Jump to content

DrMises

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Rgrunt-- Your idea certainly seems to be a plausible hypothesis. I may be oversimplifying the matter (or have missed a major point entirely), but I can't help but wondering about the physical ramifications of being even temporally present at the big bang. That is, wouldn't being there at the time of the mother of all explosions be a little difficult to survive? Let me change gears in this post to present a slightly oddball idea: I truly like the idea of slight temporal differences between worldlines. If we take this concept a step further, and looked further across (as opposed to "down") the worldlines, we may see greater differences in time. That is one worldline at our reference time 2:00pm would be at 3:00pm at another worldline further across this array of worldlines. The further across, the greater the temporal difference. That being said, we can state that all times exist simultaneously. Therefore, time travel need not be a linear event, but rather a "skipping over" of worldlines. Of course, it can be agued that this would not be a genuine form of time travel, merely an illusory one. So...how could this be accomplished, folks? Any ideas? I'm guessing a singularity of some sort may still be required. However, I think Pamela and others may have really hit upon something with their ideas of deja-vu and other phenomenon. Maybe it's a bit easier than I've been thinking. --Theo
  2. Hello! If I understand TT_0 properly (which, I'm afraid, may be debatable)and if I may be so presumptuous as to risk an idea based on Trott's question to test my understanding: If the potential divergens is approximately .00024%, then the difference between "adjacent" worldlines has the highest probability to be negligible. Assuming that, then a TT_0 from "the next worldline over" is likely to have left to go on a similar mission and will return to "the original" TT_0's worldline. That is, the TT_0 we've obviously found so stimulating will return to a different worldline, surely, but it would be so similar to his own, it might as well be his original. Similarly, a TT_0 ("not ours") will return from a worldline similar to our own to "our TT_0's" worldline and be such a perfect doppleganger that the "originating" worldline recieves the IBM, and his Mom never knows the difference. Am I even close, TT_0? -Theo
  3. Prophet, Perceptive, but not really. Dr. Gustav Fechner (1801-1887). He was a scientist and precursor to experimental psychology who had a difficult time settling an internal conflict between his psychophysical research and his conflicting viewpoints. To alleviate this strife, he published a series of scathing articles under the pen name "Dr. Mises." It felt appropriate, for slightly different reasons. Thanks for asking! -Theo
  4. Nice one, Harry! Certainly, the concept of time as an illusion is an old idea. For that matter, the concept of reality as an illusion is nothing new either, as you're probably aware. Take the paradox sometimes attributed to the ancient philosopher, Zeno, for example: In order for a runner to get from point A to point B, he must first cross intermediary point, C. However, before he can reach point C from point A, he must cross another intermediary point, D. Still before he even gets close to point D, yet another point between A and D must be crossed (We'll call it E? What the heck.) It works a lot better when it's drawn on paper. At any rate, the basic idea is that by dividing the distance to be traveled into infinite subsections, it becomes apparent (at least to Zeno) that movement is an illusion. It's only a brief extension from that to postulate that space is also illusory, and from that, we can state that time is indeed an illusion. Now the real question is: If all this (sweeping gesture)is so illusory, why are we nonetheless perceiving it? Any ideas? -Theo
  5. Interesting article, thanks for pointing it out! It's good to see that others are keeping in mind the "practical applications" of time control. I wonder if we could talk him out of a blueprint? LOL Does anyone here get the journal he alluded to? -Theo
  6. Aye, but only recently! (caught your post in another thread) -Theo
  7. Doctor, Sounds like a temporal version of Plato's allegory of the cave. It seems an agreeable position, really. I must confess, however, to being a little confused. According to your argument, someone would have to travel through time in order to be able to understand time to such an extent as to sufficiently define it? I understand that, in order for someone to understand a concept, that person must have lived in a time in which it is understandable. If you take the position that we currently live in a time in which time is not understandable, then anyone who can adequately define time is indeed a time traveler. However, it can also be argued that we exist on the cusp of such understanding and the concept is indeed understandable, but the technology is not quite widely accessible. Similar to DaVinci, who had a rudimentary understanding or aeronautics, but no airplane technology, or a person living in the early 1900's who could understand horseless transportation or even the workings of the internal combustion engine without the luxury of ever having ridden in a car, we may be able to define time without directly experiencing it's travel. Or maybe I just misunderstood! Whew! I really rambled on that one! Thaks for your sustained attention! ------------------ Theo
×
×
  • Create New...