It seems to me I often make threads that end up being turned into big discussions, where I barely understand anything being said.
Printable View
It seems to me I often make threads that end up being turned into big discussions, where I barely understand anything being said.
Nah, I'm nicking them from someone else that probably did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hehe
EDIT:
Here, I believe, is the official "SLoT":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov...ency_principle
EDIT 2:
Actually I don't think it's quite the same, but fairly similar in this regard:
Quote:
The principle states that the timeline is totally fixed, and any actions taken by a time traveler were part of history all along, so it is impossible for the time traveler to "change" history in any way.
the inevitablility of predeterminations can not be held up to be so, if random quarks can be applied to the Slot.
It is an illusion that matter looks solid to us. Yet matter acts quirky the smaller one digresses into its base parts.
If the universe were a contained universe, and has no adjoining universes, linked on the fringes of space, then perhaps Slot makes perfect sense, I agree.
Yet trons and even gravity on the quantum level acts as if there is more than just this universe that we know and have grown fond of. Other universes with a complete different set of laws, governing their matter or what have you on a variable slide of differentiality.
Time is an illusion, just like matter is. So I would tend then towards Dlot instead of Slot, though I am not so sure that the rules of Slot can be written in stone, then I would suggest that time travel is possible, with out the concurrent haphazardness of changin the future line from which one has come from, then that would mean that the time traveler can not actually go back to their original future, but to a slightly off parallel line that was created the moment they went back into the past.
So in theory, Loveboy's Plot is altered, from his original Plot, angling off just so slightly, almost seemingly parallel, but not. Yet whoah to that idea, for now instead of having 6 billion lives +/- existing in all of existance, there are now 12 billion lives +/- existing in all of existance, and so on exponentially.
a fractal gone amuck, visually that is.
In restrospect Alusair, take the watch again.
If as stated Loveboy went back in time, using his mind, instead of some invented time machine, linking himself with the past..
as stated in the original, he went back in the past to a point that was after the time the watch was made. So the two watches exist, at the same time, in the same universe, the moment he stepped in.
assuming that the original watch he bought was the original watch that was made, when he stepped back in time, there is then W1 and W1, the same. you can study the double slit experiment ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
for reasonings as to see how it is possible for a an electron to split its essence equally, thereby theoretically confirming that there could be two watches that are the same exact watch.
call it the "pair of clocks" theorum, I suppose if you want to give it a name
now you state then that at that moment, this is in fact a paradox, but no implosions, well maybe not, but maybe so, can not really find out till it is actually done. urrrgh
and all that aside, just to follow the two W1's
W1 the one still on its original Plot, goes through its time, and ends up at the antique store.
somewhere along its path on its Plot, it shows up again, yet it is more aged than itself because it has been down its Plot a lot longer than than the one that is on its original Plot path.
the older looking one gets sold to a pawnbroker, so now it is now on its own Plot path.
There are now, two watches, on the same time line, be it Dlot or Slot or DKot.
lets assume the younger watch ends up at the antique store, and is the one purchased by Loverboy, but see, some where in this universe is the older watch singing along just nicely along its second path.
So at the time that Loverboy originally purchased W1 the younger, W1 the elder exist, prolly in the back in the vault of the antique dealers office.
Now should Loverboy had bought W1 the elder, then a never ending loop begins, always going to repeat itself, even though we travell onward through the line of time, that darn watch will be stuck in a quantum loop of "here we go again" yet one of the watches still would have to continue its personal time line, because both watches would exist at time of purchase not matter which watch was bought. :dizzy:
The idea is called the "bootstrap paradox"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrap_paradox
and I got the idea from the movie "somewhere in time" with jane seymore and christopher reeves, but I apply a twist, as to the known origin of the watch, separate from the loop discribed in the "bootstrap paraclendium" {yeah made up word, but it fits}
to support your premise Alusair there is this russian dude who says that if something would change the past it would be impossible so the chances of changing the past are zero. k I dont 'splain it well but here is the link that does ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle
Well, if I can pull this off with ASCII art, here is how I envision our clock's PLoT on the ULoT (universal line of time! ;))
IMO it looks really horrendous, and I tried to color code it to make it more eligible, but if it's still confusing, I understand.Code:ULoT 1 4 2 6
|-------------------|-----------------|--------/
|-------------------|==================|--------/
PLoT | 5 |
| |
| |
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
3
1. Span of time which only 1 Watch exists in timeline.
2. Point in time which Loverboy buys Watch.
3. Watch traveling back in time with Loverboy.
4. Point in time which Loverboy arrives in the past and sells Watch.
5. Span of time in which Watch exists twice at once.
6. Arbitrary point in time which only one Watch exists in the ULoT again.
Anyhow, that attempt of an explanation is how I see the watch existing twice at once, yet being the very same watch, and not two different watches. One point of evidence could be, assuming dynamic paradoxes could be done in this example, should the younger watch be, say, destroyed, the second watch would cease to exist as well.
Also, along the indication that the older watch would obviously be more aged than its younger equivalent, here is an excerpt that may be interesting to read:
Although it doesn't directly pertain to this scenario as Loverboy is not buying the same watch he sold to the pawn shop years before, but rather buying a younger version of it and sending that one back in time.Quote:
The philosopher Kelley L. Ross argues in "Time Travel Paradoxes" that in an ontological paradox scenario involving a physical object, there can be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Ross uses Somewhere in Time as an example where Jane Seymour's character gives Christopher Reeve's character a watch she has owned for many years, and when he travels back in time he gives the same watch to Jane Seymour's character 60 years in the past. As Ross states
"The watch is an impossible object. It violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy. If time travel makes that watch possible, then time travel itself is impossible. The watch, indeed, must be absolutely identical to itself in the 19th and 20th centuries, since Reeve carries it with him from the future instantaneously into the past and bestows it on Seymour. The watch, however, cannot be identical to itself, since all the years in which it is in the possession of Seymour and then Reeve it will wear in the normal manner. It's [sic] entropy will increase. The watch carried back by Reeve will be more worn that [sic] the watch that would have been acquired by Seymour."
On the other hand, the second law of thermodynamics is understood by modern physicists to be a statistical law rather than an absolute one, so spontaneous reversals of entropy or failure to increase in entropy are not impossible, just improbable (see for example the fluctuation theorem). In addition, the second law of thermodynamics only states that entropy should increase in systems which are isolated from interactions with the external world, so Igor Novikov (creator of the Novikov self-consistency principle) has argued that in the case of macroscopic objects like the watch whose worldlines form closed loops, the outside world can expend energy to repair wear/entropy that the object acquires over the course of its history, so that it will be back in its original condition when it closes the loop.
I like your ASCII art graph, very hard work and deserves an applause, for I see quite clearly the synopsis of the time frames involved.
Entropy would indeed affect the watch, from the moment it left the watch maker's stobb, to the point in time it was sold to Loverboy. There would be an x factor of delayed entropy between the older and younger watch, so I can see where though they are the same watch, they are not exactly the same watch at all, cuz one is older therefore different than the other. STol rules, I believe, would apply then in this case. To add subsequent thought, no paradox would exist to implode existance, seeing that the exact same objects because of entropy, are not existing at the same time.
therefore other timelines will not be needed to be created to keep the balance of time spacial indifferentials. The sequence though seemingly random, is actually refined, organized and well ordered.
For take your excellent ASCII graph. Its kindof like a roller coster, essentially one continued line with a grand loop in the middle. The older watch in the vault of the antique dealer, went on a grand ride, no doubt, but on a continuous line, looping somewhere on its PLoT, for there is just one PLot for the watch. Maybe that is why the antique dealer she keeps it in her vault and does not sell it. Maybe she knows its secret? 0.o
So now the PLoT thickens. What if she was the one who was the pawnbroker way back when, and bought the elder watch, BUT, she had earlier accepted the younger watch from its previous owner, so now she has both watches in her possesion, and like all good pawnbrokers, examines her ware, cleans it up, to get ready for sale. Well now, she discovers that both watches have the same serial # and maker's mark. Roh Roh shaggy, what does she do? or even think? first off she may think its a forgery, but nah, the marks are consistant, and for what purpose would one forge a watch? So she gets to thinking that maybe the young gentleman who sold it to her could very well be a time traveller. Now I know a side story must be inserted, sooo hmmm, lets just say that in her youth she knew a young einstein, who was working at this patent office who used to talk of these things, and ever since then she keeps in touch through letters.
Soooo, she has this idea and therefore must keep the watch she just bought from Loverboy in safe keeping, and does so by always keeping it in the wall vault in her office. for later down the line, as she has collected gobbs of rarities, she eventually turns her pawnshoppe into an antique shoppe.
Now consider this, if you will. What if, she had taken out the elder watch to clean it up a bit, for to take photos of it, and she laid it down on the counter, and her nephew sold the elder watch instead of the younger watch to Loveboy?
I dont know yet, so I will have to think of what would be the result of this boo boo.
....I only know Religious hostile paradoxes...
Which is a subject that can not be discussedQuote:
Originally Posted by LaoOmologo
Though since pm'ing is still allowed, there I can entertain you on such a paradox as this.
http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/a...mg-paradox.jpg
The next sentence is true.
The previous sentence is a lie.
The "Progress Paradox": How life gets better while people feel worse.
It's actually a book. I find it is a very dry read, so I have moved onto other things.
Basically, life is getting "better" because of technology such as the Internet, computers, better healthcare, better schooling, better and safer workplaces, yet as a society we are on a progressive downhill trend when it comes to happiness. People are feeling more stressed out and depressed, despite the fact that life has gotten better.
Why is that so?
Different type of paradox than what you guys are discussing at the moment, but all the same.
An interesting point Arathorn, in the book "Jurassic Park", (I don't believe the quote made it to the movie), Ian Malcolm made a comment about how, even with all our advancements, it still takes a woman (his word used, I'll sub "person") about the same amount of time to do the "housework".
We have all these gizmos and gadgets, and we still haven't actually improved much about our daily lives, all we've done is to improve our understanding of how much better it might be "if...."
Alusair, if I may borrow your quote..... "If time travel makes that watch possible, then time travel itself is impossible", this is the point I was alluding to earlier in the paradox theory about a scientist shooting himself in the past. In order to shoot himself, he must first have created the ability to timetravel and loaded a gun, then stepped through. An attempt to stop him from any of these actions would result in impossibility. He must make the preparations in order to shoot himself, therefore he cannot shoot himself.
*crazy eyes*