Re: back to the math ;)


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

Re: back to the math ;)

Posted By: Forrest of B.org Date: 12/19/06 1:36 p.m.
In Response To: back to the math ;) (MrHen)

: 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.
Leci n'est pas une grandpapa.
(It's a picture of a grandpa).
;-)
: 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.
Ok. So would you say, then, that there is some time in the past, some other point "behind us" on the "T-axis", where there is some arrangement of matter in such a form that it would commonly, grossly, be identified with your great-great-great-grandfather? I.e. that matter has some causal relation commonly called "fatherhood" with some other matter in another time that bears the same relation to some other matter in another time that bears the same relation to some other matter in some other time, etc etc, that bears that relation to some matter which is causally connected in some appropriate way with the matter that is presently "you"? That's another way of asking the original "ancestor question" which (hopefully) circumvents these problems with identity you're concerned about.
: 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.
I don't think it's absurd for the same four-dimensional object to exist twice in the same time, any more than it's absurd for a three-dimensional object like a tree branch to intersect the same plane twice. Only that stopping and turning around on the spot, rather than some sort of continuous curve through spacetime, is absurd, because then you're occupying the same PLACE at the same time. You seemed to be talking as though it might be possible to get in some machine which sit still in space and just reverses it's "motion" through time.
: 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.
This is why I think identification metaphysics are silly (by which I don't mean any offense to you). There's no real paradox here; it's just confusion of our labelling. There's a four-dimensional object (or if you like, a causally-connected series of three-dimensional objects, which when you get down to it are really just collections of 0-dimensional point particles) which twice intersects the same three-dimensional cross-section of the universe. Which one is "really" the rock? Both; they're different parts of the same (4D) rock. If we watched time play forward from here we'd watch the two rocks come together and then vanish; in fact, antiparticles are often described as regular particles temporally flipped, "going backward" in time; an electron and a positron annihilating are physically the same exact thing as an electron "turning around" in time. (Quotes because they're not literally "moving" in time; they "turn around" or "go backward" the same way a windy road "turns around", without actually moving in time).
Does the rock exist in two places at the same time? Sure, why not; my arm exists in two places at the same time. I occupy a whole bunch of different, mostly adjacent points in space. This time-travelling rock just does so in a weird way; it extends into the future and then back into the past again, so the two parts of it aren't spatially continuous. But then, on certain 2D planes my arm is not continuous with my torso, either.
: No, it does change. It changes along the spacial axes.
I was using change in two different senses, hence the one in quotes. Sorry for the confusion. I was saying that it changes along the spacial axes but doesn't "really change" (if change is to be understood in terms of timelike motion, which I thought you meant) in time.
: Okay, yeah, in the standard model that makes sense. But everything is still
: changing.
I'm not denying that change occurs; I'm just saying that the concept of "change" only make sense relative to some axis. A mountain changes it's diameter along the vertical axis; it's smaller at the top and "gets" wider at the bottom, even though it's not changing (much) over time. So if something changes it's position in time, i.e. what point in time it is located at, you have to ask "over what other axis is that change occurring?" If you just say "an axis of space", then all you're saying is that the object is moving; "at x=7, t=7", instead of "at t=7, x=7".
: 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.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say.
: We can
: see the events and pages, not because of our 3D space, but because we have
: all the data.
We have all the data because we exist in 3D space; we can see outside the 2D plane of the comic and see other such planes. Maybe a flip-book is a better analogy, since it's 2D planes are nicely stacked along a third axis already.
: 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.
That's about all I mean. To say that the past exists is to say that such-and-such page in the flipbook exists, and if you could choose which page of the flipbook to look at (which you can't do if you're a character in it), you could see what's there. To say that something exists in the past is to say that if you could look back to that earlier page, you would see that thing.
[snip]
: 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.
This whole scenario is possible in my model as well; and the problem about occupying the same place at the same time is why I was saying you couldn't just change your "speed" in time, and go into reverse; you'd have to somehow turn around, moving through space or some other dimension to do it.
I think this flipbook analogy works really well. There can be things that move forward and backward in time as you describe; as I've already said, particle-antiparticle reactions can be accurately described this way, with the annihilation event being the turn-around point in the single (4D) object's path. But if you (a character in the book) get to page 50 and there's not some backward-moving anti-you there to annihilate with, there's no way for you to turn around and go back in unilinear time, because if you could do that, then anti-you WOULD have existed. Since he doesn't, you can't. If you were going to move backward like that at all, you'd have to somehow create an alternate version of page 49, and 48, and 47, and so on back, drawing yourself into the world where you never existed. In this sense, of actually changing the past (not just having some reverse causal effect), like overwriting the pages of the flipbook, our outside-the-flipbook time becomes like hypertime to the people in the flipbook.
But, you could also have the story tell a loop; where the page after the last page is the first page. Or similarly, you could have a story where Future Bob magically appears on page 25 to meet his younger self, Original Bob, and then Original Bob later invents a time machine and vanishes on page 50, and so if you want to read the book in the order that Original Bob experiences it, you read pages 1-50 and then flip back to page 25 and read on. "The reader" here is the mysterious subject-of-experiences, whatever the heck that is.
You could also have a story where Bob goes along from pages 1 to 50 and then invents a time machine and vanishes from the rest of the book (which continues on without him); and then, there are alternate pages from 25 and on where Future Bob magically appears on page 25 and kills Original Bob, and then lives life in his place, differently, for the rest of the book.
But you'll note that all of this invokes some sort of "magical" teleportation, which is why I was saying, way back in the beginning of this thread, that time travel stories really don't work in the first place. The whole premise of talking about time loops, multiple timelines and so on is that IF it were possible to do this weird magical temporal-teleportation, then it would have to work like I've been saying; world loops or branching timelines. You seem to be talking just about backward causation, which isn't really "time travel" in the sense of changing the past, somehow making it other than what it was. Backward causation is a normal part of physics and it happens all the time. It's not actually changing the past, though; you couldn't go back in time to a time where there wasn't originally some sort of anti-you. Even if you jumped into a vat of antimatter, all you'd be "sending back in time" was a scattering of particles, which we already recorded in our history as a bunch of antiparticles with opposite velocities. You'd have changed nothing of the past.
So I think that's maybe where we got off track. From what I can tell what you're describing is accurate to how the world actually works (though I'm still not entirely sure we're on the same page regarding things "moving" through time). There's just a bunch of infinitesimal particles in the 4D continuum of spacetime (or, taking quantum physics into account, a smear of infinite different 4D continuums with different arrangements of infinitesimal particles), and we group them into "objects" with "extension" and "duration" for our convenience. But there's no time-travel involved there, even when there is "backward causation"; that's just a U-bend in a 4D "object".
Where I was going with multiple timelines and such was just the counterfactual conditional that IF it were possible to magically teleport to the past ("stepping outside of time"), then either that would have already happened in the past of the time that you came from (the scenario of "unilinear time with loops"), or if not, then what you'd have just done would be a change of the past, in which case you'd have to specify along which axis that change occurred, which would have to be some sort of hypertime (the scenario of "multilinear time with branches"). The style of "mental time travel" as in Marathon Infinity or The Butterfly Effect is still in essence this sort of magic teleportation; you are somehow, mysteriously, altering the brain-state of your past self. Thus the same sort of logic applies (either your past self already had that mysterious change of brain state and so nothing changes, it's just a loop; or if not, you've changes the past and thus there must be branches).
But you can't magically teleport into the past. So the whole question is moot.

[ 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:
: Leci n'est pas une grandpapa. : (It's a picture of a grandpa). : ;-) : Ok. So would you say, then, that there is some time in the past, some other : point "behind us" on the "T-axis", where there is some : arrangement of matter in such a form that it would commonly, grossly, be : identified with your great-great-great-grandfather? I.e. that matter has : some causal relation commonly called "fatherhood" with some : other matter in another time that bears the same relation to some other : matter in another time that bears the same relation to some other matter : in some other time, etc etc, that bears that relation to some matter which : is causally connected in some appropriate way with the matter that is : presently "you"? That's another way of asking the original : "ancestor question" which (hopefully) circumvents these problems : with identity you're concerned about. : I don't think it's absurd for the same four-dimensional object to exist twice : in the same time, any more than it's absurd for a three-dimensional object : like a tree branch to intersect the same plane twice. Only that stopping : and turning around on the spot, rather than some sort of continuous curve : through spacetime, is absurd, because then you're occupying the same PLACE : at the same time. You seemed to be talking as though it might be possible : to get in some machine which sit still in space and just reverses it's : "motion" through time. : This is why I think identification metaphysics are silly (by which I don't : mean any offense to you). There's no real paradox here; it's just : confusion of our labelling. There's a four-dimensional object (or if you : like, a causally-connected series of three-dimensional objects, which when : you get down to it are really just collections of 0-dimensional point : particles) which twice intersects the same three-dimensional cross-section : of the universe. Which one is "really" the rock? Both; they're : different parts of the same (4D) rock. If we watched time play forward : from here we'd watch the two rocks come together and then vanish; in fact, : antiparticles are often described as regular particles temporally flipped, : "going backward" in time; an electron and a positron : annihilating are physically the same exact thing as an electron : "turning around" in time. (Quotes because they're not literally : "moving" in time; they "turn around" or "go : backward" the same way a windy road "turns around", without : actually moving in time). : Does the rock exist in two places at the same time? Sure, why not; my arm : exists in two places at the same time. I occupy a whole bunch of : different, mostly adjacent points in space. This time-travelling rock just : does so in a weird way; it extends into the future and then back into the : past again, so the two parts of it aren't spatially continuous. But then, : on certain 2D planes my arm is not continuous with my torso, either. : I was using change in two different senses, hence the one in quotes. Sorry : for the confusion. I was saying that it changes along the spacial axes but : doesn't "really change" (if change is to be understood in terms : of timelike motion, which I thought you meant) in time. : I'm not denying that change occurs; I'm just saying that the concept of : "change" only make sense relative to some axis. A mountain : changes it's diameter along the vertical axis; it's smaller at the top and : "gets" wider at the bottom, even though it's not changing (much) : over time. So if something changes it's position in time, i.e. what point : in time it is located at, you have to ask "over what other axis is : that change occurring?" If you just say "an axis of space", : then all you're saying is that the object is moving; "at x=7, : t=7", instead of "at t=7, x=7". : That's pretty much what I was trying to say. : We have all the data because we exist in 3D space; we can see outside the 2D : plane of the comic and see other such planes. Maybe a flip-book is a : better analogy, since it's 2D planes are nicely stacked along a third axis : already. : That's about all I mean. To say that the past exists is to say that : such-and-such page in the flipbook exists, and if you could choose which : page of the flipbook to look at (which you can't do if you're a character : in it), you could see what's there. To say that something exists in the : past is to say that if you could look back to that earlier page, you would : see that thing. : [snip] : This whole scenario is possible in my model as well; and the problem about : occupying the same place at the same time is why I was saying you couldn't : just change your "speed" in time, and go into reverse; you'd : have to somehow turn around, moving through space or some other dimension : to do it. : I think this flipbook analogy works really well. There can be things that : move forward and backward in time as you describe; as I've already said, : particle-antiparticle reactions can be accurately described this way, with : the annihilation event being the turn-around point in the single (4D) : object's path. But if you (a character in the book) get to page 50 and : there's not some backward-moving anti-you there to annihilate with, : there's no way for you to turn around and go back in unilinear time, : because if you could do that, then anti-you WOULD have existed. Since he : doesn't, you can't. If you were going to move backward like that at all, : you'd have to somehow create an alternate version of page 49, and 48, and : 47, and so on back, drawing yourself into the world where you never : existed. In this sense, of actually changing the past (not just having : some reverse causal effect), like overwriting the pages of the flipbook, : our outside-the-flipbook time becomes like hypertime to the people in the : flipbook. : But, you could also have the story tell a loop; where the page after the last : page is the first page. Or similarly, you could have a story where Future : Bob magically appears on page 25 to meet his younger self, Original Bob, : and then Original Bob later invents a time machine and vanishes on page : 50, and so if you want to read the book in the order that Original Bob : experiences it, you read pages 1-50 and then flip back to page 25 and read : on. "The reader" here is the mysterious subject-of-experiences, : whatever the heck that is. : You could also have a story where Bob goes along from pages 1 to 50 and then : invents a time machine and vanishes from the rest of the book (which : continues on without him); and then, there are alternate pages from 25 and : on where Future Bob magically appears on page 25 and kills Original Bob, : and then lives life in his place, differently, for the rest of the book. : But you'll note that all of this invokes some sort of "magical" : teleportation, which is why I was saying, way back in the beginning of : this thread, that time travel stories really don't work in the first : place. The whole premise of talking about time loops, multiple timelines : and so on is that IF it were possible to do this weird magical : temporal-teleportation, then it would have to work like I've been saying; : world loops or branching timelines. You seem to be talking just about : backward causation, which isn't really "time travel" in the : sense of changing the past, somehow making it other than what it was. : Backward causation is a normal part of physics and it happens all the : time. It's not actually changing the past, though; you couldn't go back in : time to a time where there wasn't originally some sort of anti-you. Even : if you jumped into a vat of antimatter, all you'd be "sending back in : time" was a scattering of particles, which we already recorded in our : history as a bunch of antiparticles with opposite velocities. You'd have : changed nothing of the past. : So I think that's maybe where we got off track. From what I can tell what : you're describing is accurate to how the world actually works (though I'm : still not entirely sure we're on the same page regarding things : "moving" through time). There's just a bunch of infinitesimal : particles in the 4D continuum of spacetime (or, taking quantum physics : into account, a smear of infinite different 4D continuums with different : arrangements of infinitesimal particles), and we group them into : "objects" with "extension" and "duration" : for our convenience. But there's no time-travel involved there, even when : there is "backward causation"; that's just a U-bend in a 4D : "object". : Where I was going with multiple timelines and such was just the : counterfactual conditional that IF it were possible to magically teleport : to the past ("stepping outside of time"), then either that would : have already happened in the past of the time that you came from (the : scenario of "unilinear time with loops"), or if not, then what : you'd have just done would be a change of the past, in which case you'd : have to specify along which axis that change occurred, which would have to : be some sort of hypertime (the scenario of "multilinear time with : branches"). The style of "mental time travel" as in : Marathon Infinity or The Butterfly Effect is still in essence this sort of : magic teleportation; you are somehow, mysteriously, altering the : brain-state of your past self. Thus the same sort of logic applies (either : your past self already had that mysterious change of brain state and so : nothing changes, it's just a loop; or if not, you've changes the past and : thus there must be branches). : But you can't magically teleport into the past. So the whole question is : moot.

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: : Leci n'est pas une grandpapa. : (It's a picture of a grandpa). : ;-) : Ok. So would you say, then, that there is some time in the past, some other : point "behind us" on the "T-axis", where there is some : arrangement of matter in such a form that it would commonly, grossly, be : identified with your great-great-great-grandfather? I.e. that matter has : some causal relation commonly called "fatherhood" with some : other matter in another time that bears the same relation to some other : matter in another time that bears the same relation to some other matter : in some other time, etc etc, that bears that relation to some matter which : is causally connected in some appropriate way with the matter that is : presently "you"? That's another way of asking the original : "ancestor question" which (hopefully) circumvents these problems : with identity you're concerned about. : I don't think it's absurd for the same four-dimensional object to exist twice : in the same time, any more than it's absurd for a three-dimensional object : like a tree branch to intersect the same plane twice. Only that stopping : and turning around on the spot, rather than some sort of continuous curve : through spacetime, is absurd, because then you're occupying the same PLACE : at the same time. You seemed to be talking as though it might be possible : to get in some machine which sit still in space and just reverses it's : "motion" through time. : This is why I think identification metaphysics are silly (by which I don't : mean any offense to you). There's no real paradox here; it's just : confusion of our labelling. There's a four-dimensional object (or if you : like, a causally-connected series of three-dimensional objects, which when : you get down to it are really just collections of 0-dimensional point : particles) which twice intersects the same three-dimensional cross-section : of the universe. Which one is "really" the rock? Both; they're : different parts of the same (4D) rock. If we watched time play forward : from here we'd watch the two rocks come together and then vanish; in fact, : antiparticles are often described as regular particles temporally flipped, : "going backward" in time; an electron and a positron : annihilating are physically the same exact thing as an electron : "turning around" in time. (Quotes because they're not literally : "moving" in time; they "turn around" or "go : backward" the same way a windy road "turns around", without : actually moving in time). : Does the rock exist in two places at the same time? Sure, why not; my arm : exists in two places at the same time. I occupy a whole bunch of : different, mostly adjacent points in space. This time-travelling rock just : does so in a weird way; it extends into the future and then back into the : past again, so the two parts of it aren't spatially continuous. But then, : on certain 2D planes my arm is not continuous with my torso, either. : I was using change in two different senses, hence the one in quotes. Sorry : for the confusion. I was saying that it changes along the spacial axes but : doesn't "really change" (if change is to be understood in terms : of timelike motion, which I thought you meant) in time. : I'm not denying that change occurs; I'm just saying that the concept of : "change" only make sense relative to some axis. A mountain : changes it's diameter along the vertical axis; it's smaller at the top and : "gets" wider at the bottom, even though it's not changing (much) : over time. So if something changes it's position in time, i.e. what point : in time it is located at, you have to ask "over what other axis is : that change occurring?" If you just say "an axis of space", : then all you're saying is that the object is moving; "at x=7, : t=7", instead of "at t=7, x=7". : That's pretty much what I was trying to say. : We have all the data because we exist in 3D space; we can see outside the 2D : plane of the comic and see other such planes. Maybe a flip-book is a : better analogy, since it's 2D planes are nicely stacked along a third axis : already. : That's about all I mean. To say that the past exists is to say that : such-and-such page in the flipbook exists, and if you could choose which : page of the flipbook to look at (which you can't do if you're a character : in it), you could see what's there. To say that something exists in the : past is to say that if you could look back to that earlier page, you would : see that thing. : [snip] : This whole scenario is possible in my model as well; and the problem about : occupying the same place at the same time is why I was saying you couldn't : just change your "speed" in time, and go into reverse; you'd : have to somehow turn around, moving through space or some other dimension : to do it. : I think this flipbook analogy works really well. There can be things that : move forward and backward in time as you describe; as I've already said, : particle-antiparticle reactions can be accurately described this way, with : the annihilation event being the turn-around point in the single (4D) : object's path. But if you (a character in the book) get to page 50 and : there's not some backward-moving anti-you there to annihilate with, : there's no way for you to turn around and go back in unilinear time, : because if you could do that, then anti-you WOULD have existed. Since he : doesn't, you can't. If you were going to move backward like that at all, : you'd have to somehow create an alternate version of page 49, and 48, and : 47, and so on back, drawing yourself into the world where you never : existed. In this sense, of actually changing the past (not just having : some reverse causal effect), like overwriting the pages of the flipbook, : our outside-the-flipbook time becomes like hypertime to the people in the : flipbook. : But, you could also have the story tell a loop; where the page after the last : page is the first page. Or similarly, you could have a story where Future : Bob magically appears on page 25 to meet his younger self, Original Bob, : and then Original Bob later invents a time machine and vanishes on page : 50, and so if you want to read the book in the order that Original Bob : experiences it, you read pages 1-50 and then flip back to page 25 and read : on. "The reader" here is the mysterious subject-of-experiences, : whatever the heck that is. : You could also have a story where Bob goes along from pages 1 to 50 and then : invents a time machine and vanishes from the rest of the book (which : continues on without him); and then, there are alternate pages from 25 and : on where Future Bob magically appears on page 25 and kills Original Bob, : and then lives life in his place, differently, for the rest of the book. : But you'll note that all of this invokes some sort of "magical" : teleportation, which is why I was saying, way back in the beginning of : this thread, that time travel stories really don't work in the first : place. The whole premise of talking about time loops, multiple timelines : and so on is that IF it were possible to do this weird magical : temporal-teleportation, then it would have to work like I've been saying; : world loops or branching timelines. You seem to be talking just about : backward causation, which isn't really "time travel" in the : sense of changing the past, somehow making it other than what it was. : Backward causation is a normal part of physics and it happens all the : time. It's not actually changing the past, though; you couldn't go back in : time to a time where there wasn't originally some sort of anti-you. Even : if you jumped into a vat of antimatter, all you'd be "sending back in : time" was a scattering of particles, which we already recorded in our : history as a bunch of antiparticles with opposite velocities. You'd have : changed nothing of the past. : So I think that's maybe where we got off track. From what I can tell what : you're describing is accurate to how the world actually works (though I'm : still not entirely sure we're on the same page regarding things : "moving" through time). There's just a bunch of infinitesimal : particles in the 4D continuum of spacetime (or, taking quantum physics : into account, a smear of infinite different 4D continuums with different : arrangements of infinitesimal particles), and we group them into : "objects" with "extension" and "duration" : for our convenience. But there's no time-travel involved there, even when : there is "backward causation"; that's just a U-bend in a 4D : "object". : Where I was going with multiple timelines and such was just the : counterfactual conditional that IF it were possible to magically teleport : to the past ("stepping outside of time"), then either that would : have already happened in the past of the time that you came from (the : scenario of "unilinear time with loops"), or if not, then what : you'd have just done would be a change of the past, in which case you'd : have to specify along which axis that change occurred, which would have to : be some sort of hypertime (the scenario of "multilinear time with : branches"). The style of "mental time travel" as in : Marathon Infinity or The Butterfly Effect is still in essence this sort of : magic teleportation; you are somehow, mysteriously, altering the : brain-state of your past self. Thus the same sort of logic applies (either : your past self already had that mysterious change of brain state and so : nothing changes, it's just a loop; or if not, you've changes the past and : thus there must be branches). : But you can't magically teleport into the past. So the whole question is : moot.
	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: