right, yeah, that is the identity problem
Posted By: MrHenDate: 12/18/06 4:41 p.m.

In Response To: Re: whoops... no... that is not what I meant. (Forrest of B.org)

: Sorry to respond to such a long thought-out post with just a short little
: question, but it's nagging me in the back of my head and I can't really
: think past it until I get an answer:

No problem. I would like to hear your thoughts on the rest of the post at some point. :) Maybe after we figure out the question you asked.

: On a highway, all the cars are
: "moving" along the highway in such a way that, if you were to
: drive backward down the highway, you would not see the same cars back
: there by that last offramp as you saw the last time you drove past it,
: because those cars have moved on further down the highway. This makes me
: think that we may have an even more fundamental difference, not just in
: the nature of what constitutes time travel, but as to how time itself
: actually works.

Well, it is an analogy, so there will be some flaws. But here are the basic assumptions:
I am a car.
Time is a highway. (Wow, that sounds like the beginning of a song...)
I am moving along this highway at a constant velocity.
Once I have moved from one point to another in any direction on any axis, including the highway, I am no longer at the point I was immediately before this.

Therefore, if I am moving along the highway I can only exist at one point on that highway at any given snapshot of the highway as taken by the time-god. This is the exact same logic when traveling in any of the spacial dimensions which gives us the age-old adage, "You cannot be in two places at once."

In addition to this, assuming again a constant velocity, I can never go back to a point I have already been for that would require a change in direction which is a change in velocity.

No matter "when" the time-god takes the snapshot, he will see nothing but a block of points all stuck in the highway. More interestingly, and this is probably adding to our confusion, the time-god cannot take a snapshot and see more than one point on this highway.

The time-god could plot the change of one or more things on this highway by taking multiple snapshots of the highway and coming up with a rough estimate of how we traveled along the highway. It would be a fairly boring graph, however, because we are all traveling at basically the same speed. If the time-god knew Calculus, he could begin to see our trip along the highway.

In other words, all of us would be a function on the ultimate graph of the highway.

The basic, fundamental problem with this is shown by some of your questions below. So let us take a peek:

: So, with that foreword, the question I have for you is: right now, in our
: universe, assuming that we've just got a plain-jane timeline with no time
: travel involved, does there exist (in a tenseless sense of the word) a
: past time in which your great-great-great-grandfather is alive?

Mmm... sort of. As soon as you can define my great-great-great-grandfather I can tell you. Obviously, all of the physical components still exist, but they do not make up my ancestor. The physical components have been scattered all over the three spacial dimensions and still exist. But the weird part is that all of these components have also traveled forward in time. Everything that my ancestor was has moved on in all four dimensions.

To ask if he exists at a particular point is a strange question. He obviously did exist at some point, or I would not exist. Evidence for this existence can be found by taking a snapshot of the highway where he once existed and one could even plot his trip through time. But to ask if he exists "now" in terms of temporal existence would require your hyper-time.

Time can only be measured in relation to the other three axes or in comparison to some entity's relative time-line, their trip on the highway.

So to answer the loose question in terms of thought experiment and laymen's terms, yes, my ancestor does exist at some point on the highway.

The math, however, gets really confusing and this is the whole identity problem in a nutshell. The physical parts alone do not create my ancestor. Assuming you knew what you were looking for, you could take a snapshot of the highway at the right point and find my ancestor. I find it highly unlikely without knowing exactly where to look and what a person looks like at the molecular level but it could be done.

So, to the easy version of the question, yes.

: That is,
: is there another time, some other position along a fourth axis, in which
: some object exists that does not exist now (in precisely the same sense of
: all these words that we would say there is another place in the world
: where something exists that does not exist where you are)?

The answer to the harder question is just annoying. The answer is yes and no depending on what you are looking for. There is an unique state when looking at the fourth axis but I honestly have no clue if things maintain their identity or existence when traveling along the fourth axis.

Again, this, right here, is the problem of identity I ran into. I am not the same person I was when I was twelve. I am a different thing. When did that change? When did the old me fizzle and the new me arrive? I have no clue. If you took a snapshot of the highway at every conceivable point between my birth and my death you could find "me", whatever I am.

But I am obviously changing. I grew bigger for a spell, my personality changed, my exact location changes. I am all over the place in terms of the three spacial dimensions alone. I am constantly moving, shifting, changing. In mathematical terms, you can reduce my molecular structure to show what I am and how I am changing. But at what point did I start existing? At what point will I cease existing?

Do all of those physical things that I was composed of will continue to exist in space-time? Than where did I go?

When looking at the our dimensions in terms of the smallest individual things, do they change from one point to the next? Is their location in the four dimensions part of their identity?

This is a problem no matter how many dimensions you have. This is a problem when trying to determine something moving in the spacial dimensions and it is a problem assuming a fifth, hyper-time dimension. This is just a basic problem.

So, when looking at each point on any axis you can show that the state changes. But it is ridiculously hard to determine what gives any area of that state its own identity. Identity is an existence in and of itself that appears to change depending on its relation to every other identity.

How annoying.

And this is without invoking something like free-will or time-travel. The weirder part comes when time-travel is mixed back into everything. As soon as anything inside of the model interacts, sees, or even thinks about my ancestor, his identity changes. Going back in time to look at something will redefine all of the things I interact. Even ignoring their positions in the 4D model, they will be changed.

These changes seem to affect the positions within the model.

But this is where my thought experiments have ended. This is the new problem I ran into the last time we talked which is why I stopped responding to things. My initial response was to assume there must be another dimension somewhere, because things change outside of the four dimensions. They do not change in the way your hyper-time supposes, because your hyper-time does not solve this problem.

There is something else going on. But I am not comfortable enough with my 4D model to move on to tackling this new problem. In a sense, I am using you to try and find holes in my model. So, uh, thanks. :)

: In other words,
: are you conceiving of time as just another dimension exactly like space,
: or is there something weird or different about it (other than the way in
: which we perceive it)?

No, they are all nothing more than dimensions. The only difference is that it effects our minds differently, leading to all of the identity problems. This is why we do not see it as a fourth dimension.

To our time-god, they all look the same.

: I ask this because if you do, then the highway analogy doesn't seem to really
: work at all. If the length of the highway is time, and time is just
: another dimension like space, then we in 3D space looking down on the
: Highway of Time (analogous to your "Time God") wouldn't see cars
: moving along it; we'd see long objects stretching down the length of the
: highway, unmoving and unchanging from our perspective.

But the time-god is not looking down from 3D space. The time-god is looking at things from outside the 4D model.

For anything to have a non-point existence on the highway would require your hyper-time. What you are pointing out here is the problem with the highway analogy: a highway has two basic dimensions. I am trying to describe motion in only one dimension. For your stretching cars, two dimensions are needed: either one in space and one in time or two in time. Your model uses two in time: time and hyper-time.

I am trying to explain a one-dimensional axis.

The same thing happens in the physical dimensions, it just makes no sense because it is hard to think of blocking a dimension.

: If the length of
: the highway is time and the width of the highway is space (lets ignore
: height for now), then cars on the highway would be a bunch of flat
: ribbons, whose paths trace out their movement in space across time.

In my highway there is no width, only length. And the length, oddly enough, does not have a visible existence. At this point, it would probably just be easier to explain it as a line on a piece of paper. :P

But, for the sake of argument, a 2D highway is fine with width as spacial movement and length as temporal movement. There would still be no "ribbon" as I think of ribbons. Not a single object on the entire highway would have any width: it merely exist somewhere between the two edges of the highway. To say that it has some width is to say that it is in two places at once.

This is ignoring any side-effects of the identity problem I tried to explain above. Assuming that my ancestor can only exist in one place at any one time, he would have no width on the highway.

The strange part is that he would also have no particular length. At any given part on the highway, my ancestor exists but he does not exist over a period of time. We like to think of him that way, because it hurst our brains if we do not, but he is constantly changing. If we were to define him by saying that my ancestor is a particular entity and all entities derived from him temporally, I would suddenly become my great-great-great-grandfather.

But trying to ignore all of that, I could see how he might exist as a line extending down the highway bouncing up and down like a pulse on a heart monitor.

: If
: there was time-travel involved in this "timeline" (someone
: leaving the highway, driving back down and then getting back on the
: highway at an earlier point), we as the time-gods would see that one of
: these ribbons wraps around down an offramp, along some side road and then
: back onto the highway at an earlier onramp.

Well, if that were true, there would need to be some hyper-time dimension. If there were no hyper-time, it would look more like a u-turn on the same road. The reason that this is not an issue with one person being in the same time twice is because the person has changed. They are no longer the same physical being, so it avoids the problem of being in two places at the same time.

And oh my, I just solved one of my problems. I just thought of a way to travel back in time without messing up all of the physical universe. Weird. It is rather irrelevant to this discussion, ironically. :P

Anyway, graphing it would be awkward because the function of my ancestor would loop back because of the identity problem because the graph does not account for the change in identity.

I think I said this before, but if there was a fifth dimension, it would have to do with something involving identity. Either that, or identity is just our way of seeing things. Either way, I have yet to work it all out.

: If it does this and stays on
: the same level of the highway, and doesn't have any problems with there
: being no way for it to get back on because other ribbons are in the way,
: then you have a picture of unilinear time with loops; the time traveller
: was already accounted for in the timeline.

This would still imply some sort of hyper-time and makes time-travel no fun. It does make the identity problem easier to solve...

: But if the ribbon must overlay
: other ribbons in order to get back onto the highway, then you've just
: introduced another dimension into the picture (the vertical in our model),
: and that's what I'm calling hyper-time.

Oh. Well, in that case, you are assuming at least two other dimensions: one that allows two instances of a 4D model to stand "next" to each other and one that allows for something to leave the highway. In your model, how does one leave the highway? I would have guessed it just went "up" and looped back on itself and then went "up" again and continued moving forward.

: Note again that we as 3D observers, "time gods", aren't watching
: any motion in this scene at all; we're just tracing the paths of these
: ribbons on a highway. The whole scene is still to us.

Mmm... so do you mean observing as in "watching" or as in "graphing"? I have been talking about graphing this whole time. Hmm. Thinking out loud here: to actually "see" it would require something outside of all of the dimensions... so take our time-god... in your model it can see the lines and changes as depicted by the different dimensions. Your highway has ribbons lying next to each other... why? Why do you need this other dimension? Just to look at it?

I do not understand why hyper-time is needed. I think I understand what your model looks like, but I do not get how things change their direction on the highway or how hyper-time solves any of the real problems. The time-god is still going to have to show the change on the hyper-time axis and at some point there will be a flat graph with things that change their direction. Why is it necessary to change direction in hyper-time instead of time?

Is it actually impossible to change your temporal axis without changing anything but spacial axes?

So, I suppose the question I have for you is how we travel forward in your model? How do we continue our pace forward in time? If we are moving forward along the temporal axis, are we standing still in hyper-time? Could we change direction in hyper-time but not change direction in relation to the temporal axis? Is that how one would travel to the future?

Using the spacial dimensions as an example of how this may work... if we had an axis that things could move along (completely ignoring time), we would need some way to show that change, which is possible by drawing a line on a piece of paper.

Assuming a second dimension we can just take the paper and draw things on it with the pencil. What you are describing is literally lifting the pencil from the piece of paper and moving it to another point in the two dimensions.


So what is wrong with simply drawing a line between the two points?

: From the perspective
: of some individual ribbon, which only perceives 1D chunks of itself and
: other ribbons and the highway, in sequence according to the path of the
: full 2D ribbon, then there is change and motion. And if some ribbon were
: able to exit the highway and drive backward and then get back on and find
: that things have changed because of his doing so, then he would now be on
: what we 3D time-gods perceive as a different "plane" of the
: Highway of Time (picture a multilevel highway, I guess).

So, by lifting the pencil from the paper and dropping it onto another point, you have created another piece of paper. Sort of. The paper analogy is somewhat flawed because we have a third dimension: time.

So, taking nothing more than a line on a piece of paper and time, we could have our two dimensions. The pencil travels forward and backward on the line and then suddenly it is lifted from the line and dropped onto another point...

I am still confused as to why the pencil cannot just slow down and turn around. Where is the problem with just traveling along the temporal axis? Sure, it gets messy when plotting it, but that is the aforementioned identity problem which will always exist.

: And this ribbon,
: only being able to move in 1D space (the offramp-sideroad-onramp would be
: like a temporally dilated wormhole), would be unable to access any other
: "planes" by any means whatsoever.

Why? What is keeping it a prisoner of its plane? How did it switch planes in the first place? What is creating all of these planes? Are there an infinite number of them? In this model, time-travel changes nothing. There is no real change anywhere. Would it not be more useful to simply say that one could not time-travel than say that there is a hyper-time that one cannot travel across?

: This also means that it doesn't make sense to "move backward" along
: the axis of time, any more than a tree branch can extend out and then back
: in on itself; itself is in the way. I'm finding it really hard to say this
: in words that can't be misinterpreted because we tend to use the language
: of change both to describe features of static things as well as changing
: features of things, so note that I don't mean "extend" here in
: any sort of active sense, of the tree branch changing size or shape; I'm
: just trying to describe it's shape. We can say that it extends out and
: then bends up and out again and then down and so on, but it can't just
: turn around 180 degree and extend back into itself; it has to extend up or
: down or something first, and then back into itself.

Right, yeah, and this comes back to the identity problem. This problem will exist no matter how many dimensions there are and no matter how you restrict the movement amongst all of them. The problem you just mentioned already exists in terms of our four dimensions with abnormal time travel. It is the root of things like the moral ambiguity of abortion. At one point does any one thing exist?

Using your tree example and pushing it smaller, take an atom. An atom exists and can move around in all four dimensions. Can it ever move in such a way that it would occupy a space it was already occupying? Obviously not. But you made a comment that you were not talking about active growth.

Without action, there is no point in talking about it moving or extending back into self.

If the question is asking whether a tree can be more than one place on the line, obviously, yes. If the question is asking if a tree can occupy a space it already exists, again, yes. It has to exist there or we would not say it exists there. If the question is asking if it can exist twice in the same location, the answer is no.

But the very instant one brings change into the mix the identity problem comes. If there is any change anywhere at all we now have differences on the axis and the shape is changing. But this is active, and you said the question was not a question about activity.

A branch, having the shape of extending outward, already exists inward. This shape does not "go" anywhere. It can not "go" up or down. It simply is.

: So, if you understood
: that, I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't just reverse time
: for yourself and move backwards in time within the timeline; you would be
: overlapping with your past self if you did that. You have to somehow leave
: the timeline to do it; wormholes (which would be like the tree branch
: looping around and back into itself), magic teleportation (the cop out a
: lot of time travel stories seem to use), or something like that.

I disagree. This paragraph that you wrote is the identity problem. Unfortunately, this problem will always exist no matter how many dimensions there are as long as change is allowed. The exact same problem will always exist by the forward momentum of our universe along the temporal axis.

I exist now, and I will exist in five minutes. If the time-god was to plot out the future, it would see me there. I will literally move into that existence and assume my role as me. I will have changed and I will be a different entity in terms of the four dimensions.

What difference does it make if that movement is forward or backward? I propose the only reason it makes more sense is because we are assuming our identity on our relative change to ourselves. Our new identity is nothing more than our old identity plus our changes in respect the axis.

Traveling backward will not effect the changes that have already taken place (assuming no weirdness) because our identity is still moving forward in relative time. Once our identity shows up in the past, there we are in the past. Our identity now proves its own existence. If something changed to effect what once happened, so what? The states have all changed, so the identities all change, so things get weird when trying to figure out what to label things, but there are no inconsistencies that I can see.

The time-god can still see how things have changed and still graph the changes and everything still fits together. If there is another dimension, which is looking more and more likely the longer I think about this, I do not think it will need to be a temporal, hyper-time dimension. If anything, I surmise that it will have something to do with cause and effect or events or something that shows change in a pure, raw form and how it relates to each, individual identity, no matter how we define them.

But the reason I do not adhere to your model, as much as it may explain time-travel, is that it will still need some way to show the cause and effect chain. Hyper-time, as I have understood it, does not adequately explain why the time-god can look at one point on the highway and say, "that is MrHen," no matter what time he looks at or what level of ribbon in hyper-time he looks at.

In all seriousness, I think I do understand your model, I just do not get why there are so many complications and it seems to have the same identity problem my does.

But this whole identity in relation to mathematical change is new to me. And these posts are getting long. :P

I should just go write a paper on it or something. *sigh* With all of these posts I could probably form a decent outline. Hm. One of these days I may just do that. I would prefer to at least have a theory for the identity question before I start...

Or I could just be barking up the wrong tree. Obviously, if you see anything wrong, please let me know. At this point it looks like we disagree about the nature of time's axis. I see it as literally the fourth dimension. The only difference is how we react to it and that there seems to be something pushing us through it at a fairly constant rate.

As a reminder to myself as to how one could travel backward without disturbing space: all one has to do is order the space already in that time to reflect your physical identity.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts


The Garden of Forking PathsDocument 11/29/06 8:50 p.m.
     Re: The Garden of Forking PathsForrest of B.org 11/29/06 10:11 p.m.
     *sniff* Duality *sniff *NM*treellama 11/30/06 2:51 a.m.
     That's not fair.RyokoTK 11/30/06 5:26 a.m.
           Re: That's not fair.McNutcase 11/30/06 5:40 a.m.
                 Re: That's not fair.RyokoTK 11/30/06 8:51 a.m.
                       Re: That's not fair.McNutcase 11/30/06 9:25 a.m.
                             Re: That's not fair.RyokoTK 11/30/06 9:59 a.m.
                                   Re: That's not fair.D-M.A. 11/30/06 10:05 a.m.
                                         Re: That's not fair.RyokoTK 11/30/06 10:22 a.m.
                                               Ahaa, I see what you mean now, point taken. *NM*D-M.A. 11/30/06 10:33 a.m.
                                   define "well"MrHen 11/30/06 10:24 a.m.
                                         Re: define "well"RyokoTK 11/30/06 11:31 a.m.
                                               Re: define "well"Aaron Sikes 11/30/06 12:19 p.m.
                                         Re: define "well"Forrest of B.org 11/30/06 1:26 p.m.
                                               Re: define "well"Aaron Sikes 12/1/06 6:01 a.m.
           Mmm... House of LeavesMrHen 11/30/06 8:00 a.m.
     Re: The Garden of Forking PathsVid Boi 11/30/06 8:13 a.m.
     Re: The Garden of Forking Pathssdwoodchuck 11/30/06 12:39 p.m.
           So, what was your conclusion? *NM*Frungi 11/30/06 3:57 p.m.
                 Re: So, what was your conclusion?sdwoodchuck 11/30/06 6:18 p.m.
                       in your theory, the dreams...MrHen 12/1/06 4:44 a.m.
                             Re: in your theory, the dreams...thermoplyae 12/1/06 6:42 a.m.
                       Re: So, what was your conclusion?Frungi 12/4/06 6:31 p.m.
                             Re: So, what was your conclusion?Forrest of B.org 12/4/06 9:07 p.m.
                                   Time Travel and the Psychology of GodsForrest of B.org 12/4/06 9:25 p.m.
                                         Re: Time Travel and the Psychology of GodsFrungi 12/5/06 8:46 a.m.
                                               Re: Time Travel and the Psychology of GodsForrest of B.org 12/5/06 4:29 p.m.
                                                     heck, I would buy 'emMrHen 12/5/06 6:39 p.m.
                                                     Philosophy anyone?Icarus 12/6/06 8:29 a.m.
                                                           Re: Philosophy anyone?Forrest of B.org 12/6/06 10:46 a.m.
     Re: The Garden of Forking Paths *LINK*Hamish Sinclair 12/2/06 5:06 a.m.
           Re: The Garden of Forking PathsDocument 12/2/06 6:17 p.m.
                 Re: The Garden of Forking PathsDocument 12/4/06 7:03 p.m.
     Official Bungie Canon?Shoeless 12/7/06 7:00 a.m.
           Re: Official Bungie Canon?Bob-B-Q 12/7/06 10:14 a.m.
                 Define "all"MrHen 12/7/06 10:20 a.m.
                       Re: Define "all"Document 12/7/06 4:20 p.m.
                             Re: Define "all"Document 12/7/06 4:21 p.m.
           Re: Official Bungie Canon?Chris Biberstein 12/11/06 10:28 a.m.
                 Re: Official Bungie Canon?Shoeless 12/11/06 12:00 p.m.
                 Re: Official Bungie Canon?Forrest of B.org 12/11/06 12:03 p.m.
                       Re: Official Bungie Canon?MrHen 12/11/06 1:45 p.m.
                             Re: Official Bungie Canon? *LINK*Frungi 12/11/06 3:22 p.m.
                                   uh, thanks...MrHen 12/11/06 6:01 p.m.
                             Re: Official Bungie Canon?Forrest of B.org 12/11/06 9:44 p.m.
                                   I like being confused...MrHen 12/12/06 5:13 a.m.
                                         Re: I like being confused...Forrest of B.org 12/12/06 3:53 p.m.
                                               Re: I like being confused...Frungi 12/12/06 5:51 p.m.
                                                     Re: I like being confused...Forrest of B.org 12/12/06 9:42 p.m.
                                               timelines and their gloryMrHen 12/13/06 5:14 a.m.
                                                     Re: timelines and their gloryForrest of B.org 12/13/06 8:05 a.m.
                                                           Mmm... trippy...MrHen 12/13/06 8:20 a.m.
                                                           Re: timelines and their gloryFrungi 12/13/06 1:43 p.m.
                       Re: Official Bungie Canon?Chris Biberstein 12/12/06 12:37 p.m.
                             Re: Official Bungie Canon?Forrest of B.org 12/12/06 4:02 p.m.
                                   Re: Official Bungie Canon?Chris Biberstein 12/12/06 4:43 p.m.
                                         Re: Official Bungie Canon?Forrest of B.org 12/12/06 9:52 p.m.
                                               Re: Official Bungie Canon?Chris Biberstein 12/13/06 4:17 p.m.
                                                     Re: Official Bungie Canon?Forrest of B.org 12/13/06 6:06 p.m.
                                                           Re: Official Bungie Canon?Chris Biberstein 12/16/06 5:42 p.m.
                                                                 what? why?MrHen 12/16/06 5:47 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Official Bungie Canon?kyjel 12/16/06 6:40 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Official Bungie Canon?Shoeless 12/17/06 4:13 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Official Bungie Canon?Frungi 12/18/06 5:09 p.m.
                                                                       Re: Official Bungie Canon?Chris Biberstein 12/18/06 8:47 p.m.
                                                                             Re: Official Bungie Canon?Frungi 12/18/06 9:22 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: Official Bungie Canon?Chris Biberstein 12/22/06 9:58 a.m.
                                                                                         questions and answersMrHen 12/22/06 12:44 p.m.
                                                                                         Re: Official Bungie Canon?Shoeless 12/22/06 1:24 p.m.
                                                                             Re: Official Bungie Canon?Shoeless 12/18/06 10:21 p.m.
                                         rabbit trail, sorry...MrHen 12/13/06 5:23 a.m.
                                               Re: rabbit trail, sorry...Chris Biberstein 12/13/06 4:29 p.m.
                                                     and the problem was... where?MrHen 12/13/06 7:06 p.m.
                                                           Re: and the problem was... where?Forrest of B.org 12/13/06 9:13 p.m.
                                                                 ah, my bad. I understand. :) *NM*MrHen 12/14/06 4:54 a.m.
                                                                       Re: ah, my bad. I understand. :)Forrest of B.org 12/14/06 1:22 p.m.
                                                                             I am the same way. ;)MrHen 12/15/06 5:18 a.m.
                                                                                   Re: I am the same way. ;)Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 7:27 a.m.
                                                                                         BranchingMrHen 12/15/06 9:46 a.m.
                                                                                               Re: BranchingForrest of B.org 12/15/06 11:04 a.m.
                                                                                                     Actually, I think I did understand.MrHen 12/15/06 4:32 p.m.
                                                                                                           Re: Actually, I think I did understand.Forrest of B.org 12/17/06 11:55 a.m.
                                                                                                                 Oh, okay, then we do disagree.MrHen 12/17/06 6:50 p.m.
                                                                                                                       Re: Oh, okay, then we do disagree.Forrest of B.org 12/17/06 10:08 p.m.
                                                                                                                             so where do you get hyper-time?MrHen 12/18/06 5:13 a.m.
                                                                                                                                   Re: so where do you get hyper-time?Forrest of B.org 12/18/06 8:20 a.m.
                                                                                                                                         whoops... no... that is not what I meant.MrHen 12/18/06 9:49 a.m.
                                                                                                                                               Re: whoops... no... that is not what I meant.Forrest of B.org 12/18/06 1:58 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                     right, yeah, that is the identity problemMrHen 12/18/06 4:41 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                           Re: right, yeah, that is the identity problemForrest of B.org 12/18/06 9:55 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                 ohhh...MrHen 12/19/06 5:44 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                       Re: ohhh...Forrest of B.org 12/19/06 9:20 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                             back to the math ;)MrHen 12/19/06 11:07 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: back to the math ;)Forrest of B.org 12/19/06 1:36 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                         wait, so my model is too... real? ;)MrHen 12/22/06 1:57 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                               Sort of.Forrest of B.org 12/22/06 3:22 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                     and the light turns on...MrHen 1/7/07 4:41 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Re: and the light turns on...Forrest of B.org 1/8/07 8:12 p.m.
                                         Re: Official Bungie Canon?Shoeless 12/13/06 8:11 a.m.
                                               Re: Official Bungie Canon?Chris Biberstein 12/13/06 4:34 p.m.
                                                     Re: Official Bungie Canon?Shoeless 12/14/06 8:01 a.m.
                                                     Re: Official Bungie Canon?Frungi 12/15/06 8:02 a.m.
                                                           Re: Official Bungie Canon?Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 8:51 a.m.
                                                                 Re: Official Bungie Canon?Frungi 12/15/06 9:22 a.m.
                                                                 hehe, InfinityMrHen 12/15/06 9:51 a.m.
                                                                       Re: hehe, InfinityForrest of B.org 12/15/06 11:16 a.m.
                                                                             Re: hehe, Infinitytreellama 12/15/06 12:18 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: hehe, InfinityForrest of B.org 12/15/06 1:15 p.m.
                                                                                         Re: hehe, Infinitytreellama 12/15/06 2:09 p.m.
                                                                                               Re: hehe, InfinityForrest of B.org 12/15/06 3:15 p.m.
                                                                                                     Re: hehe, Infinitytreellama 12/15/06 4:12 p.m.
                                                                                                           Re: hehe, InfinityFrungi 12/15/06 6:34 p.m.
                                                                                                                 Re: hehe, Infinitytreellama 12/16/06 3:38 a.m.
                                                                                                                       So... do I have this right?MrHen 12/16/06 6:35 a.m.
                                                                                                                             Re: So... do I have this right?treellama 12/16/06 11:25 a.m.
                                                                                         Re: hehe, Infinitytreellama 12/15/06 2:21 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Official Bungie Canon?treellama 12/15/06 9:55 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Official Bungie Canon?McNutcase 12/15/06 11:12 a.m.
                                                                             Re: Official Bungie Canon?Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 1:20 p.m.
                                                           Re: Official Bungie Canon?McNutcase 12/15/06 9:32 a.m.
                                                                 Re: Official Bungie Canon?MrHen 12/15/06 9:49 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Official Bungie Canon?treellama 12/15/06 9:56 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Official Bungie Canon?McNutcase 12/15/06 11:09 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Official Bungie Canon?Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 1:34 p.m.
                                                                             Re: Official Bungie Canon?Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 1:39 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Official Bungie Canon?ukimalefu 12/15/06 6:29 p.m.
                                                                       Re: Official Bungie Canon?McNutcase 12/15/06 10:23 p.m.
                                                                       awesome, thanks! *NM*MrHen 12/16/06 6:49 a.m.
                                                           Re: Official Bungie Canon?Chris Biberstein 12/16/06 5:51 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Official Bungie Canon?kyjel 12/16/06 7:08 p.m.
                                                                       Re: Official Bungie Canon?Chris Biberstein 12/18/06 8:36 p.m.
                                                                             Re: Official Bungie Canon?Frungi 12/18/06 9:48 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: Official Bungie Canon?Chris Biberstein 12/22/06 10:00 a.m.
                                                                                         Re: Official Bungie Canon?Forrest of B.org 12/22/06 10:19 a.m.
                                                                                         what he saidMrHen 12/22/06 12:38 p.m.
                                                                             Re: Official Bungie Canon?Shoeless 12/18/06 10:23 p.m.
                                                                 *sigh*MrHen 12/17/06 5:08 a.m.
                 Re: Official Bungie Canon?Frungi 12/11/06 3:35 p.m.
                       Re: Official Bungie Canon?Chris Biberstein 12/12/06 12:23 p.m.
                             Re: Official Bungie Canon?Shoeless 12/13/06 7:56 a.m.
                                   Re: Official Bungie Canon?Forrest of B.org 12/13/06 8:32 a.m.
                                         another example (albeit overused)MrHen 12/13/06 8:57 a.m.
     Re: The Garden of Forking Paths *LINK*irons 2/23/18 1:11 a.m.
           LOKE *NM*W'rkncacnter 2/23/18 4:06 p.m.
                 Re: LOKE *NM* *LINK*irons 2/23/18 4:14 p.m.
                       LOKE *NM* *NM* *NM* *NM* *NM* *LINK*W'rkncacnter 2/23/18 11:09 p.m.
                             Re: LOKE *NM* *LINK*irons 2/24/18 3:31 a.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts



Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:




Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org

Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.