Ultraviolet on 11/5/2007 at 23:05
I think what is being said here (and maybe I'm expanding into things that haven't been stated) by some is that the universe is, at any one point, the sum of its quantum states and particles and matter and energy and so on; that at any given time, the "universe" only exists as one frame in an animation. There is no set animation rate, but we can't describe it except as a series of reference points, frames. I think the consciousness/time connection is that intelligent consciousness is what gives time relevance. Maybe time is a construct of that consciousness, or maybe time is only relevant to that consciousness. If the former is the case, maybe it is intelligence that moves along the "time" axis, not the whole universe, with intelligence given the ability to modify the otherwise pre-determined flow of universal events. If the latter is the case, then time is a bit more difficult for me to understand, because maybe then we, intelligence, (I'm sure some would argue with equating us with intelligence :P) is the "time" axis -- the universe is moving in that one direction along us, rather than the other way. That idea doesn't make any sense to me, personally, and I don't know why I put it out there. Just a thought. I mean, an axis has to be constant to make sense as an axis, right? And since people change and die, they can't be constant. Or something. It's all relative, maaaaan. Like, whoa. *puff*
Pardon me, I'm living on energy drinks and no sleep. I'm sure I've made no sense at all.
Martin Karne on 12/5/2007 at 01:00
John Titor Rules d00d!
I meant multiple universes created or altered by traveling back or forward in time.
If such a thing as time travel is even possible.
sparhawk on 12/5/2007 at 08:28
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
I think what is being said here (and maybe I'm expanding into things that haven't been stated) by some is that the universe is, at any one point, the sum of its quantum states and particles and matter and energy and so on; that at any given time, the "universe" only exists as one frame in an animation. There is no set animation rate, but we can't describe it except as a series of reference points, frames. I think the consciousness/time connection is that intelligent consciousness is what gives time relevance. Maybe time is a construct of that consciousness, or maybe time is only relevant to that consciousness.
I don't think that time is a construct of the consciousness, because it would have to exist independently. I can agree though that time would be given meaning only by conscieness though. One state of the univers has no preference over any other, arbitrarily choosen state, without some consciouss observer.
Quote:
If the former is the case, maybe it is intelligence that moves along the "time" axis, not the whole universe, with intelligence given the ability to modify the otherwise pre-determined flow of universal events. If the latter is the case, then time is a bit more difficult for me to understand, because maybe then we, intelligence, (I'm sure some would argue with equating us with intelligence :P) is the "time" axis -- the universe is moving in that one direction along us, rather than the other way.
I can not agree with this, because this would mean that the universe came into existince with the advent of consciousness, which seems quite ridicoulous to me. It's pretty similar along the line of the quantum explanation where some physicists claim that some effects also need a conscious observer.
Quote:
That idea doesn't make any sense to me, personally, and I don't know why I put it out there. Just a thought. I mean, an axis has to be constant to make sense as an axis, right?
Not neccessarily. After all, this would be only true for a Euclidian space, but you can have others.
Quote:
And since people change and die, they can't be constant.
Collectively they are constant though. But then the question would arise, what "people" are to the universe and when became the first people active.?
Darragh on 12/5/2007 at 21:24
Much as I'd like to comment on this subject and have opinions regarding the universe, I really don't know enough about the subject to justify my assertions. :confused:
That said, I believe time travel is impossible. I'm not sure that time exists but it's probably been proven. I think of time as a change in matter due to gravity and chemical reactions. I think that the universe itself is a machine or part of one. I don't think it's possible to create a machine within that machine that will contradict the nature of laws laid down by that original machine. Only if you could add energy into the universe by tapping it out of a vacuum and doing work to create order and reverse entropy might you undo time, but then you would still be moving 'forward' wouldn't you. If it's possible to draw something out of nothing, then that's what the universe is.
That's my ignorant 2 cents.
Aerothorn on 13/5/2007 at 01:59
What was wrong with the Primer topic?
flexbuster on 13/5/2007 at 02:39
Quote Posted by Darragh
Much as I'd like to comment on this subject and have opinions regarding the universe, I really don't know enough about the subject to justify my assertions. :confused:
That's my ignorant 2 cents.
Neither does anybody else, but it doesn't stop them.
Everyone on the Internet is an expert on everything, didn't you know this? Just make up some stuff that sounds like science and nobody will know the difference.
Quote Posted by sparhawk
not only would we have to find a process which DECREASES entropy (which has never been observed)
Entropy can be reversed easily as long as you aren't considering the entire closed systems. Our bodies work by decreasing the entropy within them (by taking in energy from other places). The entropy within a closed system needs to increase, but not within an open system.
Quote Posted by sparhawk
A photon is exactly the same as any other photon, and the same is true for quarks.
This isn't really true, as different photons can have different properties, or else there'd be no difference between red light and microwaves. There are also a slew of known quark types with different properties responsible for creating different types of matter.
Also, regarding your machine in the first example, keep in mind it would have to affect the entropy of the entire universe. Have fun with that! You would also have to assume that a prior state of the universe can even be known considering its current state (i.e. can you actually cause entropy to run in reverse in the same sequence as it progressed).
Your second example ignores the fact that time isn't a spatial dimension and avoids explaing why or how you would be able to ever travel through it at a velocity of your own leisure.
Vivian on 13/5/2007 at 10:18
Quote Posted by flexbuster
Entropy can be reversed easily as long as you aren't considering the entire closed systems. Our bodies work by decreasing the entropy within them (by taking in energy from other places). The entropy within a closed system needs to increase, but not within an open system.
Thats not reversing entropy any more than emptying water from a bucket is reversing gravity. Duh.
Briareos H on 13/5/2007 at 11:15
Duh.
...
ps : try learning some basic physics before speaking.
(hints : look 2nd principle of thermodynamics / local decrease in entropy / closed and open systems)
Vivian on 13/5/2007 at 11:20
THERES A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECREASING AND REVERSING AAARGGHHH
Oh ok, maybe there isn't. But my indignation still stands.
sparhawk on 13/5/2007 at 12:05
Quote Posted by flexbuster
Entropy can be reversed easily as long as you aren't considering the entire closed systems. Our bodies work by decreasing the entropy within them (by taking in energy from other places). The entropy within a closed system needs to increase, but not within an open system.
That's why I was raising the question, how much of the system must be considered, to make a successfull time travel.
Quote:
This isn't really true, as different photons can have different properties, or else there'd be no difference between red light and microwaves.
I was talking about the same photons. If they have the same parameters, they are indistuingishable from another photon with the same parameters.
Quote:
There are also a slew of known quark types with different properties responsible for creating different types of matter.
Same here. Of course a up and down quark (just as an example) are not the same, but a up quark is like any other up quark. There is no way to distinguish them from each other.
Quote:
Also, regarding your machine in the first example, keep in mind it would have to affect the entropy of the entire universe. Have fun with that!
That's what I realized later, why I said that it would get into the "bigger then the universe" argument.
Quote:
You would also have to assume that a prior state of the universe can even be known considering its current state (i.e. can you actually cause entropy to run in reverse in the same sequence as it progressed).
At least in classical mechanic this should be no big problem. Physical laws have no prefered direction of time. It might get tricky if you have to reverse quantum process with their statistical nature as we currently know it, but I don't think that quantum process are really important for classical events.
Quote:
Your second example ignores the fact that time isn't a spatial dimension and avoids explaing why or how you would be able to ever travel through it at a velocity of your own leisure.
There are some ideas involving worm holes for example. At least that's what literature is trying to tell us. That's why I started to think about the implications of time travel in the first place. I don't have to fully explain this process, because I was only diong an gedankenexpirement and wanted to see how far I can get with it, ignoring technical details. If we already run into logical consistency problems at that level, I don't think that you really have to think much about technical implementation anymore.
It's like with the Schröders incompletness theorem. After that thereom became known, it wouldn't make sense to even try to find a solution, because you already know that you have to fail before you even started. Before you could have argued that there may be SOME systems where you can get rid of inconsistences, but the incompletness theorem tells you that this is not the case.
