Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: "Paul M. Koloc"
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:57:33 -0500
Peter F. Curran wrote:
>
> In article <32b85f48.10988681@news.demon.co.uk>,
> malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
> >On 17 Dec 1996 01:11:22 GMT, nospaam@pascal.stu.rpi.edu (Peter F.
> >Curran) wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>You also have self-consistent scenarios with people
> >>traveling into the future, without having to impair
> >>free will.
> >
> >Time travel to the future never creates problems, seeing as how we do
> >it all the time.
> >
>
> I've had many discussions in other areas of this
> thread where I've had to conceed that there is
> only one universal "now", (at least that we
> have evidence for). Further, relativistic
> travel also never removes you from the universal
> "now", so in a sense we can not arguably be
> "traveling".
>
> >> I agree that travel into the past could
> >>never be reconciled with free will.
> >>
> >
> >It might, perhaps, if it resulted in an active thwarting or suspension
> >of free will.
> >
>
> Hmmm, this seems the very antithesis of "free will"....
>
> >>
> >>>Physics contains no concept of the progression of time. Backwards is
> >>>as valid as forwards in physics.
I don't agree. I think it relates to the fact multinegative nuclei are
unstable.
> >>That is not true. the increase of entropy provides a clear
> >>arrow of time's direction.
perhaps.
> >But that arrow is completely arbitrary. Entropy increases because it
> >was so low at the big bang it didn't have anywhere else to go. So the
> >arrow of entropy points away from the big bang.
lower information density
>
> No. From an ordered state there are MANY equally disordered
> states we can move towards as time moves forwards. In the reverse
> direction, the probability of becoming more ordered occuring
> repeatedly each step as the universe gets younger is vanishingly
> small.
small /// large???? Look at it this way, the universe is composed
of a specific number of information grains which are processed by
operators in quantized time. These operator-array interactions we
see as particles and other observable entities of physics.
> >> In communication systems, we use
> >>the notion of causality to show that it is impossible to
> >>create a perfect frequency filter. (You'd have to know about
> >>a signal before it arrived).
> >
> >I think you'll find that an equivalent, acausial explanation is that a
> >finite pulse of a given frequency does not have a single pure
> >frequency under fourier analysis.
the uncertainty principle ... information density is limited in our
three space-time chunks.
> The transformation, Laplace or Fourier, doesn't matter. As you
> receive the first datum of a signal, you have no idea if it is
> a high frequency signal, or a low frequency signal with a larger
> amplitude. A perfect step response in frequency filtering is not
> possible.
But that doesn't omit a quasi continous space time, if the "shoes"
you wear are large enough. (sampling size).
> >>
> >>Your notion of the experience of time is completely internal
> >>and has no bearing on those around you. So what if time
> >>seems to pass more quickly when you are having fun? What
> >>is the big deal?
the present is limited to the length of time an operator utilizes
to compute its domain of information bits. If they are dense from
overlapping as in nuclear matter, that takes a longer time. and moves
or passes more slowly. Sort of like bogging your computer down with
faster data input.
> >The deal, in this case, is that our experience of time is not
> >imperfectly linear but systematicly and purposively non-linear.
In as much as our brain is computer like and operates on information
, then one might expect when responding to lots of information
in many forms, the total amount the mind is interacting with could
"slow it down" in the rate at which environmental interactions are
handled.
>
> In what context are you using linear here? To me, linear means
> a system f(x) where f(a)+f(b)=f(a+b), and cf(x)=f(cx). As you
> have never been inside anyone's head but your own, and would
> be unable to accurately determine your own experience of time
> objectively, how is it you are able to come to any conclusions
> other than people's sense of time is inaccurate.?
>
> >>
> >>You used the word "experience" above, where I used the word
> >>"meaning". Your statement has nothing to do with mine,
> >>even though you've phrased is as though it were a
> >>rebuttal. Just what is it you are attempting to say?
> >>It is not at all obvious from your responses. Please,
> >>if you like, make a single statement you'd like me to
> >>address.
> >>
> >
> >I think maybe we don't have quite the same meaning for the concept of
> >"meaningful". Meaningful concepts are those of explanatory value.
> >Subjective things, if they help us to explain and understand similar
> >experience, are no less meaningful than "objective" ones.
> >
> >If we're discussing the interface between consciousness and the
> >material universe _of course_ we are going to be using subjective
> >concepts. That's what subjective means.
> >
> >What I'm saying is this. In a universe without consciousness "past",
> >"present" and "future" would not exist. Causality would not exist.
> >
>
> I disagree. I think you place to much stock in our importance, the
> same way the ancients felt the sun must revolve arounfd the earth.
> The universe, in my opinion, exists totally externally of human
> or other consciousness. A video camera, running after we were
> all extinct, would still record evens like erosion starting
> landslides. The universe doesn't need us.
But our physical presence functioning utilizes the same fundamental
>physics as that of the external universe. It is simply more
complexified. As far as the video camera, we can peer in to the
sub microscopic world of particle and existence grain distribution
interactions, but simply aiming such a camera at the screen of a
monitor which receives its signal to record the view of the
"initially blank screen" at the monitor. But, the quantized genetion
of an active sequence of time frames (spacial distributions of seeable
grainy patterns) appear. A picture of a two dimensional universe
of organizing "physics". The trick to make the picture more grainy
is to attenuate the signal between the camera and monitor box.
Creator of a universe on a patch of monitor screen
> - Pete
No the universe doesn't need us, it needs a source of organizing
information, which was injected into three space as a result of
an instability of preexisting very dense (hypermatter) existing
in two space. Of course without volume, this two space can't be
probed. And then where did such powerfully dense stuff arise from??
The Grand One Dimensional infinitely dense space ..., of course.
Think of it, we all came from G.O.D. Note that general relativity
demands that substance of GOD exists in a present time that extends
infinitely into the future and the past, simultaneously. Now
how exactly could a point be determined by that array?
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, BX 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD
20740-1037|
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu FAX (301)
434-6737 |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075 *** Hot Aneutronic FUSION in the Nineties
*** |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
