From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Fri Mar 01 2002 - 07:53:50 MST
[vampier@mac.com 2] time-travel (was Re: virus: Coping and self-reliance
(was RE: faith not moribund)) Fri 2002/03/01 01:15 wrote:
Clearly you have not watched enough science fiction shows.
[Blunderov 3]
Actually, science fiction is a genre to which I'm quite partial.
[Vampier 4] wrote
Good.
[Blunderov 5]
I'm glad you approve
[Blunderov 3]
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.
[Vampier 4] wrote
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.
[Blunderov 5]
Seductive though the characters in science fiction often are, they do not
permit one to vicariously experience actual time-travel in any sense that
conforms to a real possibility available to oneself.
[vampier@mac.com 0] 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 1] 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.
[vampier@mac.com 2] clarified:
By "time-travel" I mean the ability to transmit information backward in
time - as the tachyon particles allegedly might.
[Blunderov 3]
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?
[Vampier 4] wrote
Roger Penrose, the famous mathematician who developed the tiles that are
his namesake, has gone on record that he believes 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).
[Blunderov 5]
May I suggest that the actions, or non-actions, of sub atomic particles on
neurons is irrelevant. This is to invoke a level of complexity inappropriate
to the level of enquiry.
To give an example, it would be perfectly possible to argue that a traffic
jam was caused by the failure of one rubber tyre but this would not be a
useful level of enquiry because it will not yield any very useful
conclusions and would indeed overlook more useful conclusions like for
instance traffic flow densities, traffic light synchronisation and so forth.
[Blunderov 3]ctd.
If even that?
[Vampier 4] wrote
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).
[Blunderov 5]
Worth noticing is that any tachyon transmitting information backwards
through time would
not effect the past of the observer/receiver of that transmission, only his
present and future. I also cannot accept that a tachyon could be caught
red-handed in the act of altering it's own past and yet remain unchanged
itself. I reject this paradox. If were true then it would prove that time is
not necessarily a function of events. I would be fascinated to see proof of
this.
[Blunderov 3]
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).
[Vampier 4] wrote
There are many details that could be fleshed out, I concur.
[Blunderov 5]
Then please feel free to do so. It is customary for he who calls the tune to
pay the piper.
[Blunderov 1] 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.
[vampier@mac.com 2] interjected:
We can have many paradigms of what could/might be.
[Blunderov 5]
Once again, feel free to propose and justify any paradigm that allows
changing the past to be considered a real possibility.
[Blunderov 1] 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.
[vampier@mac.com 2] 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 3]
The idea that all time-travel has already occurred implies that [em] all
[/em] the events of the universe have also already occurred.
[Vampier 4] wrote
So?
[Blunderov 5]
"So" plenty. Read on.
[Blunderov 3]ctd
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.
[Vampier 4] wrote
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?
[Blunderov 5]
Sorry, I don't do solipsism. It may even, I suspect, be considered [b] off
topic [b] in this forum.
[Blunderov 3] ctd
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))
[Vampier 4] wrote
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.
[Blunderov 5]
Unless I'm very much mistaken this is an argument that attempts to prove
from the negative, a well-known characteristic of pseudo-science. I see no
necessity to address it.
[Blunderov 3] ctd
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.
[Vampier 4]
You were overly optimistic.
[Blunderov 5]
Upon reflection I concede that I was over optimistic, but not in respect of
the "back to the future" argument upon which I stand. Death is not either a
reversible or an imaginary event because absolutely nothing in our
experience leads us to suspect that it could be. It is your assertion and it
is up to you to prove it, rigorously. It is not sufficient to say that it
cannot be disproved.
It is one of the hallmarks of pseudo-science that it attempts to prove from
the negative. The Erich von Daniken method, for instance, goes something
like "It cannot be proved that these inscriptions are not representations of
space ships, therefore they might be. Furthermore anyone who does not
believe them to be spaceships is obliged to prove it to me, and until such
time as I receive such proof it is reasonable to proceed on the basis that
they are indeed spaceships."
It seems to me that Vampier attempts to prove from the negative quite a lot.
For instance, his response to a quote from Christopher Hitchen's book
Letters to a Young Contrarian:
However, if there really was a god and he really was just, then there
would be little enough for believers to tremble about; it would be a
consolation that infinitely outweighed any imaginable earthly care.
was:[vampier@mac.com], Fri 2002/03/01 01:01
And since that consolation infinitely outweighs any any imaginable
earthly care, it infinitely outweighs logic too. I know - I've been
there - and I'm on the cusp of going back, and have subscribed to this
list to get what I believe will probably be the most well-developed
reasons not to.
[Blunderov 5]
Here you quite clearly state that unless something (that you are not able or
willing to prove) is disproved then you will accept it as proven.
Again in response to the quote: [vampier@mac.com], Fri 2002/03/01 01:01
<snip>
...to speak or write about it, I find myself appalled by the instant
decline of
their intellectual and moral standards.
<snap>
Vampier opined:
>Because they believe in a "higher" standard than "intellectual and moral
>standards" - a "spiritual standard".
[Blunderov 5]
May I venture to suggest that, by definition, most of the COV congregants
are not terribly interested in what anybody [em] believes [em] about
anything including, and probably especially, a "spiritual standard". The
word "Proof" in this context however, would certainly cause a lot of little
tufted ears to prick right up.
Once again the argument seems to take the form "There is a thing, "a
spiritual standard" that is not subject to rational scrutiny, you cannot
disprove it by definition. Therefore it exists."
In the same post
[Vampier] remarks:
The mind is capable of more than logic...
[Blunderov 5]
The mind (whatever that precisely means) is capable of many things but does
not include, I suspect, the ability to prove that there is in existence a
thing that cannot be proven to exist. The effort required to do so would be
akin to dividing by zero - completely pointless and utterly tedious.
[vampier@mac.com] Wed 2002/02/27 23:45 wrote:
One of these (Universal human characteristics) is a natural desire to
understand things through "supernatural revelation".
Hermit (with some restraint ) replied
[Hermit] I'm sorry, but this is farcical. By this, mechanism, anything
can be validated and takes us right back to the horrors of slaughters
mandated by the "gods".
[Blunderov 5]
I invite vampier to prove that there is any such thing as "supernatural
revelation" and/or that it can lead to anything even remotely like
understanding. I, for one decline to undertake the task of disproving that
there is can be such a thing on the grounds previously cited.
Later in the same post
[Vampier]
>And to what extent is evidence relevant to what is "best" for human
behavior?
[Blunderov 5]
If one is going to subscribe to the idea that there are values to which it
is not useful to apply a rational scrutiny then, I suppose any evidence in
favour of such values is just as superfluous as any unfavourable evidence
would be.
Perhaps you should remind us why you subscribed to a site that concerns
itself with rational discussion if such discussion not relevant to your
endevour?
Puzzled.
Blunderov
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT