|
Time Travel Question (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| yukii |
time travel.
/thread. |
|
|
| msz |
 |
|
|
| bananas |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
I miss BnB so much... lol that crazy little bastard. :mad: |
+1 |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
time travel.
/thread. |
What the ? Ecstasy is about the tamest drug there is. Take shrooms or acid and you might get some idea of time distortion. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
it's couldn't care less, you dunce. |
hey dunce, we capitalize letters too, in the english language. this post shows how much else you have to offer to this discussion. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Whoa there big fella.... I'm not sure either of us (you and I) understand what you're actually trying to say. Time is a measure of distance... if you accept that the universe has topology then you must also accept that there is distance between points within the universe, which means that time is a real thing, not a perception.
Edit... for clarity, I mean time is a real thing in a physical universe... I suppose that if there was no physical existence then there would also be no time. |
no it's not that i don't understand it (i dont completely), it's that i can't come up with the right collection of words to communicate the idea.
what i was claiming basically is that time is a perceptual phenomenon that depends purely on the topology of the universe. This is similar as I said to the way that we perceive a series of still photos to be a moving picture, etc.
i believe the topology is a perception too.
so i guess you could also say that i believe that space is a phenomenon caused by time. it doesn't really matter what order it's in, i think the two are the same sort of thing, essentially. |
|
|
| Dj Nacht |
| In the implicate there is no time :D |
|
|
| tachobg |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
i believe the topology is a perception too.
|
Are you saying that such a structure doesn't actually 'exist', or only exists through our perception of it? And more generally, since we can't base any objective reality (if such a thing even exists) on the way humans perceive things, does such a structure exist just by other particles interacting with it, or observing/perceiving it? If reality is based on perception (on every scale), then what (if anything) is the underlying structure that is being perceived? Doesn't it (say, space-time for ex) have intrinsic properties like curvature? It seems that time is intrinsic to the structure, even if it is only instantiated, or perceived when particles interact with that structure. |
|
|
| schrödingerwin |
| quote: | Originally posted by tachobg
I see what you mean. The formal analysis of this kind of stuff is the subject of a branch of math called measure theory. Intuitively the outcomes can't all have the same probability, because their sum wouldn't be 1. So there would have to be more probable and less probable universes, which seems to make sense. So the stuff I posted about a bell curve was kind of irrelevant because it's a continuous rather than discrete distribution.
But here's a question -- if there are many universes, why should there be only a discrete set of universes (countably many, such as {1,2,3,...}) as opposed to a continuous spectrum of them (uncountably many)? Just take the current universe and all of the physical things it contains -- you could continuously vary some or all of their physical properties (or can you? does quantum stuff forbid continuous variation?) to make uncountably many new universes. In that case, the probability of any particular one of those is indeed 0. |
the problem with physical properties and quantum stuff is that they don't work the same way. Quantum stuff does not share the same properties as physical items that you and I can touch; do you think 'time travel' mimics the theory of superposition?
Time Travel violates the rules of causality, right? If time travel where possible we would have to find a way to travel in wave-like fashion i presume? If so, the concept of time travel is different from the notion that we have conditioned ourselves to believe in when referring to time travel: that we can physically travel through time. In my opinion, we can probably explore a parallel or alternative spectrum with our consciousness (not with our bodies)
I have nothing more to say about this, except that I'd advice you to read this:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...olsky-and-Rosen |
|
|
| kadomony |
| quote: | Originally posted by tachobg
Are you saying that such a structure doesn't actually 'exist', or only exists through our perception of it? And more generally, since we can't base any objective reality (if such a thing even exists) on the way humans perceive things, does such a structure exist just by other particles interacting with it, or observing/perceiving it? If reality is based on perception (on every scale), then what (if anything) is the underlying structure that is being perceived? Doesn't it (say, space-time for ex) have intrinsic properties like curvature? It seems that time is intrinsic to the structure, even if it is only instantiated, or perceived when particles interact with that structure. |
I'll say that. Things only exist because of perception and awareness. Everything down to the tiniest particle of matter is imbued with "being" which doesn't necessarily imply awareness of itself or other structures. Rather, that since each thing has "being," being itself is the underlying structure that enables things to have any other attribute such as size, mass, etc. |
|
|
| kadomony |
| quote: | Originally posted by SuspicionVandit
Being in an environment where those you love are not those who are, and being so far away from home, yet in the same context, is hard on the mind. It, both, makes you self-reliant to expand, yet makes you feel so alone. Sunday morning I'm waking up. Can't even focus on a coffee cup. Don't even know who's bed I'm in. Where do I start.Where do I begin. |
sick flow, yo. |
|
|
|
|
