|
Would be great for recources like oil, gas, etc....
When it comes to just money, maybe win the next TSL. At least it would take less time to practice for TSL than traveling back in time one year again and again... 
|
On June 19 2008 18:01 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 17:37 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 17:03 mahnini wrote:On June 19 2008 16:27 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote:
Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists. Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time. I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science. Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept. The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings". Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence. If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable? Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical. Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically. I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real? I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you). Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world. I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept. I believe, when you speak of time that we have tested, you speak of observable time, that is, the measurement of the concept of time. If not, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it.
Of course we're going to measure time. Just like we're measuring height, weight, etc we need to measure time to test it. When I say "observable" I'm referring to the fact that we can see the effects of gravity on time through measurements. And just because we're measuring time does not mean it does not "exist". Feel free to make that argument again, but I've already talked explicitly about my definition of "existence". I'd love to hear yours.
|
On June 19 2008 17:27 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 16:50 HeadBangaa wrote:On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote:
There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present. What is your minimum sufficient condition of existence? Are you saying by contrast that the current moment does exist? I have semantical disagreement with you. There is an apple. It has physical existence. You vaporize it with a giant laser. Now the apple does not exist. None of the atoms are gone. Every atom of the apple still exists, but the apple does not. The apple was not only its atoms, but also the configuration of its atoms. Once the configuration of those atoms is changed enough that they no longer satisfy the definition of "the apple", the apple no longer exists. A reasonal physical definition of "a moment in time" would be the precise physical configuration of the universe at that moment. Once the moment has passed, that precise configuration is gone and no longer exists.
Existence ends when the atoms dissipate? Let me understand your paradigm; you believe numbers do not exist, correct?
What if I were to destroy all of the coconuts in the entire world: would the fruit "coconut" still exist? I would argue that since everyone knows exactly what a coconut is, it exists abstractly as a type definition. That there exist an instantiation of a particular type is irrelevant to its existence.
This is significant because it differentiates between meaningful and non-meaningful references ("Pegasus is flying" is a meanginful statement, whereas "arfb32lkdfy is flying" is garbage). When you reduce existence to extension as you have done, yes, you lose that dimension and the ability to quantify across time. But reality is a shared experience; we can make meaningful references to previous reality configurations.
This is a little off-course for time travel. Even using my own semantics, visiting the past would require its actual extension in addition to existence. And as you mentioned, there is no reason to believe that reality is perpetually cloning itself into discrete extensions.
|
Way too many paradoxes here.
The first thing that strikes me is this:
Say you build your time machine. You perfect it in such a way that it can transport people back in time. Your first experiment is sending YOURSELF back in time 5 minutes. You plan everything out, and 5 minutes before you start, you come out of the machine and shout "IT WORKS". Now, 5 minutes later you have to get into the machine, go back in time 5 minutes, and shout "IT WORKS". But for 5 minutes of time, there are two yous.
Now, which one will continue its existence? The initial you has to get into the time machine, while the you that came out will continue life in a normal way. Isn't there going to be a weird loop?
Maybe I should have named them You and Future You or something, but I guess you all understand what I mean.
Also, there was this episode of the outer limits that stuck to my mind ever since I saw it. There was this ET race that gave humans means to travel through huge distances in space in seconds. (something like teleportation). It worked by analyzing the person, creating a perfect clone on the other side, and then destroying the initial one. Think about that for a second. In theory, the clone would have your DNA, your looks, all your memories, the way you think, everything. Would you do it? Of course not, because the initial you would die.
This is, of course, a psychological issue, but I think it can relate to the topic at hand. Would you go back in time if that could mean the end of YOU and the continued existence of another, identical YOU?
|
On June 19 2008 18:15 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 17:27 Funchucks wrote:On June 19 2008 16:50 HeadBangaa wrote:On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote:
There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present. What is your minimum sufficient condition of existence? Are you saying by contrast that the current moment does exist? I have semantical disagreement with you. There is an apple. It has physical existence. You vaporize it with a giant laser. Now the apple does not exist. None of the atoms are gone. Every atom of the apple still exists, but the apple does not. The apple was not only its atoms, but also the configuration of its atoms. Once the configuration of those atoms is changed enough that they no longer satisfy the definition of "the apple", the apple no longer exists. A reasonal physical definition of "a moment in time" would be the precise physical configuration of the universe at that moment. Once the moment has passed, that precise configuration is gone and no longer exists. Existence ends when the atoms dissipate? Let me understand your paradigm; you believe numbers do not exist, correct? What if I were to destroy all of the coconuts in the entire world: would the fruit "coconut" still exist? I would argue that since everyone knows exactly what a coconut is, it exists abstractly as a type definition. That there exist an instantiation of a particular type is irrelevant to its existence. This is significant because it differentiates between meaningful and non-meaningful references ("Pegasus is flying" is a meanginful statement, whereas "arfb32lkdfy is flying" is garbage). When you reduce existence to extension as you have done, yes, you lose that dimension and the ability to quantify across time. But reality is a shared experience; we can make meaningful references to previous reality configurations. This is a little off-course for time travel; clearly previous configurations do not have extension, or else you couldn't arrive "there". Doesn't mean past moments don't "exist" though.
Okay I'm going to sleep now. Anyhow don't want to budge into between you two, but I believe neither of you are wrong or right given the fact that you each have a different definition of "existence". If you are going to ask a general question (Does the coconut still exist), then you must be willing to accept different answers based on different definitions. Your answer was one of many different possiblites. If you are looking for a specific answer, then the onus is on you as the asker to make your question more clear and precise.
|
I think the argument that we would be flooded with 'time tourists' if time travel worked is ridiculous... as the moon is not flooded with 'moon tourists', even though we've been there. Time travel will surely be prohibitively expensive long enough that by the time it's commercially available nobody will want to or be able to come here (i.e. when we're a Type III civilization that covers the galaxy). There's also the possibility that you can only go back to the point when the time machine was created.
|
On June 19 2008 18:08 berkguyyy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 18:01 mahnini wrote:On June 19 2008 17:37 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 17:03 mahnini wrote:On June 19 2008 16:27 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote:
Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists. Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time. I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science. Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept. The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings". Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence. If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable? Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical. Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically. I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real? I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you). Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world. I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept. I believe, when you speak of time that we have tested, you speak of observable time, that is, the measurement of the concept of time. If not, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it. Of course we're going to measure time. Just like we're measuring height, weight, etc we need to measure time to test it. When I say "observable" I'm referring to the fact that we can see the effects of gravity on time through measurements. And just because we're measuring time does not mean it does not "exist". Feel free to make that argument again, but I've already talked explicitly about my definition of "existence". I'd love to hear yours.
And I've already told you. Prove it.
For reference, I'm talking about how time, without the existence of anything to observe it, can't exist. You can get all philosophical and interpret that as you please (tree falling in woods crap), but if there is nothing to observe time, time does not exist.
|
On June 19 2008 18:26 berkguyyy wrote:
If you are going to ask a general question (Does the coconut still exist), then you must be willing to accept different answers based on different definitions. Your answer was one of many different possiblites. If you are looking for a specific answer, then the onus is on you as the asker to make your question more clear and precise.
I've made a distinction between coconut-the-thing and coconut-the-concept, and my wording is "Does the fruit 'coconut' still exist?" to make clear that I refer to the latter, thus avoiding the semantic ambiguity, and fulfilling said-onus.
His answer will tell me something about his idea of abstracts. I am not talking about a particular coconut as your statement implies, as he already answered that question with the apple example.
|
I think everyone in this thread is trying to make decent points except berkguyyy, who is just not understanding our logical arguments.
Time, by simple definition, is not a place to travel to or from. It is exactly one thing. A way to order a sequence of events. How can we make this ordering more precise? Well, what is one constant that never really changes much? The rotation of the planet we are on. So we developed a way to measure in perfect increments the passage of rotations of the planet.
At no point in the definition of this "system" we developed does any notion of spacial awareness come into play. In fact, the only "existence" of past is the physical evidence we make of it. Books, photos, memories, etc.. And the future is just a concept. There is no "leaping into the future". You can't move "forward" through time in any other method than freezing yourself in some sort of cryo-stasis and waiting until the moment. That is the closest feasible "time travel".
There are so many more exciting and frankly useful areas of science it really is a waste that intelligent people even waste their time on this.
|
The only direction in which we, as humans that are composed of multiple atoms, can travel in time is forward using relativity (ie going .9c relative to your brother, you come back a few years later in your time and he is very old while you are just a few years older!).
The only things that can really travel backwards are elementary particles (ie a proton is a positron travelling backwards in time). Plus causality would be totally clusterfucked and Hawking would shit his pants.
But I do like your money theory, although something bugs me about the conservation of mass. Because, if you could just keep on picking up an infinite number of dollar bills then that means there is new matter being created or copied and that means that the energy in the Universe could approach infinity, which kind of is a big "fuck you" to thermodynamics.
|
On June 19 2008 18:34 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 18:08 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 18:01 mahnini wrote:On June 19 2008 17:37 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 17:03 mahnini wrote:On June 19 2008 16:27 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote:
Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists. Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time. I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science. Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept. The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings". Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence. If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable? Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical. Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically. I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real? I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you). Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world. I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept. I believe, when you speak of time that we have tested, you speak of observable time, that is, the measurement of the concept of time. If not, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it. Of course we're going to measure time. Just like we're measuring height, weight, etc we need to measure time to test it. When I say "observable" I'm referring to the fact that we can see the effects of gravity on time through measurements. And just because we're measuring time does not mean it does not "exist". Feel free to make that argument again, but I've already talked explicitly about my definition of "existence". I'd love to hear yours. And I've already told you. Prove it. For reference, I'm talking about how time, without the existence of anything to observe it, can't exist. You can get all philosophical and interpret that as you please (tree falling in woods crap), but if there is nothing to observe time, time does not exist.
Time exists, and humans have definied a second as (from wiki, of course) the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
But if humans weren't here to measure time, things still move in time with respect to each other. Reactions take place over time. Objects move with velocity and acceleration, which are all in respect to time. Just because humans can't stamp a unit of measurement on it if we aren't around doesn't mean it's not there. Because if that was the case, it means that the universe would just stop if humans weren't around.
|
On June 19 2008 22:35 FzeroXx wrote:
I think everyone in this thread is trying to make decent points except berkguyyy, who is just not understanding our logical arguments.
Time, by simple definition, is not a place to travel to or from. It is exactly one thing. A way to order a sequence of events. How can we make this ordering more precise? Well, what is one constant that never really changes much? The rotation of the planet we are on. So we developed a way to measure in perfect increments the passage of rotations of the planet.
At no point in the definition of this "system" we developed does any notion of spacial awareness come into play. In fact, the only "existence" of past is the physical evidence we make of it. Books, photos, memories, etc.. And the future is just a concept. There is no "leaping into the future". You can't move "forward" through time in any other method than freezing yourself in some sort of cryo-stasis and waiting until the moment. That is the closest feasible "time travel".
There are so many more exciting and frankly useful areas of science it really is a waste that intelligent people even waste their time on this.
You are acting like we know how time works. We dont. It could be that there is no flowing time at all and that every moment is just a state and what we call time is just a rapid succession of such states. It could be that time and the universe is a multidimensional tree structure where in every instant the universe splits into two such that every possible chain of events has/will happend in one of them. Maybe we live in such a universe and maybe time travel is possible. There would be no time traveling paradoxes in a universe like that. Maybe we live in such a universe and timetravel is impossible. Maybe our direction and speed in this universe is bounded in some way. Maybe there is just one timeline that is predetermined. Maybe a designer planned it before head, maybe its just random but still a mechanic universe.
Some of those theories are more propable than others and me myself I believe in the tree structured universe. However there are leading phycisists who are both of your and of berkguyyys opinion so dont say he doesnt understand your arguments. He and I understand them very well. We just dont have the same idea of how the universe works.
|
You guys suck. You've taken over control of the thread with an argument that only 2-3 people care about, and none actually knows much about. It's theorycrafting anyway. The OP asked "what if" we would invent the said time machine, how would we use it to bla bla bla. What's the point in trying to prove that we can't invent it? And this will sound cliché, but there will always be skeptics who will say that the earth is flat, that people can't fly, that the moon landing was a hoax, that 640kb of RAM should be enough for everybody, and so on.
It's not like any of you guys will go "oh ok, you're right". So stop making me read long posts about boring stuff and get back to the topic at hand, which was actually quite interesting until this argument started.
Thank you,
Sarcasmless Romanian Guy.
|
Australia3818 Posts
If time travel existed, doesn't that mean future people could warp back here already?
Unless there is some secret time-travelling society...people come back from the future for kicks and have to blend in..and are only allowed to do so at the highest level of society, and it requires lots of training in order for them ever to come back, because if someone notices something bizarrely odd about someone they might be like "OMFG FUTURE TRAVELLERS!" and be called insane...and shit.
|
On June 19 2008 23:02 Smurg wrote:
If time travel existed, doesn't that mean future people could warp back here already?
Unless there is some secret time-travelling society...people come back from the future for kicks and have to blend in..and are only allowed to do so at the highest level of society, and it requires lots of training in order for them ever to come back, because if someone notices something bizarrely odd about someone they might be like "OMFG FUTURE TRAVELLERS!" and be called insane...and shit.
Well, so far, the video in the OP says that if we were to invent a machine that could sort-of twist time and create a worm-hole that things could pass through, it would only allow you to go back in time to the point that the machine was initially turned on.
Meaning that if we invent it and leave it on, we could go back from the future to when it was turned on. So that would mean that the minute we turn it on, some dude will come through with a baseball bat and smash it into pieces, then yell "DO NOT DO THAT AGAIN!!! YOU DON'T KNOW HOW FUCKED UP THIS WILL GET".
Well, that's my theory anyway.
|
On June 19 2008 14:58 GuYuTe- wrote:If time travel was possible we would already have visitors from the future. The future, Conan?
"IN THE YEAR 2000..."
|
On June 19 2008 18:34 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 18:08 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 18:01 mahnini wrote:On June 19 2008 17:37 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 17:03 mahnini wrote:On June 19 2008 16:27 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote:
Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists. Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time. I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science. Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept. The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings". Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence. If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable? Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical. Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically. I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real? I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you). Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world. I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept. I believe, when you speak of time that we have tested, you speak of observable time, that is, the measurement of the concept of time. If not, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it. Of course we're going to measure time. Just like we're measuring height, weight, etc we need to measure time to test it. When I say "observable" I'm referring to the fact that we can see the effects of gravity on time through measurements. And just because we're measuring time does not mean it does not "exist". Feel free to make that argument again, but I've already talked explicitly about my definition of "existence". I'd love to hear yours. And I've already told you. Prove it. For reference, I'm talking about how time, without the existence of anything to observe it, can't exist. You can get all philosophical and interpret that as you please (tree falling in woods crap), but if there is nothing to observe time, time does not exist.
It's not about being philosophical or proving. I told you that in my definition time exists because it can be measured and tested in the realm of science. In my defintion you do not need to actually see time to know that it exists because science has gone far along enough such that they know matter and visible light (only thing we can "see") is a mere fraction of the universe. I asked you to to define your terms (especially existence and concept) because if you don't define exactly where you stand then truthfully you're just running around in circles spewing whole bunch of prove this and prove that. So tell what exactly is your definition of these two terms?
|
no this would never work because of the butterfly effect.
|
On June 19 2008 19:24 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 18:26 berkguyyy wrote:
If you are going to ask a general question (Does the coconut still exist), then you must be willing to accept different answers based on different definitions. Your answer was one of many different possiblites. If you are looking for a specific answer, then the onus is on you as the asker to make your question more clear and precise. I've made a distinction between coconut-the-thing and coconut-the-concept, and my wording is "Does the fruit 'coconut' still exist?" to make clear that I refer to the latter, thus avoiding the semantic ambiguity, and fulfilling said-onus. His answer will tell me something about his idea of abstracts. I am not talking about a particular coconut as your statement implies, as he already answered that question with the apple example.
I really don't see why you just don't ask if the concept of coconut exists. Just because you put it into quotation does not automatically make the reader hone into the concept of coconut. The quotation could mean a lot of things and truthfully I don't think anyone would pick up where you are getting at until after the question has been elaborated on.
Now, it seems like both of you have different definitions and both are correct. Yours is a bit more abstract while his is more physical. When he gave the apple example, he defined "existence: pretty well by saying that it is dependent on the physical presence of the object. You gave an abstract example, but that requires a different definition from what he gave. In essence, both of you are wrong as both of you are correct.
Lastly, your position is a bit ambiguous because I'm not sure about the difference meaningful and non-meaningful references. You gave that Pegasus examples, but as you know many people especially in the non-Western world do not know of Pegasus. Where do you draw the line between meaningful shared experiences and non-meaningful shared experiences?
|
no, you cant make a fortunate this way because there is a loop. you would drop the $100, a past you would pick it up, the money is STILL YOURS. you drrop $100 = -100. your past picks up $100 = +100.
thats how i see it, because the 'picked' cash will vanish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/Photos_4_web/Conan2000.jpg)
