sparhawk on 13/5/2007 at 12:08
Quote Posted by Uncle Bacon
THERES A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECREASING AND REVERSING AAARGGHHH
The endresult would be the same. Reversing entropy would result in decreased entropy (when considered the same system of course), but decreasing entropy doesn't neccessarily mean that it has been reversed.
Phatose on 14/5/2007 at 03:50
There's a chapter on time travel in Hawking's universe in a nutshell. The former method isn't exactly described, though in earlier chapters something similar was discussed in relation to a big crunch universe. I believe one of the issues was that it would be a very odd experience if it worked, since the psychological arrow of time is determined by the thermodynamic arrow of time.
The second method was discussed as well, but there was a problem where particles on the time travel horizon would be bringing their zero point energy to the same point every 'time' they traveled around the time loop, which would be an infinite amount of time, thus an infinite amount of energy and one seriously OMGWTFBBQ'ed time traveler.
Ultraviolet on 15/5/2007 at 00:26
Quote Posted by sparhawk
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.
Something something something Schroedinger, something something I don't completely understand this stuff but since it's not fully understood it might not be possible or prudent to fully exclude the idea, etc. If observation can change the nature of things, then in my mind, in a vague way I can't put into words, it just makes sense to me that there's a possibility that time might be affected by, or even completely moved along by consciousness. I guess different thing make sense to different peoples' imaginations.
Quote:
Not neccessarily. After all, this would be only true for a Euclidian space, but you can have others.
Just another thing I haven't learned to fully wrap my mind around yet. I mean, I understand a set of axes being able to represent any related quantities, but relating them all to time seems to make less sense.
Quote:
Collectively they are constant though. But then the question would arise, what "people" are to the universe and when became the first people active.?
If people were collectively constant, then their consciousness could have predated or dated the same as the universe, right? :P
sparhawk on 15/5/2007 at 07:41
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
If observation can change the nature of things, then in my mind, in a vague way I can't put into words, it just makes sense to me that there's a possibility that time might be affected by, or even completely moved along by consciousness. I guess different thing make sense to different peoples' imaginations.
The problem that I have with this is, that I assume that consciouness is quite complex. If you assume that time is moved forward by consciousness, it would mean that the consciousness was there before time. A consciousness without time is quite hard to imagine though, because what is the meaning of a consciousness, that has no time to exist in? So it would have the be come into existence at the same time because one is dependent on the other, or consciousness has evolved over time. I also strongly believe that the rules, governing the universe are pretty simple, which is IMO contradicting the existence of a consciouness at the start because it is complex.
Quote:
If people were collectively constant, then their consciousness could have predated or dated the same as the universe, right? :P
With constant I mean based on their existences. So there are 9 billion poeple on the earth right now, and if a few thousand dies, it wouldn't matter from the perspective of this assumed collective consciousness. You also stay the same person even if a few neurons in your brain die. :) What I rather meant is, that "persons" didn't exist from the start. We evolved from normal matter to the organic machines we are now, and this would exclude consciousness, at least for "people" because "people" didn't exist back then. :)
Volca on 15/5/2007 at 11:33
Isn't there a difference between consciousness and intelligence? You can also look at consciousness as a universes principle, not tied to beings, and intelligence as a mechanism built on the top of that, giving it a shape.
Then there would be no problem with the fact that consciousness started to exist with the time as a pair (At least I think so) - universe would be self-conscious.
KublaiKrim on 16/5/2007 at 09:32
Quote Posted by Volca
There is one argument, and that is: If time travel would be possible, why there is no evidence it is? Time traveling would get cheap in the end, so plenty of people would travel.
Yes. All my hopes of travelling in time were destroyed when I heared some scientist say "Why don't they come to visit us?"
rachel on 16/5/2007 at 09:59
Some sort of Prime Directive makes sense.
Question:
What is more likely? Are the UFOs extra-terrestrial vessels or time machines built by post-humans from the future? ;)
Vivian on 16/5/2007 at 10:53
If they aren't pie dishes or experimental wotsits, then deffo aliens. They at least definitely exist, whereas its odds on that time travel is impossible.
Andarthiel on 16/5/2007 at 12:45
If you want to learn about Time Travel watch Back to the Future it explains everything :D j/k
sparhawk on 16/5/2007 at 21:15
Quote Posted by raph
Question:
What is more likely? Are the UFOs extra-terrestrial vessels or time machines built by post-humans from the future? ;)
Assuming that UFOs were seen at all. :eww: :)
