Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 135

Thread: Back to the Future, Part II (nitpicking)

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    4,751
    If we can try to change the past and always fail for some reason then Hitler's home town would have been littered with jammed machine guns, unexploded bombs, and dead commando squads. Since we have no record of such things then the reasons for the failures must have happened elsewhen, such as just before each time travel attempt. That makes attempted time travel very dangerous.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    9,223
    Some nice leaps in logic there...

    Assuming there are no records of jammed machine guns and so on (do we actually know this?), it is trivially easy to come up with reasons.

    There may be a practical limit to the number of travellers who can visit a given era. (The rarity of time travellers supports this idea, although it is by no means conclusive.)

    People from an advanced civilisation that has time travel technology might have no motive to go back in time and kill Hitler prematurely.

    And even if they do have a motive, they are hardly going to act on it if they know that they are destined to fail.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    4,751
    Not everyone in the future would need to be motivated. There would probably be some who would want to try it. A near certainty of failure just doesn't impress some people.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,801
    I never liked the idea that the universe conspires to stop you from changing things. And it leads to ridiculous results. Say you go back to kill your grandfather. And since he wasn't killed your gun misfires, so you try pistol whipping him, but you slip on the carpet, Your take out your dagger, but it slips from your hand, you take out your rocket launcher, but that very RPG turns out to be a dud. You drop an anvil but it falls to one side. you stick a stick of radium in his bed, but it turns to lead before your eyes, either that or all the rays and particles miss hitting his cells, but that leaves him with an inexplicable glowing rod. You open a magnetic containment tank and release antimatter, but it fail to react with the normal particles, so it doesn't go boom. You think a while and then go back to the future, then go back in time to when you are waiting, you do this again and again till there is as much temporal clones of you. But wait if you can't change the past, you can't change the past of the time you are thinking so there can be no temporal clones, the machine breaks down, if more then one of you tries to enter the past at once. If there is only one history, then that implies there is something like a God out there, or something even crazier is going on. A single history universe is worse then "Duck Amuck".

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,109
    ...or you just can't time-travel.

  6. #96
    Re RC:

    "Oh brother, I'm a buzzboy!"

    Shameless plug. Carry on...


  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
    ...or you just can't time-travel.
    So far from what I have seen, the physics say you can, just in a relatively constrained way. Of course I am not doing the math, so I have only other researchers work to go by, so I don't know myself. But I have seen some very promising developments. Like the possibility that light is the best thing yet for bending space and hence, time.

    "Daffy Duck he had a farm, yi aye yi aye yo.... And on this farm he had an *igloo*, yi aye... yi... aye... er?"
    Ah, good old Cartoons. I love them so.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    9,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Not everyone in the future would need to be motivated. There would probably be some who would want to try it.
    I don't quite see the distinction between being motivated and wanting to try it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck
    A near certainty of failure just doesn't impress some people.
    It's not a near certainty of failure.

    Can you crush diamonds with your teeth? Of course not - diamonds are a lot harder than teeth. If you try it, at best you'll simply fail; at worst you'll do your teeth some serious damage. Yet surely there must be people queuing up to get past the security guards at the Big Diamond Museum in order to have a go?

    Quote Originally Posted by ravens_cry
    I never liked the idea that the universe conspires to stop you from changing things.
    It doesn't have to conspire. There are known outcomes, and they take into account the efforts of meddling time travellers.

    And it doesn't have to be complicated or cartoon-like, although you can probably envisage the wannabe grandfather killer slipping on a banana skin on his way to the time machine. Or he gets the coordinates wrong. Or he succeeds in killing the man, only to discover the man wasn't his grandfather after all. Or he's gunned down by a time traveller from further in the future.

    It's trivially easy to come up with scenarios that keep time consistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by ravens_cry
    If there is only one history, then that implies there is something like a God out there, or something even crazier is going on.
    Not at all.

    Forget time travel for a moment, and imagine this:

    You see someone's death certificate. Then a bit later you discover that the events leading up to his death were recorded on a video camera. You watch the video of a medical team doing what they can to save his life. No matter how promising their actions appear to be, you know how it's going to end. It might appear contrived, it might appear as if the universe is conspiring to kill that man, but of course it isn't really. It merely seems that way because you've seen events in the wrong order.

    The only difference with time travel is that you are potentially a participant in a situation with a known outcome.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,835
    Time travel in a Many-Worlds universe is pointless, in most cases; if you send someone into the past they immediately change the timeline, and they simply disappear from your timeline. It is a bit like sending someone into oblivion.

    Only in the vanishingly rare circumstance where the time traveller doesn't affect anything would you ever see them again; and you would acheive little in such a situation. The time traveller might, for instance, travel to an inaccessible desert, or cave, and affect the enironment to such a small extent that the new timeline he creates will easily converge with our own.
    That is, assuming that such convergence is possible; a past timeline with few historical differences would converge with another similar one more easily than two completely different timelines.

    This page describes the process of path-integration in quantum physics;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum-over-histories
    It replaces the classical notion of a single, unique history for a system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinity of possible histories to compute a quantum amplitude.
    In my imagination this is something like the process which allows the convergence of separate timelines; however I suspect that in reality the process would be even stranger, if it were even possible.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    4,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley View Post
    I don't quite see the distinction between being motivated and wanting to try it.

    It's not a near certainty of failure.

    Can you crush diamonds with your teeth? Of course not - diamonds are a lot harder than teeth. If you try it, at best you'll simply fail; at worst you'll do your teeth some serious damage. Yet surely there must be people queuing up to get past the security guards at the Big Diamond Museum in order to have a go?
    People aren't motivated to bite diamonds. Preventing the second world war would draw more interest.

    It doesn't have to conspire. There are known outcomes, and they take into account the efforts of meddling time travellers.

    And it doesn't have to be complicated or cartoon-like, although you can probably envisage the wannabe grandfather killer slipping on a banana skin on his way to the time machine. Or he gets the coordinates wrong. Or he succeeds in killing the man, only to discover the man wasn't his grandfather after all. Or he's gunned down by a time traveller from further in the future.

    It's trivially easy to come up with scenarios that keep time consistent.


    Not at all.

    Forget time travel for a moment, and imagine this:

    You see someone's death certificate. Then a bit later you discover that the events leading up to his death were recorded on a video camera. You watch the video of a medical team doing what they can to save his life. No matter how promising their actions appear to be, you know how it's going to end. It might appear contrived, it might appear as if the universe is conspiring to kill that man, but of course it isn't really. It merely seems that way because you've seen events in the wrong order.

    The only difference with time travel is that you are potentially a participant in a situation with a known outcome.
    If you see someone's death certificate then you can bribe someone to print and sign one, or make a fake one yourself. If you see a film of a medical team working to save his life then you alter some other film to look like the one you saw. Since the evidence has been faked it has nothing to do with whether or not the person in question actually dies. He might die just as anyone else might die, but he has no more chance of dying than anyone else since the evidence is not real. You don't need to change the past. Your faking of the evidence just becomes part of what already happened.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    7,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    You can still make any decision you want no matter what they say. The time traveller is not infallible, they can be wrong, they can be fooled, they can think things should go one way when they actually go another. Whether or not the immutability is an "illusion" is irrelevant, as it doesn't effect your ability to do whatever you choose.
    You're the one who said that the past is immutable for the time traveller. Now you're saying the past could be different than the time traveller remembers it. Which is it?

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    9,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    People aren't motivated to bite diamonds. Preventing the second world war would draw more interest.
    But the similarity remains: Whether it's crushing diamonds with your teeth, or preventing WWII, the best case scenario is that you return home knowing your efforts ended in abject failure; a more likely outcome is that you did yourself some serious damage or got yourself killed.

    Now I don't know about everyone in the future, but I'd find that quite offputting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck
    If you see someone's death certificate then you can bribe someone to print and sign one, or make a fake one yourself. If you see a film of a medical team working to save his life then you alter some other film to look like the one you saw. Since the evidence has been faked it has nothing to do with whether or not the person in question actually dies. He might die just as anyone else might die, but he has no more chance of dying than anyone else since the evidence is not real. You don't need to change the past. Your faking of the evidence just becomes part of what already happened.
    I agree that you can't always be sure of what really happened in the past, and if someone has faked evidence or documents, then you can be less sure of what will result from a time traveller's actions in the past. In theory you could get a stunt double of Abraham Lincoln to go to Ford Theatre and get the real prez to live out his days on a tropical island, although I doubt that that's what happened.

    But that wasn't my point. My point was, if you know an outcome before you witness the events leading up to it, the events can have a "contrived" feel about them even if no time travel is involved. For instance, if you watch a recorded football game after you've been told the final score, it's a different experience to watching it "live".

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    4,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley View Post
    But the similarity remains: Whether it's crushing diamonds with your teeth, or preventing WWII, the best case scenario is that you return home knowing your efforts ended in abject failure; a more likely outcome is that you did yourself some serious damage or got yourself killed.

    Now I don't know about everyone in the future, but I'd find that quite offputting.
    I don't think it will be that simple. There will be people who claim to have changed the past just like there are people now who claim to be abducted by flying saucer aliens. Others will claim "conspiracy to protect the timeline" and try to change the past anyway. For some people, reason is easily defeated by emotion so they'd have to try.

    For whatever reasons, people would try and it would lead to a highly improbable set of coincidences that they'd all fail for one reason or another.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    Time travel in a Many-Worlds universe is pointless, in most cases; if you send someone into the past they immediately change the timeline, and they simply disappear from your timeline. It is a bit like sending someone into oblivion.
    Exactly, maybe THATS why we don't see time traveller tourists, even if it has/will be'en invented, is that it sucks for your family. And most people care about their family. Another thing that makes it pointless, is that you never change your own universe, you just make a differant one. So all those people suffering under the eternal bondage of the lizard people of omeaga-9 'up stream' are still suffering, you just created a branch where OTHER people don't. And you can't really enter to this promiced land, because the changes you made, made it very likly you were never born.
    Of course, it would be nice if you could move from strand to strand like a dancing spider. At least then you can go home.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,942
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanF View Post
    You're the one who said that the past is immutable for the time traveller. Now you're saying the past could be different than the time traveller remembers it. Which is it?
    Is human memory perfectly infallible? Signs point to no. Does history record every detail of everything that has ever happened with 100% accuracy? Again, not so much.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,801
    Exactly, history, (whether there is a past or not) is a man made construct. History is written by the victors.
    And that is why "single universe time travel" is goofy. Lets say you go to kill your own grandfather, you don't succeed. But then lets say you decided to REPLACE your grandfather, kill him, and take his place. According to single universe time travel, you should be able to do that. but the only difference, is what you decide to do after you have killed him. Why should the universe care about an event that makes no differance in history?
    And again, with the anti-matter. Maybe I am anthromorphising, but if extremely unlikely events are occurring, just because that if the 'normal' version happened, it would change history, I call that the work of a aware agent. Many of the tactics to keep the universe consistent violate, or restrain in ways worth of Maxwell's demon, the laws of the universe.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,942
    Quote Originally Posted by ravens_cry View Post
    I never liked the idea that the universe conspires to stop you from changing things. And it leads to ridiculous results. Say you go back to kill your grandfather. And since he wasn't killed your gun misfires, so you try pistol whipping him, but you slip on the carpet, Your take out your dagger, but it slips from your hand, you take out your rocket launcher, but that very RPG turns out to be a dud. You drop an anvil but it falls to one side. you stick a stick of radium in his bed, but it turns to lead before your eyes, either that or all the rays and particles miss hitting his cells, but that leaves him with an inexplicable glowing rod. You open a magnetic containment tank and release antimatter, but it fail to react with the normal particles, so it doesn't go boom. You think a while and then go back to the future, then go back in time to when you are waiting, you do this again and again till there is as much temporal clones of you. But wait if you can't change the past, you can't change the past of the time you are thinking so there can be no temporal clones, the machine breaks down, if more then one of you tries to enter the past at once. A single history universe is worse then "Duck Amuck".
    The single-line universe doesn't "conspire" to do anything. That's just how it happened. You are here, so you must have failed.

    If there is only one history, then that implies there is something like a God out there, or something even crazier is going on.
    Huh? I totally fail to get that. How did God sneak into this?
    Last edited by Noclevername; 2008-Feb-12 at 02:17 AM. Reason: clarified
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,942
    Quote Originally Posted by ravens_cry View Post
    Lets say you go to kill your own grandfather, you don't succeed. But then lets say you decided to REPLACE your grandfather, kill him, and take his place. According to single universe time travel, you should be able to do that.
    Huh? Sez who?


    Why should the universe care about an event that makes no differance in history?
    "Care" and "history" are not parts of the discussion, we're talking about time, and travelling in it.

    If a thing can happen, it can happen. If it can't, it can't. If you kill your grandfather and replace him-- oh, wait, you can't, because you weren't born, because HE'S DEAD. So none of that can happen in a single-timeline Universe.

    Maybe I am anthromorphising
    Yes.

    but if extremely unlikely events are occurring, just because that if the 'normal' version happened, it would change history, I call that the work of a aware agent. Many of the tactics to keep the universe consistent violate, or restrain in ways worth of Maxwell's demon, the laws of the universe.
    "Unlikely" and "normal" are meaningless in a single-timeline world. What happens happens. No need to invoke the supernatural. There are no "tactics". There is no "normal version". Just a line of events, some of which involve people moving around in time.
    Last edited by Noclevername; 2008-Feb-12 at 02:18 AM. Reason: clarified
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    4,751
    You can't kill and replace your grandfather because you have about Ľ of his DNA so if he's you then you have only Ľ of your own DNA.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    16,659
    This reminds me of a very short story in Analog I read a few years ago. I'm sure I don't remember all the details, but as I recall, it starts out with a professor speaking in front of a lecture hall, talking about the grandfather paradox. As he's speaking, a heavy light fixture falls and barely misses him - something that probably would have killed him. There is a ruckus, things are cleaned up, but for the next class he goes back to the same lecture - and again he is nearly killed.

    Some time passes, and in still another class the professor begins the lecture about the grandkid going back to kill his grandparent. While speaking, he notices movement near the back of the hall. He sees a kid with the same color hair as his, very similar features, etc. throwing a grenade in his direction. As the grenade hurtles towards him, he says, "Okay, that's it. I'm not having children." At that point, the kid, and the grenade, disappear. He then goes back to giving his lecture on the grandfather paradox to the stunned audience.

    If anybody remembers what issue that was in from my messed up retelling, I'd appreciate it.
    Last edited by Van Rijn; 2008-Feb-12 at 06:08 AM.

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,109
    But only 1/4 of his DNA is in you.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,942
    On the other hand, if there are multiple timelines, everyone can have their own Universe! Just find one timeline where humanity never evolved, keep branching it off, and go into the transtemporal real estate business (ethereal estate?)
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,801
    I booped up about single universe time travel. Still, if I look under my bed tonight, and find a mass of antimatter not annihilating, I still call that screwy. Maybe not a gods fault, maybe not a conspiring universe, but still..screwy. But my brain wasn't made for time travel, but then it wasn't made to read and write or type or do even most first grade math. Yet I do it. I can wrap my paleolithic brain around those things, I guess I can do my best about time travel.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,835
    I think it might be interesting to consider the strange characteristic of a Closed Timelike Curve, just to show how weird time travel could be.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve

    You could create a CTC using a wormhole; basically the hole would simply take you into the past, perhaps just a few seconds. The hole would perhaps have two mouths, maybe on opposite sides of a single room. The mouths of the 'hole might be given the arbitrary names A and B. If you go in Mouth A you come out of Mouth B several seconds in the future; this doesn't really break any rules. Time dilation can achieve a similar effect, sending you into future at fast forward.

    But going into Mouth B and coming out of Mouth A takes you a few seconds into the past. If you want to, you can travel from B to A repeatedly, and each time you will see the room you started in. And each time you pass through the room you will see that the clock on the wall shows the same time. In effect you could do this for an eternity, and that clock would show the same time. You have created a Closed Timelike Curve, an eternity long.

    Now an eternity is a long time, long enough for an infinite number of virtual particles to be created spontaneously somewhere along its eternal length. Even worse. all these particles would appear instantly, as soon as the CTC was formed. So, it may be that the CTC would instantly become an infinitely powerful particle generator. Matt Visser has suggested that this would quite simply cause the instant collapse of the wormhole, and so causality would be protected. In effect, it would be impossible to create a time machine by any method which could lead to a CTC, which is probably most practical methods.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    7,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Is human memory perfectly infallible? Signs point to no. Does history record every detail of everything that has ever happened with 100% accuracy? Again, not so much.
    I give up.

  26. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    On the other hand, if there are multiple timelines, everyone can have their own Universe! Just find one timeline where humanity never evolved, keep branching it off, and go into the transtemporal real estate business (ethereal estate?)
    Under the "quantum immortality" hypothesis I alluded to, a likely consequence of the many-worlds interpretation, you will most likely eventually have your own universe--everyone will die, because odds are strongly against their not dying--and this includes the human race, the galaxy, etc. However, as long as there is a nonzero chance of you surviving, you will find yourself in the universe in which you survive.
    (it could be there is a 0% chance, but in the world as we know it, probabilities tend to be nearly zero rather than truly zero--I even remember a tongue-in-cheek calculation of a snowball's chance in you know where, given assumptions about the size of the snowball, the temperature of you-know-where, and how long it is required to survive--the probability was nonzero).

    So, each would have his own personal universe. Each would likely no longer be recognizable as "human" and you might not recognize your existence as anything like "life" as you used to know it--you might be barely conscious even, and no longer all that intelligent. You would definitely be very old, as in billions or trillions of years.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,942
    Quote Originally Posted by ravens_cry View Post
    I booped up about single universe time travel. Still, if I look under my bed tonight, and find a mass of antimatter not annihilating, I still call that screwy. Maybe not a gods fault, maybe not a conspiring universe, but still..screwy. But my brain wasn't made for time travel, but then it wasn't made to read and write or type or do even most first grade math. Yet I do it. I can wrap my paleolithic brain around those things, I guess I can do my best about time travel.
    If it's a single-timeline universe, the antimatter will never get to your bed. Unless, of course, it turns out that you died/will die in an antimatter explosion, in which case, nice knowing you.

    In either case, it getting out of containment and not exploding is not an option.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    9,223
    My (paternal) grandfather was killed in an antimatter explosion.

    At least, that's what he told me. (I was 12 years old at the time.)

    I said, "But Grandfather, if you were killed in an antimatter explosion, how come you're sitting here talking to me?"

    He told me off for being cheeky, then changed the subject.

    This is absolutely true, except for the bit about it actually happening.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,835
    Perhaps it was a matter anti-explosion. That's where pieces of matter violently assemble into a whole unexploded object.

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,942
    Quote Originally Posted by tdvance View Post
    Under the "quantum immortality" hypothesis I alluded to, a likely consequence of the many-worlds interpretation, you will most likely eventually have your own universe--everyone will die, because odds are strongly against their not dying--and this includes the human race, the galaxy, etc. However, as long as there is a nonzero chance of you surviving, you will find yourself in the universe in which you survive.
    (it could be there is a 0% chance, but in the world as we know it, probabilities tend to be nearly zero rather than truly zero--I even remember a tongue-in-cheek calculation of a snowball's chance in you know where, given assumptions about the size of the snowball, the temperature of you-know-where, and how long it is required to survive--the probability was nonzero).

    So, each would have his own personal universe. Each would likely no longer be recognizable as "human" and you might not recognize your existence as anything like "life" as you used to know it--you might be barely conscious even, and no longer all that intelligent. You would definitely be very old, as in billions or trillions of years.
    With multiples, there are enough universes for everyone, of any age. You don't need to wait for others to die, just find one empty one and branch it off.

    As for "quantum immortality", it's based on the fundamentally flawed notion that the me that dies is the same me that lives. No, we used to be one, then we split. Now I'm me and he's him, and one of us is dead.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-Aug-17, 10:40 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Sep-23, 11:00 PM
  3. Back from the future...sort of.
    By Buttercup in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2010-Jul-02, 01:13 PM
  4. Back to the Future
    By mugaliens in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 2008-May-22, 04:06 PM
  5. Back to the Future
    By Phobos in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 2002-Aug-09, 12:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •