logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-05-04 00:08:02 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Read the first edition of the Ideohazard

  Church of Virus BBS
  Mailing List
  Virus 2005
  Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?		 « previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?  (Read 1015 times)
rhinoceros
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« on: 2005-06-16 13:31:13 »		 Reply with quote
This was mentioned in New Scientist:


No paradox for time travellers
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18625044.300

THE laws of physics seem to permit time travel, and with it, paradoxical situations such as the possibility that people could go back in time to prevent their own birth. But it turns out that such paradoxes may be ruled out by the weirdness inherent in laws of quantum physics.

<snip>
Because such time travel sets up paradoxes, many researchers suspect that some physical constraints must make time travel impossible. Now, physicists Daniel Greenberger of the City University of New York and Karl Svozil of the Vienna University of Technology in Austria have shown that the most basic features of quantum theory may ensure that time travellers could never alter the past, even if they are able to go back in time.

The constraint arises from a quantum object's ability to behave like a wave. <snip> The object is unlikely to be in places where the components interfere destructively, and cancel each other out.

<snip>
Waves that travel back in time interfere destructively, thus preventing anything from happening differently from that which has already taken place (http://www.arxiv.org/quant-ph/0506027). "If you travel into the past quantum mechanically, you would only see those alternatives consistent with the world you left behind you," says Greenberger.


[rhinoceros] Here is the paper in a PDF file. I am pasting some of the less technical parts:


Quantum Theory Looks at Time Travel
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0506/0506027.pdf

<snip>
Classically, time travel is inconsistent with free will. If one could visit the past, then one could change the past, and this would lead to an alternative present. So there is a paradox here, which is best illustrated by the famous scenario of a person going back in time to shoot his father before his father has met his mother, and thus negating the possibility of his having ever been born. It is for reasons like this that time travel has been considered impossible in principle.

Of course, one can get around this problem if one considers the universe to be totally deterministic, and free will to be merely an illusion. Then the possibility of changing the past (or the future, for that matter) no longer exists. Since we prefer to think that the writing of this paper was not preordained at the time of the big bang, we shall reject this solution on psychological grounds, if not logical ones, and ask whether the paradoxes of classical physics can be gotten around, quantum mechanically.

<snip lotsa math - As Hawking was told by his publisher, "each formula you include, you lose half your potential buyers">

According to our model, if you travel into the past quantum mechanically, you would only see those alternatives consistent with the world you left behind you. In other words, while you are aware of the past, you cannot change it. No matter how unlikely the events are that could have led to your present circumstances, once they have actually occurred, they cannot be changed. Your trip would set up resonances that are consistent with the future that has already unfolded.

This also has enormous consequences on the paradoxes of free will. It shows that it is perfectly logical to assume that one has many choices and that one is free to take any one of them. Until a choice is taken, the future is not determined. However, once a choice is taken, and it leads to a particular future, it was inevitable. It could not have been otherwise. The boundary conditions that the future events happen as they already have, guarantees that they must have been prepared for in the past. So, looking backwards, the world is deterministic. However, looking forwards, the future is probabilistic. This completely explains the classical paradox. In fact, it serves as a kind of indirect evidence that such feedback must actually take place in nature, in the sense that without it, a paradox exists, while with it, the paradox is resolved. (Of course, there is an equally likely explanation, namely that going backward in time is impossible. This also solves the paradox by avoiding it.)

The model also has consequences concerning the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory. The world may appear to keep splitting so far as the future is concerned. However, once a measurement is made, only those histories consistent with that measurement are possible. In other words, with time travel, other alternative worlds do not exist, as once a measurement has been made confirming the world we live in, the other worlds would be impossible to reach from the original one. This explanation makes the von Neumann state reduction hypothesis much more reasonable, and in fact acts as a sort of justification of it.

<snip more maths, sadly making this a non-argument -- take it as a specialist's opinion>

Thus less ’deterministic’ and fuzzier time traveling might be possible, a possibility we have not yet explored. Neither have we explored the possibility that feedback should be possible into the future as well as the past. Of course in this case, it ought to be called ’feedforward’ - rather than feedback.
Report to moderator   Logged
DrSebby
Adept
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 456
Reputation: 7.99
Rate DrSebby



...Oh, you smell of lambs!
18680476 18680476    dr_sebby drsebby
View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« Reply #1 on: 2005-06-18 08:13:40 »		 Reply with quote

....of course the layman's resolution to this would be, "if time travel were
possible, wouldnt such a traveler have successfully visited us?"

...on another note, one need not kill one's father or anyone for that
matter.  merely being present in the past would create a chain reaction of
events which would alter the time line of one's mother or father and thus
result in a different specific sperm impregnating her.. which of course
would mean a different resultant child.

...in fact, i would wager(serious money) on the notion that merely appearing
in the past for a microsecond would result in a chain reaction which would
entirely alter the present reality...down to every last person and all the
reactions following.  though the altered present would likely be rather
similar due to large scale nuances in the human equation.


DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".




----Original Message Follows----
From: "rhinoceros" <rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:31:14 -0600

This was mentioned in New Scientist:


No paradox for time travellers
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18625044.300

THE laws of physics seem to permit time travel, and with it, paradoxical
situations such as the possibility that people could go back in time to
prevent their own birth. But it turns out that such paradoxes may be ruled
out by the weirdness inherent in laws of quantum physics.

<snip>
Because such time travel sets up paradoxes, many researchers suspect that
some physical constraints must make time travel impossible. Now, physicists
Daniel Greenberger of the City University of New York and Karl Svozil of the
Vienna University of Technology in Austria have shown that the most basic
features of quantum theory may ensure that time travellers could never alter
the past, even if they are able to go back in time.

The constraint arises from a quantum object's ability to behave like a wave.
<snip> The object is unlikely to be in places where the components interfere
destructively, and cancel each other out.

<snip>
Waves that travel back in time interfere destructively, thus preventing
anything from happening differently from that which has already taken place
(www.arxiv.org/quant-ph/0506027). "If you travel into the past quantum
mechanically, you would only see those alternatives consistent with the
world you left behind you," says Greenberger.


[rhinoceros] Here is the paper in a PDF file. I am pasting some of the less
technical parts:


Quantum Theory Looks at Time Travel
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0506/0506027.pdf

<snip>
Classically, time travel is inconsistent with free will. If one could visit
the past, then one could change the past, and this would lead to an
alternative present. So there is a paradox here, which is best illustrated
by the famous scenario of a person going back in time to shoot his father
before his father has met his mother, and thus negating the possibility of
his having ever been born. It is for reasons like this that time travel has
been considered impossible in principle.

Of course, one can get around this problem if one considers the universe to
be totally deterministic, and free will to be merely an illusion. Then the
possibility of changing the past (or the future, for that matter) no longer
exists. Since we prefer to think that the writing of this paper was not
preordained at the time of the big bang, we shall reject this solution on
psychological grounds, if not logical ones, and ask whether the paradoxes of
classical physics can be gotten around, quantum mechanically.

<snip lotsa math - As Hawking was told by his publisher, "each formula you
include, you lose half your potential buyers">

According to our model, if you travel into the past quantum mechanically,
you would only see those alternatives consistent with the world you left
behind you. In other words, while you are aware of the past, you cannot
change it. No matter how unlikely the events are that could have led to your
present circumstances, once they have actually occurred, they cannot be
changed. Your trip would set up resonances that are consistent with the
future that has already unfolded.

This also has enormous consequences on the paradoxes of free will. It shows
that it is perfectly logical to assume that one has many choices and that
one is free to take any one of them. Until a choice is taken, the future is
not determined. However, once a choice is taken, and it leads to a
particular future, it was inevitable. It could not have been otherwise. The
boundary conditions that the future events happen as they already have,
guarantees that they must have been prepared for in the past. So, looking
backwards, the world is deterministic. However, looking forwards, the future
is probabilistic. This completely explains the classical paradox. In fact,
it serves as a kind of indirect evidence that such feedback must actually
take place in nature, in the sense that without it, a paradox exists, while
with it, the paradox is resolved. (Of course, there is an equally likely
explanation, namely that going backward in time is impossible. This also
solves the paradox by avoi!
ding it.)

The model also has consequences concerning the many-worlds interpretation of
quantum theory. The world may appear to keep splitting so far as the future
is concerned. However, once a measurement is made, only those histories
consistent with that measurement are possible. In other words, with time
travel, other alternative worlds do not exist, as once a measurement has
been made confirming the world we live in, the other worlds would be
impossible to reach from the original one. This explanation makes the von
Neumann state reduction hypothesis much more reasonable, and in fact acts as
a sort of justification of it.

<snip more maths, sadly making this a non-argument -- take it as a
specialist's opinion>

Thus less ’deterministic’ and fuzzier time traveling might be possible, a
possibility we have not yet explored. Neither have we explored the
possibility that feedback should be possible into the future as well as the
past. Of course in this case, it ought to be called ’feedforward’ - rather
than feedback.



----
This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2005 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
<http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=65;action=display;threadid=32824>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
"courage and shuffle the cards..."
rhinoceros
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: virus: Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« Reply #2 on: 2005-06-18 12:32:45 »		 Reply with quote
Dr Sebby wrote:
>
> ....of course the layman's resolution to this would be, "if time travel
> were possible, wouldnt such a traveler have successfully visited us?"


rhinoceros:
Alas, the party held for time travellers from all times at MIT on May 7
had only limited success...

http://web.mit.edu/adorai/timetraveler/
<snip>
Update: The convention was a mixed success. Unfortunately, we had no
confirmed time travelers visit us, yet many time travelers could have
attended incognito to avoid endless questions about the future.
<snip>

More detailed coverage of the event in Wired:
Time Travelers Welcome at MIT
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67451,00.html


> ...on another note, one need not kill one's father or anyone for that
> matter.  merely being present in the past would create a chain reaction
> of events which would alter the time line of one's mother or father and
> thus result in a different specific sperm impregnating her.. which of
> course would mean a different resultant child.
>
> ...in fact, i would wager(serious money) on the notion that merely
> appearing in the past for a microsecond would result in a chain reaction
> which would entirely alter the present reality...down to every last
> person and all the reactions following.  though the altered present
> would likely be rather similar due to large scale nuances in the human
> equation.


All true. Killing your grandpa was only one spectacular scenario. The
idea of that paper was to play with the assumptions that (a) everything
would happen in such a way that you would never find yourself in a
position to kill your grandpa or cause any other change and (b) whatever
you cause by your presence there was bound to happen anyway. This seems
to require that there is a "time loop" already in place for the time
traveller.

According to the author, the man of the present has all the options
open. The man of the future seems to have more limited options; less
places to go, less things to opt for. How much is "less"? A plausible
answer is "none".


The time traveller gag
http://geekpress.com/2005_02_17_daily.html

You get some vaguely/slightly futuristic-looking clothes. Make it
plausible, somewhat based on current trends, you're probably aiming for
maybe ten years in the future. You can most likely make do with an
interesting combination of whatever clothes you currently own. Ooh! Or
make a fake tour T-shirt for a band that doesn't exist and mark it "Wild
Tour 2008" or something. whatever. The point is to make it look
plausible that you might come from the future.

Then just run out into the street, select somebody at random and shout
at them, "What's the date today?! Quickly, tell me!"

When they respond, you shout, "What YEAR, man, what YEAR is this?!"

And when they respond again you go, "Noooo! They've sent me back too
far!" or alternatively "I'm too late! It's all going to happen again!"

Then you run away again.

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
rhinoceros
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« Reply #3 on: 2005-06-18 13:10:55 »		 Reply with quote
The links in this reply were garbled in the email version, so I am resending it.


[Dr Sebby] ....of course the layman's resolution to this would be, "if time travel were possible, wouldnt such a traveler have successfully visited us?"


[rhinoceros] Alas, the party held for time travellers from all times at MIT on May 7 had only limited success...

http://web.mit.edu/adorai/timetraveler/
<snip>
Update: The convention was a mixed success. Unfortunately, we had no confirmed time travelers visit us, yet many time travelers could have attended incognito to avoid endless questions about the future.
<snip>

More detailed coverage of the event in Wired:
Time Travelers Welcome at MIT
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67451,00.html


[DrSebby] ...on another note, one need not kill one's father or anyone for that matter.  merely being present in the past would create a chain reaction of events which would alter the time line of one's mother or father and thus result in a different specific sperm impregnating her.. which of course would mean a different resultant child.
>
> ...in fact, i would wager(serious money) on the notion that merely appearing in the past for a microsecond would result in a chain reaction which would entirely alter the present reality...down to every last person and all the reactions following.  though the altered present would likely be rather similar due to large scale nuances in the human equation.



[rhinoceros] All true. Killing your grandpa was only one spectacular scenario. The idea of that paper was to play with the assumptions that (a) everything would happen in such a way that you would never find yourself in a position to kill your grandpa or cause any other change and (b) whatever you cause by your presence there was bound to happen anyway. This seems to require that there is a "time loop" already in place for the time traveller.

According to the author, the man of the present has all the options open. The man of the future seems to have more limited options; less places to go, less things to opt for. How much is "less"? A plausible answer is "none".


The time traveller gag
http://geekpress.com/2005_02_17_daily.html

You get some vaguely/slightly futuristic-looking clothes. Make it plausible, somewhat based on current trends, you're probably aiming for maybe ten years in the future. You can most likely make do with an interesting combination of whatever clothes you currently own. Ooh! Or make a fake tour T-shirt for a band that doesn't exist and mark it "Wild Tour 2008" or something. whatever. The point is to make it look plausible that you might come from the future.

Then just run out into the street, select somebody at random and shout at them, "What's the date today?! Quickly, tell me!"

When they respond, you shout, "What YEAR, man, what YEAR is this?!"

And when they respond again you go, "Noooo! They've sent me back too far!" or alternatively "I'm too late! It's all going to happen again!"

Then you run away again.
Report to moderator   Logged
simul
Adept
****

Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul



I am a lama.
simultaneous zoneediterik
View Profile WWW
Re: virus: Re:Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« Reply #4 on: 2005-06-18 14:08:06 »		 Reply with quote
> According to the author, the man of
> the present has all the options open.
> The man of the future seems to have
> more limited options; less places to go,
> less things to opt for. How much is
> "less"? A plausible answer is "none".

Althought I agree that "none" is a very reasonable answer, I like the picture of a haggard time traveler, constantly staring at his PDA and rushing from one appointment to the next.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« Reply #5 on: 2005-06-18 14:19:42 »		 Reply with quote
[Blunderov] Hmm. Time to reconsider time travel. If it was possible to
only observe the wave displacements that happened x years ago, then one
would have a time machine TV set. Like watching the twinkling of stars
that actually exploded eons ago. All that light and sound from previous
times must have gone somewhere. The trick would be to get it to turn
around and come back here again. Quickly, before it gets any further
away. Oy vei.

Back to the drawing board.
 


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
KapuTT
Neophyte
*

Gender: Male
Posts: 3
Reputation: 0.00



Tanz mit mir . . .
   Aratis101 Aratis101
View Profile E-Mail
re: virus: Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« Reply #6 on: 2005-06-20 03:01:03 »		 Reply with quote
[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]
Report to moderator   Logged
deadletter-j
Initiate
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 84
Reputation: 5.01
Rate deadletter-j



How many Engstrom's does it take?

View Profile E-Mail
Re: virus: Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« Reply #7 on: 2005-06-20 19:14:18 »		 Reply with quote
Some stuff from the WELL on this, this week.


science 550: Quantum Mechanics
#623 of 624: the search for psi rays (the-voidmstr) Sat 18 Jun 2005 
(12:11 AM)

No paradox for time travellers
18 June 2005

NewScientist.com news service
Mark Buchanan

THE laws of physics seem to permit time travel, and with it,
paradoxical situations such as the possibility that people could go
back in time to prevent their own birth.

But it turns out that such paradoxes may be ruled out by the weirdness
inherent in laws of quantum physics.

Some solutions to the equations of Einstein's general theory of
relativity lead to situations in which space-time curves back on
itself, theoretically allowing travellers to loop back in time and meet
younger versions of themselves.

Because such time travel sets up paradoxes, many researchers suspect
that some physical constraints must make time travel impossible.

Now, physicists Daniel Greenberger of the City University of New York
and Karl Svozil of the Vienna University of Technology in Austria have
shown that the most basic features of quantum theory may ensure that
time travellers could never alter the past, even if they are able to go
back in time.

more @

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18625044.300


science 550: Quantum Mechanics
#624 of 624: it's time for a colorful metaphor (jmcarlin) Sat 18 Jun 
2005 (10:34 AM)

I love stories like that. I also found it on slashdot with a bbc pointer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4097258.stm








On Jun 20, 2005, at 12:01 AM, Michael Styles wrote:

> So does this mean that once you succeed in preventing your birth, you 
> just disintigrate?
>
>
>
> - ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "rhinoceros" <rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
> Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: virus: Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:31:14 -0600
>
> This was mentioned in New Scientist:
>
>
> No paradox for time travellers
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18625044.300
>
> THE laws of physics seem to permit time travel, and with it, 
> paradoxical
> situations such as the possibility that people could go back in time to
> prevent their own birth. But it turns out that such paradoxes may be 
> ruled
> out by the weirdness inherent in laws of quantum physics.
>
> <snip>
> Because such time travel sets up paradoxes, many researchers suspect 
> that
> some physical constraints must make time travel impossible. Now, 
> physicists
> Daniel Greenberger of the City University of New York and Karl Svozil 
> of the
> Vienna University of Technology in Austria have shown that the most 
> basic
> features of quantum theory may ensure that time travellers could never 
> alter
> the past, even if they are able to go back in time.
>
> The constraint arises from a quantum object's ability to behave like a 
> wave.
> <snip> The object is unlikely to be in places where the components 
> interfere
> destructively, and cancel each other out.
>
> <snip>
> Waves that travel back in time interfere destructively, thus preventing
> anything from happening differently from that which has already taken 
> place
> (www.arxiv.org/quant-ph/0506027). "If you travel into the past quantum
> mechanically, you would only see those alternatives consistent with the
> world you left behind you," says Greenberger.
>
>
> [rhinoceros] Here is the paper in a PDF file. I am pasting some of the 
> less
> technical parts:
>
>
> Quantum Theory Looks at Time Travel
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0506/0506027.pdf
>
> <snip>
> Classically, time travel is inconsistent with free will. If one could 
> visit
> the past, then one could change the past, and this would lead to an
> alternative present. So there is a paradox here, which is best 
> illustrated
> by the famous scenario of a person going back in time to shoot his 
> father
> before his father has met his mother, and thus negating the 
> possibility of
> his having ever been born. It is for reasons like this that time 
> travel has
> been considered impossible in principle.
>
> Of course, one can get around this problem if one considers the 
> universe to
> be totally deterministic, and free will to be merely an illusion. Then 
> the
> possibility of changing the past (or the future, for that matter) no 
> longer
> exists. Since we prefer to think that the writing of this paper was not
> preordained at the time of the big bang, we shall reject this solution 
> on
> psychological grounds, if not logical ones, and ask whether the 
> paradoxes of
> classical physics can be gotten around, quantum mechanically.
>
> <snip lotsa math - As Hawking was told by his publisher, "each formula 
> you
> include, you lose half your potential buyers">
>
> According to our model, if you travel into the past quantum 
> mechanically,
> you would only see those alternatives consistent with the world you 
> left
> behind you. In other words, while you are aware of the past, you cannot
> change it. No matter how unlikely the events are that could have led 
> to your
> present circumstances, once they have actually occurred, they cannot be
> changed. Your trip would set up resonances that are consistent with the
> future that has already unfolded.
>
> This also has enormous consequences on the paradoxes of free will. It 
> shows
> that it is perfectly logical to assume that one has many choices and 
> that
> one is free to take any one of them. Until a choice is taken, the 
> future is
> not determined. However, once a choice is taken, and it leads to a
> particular future, it was inevitable. It could not have been 
> otherwise. The
> boundary conditions that the future events happen as they already have,
> guarantees that they must have been prepared for in the past. So, 
> looking
> backwards, the world is deterministic. However, looking forwards, the 
> future
> is probabilistic. This completely explains the classical paradox. In 
> fact,
> it serves as a kind of indirect evidence that such feedback must 
> actually
> take place in nature, in the sense that without it, a paradox exists, 
> while
> with it, the paradox is resolved. (Of course, there is an equally 
> likely
> explanation, namely that going backward in time is impossible. This 
> also
> solves the paradox by avoi!
> ding it.)
>
> The model also has consequences concerning the many-worlds 
> interpretation of
> quantum theory. The world may appear to keep splitting so far as the 
> future
> is concerned. However, once a measurement is made, only those histories
> consistent with that measurement are possible. In other words, with 
> time
> travel, other alternative worlds do not exist, as once a measurement 
> has
> been made confirming the world we live in, the other worlds would be
> impossible to reach from the original one. This explanation makes the 
> von
> Neumann state reduction hypothesis much more reasonable, and in fact 
> acts as
> a sort of justification of it.
>
> <snip more maths, sadly making this a non-argument -- take it as a
> specialist's opinion>
>
> Thus less ?deterministic? and fuzzier time traveling might be 
> possible, a
> possibility we have not yet explored. Neither have we explored the
> possibility that feedback should be possible into the future as well 
> as the
> past. Of course in this case, it ought to be called ?feedforward? - 
> rather
> than feedback.
>
>
>
> - ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2005 board on 
> Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=65;action=display;
> threadid=32824>
> - ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
>
> - ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:32:45 +0300
> From: rhinoceros <rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
> Subject: Re: virus: Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
>
> Dr Sebby wrote:
>>
>> ....of course the layman's resolution to this would be, "if time 
>> travel
>> were possible, wouldnt such a traveler have successfully visited us?"
>
>
> rhinoceros:
> Alas, the party held for time travellers from all times at MIT on May 7
> had only limited success...
>
> http://web.mit.edu/adorai/timetraveler/
> <snip>
> Update: The convention was a mixed success. Unfortunately, we had no
> confirmed time travelers visit us, yet many time travelers could have
> attended incognito to avoid endless questions about the future.
> <snip>
>
> More detailed coverage of the event in Wired:
> Time Travelers Welcome at MIT
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67451,00.html
>
>
>> ...on another note, one need not kill one's father or anyone for that
>> matter.  merely being present in the past would create a chain 
>> reaction
>> of events which would alter the time line of one's mother or father 
>> and
>> thus result in a different specific sperm impregnating her.. which of
>> course would mean a different resultant child.
>>
>> ...in fact, i would wager(serious money) on the notion that merely
>> appearing in the past for a microsecond would result in a chain 
>> reaction
>> which would entirely alter the present reality...down to every last
>> person and all the reactions following.  though the altered present
>> would likely be rather similar due to large scale nuances in the human
>> equation.
>
>
> All true. Killing your grandpa was only one spectacular scenario. The
> idea of that paper was to play with the assumptions that (a) everything
> would happen in such a way that you would never find yourself in a
> position to kill your grandpa or cause any other change and (b) 
> whatever
> you cause by your presence there was bound to happen anyway. This seems
> to require that there is a "time loop" already in place for the time
> traveller.
>
> According to the author, the man of the present has all the options
> open. The man of the future seems to have more limited options; less
> places to go, less things to opt for. How much is "less"? A plausible
> answer is "none".
>
>
> The time traveller gag
> http://geekpress.com/2005_02_17_daily.html
>
> You get some vaguely/slightly futuristic-looking clothes. Make it
> plausible, somewhat based on current trends, you're probably aiming for
> maybe ten years in the future. You can most likely make do with an
> interesting combination of whatever clothes you currently own. Ooh! Or
> make a fake tour T-shirt for a band that doesn't exist and mark it 
> "Wild
> Tour 2008" or something. whatever. The point is to make it look
> plausible that you might come from the future.
>
> Then just run out into the street, select somebody at random and shout
> at them, "What's the date today?! Quickly, tell me!"
>
> When they respond, you shout, "What YEAR, man, what YEAR is this?!"
>
> And when they respond again you go, "Noooo! They've sent me back too
> far!" or alternatively "I'm too late! It's all going to happen again!"
>
> Then you run away again.
>
> - ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:10:55 -0600
> From: "rhinoceros" <rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
> Subject: virus: Re:Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
>
> The links in this reply were garbled in the email version, so I am 
> resending it.
>
>
> [Dr Sebby] ....of course the layman's resolution to this would be, "if 
> time travel
> were possible, wouldnt such a traveler have successfully visited us?"
>
>
> [rhinoceros] Alas, the party held for time travellers from all times 
> at MIT on May 7
> had only limited success...
>
> http://web.mit.edu/adorai/timetraveler/
> <snip>
> Update: The convention was a mixed success. Unfortunately, we had no 
> confirmed time
> travelers visit us, yet many time travelers could have attended 
> incognito to avoid
> endless questions about the future.
> <snip>
>
> More detailed coverage of the event in Wired:
> Time Travelers Welcome at MIT
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67451,00.html
>
>
> [DrSebby] ...on another note, one need not kill one's father or anyone 
> for that
> matter.  merely being present in the past would create a chain 
> reaction of events
> which would alter the time line of one's mother or father and thus 
> result in a
> different specific sperm impregnating her.. which of course would mean 
> a different
> resultant child.
>>
>> ...in fact, i would wager(serious money) on the notion that merely 
>> appearing in
> the past for a microsecond would result in a chain reaction which 
> would entirely
> alter the present reality...down to every last person and all the 
> reactions
> following.  though the altered present would likely be rather similar 
> due to large
> scale nuances in the human equation.
>
>
>
> [rhinoceros] All true. Killing your grandpa was only one spectacular 
> scenario. The
> idea of that paper was to play with the assumptions that (a) 
> everything would happen
> in such a way that you would never find yourself in a position to kill 
> your grandpa
> or cause any other change and (b) whatever you cause by your presence 
> there was bound
> to happen anyway. This seems to require that there is a "time loop" 
> already in place
> for the time traveller.
>
> According to the author, the man of the present has all the options 
> open. The man of
> the future seems to have more limited options; less places to go, less 
> things to opt
> for. How much is "less"? A plausible answer is "none".
>
>
> The time traveller gag
> http://geekpress.com/2005_02_17_daily.html
>
> You get some vaguely/slightly futuristic-looking clothes. Make it 
> plausible, somewhat
> based on current trends, you're probably aiming for maybe ten years in 
> the future.
> You can most likely make do with an interesting combination of 
> whatever clothes you
> currently own. Ooh! Or make a fake tour T-shirt for a band that 
> doesn't exist and
> mark it "Wild Tour 2008" or something. whatever. The point is to make 
> it look
> plausible that you might come from the future.
>
> Then just run out into the street, select somebody at random and shout 
> at them,
> "What's the date today?! Quickly, tell me!"
>
> When they respond, you shout, "What YEAR, man, what YEAR is this?!"
>
> And when they respond again you go, "Noooo! They've sent me back too 
> far!" or
> alternatively "I'm too late! It's all going to happen again!"
>
> Then you run away again.
>
>
>
> - ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2005 board on 
> Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=65;action=display;
> threadid=32824>
> - ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:08:06 +0000 GMT
> From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com>
> Subject: Re: virus: Re:Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
>
>> According to the author, the man of
>> the present has all the options open.
>> The man of the future seems to have
>> more limited options; less places to go,
>> less things to opt for. How much is
>> "less"? A plausible answer is "none".
>
> Althought I agree that "none" is a very reasonable answer, I like the 
> picture of a
> haggard time traveler, constantly staring at his PDA and rushing from 
> one appointment
> to the next.
> - ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:19:42 +0200
> From: "Blunderov" <squooker@mweb.co.za>
> Subject: RE: virus: Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
>
> [Blunderov] Hmm. Time to reconsider time travel. If it was possible to
> only observe the wave displacements that happened x years ago, then one
> would have a time machine TV set. Like watching the twinkling of stars
> that actually exploded eons ago. All that light and sound from previous
> times must have gone somewhere. The trick would be to get it to turn
> around and come back here again. Quickly, before it gets any further
> away. Oy vei.
>
> Back to the drawing board.
> __________________________
> Cashette stops spam. 100% effective and free! Go to 
> http://www.cashette-inc.com
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to 
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
Hijacking everything ever knew about anything.
rhinoceros
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« Reply #8 on: 2005-06-27 22:01:01 »		 Reply with quote
Hey, Blunderov!

From the date/time of your last posts, it seems you have been running one day ahead of the rest of us. With all the time traveller paradoxes, caution says you should consider falling back to our assigned 24 hours per day!

By the way, today I remembered Fritz Leiber's "The Big Time", an interesting  small SF novel (or whatever small novels are called).


The Big Time
Sedition and mystery at a way station outside time and space
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue154/books.html

In Fritz Leiber's novel The Big Time, Greta Forzane is an entertainer working at a Recuperation Station for soldiers fighting in the Change War. The Change War is a time-travel war between the Spiders, associated with the West, and the Snakes, who represent the East. In the war, the two sides attempt to change history in order to gain advantage. However, because of the Law of Conservation of Reality, it takes many incremental changes to significantly alter the course of history. The Spiders and Snakes recruit their soldiers from among those who are about to die throughout history. The station where Forzane works belongs to the Spiders. Five others work with her at the station, which exists outside time and space in a Void, connected with the universe through Doors manipulated by a device called the Major Maintainer.

Three soldiers arrive at the station for recuperation: Erich von Hohenwald, a former SS officer and one of Greta's boyfriends, a Roman named Mark, and a new recruit, a former World War I British soldier who turns out to be a poet, Bruce Marchant. The new girl at the station, Lili, immediately recognizes Marchant for his poetry, and becomes infatuated with him. There are, however, tensions between Marchant and von Hohenwald. Von Hohenwald regards the new recruit as inexperienced and naive, while Marchant questions the entire purpose of the war, and even the true motives and identities of the Spiders and Snakes.

They are soon joined by a woman and two extraterrestrials, who barely escaped with their lives from a lost battle near Crete in 1300 B.C. The debate between Marchant and von Hohenwald continues, until Bruce proposes the unthinkable: that they desert the Spiders together and take a message of peace to the cosmos. But as each member is deciding which side to join, someone steals the Major Maintainer, cutting them off from the universe forever if it's not found.

An artful, theatrical construction

The Big Time is perhaps the most unconventional time travel novel ever written. Rather than focusing on the larger consequences of altering history, Leiber concentrates on the effects on the individuals caught up in the Change War. He structures the novel according to the principles of classical drama, setting it in a single place with continuous action from beginning to end.

<snip>
« Last Edit: 2005-06-28 07:39:36 by rhinoceros » Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: Re:Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« Reply #9 on: 2005-06-29 03:12:34 »		 Reply with quote
rhinoceros
Sent: 28 June 2005 04:01

Hey, Blunderovev!
Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: Re:Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« Reply #10 on: 2005-06-29 18:04:15 »		 Reply with quote
[Blunderov] Walter? You there?

"Quantum particles are the dreams that stuff is made of."

- David Moser

http://fusionanomaly.net/quantummechanics.html


Best Regards.



---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: Re:Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« Reply #11 on: 2005-06-29 18:24:37 »		 Reply with quote
[Blunderov] I've hit a vein. Rhino?

http://fusionanomaly.net/information.html

(Not to be missed 'ShrubCo fears information*")

http://www.fusionanomaly.net/anomalog/node.php?id=974

Best Regards

*Gnosiophobia- Fear of knowledge




---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: Re:Time travel and free will: A quantum solution?
« Reply #12 on: 2005-06-29 20:19:10 »		 Reply with quote
[Blunderov] This just blew me away! I do believe I actually get this.
The arrow of time is completely imaginary! A function of consciousness
only. It's the way we organise our perceptions: The universe just 'is'.

'Lynds says that it's due to natures very exclusion of a time as a
fundamental physical quantity, that time as it is measured in physics,
or relative interval, and as such, motion and physical continuity are
possible in the first instance'.

!!


http://www.fusionanomaly.net/anomalog/node.php?id=1123
also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lynds

<snip>
"Undereducated" Kiwi Revises Time, Mechanics and Zeno


  • A New Zealand university drop-out appears to have solved Zeno's famous
    motion paradoxes almost 2500 years after their original conception. His
    paper also seems set to change the way we think about time and classical
    and quantum mechanics.

    Newswise-A bold paper which has highly impressed some of the world's top
    physicists and been published in the August issue of Foundations of
    Physics Letters, seems set to change the way we think about the nature
    of time and its relationship to motion and classical and quantum
    mechanics. Much to the science world's astonishment, the work also
    appears to provide solutions to Zeno of Elea's famous motion paradoxes,
    almost 2500 years after they were originally conceived by the ancient
    Greek philosopher. In doing so, its unlikely author who originally
    attended university for just 6 months, is drawing comparisons to Albert
    Einstein and beginning to field incredulous enquiries from some of the
    world's leading science media. This is contrast to being sniggered at by
    local physicists when he originally approached them with the work, and
    once aware it had been accepted for publication, one informing the
    journal of the author's lack of formal qualification in an attempt to
    have them reject it.

    In the paper, "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy
    vs. Discontinuity", Peter Lynds, a 27 year old broadcasting school tutor
    from Wellington, New Zealand, establishes that there is a necessary
    trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for
    their continuity through time, and in doing so, appears to throw age old
    assumptions about determined instantaneous physical magnitude and time
    on their heads. A number of other outstanding issues to do with time in
    physics are also addressed, including cosmology and an argument against
    the theory of Imaginary time by British theoretical physicist Stephen
    Hawking.

    [...]

    Another impressed with the work is Princeton physics great, and
    collaborator of both Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, John Wheeler,
    who said he admired Lynds' "boldness", while noting that it had often
    been individuals Lynds' age that "had pushed the frontiers of physics
    forward in the past."

    [...]

    According to both ancient and present day physics, objects in motion
    have determined relative positions. Indeed, the physics of motion from
    Zeno to Newton and through to today take this assumption as given. Lynds
    says that the paradoxes arose because people assumed wrongly that
    objects in motion had determined positions at any instant in time, thus
    freezing the bodies motion static at that instant and enabling the
    impossible situation of the paradoxes to be derived. "There's no such
    thing as an instant in time or present moment in nature. It's something
    entirely subjective that we project onto the world around us. That is,
    it's the outcome of brain function and consciousness."

    [...]

    According to Lynds, through the derivation of the rest of physics, the
    absence of an instant in time and determined relative position, and
    consequently also velocity, necessarily means the absence of all other
    precisely determined physical magnitudes and values at a time, including
    space and time itself. He comments, "Naturally the parameter and
    boundary of their respective position and magnitude are naturally
    determinable up to the limits of possible measurement as stated by the
    general quantum hypothesis and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but
    this indeterminacy in precise value is not a consequence of quantum
    uncertainty. What this illustrates is that in relation to indeterminacy
    in precise physical magnitude, the micro and macroscopic are
    inextricably linked, both being a part of the same parcel, rather than
    just a case of the former underlying and contributing to the latter."

    Addressing the age old question of the reality of time, Lynds says the
    absence of an instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process
    also illustrates that there is no such thing as a physical progression
    or flow of time, as without a continuous progression through definite
    instants over an extended interval, there can be no progression. "This
    may seem somewhat counter-intuitive, but it's exactly what's required by
    nature to enable time (relative interval as indicated by a clock),
    motion and the continuity of a physical process to be possible."
    Intuition also seems to suggest that if there were not a physical
    progression of time, the entire universe would be frozen motionless at
    an instant, as though stuck on pause on a motion screen. But Lynds
    points out, "If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this
    would be a precise static instant of time - time would be a physical
    quantity." Consequently Lynds says that it's due to natures very
    exclusion of a time as a fundamental physical quantity, that time as it
    is measured in physics, or relative interval, and as such, motion and
    physical continuity are possible in the first instance.

    [...]

    Lynds continues that the cosmological proposal of imaginary time also
    isn't compatible with a consistent physical description, both as a
    consequence of this, and secondly, "because it's the relative order of
    events that's relevant, not the direction of time itself, as time
    doesn't go in any direction." Consequently it's meaningless for the
    order of a sequence of events to be imaginary, or at right angles,
    relative to another sequence of events. When approached about Lynds'
    arguments against his theory, Hawking failed to respond.

    When asked how he had found academia and the challenge of following his
    ideas through, Lynds said it had been a struggle and that he'd sometimes
    found it extremely frustrating. "The work is somewhat unlikely, and that
    hasn't done me any favours. If someone has been aware of it, my seeming
    lack of qualification has sometimes been a hurdle too. I think quite a
    few physicists and philosophers have difficulty getting their heads
    around the topic of time properly as well. I'm not a big fan of quite a
    few aspects of academia, but I'd like to think that whats happened with
    the work is a good example of perseverance and a few other things
    eventually winning through. It's reassuring to know that happens."

    Lynds said he had initially had discussions with Wellington mathematical
    physicist Chris Grigson. Prof. Grigson, now retired, said he remembered
    Lynds as determined. "I must say I thought the idea was hard to
    understand. He is theorising in an area that most people think is
    settled. Most people believe there are a succession of moments and that
    objects in motion have determined positions." Although Lynds remembers
    being frustrated with Grigson, and once standing at a blackboard
    explaining how simple it was and telling him to "hurry up and get it",
    Lynds says that, unlike some others, Prof. Grigson was still encouraging
    and would always make time to talk to him, even taking him into the
    staff cafeteria so they could continue talking physics. Like another now
    retired initial contact, the Australian philosopher of Science and
    internationally respected authority on time, Jack Smart, who would write
    Lynds "long thoughtful letters", they have since become friends, and
    Prof. Grigson follows Lynds' progress with great interest. "Academia
    needs more Chris Grigsons and Jack Smarts", said Lynds.

    Although still controversial, judging by the response it has already
    received from some of science's leading lights, Lynds' work seems likely
    to establish him as a groundbreaking figure in respect to increasing our
    understanding of time in physics. It also seems likely to make his
    surname instantly associable with Zeno's paradoxes and their remarkably
    improbable solution almost 2500 years later. </snip>




    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

    		•
    Report to moderator   Logged
    Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
    Jump to:


    Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
    © 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.
    Please support the CoV.     		Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed