Is This a CIA, Navy Seal Time Traveling Disclosure?
- Thread starter Mylo.X.
- Start date
thx
Mylo.X.
Timekeeper
Yes, I think this is where myself and PaulLev have our wires crossed.
My questioning of PaulLev's following assertion, "Travel to the future does avoid the paradoxes, but it's inconsistent with free will" is making the assumption that PaulLev is referring to a single timeline. I personally believe that I am currently travelling on the same time line that I was born into 34 years ago. And as I travel , I am frequently presented with choices, and the choices I make determines which paths I take on my single timeline journey.
"But only one timeline allows for only one freewill choice"
Yes, but I would reword it as follows: "But only one timeline allows for only one freewill choice [of other choices offered.]"
Einstein
Timekeeper
But to me freedom of choice gives us the option of choosing one of multiple paths into our future. All the paths appear to be there. Even though you chose only one of them. So your journey through time is the result of choosing amongst many forks in the road of time. It's as if all those other timelines already exist, just waiting to be chosen.
So if the other timelines exist, simultaneously with the one you are on, isn't also conceivable to envision a bunch of alternate yous that are taking the paths not chosen by you?
Mylo.X.
Timekeeper
But the way I have always understood it, the other paths (or timelines as you refer) do not already exist, waiting to be chosen. The choice(s) we make, brings the path into existence, which enables us to travel along it, until we reach anothe fork along the path.
This is the good thing about this site, its making me question my own, long standing viewpoints.
Einstein
Timekeeper
Yes, you understand correctly. The alternate paths don't exist for you. But who is to say they don't already exist for alternate versions of you? I guess we'll never really know, until someone gets a hold of a time machine to find out the real truth.
Jcpo
Timekeeper
"Saunders (1995, 1998) has proposed that one think of Everett branches as corresponding to a new indexical akin to time. Just as one might have different physical states obtain at different times, now one might have different physical states obtain at the same time but at different branches. So here, rather than account for determinate measurement records at a time, one denies that there typically is any simple matter of fact concerning what an observer's measurement record is at a time. Insofar as there is a matter of fact concerning the value of a measurement record, it is a fact at a time and at a branch."
So there is time and there are timelines. Is there free will ? I don't think so because once you are at a timeline at a time, you see a guy, well he has no free will because he belongs to one timeline so is shirt is blue.
"Quantum mechanics would not describe J as believing that his result was “spin up” and it would not describe J as believing that his result was “spin down”. There would typically be no such simple facts; rather, facts about the observer would typically be essentially relative: Here J believes that his result was “spin up” relative to S being x-spin up and J believes that his result was “spin down” relative to S being x-spin down. So what is the state of S? The state of S is x-spin up relative to J believing that his result was “spin up”, etc. Similarly, on this reading of Everett, there are typically no simple matters of fact about the properties of any individual physical systems."
Let's say it otherway.
If I chose to wear a shirt at a date it is linked to many other things : fashion, mood, cleanliness, education...
Couldn't we say that we chose our timeline(s) each time we think ?
"As I was told to not do that and that I wanted to do the invert what this person told me because I hate her, I unconsciously chosen the timeline that would lead me to be a crook"
So there is time and there are timelines. Is there free will ? I don't think so because once you are at a timeline at a time, you see a guy, well he has no free will because he belongs to one timeline so is shirt is blue.
"Quantum mechanics would not describe J as believing that his result was “spin up” and it would not describe J as believing that his result was “spin down”. There would typically be no such simple facts; rather, facts about the observer would typically be essentially relative: Here J believes that his result was “spin up” relative to S being x-spin up and J believes that his result was “spin down” relative to S being x-spin down. So what is the state of S? The state of S is x-spin up relative to J believing that his result was “spin up”, etc. Similarly, on this reading of Everett, there are typically no simple matters of fact about the properties of any individual physical systems."
Let's say it otherway.
If I chose to wear a shirt at a date it is linked to many other things : fashion, mood, cleanliness, education...
Couldn't we say that we chose our timeline(s) each time we think ?
"As I was told to not do that and that I wanted to do the invert what this person told me because I hate her, I unconsciously chosen the timeline that would lead me to be a crook"
Mylo.X.
Timekeeper
No, I would not want to time-travel, if it were possible to do so. That technology unleashed on the world would be easily abused. Wicked and hideous crimes could be committed, and the perpetrator could zip into the future to evade justice (or conversely, zip to the past). Just imagine the man who is feeling a little frisky. He could zip back to the 19th century Victorian era, find himself a couple of buxom babes for a bit of "rumpy pumpy" and " fun n frolics", and when he's finished he could zip forward home, just in time for his supper and a bit more "rumpy pumpy" with his wife, lol. His wife would never suspect a thing....lol. Nope, just watching sci-fi films and reading books is enough for me.
Darby
Timekeeper
You slightly misinterpreted your quote from theSaunders paper(s). He termed Everett branches "as corresponding to a new indexical akin to time." In general relativity the three spatial coordinates are indexes "akin to time" thus we have a 3D+1 spacetime continuum. So it's not a straight forward conclusion to assume new "timelines."
It's also a bit of a misnomer to call them "Everett branches." Nowhere in Everett's paper is there any reference to many worlds, alternate universes or anything of a sort. John Wheeler was the PhD advisor as well as a physicist who worked very closely with Bryce DeWitt. Wheeler was more than dismayed with the pop-sci media's jumping on the idea of alternate universes and "many worlds." One should really think of Everett's paper as a very advanced term paper. It was short, did not come close to satisfying his PhD requirement and is very incomplete. It had nothing to do with time travel or alternate universes. In was an attempt to give guidance toward unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics by stating QM in terms of general relativity. But is was not successful in so doing. Over the past half century plus is has continued to fall into disfavor, not because is wasn't a brilliant insight. It was. But it was written 10 years before string theory was proposed and string theory is completely absent from Everett's paper. String theory itself is falling into disfavor becayse after almost 50 years of reseach it has only accomplished proposing an infinite number of possible solutions but not one such solution, so far, is subject to experimental verification - not even in theory. The evidence today points to both theories as being inaccurate descriptions of quantum reality. General Relativity is composed of an infinitely large set of possible solutions but they are all immediately subject to actual, not just theoretical, experimental verification.
PaulLev
Timekeeper
Yes, that's exactly right - I'm saying travel to the future is incompatible with free will in a single timeline scenario. That's why I said earlier that the multiple world interpretation would be a way of out of this problem, as it would for paradoxes in time travel to the past.
PaulLev
Timekeeper
I'm very glad to you posted this, Darby. Citing multiple universes or multiple worlds/realities as a way out of time travel problems and paradoxes does not mean that multiple universes are real or true, or that Everett's paper was correct. In fact, I think the many worlds scenario is far more incredible than even time travel, and fails to pass Occam's Razor.
Mylo.X.
Timekeeper
I'm sure that the example that I quoted before is compatible with free will in a single timeline scenario. It's not necessary to bypass this problem with a multi-world interpretation.... Here is the example I gave before:
"In the example I gave you, it doesn't matter what colour shirt you put on, the crux of the issue (how I see it) is that we both arrive at Wednesday morning, at the same destination (your house). It took you 7 hours to get there, it took me 5 minutes to get there in my "mylo-mk2" time machine. Whatever shirt you decide to wear Wednesday morning is your choice, be it red, white or blue.
Wednesday morning is like any other day of the week. There is nothing special about it (apart from me arriving at Wednesday morning in 5 minutes). You still get to make your own choices, determine your own path for the day. Me witnessing whatever colour shirt you are wearing does not impact on those choices.
Remember, I have taken a 1 way trip forward. My "mylo-mk2" machine is incapable of travelling backward. The scenario I present, is no different to me travelling overseas by plane on Tuesday night and arriving at your house on Wednesday morning, to see you wearing whatever coloured shirt you chose to wear."
I can find no incompatibility problems with free will, in a single timeline scenario with the above example. Me taking 5 minutes to Wednesday morning (due to the incomprehensible speed of the time-machine), while you take 7 hours to get to Wednesday morning, has not interfered with any laws pertaining to free will in my mind.......
How is the time-machine scenario any different to me travelling overseas by plane on Tuesday night and arriving at your house on Wednesday morning, to see you wearing whatever coloured shirt you chose to wear? This is the problem I cannot fathom.
PaulLev
Timekeeper
The time machine scenario is completely different:
When you travel overseas on Tues night and arrive at my house on Wed morning and see that I am wearing a red shirt, you're seeing what I already did (put on a red shirt).
When you travel by time machine from today to tomorrow, you are seeing what I have not yet done. That's why your seeing me tomorrow with a red shirt is incompatible with my choice of what color shirt to wear.
Or, to put this yet another way: in the overseas travel example, we are both living through normal time. The traveler at the start of the trip is not seeing what I already did (what shirt I am wearing) because I have yet made that choice. In contrast, the time traveler is seeing what I will be wearing tomorrow, and sees this an instant after starting the trip from today.
Mylo.X.
Timekeeper
I think I see where our divergent views stem from. You're assuming that in my time-macnine (mylo-mk2) I arrive at Wednesday morning before you do. But this is not the case, we arrived together. And my time-machine is just travelling at an excessive speed, it is not travelling forward through time in the conventional sci-fi sense, like Dr Who's Tardis.
I will just adjust the scenario a little bit. My brother is on the plane and travels overseas on Tues night to arrive at your house Wed morning to see you wearing a red shirt, seeing what you already did (put on a red shirt). I step into my time-machine on Tuesday night, I arrive at your house at exactly the same time as my brother. From his perspective, my journey has taken 7 hours (the same as his journey), but from my perspective it has taken 5 minutes (because of the inconphrehensible speed of my time machine). We both arrive at your house on Wed morning and see that you are wearing a red shirt, we are seeing what you already did (put on a red shirt). I can explain it no other way. Whoever steps into my time-machine and takes off, experiences time differently to those still on earth. If they travelled for 20 earth years, it will only seem a fraction of that time for the occupant of my time-machine because of the speed attained. I think this is where our confusion lay.....
Jcpo
Timekeeper
Back to the topic, I was looking at "monster garage" today and there was a team of women. There was one who said "I don't need to understand to do what I'm told" as she work for the navy. "They give me plans and I just follow them, they ask me to do sonar or things like this"...
Interesting no ? (episode is called Dirt Track Camaro )
Interesting no ? (episode is called Dirt Track Camaro )
astroboyuk
Timekeeper
ultimately, its not much difference to say that all possibilities exist at the same time... and that the greater universe is the sum of all possibilities of all things through all time.. which leads to interesting, but inplausable, or paradoxical territory (eg the possibility of all things must include the possibility of nothing being the case)
PaulLev
Timekeeper
Yes, that's the logical implication of the Multiple Worlds Interpretation.
Jack Wade
Timekeeper
A glimpse into the future does not necessarily require a time machine.
This how children are taught today as well.
I get disgusted when I see how an imagination has turned into a disability of some sort.
I wish for one week, the fruit of all imagination would vanish from the Earth, maybe this would restore some reality.
Darby
Timekeeper
Keep in mind that the wave function (the possible outcomes) only includes those outcomes that are possible; conform to the laws of physics. This means that "anything and everything imaginable" is not necessarily a solution to the probability distribution. Thus, a person could take some action that might have infinite possible outcomes. The outcome, "He suddenly turned into a lump of HEU uranium" isn't going to be included in the wave function. There is no law of physics that would allow a lump of self aware coal and water (people - lumps of water and carbon for the most part
) to undergo nucleosynthesis up the chain past iron and form uranium, highly enriched, depleted or otherwise. Likewise the outcome "nothing occured" isn't physical. Something, even if it is just a thermodynamic event, will occur as an outcome.The idea that MWI indicates that anything is possible is a pop-sci/sci-fi idea but it isn't actually valid. MWI is an attempt to extend and further define the laws of physics. Therefore everything that it proposes must, by definition, conform to the same laws of physics that it attempts to define and extend.
On top of this we have the strange concept of "infinity". Infinite outcomes doesn't even necessarily include unusual or weird outcomes. If you propose to most people that you will add an infinite set of unique numbers together and ask them what the total will be they will generally say without thinking it through, "infinity". It seems to make sense: an infinite number of unique numbers added together has no top end therefore it must add up to infinity.
But that thinking lead to Zeno's Paradox for instance. In a more straight forward example, if I take the number 1/2, multiply it by 1/2 (1/4) and add the result to 1/2, multiple 1/4 by 1/2, add that to the 1/2 +1/4 and so on to infinity I will never even reach the number "1" let alone infinity.
servantx
Timekeeper
China is trying to catch up by launching Quantum Communication Satellites in 2016...
China Unveils Secret Quantum Communications Experiment - IEEE Spectrum
China Unveils Secret Quantum Communications Experiment - IEEE Spectrum
Similar threads
