Re: right, yeah, that is the identity problem


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

Re: right, yeah, that is the identity problem

Posted By: Forrest of B.org Date: 12/18/06 9:55 p.m.
In Response To: right, yeah, that is the identity problem (MrHen)

I think the problem here really is one of identity, though I'm not sure in the same way that you mean it.
When I'm talking about "me" or "you" or "your great-great-great-grandfather", I'm talking about our bodies. As enduring things, these bodies necessarily are four-dimensional objects, not merely three-dimensional objects, so long as you are considering time as a dimension and not as something else entirely. That was the gist of my question: whether you feel comfortable saying that there are other times, in the exact same sense as there are other places; that in a tenseless sense, there is a past Earth "somewhere back there", in a direction which we are unable to point in in 3D space, exactly the same way as there are other planets "up there" in the sky. As a four dimensional physical object, I extend 24 and a half years into the past and I don't yet know how many years into the future. And as a four dimensional physical object, I do not move through time at all. I begin in time 24ish years ago and I end some time in the future. The distance in time from by birth to my death is my duration, which is a measurement precisely like my height, width, and length. It is how big I am in time. But I, my body, does not move through time; for movement is a change, and change requires another dimension to move across, so if I were in fact moving through time at all, even just moving forward at a steady rate along with everything else, that itself would require some sort of hyper-time.
However, my perception appears to "move" through time; or time appears to "flow" past me. But the best way I can think to describe this is thus: imagine you have a graphic novel, drawn in the first person. You see hands and parts of a body and everything that the main character (whose view you are watching from) sees. You look at one panel and things are one way; then you look to the next panel and things are different. And so on. But nothing about the graphic novel itself actually changes; you could still look back at earlier panels. Now, it seems that our perception, however that works, it tied up to moving at a fixed rate from one panel to the next, more like frames of a movie; but even in a movie, the film itself isn't changing as it plays. It's just playing. The past frames are still there. They're just past.
Perhaps a better highway analogy would be to speak of highways themselves, not cars on them. Say a highway single lane road in the countryside. As it goes along toward the big city, it grows into a two lane, three lane, four lane... eventually getting up to a huge ten-lane highway in the middle of the big city. People driving down the highway would say, by the time that they got to the city, that it "used to be" a single lane highway back in the country. But technically, it still *is* a single-lane highway back in the country; the people just aren't looking at that part of the highway anymore. Now, these people in their car are other physical objects actually moving down along the highway, but imagine instead that the highway somehow had some sort of consciousness, where every slice of highway was aware of being that slice of highway, and remembered having been the previous slice of highway, all the way back to when it was just a little single-lane highway back out in the countryside.
(This everything-is-a-4D-object thing is why I said is makes no sense for something to move backwards in time, without somehow stepping outside the timeline entirely first. Imagine if I asked you to build a highway that went in a straight line from point A to point B, and then in a straight line from point B halfway back to point A. How would you build the second segment, from B halfway back? How would you even conceive of that? The task makes no sense; what would I even be asking you to do? There's already road there in that space. Are you supposed to dig it up and lay new road? What?)
If these highways could talk to each other, spelling words out in the changing patterns of their reflector dots ("changing" in the sense that in one segment of highway the patterns are one way and in another segment the patterns are another way; not that the dots actually rearrange themselves "in time", since time just is the length of the highway), this highway might say that it used to be a little one-lane country highway way back when, before it got to the big city. But to us humans, who are not bound up in the two-dimensional world of the highway-people (one of those dimensions being the highway-people's "time", what we'd call length, and the other, what we'd call width, being their space), we would look back and say that the highway IS a one-laner out in the country and that it IS a ten-laner in the big city. It "changes" only in that it is different between one point and another; not that any change actually occurs in time. If any change did happen to the highway in what we consider time, then that would be like altering a timeline for the highway; our time would be the highway's hyper-time.
Us being able to see the highway as a 2D image, with time being another dimension to us, allows us to see all of the highway's history at once; we are outside the highway-people's time. If changes to the highway were made by building over on top of the old highway, instead of actually changing the old highway in our time, then we would also be outside of the highway-people's hypertime; we would see all their alternate timelines at once. What we humans consider time would be, to the highway-people, hyper-hyper-time; a dimension across which one could perceive the addition or removal of alternate timelines (rather than just seeing them all existing, statically).
So, going back a bit, when I asked if there is a time when your great-great-great-grandfather exists, I don't mean are the particles of his body still around scattered around the Earth somewhere (the answer to which is clearly "yes"), nor am I asking if such particles count as "him" (the answer to which doesn't even interest me; I think identity metaphysics are kinda silly). I'm basically asking if the past really exists, like other places exist; it's just somewhere else, separated from us along a fourth axis instead of the familiar three of space. If you say yes to that, I don't see how anything but what I've been describing could be the case. The only way I can imagine anything else working is if you're not thinking of time as a proper dimension at all, of the same sort as a dimension of space.

[ 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:
: I think the problem here really is one of identity, though I'm not sure in : the same way that you mean it. : When I'm talking about "me" or "you" or "your : great-great-great-grandfather", I'm talking about our bodies. As : enduring things, these bodies necessarily are four-dimensional objects, : not merely three-dimensional objects, so long as you are considering time : as a dimension and not as something else entirely. That was the gist of my : question: whether you feel comfortable saying that there are other times, : in the exact same sense as there are other places; that in a tenseless : sense, there is a past Earth "somewhere back there", in a : direction which we are unable to point in in 3D space, exactly the same : way as there are other planets "up there" in the sky. As a four : dimensional physical object, I extend 24 and a half years into the past : and I don't yet know how many years into the future. And as a four : dimensional physical object, I do not move through time at all. I begin in : time 24ish years ago and I end some time in the future. The distance in : time from by birth to my death is my duration, which is a measurement : precisely like my height, width, and length. It is how big I am in time. : But I, my body, does not move through time; for movement is a change, and : change requires another dimension to move across, so if I were in fact : moving through time at all, even just moving forward at a steady rate : along with everything else, that itself would require some sort of : hyper-time. : However, my perception appears to "move" through time; or time : appears to "flow" past me. But the best way I can think to : describe this is thus: imagine you have a graphic novel, drawn in the : first person. You see hands and parts of a body and everything that the : main character (whose view you are watching from) sees. You look at one : panel and things are one way; then you look to the next panel and things : are different. And so on. But nothing about the graphic novel itself : actually changes; you could still look back at earlier panels. Now, it : seems that our perception, however that works, it tied up to moving at a : fixed rate from one panel to the next, more like frames of a movie; but : even in a movie, the film itself isn't changing as it plays. It's just : playing. The past frames are still there. They're just past. : Perhaps a better highway analogy would be to speak of highways themselves, : not cars on them. Say a highway single lane road in the countryside. As it : goes along toward the big city, it grows into a two lane, three lane, four : lane... eventually getting up to a huge ten-lane highway in the middle of : the big city. People driving down the highway would say, by the time that : they got to the city, that it "used to be" a single lane highway : back in the country. But technically, it still *is* a single-lane highway : back in the country; the people just aren't looking at that part of the : highway anymore. Now, these people in their car are other physical objects : actually moving down along the highway, but imagine instead that the : highway somehow had some sort of consciousness, where every slice of : highway was aware of being that slice of highway, and remembered having : been the previous slice of highway, all the way back to when it was just a : little single-lane highway back out in the countryside. : (This everything-is-a-4D-object thing is why I said is makes no sense for : something to move backwards in time, without somehow stepping outside the : timeline entirely first. Imagine if I asked you to build a highway that : went in a straight line from point A to point B, and then in a straight : line from point B halfway back to point A. How would you build the second : segment, from B halfway back? How would you even conceive of that? The : task makes no sense; what would I even be asking you to do? There's : already road there in that space. Are you supposed to dig it up and lay : new road? What?) : If these highways could talk to each other, spelling words out in the : changing patterns of their reflector dots ("changing" in the : sense that in one segment of highway the patterns are one way and in : another segment the patterns are another way; not that the dots actually : rearrange themselves "in time", since time just is the length of : the highway), this highway might say that it used to be a little one-lane : country highway way back when, before it got to the big city. But to us : humans, who are not bound up in the two-dimensional world of the : highway-people (one of those dimensions being the highway-people's : "time", what we'd call length, and the other, what we'd call : width, being their space), we would look back and say that the highway IS : a one-laner out in the country and that it IS a ten-laner in the big city. : It "changes" only in that it is different between one point and : another; not that any change actually occurs in time. If any change did : happen to the highway in what we consider time, then that would be like : altering a timeline for the highway; our time would be the highway's : hyper-time. : Us being able to see the highway as a 2D image, with time being another : dimension to us, allows us to see all of the highway's history at once; we : are outside the highway-people's time. If changes to the highway were made : by building over on top of the old highway, instead of actually changing : the old highway in our time, then we would also be outside of the : highway-people's hypertime; we would see all their alternate timelines at : once. What we humans consider time would be, to the highway-people, : hyper-hyper-time; a dimension across which one could perceive the addition : or removal of alternate timelines (rather than just seeing them all : existing, statically). : So, going back a bit, when I asked if there is a time when your : great-great-great-grandfather exists, I don't mean are the particles of : his body still around scattered around the Earth somewhere (the answer to : which is clearly "yes"), nor am I asking if such particles count : as "him" (the answer to which doesn't even interest me; I think : identity metaphysics are kinda silly). I'm basically asking if the past : really exists, like other places exist; it's just somewhere else, : separated from us along a fourth axis instead of the familiar three of : space. If you say yes to that, I don't see how anything but what I've been : describing could be the case. The only way I can imagine anything else : working is if you're not thinking of time as a proper dimension at all, of : the same sort as a dimension of space.

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: : I think the problem here really is one of identity, though I'm not sure in : the same way that you mean it. : When I'm talking about "me" or "you" or "your : great-great-great-grandfather", I'm talking about our bodies. As : enduring things, these bodies necessarily are four-dimensional objects, : not merely three-dimensional objects, so long as you are considering time : as a dimension and not as something else entirely. That was the gist of my : question: whether you feel comfortable saying that there are other times, : in the exact same sense as there are other places; that in a tenseless : sense, there is a past Earth "somewhere back there", in a : direction which we are unable to point in in 3D space, exactly the same : way as there are other planets "up there" in the sky. As a four : dimensional physical object, I extend 24 and a half years into the past : and I don't yet know how many years into the future. And as a four : dimensional physical object, I do not move through time at all. I begin in : time 24ish years ago and I end some time in the future. The distance in : time from by birth to my death is my duration, which is a measurement : precisely like my height, width, and length. It is how big I am in time. : But I, my body, does not move through time; for movement is a change, and : change requires another dimension to move across, so if I were in fact : moving through time at all, even just moving forward at a steady rate : along with everything else, that itself would require some sort of : hyper-time. : However, my perception appears to "move" through time; or time : appears to "flow" past me. But the best way I can think to : describe this is thus: imagine you have a graphic novel, drawn in the : first person. You see hands and parts of a body and everything that the : main character (whose view you are watching from) sees. You look at one : panel and things are one way; then you look to the next panel and things : are different. And so on. But nothing about the graphic novel itself : actually changes; you could still look back at earlier panels. Now, it : seems that our perception, however that works, it tied up to moving at a : fixed rate from one panel to the next, more like frames of a movie; but : even in a movie, the film itself isn't changing as it plays. It's just : playing. The past frames are still there. They're just past. : Perhaps a better highway analogy would be to speak of highways themselves, : not cars on them. Say a highway single lane road in the countryside. As it : goes along toward the big city, it grows into a two lane, three lane, four : lane... eventually getting up to a huge ten-lane highway in the middle of : the big city. People driving down the highway would say, by the time that : they got to the city, that it "used to be" a single lane highway : back in the country. But technically, it still is a single-lane highway : back in the country; the people just aren't looking at that part of the : highway anymore. Now, these people in their car are other physical objects : actually moving down along the highway, but imagine instead that the : highway somehow had some sort of consciousness, where every slice of : highway was aware of being that slice of highway, and remembered having : been the previous slice of highway, all the way back to when it was just a : little single-lane highway back out in the countryside. : (This everything-is-a-4D-object thing is why I said is makes no sense for : something to move backwards in time, without somehow stepping outside the : timeline entirely first. Imagine if I asked you to build a highway that : went in a straight line from point A to point B, and then in a straight : line from point B halfway back to point A. How would you build the second : segment, from B halfway back? How would you even conceive of that? The : task makes no sense; what would I even be asking you to do? There's : already road there in that space. Are you supposed to dig it up and lay : new road? What?) : If these highways could talk to each other, spelling words out in the : changing patterns of their reflector dots ("changing" in the : sense that in one segment of highway the patterns are one way and in : another segment the patterns are another way; not that the dots actually : rearrange themselves "in time", since time just is the length of : the highway), this highway might say that it used to be a little one-lane : country highway way back when, before it got to the big city. But to us : humans, who are not bound up in the two-dimensional world of the : highway-people (one of those dimensions being the highway-people's : "time", what we'd call length, and the other, what we'd call : width, being their space), we would look back and say that the highway IS : a one-laner out in the country and that it IS a ten-laner in the big city. : It "changes" only in that it is different between one point and : another; not that any change actually occurs in time. If any change did : happen to the highway in what we consider time, then that would be like : altering a timeline for the highway; our time would be the highway's : hyper-time. : Us being able to see the highway as a 2D image, with time being another : dimension to us, allows us to see all of the highway's history at once; we : are outside the highway-people's time. If changes to the highway were made : by building over on top of the old highway, instead of actually changing : the old highway in our time, then we would also be outside of the : highway-people's hypertime; we would see all their alternate timelines at : once. What we humans consider time would be, to the highway-people, : hyper-hyper-time; a dimension across which one could perceive the addition : or removal of alternate timelines (rather than just seeing them all : existing, statically). : So, going back a bit, when I asked if there is a time when your : great-great-great-grandfather exists, I don't mean are the particles of : his body still around scattered around the Earth somewhere (the answer to : which is clearly "yes"), nor am I asking if such particles count : as "him" (the answer to which doesn't even interest me; I think : identity metaphysics are kinda silly). I'm basically asking if the past : really exists, like other places exist; it's just somewhere else, : separated from us along a fourth axis instead of the familiar three of : space. If you say yes to that, I don't see how anything but what I've been : describing could be the case. The only way I can imagine anything else : working is if you're not thinking of time as a proper dimension at all, of : the same sort as a dimension of space.
	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: