Sort of.


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

Sort of.

Posted By: Forrest of B.org Date: 12/22/06 3:22 p.m.
In Response To: wait, so my model is too... real? ;) (MrHen)

:So what happens to the positron?
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, however physics is a lifelong interest of mine and a number of professors here in the philosophy department *are* former physicists and I like to pick their brains :-)
In physics, antimatter is precisely what "backwards-moving" normal matter would look like; that is, what normal matter flipped (or rotatee 180 degrees) along the "time" axis would look like. When looking at 3D slices of the 4D universe in the order which we do, we see an electron and a position (an anti-electron) moving around in space, like any other particles; and then they collide, and both cease to exist, and a lot of energy exists in place of them. But if you plot all these 3D instants of the 4D universe together, it's clear that electron and positon are actually the same (4D) particle, which turned around in time at the moment that they "annihilated" each other - the release of energy was the reaction of the particle turning around, or what made it turn around if you like (since we're looking at this from outside time, "cause" of that sort is irrelevant. Consider it analogous to a rubber ball hitting and breaking a lamp as it bounces off; the breaking of the lamp was caused by the bouncing of the ball, and the lamp is what caused the ball to bounce instead of going straight).
So basically, how this applies your conception of time-travel is that somehow changing your "temporal velocity" is just as magical, and in just the same way, as a temporal transporter.
This will take a bit to illustrate. Consider: the only way you could turn around in time would be to annihilate with an antimatter-you, because if you could turn around in time, an antimatter-you would have already existed and would collide with you at the moment you tried to travel back. If you somehow assembled that antimatter-you from loose antiparticles with an antireplicator, then when you and anti-you annihilate, you will perceive things from everything moving in reverse from the perspective of anti-you, and then you will perceive the antireplicator ripping you apart particle by particle. So it's not a very good way to accomplish interesting time travel; little more interesting than jumping into a vat of loose antiparticles.
The only way to actually achieve some sort of real time-travel this way would be to make it the case - somehow - that in the distant past there was a massive coalescence of energy which became future-you and anti-you, and then that anti-you evolved over time in *precisely* the right manner so that he is exactly the same, particle for particle, as you will be the moment you annihilate with him. Then, you will perceive things thus: you annihilate with anti-you, then perceive everything moving backward from anti-your point of view, then you come across a backward-moving future self, annihilate with him, and then perceive time forward again from future-your point of view.
If something weird and insanely improbably like that hasn't already happened, then you can't go back in time in the way you suggest, because *if* you could do so, that would have already happened. Since it hasn't, you can't. I suppose you could theoretically, with far advanced technology, generate a bunch of antimatter and matter from a highly energetic reaction, assemble the bits of matter into a person and the antimater into an otherwise identical antiperson, and keep that antiperson in perfect stasis until the future when you bring it into contact with someone who is particle-for-particle identical with him (but of course made from regular matter). That person would then have the experience of time-travelling; which is just to say, the regular-matter person that you replicated way back when would be physically identical, including memories and all, to a future person that you're going to annihilate with the anti-person, so he would have the memories of walking into the time-travel chamber, seeing an antimatter version of himself, then a blinding white light, and then suddenly being here in the past. And from a physics standpoint, that would be literally what happened; all the matter of his body "turned around" at the moment he travelled back, remained in stasis for however long into the past he travelled, and then "turned around" forward in time again.
But then, how did the scientists setting up this whole event know that there was going to be a person in the future with that exact physical state, if they didn't already have some sort of time travel? I mean, I guess they could replicate such a person; but then, all they've really done is create some new artificial person in stasis and then pointlessly move him backward in time a bit before releasing him from stasis. This is all basically just to say that (using metaphorical language here) God could have made the universe such that there exists some instances of time-travel in it; and apparently He did, since we have some antimatter around, but it's not time travel that we consider interesting at all, since there's no anti-people around, walking backward into their past selves.
The only way a person could time-travel like this is if they had some magic godlike power to just make it the case that in the past such a person-antiperson pair were created identical to themselves at the moment they're going to travel back in time and HEY there's my anti-me, see you suckers in the past. Or, as I said in the last post, if they could change the previous moment such that there was an anti-them nearby, and then change the moment before that likewise, and so on changing the past states of the universe back to the state they want to resume normal time from. (This is what I meant with the analogy of creating alternate pages of the flip book, and is what your "pushing things out of the way" would have to entail).
But then, if you could just change past states of the universe like that:
(1) where do you get this magic power from?
(this is literally magic; it's not physically possible to do this, by any theory ever conceived of)
(2) why not just change the state of the universe at the point that you want to travel back to?
(in essence, teleporting back to that moment)
and most importantly,
(3) over what axis is this change occurring?
And this is where we get back to where I was coming from. It is possible for reverse causation to occur, but that's uninteresting from a time-travel point of view because it's not actually changing the past at all, it's just an odd feature of how the universe happens to be - basically it just means that some antimatter exists. But *if* it were possible to actually alter the past ala rewriting pages of the flip book, it would most likely just be to rewrite the page that you want to "arrive" at (in effect, teleporting into the past), since to do otherwise would be unnecessary if you have this magical power and accomplish nothing of use to you. And then, if you could 'rewrite pages' like this, then in what sort of "time" is it the case that the pages "used to be" one way, but now are another way, i.e. over what axis does this change occur, since it's not our normal dimension of time? It's certainly not space, because that would mean that I could move somewhere else in space and perceive things exactly how they are right here, except that some other object exists that doesn't exist from over here.
This is where hypertime becomes necessary. But only if you can somehow magically alter the past. Which is the only way to time travel in any interesting way (you can always jump into a vat of antimatter if you just want to send particles of yourself back in time willy-nilly). So basically, if time-travel of any interesting sort like we see in science fiction is possible, hypertime is a necessary feature of the universe where that is the case. It doesn't appear to be the case that that is possible in our universe (and it's not really conceivably how that would be possible with a universe at all like ours), but in any fictional universe where it is by hypothesis possible to do so, you have to posit hypertime to have a consistent story.
ADDENDUM: It's also possible to travel "back in time" if it happens to be the case that spacetime is looped in the right way. But you can't voluntarily make it the case that spacetime is shaped that way any more than you could teleport into the past, or create the anti-you scenario above; in all cases, the universe just has to be that way for it to happen, and if having some power to just make the universe happen to be (tenselessly; read as "have been created" or "always have been") a certain way isn't magic, I don't know what is.

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

Replies:

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.

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

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, however physics is a lifelong interest of : mine and a number of professors here in the philosophy department *are* : former physicists and I like to pick their brains :-) : In physics, antimatter is precisely what "backwards-moving" normal : matter would look like; that is, what normal matter flipped (or rotatee : 180 degrees) along the "time" axis would look like. When looking : at 3D slices of the 4D universe in the order which we do, we see an : electron and a position (an anti-electron) moving around in space, like : any other particles; and then they collide, and both cease to exist, and a : lot of energy exists in place of them. But if you plot all these 3D : instants of the 4D universe together, it's clear that electron and positon : are actually the same (4D) particle, which turned around in time at the : moment that they "annihilated" each other - the release of : energy was the reaction of the particle turning around, or what made it : turn around if you like (since we're looking at this from outside time, : "cause" of that sort is irrelevant. Consider it analogous to a : rubber ball hitting and breaking a lamp as it bounces off; the breaking of : the lamp was caused by the bouncing of the ball, and the lamp is what : caused the ball to bounce instead of going straight). : So basically, how this applies your conception of time-travel is that somehow : changing your "temporal velocity" is just as magical, and in : just the same way, as a temporal transporter. : This will take a bit to illustrate. Consider: the only way you could turn : around in time would be to annihilate with an antimatter-you, because if : you could turn around in time, an antimatter-you would have already : existed and would collide with you at the moment you tried to travel back. : If you somehow assembled that antimatter-you from loose antiparticles with : an antireplicator, then when you and anti-you annihilate, you will : perceive things from everything moving in reverse from the perspective of : anti-you, and then you will perceive the antireplicator ripping you apart : particle by particle. So it's not a very good way to accomplish : interesting time travel; little more interesting than jumping into a vat : of loose antiparticles. : The only way to actually achieve some sort of real time-travel this way would : be to make it the case - somehow - that in the distant past there was a : massive coalescence of energy which became future-you and anti-you, and : then that anti-you evolved over time in *precisely* the right manner so : that he is exactly the same, particle for particle, as you will be the : moment you annihilate with him. Then, you will perceive things thus: you : annihilate with anti-you, then perceive everything moving backward from : anti-your point of view, then you come across a backward-moving future : self, annihilate with him, and then perceive time forward again from : future-your point of view. : If something weird and insanely improbably like that hasn't already happened, : then you can't go back in time in the way you suggest, because *if* you : could do so, that would have already happened. Since it hasn't, you can't. : I suppose you could theoretically, with far advanced technology, generate : a bunch of antimatter and matter from a highly energetic reaction, : assemble the bits of matter into a person and the antimater into an : otherwise identical antiperson, and keep that antiperson in perfect stasis : until the future when you bring it into contact with someone who is : particle-for-particle identical with him (but of course made from regular : matter). That person would then have the experience of time-travelling; : which is just to say, the regular-matter person that you replicated way : back when would be physically identical, including memories and all, to a : future person that you're going to annihilate with the anti-person, so he : would have the memories of walking into the time-travel chamber, seeing an : antimatter version of himself, then a blinding white light, and then : suddenly being here in the past. And from a physics standpoint, that would : be literally what happened; all the matter of his body "turned : around" at the moment he travelled back, remained in stasis for : however long into the past he travelled, and then "turned : around" forward in time again. : But then, how did the scientists setting up this whole event know that there : was going to be a person in the future with that exact physical state, if : they didn't already have some sort of time travel? I mean, I guess they : could replicate such a person; but then, all they've really done is create : some new artificial person in stasis and then pointlessly move him : backward in time a bit before releasing him from stasis. This is all : basically just to say that (using metaphorical language here) God could : have made the universe such that there exists some instances of : time-travel in it; and apparently He did, since we have some antimatter : around, but it's not time travel that we consider interesting at all, : since there's no anti-people around, walking backward into their past : selves. : The only way a person could time-travel like this is if they had some magic : godlike power to just make it the case that in the past such a : person-antiperson pair were created identical to themselves at the moment : they're going to travel back in time and HEY there's my anti-me, see you : suckers in the past. Or, as I said in the last post, if they could change : the previous moment such that there was an anti-them nearby, and then : change the moment before that likewise, and so on changing the past states : of the universe back to the state they want to resume normal time from. : (This is what I meant with the analogy of creating alternate pages of the : flip book, and is what your "pushing things out of the way" : would have to entail). : But then, if you could just change past states of the universe like that: (1) : where do you get this magic power from? : (this is literally magic; it's not physically possible to do this, by any : theory ever conceived of) : (2) why not just change the state of the universe at the point that you want : to travel back to? : (in essence, teleporting back to that moment) : and most importantly, : (3) over what axis is this change occurring? : And this is where we get back to where I was coming from. It is possible for : reverse causation to occur, but that's uninteresting from a time-travel : point of view because it's not actually changing the past at all, it's : just an odd feature of how the universe happens to be - basically it just : means that some antimatter exists. But *if* it were possible to actually : alter the past ala rewriting pages of the flip book, it would most likely : just be to rewrite the page that you want to "arrive" at (in : effect, teleporting into the past), since to do otherwise would be : unnecessary if you have this magical power and accomplish nothing of use : to you. And then, if you could 'rewrite pages' like this, then in what : sort of "time" is it the case that the pages "used to : be" one way, but now are another way, i.e. over what axis does this : change occur, since it's not our normal dimension of time? It's certainly : not space, because that would mean that I could move somewhere else in : space and perceive things exactly how they are right here, except that : some other object exists that doesn't exist from over here. : This is where hypertime becomes necessary. But only if you can somehow : magically alter the past. Which is the only way to time travel in any : interesting way (you can always jump into a vat of antimatter if you just : want to send particles of yourself back in time willy-nilly). So : basically, if time-travel of any interesting sort like we see in science : fiction is possible, hypertime is a necessary feature of the universe : where that is the case. It doesn't appear to be the case that that is : possible in our universe (and it's not really conceivably how that would : be possible with a universe at all like ours), but in any fictional : universe where it is by hypothesis possible to do so, you have to posit : hypertime to have a consistent story. : ADDENDUM: It's also possible to travel "back in time" if it happens : to be the case that spacetime is looped in the right way. But you can't : voluntarily make it the case that spacetime is shaped that way any more : than you could teleport into the past, or create the anti-you scenario : above; in all cases, the universe just has to be that way for it to : happen, and if having some power to just make the universe happen to be : (tenselessly; read as "have been created" or "always have : been") a certain way isn't magic, I don't know what is.

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:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

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.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, however physics is a lifelong interest of : mine and a number of professors here in the philosophy department are : former physicists and I like to pick their brains :-) : In physics, antimatter is precisely what "backwards-moving" normal : matter would look like; that is, what normal matter flipped (or rotatee : 180 degrees) along the "time" axis would look like. When looking : at 3D slices of the 4D universe in the order which we do, we see an : electron and a position (an anti-electron) moving around in space, like : any other particles; and then they collide, and both cease to exist, and a : lot of energy exists in place of them. But if you plot all these 3D : instants of the 4D universe together, it's clear that electron and positon : are actually the same (4D) particle, which turned around in time at the : moment that they "annihilated" each other - the release of : energy was the reaction of the particle turning around, or what made it : turn around if you like (since we're looking at this from outside time, : "cause" of that sort is irrelevant. Consider it analogous to a : rubber ball hitting and breaking a lamp as it bounces off; the breaking of : the lamp was caused by the bouncing of the ball, and the lamp is what : caused the ball to bounce instead of going straight). : So basically, how this applies your conception of time-travel is that somehow : changing your "temporal velocity" is just as magical, and in : just the same way, as a temporal transporter. : This will take a bit to illustrate. Consider: the only way you could turn : around in time would be to annihilate with an antimatter-you, because if : you could turn around in time, an antimatter-you would have already : existed and would collide with you at the moment you tried to travel back. : If you somehow assembled that antimatter-you from loose antiparticles with : an antireplicator, then when you and anti-you annihilate, you will : perceive things from everything moving in reverse from the perspective of : anti-you, and then you will perceive the antireplicator ripping you apart : particle by particle. So it's not a very good way to accomplish : interesting time travel; little more interesting than jumping into a vat : of loose antiparticles. : The only way to actually achieve some sort of real time-travel this way would : be to make it the case - somehow - that in the distant past there was a : massive coalescence of energy which became future-you and anti-you, and : then that anti-you evolved over time in precisely the right manner so : that he is exactly the same, particle for particle, as you will be the : moment you annihilate with him. Then, you will perceive things thus: you : annihilate with anti-you, then perceive everything moving backward from : anti-your point of view, then you come across a backward-moving future : self, annihilate with him, and then perceive time forward again from : future-your point of view. : If something weird and insanely improbably like that hasn't already happened, : then you can't go back in time in the way you suggest, because if you : could do so, that would have already happened. Since it hasn't, you can't. : I suppose you could theoretically, with far advanced technology, generate : a bunch of antimatter and matter from a highly energetic reaction, : assemble the bits of matter into a person and the antimater into an : otherwise identical antiperson, and keep that antiperson in perfect stasis : until the future when you bring it into contact with someone who is : particle-for-particle identical with him (but of course made from regular : matter). That person would then have the experience of time-travelling; : which is just to say, the regular-matter person that you replicated way : back when would be physically identical, including memories and all, to a : future person that you're going to annihilate with the anti-person, so he : would have the memories of walking into the time-travel chamber, seeing an : antimatter version of himself, then a blinding white light, and then : suddenly being here in the past. And from a physics standpoint, that would : be literally what happened; all the matter of his body "turned : around" at the moment he travelled back, remained in stasis for : however long into the past he travelled, and then "turned : around" forward in time again. : But then, how did the scientists setting up this whole event know that there : was going to be a person in the future with that exact physical state, if : they didn't already have some sort of time travel? I mean, I guess they : could replicate such a person; but then, all they've really done is create : some new artificial person in stasis and then pointlessly move him : backward in time a bit before releasing him from stasis. This is all : basically just to say that (using metaphorical language here) God could : have made the universe such that there exists some instances of : time-travel in it; and apparently He did, since we have some antimatter : around, but it's not time travel that we consider interesting at all, : since there's no anti-people around, walking backward into their past : selves. : The only way a person could time-travel like this is if they had some magic : godlike power to just make it the case that in the past such a : person-antiperson pair were created identical to themselves at the moment : they're going to travel back in time and HEY there's my anti-me, see you : suckers in the past. Or, as I said in the last post, if they could change : the previous moment such that there was an anti-them nearby, and then : change the moment before that likewise, and so on changing the past states : of the universe back to the state they want to resume normal time from. : (This is what I meant with the analogy of creating alternate pages of the : flip book, and is what your "pushing things out of the way" : would have to entail). : But then, if you could just change past states of the universe like that: (1) : where do you get this magic power from? : (this is literally magic; it's not physically possible to do this, by any : theory ever conceived of) : (2) why not just change the state of the universe at the point that you want : to travel back to? : (in essence, teleporting back to that moment) : and most importantly, : (3) over what axis is this change occurring? : And this is where we get back to where I was coming from. It is possible for : reverse causation to occur, but that's uninteresting from a time-travel : point of view because it's not actually changing the past at all, it's : just an odd feature of how the universe happens to be - basically it just : means that some antimatter exists. But if it were possible to actually : alter the past ala rewriting pages of the flip book, it would most likely : just be to rewrite the page that you want to "arrive" at (in : effect, teleporting into the past), since to do otherwise would be : unnecessary if you have this magical power and accomplish nothing of use : to you. And then, if you could 'rewrite pages' like this, then in what : sort of "time" is it the case that the pages "used to : be" one way, but now are another way, i.e. over what axis does this : change occur, since it's not our normal dimension of time? It's certainly : not space, because that would mean that I could move somewhere else in : space and perceive things exactly how they are right here, except that : some other object exists that doesn't exist from over here. : This is where hypertime becomes necessary. But only if you can somehow : magically alter the past. Which is the only way to time travel in any : interesting way (you can always jump into a vat of antimatter if you just : want to send particles of yourself back in time willy-nilly). So : basically, if time-travel of any interesting sort like we see in science : fiction is possible, hypertime is a necessary feature of the universe : where that is the case. It doesn't appear to be the case that that is : possible in our universe (and it's not really conceivably how that would : be possible with a universe at all like ours), but in any fictional : universe where it is by hypothesis possible to do so, you have to posit : hypertime to have a consistent story. : ADDENDUM: It's also possible to travel "back in time" if it happens : to be the case that spacetime is looped in the right way. But you can't : voluntarily make it the case that spacetime is shaped that way any more : than you could teleport into the past, or create the anti-you scenario : above; in all cases, the universe just has to be that way for it to : happen, and if having some power to just make the universe happen to be : (tenselessly; read as "have been created" or "always have : been") a certain way isn't magic, I don't know what is.
	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:
	Password: