The Theory of the Multiverse
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Thuy Vuong
Apr 14, 2010, 10:49:50 PM4/14/10
to SSPC
First of all I'd like to tell "ellimistd", "YOU LIE! I'M NOT SMART!
ADDING ME MAY BE A HUGE MISTAKE" Next, I'd like to disprove what I've
said by wondering about the multiverse theory. The theory of time
travel is very interesting. For example, you go back in time to help
those in the concentration camps. Although, by doing so you stop your
parents from meeting in some chain of events. By your parents not
meeting, you do not exist and therefore the concentration camps are
unaffected by your actions and therefore allowing your parents meet
again and, so, you are alive and real again. All of this loops, though
and creates a paradox. HOWEVER...this only lies on the linear universe
theory. Now the multiverse theory allows these things to happen except
with different results to happen. So if you go back into the future,
you will live in a completely different world. Possibly, you won't
have any parents. Now, the rest of you ponder on that, extend on that,
and let me hear your opinions.
ADDING ME MAY BE A HUGE MISTAKE" Next, I'd like to disprove what I've
said by wondering about the multiverse theory. The theory of time
travel is very interesting. For example, you go back in time to help
those in the concentration camps. Although, by doing so you stop your
parents from meeting in some chain of events. By your parents not
meeting, you do not exist and therefore the concentration camps are
unaffected by your actions and therefore allowing your parents meet
again and, so, you are alive and real again. All of this loops, though
and creates a paradox. HOWEVER...this only lies on the linear universe
theory. Now the multiverse theory allows these things to happen except
with different results to happen. So if you go back into the future,
you will live in a completely different world. Possibly, you won't
have any parents. Now, the rest of you ponder on that, extend on that,
and let me hear your opinions.
P.S. When I heard minecraft, all I thought was this comic.
David R.
Apr 15, 2010, 3:09:01 PM4/15/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Thuy:
Ok, I am warned.
Or not.
Alright, the multiverse theory - are you postulating a sort of meta-timeline? a timeline of timelines? There's, say, our timeline, which goes along all nice and fine until _someone_ rudely interrupts it by time-travel. This spawns a new timeline, further along the meta-timeline from us, in which those people in the concentration camp are saved - and in which you are not born. That _is_ what you're talking about right? As a mechanism nature uses to prevent paradox? (assuming time-travel is possible in the first place, of course - which is an assumption we'd have to make for the purposes of this discussion).
Anyway, a question for you - ethically, would you be able to say you had saved the people in the concentration camp? I mean, you really didn't. You just created a new universe, including new people in a new concentration camp, and saved them. You didn't actually change anything.
Another idea - so far, we have a 2-dimensional representation of time (1D - timeline; 2D - meta-timeline, or timeline of timelines). Could this be expanded indefinately? A device that takes you back in the meta-timeline, creating another meta-timeline so as not to cause a paradox, and those 2 (or n many) meta-timelines on a 2meta-timeline? etc etc., infinitely?
PS. OH GOD THE CREEPERS. Seriously, minecraft's a fine game, creative lets you do some nifty stuff.
Ok, I am warned.
Or not.
Alright, the multiverse theory - are you postulating a sort of meta-timeline? a timeline of timelines? There's, say, our timeline, which goes along all nice and fine until _someone_ rudely interrupts it by time-travel. This spawns a new timeline, further along the meta-timeline from us, in which those people in the concentration camp are saved - and in which you are not born. That _is_ what you're talking about right? As a mechanism nature uses to prevent paradox? (assuming time-travel is possible in the first place, of course - which is an assumption we'd have to make for the purposes of this discussion).
Anyway, a question for you - ethically, would you be able to say you had saved the people in the concentration camp? I mean, you really didn't. You just created a new universe, including new people in a new concentration camp, and saved them. You didn't actually change anything.
Another idea - so far, we have a 2-dimensional representation of time (1D - timeline; 2D - meta-timeline, or timeline of timelines). Could this be expanded indefinately? A device that takes you back in the meta-timeline, creating another meta-timeline so as not to cause a paradox, and those 2 (or n many) meta-timelines on a 2meta-timeline? etc etc., infinitely?
PS. OH GOD THE CREEPERS. Seriously, minecraft's a fine game, creative lets you do some nifty stuff.
--
To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 15, 2010, 3:47:35 PM4/15/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
In a way, creating another dimension where they survive is saving them for that dimension didn't exist until I've taken that action and did so. Besides, that's what those people believed and that's what I'm sticking to.
The instant I went back in time, though, a new dimension is created like a branch on a tree. Both have the same past up until that point. What my intent is to bring up a topic that more people should participate on, not only you and me. Who else is in SSPC? If you are alive and a part of this google group, answer to this topic and give your opinions.
Cheers,
Thuy
The instant I went back in time, though, a new dimension is created like a branch on a tree. Both have the same past up until that point. What my intent is to bring up a topic that more people should participate on, not only you and me. Who else is in SSPC? If you are alive and a part of this google group, answer to this topic and give your opinions.
Cheers,
Thuy
nano
Apr 15, 2010, 7:43:04 PM4/15/10
to SSPC
OR!
-Quazi-spazmatic-brainstorm-
No new universes are created, ever, but there exists a continuum of
possibilities. think like quantum stuff, just far far more
generalized.
now our consciousness (this is where i imagine it gets weird- and
totally breaks down for physical models of consciousness) could
somehow leap? or the whole thing gets muddled and weaves together like
waves when **unknown time-travel method** causes them too, and where
the matter goes is determined by a quantum event or something.
-/Quazi-Spazmatic-brainstrom-
now that im more coherant, may i suggest making multiple threads?
also just allow me to be a grammer nazi for a moment- 'Time travel' is
not a theory, it is a concept which there are many theories about.
same goes for the multiverse.
*end rant*
now. hurrah!
-Quazi-spazmatic-brainstorm-
No new universes are created, ever, but there exists a continuum of
possibilities. think like quantum stuff, just far far more
generalized.
now our consciousness (this is where i imagine it gets weird- and
totally breaks down for physical models of consciousness) could
somehow leap? or the whole thing gets muddled and weaves together like
waves when **unknown time-travel method** causes them too, and where
the matter goes is determined by a quantum event or something.
-/Quazi-Spazmatic-brainstrom-
now that im more coherant, may i suggest making multiple threads?
also just allow me to be a grammer nazi for a moment- 'Time travel' is
not a theory, it is a concept which there are many theories about.
same goes for the multiverse.
*end rant*
now. hurrah!
David R.
Apr 15, 2010, 8:00:45 PM4/15/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
OR!
That... would be a lot of universes. Seriously. And are you including all the potential timelines in which fundamental constants are different - ones that will only ever be quantum soup? Because wow...
I'm not saying you're wrong, that just seems a bit strange. Actually no, I think I might be - the entire premise is *time travel*. That idea does little to solve paradoxes. It only really moves them - the other possible universes have already happened too. This idea seems plausible I suppose, it just has little value to me. Not even wrong and all that (although i figure most ideas in this field probably will be, but for what it's worth), and it just doesn't really solve any problems.
As for the counciousness idea. Yeah, I suppose it would work, sorta like in anathem, as an explanation for free will / the brains processing ability. Only again - what evidence is there at all to reccomend this idea? It seems like wild conjecture to me, and occam's razor does away with that. Still, fun I suppose.
Multiple threads? If you want to, go ahead, although I don't think it's needed for the minute. We're staying pretty close-to-topic.
Thuy - There are a few more members of the SSPC, 2 of which are in philidelphia, another doesn't have any excuse, and I invited a few more people to participate that havn't yet accepted. Still, help us out - forward this on to anyone you think is cool.
That... would be a lot of universes. Seriously. And are you including all the potential timelines in which fundamental constants are different - ones that will only ever be quantum soup? Because wow...
I'm not saying you're wrong, that just seems a bit strange. Actually no, I think I might be - the entire premise is *time travel*. That idea does little to solve paradoxes. It only really moves them - the other possible universes have already happened too. This idea seems plausible I suppose, it just has little value to me. Not even wrong and all that (although i figure most ideas in this field probably will be, but for what it's worth), and it just doesn't really solve any problems.
As for the counciousness idea. Yeah, I suppose it would work, sorta like in anathem, as an explanation for free will / the brains processing ability. Only again - what evidence is there at all to reccomend this idea? It seems like wild conjecture to me, and occam's razor does away with that. Still, fun I suppose.
Multiple threads? If you want to, go ahead, although I don't think it's needed for the minute. We're staying pretty close-to-topic.
Thuy - There are a few more members of the SSPC, 2 of which are in philidelphia, another doesn't have any excuse, and I invited a few more people to participate that havn't yet accepted. Still, help us out - forward this on to anyone you think is cool.
nano
Apr 15, 2010, 8:15:44 PM4/15/10
to SSPC
Ah. your misunderstanding. there are an infinte number of universes. a
continuum. like, a spectrum- all these things exists (and in a finite
space, ala Koch perhaps)
and i agree, on the surface it seems like an entirely unnecessary
provision, but take a step back (from this, yes. your miles away from
home now, haha) there would have to be a consistant reason to have
finite universes. remember the MUI puzzle, and how you could make a
huge tree of possible outcomes? its like that, but with an infinite
number or possibilities at each step. any conscious being can only
'be' in one chain at a time, but they all are valid possibilites as
the continuum of possible combinations of fundamental constants. some
of them would peter out and become 'quantum soup' as you call it, and
others would develop more complex interactions. then in yet a higher
dimention, they are all folded in on each other in the aforementioned
mish-mash.
to address the problems of time travel, think of the recursive systems
in GEB. (and yeah, thats a distraction, not an answer, but still)
continuum. like, a spectrum- all these things exists (and in a finite
space, ala Koch perhaps)
and i agree, on the surface it seems like an entirely unnecessary
provision, but take a step back (from this, yes. your miles away from
home now, haha) there would have to be a consistant reason to have
finite universes. remember the MUI puzzle, and how you could make a
huge tree of possible outcomes? its like that, but with an infinite
number or possibilities at each step. any conscious being can only
'be' in one chain at a time, but they all are valid possibilites as
the continuum of possible combinations of fundamental constants. some
of them would peter out and become 'quantum soup' as you call it, and
others would develop more complex interactions. then in yet a higher
dimention, they are all folded in on each other in the aforementioned
mish-mash.
to address the problems of time travel, think of the recursive systems
in GEB. (and yeah, thats a distraction, not an answer, but still)
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 15, 2010, 8:18:05 PM4/15/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
I'm still sticking to my theory of multiple universes branching out
like a tree. In the beginning, there was the trunk where no action can
be taken to change it. Once the first choice or action was allowed,
multiple timelines grew. At each time there was a new chance or action,
more timelines grew. By me sending this email, there's about millions
more timelines occurring but never would have existed if I didn't send
this email. You can thank me for doing so now.
Cheers, Thuy
Cheers, Thuy
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 15, 2010, 8:20:52 PM4/15/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
By the way, it isn't my original theory. Some random guy probably thought of it before me... Hey, Paul.
nano
Apr 15, 2010, 9:03:43 PM4/15/10
to SSPC
nonononono. why do you think this? back it up with logic/evidence, or
at least tell us where to look for evidence (ie. make predictions).
that is the essence of a theory. its just an idea otherwise.
(i know i didnt quite meet these qualifications, but i provided a
logical stem for it to have come from, at the very least.
epistemological evidence)
dont just refute ideas outright.
not to be critical though, its a good idea. we just need some
proctoring.
speaking of which, this is the type of thing that may need mentioning
in the eventual homepage. or on the site somewhere at least. some
things need to be constantish, and this meta-stuff is that kind of
thing. what is a theory, what constitutes evidence, etc. and some form
of protocol which includes a set-aside proctor/arbiter to prevent
inadvertent fallaciousness. (unless its a form of debate (like public-
forum) where this is redundant/unnecessary/unwelcome/phyrric/etc)
On Apr 15, 8:20 pm, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> By the way, it isn't my original theory. Some random guy probably thought of
> it before me... Hey, Paul.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> > I'm still sticking to my theory of multiple universes branching out like a
> > tree. In the beginning, there was the trunk where no action can be taken to
> > change it. Once the first choice or action was allowed, multiple timelines
> > grew. At each time there was a new chance or action, more timelines grew. By
> > me sending this email, there's about millions more timelines occurring but
> > never would have existed if I didn't send this email. You can thank me for
> > doing so now.
>
> > Cheers, Thuy
>
at least tell us where to look for evidence (ie. make predictions).
that is the essence of a theory. its just an idea otherwise.
(i know i didnt quite meet these qualifications, but i provided a
logical stem for it to have come from, at the very least.
epistemological evidence)
dont just refute ideas outright.
not to be critical though, its a good idea. we just need some
proctoring.
speaking of which, this is the type of thing that may need mentioning
in the eventual homepage. or on the site somewhere at least. some
things need to be constantish, and this meta-stuff is that kind of
thing. what is a theory, what constitutes evidence, etc. and some form
of protocol which includes a set-aside proctor/arbiter to prevent
inadvertent fallaciousness. (unless its a form of debate (like public-
forum) where this is redundant/unnecessary/unwelcome/phyrric/etc)
On Apr 15, 8:20 pm, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> By the way, it isn't my original theory. Some random guy probably thought of
> it before me... Hey, Paul.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> > I'm still sticking to my theory of multiple universes branching out like a
> > tree. In the beginning, there was the trunk where no action can be taken to
> > change it. Once the first choice or action was allowed, multiple timelines
> > grew. At each time there was a new chance or action, more timelines grew. By
> > me sending this email, there's about millions more timelines occurring but
> > never would have existed if I didn't send this email. You can thank me for
> > doing so now.
>
> > Cheers, Thuy
>
nano
Apr 15, 2010, 9:04:08 PM4/15/10
to SSPC
nonononono. why do you think this? back it up with logic/evidence, or
at least tell us where to look for evidence (ie. make predictions).
that is the essence of a theory. its just an idea otherwise.
(i know i didnt quite meet these qualifications, but i provided a
logical stem for it to have come from, at the very least.
epistemological evidence)
dont just refute ideas outright.
not to be critical though, its a good idea. we just need some
proctoring.
speaking of which, this is the type of thing that may need mentioning
in the eventual homepage. or on the site somewhere at least. some
things need to be constantish, and this meta-stuff is that kind of
thing. what is a theory, what constitutes evidence, etc. and some form
of protocol which includes a set-aside proctor/arbiter to prevent
inadvertent fallaciousness. (unless its a form of debate (like public-
forum) where this is redundant/unnecessary/unwelcome/phyrric/etc)
at least tell us where to look for evidence (ie. make predictions).
that is the essence of a theory. its just an idea otherwise.
(i know i didnt quite meet these qualifications, but i provided a
logical stem for it to have come from, at the very least.
epistemological evidence)
dont just refute ideas outright.
not to be critical though, its a good idea. we just need some
proctoring.
speaking of which, this is the type of thing that may need mentioning
in the eventual homepage. or on the site somewhere at least. some
things need to be constantish, and this meta-stuff is that kind of
thing. what is a theory, what constitutes evidence, etc. and some form
of protocol which includes a set-aside proctor/arbiter to prevent
inadvertent fallaciousness. (unless its a form of debate (like public-
forum) where this is redundant/unnecessary/unwelcome/phyrric/etc)
On Apr 15, 8:20 pm, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> By the way, it isn't my original theory. Some random guy probably thought of
> it before me... Hey, Paul.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> > I'm still sticking to my theory of multiple universes branching out like a
> > tree. In the beginning, there was the trunk where no action can be taken to
> > change it. Once the first choice or action was allowed, multiple timelines
> > grew. At each time there was a new chance or action, more timelines grew. By
> > me sending this email, there's about millions more timelines occurring but
> > never would have existed if I didn't send this email. You can thank me for
> > doing so now.
>
> > Cheers, Thuy
>
> By the way, it isn't my original theory. Some random guy probably thought of
> it before me... Hey, Paul.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> > I'm still sticking to my theory of multiple universes branching out like a
> > tree. In the beginning, there was the trunk where no action can be taken to
> > change it. Once the first choice or action was allowed, multiple timelines
> > grew. At each time there was a new chance or action, more timelines grew. By
> > me sending this email, there's about millions more timelines occurring but
> > never would have existed if I didn't send this email. You can thank me for
> > doing so now.
>
> > Cheers, Thuy
>
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 15, 2010, 9:15:20 PM4/15/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Ah, now it's time for Paul to take a step back. Why is this entire discussion started? Why are we discussing about this? We are discussing this in order to spur activity and engage more to participate. I've done something as shown by your presence.
Now you said to not refute ideas outright. To refute something is to prove wrong. I didn't prove your theory wrong for I only stated my opinion and a somewhat simpler way to understand it.
Cheers,
Thuy
(If you use a colon and a nine, it looks like a smiling dog! Look --> :9 )
Now you said to not refute ideas outright. To refute something is to prove wrong. I didn't prove your theory wrong for I only stated my opinion and a somewhat simpler way to understand it.
Cheers,
Thuy
(If you use a colon and a nine, it looks like a smiling dog! Look --> :9 )
codingforidiots.com
Apr 15, 2010, 9:18:51 PM4/15/10
to SSPC
I had to read this a second time to get it. As far as I can see, as
long as no idiot makes time travel possible, were all ok.
--
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/the-sspc/subscribe?hl=en
long as no idiot makes time travel possible, were all ok.
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/the-sspc/subscribe?hl=en
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 15, 2010, 9:22:56 PM4/15/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Ah...you see? This person took a step back, metaphorically...I think. Now, some people believe Einstein designed blueprints for a time machine and then destroyed it. So time travel was once possible and then not possible. If there's no time travel, we may live in the universe where he either destroyed it or never created it.
Now...who are you?
Cheers,
Thuy
Now...who are you?
Cheers,
Thuy
David McCoy
Apr 16, 2010, 12:49:37 AM4/16/10
to SSPC
A guy who knows ellimistd from an online programming site. Anyway,
back to the theory of a multiverse.
Now, suppose with the creation of a time machine you have traveled
forward in time and changed events. If those events are in the future,
would the events that were to happen after the point at which you
changed future history alter what happens in the future? Or becuase
these things haven't happened yet, would the events to come be able to
change what you have altered despite the fact they had not been
changed at the point you arrived? Would there be multiple paths at
which history could take which then happen in the multi-verses and
there would be multiple branches in the timeline of events that were
to happen? Is that what a multiverse is to help explain, the branching
of possible consequences being able to take place without breaking one
timeline and creating chaos in a world in which paradoxs could not
exist, which can only be explained by a multiverse cosmos? I think I
just confused myself writing this, but please help me here.
dew96/David
> >http://groups.google.com/group/the-sspc/subscribe?hl=en- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
back to the theory of a multiverse.
Now, suppose with the creation of a time machine you have traveled
forward in time and changed events. If those events are in the future,
would the events that were to happen after the point at which you
changed future history alter what happens in the future? Or becuase
these things haven't happened yet, would the events to come be able to
change what you have altered despite the fact they had not been
changed at the point you arrived? Would there be multiple paths at
which history could take which then happen in the multi-verses and
there would be multiple branches in the timeline of events that were
to happen? Is that what a multiverse is to help explain, the branching
of possible consequences being able to take place without breaking one
timeline and creating chaos in a world in which paradoxs could not
exist, which can only be explained by a multiverse cosmos? I think I
just confused myself writing this, but please help me here.
dew96/David
>
> - Show quoted text -
David R.
Apr 16, 2010, 1:06:05 PM4/16/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Right. Well, it is actually possible to travel forward in time, even only with the technology we have today - get on a spaceship, go really really fast (like 99.95% C fast), slow down, and come back to earth. I'm too lazy to do the math right now, but I could, and it'd be something like you being in the spaceship for a month, coming back to earth, and it's 5 years later. That's relativity. Einstein did make a time machine - that. It's actually been used, experimentally proven to work. Differences in nanoseconds, but even so - Time Travel! David, I don't think forward time travel is likely to cause a paradox.
Now, what's more difficult is time travel the other way. We know of no way it could happen at any macro level, and at quantum it's pretty meaningless anyway, if possible (Paul knows more specifics of that than I) We don't know if it's impossible yet - and never will, that would be a positive claim without evidence. I suppose, then, that this discussion is about what we would expect to happen if backwards time travel was made - without, of course, knowing anything about how it worked. We're pretty much shooting blind here, but whatever.
Anyway, have any of you (except Paul) seen Primer? it's a very confusing movie about realistic time travel, but I can make my point without it. This is what I was originally thinking of, a meta-timeline like this. (http://www.freeweb.hu/neuwanstein/primer_timeline.html) It's got different timelines made - an arguement could, and probably should, be made that they're branching off like Thuy said - but some are made 'later' than others. A 2-dimensional timeline, not 1 like we experience.
If anyone needs help understanding this, I can elaborate.
Paul - You're right, (reccomended) guidelines would be good, but we should wait till we have more people to decide on them, I think. Also, about your idea, the infinite tree of possible universes and all - That's a good one, one i've heard suggested before by a reputable source (forget what though), but it doesn't really seem to solve the problems of time travel, at all. It really only makes them a hell of a lot worse, as far as I can see.
--David(ellimistd)
Now, what's more difficult is time travel the other way. We know of no way it could happen at any macro level, and at quantum it's pretty meaningless anyway, if possible (Paul knows more specifics of that than I) We don't know if it's impossible yet - and never will, that would be a positive claim without evidence. I suppose, then, that this discussion is about what we would expect to happen if backwards time travel was made - without, of course, knowing anything about how it worked. We're pretty much shooting blind here, but whatever.
Anyway, have any of you (except Paul) seen Primer? it's a very confusing movie about realistic time travel, but I can make my point without it. This is what I was originally thinking of, a meta-timeline like this. (http://www.freeweb.hu/neuwanstein/primer_timeline.html) It's got different timelines made - an arguement could, and probably should, be made that they're branching off like Thuy said - but some are made 'later' than others. A 2-dimensional timeline, not 1 like we experience.
If anyone needs help understanding this, I can elaborate.
Paul - You're right, (reccomended) guidelines would be good, but we should wait till we have more people to decide on them, I think. Also, about your idea, the infinite tree of possible universes and all - That's a good one, one i've heard suggested before by a reputable source (forget what though), but it doesn't really seem to solve the problems of time travel, at all. It really only makes them a hell of a lot worse, as far as I can see.
--David(ellimistd)
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 16, 2010, 7:31:27 PM4/16/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Well, it seems like all controversy has now died down. Now, it seems like we are either at the point of explanation or we reached the impossible... we reached an agreement. If we continue, there may be a need of more people.
Now for David, I actually like the idea of no guidelines until later. To respond to what you said, though, there really is no solution to time travel. There can never be. If we don't time travel, then we never solved it. If we do, there are millions of more problems we can't solve. I say we choose the lesser.
Cheers,
Thuy
Now for David, I actually like the idea of no guidelines until later. To respond to what you said, though, there really is no solution to time travel. There can never be. If we don't time travel, then we never solved it. If we do, there are millions of more problems we can't solve. I say we choose the lesser.
Cheers,
Thuy
David Reich
Apr 16, 2010, 11:01:18 PM4/16/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
I don't think we've reached agreenent, I think Paul needs to say something again. His veiwpoint has not been fully argued. He really doesn't have any explanation of how his thing explains time tavel's paradoxes, at all.
Michael Oppenheimer
Apr 18, 2010, 12:43:06 AM4/18/10
to SSPC
Hi, first of all I'm not even close to as smart as the rest of you so
bear with me.
Maybe there are multiple universes that have (going back to Thuy's
idea) formed a sort of tree type thing, but instead of them being
formed when said decision is made, it is a fully grown tree and you
can travel on it as you wish. If you, say, (sticking with the tree
metaphor) cut off a limb, (prevent the decision from having to be
made) you completely destroy that universe and any universe that was
made as a result of it. So if time travel is possible, prepare to
dissapear at any mom--
jk.
And again, Hi Thuy!!!
bear with me.
Maybe there are multiple universes that have (going back to Thuy's
idea) formed a sort of tree type thing, but instead of them being
formed when said decision is made, it is a fully grown tree and you
can travel on it as you wish. If you, say, (sticking with the tree
metaphor) cut off a limb, (prevent the decision from having to be
made) you completely destroy that universe and any universe that was
made as a result of it. So if time travel is possible, prepare to
dissapear at any mom--
jk.
And again, Hi Thuy!!!
David Reich
Apr 18, 2010, 12:26:52 PM4/18/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Alright. First, aw drat, I seem to have messed up the formatting, sorry, I think I've fixed it. Might not have though. Makes it hard to veiw history, sorry.
Michael, everyone seems to think they're not as smart as us. Just read something you can cite incomprehensibly (GEB's a good one) and ignore David Horton, and you'll be fine.
This idea seems to be close to what Paul was proposing - that all possible eventualities already exist. My big problem with this idea - which is a very good one - is that it doesn't really solve the time travel problem. Imagine a very simplified version of this - a man having breakfast. He has to decided between cereal, toast, and eggs, if he has cereal, what cereal, does he want milk, if eggs, how to prepare the eggs, if he chooses an omelet (but _not_ if he chooses scrambled) what to put in it, if toast, what on it, etc. You can see how this tree would get very big, very fast. And that's your idea. Now, you account for one thing that might happen, removal of a choice - If I time travel back and steal his eggs, well, then I've 'cut off a branch' as you said. But what about adding an option? What if I go back, and give him pancakes? Does this just cause a giant new branch (with all possible sub-branches) to just pop into existance then and there?
--David Reich
Michael, everyone seems to think they're not as smart as us. Just read something you can cite incomprehensibly (GEB's a good one) and ignore David Horton, and you'll be fine.
This idea seems to be close to what Paul was proposing - that all possible eventualities already exist. My big problem with this idea - which is a very good one - is that it doesn't really solve the time travel problem. Imagine a very simplified version of this - a man having breakfast. He has to decided between cereal, toast, and eggs, if he has cereal, what cereal, does he want milk, if eggs, how to prepare the eggs, if he chooses an omelet (but _not_ if he chooses scrambled) what to put in it, if toast, what on it, etc. You can see how this tree would get very big, very fast. And that's your idea. Now, you account for one thing that might happen, removal of a choice - If I time travel back and steal his eggs, well, then I've 'cut off a branch' as you said. But what about adding an option? What if I go back, and give him pancakes? Does this just cause a giant new branch (with all possible sub-branches) to just pop into existance then and there?
--David Reich
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 18, 2010, 2:53:24 PM4/18/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Now the interesting is, even if you steal his eggs or give him pancakes these outcomes or universes still exist. They already existed even before you gave him pancakes or rudely stole his eggs. If there is the possibility of such an occurrence, there is a universe for that. Which brings us to the equally powerful but much forgotten theoretical invention, the inter-dimensional jumper. This invention kinda follows the idea of pre-existing universes and sort of "jumps from branch to branch" and enters different universes. Time travel is only the easiest invention to understand.
Cheers,
Thuy
Cheers,
Thuy
Michael Oppenheimer
Apr 18, 2010, 4:17:53 PM4/18/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Hmmm, I've never heard of the inter-dimensional jumper. Could you explain it in more detail?
David Reich
Apr 18, 2010, 9:20:15 PM4/18/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
No, Thuy, I don't think you fully understand. There _wasn't_ a possibility of him having had pancakes before. To make this more clear - in the future there'll be a new kind of breakfast food, called 'gralle' Now, there's no possible way the current breakfasting man could have gralle - so how would that path exist, if there's no way to access it? Unless the time traveller brings some with him, in which case that path would have to be followed. Are you saying the path already does exist? Because, not only in this future but also all those other branches an inter-dimensional jumper could get to, there'll be infinite types of breakfast. Thus necessitating infinite possible paths existant, even though only three could ever be followed unless a time-traveller happened.
I just think my metatimeline / branches only when necessary idea seems to handle that problem a lot better - branches only forking off when time travel causes them.
These idea seem not to be well understood, so if I can find some time during history class tommorow I'll sketch up some illustrations of what my idea is meant to be and how I understand your idea.
I just think my metatimeline / branches only when necessary idea seems to handle that problem a lot better - branches only forking off when time travel causes them.
These idea seem not to be well understood, so if I can find some time during history class tommorow I'll sketch up some illustrations of what my idea is meant to be and how I understand your idea.
nano
Apr 18, 2010, 9:44:40 PM4/18/10
to SSPC
well the thing with new universes just popping up out of nowhere is
that you would need a HUGE amount of energy to do so. unless it
ALREADY exists in some 'other dimension' (i say that in quotes because
i mean the mathematical idea of a dimension, ie. a direction) in which
case you need an infinite number of them or else the universe is not
complete (GEB- _Comprehensively_ Cited) which would mean it makes no
sense whatsoever and science and thinking in general is ultimately
useless. be careful of how you throw these propositions around :P
anyway, all these possibilities exists, including the ones where you
are 'randomly inserted' with memories indicating you think you have
traveled through time. its a big, complex system through many
directions and 'time travel' is not the way to think of it, although
for all intensive purposes thats whats happening.
anyway, back to making my original point
with the 'Breakfast Problem' as we shall call it:
point one: man has breakfast and three options.
point two: man has breakfast and two options
point three: man has breakfast and four options.
(these are just examples of an infinite number of possibilities)
now the number of realities that could converge on each of these
points is innumerable, even if we specify exactly who the man is and
what the options are (etc) (because each of these belongs to
individual threads)
say, however, that you 'start' in thread one and that because the man
had three options you had a bad day. as such, you invented a time
traveling machine to 'go back in time'. you steal one of the options,
he and you travel through point two, but you still have a bad day so
you decide to have one last go at it. you go back in time again, and
give him a fourth option- you all travel through point three and
everything is hunky dory.
so what happened? my idea is that matter flows through these points
like water through a river- and that each 'reality' is a river that
passes points on these graphs. the rivers can intersect, but only
rarely does water from one flow into another. when it does, it is
because of some buildup of energy in the thread- matter (human body,
in this case) is bumped out and into another thread (that intersected
it earlier on, in the case of time travel). but this thread behaves
just a little bit differently from here on out because of the 'extra
water'. of course its more complicated than water, as it is matter
with encoded information which effects the way it moves, etc. but
still.
this explanation would be aided by an illustration. idk if im going to
provide one though.
On Apr 18, 9:20 pm, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, Thuy, I don't think you fully understand. There _wasn't_ a possibility
> of him having had pancakes before. To make this more clear - in the future
> there'll be a new kind of breakfast food, called 'gralle' Now, there's no
> possible way the current breakfasting man could have gralle - so how would
> that path exist, if there's no way to access it? Unless the time traveller
> brings some with him, in which case that path would have to be followed.
> Are you saying the path already does exist? Because, not only in this
> future but also all those other branches an inter-dimensional jumper could
> get to, there'll be infinite types of breakfast. Thus necessitating
> infinite possible paths existant, even though only three could ever be
> followed unless a time-traveller happened.
>
> I just think my metatimeline / branches only when necessary idea seems to
> handle that problem a lot better - branches only forking off when time
> travel causes them.
>
> These idea seem not to be well understood, so if I can find some time during
> history class tommorow I'll sketch up some illustrations of what my idea is
> meant to be and how I understand your idea.
>
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Michael Oppenheimer
> <doomwolf...@gmail.com>wrote:
that you would need a HUGE amount of energy to do so. unless it
ALREADY exists in some 'other dimension' (i say that in quotes because
i mean the mathematical idea of a dimension, ie. a direction) in which
case you need an infinite number of them or else the universe is not
complete (GEB- _Comprehensively_ Cited) which would mean it makes no
sense whatsoever and science and thinking in general is ultimately
useless. be careful of how you throw these propositions around :P
anyway, all these possibilities exists, including the ones where you
are 'randomly inserted' with memories indicating you think you have
traveled through time. its a big, complex system through many
directions and 'time travel' is not the way to think of it, although
for all intensive purposes thats whats happening.
anyway, back to making my original point
with the 'Breakfast Problem' as we shall call it:
point one: man has breakfast and three options.
point two: man has breakfast and two options
point three: man has breakfast and four options.
(these are just examples of an infinite number of possibilities)
now the number of realities that could converge on each of these
points is innumerable, even if we specify exactly who the man is and
what the options are (etc) (because each of these belongs to
individual threads)
say, however, that you 'start' in thread one and that because the man
had three options you had a bad day. as such, you invented a time
traveling machine to 'go back in time'. you steal one of the options,
he and you travel through point two, but you still have a bad day so
you decide to have one last go at it. you go back in time again, and
give him a fourth option- you all travel through point three and
everything is hunky dory.
so what happened? my idea is that matter flows through these points
like water through a river- and that each 'reality' is a river that
passes points on these graphs. the rivers can intersect, but only
rarely does water from one flow into another. when it does, it is
because of some buildup of energy in the thread- matter (human body,
in this case) is bumped out and into another thread (that intersected
it earlier on, in the case of time travel). but this thread behaves
just a little bit differently from here on out because of the 'extra
water'. of course its more complicated than water, as it is matter
with encoded information which effects the way it moves, etc. but
still.
this explanation would be aided by an illustration. idk if im going to
provide one though.
On Apr 18, 9:20 pm, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, Thuy, I don't think you fully understand. There _wasn't_ a possibility
> of him having had pancakes before. To make this more clear - in the future
> there'll be a new kind of breakfast food, called 'gralle' Now, there's no
> possible way the current breakfasting man could have gralle - so how would
> that path exist, if there's no way to access it? Unless the time traveller
> brings some with him, in which case that path would have to be followed.
> Are you saying the path already does exist? Because, not only in this
> future but also all those other branches an inter-dimensional jumper could
> get to, there'll be infinite types of breakfast. Thus necessitating
> infinite possible paths existant, even though only three could ever be
> followed unless a time-traveller happened.
>
> I just think my metatimeline / branches only when necessary idea seems to
> handle that problem a lot better - branches only forking off when time
> travel causes them.
>
> These idea seem not to be well understood, so if I can find some time during
> history class tommorow I'll sketch up some illustrations of what my idea is
> meant to be and how I understand your idea.
>
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Michael Oppenheimer
>
>
>
> > Hmmm, I've never heard of the inter-dimensional jumper. Could you explain
> > it in more detail?
>
> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
>
> >> Now the interesting is, even if you steal his eggs or give him pancakes
> >> these outcomes or universes still exist. They already existed even before
> >> you gave him pancakes or rudely stole his eggs. If there is the possibility
> >> of such an occurrence, there is a universe for that. Which brings us to the
> >> equally powerful but much forgotten theoretical invention, the
> >> inter-dimensional jumper. This invention kinda follows the idea of
> >> pre-existing universes and sort of "jumps from branch to branch" and enters
> >> different universes. Time travel is only the easiest invention to
> >> understand.
>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Thuy
>
>
>
> > Hmmm, I've never heard of the inter-dimensional jumper. Could you explain
> > it in more detail?
>
> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
>
> >> Now the interesting is, even if you steal his eggs or give him pancakes
> >> these outcomes or universes still exist. They already existed even before
> >> you gave him pancakes or rudely stole his eggs. If there is the possibility
> >> of such an occurrence, there is a universe for that. Which brings us to the
> >> equally powerful but much forgotten theoretical invention, the
> >> inter-dimensional jumper. This invention kinda follows the idea of
> >> pre-existing universes and sort of "jumps from branch to branch" and enters
> >> different universes. Time travel is only the easiest invention to
> >> understand.
>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Thuy
>
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 18, 2010, 10:17:37 PM4/18/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
I understand what I understand. To me, as long as there is a chance, there is a dimension for it. Right now, there are infinite dimensions of you right now reading this email and then interrupted by some random time traveler or being interrupted by something affected by another decision. Since this isn't happening (or maybe it is), we live in the dimension where this hasn't happened. Since there exists that dimension, though, there are multiple universes and therefore, the multiverse theory.
Now for the inter-dimensional jumper or transporter, it's a theoretical invention (such as the time machine) that takes you from this dimension to another one that's in the same time period but something is different such as a decision. To relate it back to the breakfast man, he made such an invention and went to a parallel universe where he was visited by a time-traveler and is now eating "gralle". This invention allowed him to travel to another "branch" that's at the same distance as when he traveled.
I apologize if either I don't make sense or I don't understand.
Cheers
Now for the inter-dimensional jumper or transporter, it's a theoretical invention (such as the time machine) that takes you from this dimension to another one that's in the same time period but something is different such as a decision. To relate it back to the breakfast man, he made such an invention and went to a parallel universe where he was visited by a time-traveler and is now eating "gralle". This invention allowed him to travel to another "branch" that's at the same distance as when he traveled.
I apologize if either I don't make sense or I don't understand.
Cheers
David McCoy
Apr 18, 2010, 10:47:33 PM4/18/10
to SSPC
I think I am beginning to really get this now, thank you for your
explanation Thuy. But, I just realized something.
Could there be multiple multiverses?
See, with the idea of an inter-dimensional jumper, there becomes an
issue. If there are supposed to be muiltiverses to explain the
branching of possible events, then what about when the jumper goes to
another dimension? Then he/she would have created a new branch which
couldn't happen or not happen in another dimension because the act was
outside of dimensional boundries. Therefore, the jumper would have to
have jumped in a certain multiverse, and there would be other infinite
multiverses where he/she did not jump dimension and/or jumpd a
different dimension. This could not happen in just a dimesion since it
breaks the boundries of one. Tell me if I made any sense on that
point.
Cheerz.
explanation Thuy. But, I just realized something.
Could there be multiple multiverses?
See, with the idea of an inter-dimensional jumper, there becomes an
issue. If there are supposed to be muiltiverses to explain the
branching of possible events, then what about when the jumper goes to
another dimension? Then he/she would have created a new branch which
couldn't happen or not happen in another dimension because the act was
outside of dimensional boundries. Therefore, the jumper would have to
have jumped in a certain multiverse, and there would be other infinite
multiverses where he/she did not jump dimension and/or jumpd a
different dimension. This could not happen in just a dimesion since it
breaks the boundries of one. Tell me if I made any sense on that
point.
Cheerz.
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 18, 2010, 11:07:37 PM4/18/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
See, David R.? Someone understands. But then again, do any of us understand this subject without any professional studying?
I think that if the inter-dimensional transporter is created, the dimensional boundaries are destroyed just like how the time machine destroys the fabric of time. Once that person "jumps" into another dimension, all physics, science, logic, and maybe sanity are gone. If the jumper goes into another dimension, there he/she may jump into a dimension. Although, in doing so another dimension is created where he/she jumps into a dimension where he/she has jumped into and is still there and creating multiple versions of the same person jumping into the same dimension. This then creates an inter-dimensional paradox and then the universes destroys itself.
So the bottom line is, don't create one.
Cheers
I think that if the inter-dimensional transporter is created, the dimensional boundaries are destroyed just like how the time machine destroys the fabric of time. Once that person "jumps" into another dimension, all physics, science, logic, and maybe sanity are gone. If the jumper goes into another dimension, there he/she may jump into a dimension. Although, in doing so another dimension is created where he/she jumps into a dimension where he/she has jumped into and is still there and creating multiple versions of the same person jumping into the same dimension. This then creates an inter-dimensional paradox and then the universes destroys itself.
So the bottom line is, don't create one.
Cheers
David McCoy
Apr 19, 2010, 5:50:26 PM4/19/10
to SSPC
But then we're running into a problem. If we have to have a multiverse
to explain how time travel wouldn't create a universe-collapsing
paradox, then we must have mulitple multiverses to fix the problem of
paradacies of the multi-dimensional kind. But theen we would run into
the problem of people jumping through multiverses and creating those
paradicies. Which then gets really confusing. So, I get back to my
point; with all these paradoxes and problems, can time travel even be
acheived without the complete collapse of all reality and space? Would
time, which is irrelevant anyway, be completely broken to the point
that all time is at one point, that all light would exist at one time,
with no lapse between lightyears of space? There are so many holes in
this theory that are confusing. Help me.
Tears
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
to explain how time travel wouldn't create a universe-collapsing
paradox, then we must have mulitple multiverses to fix the problem of
paradacies of the multi-dimensional kind. But theen we would run into
the problem of people jumping through multiverses and creating those
paradicies. Which then gets really confusing. So, I get back to my
point; with all these paradoxes and problems, can time travel even be
acheived without the complete collapse of all reality and space? Would
time, which is irrelevant anyway, be completely broken to the point
that all time is at one point, that all light would exist at one time,
with no lapse between lightyears of space? There are so many holes in
this theory that are confusing. Help me.
Tears
David Reich
Apr 19, 2010, 7:41:36 PM4/19/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
David - Either I didn't understand you at all, or you're wrong - the idea is that the 'tree' would be infinite, encompassing every possible (and impossible) eventuality. For example, after any given moment, there are infinite possible branches in which a bottle of gralle appeared in each possible distinct location. And another infinite group in which a stack of pancakes did. And another in which they both did, in seperate locations. And another in which the bottle of Gralle did, but is oriented differently. To show you how many branches this is, don't just think of it as infinite - think of it as an infinite number of an infinite number of an infinite number (etc times infinity) of possible branches. There is literally nothing a multiverse jumper could do that is not already a branch.
As for the idea that there are multiple multiverses, isn't that a bit meaningless? This multiverse contains every possible state the universe could ever be in. How could a separate multiverse at all differ?
As for Thuy's pessimism - as I see it, the entire point of this excercise is to try to theorize about a way to prevent that happening - although, however the universe actually works, that probably would.
As for the idea that there are multiple multiverses, isn't that a bit meaningless? This multiverse contains every possible state the universe could ever be in. How could a separate multiverse at all differ?
As for Thuy's pessimism - as I see it, the entire point of this excercise is to try to theorize about a way to prevent that happening - although, however the universe actually works, that probably would.
David M.
Apr 19, 2010, 8:09:25 PM4/19/10
to SSPC
I have but one word: nvmd.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 19, 2010, 8:10:00 PM4/19/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
If have a few points to cover. First of which, "gralle" is a cereal not a drink (at least in this theoretical universe)
Second, the mutliple multiverses theory is a bit redundant.
Third, I really can't find a logical explanation behind universe jumping without an inter-dimensional paradox ensuing (yes, inter-dimensional paradox since time isn't the factor)
Fourth, a weird thing I noticed is that the sponsored links on the right are listed:
They're on to us!
Cheers
Second, the mutliple multiverses theory is a bit redundant.
Third, I really can't find a logical explanation behind universe jumping without an inter-dimensional paradox ensuing (yes, inter-dimensional paradox since time isn't the factor)
Fourth, a weird thing I noticed is that the sponsored links on the right are listed:
Tempus Fugitives
Groundbreaking Time Travel Series is Now a Stunning Graphic Novel
New Book - Physics Theory
"The Interconnectedness of Reality" Ideas on Relativity and Gravity
Hypergeometrical Universe
Time Quantization and Fat Electron HyperSpherical Shock-Wave Universe
They're on to us!
Cheers
David Reich
Apr 19, 2010, 8:18:37 PM4/19/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
How do you know? I didn't say it was a drink, I just said it came in a bottle!
wait, how would the dimensional jumping actually cause a paradox? I mean, there's nothing that can be done by IDJ (inter dimensional jumping) that can't be done by time travel - both time travel and IDJ can add or remove things from the universe as it appears to us without following the laws of physics, but there's really no other difference between them.
wait, how would the dimensional jumping actually cause a paradox? I mean, there's nothing that can be done by IDJ (inter dimensional jumping) that can't be done by time travel - both time travel and IDJ can add or remove things from the universe as it appears to us without following the laws of physics, but there's really no other difference between them.
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 19, 2010, 8:24:22 PM4/19/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Well, through inter-dimensional jumping, you may end up in a universe where another you has jumped to. On second thought, I guess nothing bad can happen. Only thousands or millions of yourself inside one universe. The same can happen with time traveling too. The universe is saved! Without ever being in danger!
Cheers to our saving of the world!
Cheers to our saving of the world!
David M.
Apr 20, 2010, 10:36:14 PM4/20/10
to SSPC
I think I see what your saying here. So basically if there is an
action that could mess up the fabric of the dimensions there would be
another dimension that fixes that mistake because of the infinite
possibility that would happen. So basically we've wrapped it up. The
theory of the multiverse according to the SSPC:
It contains infinite branches of a timeline that allow all possible
actions to occur that cancel out any possibility of a paradox.
Actions don't change the outcome of events but simply create a new
branched dimension for the outcome.
Time is relative. duh.
Branches have already been formed before a decision is made, it is a
Inter dimensional jumpers are a pain in the butt.
Gralle is a cereal that comes in a bottle.
On Apr 19, 7:24 pm, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> Well, through inter-dimensional jumping, you may end up in a universe where
> another you has jumped to. On second thought, I guess nothing bad can
> happen. Only thousands or millions of yourself inside one universe. The same
> can happen with time traveling too. The universe is saved! Without ever
> being in danger!
>
> Cheers to our saving of the world!
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:18 PM, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How do you know? I didn't say it was a drink, I just said it came in a
> > bottle!
>
> > wait, how would the dimensional jumping actually cause a paradox? I mean,
> > there's nothing that can be done by IDJ (inter dimensional jumping) that
> > can't be done by time travel - both time travel and IDJ can add or remove
> > things from the universe as it appears to us without following the laws of
> > physics, but there's really no other difference between them.
>
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
>
> >> If have a few points to cover. First of which, "gralle" is a cereal not a
> >> drink (at least in this theoretical universe)
>
> >> Second, the mutliple multiverses theory is a bit redundant.
>
> >> Third, I really can't find a logical explanation behind universe jumping
> >> without an inter-dimensional paradox ensuing (yes, inter-dimensional paradox
> >> since time isn't the factor)
>
> >> Fourth, a weird thing I noticed is that the sponsored links on the right
> >> are listed:
>
> >> Tempus Fugitives<http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=BVb36Ee3MS9GAF6HOjQ...>
> >> New Book - Physics Theory<http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=B9Z4YEe3MS9GAF6HOjQ...>
> >> Timeline Space Travel<http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=BHqndEe3MS9GAF6HOjQ...>
> >> Hypergeometrical Universe<http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=By5OLEe3MS9GAF6HOjQ...>
> ...
>
> read more »
action that could mess up the fabric of the dimensions there would be
another dimension that fixes that mistake because of the infinite
possibility that would happen. So basically we've wrapped it up. The
theory of the multiverse according to the SSPC:
It contains infinite branches of a timeline that allow all possible
actions to occur that cancel out any possibility of a paradox.
Actions don't change the outcome of events but simply create a new
branched dimension for the outcome.
Time is relative. duh.
Branches have already been formed before a decision is made, it is a
fully grown tree and you can travel on it as you wish.
Multiple multiverses do not exist.
Inter dimensional jumpers are a pain in the butt.
Gralle is a cereal that comes in a bottle.
On Apr 19, 7:24 pm, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> Well, through inter-dimensional jumping, you may end up in a universe where
> another you has jumped to. On second thought, I guess nothing bad can
> happen. Only thousands or millions of yourself inside one universe. The same
> can happen with time traveling too. The universe is saved! Without ever
> being in danger!
>
> Cheers to our saving of the world!
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:18 PM, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How do you know? I didn't say it was a drink, I just said it came in a
> > bottle!
>
> > wait, how would the dimensional jumping actually cause a paradox? I mean,
> > there's nothing that can be done by IDJ (inter dimensional jumping) that
> > can't be done by time travel - both time travel and IDJ can add or remove
> > things from the universe as it appears to us without following the laws of
> > physics, but there's really no other difference between them.
>
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
>
> >> If have a few points to cover. First of which, "gralle" is a cereal not a
> >> drink (at least in this theoretical universe)
>
> >> Second, the mutliple multiverses theory is a bit redundant.
>
> >> Third, I really can't find a logical explanation behind universe jumping
> >> without an inter-dimensional paradox ensuing (yes, inter-dimensional paradox
> >> since time isn't the factor)
>
> >> Fourth, a weird thing I noticed is that the sponsored links on the right
> >> are listed:
>
> >> Groundbreaking Time Travel Series is Now a Stunning Graphic Novel
> >>www.MasteringTheNet.com<http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=BVb36Ee3MS9GAF6HOjQ...>
> >> New Book - Physics Theory<http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=B9Z4YEe3MS9GAF6HOjQ...>
> >> "The Interconnectedness of Reality" Ideas on Relativity and Gravity
> >>www.psychobiophysics.org<http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=B9Z4YEe3MS9GAF6HOjQ...>
> >> Timeline Space Travel<http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=BHqndEe3MS9GAF6HOjQ...>
> >> Fares Just Dropped!
> >> Flights Starting at $49*
> >> LowFares.com/Cheap-Flights<http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=BHqndEe3MS9GAF6HOjQ...>
> >> Flights Starting at $49*
> >> Hypergeometrical Universe<http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=By5OLEe3MS9GAF6HOjQ...>
> >> Time Quantization and Fat Electron HyperSpherical Shock-Wave Universe
> >> hypergeometricaluniverse.com<http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=By5OLEe3MS9GAF6HOjQ...>
>
> >> They're on to us!
>
> >> Cheers
>
> >> They're on to us!
>
> >> Cheers
>
> >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:41 PM, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> David - Either I didn't understand you at all, or you're wrong - the idea
> >>> is that the 'tree' would be infinite, encompassing every possible (and
> >>> impossible) eventuality. For example, after any given moment, there are
> >>> infinite possible branches in which a bottle of gralle appeared in each
> >>> possible distinct location. And another infinite group in which a stack of
> >>> pancakes did. And another in which they both did, in seperate locations.
> >>> And another in which the bottle of Gralle did, but is oriented differently.
> >>> To show you how many branches this is, don't just think of it as infinite
> >>> - think of it as an infinite number of an infinite number of an infinite
> >>> number (etc times infinity) of possible branches. There is literally
> >>> nothing a multiverse jumper could do that is not already a branch.
>
> >>> As for the idea that there are multiple multiverses, isn't that a bit
> >>> meaningless? This multiverse contains every possible state the universe
> >>> could ever be in. How could a separate multiverse at all differ?
>
> >>> As for Thuy's pessimism - as I see it, the entire point of this excercise
> >>> is to try to theorize about a way to prevent that happening - although,
> >>> however the universe actually works, that probably would.
>
>
> >>> David - Either I didn't understand you at all, or you're wrong - the idea
> >>> is that the 'tree' would be infinite, encompassing every possible (and
> >>> impossible) eventuality. For example, after any given moment, there are
> >>> infinite possible branches in which a bottle of gralle appeared in each
> >>> possible distinct location. And another infinite group in which a stack of
> >>> pancakes did. And another in which they both did, in seperate locations.
> >>> And another in which the bottle of Gralle did, but is oriented differently.
> >>> To show you how many branches this is, don't just think of it as infinite
> >>> - think of it as an infinite number of an infinite number of an infinite
> >>> number (etc times infinity) of possible branches. There is literally
> >>> nothing a multiverse jumper could do that is not already a branch.
>
> >>> As for the idea that there are multiple multiverses, isn't that a bit
> >>> meaningless? This multiverse contains every possible state the universe
> >>> could ever be in. How could a separate multiverse at all differ?
>
> >>> As for Thuy's pessimism - as I see it, the entire point of this excercise
> >>> is to try to theorize about a way to prevent that happening - although,
> >>> however the universe actually works, that probably would.
>
>
> read more »
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 20, 2010, 11:29:45 PM4/20/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
That's a good summary except that inter-dimensional transportation doesn't cause a paradox so it's not a pain in the butt. I figured it out.
Can we say that this discussion is now over?
And I want to have some gralle.
Cheers
Can we say that this discussion is now over?
And I want to have some gralle.
Cheers
Andrew Towle
Apr 21, 2010, 7:49:21 AM4/21/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Wait, I have been reading what you all have been saying. Read the book How to Build a Time Machine by Paul Davies. I read it when I was like, ten, and I understood most of it. It says a lot that either you may or may not know, and it may answer some of your questions.--
Andy T.
Andy T.
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 21, 2010, 7:53:01 AM4/21/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Well, what are some of the concepts? Please share.
Who are you?
Who are you?
Andrew Towle
Apr 21, 2010, 6:06:13 PM4/21/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
1. I am a good friend of dmmcoy96's. I owe it to him of telling me of this philosophy group.
2. How to Build A Time Machine- A book that discusses the concept of Albert Einstein's theory of Relativity. It talks about it in great detail, but I can't remember much more from when I read the book.
Andy T.
dew96 (saucy)
Apr 21, 2010, 6:09:28 PM4/21/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Andrew you need to argue a point or else its pointless to post anything. Please contribute instead of listing arbitrary books you can't recall statements from.
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 21, 2010, 6:13:18 PM4/21/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Well, he is new, or what many call a "newb". Although, yes we do need to post new ideas or concepts or we can discuss them.
To get started on a new one, what happens if we time travel to the beginning of time? How about the end? What will be see?
Cheers
To get started on a new one, what happens if we time travel to the beginning of time? How about the end? What will be see?
Cheers
David Reich
Apr 21, 2010, 7:43:14 PM4/21/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
A correction, possibly just in terminology, to one thing first - time travel does not create a branch, it just follows a different one. Everything that has and could ever possibly happen is predetermined, basically, but we can choose which paths we follow (or not - another debate)
Andrew - Nice to meet you, I'm David Reich, the one who started the mailing list and thus de facto tyrant around here. That book sounds very interesting, how long is it? I don't have much time to read stuff lately I'm afraid, but if it manages to sum up the ideas in a hundred or two pages, that'd definitely be worth it. Also, if you have any friends who you think would like this other than David, please invite them.
David: I notice your post doesn't contain an argument or anything of worth either. Just felt I'd point that out.
Thuy: Well, those questions seem more in the domain of physics/astronomy than philosophy - they're the kind that there can actually be evidence for and against, rather than just epistemological reasoning. If you want to try go ahead, but I expect the debate to involve a lot more citation. Wikipedia's fine!
One interesting and philosophical thing here - could there really be a beginning of time? That would require the tree to just 'start' somewhere, which seems odd. The alternative, of course, is it being infinitely long as well as 'wide'. Of course, it's already infinitely long on the end it's going to, in at least some branches, due to those being the ones where all the black holes causing the Big Crunch spontaneously disappear.
Andrew - Nice to meet you, I'm David Reich, the one who started the mailing list and thus de facto tyrant around here. That book sounds very interesting, how long is it? I don't have much time to read stuff lately I'm afraid, but if it manages to sum up the ideas in a hundred or two pages, that'd definitely be worth it. Also, if you have any friends who you think would like this other than David, please invite them.
David: I notice your post doesn't contain an argument or anything of worth either. Just felt I'd point that out.
Thuy: Well, those questions seem more in the domain of physics/astronomy than philosophy - they're the kind that there can actually be evidence for and against, rather than just epistemological reasoning. If you want to try go ahead, but I expect the debate to involve a lot more citation. Wikipedia's fine!
One interesting and philosophical thing here - could there really be a beginning of time? That would require the tree to just 'start' somewhere, which seems odd. The alternative, of course, is it being infinitely long as well as 'wide'. Of course, it's already infinitely long on the end it's going to, in at least some branches, due to those being the ones where all the black holes causing the Big Crunch spontaneously disappear.
Andrew Towle
Apr 21, 2010, 10:02:31 PM4/21/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
1.The book How to Build A Time Machine is about 128 pages long. Quite short, but also quite thoughtful and interesting.
2.Yes, I do believe that there was a start to the universe, atleast as far as we know. According to the Bible, we do not have any record of time before the creation of man. So, various questions are then brought up. Was our universe here before humanity was? If so, how long? Does the Bible tell the correct story? Did God create our universe? Although, the Bible is not everyone's theory, but it is mine. That's all.
Cheerios
Andy T.
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 21, 2010, 10:23:09 PM4/21/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Well my theory is "Buddha is cool". I'm Buddhist so religion is irrelevant to me.
Now to appeal to the atheists, scientists believe that the world was created where there were no continents, no water, and no atmosphere and was very hot. If we time traveled to such as time, would we live to tell the tale? How can we? How do we know if people didn't make time machines already and by testing it, they went back to that same time and died?
Cheers (not cheers, cheerz, or Cheerios)
Now to appeal to the atheists, scientists believe that the world was created where there were no continents, no water, and no atmosphere and was very hot. If we time traveled to such as time, would we live to tell the tale? How can we? How do we know if people didn't make time machines already and by testing it, they went back to that same time and died?
Cheers (not cheers, cheerz, or Cheerios)
John Hawley
Apr 21, 2010, 10:34:57 PM4/21/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
In the thought of time travel itself the person in the future is going back in time and often will see itself therefore posing the question of is life continuous in that for every second you have a different being in such that you can see yourself as a double if you go back in time or is life singular in that life is two dimentional so that we would go missing in the future if we went back to the past or does time stand still and wait for you to get back?
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 21, 2010, 10:40:11 PM4/21/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
It all depends on what you do in the present and when you go back. Look above to see our multiverse discussions if you can.
Cheers
Cheers
dew96 (saucy)
Apr 21, 2010, 10:48:24 PM4/21/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Well first of all I'd like to forgive Andrew and David for my pointless post, of which I wrote for no real reason.
Now, about what John said about time standing still. In this theory of a multiverse, there would be multiple branches that existed that had events such as you not returning, you returning, or more than just you returning. Time would not need to "wait" on you because it has predetermined all the possible branches your actions could take. Also, since we are free to travel across the branches with the choices we make (what I mean is that we don't create new branches we simply travel on pre-made ones) we could, if we could travel time, meet a duplicate of ourselves while traveling time, right? If you go back even a minute before you traveled back in time you would see yourself preparing to travel back, right?
Deers.
David Reich
Apr 22, 2010, 4:27:07 PM4/22/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
John, I realise you're a bit late to the party, but please try to read what we've done so far before contributing, to avoid redundancy. If you don't get the history as part of the email chain, it's at http://groups.google.com/group/the-sspc. Yes, you would see yourself preparing to travel, but the thing is (as observed by you) you other self, the one preparing, would be able to stop preparing - and not cause a paradox!
Andrew, I'll likely read it if I can find a copy then, sounds good.
As for the religious stuff, I'm an atheist, but I'm trying to work my way through the bible - I'm using an unusual translation, but it's very good, and apparently there's some dispute over the hebrew word 'bara', and if it could mean 'separated' rather than 'created'. see this article. If so, Genesis could by taken to mean that reality existed before God (God, presumably, would exist outside of this multiverse - possibly in a multiverse of His own, but that's a matter for the theologians).
Thuy, note that time travel doesn't necessarily have to be a person - it could just be an unmanned probe or something
This makes me think of something though - it's relatively simple to travel backwards along such a tree, there being only one direction you can move in, but going, well, back to the future would be harder - you've got all these branches, and you can't do the 'mundane' time travel of very-fast-spaceship + relativity to get there, because you arriving in the first place will cause it to be a different branch.
Andrew, I'll likely read it if I can find a copy then, sounds good.
As for the religious stuff, I'm an atheist, but I'm trying to work my way through the bible - I'm using an unusual translation, but it's very good, and apparently there's some dispute over the hebrew word 'bara', and if it could mean 'separated' rather than 'created'. see this article. If so, Genesis could by taken to mean that reality existed before God (God, presumably, would exist outside of this multiverse - possibly in a multiverse of His own, but that's a matter for the theologians).
Thuy, note that time travel doesn't necessarily have to be a person - it could just be an unmanned probe or something
This makes me think of something though - it's relatively simple to travel backwards along such a tree, there being only one direction you can move in, but going, well, back to the future would be harder - you've got all these branches, and you can't do the 'mundane' time travel of very-fast-spaceship + relativity to get there, because you arriving in the first place will cause it to be a different branch.
Andrew Towle
Apr 22, 2010, 4:32:36 PM4/22/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
well, there would have been another branch in which they would have lived--
Andy T.
Andy T.
Andrew Towle
Apr 22, 2010, 4:40:24 PM4/22/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
1. That last thing I said was to Thuy.
2. If there are predetermined branches, each with different actions we would take, wouldn't only one of those branches be used? Because we can only go down one branch, that is unless we went back in time and went down another branch. But, that would be a whole other branch in itself, would it not?
3. Thuy: Would you mind of I responded to your beliefs of Buddhism? I can't gaurantee that I would say things that you would want to hear, but I would love to discuss religious matters with you.
Andy T.
David Reich
Apr 22, 2010, 5:32:36 PM4/22/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
2. well, it's more complicated than that. Each and every branch is 'followed' just as much as any other, but we, our brains, etc, only remember one branch - the same goes for us in any other branch, though.
3.You guys having a religious discussion would be great, if both want, but please do so in another thread.
3.You guys having a religious discussion would be great, if both want, but please do so in another thread.
Andrew Towle
Apr 22, 2010, 6:20:07 PM4/22/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Well, theoretically, yes David.--
Andy T.
Andy T.
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 22, 2010, 6:29:31 PM4/22/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Well, you can start a religious discussion but it won't go long with me. Being buddhist is more of a way of life rather than a religion to push upon others.
Now, there must already be a branch where our probe or a person went back in time and survived.
Cheers
Now, there must already be a branch where our probe or a person went back in time and survived.
Cheers
Quoc-Thuy Vuong
Apr 22, 2010, 6:31:17 PM4/22/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
To extend on the branch, since that dimension knows the past they may have gone back and restarted time so that dimension is much more advanced than ours. What do you think?
Cheers
Cheers
David Reich
Apr 23, 2010, 5:15:54 PM4/23/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
I don't know if I've fully impressed you with how much variation there is in this tree. This is an incredibly over-simplified version, but this should describe it:
Take the entire universe as a huge 3-D Cartesian grid. Each point on the grid (4.67x10⁷²⁹¹ , 7.354x10⁴²⁹, 6.4135x10³²⁷), for example, is the space occupied by a single atom. The tree contains every possible combination of any atom, with any energy state, in any of those positions. Including a universe made of pure sodium. A universe containing exactly 42 giant floating pyramids of krypton and one of neon. A universe with a single flat plane extending out (seemingly) forever, with a table in the middle and 6 people and a horse sitting at it. A universe containing New York City tiled over and over again in every direction, with a single giant altiods tin in the middle. That same one again, except every person alive has exactly the personality of Obama.
THAT is how what this theory entails
Take the entire universe as a huge 3-D Cartesian grid. Each point on the grid (4.67x10⁷²⁹¹ , 7.354x10⁴²⁹, 6.4135x10³²⁷), for example, is the space occupied by a single atom. The tree contains every possible combination of any atom, with any energy state, in any of those positions. Including a universe made of pure sodium. A universe containing exactly 42 giant floating pyramids of krypton and one of neon. A universe with a single flat plane extending out (seemingly) forever, with a table in the middle and 6 people and a horse sitting at it. A universe containing New York City tiled over and over again in every direction, with a single giant altiods tin in the middle. That same one again, except every person alive has exactly the personality of Obama.
THAT is how what this theory entails
David Reich
Apr 27, 2010, 8:38:29 PM4/27/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Anyway, Hopefully you all understand that now, but I've been thinking about it a bit more, and there are some problems. I mean, theoretically it's fine, but experimentally, it doesn't work.
Now that's I've gotten you all thinking I've discovered time travel and tested it, here: First, make the assumption that any branching that causes something completely impossible (mainly, matter appearing inside other matter) causes that branch to break or something. Next, create a vacuum. I'll actually do the math for this one - assuming it's a two-liter bottle (at STP), that could fit 5.37x10^24 atoms of gas. Now, consider only the diatomic gases (7) and noble gases (6), as well as empty (vacuum). That's 14 states - and there are a hell of a lot more gases, but we'll just use those for now. Multiply that (14) by the number of possible atoms in the container (at STP, remember, there's every possibility that they'd be slightly more or less dense or hot, leading to near-infinite other possibilities). and you get 7.52x10^25 different possible states the bottle could contain. That's a huge number, but it might not seem that bad. Thing is, it's the number of possible states at any moment. Leave the bottle for 5 minutes and come back - there were 5.565x10^45 plank times in that 5 minutes. That means there were 4.184x10^71 possible states that bottle could have been in. That's an absurd number. Completely incomprehensible. Let me put a bet on what happened to your bottle though - it stayed in a perfect vacuum the entire time. Probabilistically, that's completely insane. And yet it'll happen every time. That doesn't seem very consistent with out theory, does it?
(SSPC - note: please, when replying to this or anything else, delete the copy of this message. Send out your copy with only your words on it, otherwise we get stuffed with extra text)
Michael Oppenheimer
Apr 27, 2010, 9:29:07 PM4/27/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
hehehe, altoids.
The way I thought of this theory was just regarding Earth, but obviously it is way more than that. What would the rules be for travelling in between these worlds? We've established that you can travel in time, but can you travel in space as well? They are obviously not mutually inclusive or you wouldn't be able to control where you were travelling to.
The way I thought of this theory was just regarding Earth, but obviously it is way more than that. What would the rules be for travelling in between these worlds? We've established that you can travel in time, but can you travel in space as well? They are obviously not mutually inclusive or you wouldn't be able to control where you were travelling to.
Michael Oppenheimer
Apr 27, 2010, 9:34:08 PM4/27/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
and sorry about the not deleting thing.
Why would it not have stayed in the vacuum? I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying, David. Sorry, but could you explain it in a different way?
Why would it not have stayed in the vacuum? I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying, David. Sorry, but could you explain it in a different way?
Andrew Towle
Apr 27, 2010, 9:44:48 PM4/27/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
I'm sorry David, but I don't think I understand what you said, either.
--
Andy T.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Michael Oppenheimer <doomw...@gmail.com> wrote:
and sorry about the not deleting thing.
Why would it not have stayed in the vacuum? I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying, David. Sorry, but could you explain it in a different way?
Andy T.
dew96 (saucy)
Apr 27, 2010, 9:50:44 PM4/27/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Oh, I GET IT! So what your saying is, if the bottle is in a vaccum, there are 4.184x10^71 states it could have been in, which proves the infinite amout of possibilities a multiverse would take (bye the way, nice altoid new york universe). is that what the numbers mean?
Andrew Towle
Apr 27, 2010, 9:51:55 PM4/27/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
So confused....--
Andy T.
Andy T.
David Reich
Apr 27, 2010, 10:20:46 PM4/27/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
Sorry about the big numbers, guys. Yeah, there were (according to this theory) 4.184x10^71 states it could have been in during the last 5 minutes. It was in one of those. According to our theory, watching an empty (vacuum I mean) bottle, gases should appear and disappear inside it spontaneously. They don't, so either we're really incredibly lucky or the theory doesn't really work.
Also, if you're not understanding where the gases come from: The idea of this theory is to account for time travel transferring matter to a different time. This would cause branching of the universe. The thing is, these branches can't be spontaneously generated (that would require insane amounts of energy just floating around), so they must be pre-existing. However, branches can't just be placed where time travel would force them to (how could that be predicted?) so they have to be absolutely anywhere theoretically possible. Now, while the branching theory works admirably without time travel - to compensate for quantum randomness etc - time travel would, in theory, let any molecule materialize where- and when-ever, because it could have been sent there by time travel (or inter-dimensional jumping).
The way I'm theorizing consciousness works in this is that our brains, containing memories and so on, branch as well, causing copies of us to exist in each branch. Now, for me writing this email to have gone down the branch in which nothing wierd happened to the bottle is insanely unlikely. So unlikely that it practically proves that this theory isn't actually working in practice.
You probably still don't understand it, so I'll say it again tommorow when I'm less tired.
Andrew Towle
Apr 28, 2010, 7:41:56 AM4/28/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
How would us simply thinking or remembering something cause another branch to be formed?
--
Andy T.
Paul Gully
Apr 28, 2010, 5:53:05 PM4/28/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
hmm, i hadnt thought of that. however this whole mucking about with 'multiverses' i think is only to compensate for our fixed perception. if we could deal with it entirely ananthopicly we wouldn't need all of this, i think.
BUT also, you COULD say that with the 'infinite universes' thing solves this problem, as well. no new universes need to be created, they are just there, and matter is moving through them. Anathem readers, think Hemn Space and Universe Curves.
more things have probably been said, since i started typing this last night and never got around to sending it, so expect another responce within soon
Varga Marton
Apr 29, 2010, 9:23:33 PM4/29/10
to SSPC
If I hop back to my wormhole theory.. *hop hop*..
First of all: Forward time travel is impossible and will be for MANY
years to come.
Backwards time travel can be accomplished easily. (See time-traveling
article and look at my post.)
The thing is, you can't choose how far you go back. Speed might be a
factor, and the wormholes location, too,
but there is no way out. Going back through the wormhole should cause
you to go EVEN further back. Imagine. Going from
Computers to Model T's. O_o
David M.
May 1, 2010, 10:45:01 AM5/1/10
to SSPC
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Worm3.jpg
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/spacetime.jpg
Some pics that back up Marton's theory (or to say, his dad's physics
view).
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/spacetime.jpg
Some pics that back up Marton's theory (or to say, his dad's physics
view).
David Reich
May 1, 2010, 11:58:41 AM5/1/10
to the-...@googlegroups.com
I acnkowledge that time travel is practically impossible, there's no way for humans to actually use it - but just the fact that the potential is there means we have to consider it as if humans were able to time travel whenever we wanted, because there is the potential of the technology being developed.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages