From: No name given (vampier@mac.com)
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 16:15:03 MST
On Thursday, February 28, 2002, at 02:00 PM, Blunderov wrote:
> [Blunderov 0] wrote:
>>> [Blunderov nods and naively wonders]
>>>
>>> How could time-travel ever be possible?
>
> No name given [vampier@mac.com 1] replied:
>> Clearly you have not watched enough science fiction shows.
>
> [Blunderov 2]
> Actually, science fiction is a genre to which I'm quite partial.
Good.
> Nevertheless I usually have to exercise a fair amount of [I] suspension
> of
> disbelief [/I] when indulging, especially when it comes to plots
> involving
> time-travel.
I identify with the characters in the shows I watch. Part of the reason
why I'm here on this forum is because I identified with Darwin when I
watched the PBS special on Evolution.
When I watch, I let the experience become real to me. It isn't
suspension of disbelief - it's vicarious experience.
> In my experience science fiction is usually fairly sketchy on
> the specific mechanisms of such technologies, contenting itself with
> appeals
> to somewhat nebulous, and as far as I am aware, imaginary notions, such
> as
> "wormholes", "spatio-temporal vortexes and similar.
I concur.
> No name given [vampier@mac.com 1]wrote:
>
>> Kalkor states that coping is best achieved via acceptance of those two
>> points:
>
>>> 1)The past cannot be changed
>>> 2)Doing only things that benefit me, immediately and in the long term,
>>> is the surest way to cope with
>>> having done badly or been done wrong.
>
>> I claim that (1) is a belief that could quite possibly be overturned
>> with the advent of time-travel, and so therefore is not acceptable to a
>> person with the virtue of "vision".
>
> [Blunderov 0] remarked:
>
>>> Assuming that "time-travel" would
>>> include being able to visually perceive a past event (that occurred
>>> more or less in one's own location) then:
>>> Photons reflecting off an event would recede from that event at the
>>> speed of light, necessitating faster-than light-speed travel to be
>>> able
> to
>>> reach a point where at least some of these photons could be
>>> re-perceived,
> or
>>> reflected back to the observer. Some means of distinguishing between
>>> relevant and irrelevant photons would be necessary.
>
> No name given [vampier@mac.com 1]clarified:
>
>> By "time-travel" I mean the ability to transmit information backwards
>> in
>> time - as the tachyon particles allegedly might.
>
> [Blunderov 2]
> I am probably the person on this forum least qualified to hazard an
> opinion
> on any matter of quantum physics but I will ask this; how would this
> admittedly amazing (possible) characteristic of tachyons change the
> past in
> anything other than a quantum sense?
Roger Penrose, the famous mathematician who developed the tiles that are
his namesake, has gone on record that he belives that the synaptic
connections between neurons are affected at a quantum level - and thus
that artificial intelligence is impossible without those same kinds of
connections.
Granted, he's a mathematician and so isn't exactly qualified to say much
on the matter, but (as a "pipe dream") it shows the way for how tachyons
might affect the present (indeed, might explain the alleged
time-travelling of Merlin's conciousness).
> If even that?
If tachyons can be transmitted, then information can be transmitted via
the presence/absence of tachyons. And if information can be transmitted,
then "matter" (via reconstruction) can be transmitted (needs something
on the other end to transform the information into matter).
> And hey, where did my
> photons go? Weren't they there too? Or will they come along with the
> tachyons for the ride? ("Captain, there's tachyons on the starboard
> side! Or
> at least there were a moment ago!" See what I mean - these scripts
> could use
> more scientific detail).
There are many details that could be fleshed out, I concur.
> [Blunderov 0] wrote:
>>> Time is a function of events. In order to "go back in time" all events
>>> after that particular time would have to be cancelled and then
>>> recreated
>>> exactly.
>
> No name given [vampier@mac.com 1] wrote:
>> We can have many paradigms of what could/might be.
>
> [Blunderov 0] ctd.
>>> But this would be impossible because the act of "going back in time"
>>> would have made a difference to the sequence of events that follows.
>
> No name given [vampier@mac.com 1]wrote:
>> There might be alternate time-lines.
>> Or, it could be (such as in the "Back To The Future" movies) that all
>> time-travel has already occurred and won't affect what changed.
>
> [Blunderov 2]
>
> The idea that all time-travel has already occurred implies that [em] all
> [/em] the events of the universe have also already occurred.
So?
> This would mean
> that Blunderov has already died in spite of the fact that he
> [Blunderov -"that's me! I'm him" (in the immortal words of Prof Geezil
> from
> "Popeye)] is convinced that he is, at least for the moment, quite
> vigorous.
If our own notion of our consciousness is an illusion
http://www.globalideasbank.org/SD/SD-103.HTML
then why can't our own notion of existence be so too?
> Nothing I know of permits me to speculate that, pity though it may be,
> Blunderov's death is a reversible event. (I'm reminded of the Beatles
> song
> "She Said" [quote] She said "I know what it's like to be dead"/ I said
> "who
> put all those things in your head?/ And you're making me feel like/ I've
> never been born. [/quote](from memory))
Just as the creatures in flatland could not imagine another dimension,
so too, we, stuck in on this children's "slide" cannot imagine (as we
slide down) that there is a ladder by which to get back up.
> Perhaps I'm over-optimistic, but I'm hoping this objection (The
> regrettable,
> but unavoidable demise of Blunderov) applies just as much to
> [quote]<snip>
>> We can have many paradigms of what could/might be.<snap> and
>> <snip>There
> might be alternate time-lines.<snap> as I hope it does to the "Back to
> the
> future scenario.
You were overly optimistic.
> Fond Regards
>
> Blunderov
You as well.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT