TTA_01 Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Greetings fellow esteemed colleagues of the TTI, I don't believe I need an introduction. This thread was created to consider and debate the possibility, if and when Time Travel becomes humanly possible, will it be wrong to use? My opponent for this debate also needs no introduction. You know him as RMT. In the tradition of philosophers before us, we will attempt to answer this question and many others, and come face-to-face with the possibilities this technology will impose on mankind and it's ethical use. As we begin, please feel free to kindly interject your views if you wish. This is a debate that RMT has asked the TTA to engage him in. This debate will be on the TTA's premise that: Time Travel's impact on Spiritual & Human advancement, go hand-in-hand. And that by use of Time Travel to obtain that advancement, is by an unethical means. Let us begin with an open Q&A forum, or unless you know of a particularly more efficient format you'd like for this to flow, I'm open to suggestions!Till then, please feel free to begin by asking me anything you have expressed a disagreement with the TTA that stands out to you RMT. Furthermore, all posts made by the TTA on the subject of Time Travel (including those made 6 yrs ago) are fair game in this debate. The bull is out of it's pen, and the stage is set, shall we begin? Happy Hunting TTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenUnconscious Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Re: The Ethics of Time Travel: Is Time Traveling W theoretical issue #1 : Somebody has already initiated time travel, this fictitious person travels to the past, to the future, and alters time so that the entire human race will be destroyed. They then leave you their time travel machine and tell you that unless time is changed again, all life on planet earth will be gone by tomorrow. Do you, knowing the future through anothers interferrence with time, use the time machine to save the planet? theoretical issue #2 : in this case, you are fortunate enough to be at Nasa when they spot a huge comet about to impact earth and kill all life on the planet (catch the theme here?). They say "if only we had known about it a day earlier!" because at this point its too late to do anything. You, in your infinite wisdom, happen to have access to a time travel device. Knowing everyone will die the next day and the earth will be shattered into a thousand pieces, and if this information had been known yesterday we could prevent it. Do you, either use your device, or at least inform the government that you have such a device at your disposal? more to come after we see how you answer these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Hi TTA, Let us begin with an open Q&A forum, or unless you know of a particularly more efficient format you'd like for this to flow, I'm open to suggestions! I'd say the traditional point/counter-point and "terms of reference" rules should be good enough. We can try "open fotrum Q&A" but that can often lead a debate somewhere out into the weeds. Either way, I don't care as much about the form as I do the substance.This thread was created to consider and debate the possibility, if and when Time Travel becomes humanly possible, will it be wrong to use? Along the lines of "terms of reference" this point that I have quoted offers us our first "deep" consideration that we must deal with. Before we can assess the "badness or goodness" (ethics) for the use of any technology, we must have a firm handle on how that technology will manifest. Being the scientific "traffic cop" that I usually am, I have to point out that speculating that TT will manifest in the "romantic" notion that are prevalent in stories, TV, and movies is invalid for debating ethics of TT usage. What I mean by this is we could come up with an entire ethical stance grounded on nothing more than "assumptions" about how the technology would become manifest. If those assumptions prove to be incorrect, and TT manifests in a different manner, then the derived ethical standards would be suspect (and possibly erroneous/flawed).What I am getting at here is that there is little scientific evidence to suggest that the "romantic" notion of TT would ever be the way it would actually manifest. Namely, the ability to maintain your current composition of Mass while "passing thru time" is highly suspect, and there is little foundation that TT would actually manifest in this manner. This is one reason why I believe it is difficult to debate ethics of a technology with any kind of certainty until you know precisely how that technology manifests (and especially what its limiations are). It is certainly easy to pass judgement based on wild speculation of what TT may look like, but such judgement would be based on speculation, not facts. Time Travel's impact on Spiritual & Human advancement, go hand-in-hand. But don't you think this same statement could be made for any revolutionary technology? For example, about 100 years ago mankind could not communicate with each other over vast distances in "real time". Has the evolution of this technology impacted our spiritual tendencies? Certainly it has impacted our human advancement.And that by use of Time Travel to obtain that advancement, is by an unethical means. Here is where I think we need "terms of reference" or standards by which we measure "unethical". And once again, we cannot necessarily assume that TT will be implemented in such a way that an existing ethical standard could/would be violatable. For example, do we wish to speculate that TT will definitely permit causality violation? So far, science has no evidence that this could come about.Those are my initial replies. As you can see, I would like to stay away from unfounded speculations because that is really not much of a debate... more just an opinion-speculation festival! :)RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Re: The Ethics of Time Travel: Is Time Traveling W Hi Ren, theoretical issue #1 : (snip) Do you, knowing the future through anothers interferrence with time, use the time machine to save the planet? theoretical issue #2 : (snip) Do you, either use your device, or at least inform the government that you have such a device at your disposal? I believe with your theoretical issues you have provided scenarios which support one of my primary contentions in this debate. Namely, that any technology can be used for "good" or "evil", and as such this means that the label of "good" or "evil" is not appropriate to identify any technology. Rather, the ethics of the use of a technology are more solidly aligned with the intent behind how it is used.Another more mundane example: A firearm is a technology that can certainly aid one in the ethical endeavor of feeding oneself and their family via game. Yet a firearm can also be used in an unethical (from the standpoint of the 6th Commandment) act of murder. And all this leads to the tired (yet valid) saying that "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." To me this points to choices for how to use technology as being the focus of ethical issues... not necessarily the technology itself.RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iridium Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Re: The Ethics of Time Travel: Is Time Traveling W I believe with your theoretical issues you have provided scenarios which support one of my primary contentions in this debate. Namely, that any technology can be used for "good" or "evil", and as such this means that the label of "good" or "evil" is not appropriate to identify any technology. Rather, the ethics of the use of a technology are more solidly aligned with the intent behind how it is used. Let's focus on this point. I think it's a good one to start out with. Is a technology always ethically neutral? Or, can there be technologies that no matter what are only good or bad? I think back to my cartoon-watching days. Some evil villian has invented a death-ray of doom or whatnot. In a simple scenario, and because the authors of the cartoon wish it, it's easy to see that technology as inherently evil. But could that same death-ray of doom be used for good, say to blow an impending doomsday comet out of space and thus save the earth? Of course.But, can we think of any technology that COULD be only inherently evil or good? If we can, then we can move a step further to see if Time Travel falls into the category of a technology that is only inherently evil. I think that would be the arguement TTA needs to make. Let me take a stab at it...ok....let's see. Ok, a technology that is only inherently evil...hmmm...this may be lame but here goes. A technology (drug or device -whatever) that forces people to do exactly what they don't want to do. Could this technology be used for good? Perhaps if used on evil humans? Would that make it good? You guys see where I'm going with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iridium Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Re: The Ethics of Time Travel: Is Time Traveling W You know, after re-reading my post...it almost seems like we may need to focus on what can be defined as "good" vs "evil". One person's good is another person's evil. It's called moral relativism. We need an absolute or this discussion is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Re: The Ethics of Time Travel: Is Time Traveling W Hi iridium, You know, after re-reading my post...it almost seems like we may need to focus on what can be defined as "good" vs "evil". One person's good is another person's evil. It's called moral relativism. We need an absolute or this discussion is pointless. EXACTLY my point. Thus begs the question "IS there an absolute for ethics and morals?" Given that, scientifically, Einstein showed (and we all agree) that the mechanics of the universe hold no absolutes, why should metaphysics be different?This is precisely why I don't think you can brand a technology as evil, only how one chooses to use it. A rock is a rock, but when a rock is involved in the choice of throwing it at someone else's head it MAY be evil... but then again, if that person is coming at me with a knife, then it is self-defense. NONE of those considerations change the fundamental basics of rock "technology".In my mind it all points back towards INTENTION. RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Re: The Ethics of Time Travel: Is Time Traveling W A technology (drug or device -whatever) that forces people to do exactly what they don't want to do. Could this technology be used for good? Perhaps if used on evil humans? Would that make it good? You guys see where I'm going with this? I certainly do...see post above. What if "what they don't want to do" is give up killing other people? Or raping other people? Chemical and/or medical castration has been deemed by more than one government to be a "good" use of the technology if it prevents more victims of rape by the same predator.I think one would be hard-pressed to name ANY technology that couldn't just as easily be used for good as for bad. I hate to use another cliche, but it may help us in this debate: "The needs of the many often outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Isn't this how we, as a society, determine our relative moral standards for good and evil?RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MildSkeptic Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Re: The Ethics of Time Travel: Is Time Traveling W I'm not sure that comparing a firearm to a time machine is valid. Is it not likely there must be a point at which technology will advance to a point where humanity is incapable of responsably using it? I think (though I may be wrong) that most of this forum's members believe in evolution, and so I will phrase my question taking evolution for granted: If humanity evolves at such a rate that it's brain will expand one cubic cm in 10 million years (an arbitrary figure, but you get my drift) and technology is developping at such a rate that in little over 130 years after the invention of the automobile, we have stealth bombers, Mars rovers, and spy satellites, might not giving homo sapiens a time machine be like giving a baby RMT's firearm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Re: The Ethics of Time Travel: Is Time Traveling W Hi MilkSkeptic: I'm not sure that comparing a firearm to a time machine is valid. Perhaps it isn't if you consider only the comparison and not what it is intended to exemplify. The point I was making applies regardless of whether you use a firearm, a time machine, or a rock. The "thing" is not unethical, rather how you use it could be.Is it not likely there must be a point at which technology will advance to a point where humanity is incapable of responsably using it? Well of course, but now am I to understand that you are trying to fit all humanity into one mold? In point of fact, there are people living in this world TODAY who are incapable of responsibly owning a firearm without using it unethically (or should I just say unlawfully). So if we try to use the "broad brush" approach then there will ALWAYS be people alive who cannot be trusted with "Technology A" (insert any technology here). This would then lead to a natural conclusion that we should not develop ANY technology as long as there is one person who cannot use it responsibly.If humanity evolves at such a rate that it's brain will expand one cubic cm in 10 million years (an arbitrary figure, but you get my drift) and technology is developping at such a rate that in little over 130 years after the invention of the automobile, we have stealth bombers, Mars rovers, and spy satellites, might not giving homo sapiens a time machine be like giving a baby RMT's firearm? Yet in our world, today, we DO have stealth bombers, Mars rovers, and spy satellites, but they are not available for use by all. There are restrictions, laws, and procedures which are purposefully there to PREVENT people who have "evil intent" from using them at their own whim.Whether you realize it or not, your focus on "whether or not we are responsible enough to use it" is really supporting the crux of my first point in this argument, namely that it is not the technology itself that is "evil", but rather how it is used. IOW, I do not accept the (apparant) blanket assertion from TTA that the technology of time travel is "unethical", but rather that the unrestricted use of it could lead to unethical actions (as with any technology we have today, and I do mean ANY). And I would have no problem debating how one restricts use such that a technology is available for "good" causes (i.e. nuclear technology to generate nuclear power, etc.)RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenUnconscious Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Re: The Ethics of Time Travel: Is Time Traveling W Some evil villian has invented a death-ray of doom or whatnot. In a simple scenario, and because the authors of the cartoon wish it, it's easy to see that technology as inherently evil. But could that same death-ray of doom be used for good, say to blow an impending doomsday comet out of space and thus save the earth? Of course. And in this respect, time travel becomes the ultimate moral/ethical debate, and the only one which matters. Consider the above scenario, now add that since i've got a time travel machine I can travel to the future and see if the "death-ray" will be used for good or evil. in doing so, we could always tell what technology we are ready for and when we are ready for it. defeating the evils of technology once and for all.in this example time travel determines the true outcome of a technological choice, by looking into the future, and either accepting its outcome or preventing it. overall the best choice would be to develop time travel technology in order to prevent anyone else from using the same technology for harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darby Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Javier, Can you define exactly what you mean by use of the word "ethical" in this regard? Ethical behavior generally relates to the conduct of a defined group of people - a profession, club, industry, etc. It doesn't, generally, apply to the entire population. Moral behavior generally relates to a larger segment of the population such as a particular religion but it still doesn't necessarily encompass the entire population. Legal behavior relates to statutory law. Of the three it is the only code of conduct that includes the entire population. Its possible to do an act that violates, for instance, ethical behavior but not moral or legal behavior. One can switch "ethical", "moral" and "legal" around at will in the above sentence and have it still be a true statement. I'm not making this post to split hairs. What is ethical to one person may not be seen as ethical to another. Example, a physician who euthanizes a terminal suffering patient has violated the ethical standards of his/her profession (not to mention the law). But a veterinarian who euthanizes a terminal suffering patient is wholly within the ethical standards of that profession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTA_01 Posted May 23, 2006 Author Share Posted May 23, 2006 Great start everyone, very intelligent discussions so far. RMT, But don't you think this same statement could be made for any revolutionary technology? For example, about 100 years ago mankind could not communicate with each other over vast distances in "real time". Has the evolution of this technology impacted our spiritual tendencies? Certainly it has impacted our human advancement. Yes, I agree. I think you and I had a difference in opinion regarding this point originally on the other thread. Probably on the radicalism aspect of it.The way it manifests (personally speaking) it 'synchronizes' and brings together all 'actions and decisions' in order to create the end result that we are designed for and coordinated to be. Unduplicatable 'coincidences' are the tell tale signs to this, the violation of human freewill. This is what is translated as Time Travel to the TTA, and why I see it as an unethical practice. For example: One can live their life knowing the boundaries of their world, and understand basic judgments of right & wrong. Though, one thinks they have a choice. One acts and feels a sense of accomplishment or failure when this 'choice' is exercised. Though, how much of it was really the person's own doing, if someone pulled the strings to arrange it to be? If you were placed or moved around like a pawn, isn't it wrong to suggest to a human being that they have freewill, but really take complete command of their lives to fulfill some end result purpose? ….. "IS there an absolute for ethics and morals?" Given that, scientifically, Einstein showed (and we all agree) that the mechanics of the universe hold no absolutes, why should metaphysics be different? This is precisely why I don't think you can brand a technology as evil, only how one chooses to use it. A rock is a rock, but when a rock is involved in the choice of throwing it at someone else's head it MAY be evil... but then again, if that person is coming at me with a knife, then it is self-defense. NONE of those considerations change the fundamental basics of rock "technology" Yes, a rock is a rock, and people commit unethical acts with objects and technology, I agree with that assertion.But perhaps it is not just a question of man simply being irresponsible with the technology, but also being given the option and chance to be. If some people are given the chance to take advantage of something or a situation, and think they can get away with it, I think that most will probably do it, IMO. Either from crossing a red light when no one is looking, taking more then 1 free sample, or pocketing a few dollars at the bank they work at; the technology in the places that make things happen may not be what is unethical, but perhaps given the option to exploit them can be. I believe with your theoretical issues you have provided scenarios which support one of my primary contentions in this debate. Namely, that any technology can be used for "good" or "evil", and as such this means that the label of "good" or "evil" is not appropriate to identify any technology. & I think one would be hard-pressed to name ANY technology that couldn't just as easily be used for good as for bad. I hate to use another cliche, but it may help us in this debate: "The needs of the many often outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Ok, any technology can be used for 'good' and 'evil' got that, however in this scenario; let's not pin the ethical dilemma on the technology, but on the appropriateness of the society to allow it's use for the masses.Suppose in 4000 years from now, a society possess great power, and intends to utilize a technology that can subjugate an individual's freewill without their knowledge? Why? Because after everything's been said and done, 1 final endeavor remains, and eludes them. Would that be an unethical use of the technology by this society? With a bigger picture in place, let's say the survival of the human race and advancement of their spiritual salvation depended on it. Would the society's actions then seem more appropriate and willing to be accepted? In conclusion, is it ever justifiable for a dying race that's done it all, to manipulate mankind to fullfill their purpose? And if they have done it and been successful, and their actions can be be verified and proved in the present, where would we stand on the Ethics of Time Travel today? Those are my initial replies. As you can see, I would like to stay away from unfounded speculations because that is really not much of a debate... more just an opinion-speculation festival! And unfortunately, speculation of Time Travel is more in abundance. So where does that leave us with this debate?What can we extrapolate as a temporary framework on the nature of Time Travel thus far? Our understanding of it's implementation maybe inadequate, though I think conventional wisdom (or not so conventional for the TTA) may yet be able to suggest to the nature of Time Travel, and the ethical and moral implications of it's use. TTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTA_01 Posted May 23, 2006 Author Share Posted May 23, 2006 Hey Darby, Can you define exactly what you mean by use of the word "ethical" in this regard? I don't mean anything fancy by it, other then just basic right and wrong ideals. I mean that Time Traveling would be wrong to advance a society spiritually; I believe it's considered cheating, especially at the cost of lying to the masses to do it.We don't allow cheating in sports, in writing, in schools, cheating on any level is wrong, IMO. Ethical behavior generally relates to the conduct of a defined group of people - a profession, club, industry, etc. It doesn't, generally, apply to the entire population. What does relate and apply also to an entire population is freewill, IMO. Encircled around them, is also a sense of self and a will to live in their own way. I believe this is basic in the foundation of a society's ethical behavior, and why many differ from our own.TTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iridium Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 We don't allow cheating in sports, in writing, in schools, cheating on any level is wrong, IMO. Would you "cheat" in some way if it was the only way to stop someone from raping your wife?There are some huge concepts that need to be put in place and agreed to before we go to far in this or nothing will come of it. I don't mean anything fancy by it, other then just basic right and wrong ideals. I mean that Time Traveling would be wrong to advance a society spiritually; I believe it's considered cheating, especially at the cost of lying to the masses to do it. If you take this statement and apply my analogy to it, lets say society = wife, spirituality = wife's purity, you = husband, threat to society's spirituality = rape, time travel = cheating.Would you cheat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Choices & Free Will TTA, In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But don't you think this same statement could be made for any revolutionary technology? For example, about 100 years ago mankind could not communicate with each other over vast distances in "real time". Has the evolution of this technology impacted our spiritual tendencies? Certainly it has impacted our human advancement. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, I agree. I think you and I had a difference in opinion regarding this point originally on the other thread. Probably on the radicalism aspect of it. Most likely it was the radicalism aspect of it. And I am glad to see you discussing choice and free will in your reply, as I do believe this is a major theme in the use of any technology, whether it be for "good" or "evil".Now let me give an example that will set the stage for some of my rebuttals to your later thoughts: I grew up in Ohio, and not too far from settlements of Amish and Quaker people. Proud, hard-working people who have strong ethical and moral codes within their communities. Yet these two communities also represent excellent case studies with regard to the advanced technology/communications example I gave above. Neither of these groups of people "accept" (i.e. choose to utilize) various aspects of modern technologies... the Amish much moreso than the Quakers, but the point is to show a gamut of possibilities of choices from our "typical" US culture, to the subculture of the Quakers, to the extreme stances of the Amish. An interesting side note is that my flight controls boss was also from Ohio and grew up in a Quaker family. And now here he is the manager of some of the most advanced flight control technology development the world has ever known! The Quakers and the Amish made decisions, as communities, to NOT accept/use/integrate a great deal of modern technologies. If you research the reasoning behind this, I think you will find a lot of similarities between their reasons and your arguments on why you believe TT is unethical. The way it manifests (personally speaking) it 'synchronizes' and brings together all 'actions and decisions' in order to create the end result that we are designed for and coordinated to be. Unduplicatable 'coincidences' are the tell tale signs to this, the violation of human freewill. This is what is translated as Time Travel to the TTA, and why I see it as an unethical practice. Now this is where our debate could fall apart because of the differences between belief and actualization. I respect your belief that this is how TT manifests, and that you think it can be implemented such that total violation of human free will could possibly result. However, as a man of science, I must ask "but is this the way that nature will ALLOW such a technology to be actualized?" I do not believe so, because it would literally involve having complete control over ALL Mass, Space, and Time in the universe... and the universe just does not work this way when it comes to control... when you gain tighter control of one aspect of a situation, you necessarily lose some other aspect of control over the situation. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is another way of stating this: The more accurately I know a particle's position, the less accurately I know its momentum. Beyond this argument, the amount of Energy needed to be able to control all Mass, Time, and Space would be larger than the total amount of Energy represented by the universe itself (using a thermodynamic entropy view). Finally, we will really have to examine the intricacies of human free will to know if it is ever possible to totally violate one's free will (which is different than just influencing it).For example: One can live their life knowing the boundaries of their world, and understand basic judgments of right & wrong. Though, one thinks they have a choice. One acts and feels a sense of accomplishment or failure when this 'choice' is exercised. Though, how much of it was really the person's own doing, if someone pulled the strings to arrange it to be? If you were placed or moved around like a pawn, isn't it wrong to suggest to a human being that they have freewill, but really take complete command of their lives to fulfill some end result purpose? A fair enough example. And *IF* TT were to manifest in such a way as this, where one could completely subjugate human free will, then the USE of it to do this would certainly be unethical to me. However, I am far from convinced both that the laws of the universe would permit it to manifest this way, and that the human free will is as limited as such an example would seem to imply. The issue is "COMPLETE command of their lives" vs. the ability to "influence their lives" in one, or a handful, of ways. To me, the latter is the only real possibility because of the control/Heisenberg arguments I have provided above.If some people are given the chance to take advantage of something or a situation, and think they can get away with it, I think that most will probably do it, IMO. Either from crossing a red light when no one is looking, taking more then 1 free sample, or pocketing a few dollars at the bank they work at; the technology in the places that make things happen may not be what is unethical, but perhaps given the option to exploit them can be. But I am sure you must see where this argument leads! One cannot have advancement without also creating a risk. IOW, the "bad" necessarily comes with the "good". So I would equate this type of argument with being equivalent to "even though we could potentially save a great many lives with stem cell research, there are evils associated with it that people could exploit. Therefore, we should not develop the technology at all." And this line of reasoning doesn't end with one technology, but extends to ALL technologies. This was why I wanted to stress my point about the USE of a technology being the basis of ethics, because it points out that ANY technology can be abused... and is the potential for abuse so bad that we would also not want to avail ourselves of the benefits?BTW, I do not share the pessimistic view of human nature that you seem to hold. I do not think that "most will probably do it". Again go back to the firearms issue. The vast majority of firearms owners in this country do not abuse this technology. WHY they do not abuse this technology is likely different for each one. For some it is our laws, and their respect for them, that hold them in check. For others, they have a deeper ethic than laws that some might say is the "do unto others" philosophy. It is an individual decision, and one which hinges on human free will. I, for one, as a firearms owner see my ability to own and operate this technology primarily as a means of self-defense. Regardless of formal law, I would not use this technology to rob someone because my internalized model aligns with "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Ok, any technology can be used for 'good' and 'evil' got that, however in this scenario; let's not pin the ethical dilemma on the technology, but on the appropriateness of the society to allow it's use for the masses. Suppose in 4000 years from now, a society possess great power, and intends to utilize a technology that can subjugate an individual's freewill without their knowledge? Why? Because after everything's been said and done, 1 final endeavor remains, and eludes them. Would that be an unethical use of the technology by this society? OK, again I see you agreeing with my point. It is not about the technology, it is about its use. And I certainly agree that you can pose hypotheticals which would show how any technology can be used for good or evil, as you have done here. What I do not see is a convincing argument that: (a) TT will manifest in the "complete control" means you describe, and more importantly (b) Why you think the potential for evil use of a technology could not be mitigated so that we could enjoy the benefits it may hold.With a bigger picture in place, let's say the survival of the human race and advancement of their spiritual salvation depended on it. Would the society's actions then seem more appropriate and willing to be accepted? In conclusion, is it ever justifiable for a dying race that's done it all, to manipulate mankind to fullfill their purpose? And if they have done it and been successful, and their actions can be be verified and proved in the present, where would we stand on the Ethics of Time Travel today? I see you arguing in generalities, rather than specifics. And the "generality" that I must oppose is based on the notion that the manifestation of TT would allow any form of "complete control" over a person, a society, or the events they live through. The WHOLE universe operates on ACTION/REACTION. As such, I think it would be a bit naieve to assume that TT could manifest in such a way that "we, the user" of the tech would have complete control over the "ACTION" part of its use, and that there would be no REACTION that "we, the user" would have to contend with.For example, I brough up causality violation earlier in this thread, and it is a perfect phenomenon to discuss in terms of TT manifestation. I wonder if you could answer these questions:1) Do you believe that TT will manifest in such a way that the "TT user" could violate causality? 2) If you believe so, then do you not think the violation of causality will result in some natural "reaction" of the universe which the "TT user" (or his technology) would have no control over? And unfortunately, speculation of Time Travel is more in abundance. So where does that leave us with this debate? IMHO, I think it leaves us right where I figured it would go. Namely, I do not think we can realistically pass a "believeable" ethical stance on TT technology UNTIL we know its mechanization AND, more importantly, its LIMITATIONS. We FIRST need to know "what is possible and what is not possible", because the "what is not possible" part will certainly shape any emergent ethics about the technology. Furthermore, the "what is not possible" will inform us about how the universe will exhibit a natural response to manipulation of Time. For example, causality violation. *IF* we can develop a technology for TT that would allow us to violate causality, what would be the response of the universe? For all I know, it could completely annihiliate the TT user (or worse).Having this sort of INFORMATION about how TT will REALLY manifest (and its limitations) is an essential step in developing a moral/ethical/legal stance toward the technology's USE. Our understanding of it's implementation maybe inadequate, though I think conventional wisdom (or not so conventional for the TTA) may yet be able to suggest to the nature of Time Travel, and the ethical and moral implications of it's use. I respectfully disagree, and the reason I disagree can be summed-up in another time-honored cliche that we use in systems engineering quite a bit:"You don't know what you don't know. And not knowing what you don't know is a serious impediment to you knowing whether what you are doing is 'right'."IMO, we need to "know" a lot more about how we MAY be able to manipulate Time, and how the universe will react, before we can understand its moral implications. RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 There are some huge concepts that need to be put in place and agreed to before we go to far in this or nothing will come of it. Agreed, iridium. I'd say go ahead and lay them out, but let's see what TTA says with his response.RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creedo299 Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Rainman, Creedo and Lord Krishna, surried between the two opposeing armies. Rains and Ardjuna, began to cry, as they had not only noticed all of the differnt social classes, however the fact, that everyone was there!>>What I feel, I can't say But my love is there for you anytime of day But if it's not love that you need Then I'll try my best to make everything succeed Tell me, what is my life without your love Tell me, who am I without you, by my side What I know, I can do If I give my love now to everyone like you But if it's not love that you need Then I'll try my best to make ev'rything succeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTA_01 Posted May 24, 2006 Author Share Posted May 24, 2006 Re: Choices & Free Will RMT, Now let me give an example that will set the stage for some of my rebuttals to your later thoughts: Either your psychic or know me to well by now . I grew up in Ohio, and not too far from settlements of Amish and Quaker people. Proud, hard-working people who have strong ethical and moral codes within their communities. Yet these two communities also represent excellent case studies with regard to the advanced technology/communications example I gave above. Neither of these groups of people "accept" (i.e. choose to utilize) various aspects of modern technologies... the Amish much moreso than the Quakers, but the point is to show a gamut of possibilities of choices from our "typical" US culture, to the subculture of the Quakers, to the extreme stances of the Amish. That's great, if they know the pit falls that the technology could lead to their way of life, more power to them.However, who said anything about the technology for Time Travel would just be a mechanical one? No-no my good friend, the answer is a lot closer then you may think. For many thousands of years of human thought, we have only hinted to it's surface, but could never penetrate it. The big picture has always remained though. And many such as your self believe in the connection to this idea. Thus a New Age approach is applied to this and other concepts. What exactly is the TTA suggesting? I have never limited my belief that TT would be wrong and come to pass in just 1 form, i.e. strapping one's self to a device. Allow me to clarify my self, by citing the following posts from you: 'Vibration, Consciousness, 2012, & TT Hoaxes' thread: http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=40157&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 Several of us here have talked about vibrations, frequencies, resonance and how (scientifically) these concepts of CYCLES are intimately linked with TIME. We can easily witness the energetic power of change that is realized by harmonics and resonance. Not only are these aspects of cycles central to making music (which can affect our emotions in "positive" and "negative" ways), but we also know from mechanics that NATURAL FREQUENCIES at which bodies RESONANT are the points where maximum mechanical energy is released. There are a great many other examples of harmonics and resonance that we can cite from our technologies of today, but these are on a "microcosmic" scale when we consider our solar system, or our galaxy, or even our entire universe. The important connection we need to make is that the POWER OF CYCLES (harmonics/resonance) that we observe in the microcosm is also one of the major governing factors of our cosmos on a macocosmic scale. That is literally what 2012 is all about. As scientifically shown in other threads, with other links, the Mayan calendar ends its 13th baktun cycle in 2012, and that corresponds to a special "point in time" that marks a changing from the old cycle to the new cycle. Since our earth, and our solar system, and our galaxy (and indeed our entire universe) operate on cycles, then it stands to reason there are points of "resonance" where the ways in which energy expresses itself in the physical domain are different.... are amplified (just like a NATURAL RESONANT FREQUENCY). And it is further no accident or coincidence that our rapid technological maturity here in the INFORMATION age is reaching quite a crecendo as we approach 2012. It is no accident that we have now completely "sequenced" (cycled?) the human genome prior to 2012. And the human genome, as we know, is the "INFORMATION storehouse" for what constitutes humanity. It's a fascinating read, anyone can read the rest for themselves if they wish.You further mention this on the 'Consciousness, Cosmology, & Gravity-Jack Sarfatti' thread: http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=39996&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 ….The aphysical Spirit/Soul/Mind are equal and opposite to the physical Mass/Space/Time. It is an eternal "dance" between the two... one might say an eternal OSCILLATION! And when we start understanding that our aphysical selves are constantly in an oscillation with the equal and opposite physical Massive SpaceTime, this is where we come to understand just how important FREQUENCY DYNAMICS and FREQUENCY RESPONSE and HARMONICS becomes to understanding how to move beyond our current technology. Our science currently has a good handle on Harmonic Resonance and its effects in the physical measures of Mass, Space, and Time. What we must now come to understand is how Mind couples to Massive SpaceTime, and how we can use the principles of Harmonic Resonance between these two elements to achieve "miracles" (i.e. technologies which were previously branded as "miracles" in spiritual texts). Yet, yesterday you said this: However, as a man of science, I must ask "but is this the way that nature will ALLOW such a technology to be actualized?" I do not believe so, because it would literally involve having complete control over ALL Mass, Space, and Time in the universe... and the universe just does not work this way when it comes to control... when you gain tighter control of one aspect of a situation, you necessarily lose some other aspect of control over the situation. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is another way of stating this: The more accurately I know a particle's position, the less accurately I know its momentum. Beyond this argument, the amount of Energy needed to be able to control all Mass, Time, and Space would be larger than the total amount of Energy represented by the universe itself (using a thermodynamic entropy view). Finally, we will really have to examine the intricacies of human free will to know if it is ever possible to totally violate one's free will (which is different than just influencing it). So which way would nature allow it now Ray?Ok, let's take a different approach with the Ethics of Time Travel; let's say this is how it works. A vast Temporal Network exists with consciousnesses in harmony, suppose we tap into it, and 'influence' the masses through it. Not as polished as your posts were, but hey it's been 3 yrs. since I last debated this issue. A fair enough example. And *IF* TT were to manifest in such a way as this, where one could completely subjugate human free will, then the USE of it to do this would certainly be unethical to me. However, I am far from convinced both that the laws of the universe would permit it to manifest this way, and that the human free will is as limited as such an example would seem to imply. The issue is "COMPLETE command of their lives" vs. the ability to "influence their lives" in one, or a handful, of ways. To me, the latter is the only real possibility because of the control/Heisenberg arguments I have provided above. Given your vast knowledge and familiarity with your beliefs Ray, I want you to tell me there is no possible way for Time Travel to manifest it's self through those routes you previously make mention of, and be exploited to influence lives. But I am sure you must see where this argument leads! One cannot have advancement without also creating a risk. IOW, the "bad" necessarily comes with the "good". So I would equate this type of argument with being equivalent to "even though we could potentially save a great many lives with stem cell research, there are evils associated with it that people could exploit. Therefore, we should not develop the technology at all." And this line of reasoning doesn't end with one technology, but extends to ALL technologies. This was why I wanted to stress my point about the USE of a technology being the basis of ethics, because it points out that ANY technology can be abused... and is the potential for abuse so bad that we would also not want to avail ourselves of the benefits? Ok, given that there are no absolutes in the universe and in human inferences; and that risks come with the use of certain technologies, wouldn't something that guarantee's 100% NO risk at using it and 100% results, wouldn't it be worthwhile & beneficial to use? OK, again I see you agreeing with my point. It is not about the technology, it is about its use. And I certainly agree that you can pose hypotheticals which would show how any technology can be used for good or evil, as you have done here. What I do not see is a convincing argument that: (a) TT will manifest in the "complete control" means you describe, and more importantly (b) Why you think the potential for evil use of a technology could not be mitigated so that we could enjoy the benefits it may hold. In response to (a): tell me RMT, based on what you believe about Massive Space & Time, and oscillation etc…, how can influence and manipulation & exploitation by these means not lead to eventual 'complete control?'(b) Ok, let me clarify on what I think Evil is: Evil to me, is messing with someone in an unfair and unethical way and not accepting accountability for it or attempting to recognize the error, i.e. stealing, cheating, lying, rape, manipulating their time line and their loved ones. What we do presently and what we don't do, with the use of a technology in an evil way is determined and regulated by the laws governing us. With the exception of those with conviction to follow a personal philosophy of "Do unto others..." If those laws were to ever change and become arbitrary, let's say no more rights to bare arms, legalized same-sex marriage and other things the current consensus see's as wrong, wouldn't future generations see this as social acceptance of what they would define and think evil, wrong & unethical practices are? Thus, technology once deemed inappropriate, now becomes part of the mainstream norms. So when I mean unethical and evil use of this technology, I mean it's evil right now. The benefits are not felt here in the present for us, but in the future (or hereafter). However, the ramifications of those changes in the present, violating human freewill and those who can attest to the symptoms of this approach, is evil… though not according to the laws of the future. I see you arguing in generalities, rather than specifics. And the "generality" that I must oppose is based on the notion that the manifestation of TT would allow any form of "complete control" over a person, a society, or the events they live through. Sorry about that (here's another), it's probably a habit of my Jehovah's Witness upbringing, my Alien abductions, my extensive and pricey Co$ training, the voices, the numbers, psychic visions and we can't forget Temporal phasing. The WHOLE universe operates on ACTION/REACTION. As such, I think it would be a bit naieve to assume that TT could manifest in such a way that "we, the user" of the tech would have complete control over the "ACTION" part of its use, and that there would be no REACTION that "we, the user" would have to contend with. For example, I brough up causality violation earlier in this thread, and it is a perfect phenomenon to discuss in terms of TT manifestation. I wonder if you could answer these questions: 1) Do you believe that TT will manifest in such a way that the "TT user" could violate causality? 2) If you believe so, then do you not think the violation of causality will result in some natural "reaction" of the universe which the "TT user" (or his technology) would have no control over? In response to questions:1) Based on my experience with TT manifestations, I came very close one time in my youth, to pin pointing and unraveling a paradoxal experience in one of my very intense Temporal shifts/phases. Let me try and describe it: you take a djà vu experience many experience briefly, but combine it with voices and other physical reactions, i.e. head ache, goosebumps, nausea. The situation was very vivid; I recall I found my self also re-experiencing the voice in the experience, and taking strong measures previously to counter them the last time, from occurring again this time. I had an actual dialogue with this voice & my self, I was given instructions on what to attempt, and a strong mental block was automatically erected in anticipation of the subjugation of my will and numerical synchronization to this experience on 'queue.' Perhaps this struggle and the manifestation it's caused to keep an exclusive frame of mind from experiencing this and failed and letting me know of the previous trial and errors, is a sign of causality. 2) For me, the subtleness of control is felt in an amplified manner. I doubt many would feel and react to the control the way I did. The reaction I had previously taken, coupled with a strong conviction of freewill, was not only the reason why the TTA was created, but because of the manifestations that many could also be experiencing and feel about freewill, versus those who forfeit it; an opposing view to TT/Alien's/& new age doctrine needed to be known. As for causing causality for the user in the future and the universe, I believe that's the whole point. ….Namely, I do not think we can realistically pass a "believeable" ethical stance on TT technology UNTIL we know its mechanization AND, more importantly, its LIMITATIONS. We FIRST need to know "what is possible and what is not possible", because the "what is not possible" part will certainly shape any emergent ethics about the technology. Furthermore, the "what is not possible" will inform us about how the universe will exhibit a natural response to manipulation of Time. For example, causality violation. *IF* we can develop a technology for TT that would allow us to violate causality, what would be the response of the universe? For all I know, it could completely annihiliate the TT user (or worse). Perhaps the universe is designed to compensate and tolerate anomalies & causalities, we yet don't know. If it's able to maintain stability through the chaos of a million atomic explosions, the vast gravity of black holes and devastating effects of anti-matter, why would one little change in time, cause it much of any harm to react, rather then for the direct correlating intended subject?The technology we currently yield, does cause much irreversible changes when implemented, significant natural changes to our (Earthly) universe are clearly noted as a reaction. But again, are we talking about a Time Travel device that can have a devastating impact on the universe and have an anti-time effect if causality levels are to severe? Does a volcano explosion cause a chain reaction throughout the globe affecting all land til eventually it will explode, or is the effect only localized within a certain radius, and all life surrounding the incursion goes on, or adapts to the changes? Perhaps we should consider TT technology not solely dependent on space & time in relation to it's effect on the universe and causing causalities in the physical sense, but perhaps on a dimension that is accessible and able to be exploited and cause very little harm or reaction to the universe that can also influence those who inhabit space & time. Consider this notion, my Temporal by-pass theory. I respectfully disagree, and the reason I disagree can be summed-up in another time-honored cliche that we use in systems engineering quite a bit: "You don't know what you don't know. And not knowing what you don't know is a serious impediment to you knowing whether what you are doing is 'right'." IMO, we need to "know" a lot more about how we MAY be able to manipulate Time, and how the universe will react, before we can understand its moral implications. RMT, I think given the information I have layed out on this post, and citing your beliefs, I think you may be able to find a clear correlation & link to what we are really dealing with here.I am only sorry that I cannot currently be as thorough in my description and postings as I could have been years ago. One of the prices I had to pay for re-gaining my sanity and living a normal life away from Time Travel. Yes, I am glad to say that I have not experienced a temporal shift, manifestations and any majorly strong psychic visions in years. I still experience some numerical synchronicities with the double digits once and a while though. Well, let's hope that by switching gears a bit here, it can give us a clearer meaning of the Ethics of Time Travel. Til then, it's your move RMT . TTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTA_01 Posted May 24, 2006 Author Share Posted May 24, 2006 iridium, Would you "cheat" in some way if it was the only way to stop someone from raping your wife? And we come to the shades of gray… the maybe I would and maybe I wouldn't bend the rules a little.There is no question of what kind of action I would take in self-defense for a loved one. There are some huge concepts that need to be put in place and agreed to before we go to far in this or nothing will come of it. Like RMT said, lay them out. Anything that is however "put in place and agreed to" is subject to the verification within the scope of the logical terms defining the ethical use of a technology that does not as of yet exist. So good-luck making that fly. If you take this statement and apply my analogy to it, lets say society = wife, spirituality = wife's purity, you = husband, threat to society's spirituality = rape, time travel = cheating. I believe this example is intent to show how raping someone and Time Traveling fall within the same lines of cheating. Right?I am already the TTA, and would do everything in my power in self-defense to protect humanity. Except by means of Time Traveling. Just let me put on my cape and mask, and you and I can go fight the Evil doer's together, old school style. Up, Up & away . TTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tt137 Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Re: The Ethics of Time Travel: Is Time Traveling W The only ethics to be discussed is the application not the discovery or the technology as discovery and technology can be neither right or wrong. Look at nuclear theory as an example. The discovery of splitting the atom brought about nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and a variety of other things. A nuclear weapon is neither good or bad. Some would argue that nuclear weapons have actually kept the world a rather peaceful place and have saved lives by ending the Pacific War early. Now, you could certainly use a nuclear weapon for evil deeds. But the weapon itself isnt evil. I think the same thing applies to all discovery and all technology. Time Travel is no different. For example if you can manipulate time, you could place a dying patient in suspended animation or send them to the future where the medical knowledge exists to help them. If you could travel back in time, you could make a truely objective recording of history and provide solid physical data to back it up. You could have a complete cataloging of the evolutionary process that took place on Earth. You could acquire extinct species of organisms that might hold medical cures or provide solutions to problems. For every bad idea you can dream up for why time travel should not be pursued, I can find a counter example showing its potential good application. Again, you can not discuss the ethics of a discovery or technology. You can only apply ethics to the application of it. That is why if time travel is ever discovered you would have many layers of regulations and supervision of its application just as you do with nuclear regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Re: Choices & Free Will TTA, I think it may be time for a pause here to clarify some of your points, because I am losing you in your arguments. Bear with me, as one burden of being an engineer is that I need to feel a certain level of clarity of what someone is saying before I commit to any kind of response. I will try to be tactful in pointing out what I do not understand: That's great, if they know the pit falls that the technology could lead to their way of life, more power to them. And perhaps this is an instance where you were not clear on what I was pointing out? I was showing how their attitude towards existing technology in some ways mirrors your arguments, and then asking you to contrast that against the more typical way of life in America where we do accept these technologies. They (Amish/Quakers) might consider our use of this technology "evil", but do WE? iridium said it best: moral relativism.However, who said anything about the technology for Time Travel would just be a mechanical one? Not I, although I think the "mechanics" of science will be necessary to find ways to "mechanically induce" TT. My own personal belief is that the aphysical self (mind/soul/spirit) will be the primary "driving engine" of how TT will be possible, with some mechanical influences from the realm of Massive SpaceTime. I can support some of my beliefs with clues from existing science, as I have in the quotes of mine you have provided. However, I am not "conclusive or absolute" on precisely how it will come about (yet).No-no my good friend, the answer is a lot closer then you may think. For many thousands of years of human thought, we have only hinted to it's surface, but could never penetrate it. The big picture has always remained though. And many such as your self believe in the connection to this idea. Thus a New Age approach is applied to this and other concepts. What exactly is the TTA suggesting? Yes, I would truly like to know, as I find the above to be vague and difficult to understand. Allow me to clarify my self, by citing the following posts from you: 'Vibration, Consciousness, 2012, & TT Hoaxes' thread: (snip) You further mention this on the 'Consciousness, Cosmology, & Gravity-Jack Sarfatti' thread: (snip) Yet, yesterday you said this: (snip) So which way would nature allow it now Ray? This is where I have lost you with respect to your attempt to clarify. As such I am not sure how to respond, nor what I am responding to. If you can be more precise perhaps I can come around. A vast Temporal Network exists with consciousnesses in harmony, suppose we tap into it, and 'influence' the masses through it. OK, I am not sure what you specifically mean by this, but I assume you can continue to expound beyond this. And again I would ask what level of "influence" do you think is capable? Complete or partial?Given your vast knowledge and familiarity with your beliefs Ray, I want you to tell me there is no possible way for Time Travel to manifest it's self through those routes you previously make mention of, and be exploited to influence lives. Again I am a bit unclear when you use non-specifics like "those routes you make mention of". However, if what you mean by this is "complete control", then yes I would say there is no way TT technology could come about in this manner, as evidenced by any other physical phenomenon and what we know (scientifically) about incompleteness. And as far as "exploited to influence lives" I believe I have already admitted in earlier arguments that ANY technology can be exploited to influence lives (in "bad" or "good" ways).Ok, given that there are no absolutes in the universe and in human inferences; and that risks come with the use of certain technologies, wouldn't something that guarantee's 100% NO risk at using it and 100% results, wouldn't it be worthwhile & beneficial to use? If you can show me something that assures 100% of the benefits and absolutely 0% risk, I'd like to hear about it. But I believe most in the scientific commnunity know this to be a fallacy, speaking practically from an implementation point of view.In response to (a): tell me RMT, based on what you believe about Massive Space & Time, and oscillation etc…, how can influence and manipulation & exploitation by these means not lead to eventual 'complete control?' Because in ALL system implementations there is always incompleteness. One cannot account for everything and all effects that a collective system is subjected to. You may achieve, for a localized system, some realm of control over some processes but in doing so you forego control over other processes. It is like squeezing a balloon. Or to use the words of Aleister Crowley, there is always "the factor that is infinite and unknown." No one or no thing operating on something in the physical universe can have "complete knowledge" and thus cannot have "complete control."If those laws were to ever change and become arbitrary, let's say no more rights to bare arms, legalized same-sex marriage and other things the current consensus see's as wrong, wouldn't future generations see this as social acceptance of what they would define and think evil, wrong & unethical practices are? If you want to talk about something that I (personally) think is "wrong", it would be speculating about what our future selves and/or future societies will think about us. It is sheer speculation and we cannot know at this juncture.So when I mean unethical and evil use of this technology, I mean it's evil right now. The benefits are not felt here in the present for us, but in the future (or hereafter). However, the ramifications of those changes in the present, violating human freewill and those who can attest to the symptoms of this approach, is evil… though not according to the laws of the future. Again, this is where I need some specifics and further clarification, as I do not seem to understand and that means at this juncture I do not agree.In response to questions: With all due respect, I cannot find a clear-cut answer from you in the following:1) Do you believe that TT will manifest in such a way that the "TT user" could violate causality? ANS: 1) Based on my experience with TT manifestations, I came very close one time in my youth, to pin pointing and unraveling a paradoxal experience in one of my very intense Temporal shifts/phases. Let me try and describe it: you take a djà vu experience many experience briefly, but combine it with voices and other physical reactions, i.e. head ache, goosebumps, nausea. The situation was very vivid; I recall I found my self also re-experiencing the voice in the experience, and taking strong measures previously to counter them the last time, from occurring again this time. I had an actual dialogue with this voice & my self, I was given instructions on what to attempt, and a strong mental block was automatically erected in anticipation of the subjugation of my will and numerical synchronization to this experience on 'queue.' Perhaps this struggle and the manifestation it's caused to keep an exclusive frame of mind from experiencing this and failed and letting me know of the previous trial and errors, is a sign of causality. 2) If you believe so, then do you not think the violation of causality will result in some natural "reaction" of the universe which the "TT user" (or his technology) would have no control over? ANS: 2) For me, the subtleness of control is felt in an amplified manner. I doubt many would feel and react to the control the way I did. The reaction I had previously taken, coupled with a strong conviction of freewill, was not only the reason why the TTA was created, but because of the manifestations that many could also be experiencing and feel about freewill, versus those who forfeit it; an opposing view to TT/Alien's/& new age doctrine needed to be known. I see you have introduced a whole host of subjective experiences in your attempt to answer, but I am afraid whatever you answer was is a bit lost on me. Again, pardon my "one-track" engineering mind.Perhaps the universe is designed to compensate and tolerate anomalies & causalities, we yet don't know. Exactly. A major point of mine. Glad you agree. From this is where I justify science and the exploration of new technologies.... so we can COME TO KNOW.If it's able to maintain stability through the chaos of a million atomic explosions, the vast gravity of black holes and devastating effects of anti-matter, why would one little change in time, cause it much of any harm to react, rather then for the direct correlating intended subject? This presumption assumes a linear model. I know you are aware of "the Butterfly Effect" which is a small example within the domain of Chaos theory, sensitivity to initial conditions, and highly non-linear phenomenon. I again refer you to the immediately preceding quote from you: We don't know the effect, and assuming there is no effect based on what observations we do have would not be a valid scientific approach.Perhaps we should consider TT technology not solely dependent on space & time in relation to it's effect on the universe and causing causalities in the physical sense, but perhaps on a dimension that is accessible and able to be exploited and cause very little harm or reaction to the universe that can also influence those who inhabit space & time. Consider this notion, my Temporal by-pass theory. It would seem (that means I am guessing) that you are inferring a TT approach that is solely localized to the aphysical domain (what we call the domain of mind/soul/spirit). However, I would point out that *IF* theories that state Mind (aphysical) is intimately linked to Matter (physical) then such a technology might not be possible. But do go on and describe it more... I could be way off in my guess of what you are getting at! RMT, I think given the information I have layed out on this post, and citing your beliefs, I think you may be able to find a clear correlation & link to what we are really dealing with here. Not really. Sorry. I am only sorry that I cannot currently be as thorough in my description and postings as I could have been years ago. One of the prices I had to pay for re-gaining my sanity and living a normal life away from Time Travel. The good thing about language is that it is virtually an "infinite well" and interaction provides a virtuall "infinite canvas". Keep trying to describe what you are getting at, using more specific words, and I might reach you.Well, let's hope that by switching gears a bit here, it can give us a clearer meaning of the Ethics of Time Travel. The switching gears here has actually confused me as to your rebuttal and where it is going. I believe I have made a fairly clear case that:1) We do not yet "know" enough about how TT may manifest to know what its impacts would be on the self or on the rest of the self's universe.2) Without this knowledge, we are also uninformed about how the technology (however it may manifest) could be used in a beneficial way or in an "evil" way. 3) Because we lack this knowledge, the scientific method tells us it is "good" to investigate it and see what we might be capable of developing, for purposes of experimentation and acquiring the knowledge we lack in items 1 and 2. 4) Until we do this, and understand under what circumstance (if any) causality can be violated, and what the eventual impacts of doing so are, I do not think we can pass ethical judgement on the technology or its potential uses. RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTA_01 Posted May 25, 2006 Author Share Posted May 25, 2006 Re: Choices & Free Will RMT, And perhaps this is an instance where you were not clear on what I was pointing out? I was showing how their attitude towards existing technology in some ways mirrors your arguments, and then asking you to contrast that against the more typical way of life in America where we do accept these technologies. They (Amish/Quakers) might consider our use of this technology "evil", but do WE? iridium said it best: moral relativism. My arguments may sound quite similar to their stance on technology, but I assure you they are not identical.For instance, I can attempt to come to understand the mechanics behind the technology, argue both sides, see their benefit, and then refuse to use it if I believe it's wrong or meet it half-way. The Amish however (this may sound like another generalization to some), will not use the technology at all, period. I am not to clear also on the education that they receive growing up, but it would seem that if they are so adamant about not using a technology, then they would also probably not have a strong basic concept on the mechanics behind it. Forsaking something without first knowing how the technology actually works and what it does, is the BIG difference here. This may come as a surprise to you RMT, but I wouldn't have a problem with Time Travel, if it was regulated and not used to exploit and manipulate human life. I'm a big fan of the History Channel and National Geographic, and I wouldn't mind seeing history being unfolded through those formats with help of TT. Not I, although I think the "mechanics" of science will be necessary to find ways to "mechanically induce" TT. My own personal belief is that the aphysical self (mind/soul/spirit) will be the primary "driving engine" of how TT will be possible, with some mechanical influences from the realm of Massive SpaceTime. I can support some of my beliefs with clues from existing science, as I have in the quotes of mine you have provided. However, I am not "conclusive or absolute" on precisely how it will come about (yet). That's fine, niether am I .I remember watching an episode of Star Trek: TNG long ago, (I may have the details mixed up, so if anyone knows this episode, please do correct me) where officer Barkley was invaded by an alien consciousness that accelerated his thinking process. His perceptive on engineering was way beyond La Forge's, that he subsequently set up a command center from within the Holodeck and created technology to the specifications provided by his mind; took control of the ships engines and took the crew to the center of the galaxy. I think this would be an interesting technology to develop. You'd plug your self into a virtual reality universe, and it would extract abstract concepts from your mind and like magic just do the leg work of extrapolating together & add math and physics for it's instant implementation. Since the TTA is not a scientifically based individual (can't make sense of hardcore formula expressed science), I do however have a very keen sense of imagination, and MacGyver like ability to see contingencies in many challenging situations. Perhaps that is the reason behind the alien abductions & temporal phasing; the schematics I possess for devices yet not created cannot be utilized unless extracted. Who knows? OK, I am not sure what you specifically mean by this, but I assume you can continue to expound beyond this. And again I would ask what level of "influence" do you think is capable? Complete or partial? Would the supply and demand approach be appropriate to apply to determine partial control?Since it works very well for my self, and many others when I go to the pump. Or how about, proportion ratios? Would just a small amount need controlling, and those who you control could influence the rest? For instance, those who witness to people, and give someone a hand and insight, paying it forward in a sense; it could be part of a motivated temporal agenda to incite an action in someone, an action yet not taken but desired and willed to accomplish. Much how some want others to join their group or organization. You know what I am getting at right? Again I am a bit unclear when you use non-specifics like "those routes you make mention of". However, if what you mean by this is "complete control", then yes I would say there is no way TT technology could come about in this manner, as evidenced by any other physical phenomenon and what we know (scientifically) about incompleteness. And as far as "exploited to influence lives" I believe I have already admitted in earlier arguments that ANY technology can be exploited to influence lives (in "bad" or "good" ways). Ok, I agree. So does that assertion alone then settle the argument?If any technology can be exploited to influence lives in a 'good' or 'bad' manner, what further is there to debate? And if we both agree, then who wins the debate ? If you can show me something that assures 100% of the benefits and absolutely 0% risk, I'd like to hear about it. But I believe most in the scientific commnunity know this to be a fallacy, speaking practically from an implementation point of view. I guess we may just have to wait to find out someday, if anything comes with 0% risk. Because in ALL system implementations there is always incompleteness. One cannot account for everything and all effects that a collective system is subjected to. You may achieve, for a localized system, some realm of control over some processes but in doing so you forego control over other processes. It is like squeezing a balloon. Or to use the words of Aleister Crowley, there is always "the factor that is infinite and unknown." No one or no thing operating on something in the physical universe can have "complete knowledge" and thus cannot have "complete control." Does God not have complete control? If you want to talk about something that I (personally) think is "wrong", it would be speculating about what our future selves and/or future societies will think about us. It is sheer speculation and we cannot know at this juncture. Ok, let history make it's decisions in hindsight to what we couldn't or refused to anticipate. Correcting the mistakes later maybe more desperate & devastating to human freewill, then the solutions that could have been implemented to prevent them in the first place, when it presented it's self.You RMT, should know that by being adamant in your approach towards those who intend to promote a 'doom & gloom' perspective, is also speculative of what the future will think of our inaction if we do not consider the alternatives. Thus understanding it's ramifications now, you have your intentions for being a TT debunker. And a darn good one too . Exactly. A major point of mine. Glad you agree. From this is where I justify science and the exploration of new technologies.... so we can COME TO KNOW. I know we have many more disagreements then agreements on this issue, since we both have very different specialties and approaches to TT. Your scientific manner is crucial in the debunking realm of those who claim to be from the future, who knows how many lives you and others may have saved from following a cult of lies, by simply shedding light and exposing them. This is very admirable and commendable what you and others have done, you have done something that the TTA could not do. You have my sincerest respect.My approach on the other hand, is more empathic and intuitive to subjective feelings and visions, the feelings of injustice and of having humanities freewill subjugated. Experiencing the effects on a daily basis, and in anticipation of this technology and of it's potential for evil control; I did what I had no other choice to do. It would seem (that means I am guessing) that you are inferring a TT approach that is solely localized to the aphysical domain (what we call the domain of mind/soul/spirit). However, I would point out that *IF* theories that state Mind (aphysical) is intimately linked to Matter (physical) then such a technology might not be possible. But do go on and describe it more... I could be way off in my guess of what you are getting at! If the mind is linked to the physical body, and the body can influence matter, isn't that Time Travel affecting space & time via route 'mind/soul/spirit?'For instance, I once considered the use of tachyon particles as a means of piggy backing on thoughts, thus causing influence to a past or future juncture within a network exclusive to one's own unique vibrating frequency. Thus also making Djà vu possible. Developing a technology to increase and amplify the capacity of the mind, increase the % of usage. Who knows what we may be able to accomplish and discover through this means. We may yet find if Time Travel correlates and crosses through the 'mind/soul/spirit' domain. What then? Just how the macro can link to the micro, can't the energy or will of space & time have capillary type appendages attaching to a mind/soul/spirit? You tell me RMT, what link do you know of between the physical and aphysical domains? If you have already posted them and don't wish to post them again, you can just link me and I can read them. The good thing about language is that it is virtually an "infinite well" and interaction provides a virtuall "infinite canvas". Keep trying to describe what you are getting at, using more specific words, and I might reach you. Thank you for the kind advice . I will keep trying.Kind regards, TTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 Re: Choices & Free Will TTA, My arguments may sound quite similar to their stance on technology, but I assure you they are not identical. I never believed they were identical. But I'd bet they are more similar to your arugments than you might believe.The Amish however (this may sound like another generalization to some), will not use the technology at all, period. You're right... it not only may sound like another generalization, it might actually be one! How much do you know about the Amish people to be able to make this generalization? Since I'm the Ohio boy, who lived near them and knew some of them, I can assure you that their culture has its exceptions. They are not AS strict as you might imply with your "period" statement. In fact, their "hard-fast" rule is that THEY are not permitted to OWN or operate any of these certain technologies. For example, an Amish person would never own an automobile. But do you think they have a rule of never being allowed to ride in them? (Their rule: "No one shall operate cars or trucks."). This does not prohibit an Amish member from riding in someone else's car, especially in the case of an injury of one of their community. They are not going to tell a city ambulance "no, you cannot take them away to the hospital in that ambulence." There are other examples, so this is just to give you the flavor. You can read up on them in many places. Here is the intro paragraph from THIS WEB SITE:The Amish view of technology and technological change is very misunderstood by modern society. With their plain style of dress, straw hats, suspenders, and buggies, it is not difficult to see why so many of us perceive the Amish as having a hatred of technology. In reality, the Amish do not despise technology and even have incorporated many technologies into their culture. Other technologies, however, have been rejected completely or used within certain limitations as a result of deep religious beliefs and the rules that guide and maintain their distinct culture. The link is a long read, but it will give you a MUCH deeper view of their "rules" for technology. Forsaking something without first knowing how the technology actually works and what it does, is the BIG difference here. Exactly. And this is the same argument I am making against your stance that developing TT is "unethical"... because we don't yet know how it works.Since the TTA is not a scientifically based individual (can't make sense of hardcore formula expressed science), I do however have a very keen sense of imagination, and MacGyver like ability to see contingencies in many challenging situations. When a person with these "right brain" tendencies learns about basic science, and acquires the ability to model their ideas in the language of mathematics, they become highly balanced, efficient, and powerful people.Would the supply and demand approach be appropriate to apply to determine partial control? Since it works very well for my self, and many others when I go to the pump. Or how about, proportion ratios? Would just a small amount need controlling, and those who you control could influence the rest? For instance, those who witness to people, and give someone a hand and insight, paying it forward in a sense; it could be part of a motivated temporal agenda to incite an action in someone, an action yet not taken but desired and willed to accomplish. Much how some want others to join their group or organization. You know what I am getting at right? Are you aware of the concepts of Memes and Memetics? First defined by Richard Dawkins (a zoologist) as the information/energy equivalent of the physical gene. It sounds a bit like what you might be insinuating with the above thoughts. Is it?Ok, I agree. So does that assertion alone then settle the argument? If any technology can be exploited to influence lives in a 'good' or 'bad' manner, what further is there to debate? And if we both agree, then who wins the debate Do you feel you won the debate? Do you feel you have proven this claim? And that by use of Time Travel to obtain that advancement, is by an unethical means. I don't think you've convinced me that this statement of yours is true. I can't speak for anyone else who might be reading, but they put some questions to you as well. I guess we may just have to wait to find out someday, if anything comes with 0% risk. So far in our documented history, I think its safe to say that we have encountered no physical system that could be considered 100% anything or 0% anything. For example, we can never assure 100% reliability or safety of something like an airplane, or a space shuttle, or even a car. Getting out of bed every day represents the biggest decision to accept risk you ever make. Even if we never left the house, we could minimize our risk, but it will never be 0... and life could be really boring, eh? Does God not have complete control? Has God ever robbed you of your Free Will? In my own personal experiences "God" suggested some things to me, but never forced me to take, or refrain from, any action whatsoever. From this evidence alone, isn't it obvious that God does NOT have COMPLETE control?You RMT, should know that by being adamant in your approach towards those who intend to promote a 'doom & gloom' perspective, is also speculative of what the future will think of our inaction if we do not consider the alternatives. Thus understanding it's ramifications now, you have your intentions for being a TT debunker. My intentions behind why I do what I do, in the manner I do it, may just be a bit more intricate than you might expect, from a statement like this. It may seem to be a bit of a cocky statement, but I assure you that I have a mathematical model of where I am, and where I want to be in my future. The math is pretty complex, so I won't bore you with it. My approach on the other hand, is more empathic and intuitive to subjective feelings and visions, the feelings of injustice and of having humanities freewill subjugated. I am sincerely aware that you have these talents and this is how you shape your approach. And you might be interested to know that I am aware that there are many people just like you. You should seek out to merge your talents in this "side" of reality with the tools of the "other side" (yes, the dreaded math and science). It has been shown, through the example of many successful people down thru the ages, that the "Rennaisance Man" has always been a person well-balanced in both the SUBJECTIVE (Creative) but also the OBJECTIVE (Analytic). Yin/Yang, eh? Developing a technology to increase and amplify the capacity of the mind, increase the % of usage. Who knows what we may be able to accomplish and discover through this means. We may yet find if Time Travel correlates and crosses through the 'mind/soul/spirit' domain. What then? This sounds like a great, positive view of what we might be able to achieve with limited applications of TT technology. Doesn't sound much like a person who still believes that TT and its usage would always be unethical!Just how the macro can link to the micro, can't the energy or will of space & time have capillary type appendages attaching to a mind/soul/spirit? You tell me RMT, what link do you know of between the physical and aphysical domains? There is a geometric and mathematic model for this exact thing that links physical and aphysical. Can you guess what it is? And if I told you that the three primary, stabilizing network "appendages" that connect these two domains are called "Mass, Space, and Time"... what would you say?If you have already posted them and don't wish to post them again, you can just link me and I can read them. There are quite a few threads where I addressed this. Maybe I will bump one or two of them to the top over the holiday weekend, and add some comments pertinent to the discussion we have had here.Later Dudes,RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeNot_0 Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 Re: Choices & Free Will Much has been discussed. Whether time travel anyone is talking about is physical or just mental has not really been defined. Since people do know that other people including about everyone does time travel in some respect by mind mainly since the future has not happened yet into the future so boldly, I can only surmise that again the term time travel has to apply to the individuals that may use it someday. (if that is even possible to physically time travel) Since traveling into the future is only done in a general way with the mind, first one must define who and what may decide to use it, and if it will be for public use, or held back for some reason to only a limited use (physical time travel that is.) I think that it's moral use depends on what time is and how it will come about by explanations of the subject. I therefore conclude that understanding the complete process of nature (or say a similiar term like the Universe) may make technology so overwhelming someday (as to what can be done with any of it) as to say that technology will make humans develop morals or else be dead in a flash much like antimatter used for some purpose other than the uses it may be used for. So as technology increases, the few who can use it, or harness it's extreme power will also have to design security features into the system that makes any such system about totally useless, unless those scientists are the only ones who know and can design such security systems. Yes, it could be a joint effort by such a team and still used for general consumption like anything else, but to me there will be a day that God calls the Reckoning. So, I have to assume as of now that there can be no day when technology is so advanced that people will continue to use it in some normal fashion. It is not the technology, it is the morals of the species that will enter into some advanced form of technology. The explanation of 'time' is the only way to have a discussion on whether it can be used or not. Conceiveably you will never want what is going on with some people across this planet to ever learn or be able to make -- antimatter. Even though it would take large quantities of such technology, such a technology is so inherently dangerous to most people that with very advanced technologies -- those technologies may never be made anymore, because of security concerns with those technologies even though the debate continues over using those very advanced technologies or not. So, perhaps God already has that advanced technology and is also wondering whether man will use that technology as a Reckoning type of day, or perhaps God will have to use that very advanced technology as a Reckoning Day. I reckon that therefore I can not give an answer to this discussion about time travel then. I simply may not know enough about what 'time' is to even gather up a stupid answer, let alone an intelligent answer. Therefore I quit for now this discussion on whether time travel should ever be used. As I see it now being used, I have my doubts if humans can ever make it through this upcoming time period with what is going on in this World. The other sciences have not kept up with "Living somewhere else in this Universe" or even "Out of this Universe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts