Time Traveler's Dilemma - Is the future fixed?

reply to post by seagull


I agree and that's why I asked what specifically does he want me to explain that I didn't explain.

I'm trying to figure out how am I supposed to explain this in the language of quantum mechanics, information theory and Einstein when he says he doesn't grasp or understand what I'm saying because he throws these things out?

He posted links and I'm trying to understand how these links relate to what I'm saying or how they support his entropy is everything theory.

How can I debate when the person says they don't grasp or understand what I'm saying because they don't subscribe to the physics that what I'm saying is built on?

Am I supposed to make up a new physics to explain what I'm saying?

reply to post by Matrix Rising

You have to be joking.

No, I'm not joking. Here are the links to my posts in case you missed them.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

The relation is your usage of these links which was made clear in part one of my three post series refuting both concepts of yours using the very science you claimed was supportive of your assertions.

Really? Where in these links you have provided can I find irrefutable *proof* of time travel or information existing in the manner you have described? I've read them all, I've even watched your youtube video. I can't find anything remotely close to what your describing.

Part 1

Had you bothered to read that first paragraph the you wouldn't be so confused here. Again, I ask you to refute the points I raised against your assertions whilst using your very own links.

*snip* Personal attack, commentary isn't on.

[edit on 5/17/2010 by seagull]

reply to post by sirnex


What specifically are you talking about?

My original post was about randomness and uncertainty. It wasn't about time travel.

Now when you brought up time travel you started talking about your entropy is everything theory without any evidence, equations, or tested theories.

I then pointed out that information is not bound by space and time and I said this:

Are you saying that Relativity didn't exist until Einstein discovered it?

We just reverse engineer the information that's inherent in nature.

and you said:

I don't quiet understand what your trying to tell me there. I personally don't subscribe to Einsteinian physics.

I also said:

What about quantum mechanics? Did quantum mechanics exist 2,000 years ago?

and you said:

I personally don't subscribe to QM, so my answer would be no.

Now, what do you specifically want me to explain? And what do you want me to refute in the links you posted?

You are the one that doesn't subscribe to Einstein or Quantum Mechanics. I haven't read that in any of the links you posted and I'm trying to figure out specifically what you want me to explain.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Can you please stop evading and debating me on a personal level? My three posts detail everything you have said through out this thread thus far. I kindly ask that your next reply be one of debating my refutation instead of me and my personal opinions.

Thanks in advance!

reply to post by sirnex


I have read your post and looked at the links and I don't see where they don't subscribe to quantum mechanics or Einstein and that's why I ask you specificall to explain what you want me to explain or refute.

What do these links refute?

Can you tell me in your own words what these links refute? Where do they say information is bound by space and time?

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Clearly you don't read my posts.

Please re-read the last three posts. The intent of the last three posts was to *not* show that we need to throw anything out, but to show that they are not supportive of your ... Ah, wild speculation.

link

Again, the nature of my refutation was not to indicate that we should throw anything out, but that your own "evidences" do not support your own assertions. Considering that you:

A) Haven't read my posts
B) Are more concerned with circular reasoning
C) Resort to insults
D) Refuse to refute
E) Argue personal opinion rather than the issues

I will now leave this thread, unless of course you are willing to debate my refutation of everything you have said thus far in this thread. Again, allow me to re-post what those three posts are about.

The intent of the last three posts was to *not* show that we need to throw anything out, but to show that they are not supportive of your assertions.

reply to post by sirnex


This is why I specifically asked you to explain what assertions your talking about.

Again, we were debating wether information is bound by space and time.

You said you don't subscribe to QM or Einstein.

So what assertions of mine are you trying to refute? Where in your links do they show that information is bound by space and time.

This was the whole point of the discussion.

You said nothing can exist in the past or future because everything is now and everything is entropy.

I said information is not bound by space and time and I talked about extra-dimensions.

I haven't read a link or anything you said that refutes these things. You just said you don't subscribe to Einsten or QM.

So I ask again, what do you want me to refute. Which assertion does your links specifically refute?

reply to post by Matrix Rising

I said information is not bound by space and time and I talked about extra-dimensions.

This was refuted in part one. If you have an rebuttals to that refutation, then please lay out those rebuttals rather than debating me on a personal basis as it is unwarranted and is more indicative that you have no rebuttal or are unable to rebut.

As I can no doubt predict, you will invariably post in wonder of where that part one post is. Now, I know you haven't bothered reading my posts and all I will say is that the link to part one was already posted. I won't hold your hand as to where it is, which means your going to actually have to read the posts rather than claim you have.

reply to post by sirnex


You didn't rebutt anything. I said:

Are you saying that Relativity didn't exist until Einstein discovered it?

We just reverse engineer the information that's inherent in nature.

I don't quiet understand what your trying to tell me there. I personally don't subscribe to Einsteinian physics.

Clearly you're not going to understand what I'm saying because you don't subscribe to Einstein. You said this yourself and that's obvious.

I said.

What about quantum mechanics? Did quantum mechanics exist 2,000 years ago?

I personally don't subscribe to QM, so my answer would be no.

There you have it and I don't understand what you are trying to do here. Is it your objective to debate what I said or debate you entropy is everything point of view?

I've asked you over and over again to specifically tell me what you think I didn't explain.

If what I'm saying is based on quantum mechanics and Einstein and you say you don't subscribe to quantum mechanic and Einstein then what are you trying to debate? Of course your not going to understand or grasp what I'm saying because you don't subscribe to Einsten or Quantum mechanics. You made this exact point.

So if you want to debate your Entropy is everything theory and you want to debate why quantum mechanics, Einstein, information theory and theoretical physics is wrong, then start a thread debating these things.

In this thread I would like to debate a theory based on Einsten, Quantum Mechanics and Information theory. I'm not trying to debate whether you subscribe to quantum mechanics or Einstein or your entropy is everything theory.

I will go over each link that you posted and none of them say anything about not subscribing to Einstein or Quantum Mechanics and they don't say anything about information being bound by space and time. All of these links support Einstein or Quantum Mechanics and you said you don't subscribe to either. So what are you debating?

Link 1

As Einstein demonstrated in his Theory of General Relativity, a passenger inside a spaceship traveling toward a black hole would feel the ship accelerating, while an outside observer would see the ship slow down. When the ship reached the event horizon, it would appear to stop, staying there forever and never falling in toward oblivion. In effect, Krauss says, time effectively stops at that point, meaning time is infinite for black holes.

news.sciencemag.org...

This was about Black Holes and had nothing to do with anything I said.

You then quoted Seth Lloyd. When I talked about Seth Lloyd I was talking about information and I wasn't debating quantum computers. This is what he said about Information:

When you zap things with light to build quantum computers, you're hacking existing systems. You're hijacking the computation that's already happening in the universe, just like a hacker takes over someone else's computer.

How do you explain Programming to your kids?
I tell them that it says everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information - ones and zeros.

Computers are our favorite metaphor at the moment, so maybe we see everything as com�puters. But this view is not that facile. Statistical mechanics, which underlies all chemistry, grew out of the realization that the world is information. The mathematical definition of a bit was first �postulated not during the 1930s and '40s when Claude Shannon and Norbert Weiner started information theory but by James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann during their 19th-century explorations of the nature of the atom. They were working on thermodynamics, but they discovered that the world was made of information.

www.wired.com...

Again, my point was we reverse engineer the information that's inherent in nature. Again, I don't understand what your debating. Your just posting these links but you're not explaining how these links rebutt a specific assertion. So I asked you to specifically say what you want me to explain. When I explained it you said you don't subscribe to Einstein or QM.

Here's another link:

Some four decades ago, the renowned physicist John Wheeler, then at Princeton, and the late Bryce DeWitt, then at the University of North Carolina, developed an extraordinary equation that provides a possible framework for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. But the Wheeler-­DeWitt equation has always been controversial, in part because it adds yet another, even more baffling twist to our understanding of time.

discovermagazine.com...

I'm going to stop right there because all of your links are theories based on Einstein and Quantum Mechanics which you say that you don't subscribe to.

None of them rebutt anything I have said.

I have to do one more:

The phenomenon of time dilation is a strange yet experimentally confirmed effect of relativity theory.

Confirmed ffect of Relativity (Einstein).

So again, I don't know how your links relate to anything I'm saying. You post these links and then say things like this:

Now, this also poses a rather big problem for your assertion of "proof". Recent research and discoveries indicate that time itself does not exist and may just be an illusion generated by the mind in the same sense that temperature is an illusion generated by the mind.

Now that I've shown that every single one of your "proofs" are indeed *NOT proofs*, we're left with a puzzling dilemma. If you claim to be talking about proofs and evidences brought by physics, then why are all of your links indicating otherwise?

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

What you should say is that these papers refute your assertion because xyz doesn't allow xyz to occur. This would be giving me something specific to respond to.

Instead you post a link and say this rebutts what you're saying but you don't explain how it rebutts what I'm saying.

That's why I ask you to specifically tell me what assertion you want me to explain.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


ROFLMFAO!

Ok, I give up Matrix! You clearly have no desire to debate or refute. You base your entire arguments on my personal opinions instead of giving any direct rebuttals to the points I raised in opposition to every single thing you've mentioned in this thread.

Obviously your too juvenile to hold a civil discussion with.

Let me ask you this one last time. In what context are you discussing information when claiming it is unbound from space in time.

*In your own words*

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I can't stand little deceitful liars.

You purposefully left out the first part of that quote. Here, allow me to add the beginning to that quote for you.

You've jumped from working on quantum computers to saying, oh, by the way, the universe is a gigantic quantum computer.

This is the base foundational thought on his entire premise of information in regards to the universe, which he admits is unproven. He talks about information in the sense of information in a gigantic quantum computer, which he thinks the universe is one.

reply to post by sirnex


What are you talking about?

I explained what I was saying and you said you can't understand what I'm saying because you don't subscribe to Einstein or QM.

What more do you want? I'm not going to make up a new physics to try and explain things to you.

You're like the Terminator of Ignorance. You just keep coming with the same question that you have asked and answered.

How am I supposed to explain it to you if you don't subscribe to Einstein and QM?

That's like saying explain evolution but I don't subscribe to genetic drift, natural selection or mutations.

It doesn't make any sense.

What I'm saying is based on QM, Einstein, Theoretical physics, information theory and more.

I explained what I'm saying, you rejected it on the grounds that you don't subscribe to QM or Einstein, so what more do you want?

reply to post by Matrix Rising


God damn you are simply the most delusion person I have ever met. Seriouslym explain what is so hard about this simple request.

Let me ask you this one last time. In what context are you discussing information when claiming it is unbound from space in time.

*In your own words*

Really now, the best you can do is attack personal opinion rather than attack the use of the science you use to disprove what you claim it proves? It's rather sad that a simple question of DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY INFORMATION WHEN YOU SAY INFORMATION IS UNBOUNDED BY SPACE AND TIME IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

It's like dealing with a three year old.

A true story to illustrate:

A couple years ago I had the idea to type up a letter to someone in the future, labeled "Do not open until time travel is possible and affordable." It went something like this:

"Dear person in the future,

I have a proposition for you. Send me your name and contact info along with a financial institution which has survived from my time to yours, and I will set up an interest gaining account in your name, which you can collect upon in your time. All I want is the knowledge that time travel is possible, and all you have to do is leave this info at (my address) on the white bench inside the porch on May 21, 2008."

I then sealed the envelope and put it away for safe keeping with the plan to put it in some sort of time capsule later. The next day was May 21, it came and went without incident, and I decided it must not have worked so I threw away the letter. However by doing so I created a self fulfilling paradox since by throwing it away it could not be found in the future. If I had kept it and put it in a time capsule then I may have received a reply on May 21. But I didn't.

Therefore, I was always meant to throw that letter away even though I had the illusion of choice.

See!

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Interesting topic OP.
Is the future fixed? Yes maybe in the realm of the undead.
In other realms its not fixed.
Science or physics are still in their infancy. Since multiverses, parrallel spaces, conjugate spaces have to exist, will preclude the future from being fixed. God did not intend man to fathom out everything.
Quantum/ Quantize everything is perhaps not the complete answer.

THERE IS A BOX.

THERE ARE NO DOORS TO THE BOX.

THERE ARE NO WINDOWS TO THE BOX.

Thinking Outside The Box Requires Thought!

If WE Observe from outside the box, can we determine that the box has a floor within it?

WE see a roof on the box.
WE see four walls to the box,
WE can't see the foundation.

All we can see from outside the box we are thinking outside of is:
ROOF, FOUR WALLS
using those same letters as used above, but re-arranged ...
FLOOR OUR FLAWS

_________________________________________________________

If any timetraveller came hear, what would they use as currancy?

A true time traveller may have to be a tactician who delves into the terms of the present time's jargon.

TACTICIAN DELVE TERM
is a group of letters that can be re-arranged to form the following phrases:TIME TRAVEL ACCIDENT
DIRECTIVE: ACT MENTAL
____________________
Time Travel Accident
Directive: Act Mental
Tactician Delve Terms
____________________


THERE IS A BOX.

THERE ARE NO DOORS TO THE BOX.

THERE ARE NO WINDOWS TO THE BOX.

Thinking Outside The Box Requires Thought!

If WE Observe from outside the box, can we determine that the box has a floor within it?

WE see a roof on the box.
WE see four walls to the box,
WE can't see the foundation.

All we can see from outside the box we are thinking outside of is:
ROOF, FOUR WALLS
using those same letters as used above, but re-arranged ...
FLOOR OUR FLAWS

_________________________________________________________

If any timetraveller came here, what would they use as currancy?



[edit on 18-5-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

this is another plea related to this post, mods PLEASE CLOSE THIS POST - its not a debate, its one mans mission to say everyone else is wrong and he is right (im refering to matrix .. sorry dude, this is true).

you said a few replys ago (replying to sirnex) this had nothing to do with time travel ??

My original post was about randomness and uncertainty. It wasn't about time travel.

are you serious?? your OP was completly about time travel and wether events are fixed, randomness yes, uncertanty YES, time travel...um, your whole senario was based round a time travel situation!

im not going to attack you and say your wrong, and noone else really did untill you took the defensive stance and started telling people to contact kaku and einstien and tell them to retire, which in itself is funny, as einstien most likely was wrong as he based his work and theorys round his religious beliefs and that god wouldnt have things a certain way ... and we all know (or should if we have half a braincell that works) that religion + science = a massive fail!

some others, including myself have tried to add to this debate and been completly ignored as one person's (matrix) unwillingness to discuss this in a proper way had completly ruined what could have been a really enjoyable post, instead, we get 4 pages of bickering! .. and what your bickering about is completly futile! mainly as your bickering about something that noone can prove, its complete speculation, and you can try and link to some quantum physics report or report written by kaku, but at the end of the day all THEIR doing is speculating! I heard in a good phrase in a book before, basicly when scientists cant work something out they come up with an insanely complicated theory that noone understands so we think that they must understand it, but at the end of the day they dont and thats why they theorise about it!

all that was needed here was an i agree because.... or i dont agree because ... the 4 page bitchfest was completly un necessary!

[edit on 18-5-2010 by boaby_phet]

reply to post by boaby_phet


You're not making a shred of sense.

Why have other people realized that this was not about time travel? All you have to do is read the question I ask in the title of the post.

Is the future fixed?

It's a thread about determinism vs indeterminism. That should be obvious, because I ask the question.

iS THE FUTURE FIXED?

Again, other people discussed this question, why are you too slow to understand this?

You are jumping in on a tail end debate because you obviously want to rant against Einstein.

People challeng Einstein all the time but we owe a lot in our modern world to Einstein and Quantum Mechanics and I'm not going to throw these things out because a few trolls on a message board don't like Einstein.

Again, it's about randomness and uncertainty. If you notice the time traveler doesn't interefere with her timeline. He just observes her timeline and even though he knows what will happen on her time line he can't predict it accurately because of randomness and uncertainty.

I explained this in the very first post:

You have to factor in randomness and uncertainty. So Diane can make the choice to get up and brush her teeth every morning but her cousins choice to get married and call and tell her will become entangled with Diane.

Quantum mechanics tells us in order for Swami to predict the future, he needs to know Diane's choices and her cousins and everyone's choice in the world as well as natural disasters that may occur.

So please stop muddying up the thread with nonsense. Other people understand what I'm saying.

I used Time Travel to illustrate a point about randomness and uncertainty.

All you have to do is read the original post and if you understand anything about physics you will understand this. If you want to debate Einstein and you think your wild theories and speculation can overturn Einstein then start a thread.


[edit on 18-5-2010 by Matrix Rising]

Originally posted by savvys84
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

Interesting topic OP.
Is the future fixed? Yes maybe in the realm of the undead.
In other realms its not fixed.
Science or physics are still in their infancy. Since multiverses, parrallel spaces, conjugate spaces have to exist, will preclude the future from being fixed. God did not intend man to fathom out everything.
Quantum/ Quantize everything is perhaps not the complete answer.

Good points,

That's why I say it's predetermined but not fixed.

In our 3 dimensional world it appears fixed but because of uncertainty and randomness things can happen that upset the apple cart so to speak.