time travel logics
Mike+
I am looking for a group that likes to kick around the time travel
logic and try and figure out what makes sense and what doesn't, and
what would happen if time travel was possible, etc. Maybe especially
I am interested in talking about the make-up of time regardless of our
ability to travel in it, and what kind of time would allow for time
travel to be "realistic"...
Anybody know where I could find a group like that?
Cheers,
Mike+
GeekBoy
"Mike+" <mike.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:39d669c7-58f3-428c...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
mike
<mike.va...@gmail.com> scribed with phoenix qill :
<<<#>>>
>Anybody know where I could find a group like that?
>
In theory, you've found it.
It hasn't seen much activity in a while though.
I guess most people have thrashed the ideas' out to
their satisfaction.
If you like, please post up something.
But be warned: i can go on and on, I'm told it's my
pet subject :-)
mike
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> If you like, please post up something.
What did you think of the most recent LOST episode, where Desmond came
unstuck in time, like Billy Pilgrim?
He breached causality, of course, but in an entertaining manner.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
mike
<<#>>
>What did you think of the most recent LOST episode, where Desmond came
>unstuck in time, like Billy Pilgrim?
>
>He breached causality, of course, but in an entertaining manner.
Ah, Well, confession time.
I don't have a TV, and have never seen 'LOST'.
I was offered the chance to watch a season 'in bulk', but i got the
impression that it was 'forever questions, never answers', and that
winds me up, so i turned it down.
So... What did he do?
Ender W @
"mike" <mike...@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4v7hs3ln0f7b4mqhk...@4ax.com...
Time Travel is my Favorite subject in Sci-fi in both books and film
I like Time travel stories where the time traveler actually becomes or
creates the event he his trying to change or prevent.
The 1st Terminator movie for example. Deja vu came so close and ruined it in
the end.
But as for actual Time Travel, I don't think it's going to be possible.
Because if it is possible, that means all time has already happened.
And if all time has already happened, that means we have no free will. We
are just along for the ride.
If Time Travel is possible, then you would think there would be millions of
Time Travelers at key events.
Like crucifixion Jesus, or his the sermon on he mount, Kennedy
assassination. but maybe in the future these events are not important so not
many visitors..
Or Time travelers may create infinite # or alternate Universes.
That's most of my thoughts on Time travel
mike
yahoo.com> scribed with phoenix qill :
>Time Travel is my Favorite subject in Sci-fi in both books and film
>I like Time travel stories where the time traveler actually becomes or
>creates the event he his trying to change or prevent.
>The 1st Terminator movie for example. Deja vu came so close and ruined it in
>the end.
That's the thing about time travel, my attitude was (as in used to be)
you cannot change the past, mealy contribute (or not) to the events.
In the Terminator, Skynet lost because it used time travel and that
actually caused the creation of John...
It's a loop that i have called Constructive Paradox, because in itself
it's stable and consistent. The other form, often proposed as proof that
time travel is impossible, is the Grandfather Paradox.
This would be an example of how you cannot use time travel, the loop
is self destructive, and in my view unstable and thus unviable.
The only type of time loop that could exist is (imho) the Constructive.
And that when things get fun!
>But as for actual Time Travel, I don't think it's going to be possible.
>Because if it is possible, that means all time has already happened.
>And if all time has already happened, that means we have no free will. We
>are just along for the ride.
I have no problem with the 'loss' of freewill, how much of it actually exists?
From the Big Bang, to the Crunch, matter and energy was placed.
Perhaps randomly, perhaps not, but some of that matter and energy moved
along in accordance to the laws of Physics (our fancy name for Nature)
to finally make; You. When you exhibit a choice and you favour one action over
another, this too is the dance of matter and energy moving in accordance
to the laws of Physics.
>If Time Travel is possible, then you would think there would be millions of
>Time Travelers at key events.
Ah, that one. Could we guess at the ticket prices on Temporal Theatre events?
Seriously though, the fact that something is possible doesn't automatically
make it practical or safe or even desirable, let alone cheap !
Personally, i'd guess it would be hard, pricey and illegal.
(Just like trying to make a nuke in your garage.)
<<#>>
>Or Time travelers may create infinite # or alternate Universes.
Sorry, this is a nerve pinch to me.
Say i have a twin, he is in the other room, and i throw in a grenade.
Boom, no more twin.
Now replace room with parallel universe, and try to convince
me that a) it was time travel and b) really myself in the past.
>That's most of my thoughts on Time travel
I hope i've given you something to mull over. :-)
:-) Mik
--
The line below is true.
The line above is false... Honest.
Ender W @
> On a dark an' dismal Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:35:57 -0500, in flickering
> lamplight, "Ender W" <kalelmail (@)
> yahoo.com> scribed with phoenix qill :
>
>>Time Travel is my Favorite subject in Sci-fi in both books and film
>>I like Time travel stories where the time traveler actually becomes or
>>creates the event he his trying to change or prevent.
>>The 1st Terminator movie for example. Deja vu came so close and ruined it
>>in
>>the end.
>
> That's the thing about time travel, my attitude was (as in used to be)
> you cannot change the past, mealy contribute (or not) to the events.
> In the Terminator, Skynet lost because it used time travel and that
> actually caused the creation of John...
> It's a loop that i have called Constructive Paradox, because in itself
> it's stable and consistent. The other form, often proposed as proof that
> time travel is impossible, is the Grandfather Paradox.
> This would be an example of how you cannot use time travel, the loop
> is self destructive, and in my view unstable and thus unviable.
> The only type of time loop that could exist is (imho) the Constructive.
> And that when things get fun!
>
There wa a show, it may have been a new Outer limits or similar show.
But it about time travelers from the future, who go into the past to kill
Hitler
when he was a baby. The Nanny or house keeper was chasing the
would be killers at the end and failed to catch them. The Kill the real baby
Hitler by throwing him into a river (i think).
On the way back to the house the Nanny see a gypsy with a newborn baby
and either takes it ,or buys it and raises as Hitler. With the point being
(i guess)
That the people from the future actually create Hitler, and he may have been
a Jew.
xeagl...@att.net
The series was the 2002 Twilight Zone.
The episode was called "Cradle of Darkness"
GeekBoy
> On a dark an' dismal Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:35:57 -0500, in flickering
> lamplight, "Ender W" <kalelmail (@)
> yahoo.com> scribed with phoenix qill :
>
>>Time Travel is my Favorite subject in Sci-fi in both books and film
>>I like Time travel stories where the time traveler actually becomes or
>>creates the event he his trying to change or prevent.
>>The 1st Terminator movie for example. Deja vu came so close and ruined it
>>in
>>the end.
>
> That's the thing about time travel, my attitude was (as in used to be)
> you cannot change the past, mealy contribute (or not) to the events.
> In the Terminator, Skynet lost because it used time travel and that
> actually caused the creation of John...
> It's a loop that i have called Constructive Paradox, because in itself
> it's stable and consistent. The other form, often proposed as proof that
> time travel is impossible, is the Grandfather Paradox.
That is not "proof."
Try reading up on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
mike
>The series was the 2002 Twilight Zone.
>The episode was called "Cradle of Darkness"
Ta for that info, i wonder if you could tell
me about another two?
I quite like almost all time travel short
stories in this style.
One was about a female detective, as soon as
a murderer was sentenced to death the world
would blur and instead of investigating the
killers victims she would be investigating them
as the murder victims.
I never got to see it all the way through :-(
The other i never saw at all, and was told about
when i was telling someone that i now think the past
is flexible and can be changed- but that we would
accept the changes as part of the history we
always had.
In this story a group if scientists with time
manipulation start doing weird things to the past,
complaining that nothing happens when they do.
But from our viewpoint each thing ripples upwards,
and they do indeed change.
I would very much like to see them, any idea of
their title & series?
Thanks
Mik :-)
--
When nanotech makes the world into digital matter
it'll be criminal negligence to be so careless with the Delete command.
mike
scribed with phoenix qill :
<<#>>
> The other form, often proposed as proof that
>> time travel is impossible, is the Grandfather Paradox.
>
>
>That is not "proof."
that's what i say to them too :-)
>Try reading up on this:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Oooh. Nerve pinch again.
If you go into a different universe (or make one, less likely imho)
It is total irrelevant if you actually time traveled.
If the Multiverse exists then there are other universes in
which the big bang was two days ago, (all other variables
the same,) or tomorrow, or any time increment you care to chose.
If you had a device that could roam the Multiverse, you could set
it to visit only these. To any user it would appear to be time travel,
but to an outside observer they would see that they are just
jumping to a later or earlier version of their universe.
:-) mik
--
After realizing that writing their password
on a yellow sticky note on their monitor
wasn't good for security, they decided to go with
a blue sticky note instead.
mike
>There wa a show, it may have been a new Outer limits or similar show.
>But it about time travelers from the future, who go into the past to kill
>Hitler when he was a baby. The Nanny or house keeper was chasing the
>would be killers at the end and failed to catch them. The Kill the real baby
>Hitler by throwing him into a river (i think).
>On the way back to the house the Nanny see a gypsy with a newborn baby
>and either takes it ,or buys it and raises as Hitler. With the point being
>(i guess)
>That the people from the future actually create Hitler, and he may have been
>a Jew.
A sad story, but it could be a perfect example of my own thoughts,
who knows what the world'd be like if they hadn't murdered the innocent baby?
In all likelihood though, their universe operated on the 'time heals itself'
principle, Ie: that baby they killed was the Hitler they know of, but time itself
manipulated things to blank out their changes.
Call it fate or destiny if you will.
Mik :-)
--
If you came here to be disappointed,
then you came to the wrong place.
Ender W @
So no matter what baby is Hitler, he would still grow up to do the things he
did.
So if time is fixing itself to keep it the same, then time is god?
As in my original post where I like time travel themes where time travler is
part of the past and can not change it.
Stargate SG1 had an episode called 1969.
I also like the time loop, Groundhog day types SG1 had one of those also
that was pretty good
Star Trek tos, ST TNG, Deepspace 9 and Voyager and a lot of time travel
themed episodes also
"City on the edge of forever" stands out as one of the best
xeagl...@att.net
>
> >The series was the 2002 Twilight Zone.
> >The episode was called "Cradle of Darkness"
>
> stories in this style. One was about a female
> detective, as soon as a murderer was sentenced to
> death the world would blur and instead of investigating
> the killers victims she would be investigating them
> as the murder victims.
> I never got to see it all the way through :-(
This would be a 1996 Outer Limits episode titled
"A Stitch in Time" staring Amanda Plummer. It is
one of my favorite episodes. A very well told
time-travel story.
> The other I never saw at all, and was told about
> when I was telling someone that I now think the past
> is flexible and can be changed- but that we would
> accept the changes as part of the history we
> always had. In this story a group if scientists with time
> manipulation start doing weird things to the past,
> complaining that nothing happens when they do.
> But from our viewpoint each thing ripples upwards,
> and they do indeed change.
This one sound intriguing, but is not familiar to me.
> I would very much like to see them, any idea of
> their title & series?
> Thanks
> Mik :-)
By the way, I collect all live action time-travel related programming.
You can view my list here: http://home.att.net/~timetravel
I currently have over 1100 movies, TV series and individual TV
episodes.
-Bill
Ender W @
<xeagl...@att.net> wrote in message news:47D6AE...@att.net...
> mike wrote:
>>
>> >The series was the 2002 Twilight Zone.
>> >The episode was called "Cradle of Darkness"
>>
>> Ta for that info, I wonder if you could tell me about
>> another two? I quite like almost all time travel short
>> stories in this style. One was about a female
>> detective, as soon as a murderer was sentenced to
>> death the world would blur and instead of investigating
>> the killers victims she would be investigating them
>> as the murder victims.
>> I never got to see it all the way through :-(
>
> This would be a 1996 Outer Limits episode titled
> "A Stitch in Time" staring Amanda Plummer. It is
> one of my favorite episodes. A very well told
> time-travel story.
>
Wasn't the Time traveler a woman who was going back in time to kill rapest
before they did the crime?
>> The other I never saw at all, and was told about
>> when I was telling someone that I now think the past
>> is flexible and can be changed- but that we would
>> accept the changes as part of the history we
>> always had. In this story a group if scientists with time
>> manipulation start doing weird things to the past,
>> complaining that nothing happens when they do.
>> But from our viewpoint each thing ripples upwards,
>> and they do indeed change.
>
> This one sound intriguing, but is not familiar to me.
>
>> I would very much like to see them, any idea of
>> their title & series?
>> Thanks
>> Mik :-)
>
> By the way, I collect all live action time-travel related programming.
> You can view my list here: http://home.att.net/~timetravel
> I currently have over 1100 movies, TV series and individual TV
> episodes.
>
> -Bill
___________________________________________________________-
Hey Bill, that's quite a list
What are some of your favorite episodes/movies
Kevin Reilly
>As in my original post where I like time travel themes where time travler is
>part of the past and can not change it.
If that sort of closed causality is your thing then you probably know
all about these anyway, but I always mention them whenever this theme
crops up.
"The Terminator" (the first one), "The Final Countdown" and "Twelve
Monkeys" are all great movies that play with this theme to one extent or
another. ISTR "Twelve Monkeys" is particularly clever with the way it
weaves clues into the story, although it's a good few years since I last
saw it.
Of course by playing the "can't change history, can only have affected
it" card the creators of these sorts of movies side-step any number of
"what if" questions and effectively eliminate the characters' free will
from the third-person viewpoint. "The Final Countdown" is particularly
guilty of this, combining an apparent lack of free will with an almost
literal deus ex machina at the dénouement.
I rather like the futility inherent in such stories, but others
absolutely HATE it as a Google through the back-catalogue of this
newsgroup will testify.
If you haven't seen any of those movies (surely EVERYONE has seen "The
Terminator"?) they're all worth checking out.
--
Kev
__________________________________________________________________________
"I've got ten pairs of training shoes, one for every day of the week."
Samantha Fox
Ender W @
"Kevin Reilly" <use...@denali.org.uk> wrote in message
news:y3GVolCl...@spamtrap.denali.org.uk...
Yes, I seen all 3 of those movies and they are some of my favorites.
I also liked all 3 "The Time machine" movies with the 1st being the best.
"Time after time"
Other Time travel movies I like
The Back to the future movies
Philadelphia Experiment
Butterfly effect
Groundhog day
Millennium
DejaVu
There are probably others, but can't think of them at the moment
mike
phoenix qill :
<<#>>
>I never got to see it all the way through :-(
>
>This would be a 1996 Outer Limits episode titled
>"A Stitch in Time" staring Amanda Plummer. It is
>one of my favorite episodes. A very well told
>time-travel story.
Much obliged, thanks, now i know what to hunt for :-)
<<#>>
>This one sound intriguing, but is not familiar to me.
Oh well, i vaguely recall Twilight Zone was vogue at
the time. TV tends to tag team TZ with OL, or did
back then. I think they had some deal with the other
channels, DWho would play awhile to later be replaced
with Star Trek or Space 1999. :-)
(Anyone here remember that?)
>By the way, I collect all live action time-travel related programming.
>You can view my list here: http://home.att.net/~timetravel
>I currently have over 1100 movies, TV series and individual TV
>episodes.
Thanks Bill, i will take a long look on the weekend when i've more time.
my quick browse through didn't find 12:01 staring Helen Slater, and
some guy, for some strange reason i never remember his name :-P
Do you have it?
--
mik :-)
Is the Tower of Pisa a listed building?
mike
>>> One was about a female
>>> detective, as soon as a murderer was sentenced to
>>> death the world would blur and instead of investigating
>>> the killers victims she would be investigating them
>>> as the murder victims.
>>> I never got to see it all the way through :-(
>>
>> This would be a 1996 Outer Limits episode titled
>> "A Stitch in Time" staring Amanda Plummer. It is
>> one of my favorite episodes. A very well told
>> time-travel story.
>>
>That's what it reminded me of, but I didn't think it wa the same one.
>Wasn't the Time traveler a woman who was going back in time to kill rapest
>before they did the crime?
I think, (not sure), that she only went after killers that had been
'sent to the chair', but the first one we saw might have been
a rapist + murderer?
Mik :-)
--
Always remember that you're unique,
Just like everyone else.
mn
"mike" <mike...@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:m775t3ddll60m8tse...@4ax.com...
> On a dark an' dismal Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:35:57 -0500, in flickering lamplight, "Ender W" <kalelmail (@)
> yahoo.com> scribed with phoenix qill :
Some comments from a point of time travel logic,
> That's the thing about time travel, my attitude was (as in used to be)
> you cannot change the past, mealy contribute (or not) to the events.
> In the Terminator, Skynet lost because it used time travel and that
> actually caused the creation of John...
> It's a loop that i have called Constructive Paradox, because in itself
> it's stable and consistent.
In some sense you may call it stable, but consistent ?
John Connor came out of nothing, I think this is not
consistent, it is simply false.
> The other form, often proposed as proof that
> time travel is impossible, is the Grandfather Paradox.
> This would be an example of how you cannot use time travel, the loop
> is self destructive, and in my view unstable and thus unviable.
The grandfather paradox, it has same problems as - out of nothing -
construction, the description of the loop is false.
> The only type of time loop that could exist is (imho) the Constructive.
> And that when things get fun!
These stories are fun, yes, but there is a hole in their logic, so I think
these are false.
mn
mike
>my quick browse through didn't find 12:01 staring Helen Slater, and
>some guy, for some strange reason i never remember his name :-P
>Do you have it?
My quick browse through was too quick, found it just now :-)
--
Mik :-)
New! Atomic Shampoo, with added Uraniuim.
For people who just want to Wash, & Glow.
mike
with phoenix qill :
<<#>>
>> It's a loop that i have called Constructive Paradox, because in itself
>> it's stable and consistent.
>
> In some sense you may call it stable, but consistent ?
>John Connor came out of nothing, I think this is not
>consistent, it is simply false.
In what way did John come out of nothing?
He has a father and mother, the only twist was
that his father was from the future and hadn't
been born. Such thing should be expected in
temporal scenarios.
<<#>>
>These stories are fun, yes, but there is a hole in their logic, so I think
>these are false.
Depends on how you interpret the loop.
In my opinion the GFP is unstable, like sawing off a
tree branch when your sat on it.
mik :-)
--
"Ravine? Don't be silly, There's no ravine h......"
Ender W @
"mn" <m...@nowhere.xx> wrote in message
news:47d70ab6$0$15005$9b53...@news.fv.fi...
>
> "mike" <mike...@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:m775t3ddll60m8tse...@4ax.com...
>> On a dark an' dismal Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:35:57 -0500, in flickering
>> lamplight, "Ender W" <kalelmail (@)
>> yahoo.com> scribed with phoenix qill :
>
> Some comments from a point of time travel logic,
>
>> That's the thing about time travel, my attitude was (as in used to be)
>> you cannot change the past, mealy contribute (or not) to the events.
>> In the Terminator, Skynet lost because it used time travel and that
>> actually caused the creation of John...
>> It's a loop that i have called Constructive Paradox, because in itself
>> it's stable and consistent.
>
> In some sense you may call it stable, but consistent ?
> John Connor came out of nothing, I think this is not
> consistent, it is simply false.
>
The way I see it is if Time travel is possible, that would mean all time has
happened, So all events have happened.
So John Conner didn't come out of nothing, he was always ment to be. It's
just his father was from the future.
If Time travel is not possible, then he would never exist and skynet could
not go back in time.
Ender W @
"Mike+" <mike.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:39d669c7-58f3-428c...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Does anyone think Time travel will ever be possible?
I don't think it will in the movement of both forward and backward.
Time Travel forward will be possible , but not backward
Forward time travel can be accomplished by stasis or some other form of
suspended animation
or traveling near the speed of light away from the Earth and returning.
But viewing the past may become possible. After all we have old film and
news reels from the past.
Or an alien civilization may have recorded past events.
xeagl...@att.net
It's the 3rd one down on the list. The guy is Jonathan Silverman.
xeagl...@att.net
>
> <xeagl...@att.net> wrote in message news:47D6AE...@att.net...
> > mike wrote:
> >>
> >> >The series was the 2002 Twilight Zone.
> >> >The episode was called "Cradle of Darkness"
> >>
> >> Ta for that info, I wonder if you could tell me about
> >> another two? I quite like almost all time travel short
> >> stories in this style. One was about a female
> >> detective, as soon as a murderer was sentenced to
> >> death the world would blur and instead of investigating
> >> the killers victims she would be investigating them
> >> as the murder victims.
> >> I never got to see it all the way through :-(
> > This would be a 1996 Outer Limits episode titled
> > "A Stitch in Time" staring Amanda Plummer. It is
> > one of my favorite episodes. A very well told
> > time-travel story.
> Wasn't the Time traveler a woman who was going back in time to kill rapest
> before they did the crime?
Sounds like the correct episode to me. Both the detective and
time-traveler
were both female. Here is the synopsis:
A scientist who secretly builds a time machine uses
it to go back in time and kill serial
rapist/murderers before their "careers" get started.
An unfortunate side effect is that when she changes history,
she remembers both time lines. The effect is cumulative
and detrimental to her health.
-Bill
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
It was kind of cool. He travels back to when he was in the military.
When he comes back to the present, he doesn't know who he is or what is
going on. The mad-scientist guy figures out wht is going on, and tells
him to find the younger version of him (the scietist) at Cambridge, and
give him some kind of code or coordinates or somethig, which enables some
great discovery.
THe kid-scientist tells the kid-Desmond that he needs something to tie the
two eras together; a constant. So Desmond tells his estranged lover that
he will call her in the future, at some date certain.
So then, IIRC, back to the future, and the old scientist remebers Desmond
as the bizarre time traveler he met when he was in college, helps him to
call the now middle-aged lover, Desmond regains his memory, and all lived
happily ever after.
Except that they are all stuck on a mysterious island and stuff. ;
mike
>Does anyone think Time travel will ever be possible?
I do.
>I don't think it will in the movement of both forward and backward.
>Time Travel forward will be possible , but not backward.
Nah, I think is possible to link two different times like a
bridge to the past.
>Forward time travel can be accomplished by stasis or some other form of
>suspended animation or traveling near the speed of light away from
>the Earth and returning.
It's in my nature to quibble over details, so: that isn't really time travel,
for example you have suspended animation, if that's cryogenics then
it's just a very long nap.
A sleep of any length can't really be called time travel imo.
>But viewing the past may become possible. After all we have old film and
>news reels from the past.
>Or an alien civilization may have recorded past events.
Yeeess, but in reality your looking at the current patterns on the cellulose.
Rather different than picking any place and time and watching the
events of the past/future.
--
Mik :-)
--------------
You were called - Yesterday - At - Twenty-three -
Fifty-nine - and Fifty-seven - Seconds.
The caller withheld their number.
mn
"mike" <mike...@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:124et35qjvavet0a4...@4ax.com...
Thanks for correction.
Point is still that there are logical problems in constructive
loop and grandfather paradox schemes,
but we have to see that Terminator's logic
is not a good analysis of time travel logic.
It is a movie story for teenagers or youngsters,
millions of 15-16 years old can understand basic
idea what is happening, but time travel details ?!
This thread is about time travel logic, not movie
logic.
mn
mike
with phoenix qill :
<<#>>
>Thanks for correction.
>Point is still that there are logical problems in constructive
>loop and grandfather paradox schemes,
>but we have to see that Terminator's logic
>is not a good analysis of time travel logic.
Actually, thinking about, it i think movie land is
a good playground for this. The first Terminator
movie was 'time travel cannot change the future'
and was consistent in it's treatment of time.
The follow on movies shreaded that with
'time is flexible', i guess because they wanted
an upbeat ending. [Arnie as the hero]
>It is a movie story for teenagers or youngsters,
>millions of 15-16 years old can understand basic
>idea what is happening, but time travel details ?!
Over here the first Terminator movie was 18
[and if the choice was up to me, i wouldn't let a
15 year old see it, at 16 i would dither too.]
>This thread is about time travel logic, not movie
>logic.
One of the things i tried to do once was to edit
a time travel movie collection into chronological
order. (thought it'd be fun to see)
Back to the future. But it wasn't possible due to
parts happening in different realities.
A thing the 'Doc' said wouldn't happen :-(
However = Bill and Teds' excellent adventure
is totally self consistent and is 'constructive loops'.
As i didn't have it, i couldn't dice 'n' slice it.
Mik :-)
--
We've just received an email from Jeff the singing Donkey.
Sorry he can't make it, he's a little hoarse.
Zachari...@withoutend.com
<mike...@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone think Time travel will ever be possible?
>
> I do.
>
> >I don't think it will in the movement of both forward and backward.
> >Time Travel forward will be possible , but not backward.
>
> Nah, I think is possible to link two different times like a
> bridge to the past.
I speak as if I know these things to be fact, but wish to clarify at
the outset that they are only things I have perceived, and that I am
aware of the human capacity for self-deception. So yes, these may be
deceptions and I'm just another kook - I freely admit this and am not
afraid for my ideas to be examined and challenged. I'd rather realize
my own kookdom than believe a falsehood, so tear my ideas apart if you
can and I will be forever grateful if you succeed. :-)
That said...
Yes, it's possible to link two different times like a bridge to the
past, but not until those doing the travelling have managed to weed
out the possibility of paradox. Prior to that, they won't even be able
to acquire the knowledge. Yet what I speak of isn't in any way, shape
or form "supernatural" or "paranormal", it's just an order of logic
and reason a step beyond what most of us have been able to glimpse.
This isn't bragging, we are an incredibly dim species in light of the
true nature of the universe, and so to be unusually bright for a human
is not that big of an accomplishment when all things are considered.
;-)
What prevents the species from learning is almost like an "intelligent
interference" from the universe at large which causes this, but what
appears to us to be intelligence is simply the nature of acausality
(within which the non-localized version of ourselves lives and
breathes as surely as we live and breathe in individual timespace
continuums) as it appears from a seemily localized perspective.
Nothing is interfering with our ability to discover the mechanics of
travelling through time - except for our own selves. :-)
This is the thing most people can't work past when it comes to
figuring out what time travel is and how it works - acausality vs
causality is such a confusing thing. One has to be able to understand
that the universe can appear to exhibit intelligent behavior through
our lives and our minds, but without actually needing to be
intelligent in any way, shape or form. At least, not in any way,
shape or form which we are accustomed to thinking of as intelligence.
In some senses, it is an intelligent process just like those processes
we run through within our own minds - conscious? I don't know, that's
impossible to tell from this perspective. But certainly, it is at the
least intelligent in that there is pattern and recursion to it.
It is, in a sense, a self-preservation "instinct" developed by our
non-localized totality. Put in other words, one can think of the
universe in terms of the multiverse theory - all "copies" of one's
self to exist in all continuums are part of one's "acausal self". This
collective of illusory "individual selves" functions in many ways just
like a complete organism is seen to function in our seemlingly
localized ecosystems.
This type of perception of the world is the next step for us, and is
the only way we are ever going to be able to "swim" through time -
like the amoeba would need to learn to run through very different
internal processes in order to be able to successfully navigate the
terrain as effectively as a multi-celled critter, we must realize that
there are facets to reality which will simply never make sense to us
in our present state, and that in order to dive right into them in
order to grow in our knowledge and experience of them, we have to
adapt perceptions and behaviors which may not at first make sense to
us.
With what is commonly called time travel, this is especially true. We
have to learn to think in terms of the true acausal reality in which
we exist, rather than in terms of the illusory "individual timelines"
or "individual world-lines" we've currently mastered an understanding
of.
The acausal world is just as logical and direct as the
seemingly-causal world, it's just a higher order of logic and
complexity. As one begins to understand it, one also begins to develop
a connection with what one might consider their other "copies" or
their "doppelgangers". Not a direct, "we can see through each-other's
minds and eyes" type of connection - at least, not for quite some
time, but the kind of connection in which we begin to experience urges
and insights which we can't explain, the source of which is not
readily apparent to us. There's nothing psychic about them, either -
in fact, they're rarely ever anything that could be helpful for us in
dealing directly with our own local space (which is why such
understanding is not naturally evolved - if it had any survival value
on a localized level, we'd all have grown to understand it a very long
time ago).
I only know this from experience - but my vision is as limited and
flawed as anybody else's. There is nothing at all special about
opening the connection between one's various "selves" in order to
begin functioning like a higher-order "organism" - it's actually a
very natural process, I'm finding. And the insights into reality are
profound - but even with this insight, I won't be able to discern the
mechanics of time travel until and unless I can reach a point where my
knowledge cannot possibly cause a paradox. This means that not only
must I be at a point where I, myself, do not wish to cause a paradox,
but also that nobody else with whom I share this knowledge (either
knowingly or unknowingly) can use it to create a paradox, either.
So there you have it. That's acausal reality for you - sure, if we
could in our present state discover how to travel through time, we
could cause all sorts of trouble. That's why we can't discover it,
that's why we can't figure it out - it's a mystery we shall remain
unable to solve until such a time as we are ready to do so. And who is
keeping us from this capability? None other than our own selves - our
acausal selves, the influences from our net "totality" as it exists
across all times and spaces. I believe this collective "us" is
conscious in its own right, but as a localized aspect of this being, I
am incapable of experiencing such consciousness directly.
That's why it throws people off, why few who encounter it ever
properly understand it - it seems like some mysterious external thing,
a "force" or a "god", it's connection with "us" being virtually
indiscernible.
>
> >Forward time travel can be accomplished by stasis or some other form of
> >suspended animation or traveling near the speed of light away from
> >the Earth and returning.
>
> It's in my nature to quibble over details, so: that isn't really time travel,
> for example you have suspended animation, if that's cryogenics then
> it's just a very long nap.
> A sleep of any length can't really be called time travel imo.
I know it's probably not what you were thinking of, but a "long sleep"
most certainly can be considered time travel if done at absolute zero,
at least as far as I can tell. ;-) There isn't anything to distinguish
the status of an object at absolute zero from that of the same object
were it to skip ahead through time. Were such an object only to travel
through time, and not space, a this would create a "pocket" of sorts
in the space dimension of this object's coordinates as it passes
through time. This pocket would have all the apparent features of the
object, but at an absolute zero-energy level.
One could disagree with that as time travel too, of course. :-)
>
> >But viewing the past may become possible. After all we have old film and
> >news reels from the past.
> >Or an alien civilization may have recorded past events.
>
> Yeeess, but in reality your looking at the current patterns on the cellulose.
> Rather different than picking any place and time and watching the
> events of the past/future.
Good point, and yet there are ways to fenagle one's mind past even
that objection if one is determined to do so. :-#
Simon Shore
<snip>
> It is, in a sense, a self-preservation "instinct" developed by our
> non-localized totality. Put in other words, one can think of the
> universe in terms of the multiverse theory - all "copies" of one's
> self to exist in all continuums are part of one's "acausal self". This
> collective of illusory "individual selves" functions in many ways just
> like a complete organism is seen to function in our seemlingly
> localized ecosystems.
{Creating a paradox would injure the totality of ourselves, and thus
our totality interferes with our ability to create a paradox in order
to preserve the integrity and "health" of its own existence. The
relationship of our individual selves to our acausal self is exactly
equivalent to the relationship between our own individual cells and
our total individual body. Time is the environment in which our
acausal selves live and breathe - time is its atmosphere, its space.
Whenever a paradox state begins to emerge in this space, it is a very
volatile state of affairs. If our own acausal self doesn't step in to
seal off and prevent the paradox, other acausal selves will - it's not
entirely our own actions which determine our ability to produce a
paradox.
The mechanisms behind the process whereby our "individual selves" have
their ability to paradox fatally crippled are all very understandable
even by most modern humans, their logic sound and, as far as I can
tell, undeniable. There's just a trick of explanation that must be
used in order to allow us to "bend" our minds at just the right angle
from which to glean this foreign perspective.}
<snip>
Apologies for the omission.
mike
scribed with phoenix qill :
>I speak as if I know these things to be fact, but wish to clarify at
>the outset that they are only things I have perceived, and that I am
>aware of the human capacity for self-deception. So yes, these may be
>deceptions and I'm just another kook - I freely admit this and am not
>afraid for my ideas to be examined and challenged. I'd rather realize
>my own kookdom than believe a falsehood, so tear my ideas apart if you
>can and I will be forever grateful if you succeed. :-)
Now that's an invite :-)
We all have our faiths, most have religion, mine's in technology
aka Science. I always start from we have an idea, and we test it.
So these are your ideas', can they be tested ?
>Yes, it's possible to link two different times like a bridge to the
>past, but not until those doing the travelling have managed to weed
>out the possibility of paradox.
I think it may be in the nature of paradox (the non constructive form),
to behave rather like an old governor valve. Like a top heavy tower,
it will collapse. Therefore my own belief is that even if we managed
to create such an event, after its collapse we would know nothing of it.
being part of the event would cause us to be 'reset'.
This is a reversal of my previous belief : the past is fixed, to
contribute the only option.
And yet the same result occurs, we'd see time as fixed (but it 'ant).
[Do i get a kook badge yet?]
>Prior to that, they won't even be able to acquire the knowledge.
Nah, the knowledge itself is okay, we might even have it already.
It could be that the ability to act on it gets tweaked, for example:
A chance meeting at a bus stop previously led to 'time shifter'
technology. Two years pass, and they trigger a paradox.
This puts pressure on the past, and to break free the weak point
of the bus stop meeting two years ago snaps -gets modified-
Instead of going to the bus, one of them decides to answer the
phone instead of ignoring it (as was the original timeline).
>Yet what I speak of isn't in any way, shape
>or form "supernatural" or "paranormal", it's just an order of logic
>and reason a step beyond what most of us have been able to glimpse.
>This isn't bragging, we are an incredibly dim species in light of the
>true nature of the universe, and so to be unusually bright for a human
>is not that big of an accomplishment when all things are considered.
>;-)
Humm. I'm too dim. Read 3x and still don't see what you're driving
towards. :-)
>What prevents the species from learning is almost like an "intelligent
>interference" from the universe at large which causes this, but what
>appears to us to be intelligence is simply the nature of acausality
>(within which the non-localized version of ourselves lives and
>breathes as surely as we live and breathe in individual timespace
>continuums) as it appears from a seemily localized perspective.
>Nothing is interfering with our ability to discover the mechanics of
>travelling through time - except for our own selves. :-)
Arrrh! My mental gears react to parallel universes as hard sand.
And they are parallels.
>This is the thing most people can't work past when it comes to
>figuring out what time travel is and how it works - acausality vs
>causality is such a confusing thing. One has to be able to understand
>that the universe can appear to exhibit intelligent behavior through
>our lives and our minds, but without actually needing to be
>intelligent in any way, shape or form. At least, not in any way,
>shape or form which we are accustomed to thinking of as intelligence.
One example might be evolution, maybe?
>In some senses, it is an intelligent process just like those processes
>we run through within our own minds - conscious? I don't know, that's
>impossible to tell from this perspective. But certainly, it is at the
>least intelligent in that there is pattern and recursion to it.
If i had to make a decision on this i'd say nature is clever, but
not aware/conscious.
>It is, in a sense, a self-preservation "instinct" developed by our
>non-localized totality. Put in other words, one can think of the
>universe in terms of the multiverse theory - all "copies" of one's
>self to exist in all continuums are part of one's "acausal self". This
>collective of illusory "individual selves" functions in many ways just
>like a complete organism is seen to function in our seemlingly
>localized ecosystems.
Not required, imo.
I don't know if they exist or not, but i'd say that if they did
each would be separated at the big bang (and that event would be
mobile, other universes having an earlier/later big bang).
[It always makes me think of fractals, at least today.
when i came up with this i had never seen or heard of them.]
>This type of perception of the world is the next step for us, and is
>the only way we are ever going to be able to "swim" through time -
>like the amoeba would need to learn to run through very different
>internal processes in order to be able to successfully navigate the
>terrain as effectively as a multi-celled critter, we must realize that
>there are facets to reality which will simply never make sense to us
>in our present state, and that in order to dive right into them in
>order to grow in our knowledge and experience of them, we have to
>adapt perceptions and behaviors which may not at first make sense to
>us.
So are you suggesting that until all the versions of oneself agree
to not cause a paradox, and cannot communicate to do so anyway,
that it will be forbidden knowledge?
<<<#>>>
>> >But viewing the past may become possible. After all we have old film and
>> >news reels from the past.
>> >Or an alien civilization may have recorded past events.
>>
>> Yeeess, but in reality your looking at the current patterns on the cellulose.
>> Rather different than picking any place and time and watching the
>> events of the past/future.
>
>Good point, and yet there are ways to fenagle one's mind past even
>that objection if one is determined to do so. :-#
I'm quite willing to verbally spar on that. :-)
Footprints may tell you hints about the past, but recorded history is
unreliable due to being mainly the opinion of the writer.
That is why i hated the subject at school.
Mik :-)
--
2b | !2b ==?
mn
"mike" <mike...@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:hlcqt3d809fgrvdra...@4ax.com...
> On a dark an' dismal Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:48:50 -0400, in flickering lamplight, Zachari...@withoutend.com
> scribed with phoenix qill :
lot of snip
> >Yes, it's possible to link two different times like a bridge to the
> >past, but not until those doing the travelling have managed to weed
> >out the possibility of paradox.
>
> I think it may be in the nature of paradox (the non constructive form),
> to behave rather like an old governor valve. Like a top heavy tower,
> it will collapse. Therefore my own belief is that even if we managed
> to create such an event, after its collapse we would know nothing of it.
> being part of the event would cause us to be 'reset'.
> This is a reversal of my previous belief : the past is fixed, to
> contribute the only option.
> And yet the same result occurs, we'd see time as fixed (but it 'ant).
> [Do i get a kook badge yet?]
The nature of paradox.....
Well, it seems that you think paradox as a physical event or
conflick of physical events.
This is main line of interpretation of time paradox, usully there
is a trigger system in reality which can recognize the time traveller
and prevent the paradox by limiting traveller from free agent to
very limited or even push him to another universe, which is very
clumsy way to solve the paradox.
But,
in reality there are no paradoxes, not even with time travel cases.
If time travel is physically possible, then there are no inconsistent
events in reality and no paradoxes.
It seems that in this universum there is no any trigger system against
time travellers.
Our time travellers, only some seconds in future, do not experience
any limiting actions.
Yes, maybe seconds in future or past is not enough to get trigger
actions work, but I don't believe it.
> >Prior to that, they won't even be able to acquire the knowledge.
>
> Nah, the knowledge itself is okay, we might even have it already.
> It could be that the ability to act on it gets tweaked, for example:
> A chance meeting at a bus stop previously led to 'time shifter'
> technology. Two years pass, and they trigger a paradox.
> This puts pressure on the past, and to break free the weak point
> of the bus stop meeting two years ago snaps -gets modified-
> Instead of going to the bus, one of them decides to answer the
> phone instead of ignoring it (as was the original timeline).
>
> Arrrh! My mental gears react to parallel universes as hard sand.
> And they are parallels.
Parallel universes, it is not time travel, just a travel to another universum.
mn
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> In all likelihood though, their universe operated on the 'time heals itself'
> principle, Ie: that baby they killed was the Hitler they know of, but time itself
> manipulated things to blank out their changes.
> Call it fate or destiny if you will.
That's like the episode of South Park, where the time traveler comes back
to destroy Cartman's Trapper Keeper before it takes over the world.
Cartman, of course, simply gets a new one, and nobody is certain whether
it was the new one that was destined to destroy the world in thefuture.
So Cartman couldn't EVER have ANY Trapper keeper ever again.
George Orwell
>
> I am looking for a group that likes to kick around the time travel
> logic and try and figure out what makes sense and what doesn't, and
> what would happen if time travel was possible, etc. Maybe especially
> I am interested in talking about the make-up of time regardless of our
> ability to travel in it, and what kind of time would allow for time
> travel to be "realistic"...
> Anybody know where I could find a group like that?
You are in the right group.
> Cheers,
> Mike+
||Does anyone think Time travel will ever be possible?
It is. You need to stop watching time travel movies and taking them
seriously. If you continue to seek out time travel concepts you need
to do your own research. Watching movies will only corrupt your thought
patterns.
So back to your original question - tt ever be possible.
Yes.
Very simply put. Think of reality as a radio dial. Reality/this time
is on 500 AM, but on 550 is the same reality but billions of years in
the future. Conversely if you take 480AM could be the time when the
Edict of Nantes was proposed in France. Comprende?
||I don't think it will in the movement of both forward and backward.
That's because mankind is a slave to linear thought process.
There are many dimensions. If you can conceive it it is most likely
happening perhaps 2018 is 3 angstroms next the pen on your table.
||Time Travel forward will be possible , but not backward
Don't believe it. It is possible. Consider the strangeness of the
current world situation? Could it be that perhaps a time traveler caused
it as a result of say traveling back to 1933 and clandestinely talking
to Nikola Tesla in a smoke filled diner in New York city? That event
perhaps caused a paradigm shift in science. Though the scientists would
never tell you that.
||Forward time travel can be accomplished by stasis or some other form
||of suspended animation
Think of this way. When Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz wanted to get back
home she had the power to get back all along. Her ruby slippers.
Hence mankind is so contemporaneous conditioned you'd never see snow
wolf crossing your path in a snow storm.
||or traveling near the speed of light away from the Earth and ||returning.
Ah, my little fury friend. Space is too vast to even conceive of
traveling in because you'd never tell if you were up or down, that is
there is no reference for mankind other than visual experiences. The stars.
||But viewing the past may become possible. After all we have old film
||and news reels from the past.
You're getting warmer.
||Or an alien civilization may have recorded past events.
March 21 1865 is happening just as March 21 8568.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
mike
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com scribed with phoenix qill :
>In alt.sci.time-travel, mike <mike...@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In all likelihood though, their universe operated on the 'time heals itself'
>> principle, Ie: that baby they killed was the Hitler they know of, but time itself
>> manipulated things to blank out their changes.
>> Call it fate or destiny if you will.
>
>That's like the episode of South Park, where the time traveler comes back
>to destroy Cartman's Trapper Keeper before it takes over the world.
>
>Cartman, of course, simply gets a new one, and nobody is certain whether
>it was the new one that was destined to destroy the world in thefuture.
>
>So Cartman couldn't EVER have ANY Trapper keeper ever again.
You know, i forgot to ask.
what's a Trapper keeper?
mike
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com scribed with phoenix qill :
>In alt.sci.time-travel, mike <mike...@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In all likelihood though, their universe operated on the 'time heals itself'
>> principle, Ie: that baby they killed was the Hitler they know of, but time itself
>> manipulated things to blank out their changes.
>> Call it fate or destiny if you will.
>
>That's like the episode of South Park, where the time traveler comes back
>to destroy Cartman's Trapper Keeper before it takes over the world.
>
>Cartman, of course, simply gets a new one, and nobody is certain whether
>it was the new one that was destined to destroy the world in thefuture.
>
>So Cartman couldn't EVER have ANY Trapper keeper ever again.
You know, i forgot to ask.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >
> >That's like the episode of South Park, where the time traveler comes back
> >to destroy Cartman's Trapper Keeper before it takes over the world.
> >
> >Cartman, of course, simply gets a new one, and nobody is certain whether
> >it was the new one that was destined to destroy the world in thefuture.
> >
> >So Cartman couldn't EVER have ANY Trapper keeper ever again.
> You know, i forgot to ask.
> what's a Trapper keeper?
It's like a loosleaf notebook, but it has a clip in it for the paper.