|back to the math ;)|
|Posted By: MrHen||Date: 12/19/06 11:07 a.m.|
In Response To: Re: ohhh... (Forrest of B.org)
: That seems very strange to me then; if something only existed for an
Why is that a problem? But whatever. The real stuff is down below.
: I'm just speaking of identity in the gross common sense. If it helps at all
The problem, for me anyway, is that identity in the gross common sense does not help when showing change. We see a rock and identify a rock, but these are nothing more than perceptions. We, being human, are really nothing more than pattern recognition machines.
The rock, as it moves through time, does change. We will generally ignore this change and continue calling it the same rock. But the labels "rock" or "my great-great-great-grandfather" are nothing but perceptions. An easy example of why this common sensical identification does not help when talking about the specifics of travel would be this: if someone showed me a picture of my ancestor and asked what it was I would say, "that is my ancestor." Obviously it is not, but our language allows us to say that it is.
So, to ask if my ancestor existed at time X would be to ask me if I can find something I recognize as my ancestor.
: Tricky identity problems like the Ship at Sea or Star Trek replicator ethics
Yeah, right. That is my whole point.
: But most of the time those rough
I disagree. I see it as a very relevant distinction. To just make things easier, assume that a rock is the simplest thing there is. It is a whole thing with no subparts. In the model you are using, the rock is identified solely by its content. In my model, it is being identified by its content and its coordinates. As soon as anything about it changes, including its position on any axis, it is now a different rock. In the standard model, it is considered the same rock.
This is why, in the standard model, it would be absurd for it to suddenly turn around and exist twice in the same time. In my model, they are already two different rocks so no such collision occurs.
The problem with my model is attempting to dictate how one thing turns into another thing. In my model it would seem that everything is randomly moving around. I have a hunch that cause and effect holds some promise and my suspicion is that the common sense identification relies on some sort of cause/effect chain to denote what is what.
Rock caused Rock' so they both get the label "Rock". Rock' "travels" backward causing Rock''. Rock and Rock'' are now both labeled "Rock" and a paradox ensues.
: Change is just some variation across some dimension. The rock above
No, it does change. It changes along the spacial axes.
Oh, wait... Okay, I think I see what you are saying. Its identity is not changing. But this identity is nothing more than a label, which I consider to be arbitrary.
In my model, if the rock does not change on any of the axis it would be nothing more than a point in space/time.
: If you look at the rock as a 4D object, you can see that
Mmm... using the standard model, I can see what you mean.
: The only difference with the fourth
: That's why I was making the comic-book /
Okay, yeah, in the standard model that makes sense. But everything is still changing. Even if you took all of those 2D slices and began to show them in sequence you could see the changes. If you graphed them out and took a 2D slice of one of the spacial dimensions and the temporal dimension you could see the same 3D model. It would look weird, but you could do it.
The same things happens in relation to space/time. There is a 4D model and we see 3D slices. If you switch the slice to reflect two spacial dimensions and the temporal dimension you could still see the same 4D model. All of the numbers are the same.
: [snip] All frames exist
Whoa, no, that is not right. If each page depicts one point in time of a 2D world than the comic is truly 3D: two space, one time. Time still exists in relation to the events that happen in the comic or the movie. The comic-time does not match our time, just as the 2D spacial world does not match our spacial world. The "universe" is self-enclosed. We can see the events and pages, not because of our 3D space, but because we have all the data.
: But when they refer to the past, we in the 3D world
But this is where the terms get confusing. The past "exists" in the sense that we can label it. We look at it and say, "this caused that effect" and we see the relative changes. The past that "exists", as we speak of it, is either referring to a point on the time or a particular event or state. To say that my ancestor exists on page nine is to say that, circa page nine, you can identify my ancestor if you have all the data.
In relation to the comics, a character that is moving backward in time would appear to begin on page 100 and act backwards from everything else. It would make no sense when reading it left-to-right. You would have to start from the right and flip through backwards, like you would manga.
The character is still on the page, but its presence makes no sense because the cause/effect chain is working backwards. The character is moving back in time. This character does not need to jump out of the book and skip a bunch of pages to turn around, all he has to do is start causing actions that will move forward with time.
If, on page 77, the character was seen by a second, normal character, there would now be a cause/effect chain moving forward through the book as the second character tries to figure out where this guy suddenly appeared from.
The initial time-traveling character could "turn around" in the book at page 14 and begin traveling through the book in a normal way. On all of the pages between 14 and 100 he would exist twice on the same page but never in the same place on the same page. Why? Because no two characters can occupy the same space on a page, regardless of how we identity them.
The character never jumps out of the book and the whole thing is understandable using the dimensions of the book: 2 space, 1 time. There is no need for a hyper-time dimension and our third spacial dimension is only useful because we cannot visualize time. Everything could be graphed in 3 dimensions and we just replace the dimension of time with our third dimension when we graph it.
: (While we're talking about Xeno, yeah technically there would be an infinite
Right. And the turnaround on page 14 is weird in terms of continual points, and very hard to conceptualize.
: So, rewinding a bit here (ha ha) to the "change is some variation across
Movement is change in position over time, but that does not mean all change is over this global time. Just as we can plot change in global distance over relative distance, we can plot change in global time over relative time.
"Later" would specifically refer to relative time.
It is like hopping on a plane and traveling around the world. You end up in a different time-zone so you have to reset your watch. Imagine that these time-zones were global time and the time on your watch was relative time. If you are not traveling in a plane, your relative time is moving at the same pace as global time: you are "standing still" on a rotating Earth.
If you get travel "back" three time-zones and take four hours to do it, your relative time will now be three hours off of global time because the plane was moving against the flow of global time, landing you three hours "behind" where you were. But your watch measured four positive hours. You have experienced four hours but in reality have traveled three hours into the past.
Imagine this in terms of an actual, honest global time. We are all being pushed through this time at a constant rate and we are experiencing things at the same rate. If we find a way to hop on a plane and the plane manages to send us against the stream we will still experience things as if they were moving forward while, in reality, we are moving against the global time.
Assuming that the spacial dimensions work themselves out, we have just traveled back in time and never invoked a hyper-time.
: So I guess the point I'm trying to make it, if something is changing it's
I think I explained this in another post. The rate of change would be global time over relative time. The units are the same, so it would be something like 2 year / 1 year.
: In our Y/X graph, the change is one Y-unit per X-unit.
Yes, it would make sense, as long as things were defined correctly. In all of our graphs of X and Y over T, that T is actually relative time since we have no idea what global time is.
It would be like running on a treadmill. Your total distance would be 0 miles / 4 miles. For every four miles you run you go nowhere because the treadmill moves -4 miles. The actual measurement would be ((0 global miles / 4 relative miles) / 1 relative hour). If you ran on a treadmill on a plane heading backward through the time-zones you would get something like: ((0 global miles/4 relative miles) / (-3 global hours/1 relative hour)). Your actual speed works out to 0 miles per hour (not counting the distance the plane traveled). (And I have not ruthlessly tested this example yet, so bear with me.)
You are running at a speed of 4 miles per hour but the treadmill cancels you out. (The treadmill's speed is not shown in that equation, FYI.)
: And is that really a unit of change at all? I mean, if I
Nope. If you were on something that was moving the measurement would make sense. If you were running on the top of a semi-trailer that is moving down the road at 1 meter / second and you were running at 1 meter / meter your total (global) rate of change is 1 meter / second. In other words, you are standing still on the top of the semi-trailer. If you were running 2 meters / meter than your total change would be 2 meters / second.
: So in order to say that something is moving through space, you have to say
Relative second, because consciousness seems to have a locked down speed. At least, for all of these examples it does. Changing that makes things really confusing, but I think the math still works out.
: It seems
You can measure your own movement based on the movement of those things around you. In fact, that is all we ever do when we measure things. We have no idea where the actual, honest gridlines are in the universe. We cannot say that the Earth is at (4900, 29993939, 1094). We say the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun.
If you are able to place yourself outside the 4D universe and play time-god, you would know where those lines were and could measure distance based on those lines. You do not have to have more than one dimension to show something's position in that dimension. Change is nothing more than saying, "at this point, this object moves to this point." Two dimensions show change. More than one dimension means more numbers, but no additional requirements.
Unless I missed that lecture. I could be wrong, but it makes sense in my mind. :P
Honestly, to measure distance in time, all one needs to know is something's position on the x-axis. That is it. The other 2 spacial dimensions just make things complicated. Hyper-time does not need to exist to measure changes in time. That is what space is for.
|The Garden of Forking Paths||Document||11/29/06 8:50 p.m.|
|Re: The Garden of Forking Paths||Forrest 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 Leaves||MrHen||11/30/06 8:00 a.m.|
|Re: The Garden of Forking Paths||Vid Boi||11/30/06 8:13 a.m.|
|Re: The Garden of Forking Paths||sdwoodchuck||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 Gods||Forrest of B.org||12/4/06 9:25 p.m.|
|Re: Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods||Frungi||12/5/06 8:46 a.m.|
|Re: Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods||Forrest of B.org||12/5/06 4:29 p.m.|
|heck, I would buy 'em||MrHen||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 Paths||Document||12/2/06 6:17 p.m.|
|Re: The Garden of Forking Paths||Document||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 glory||MrHen||12/13/06 5:14 a.m.|
|Re: timelines and their glory||Forrest of B.org||12/13/06 8:05 a.m.|
|Mmm... trippy...||MrHen||12/13/06 8:20 a.m.|
|Re: timelines and their glory||Frungi||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 answers||MrHen||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.|
|Branching||MrHen||12/15/06 9:46 a.m.|
|Re: Branching||Forrest 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 problem||MrHen||12/18/06 4:41 p.m.|
|Re: right, yeah, that is the identity problem||Forrest 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, Infinity||MrHen||12/15/06 9:51 a.m.|
|Re: hehe, Infinity||Forrest of B.org||12/15/06 11:16 a.m.|
|Re: hehe, Infinity||treellama||12/15/06 12:18 p.m.|
|Re: hehe, Infinity||Forrest of B.org||12/15/06 1:15 p.m.|
|Re: hehe, Infinity||treellama||12/15/06 2:09 p.m.|
|Re: hehe, Infinity||Forrest of B.org||12/15/06 3:15 p.m.|
|Re: hehe, Infinity||treellama||12/15/06 4:12 p.m.|
|Re: hehe, Infinity||Frungi||12/15/06 6:34 p.m.|
|Re: hehe, Infinity||treellama||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, Infinity||treellama||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 said||MrHen||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.|
Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email email@example.com
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.