i can skype with you (phone-over-internet)
i can teamspeak with you and others (conference call-over-internet)
but if we were to communicate, one-on-one, simple text IM (MSN/AIM/etc) is most efficient! have you ever skyped (or VOIPed) with someone you don't know? webcammed? someone you did know? how did that work out? if they were not your girlfriend? how much useful information did you exchange?
now compare to IM, how much useful info did you exchange there?
next up, IRC. tremendously useful, no matter what TGRR says, the amount of stuff we coordinated there, the brainstorming we do, the social cohesion it creates, invaluable. (i forgive TGRR though, i understand his reservations, but IRC served me very well)
adding to that, forums. even better, forums got non linear time! you don't get that in skype, webcam or VR!
:argh!:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 01, 2008, 11:04:10 PM
:argh!:
hey, if the thread in Meta-Forum would be named "WE HAVE FULLY IMMERSIVE VR!" instead, i'd be :argh!:-ing right next to you ;-)
(right before i'd join you to take a virtual dump in their virtual sinks)
Haven't read thread. Just thinking: If an antiproton travelling forward in time is equivalent to a proton travelling backward in time, and the same for all other antiparticles, then wouldn't all the time travellers explode unless they did it deep in interstellar space?
Quote from: PeregrineBF on June 02, 2008, 03:10:01 AM
If an antiproton travelling forward in time is equivalent to a proton travelling backward in time
what makes you say this is the case?