OT: could you do it?
Advance Scout
An interesting question on your own personal morality:
The time travel episode with Lois in the future got me thinking. This
question is only for those of you who say they would absolutely never,
ever kill anyone on moral grounds.
A time travel accident sends you back to May 1889. There you find
yourself alone and holding a 1 month old baby Adolf Hitler in your arms.
Could you (and would you) kill the baby? Don't answer that you would
raise the baby not to be Hitler. Thats NOT a choice in this exercise.
Either you kill the baby or it grows up to be Hitler.
Advance Scout
Assuming you were indeed able to kill baby Adolf- how about scenario two:
you are transported to March 1889. You will only be there for 2 hours
before automatically returning to the future. You are in a room alone
with a very pregnant (but ultimately innocent) Mommy Hitler. Could you
do it?
Advance Scout
Part 3- final (unless I think up some more)
assuming you could kill Hitlers pregnant mother (hard to think of Hitler
having a mother isn't it?)- how many generations could you go back to
stop him?- grandmother? kill a great-grandmother?
Yabahoobs
1 - Yes, without a doubt.
2 - No.
3 - No.
legal process
news:f2f653b2-ca69-40bd...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
=====================
Elements to consider... in the 1st scenario, are you able to return to the
present. Instead of trying to raise him yourself within the socioeconomic
context of post WWI depression, can you simply drop him off somewhere else
without killing him? Absent the political climate, Herr H may well have
grown up to be a grumpy self-hating Jewish paperhanger, or whatever. Even
without him, the political climate of post WWI Germany may well have
produced a leader not much more different. Or, the Communist stronghold in
Europe would have occurred sooner, with the Communists taking the role as
enemy that the Facists had in Europe during the rise of Hitler... in such
case, the US/UK may well have allied themselves with a fledgling Facist
movement instead. Another question of whether or not the Communists would
have allied themselves with Japan and to support Japan's economic interest
without exerting any pressure on them to change their political philosophy?
More likely, they would have allied themselves with the growing Communist
movement in China, thereby crushing Japan before we even had an opportunity
to do so. Post WWII Japan would have never happened... No
Honda/Toyota/Nissan, no Sony, no electronics industry leading up to the
present internet dependent society. The Cold War would have been against
newly-formed Facists, assuming they were able to defeat the Communists in
Europe.... Without an occasional world conflict, what would the population
be now? New economic pressures, less natural resources, overall a rather
bleak scenario.....
Where dem der magic beans when you need 'em?
redhawk
Could but would not, for all we know the absence of Hitler from
history would lead to something even worse. Imagine you have just
killed baby Hitler, then return to 2009. Stepping out of the time
machine, you see people in a panic, then a glimpse of the newspaper
headline tells you why:
JAPS BOMB PEARL HARBOR
EMPEROR OSAMA PERSONALLY LEADS NUCLEAR ATTACK
"Israel will be on our side!" you say to a passerby. They respond
with a puzzled look, "What is Israel? No such country exists." With a
sigh, you turn back toward the time machine, this time on a mission to
save baby Adolf...
legal process
news:1c6cf744-1c33-41d7...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
=====================
Yeah... I forgot the Israel thing in my scenario.... However, in mine the
Communists in China would prevent the advent of power in Japan.
redhawk
> "redhawk" <newfounds...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
One thing is certain: history would be dramatically changed, and not
necessarily for the better. We may have caught a break that it was
Hitler who led Germany after the Great Depression, and not someone
more patient who would have developed the atomic bomb before launching
WW2. There are many hypothetical scenarios where the end result is
someone or something worse than what we got.
Wickeddoll
I've seen that scenario on many TV shows, including the *new* "Outer
Limits" and the "The Dead Zone".
Nope, couldn't do it, despite what happens later. For one thing, you
can't know if one of his cronies or someone else does the same thing,
not to mention the mortal sin (in my case, anyway)
Natalie
--
"Wicked little doll, you have no soul"
(David Byrne, 1997)
http://www.supernaturalusa.net
Wickeddoll
> Part 2 to the exercise:
>
> Assuming you were indeed able to kill baby Adolf- how about scenario two:
>
> you are transported to March 1889. You will only be there for 2 hours
> before automatically returning to the future. You are in a room alone
> with a very pregnant (but ultimately innocent) Mommy Hitler. Could you
> do it?
>
she'll protect him more from his father, etc.
Natalie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Advance Scout wrote:
>>
>> An interesting question on your own personal morality:
>>
>> The time travel episode with Lois in the future got me thinking. This
>> question is only for those of you who say they would absolutely never,
>> ever kill anyone on moral grounds.
>>
>> A time travel accident sends you back to May 1889. There you find
>> yourself alone and holding a 1 month old baby Adolf Hitler in your
>> arms. Could you (and would you) kill the baby? Don't answer that you
>> would raise the baby not to be Hitler. Thats NOT a choice in this
>> exercise. Either you kill the baby or it grows up to be Hitler.
>>
>>
>>
Wickeddoll
>
> Part 3- final (unless I think up some more)
>
> assuming you could kill Hitlers pregnant mother (hard to think of Hitler
> having a mother isn't it?)- how many generations could you go back to
> stop him?- grandmother? kill a great-grandmother?
>
>
Natalie
>
>
>
>
>
> Advance Scout wrote:
>> Part 2 to the exercise:
>>
>> Assuming you were indeed able to kill baby Adolf- how about scenario two:
>>
>> you are transported to March 1889. You will only be there for 2 hours
>> before automatically returning to the future. You are in a room alone
>> with a very pregnant (but ultimately innocent) Mommy Hitler. Could
>> you do it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Advance Scout wrote:
>>>
>>> An interesting question on your own personal morality:
>>>
>>> The time travel episode with Lois in the future got me thinking.
>>> This question is only for those of you who say they would absolutely
>>> never, ever kill anyone on moral grounds.
>>>
>>> A time travel accident sends you back to May 1889. There you find
>>> yourself alone and holding a 1 month old baby Adolf Hitler in your
>>> arms. Could you (and would you) kill the baby? Don't answer that
>>> you would raise the baby not to be Hitler. Thats NOT a choice in this
>>> exercise. Either you kill the baby or it grows up to be Hitler.
>>>
>>>
>>>
Wickeddoll
> "Yabahoobs"
That's sort of my take - much better said than I could have said it, though.
It's like, sure, you stopped *him* but what else can happen?
Natalie
Wickeddoll
Again, my take - you don't know what would happen without him, but I
couldn't kill anyway, except in self-defense.
Wickeddoll
"legal process" wrote:
Yup.
Unknown
"Advance Scout" <iva...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4b2bca24$0$31261$607e...@cv.net...
> Part 2 to the exercise:
>
> Assuming you were indeed able to kill baby Adolf- how about scenario two:
>
> you are transported to March 1889. You will only be there for 2 hours
> before automatically returning to the future. You are in a room alone
> with a very pregnant (but ultimately innocent) Mommy Hitler. Could you do
> it?
It would be easier to go back a year before he was supposed to be born and
give Mommy Hitler a several months supply of "vitamins", which are actually
birth control pills.
Advance Scout
yeah - good new scenario:
scenario 4:
you kill baby Hitler and return to the present to find the world mostly
destroyed. Your meddling has caused more destruction than Hitler ever
did- in effect - you're worse than Hitler. You get into your time
machine and lo and behold you arrive to a one month old baby "you". Your
holding yourself in your own arms. The only way to right history and
save the world- you have to kill yourself as a baby!! Can you cowboy up
and do it?
legal process
NOW CUT THAT OUT!!!!
http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2009-12-14_4251033581748854/tv/looney_tunes/daffy_cut_that_out.wav
Wickeddoll
> legal process wrote:
>> "redhawk"
You're really trying to freak us out, aren't you?!
Wickeddoll
> legal process wrote:
>> "redhawk"
You're really trying to freak us out, aren't you?!
Wickeddoll
> "Advance Scout"
What HE said!
BC
I was going to answer but first I need to know why am I holding baby Hitler?
What mechanism placed me in Austria in 1889? Why not here where I am? The
Earth has moved through space for quite a few light years since 1889, so why
doesn't time travel dump a person into empty space? So it's Space and Time
travel? How did we travel through Space?
Another question: Is the person going back and holding Hitler or does a
person go back and find a copy of himself holding Hitler?
Here's another one: What if you went back in time to 1939 and found
yourself on your knees holding Hitler's dick and he had a Luger to your
head -- what would you do?
Don't you have something better to do with your time? Sheesh!
<Go Colts>
BC
> Part 2 to the exercise:
>
> Assuming you were indeed able to kill baby Adolf- how about scenario two:
>
> you are transported to March 1889. You will only be there for 2 hours
> before automatically returning to the future. You are in a room alone
> with a very pregnant (but ultimately innocent) Mommy Hitler. Could you do
> it?
Screw her? Sure if she was decent looking.
BC
>
> Part 3- final (unless I think up some more)
>
> assuming you could kill Hitlers pregnant mother (hard to think of Hitler
> having a mother isn't it?)- how many generations could you go back to
> stop him?- grandmother? kill a great-grandmother?
>
>
Time travel to the past won't work -- creates paradoxes.
BC
"redhawk" <newfou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c6cf744-1c33-41d7...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
*Exactly, and that is why time travel is impossible -- it creates too many
scenarios and paradoxes. Also no one wants to consider the difference in
the total energy level of the Universe. Adding mass to the universe in the
past and removing it from the future would destablilize the universal
barrier separating our universe and the mirror anti-universe. They would
collide and evaporate in an explosion of psi energy. (Ouch, that's gonna
hurt!)
BC
>
>
>
> yeah - good new scenario:
>
> scenario 4:
>
> you kill baby Hitler and return to the present to find the world mostly
> destroyed. Your meddling has caused more destruction than Hitler ever did-
> in effect - you're worse than Hitler. You get into your time machine and
> lo and behold you arrive to a one month old baby "you". Your holding
> yourself in your own arms. The only way to right history and save the
> world- you have to kill yourself as a baby!! Can you cowboy up and do it?
>
Won't work -- meeting your self causes an energy difference and an
explosion. There has been more entropy on your future atoms and when you go
back into a universe with a higher overall energy level YOU will become a
vacuum that needs to be filled. The in rushing energy will cause you to fry
or blow up.
Wickeddoll
> "Advance Scout"
>>
>> assuming you could kill Hitlers pregnant mother (hard to think of Hitler
>> having a mother isn't it?)- how many generations could you go back to
>> stop him?- grandmother? kill a great-grandmother?
>>
>>
>
> Time travel to the past won't work -- creates paradoxes.
>
>
I know, but it's just a hypothetical questions about where morals meet
the good of mankind.
Lighten up.
Wickeddoll
> "Advance Scout"
>>
>> scenario 4:
>>
>> you kill baby Hitler and return to the present to find the world mostly
>> destroyed. Your meddling has caused more destruction than Hitler ever did-
>> in effect - you're worse than Hitler. You get into your time machine and
>> lo and behold you arrive to a one month old baby "you". Your holding
>> yourself in your own arms. The only way to right history and save the
>> world- you have to kill yourself as a baby!! Can you cowboy up and do it?
>>
> Won't work -- meeting your self causes an energy difference and an
> explosion. There has been more entropy on your future atoms and when you go
> back into a universe with a higher overall energy level YOU will become a
> vacuum that needs to be filled. The in rushing energy will cause you to fry
> or blow up.
>
>
B-u-z-z-k-i-l-l
Jim Gysin
Advance Scout sent the following on 12/18/2009 12:30 PM:
> Part 2 to the exercise:
>
> Assuming you were indeed able to kill baby Adolf- how about scenario two:
>
> you are transported to March 1889. You will only be there for 2 hours
> before automatically returning to the future. You are in a room alone
> with a very pregnant (but ultimately innocent) Mommy Hitler. Could you
> do it?
Well, "very pregnant" women aren't usually my thing, but a couple of
bottles of red and some Barry White might just do the trick.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Jim Gysin
BC sent the following on 12/18/2009 4:26 PM:
Not for a lot of string theorists and the like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics
I consider myself firmly grounded in "reality," but I gotta admit that I
love to consider the possibilities, especially as they apply to the
common experience of deja-vu.
Advance Scout
>
> Don't you have something better to do with your time? Sheesh!
>
touche
Wickeddoll
BC
"Wickeddoll" <n...@chance.dude> wrote in message
news:hggd6s...@news.evilcabal.org...
> BC wrote:
>> "Advance Scout"
>>> Part 3- final (unless I think up some more)
>>>
>>> assuming you could kill Hitlers pregnant mother (hard to think of Hitler
>>> having a mother isn't it?)- how many generations could you go back to
>>> stop him?- grandmother? kill a great-grandmother?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Time travel to the past won't work -- creates paradoxes.
>
> I know, but it's just a hypothetical questions about where morals meet the
> good of mankind.
>
> Lighten up.
Me lighten up? You're the serious one. Drink some egg nog.
BC
"Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:hgh38j$rjo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
anpother lame idea.
Time travel to the future can be done. Just use suspended animation and
wait like in Sleeper. Or even the worm hole type idea in Planet of the Apes
where someone goes forward but doesn't or can't go back. Or the near light
speed model where time slows for the traveler and when he returns it is the
far future. I'm ok with those.
You've been gone awhile -- cabin covered with snow? Or, fall in the ice
hole? ;-)
BC
Lol! I think that could bag Natalie. :-)
BC
> BC wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't you have something better to do with your time? Sheesh!
>>
>
> touche
Funny how shit comes around. :-)
In all seriousness your questions are interesting as to when or where
someone would draw the line. Very similar to a psych experiment.
My real answer would be the one where a person would go back and buy his
paintings. Hitler was a decent architectural artist but wanted to break
into Fine Art and was rejected. That fueled his hatred. If he was accepted
as a serious and genuine artist, I really doubt that he would have gone to
the dark side.
In Great Expectations, Pip's paintings were all being bought by his
benefactor -- the convict that Pip rescued. Pip thought he was successful
as an artist but it was a sham.
Wickeddoll
> "Jim Gysin"
>>> Part 2 to the exercise:
>>>
>>> Assuming you were indeed able to kill baby Adolf- how about scenario two:
>>>
>>> you are transported to March 1889. You will only be there for 2 hours
>>> before automatically returning to the future. You are in a room alone
>>> with a very pregnant (but ultimately innocent) Mommy Hitler. Could you
>>> do it?
>> Well, "very pregnant" women aren't usually my thing, but a couple of
>> bottles of red and some Barry White might just do the trick.
>>
>
> Lol! I think that could bag Natalie. :-)
>
>
Are you kidding? I hate red wine, and Barry White should have been
named Great White - fatty bumbalatty
Martin Phipps
> An interesting question on your own personal morality:
>
> The time travel episode with Lois in the future got me thinking. This
> question is only for those of you who say they would absolutely never,
> ever kill anyone on moral grounds.
>
> A time travel accident sends you back to May 1889. There you find
> yourself alone and holding a 1 month old baby Adolf Hitler in your arms.
> Could you (and would you) kill the baby? Don't answer that you would
> raise the baby not to be Hitler. Thats NOT a choice in this exercise.
> Either you kill the baby or it grows up to be Hitler.
Neither. What happened happened. If you kill Hitler then you never
go back in the first place to kill him which means any attempt to kill
him is doomed to fail.
Martin
Christopher M.
I agree with Martin. This whole 'what if' scenario is an exercise in
stupidity.
W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
Advance Scout
> "Advance Scout" <iva...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:4b2c114c$0$22527$607e...@cv.net...
>> BC wrote:
>>
>>> Don't you have something better to do with your time? Sheesh!
>>>
>> touche
>
> Funny how shit comes around. :-)
>
> In all seriousness your questions are interesting as to when or where
> someone would draw the line. Very similar to a psych experiment.
>
> My real answer would be the one where a person would go back and buy his
> paintings. Hitler was a decent architectural artist but wanted to break
> into Fine Art and was rejected. That fueled his hatred. If he was accepted
> as a serious and genuine artist, I really doubt that he would have gone to
> the dark side.
Nah- I dont agree with that. The selling of a couple of paintings was
the difference between MEIN FUHRER and mein camp counselor. Sorry cant
buy that.
Jim Gysin
BC sent the following on 12/18/2009 7:32 PM:
> "Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:hgh38j$rjo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> BC sent the following on 12/18/2009 4:26 PM:
>>> "Advance Scout" <iva...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4b2bce99$0$31257$607e...@cv.net...
>>>> Part 3- final (unless I think up some more)
>>>>
>>>> assuming you could kill Hitlers pregnant mother (hard to think of Hitler
>>>> having a mother isn't it?)- how many generations could you go back to
>>>> stop him?- grandmother? kill a great-grandmother?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Time travel to the past won't work -- creates paradoxes.
>> Not for a lot of string theorists and the like.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics
>>
>> I consider myself firmly grounded in "reality," but I gotta admit that I
>> love to consider the possibilities, especially as they apply to the common
>> experience of deja-vu.
>>
> It was kind of fun before I saw all the paradoxes then it just became
> anpother lame idea.
>
> Time travel to the future can be done. Just use suspended animation and
> wait like in Sleeper.
A person in suspended animation is not "time-traveling" any more (or
less) than a person who spends that time in normal terms.
> Or even the worm hole type idea in Planet of the Apes
> where someone goes forward but doesn't or can't go back. Or the near light
> speed model where time slows for the traveler and when he returns it is the
> far future. I'm ok with those.
I believe that we will eventually be able to travel in time the same way
that we can currently travel north and south, east and east and west,
and to higher and lower elevations. That's why I find quantum physics
to be endlessly fascinating.
> You've been gone awhile -- cabin covered with snow? Or, fall in the ice
> hole? ;-)
Time and commitments. Plus, I was getting my SMALLVILLE fix from the
content that was getting cross-posted to RAST, but the cross-posting
seems to have dried up, so I'm dipping a toe back in here.
Anim8rFSK
Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> I believe that we will eventually be able to travel in time the same way
> that we can currently travel north and south, east and east and west,
> and to higher and lower elevations. That's why I find quantum physics
> to be endlessly fascinating.
How do you feel about the theory that if people could travel back in
time, they'd be here by now?
--
Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Year"
His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
Jim Gysin
Anim8rFSK sent the following on 12/19/2009 1:44 PM:
> In article <hgj3u9$md0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe that we will eventually be able to travel in time the same way
>> that we can currently travel north and south, east and east and west,
>> and to higher and lower elevations. That's why I find quantum physics
>> to be endlessly fascinating.
>
> How do you feel about the theory that if people could travel back in
> time, they'd be here by now?
Several options, off the cuff:
1. The technology might be tightly controlled and limited. The present
world has ICBMs, after all, but when was the last time you saw one
flying overhead? IOW, just because it *can* be done at some point in
the future doesn't mean that it *will* be done on any sort of an
unlimited or uncontrolled basis.
2. More likely, the very act of going back in time would create a new
timeline that would not intersect with the original (the one that
contains us) timeline.
3. If they can come here in the first place, then they could also go
even *further* back in time to fix things in the event that they
inadvertently let the cat out of the bag with any of us.
Wickeddoll
>>
>>> I believe that we will eventually be able to travel in time the same
>>> way that we can currently travel north and south, east and east and
>>> west, and to higher and lower elevations. That's why I find quantum
>>> physics to be endlessly fascinating.
>>
>> How do you feel about the theory that if people could travel back in
>> time, they'd be here by now?
>
> Several options, off the cuff:
>
> 1. The technology might be tightly controlled and limited. The present
> world has ICBMs, after all, but when was the last time you saw one
> flying overhead? IOW, just because it *can* be done at some point in
> the future doesn't mean that it *will* be done on any sort of an
> unlimited or uncontrolled basis.
>
> 2. More likely, the very act of going back in time would create a new
> timeline that would not intersect with the original (the one that
> contains us) timeline.
>
> 3. If they can come here in the first place, then they could also go
> even *further* back in time to fix things in the event that they
> inadvertently let the cat out of the bag with any of us.
>
"Temporal mechanics give me a headache" - Janeway.
BC
>
> BC sent the following on 12/18/2009 7:32 PM:
>> "Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hgh38j$rjo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> BC sent the following on 12/18/2009 4:26 PM:
>>>> "Advance Scout" <iva...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b2bce99$0$31257$607e...@cv.net...
>>>>> Part 3- final (unless I think up some more)
>>>>>
>>>>> assuming you could kill Hitlers pregnant mother (hard to think of
>>>>> Hitler having a mother isn't it?)- how many generations could you go
>>>>> back to stop him?- grandmother? kill a great-grandmother?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Time travel to the past won't work -- creates paradoxes.
>>> Not for a lot of string theorists and the like.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics
>>>
>>> I consider myself firmly grounded in "reality," but I gotta admit that I
>>> love to consider the possibilities, especially as they apply to the
>>> common experience of deja-vu.
>>>
>> It was kind of fun before I saw all the paradoxes then it just became
>> anpother lame idea.
>>
>> Time travel to the future can be done. Just use suspended animation and
>> wait like in Sleeper.
>
> A person in suspended animation is not "time-traveling" any more (or less)
> than a person who spends that time in normal terms.
I know that -- I was being a smart ass. It is the same except the person
doing the "traveling" doesn't know that. A coma patient would be a similar
situation. these discussions about time travel seldom look at it from the
subjective view. the arguments are based upon there being some one in the
objective watching the traveler go from the present to the past etc.
Subjectively I see no difference between actually traveling to the future
and waking up from a coma or being in suspended animation -- that's from the
perspective of the traveler. Of course that is only going forward in time.
No one can wake up from a coma and find themselves in the past. So that's
another reason I say time travel as it is used is impossible -- going to the
past doesn't work from the subjective POV of the traveler -- i.e. how can he
have memories of something that hasn't appened?. Which leads me to say that
if the present exists as someone else's future then that means the future is
fixed and can't be changed (the notion of predestiny). If the future is
predestined then going back and killing Hitler is either impossible or won't
matter. My thinking is that the past is gone for that reason -- it is fixed
and can't be tampered with. The future is up for grabs.
I believe Einstein said (paraphrased) in response to Quantum Theory, that
"God doesn't play dice with the Universe." But he couldn't prove it. To
him and Quantum physics (as I understand this) our perceivable Universe is
the product of the random interaction of sub atomic events -- that even the
order and laws that we see are the products of random events. To travel to
different points in time would mean the simultaneous existence of all the
moments in time (which are random events) being stored or recorded somewhere
in their entireity and we, being a product of a random event would have to
become separate from that universe, become self sustaining, to move to
another time where we would then have to become a part of that random
process. As I've said that once the process of time travel is broken down
and looked at it appears to be impossible.
>
>> Or even the worm hole type idea in Planet of the Apes where someone goes
>> forward but doesn't or can't go back. Or the near light speed model
>> where time slows for the traveler and when he returns it is the far
>> future. I'm ok with those.
>
> I believe that we will eventually be able to travel in time the same way
> that we can currently travel north and south, east and east and west, and
> to higher and lower elevations. That's why I find quantum physics to be
> endlessly fascinating.
I think as I said above that quantum physics will prove it to be
impossible -- be happy with the universe we have. Having everyone moving
around in time changing things would upset Einstein tremendously. It won't
happen and I know it won't happen or we would be overrun with time travelers
as we speak.
>
>> You've been gone awhile -- cabin covered with snow? Or, fall in the ice
>> hole? ;-)
>
> Time and commitments. Plus, I was getting my SMALLVILLE fix from the
> content that was getting cross-posted to RAST, but the cross-posting seems
> to have dried up, so I'm dipping a toe back in here.
>
You haven't missed anything.
BC
>
> Anim8rFSK sent the following on 12/19/2009 1:44 PM:
>> In article <hgj3u9$md0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that we will eventually be able to travel in time the same way
>>> that we can currently travel north and south, east and east and west,
>>> and to higher and lower elevations. That's why I find quantum physics
>>> to be endlessly fascinating.
>>
>> How do you feel about the theory that if people could travel back in
>> time, they'd be here by now?
>
> Several options, off the cuff:
>
> 1. The technology might be tightly controlled and limited. The present
> world has ICBMs, after all, but when was the last time you saw one flying
> overhead? IOW, just because it *can* be done at some point in the future
> doesn't mean that it *will* be done on any sort of an unlimited or
> uncontrolled basis.
>
> 2. More likely, the very act of going back in time would create a new
> timeline that would not intersect with the original (the one that contains
> us) timeline.
Aleternate parallel universes is not time travel = mixing notions.
>
> 3. If they can come here in the first place, then they could also go even
> *further* back in time to fix things in the event that they inadvertently
> let the cat out of the bag with any of us.
And have they "fixed" anything? I don't see the miraculous reappearance of
the World Trade Center. Or I guess no one has gone back and killed Hitler.
These time travelers of the future need to step up their game and stop
taking pictures of Grand Canyon which in the future is a land fill.
BC
"Wickeddoll" <n...@chance.dude> wrote in message
They gave her a headache because temproal mechanics was telling her the plot
wouldn't work.
BC
How many "successful artists" have gone on to world domination? None I bet.
It's completely plausible. Picture Hitler in an artists smock with long
flowing hair -- sitting on the bank of the Seine, painting the Norte Dame
cathedral. After wwI he'd moved to Paris to be with the "in " crowd. He
fell in love with Paris and the countryside. In his leisure time he would
hang out with other creatives at the coffee houses, exchanging ideas with
Hemingway, Ezra Pound, Picasso, Gertrude Stein, etc. That would make it
1921 and Hitler would not have been in the Nazi movement or named the head
of the Nazi Party. He would be looking forward to a career of banging
french babes and not bombing Poland.
I also support this notion with the real fact that Hitler and his henchmen
stole as much valuable art as they could and stowed it away in caves which
was found by our G.I.'s.
BC
"Christopher M." <no-spamc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hghnnk$li0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Wickeddoll
> "Wickeddoll"
hehehe
Advance Scout
so then according to your theory, if we were holding baby Hitler in our
arms, we could snap his neck and enjoy the millisecond, then everything
changes and we never go back and then he lives, then we go back again
and we snap his neck again, ad infinitum... an infinite causality loop.
Hitler getting killed over and over again. Sounds pretty satisfying to me.
>
> Martin
BC
viscious circle maybe?
Advance Scout
Would you prefer a Causal Infinality loop?
Advance Scout
Since you really dont seem to know such a fundamental rule of time travel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_loop
From "Temporal Mechanics 1.01" taught at any 2 year community college
BC
BC
referred to as a causality loop, is a theoretical phenomenon..."
Focus on the word "theoretical" for a bit.
I thought that maybe this described what you were talking about in REAL
terms:
"A virtuous circle or a vicious circle (also referred to as virtuous cycle
or vicious cycle) is a complex of events that reinforces itself through a
feedback loop. A virtuous circle has favorable results, and a vicious circle
has detrimental results. A virtuous circle can transform into a vicious
circle if eventual negative feedback is ignored.
Both circles are complexes of events with no tendency towards equilibrium
(at least in the short run). Both systems of events have feedback loops in
which each iteration of the cycle reinforces the first (positive feedback).
These cycles will continue in the direction of their momentum until an
external factor intervenes and breaks the cycle."
But then again I'm not a poker playing theoretical physicist or wizened
community college logician.
Speaking of poker -- I've never been one for playing cards -- but as a kid
we played "Old Maid" -- I guess Natalie would have some trouble with that
one -- probably writing off letters to the manufacturer threatening a ban.
Jim Gysin
BC sent the following on 12/20/2009 9:57 AM:
> "Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:hgjmo4$s6f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Anim8rFSK sent the following on 12/19/2009 1:44 PM:
>>> In article <hgj3u9$md0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe that we will eventually be able to travel in time the same way
>>>> that we can currently travel north and south, east and east and west,
>>>> and to higher and lower elevations. That's why I find quantum physics
>>>> to be endlessly fascinating.
>>> How do you feel about the theory that if people could travel back in
>>> time, they'd be here by now?
>> Several options, off the cuff:
>>
>> 1. The technology might be tightly controlled and limited. The present
>> world has ICBMs, after all, but when was the last time you saw one flying
>> overhead? IOW, just because it *can* be done at some point in the future
>> doesn't mean that it *will* be done on any sort of an unlimited or
>> uncontrolled basis.
>>
>> 2. More likely, the very act of going back in time would create a new
>> timeline that would not intersect with the original (the one that contains
>> us) timeline.
>
> Aleternate parallel universes is not time travel = mixing notions.
If the new timeline branch is a result of traveling back in time, then
parallel (I prefer alternate, actually) universes and time travel are
very much related.
>> 3. If they can come here in the first place, then they could also go even
>> *further* back in time to fix things in the event that they inadvertently
>> let the cat out of the bag with any of us.
>
> And have they "fixed" anything?
Since *we* won't have left *this* timeline, we have no frame of
reference for what might have "changed" in other timelines.
> I don't see the miraculous reappearance of
> the World Trade Center.
Again, the WTC will always be gone in "our" timeline. But other
versions of us in other timelines might very well never know that the
towers fell in "our" timeline that we are experiencing right now.
> Or I guess no one has gone back and killed Hitler.
If they did, we'd never know it, as Hitler will remain dead in our
timeline, just as the towers remain gone. The "us" in another timeline,
OTOH, might live in a world that never heard of Hitler.