Time Machine - Page 9

But how did the theorum come into existence? Ideas (in this case a theorum) by definition, must originate in the mind of someone. But this did not. It did not originate in the student's mind because he got the ideas from the time traveler. And it did not originate in the time traveler's mind because he got the ideas from reading the article. So where did it come from? That's the paradox.

Actually after re-reading what I just said I'm becoming more convinced that this proposition is irrational to start with.

An idea MUST originate in a mind (again, as I said before, by definition). Since this proposition makes no allowance for that then the paradox can not be rational. Hence it never would nor ever could occur.

The time traveler got it from an article in SA, it was written by a scientist in that universe. Because of the fact that the traveler changed the future of that universe, it stopped existing. But before that universe collapsed, the time traveler had secured the information and took it with him. It's like a bank robber who blows up the bank after he robs it. The bank no longer exists, but he already got the money.

So the theorem came from a universe that once existed.

Gus

We posted at the same time. Read what I said above and you may look at it in a different way.

Fact: a theorum (or any other idea) must originate in a mind. That is by definition what an idea is.

Fact: in the paradox that did not occur.

Conclusion: The paradox is irrational

Can you Gus (or can you, Dean or Moore) find anything wrong with what I just said?

That's how I first interpreted what the SA writer was trying to convey too.
But we interpreted it that way only because the SA writer needs to take a writing course.

It's now evident that what the SA writer was trying to convey is that the theorum the time traveller read was in fact the very same theorum the student published. There's no 3rd party scientist involved in this. That is the only way the paradox can even try to make a point.
But further consideration reveals the irrationality of that to start with.

Bob,

I think that the paradox only destroys the universe from THAT POINT ON. it would not change its history. therefore the theorem came from the mind of that scientist, who has no future but had a past.

MAYBE!

Gus

When you're referring to it coming from the mind of "that scientist", Gus, who are you referring to?
The student? The time traveller? Or someone else?
If it's someone else then who is the someone else?

I mean the original scientist that wrote it before the time traveler got involved. That article was there only if someone else wrote it.

Fact: An idea must originate in a mind ( hope I'm quoting you correctly)

Fact: The time traveler did not think of it, he read it.

Fact: the student did not think of it, he was told by the time traveler.

Conclusion: The theorem got there because a scientist that writes for SA ( not the time traveler nor the student) thought of it.

After the time traveler took the information, he went back to his own time and gave the information to the student.

At that very moment that the information changed hands from the traveler to the student, the existence of the other universe ( where the scientist wrote the theorem) ended because of the meddiling of the traveler. But the history of that universe still existed and in that history, the information was thought of in the mind of that scientist.

Gus

This is why I tend to concentrate on more fundamental and important issues, like how I might manage to get laid before I die.

Buy some cool clothes, get a bike. If that doesn't do it for you nothing will!

Gus

Dean's romantic life not withstanding, and in the words of Strother Martin,
"what we have he-uh is fail-yuh to communicate"

A writer for Scientific American has proposed a paradox and done such a sloppy job of it that this has resulted in two completely different interpretations of exactly what it is that he said.

1. Either the theorum sprang from a mind other than that of the student or the time traveler, in which case it did not in fact come from "nothing".

Or 2. the theorum did not come from a mind, which is a contradiction in terms and not rational.

Either interpretation takes this supposed "paradox" and puts it in the crapper where it belongs.

That is unless Moore comes along and tells us differently which I do not rule out.

Throw us another one, Larry. We're on a roll here.

I think what happened was that myself in the future was mad at me for some reason, so he came back in time and to try to find the women who had slept with me, and convince them that I'm a huge loser. But he wasn't able to find any, and therefore wasn't able to change the future, and civilization as we know it was saved.

Well, I do agree that it is BS, but I think that's actually sort of the point. It's a paradox, it's supposed to be BS. It's a red flag. Here's a different analogy: you go 20 years into the future, go to a bookstore, and find a bestseller by a young author (say 30). Take it back to the past, and give the copy to the ten-year-old before they could possibly have written it. What would happen? Would some cosmic force make them refuse? Or would they 'plagarize' their own work, even in some small way? If so, where did those ideas come from?

I think you were onto something with the conservation thing, Bob. There's actually quite a developed theory on information. Info can be treated like energy in a way, and the laws of thermodynamics seem to work with it. Thermo tells us that energy is conserved. So, you shouldn't be able to pull information (ideas) out of thin air like this. Maybe there's a 'proof' against time travel to the past in there.

M

P.S. And I'm just not into the parallel universes deal. I can't say why, it just seems like PhD to me (Piled higher and Deeper). I'll stick with the BS.

Point well taken, LM. You never let me down.

Actually it didn't escape me alltogether. When I decided this paradox was not really very rational I got to thinking to myself "what exactly is a paradox?". Can it be that, by it's definition, it does exhibit irrationality?
To be frank, I had only a vague idea of what the accepted definition of the word actually is. So I immediately went to my Bible (my beloved dictionary.com) to take a look. Learned it's defined as...

1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true
2. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
3. A statement contrary to received opinion.

Actually, I think we can make a case that "BS" and "irrational" are to be found somewhere in all that even though Mr. Webster chose not to include it. So I'm on the same page with you when you say "a paradox is supposed to be BS".

I revere language much in the way I think you have such a deep respect
for science.

I'd like to post another mind blowing link, but I don't have any handy. Check out these books by Dr. Michio Kaku:

Beyond Einstein: The Cosmic Quest for the Theory of the Universe

and

Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps and the Tenth Dimension

Bob, I know you are the sultan of cheap, but these books are only about ten bucks each at amazon.com. I highly recommend them. Dr. Kaku is NOT a quack. He is a theoretical physicist and has had his work published in peer reviewed journals. His books are written for the average (intelligent) person. You don't need to be a math wiz to understand the concepts.

I would also recommend The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes-And Its Implications by David Deutsch. It is without a doubt a mind blower - and that's before you get to the chapter on The Omega Point (even in the face of the apparent heat death of the universe. Deutsch is not afraid to think big). Don't be intimidated by these subjects. If David Deutsch is right, some Bob Wood's in some universes will take my advice, read the book and be launched into a deep, fulfilling journey into physics. Other Bob Wood's will say thanks but, if it aint free it aint for me. Still other Bob Wood's in other universes never joined this forum...

Thanks, Larry. Ten bucks is doable even for me I think.

But I probably should explain a little about this cheap thing and why I wear it as a badge of honor. Two examples come to mind.

About a month ago I bought four suits in a garage sale. I'm talking about $300 suits that are as stylish as anything you'll find on the rack right now in a good men's clothing store. Jackets, pants and matching dress shirts. They are all pristine. You would not be able to tell them from unworn clothing. What still amazes me is that the woman's deceased husband who owned them before me had to be exactly my size in height, build, waist, length etc. Admittedly I felt a little silly trying on these suits in this woman's laundry room but that's how I knew before I bought them that they could have been tailored for me instead of him.
The asking price for each suit was $5. I negotiated and paid $15 for all four (Dean give me your shipping address and I'll send one on up to you).

The 2nd example is this contraption hanging over my head. It's a video projector which someone paid $22,000 for in 1998. When I obtained it in June it had been used 1000 hours and like those suits was in like new pristine condition and performs as well as any 8" CRT projector anyone on this forum owns. I won't even say how much I have invested in this purchase because it's almost to the point of being obscene and since I'm about to sell two others it would also not be very smart.

I could bore you with a hundred other examples (such as the like brand new $20 sofa I'm sitting on now) but won't. America is a land of opportunity for the Sultan and I have no shame.

Bob,

I know of and salute your ability to find incredible bargains. Sometimes, it's like finding money in the street (by the way, I used to find money in the street all the time when I was a kid, I even found a diamond ring once, but I never find money anymore. Strange huh? Maybe it's those time travelers picking it up ). I didn't mean to imply that finding cheap bargains made you cheap. Good luck on your hunt, Sultan...

Don't worry, it does. No implications were taken.


Have you ever considered moving out of Big Tuna? I understand there might be some opportunities in the Big Apple.

Well I am thinking of moving into the Fat Trout Trailer Park, though I still prefer Fhloston Paradise.

"Orion Telescopes & Binoculars and Bookshop Santa Cruz are hosting a book signing and slide show presentation by renowned science writer, Timothy Ferris. The event begins at 7:30 pm Monday evening, September 9th at Bookshop Santa Cruz."


In case you want to get him to autograph your copy that you found for $1.98 :-)

Is Santa Cruz anywhere near the Redneck Riviera?
If not then I will have to spend several hundred dollars for an airplane ticket.
For that amount I can refurnish my whole house, buy another wardrobe and buy a year's supply of groceries at Big Lots. And still have enough left over for another hundred supermarket DVD rentals (at a buck a pop).

Hey guys,

I was trying to distract myself from a complicated problem at work today, so I asked an engineer from another department what I thought was a clever trick question.

I asked: How much time will it take a pulse of light to travel from Earth to the sun.
To this, he quickly replied: That's easy, about 8 minutes.

I said: No, actually, the answer is zero time. Then I proceeded to explain to him that the question would have to be answered from the point of view of the pulse of light, and since light does not experience time, the right answer was zero time.

He looked at me as if I had twelve heads and said: That's bull ****, Einstein was full of it. I went back to work shaking my head.

Is it very common for educated people to think this way? He deffinitely has the mental wherewithal to comprehend relativity.

Gus

Very few people drink enough coffee such that relativity would have to be factored into their daily lives. I come close sometimes. Actually, local law enforcement agencies have asked me to register my pee as a lethal weapon, due to dangerously high levels of caffeine.

To your question though, Einstein would have said that you are both right. One of the foundations of relativity is that there is no privileged point of reference. So he can live in reference frame A if he wants I guess.

Well, as you've proposed this one, any and all ideas would be coming from the same "author".
But it does leave us with the question of how time travel could influence the past so that an entirely different future would then develop. Which truly would present a paradox.

However, I'm beginning to think it's all pretty simple. The past exists only as a memory. In other words, it no longer exists. Not in the way some are trying to conceptualize. I now don't think it's even logical to suggest that we could ever "visit" the past. That is no more grounded in logic than "a guy gaining spider-like characteristics by being bitten by a radioactive spider" (Dean Roddey).
And I see nothing in Einstein's discoveries which would refute this.

Bob

Bob,

I was wandering when this post would pop back up ( I was hoping it wouldn't die as it's just too mentally arousing ( No Dean, not THAT kind of arousing)).

I completely agree with you.

I too think the past no longer exists.

Dean,

The problem wasn't whether he had the right answer or not, the problem I had was that he said ALL THIS ABOUT TIME BEING RELATIVE TO SPEED IS A LOAD OF HORSE SHIIT. I would have thought it would be unusual for an engineer to think this way.

Gus

Well, yeh, he does seems to have missed out on the last century of scientific thought. Actually, you know it will be 100 years in 2005 since the publishing of the initial special theory. I assume that there will be a big to-do in the various scientific magazines and circles and whatnot.

Its pretty amazing that in 1905, Einstein, this unknown guy who had so-so grades and couldn't even get a job as a professor's assistant, working as a junior patent clerk, published three papers in that one year, each of which practically either created a whole new field of science, or made a massive contribution to an existing one: relativity, quantum theory, and thermodynamics.

"General relativity may be the biggest leap of the scientific imagination in history. Unlike many previous scientific breakthroughs, such as the principle of natural selection, or the discovery of the physical existence of atoms, General Relativity had little foundation upon the theories or experiments of the time. No one except Einstein was thinking of gravity as equivalent to acceleration, as a geometrical phenomenon, as a bending of time and space."

Alan Lightman (MIT)

I like this idea. Well said.

I wonder if 50 or 100 years from now, people will see time travel movies and stories as 'quaint', like us going back to stories about walking on the moon/mars without a space suit and seeing little green men.

M