How about a game where you travel through time and take photographs of famous historical events while searching for a mysterious woman in a red coat?
I was thinking more the shtick gets disrupted when you drop your camera in the past and this screws up the present, but this may be a bit too Singularitish.
Wheeeeeeere iiiiiiis Caaaarmen Sandiego, Carmen Sandiego?
I hate that kind of time travel
how about you find out that what you did in the past is what cause the present to be the way it is?
without "changing" magically because that's dumb
Oh, the "Doctor blew up Pompeii" approach? That could work.
yeah because any other way makes no sense
because let's say you enter the time machine in 2020 and exit in 1920
if you do something in 1920, when does the present (2020) change?
it changes in 1920, right?
well, in 2020, the change happened a hundred years ago. You already saw the changes.
Because time travel is simply arriving before you left.
I like the idea that changing stuff in the past shunts YOU in to an alternate timeline where the changes you enacted took place. Your original 2020 is the same, and everyone there just thinks you disappeared mysteriously.
so you never really travelled in time
atleast not directly
you travelled to an alternate 1920 not the original one
There are infinite potential hypotheses. If you falsify a set of these hypotheses, any arbitrarily large set, you still are left with infinite potential hypotheses. So how can you be getting any closer to the truth by doing so?
I'm thinking the answer has to do with bounding the set of hypotheses.
Are you looking for a practical answer like "In the process of eliminating false hypotheses we also gain information with which to start predicting the likelihood of remaining hypothesis to be true"?
I'm looking for it in more abstract terms. Note that I don't actually know if there's an answer here. This was a problem my philosophy of science teacher posed to me, I'm don't know of anyone who has written on this specific subject.
But I am somewhat interested in this concept of cumulative data shaping future hypotheses, because that does put a hard limit on which hypotheses can be posed. Like I said, bounding, there's still an infinite number of potential hypotheses, but only within parameters.
I'd also like to see how 'infinite potential hypotheses' works, unless you're doing something silly like counting duplicates or allowing for an infinite amount of information in a system.
There might be a seemingly infinite amount of hay in a stack, but combing through it still gets us closer to the needle.
And, even if the hay IS infinite, we can use previous data to more quickly sort through it. For example, knowing which pieces of hay most closely match a needle in shape, size, and weight allows us to disregard pieces that don't fall within these boundaries.
One thing that comes out of this is that traveling back in time to "fix" things is kind of pointless and selfish.
You are choosing to live in a reality where some random dude stopped WW2, WW2 and all its attendant suffering still happened, just not in YOUR new better reality.
And I also think that the ability to travel from one timeline to another is movement in the fifth dimension, but I use "think" very pointedly here, and am open to the possibility I may be wrong.
I can get behind any time travel theory that does not involve an infinite number of multiple universes.
Speaking completely in regards to fiction. Just seems super fucking lazy to me.
Yay Glee starts tonight! And there may be more LoL with Inqi and others. And it won't be 90 degrees but instead maybe 80 today. So awesome. So much nicer. Fuck multiple days breaking record highs.
I disregard the notion that time isn't linear, but disregarding that notion doesn't disregard the notion that there are alternate time lines (infinite!) branching from every moment
We may not be able to visualize or interact with those timelines, but that is because we are bound to four dimensions
How about a game where you travel through time and take photographs of famous historical events while searching for a mysterious woman in a red coat?
I was thinking more the shtick gets disrupted when you drop your camera in the past and this screws up the present, but this may be a bit too Singularitish.
Wheeeeeeere iiiiiiis Caaaarmen Sandiego, Carmen Sandiego?
I hate that kind of time travel
how about you find out that what you did in the past is what cause the present to be the way it is?
without "changing" magically because that's dumb
Oh, the "Doctor blew up Pompeii" approach? That could work.
yeah because any other way makes no sense
because let's say you enter the time machine in 2020 and exit in 1920
if you do something in 1920, when does the present (2020) change?
it changes in 1920, right?
well, in 2020, the change happened a hundred years ago. You already saw the changes.
Because time travel is simply arriving before you left.
I like the idea that changing stuff in the past shunts YOU in to an alternate timeline where the changes you enacted took place. Your original 2020 is the same, and everyone there just thinks you disappeared mysteriously.
so you never really travelled in time
atleast not directly
you travelled to an alternate 1920 not the original one
Yeah. I don't think you can travel to the original 1920. Because you weren't there. Just being there is a change. New dimension.
And I also think that the ability to travel from one timeline to another is movement in the fifth dimension, but I use "think" very pointedly here, and am open to the possibility I may be wrong.
I can get behind any time travel theory that does not involve an infinite number of multiple universes.
Speaking completely in regards to fiction. Just seems super fucking lazy to me.
There are infinite potential hypotheses. If you falsify a set of these hypotheses, any arbitrarily large set, you still are left with infinite potential hypotheses. So how can you be getting any closer to the truth by doing so?
I'm thinking the answer has to do with bounding the set of hypotheses.
What about other things, like parsimony, power, modesty, etc?
Apothe0sis on
0
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Yay Glee starts tonight! And there may be more LoL with Inqi and others. And it won't be 90 degrees but instead maybe 80 today. So awesome. So much nicer. Fuck multiple days breaking record highs.
There will definitely be more LoL in the future! Though, probably not tonight for me. Boardgame night tonight, and that usually runs from 3 in the afternoon...till, well... 3 in the morning. :oops:
do we have any proof that causality can not be violated?
Other than we haven't seen it happen yet?
The problem is we don't know if it has been violated since paradox and all that. Also there was an awesome article on how certain types of paradox can't happen because it leads to an infinite loop and such.
Mazzyx on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
do we have any proof that causality can not be violated?
Other than we haven't seen it happen yet?
Apparently if you assume causality is violated you can do some mathematical trickery to make wormholes into the future behave like subatomic particles.
There are infinite potential hypotheses. If you falsify a set of these hypotheses, any arbitrarily large set, you still are left with infinite potential hypotheses. So how can you be getting any closer to the truth by doing so?
I'm thinking the answer has to do with bounding the set of hypotheses.
Are you looking for a practical answer like "In the process of eliminating false hypotheses we also gain information with which to start predicting the likelihood of remaining hypothesis to be true"?
I'm looking for it in more abstract terms. Note that I don't actually know if there's an answer here. This was a problem my philosophy of science teacher posed to me, I'm don't know of anyone who has written on this specific subject.
But I am somewhat interested in this concept of cumulative data shaping future hypotheses, because that does put a hard limit on which hypotheses can be posed. Like I said, bounding, there's still an infinite number of potential hypotheses, but only within parameters.
I'd also like to see how 'infinite potential hypotheses' works, unless you're doing something silly like counting duplicates or allowing for an infinite amount of information in a system.
There might be a seemingly infinite amount of hay in a stack, but combing through it still gets us closer to the needle.
He demonstrated to me that there were infinite hypotheses. He drew three points on a board and said that these were three recorded positions of Jupiter over the horizon (for an example, maybe you'd like something harder to measure like the position of subatomic particles or something) at different time intervals. Say you are formulating a hypothesis to account for the motion that Jupiter traveled to be at those three points at those points in time. You can make an infinite number of paths between those three points, so there are infinite possible hypotheses that fit to that data.
And I also think that the ability to travel from one timeline to another is movement in the fifth dimension, but I use "think" very pointedly here, and am open to the possibility I may be wrong.
I can get behind any time travel theory that does not involve an infinite number of multiple universes.
Speaking completely in regards to fiction. Just seems super fucking lazy to me.
do we have any proof that causality can not be violated?
Other than we haven't seen it happen yet?
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be anyway, since it's not like you'd exist in your own little pocket of time by yourself.
Things that happen in the past affect you because they lead to what happens now. If you travel back in time, you're just changing the "now" that's affecting you.
In other words, if you're born in the year 1985, and you go back the 1920 and kill your grandfather, you'd still be around, because now that you're in the 20s nothing that happens in 1985 will affect you since it hasn't happened yet. Time doesn't loop around with you, you just become part of a different time.
How about a game where you travel through time and take photographs of famous historical events while searching for a mysterious woman in a red coat?
I was thinking more the shtick gets disrupted when you drop your camera in the past and this screws up the present, but this may be a bit too Singularitish.
Wheeeeeeere iiiiiiis Caaaarmen Sandiego, Carmen Sandiego?
I hate that kind of time travel
how about you find out that what you did in the past is what cause the present to be the way it is?
without "changing" magically because that's dumb
Oh, the "Doctor blew up Pompeii" approach? That could work.
yeah because any other way makes no sense
because let's say you enter the time machine in 2020 and exit in 1920
if you do something in 1920, when does the present (2020) change?
it changes in 1920, right?
well, in 2020, the change happened a hundred years ago. You already saw the changes.
Because time travel is simply arriving before you left.
I like the idea that changing stuff in the past shunts YOU in to an alternate timeline where the changes you enacted took place. Your original 2020 is the same, and everyone there just thinks you disappeared mysteriously.
so you never really travelled in time
atleast not directly
you travelled to an alternate 1920 not the original one
Yeah. I don't think you can travel to the original 1920. Because you weren't there. Just being there is a change. New dimension.
Of course you can travel to the original 1920. You just have to assume causality is more a guideline, really.
but you can't change anything. At all. 1920 is 1920. Going back there from the future no more changes it than all the people who went there from the past changed it, in this case.
If you want a "the future is changed" thing to make sense you should just have the "we're hopping to an alternate universe where I appeared in the year 1920"
There are infinite potential hypotheses. If you falsify a set of these hypotheses, any arbitrarily large set, you still are left with infinite potential hypotheses. So how can you be getting any closer to the truth by doing so?
I'm thinking the answer has to do with bounding the set of hypotheses.
Are you looking for a practical answer like "In the process of eliminating false hypotheses we also gain information with which to start predicting the likelihood of remaining hypothesis to be true"?
I'm looking for it in more abstract terms. Note that I don't actually know if there's an answer here. This was a problem my philosophy of science teacher posed to me, I'm don't know of anyone who has written on this specific subject.
But I am somewhat interested in this concept of cumulative data shaping future hypotheses, because that does put a hard limit on which hypotheses can be posed. Like I said, bounding, there's still an infinite number of potential hypotheses, but only within parameters.
I'd also like to see how 'infinite potential hypotheses' works, unless you're doing something silly like counting duplicates or allowing for an infinite amount of information in a system.
There might be a seemingly infinite amount of hay in a stack, but combing through it still gets us closer to the needle.
He demonstrated to me that there were infinite hypotheses. He drew three points on a board and said that these were three recorded positions of Jupiter over the horizon (for an example, maybe you'd like something harder to measure like the position of subatomic particles or something) at different time intervals. Say you are formulating a hypothesis to account for the motion that Jupiter traveled to be at those three points at those points in time. You can make an infinite number of paths between those three points, so there are infinite possible hypotheses that fit to that data.
but if you know about the movement of jupiter in the past (I.E., you have data collected on the movement of jupiter) you can begin to eliminate the paths that don't make sense
We know how to time travel to the future. If anyone ever thought hard about this, it is really awesome. We have the knowledge to time travel. Now we don't have the technology yet to travel that fast but still.
Yay Glee starts tonight! And there may be more LoL with Inqi and others. And it won't be 90 degrees but instead maybe 80 today. So awesome. So much nicer. Fuck multiple days breaking record highs.
There will definitely be more LoL in the future! Though, probably not tonight for me. Boardgame night tonight, and that usually runs from 3 in the afternoon...till, well... 3 in the morning. :oops:
I finally got some Agricola in!
We played family rules the first game.
Very fun. I can't wait to try it again w/ the job cards.
Galahad on
0
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
We know how to time travel to the future. If anyone ever thought hard about this, it is really awesome. We have the knowledge to time travel. Now we don't have the technology yet to travel that fast but still.
do we have any proof that causality can not be violated?
Other than we haven't seen it happen yet?
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be anyway, since it's not like you'd exist in your own little pocket of time by yourself.
Things that happen in the past affect you because they lead to what happens now. If you travel back in time, you're just changing the "now" that's affecting you.
In other words, if you're born in the year 1985, and you go back the 1920 and kill your grandfather, you'd still be around, because now that you're in the 20s nothing that happens in 1985 will affect you, because it hasn't happened yet.
but in 1984, before you went back to kill your grandfather, 1920 has already happened
There are infinite potential hypotheses. If you falsify a set of these hypotheses, any arbitrarily large set, you still are left with infinite potential hypotheses. So how can you be getting any closer to the truth by doing so?
I'm thinking the answer has to do with bounding the set of hypotheses.
What about other things, like parsimony, power, modesty, etc?
I am only considering falsifiability as of any importance. The rest only have to do with why you might pick any potential hypothesis.
Very fun. I can't wait to try it again w/ the job cards.
I've never had a chance to play Agricola though I have heard very good things, the price tag has always put me off of it a little bit to be honest. I hear that drafting the job cards or whatever the starting cards are called is a fun way to do it once people get good at the game.
Inquisitor on
0
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
do we have any proof that causality can not be violated?
Other than we haven't seen it happen yet?
I suppose we have that antiparticles can just be considered particles that go in the other direction (of time). When you draw Feynman diagrams you end up with arrows in both directions, and then some lines without arrows.
In a way, there's causation, but it doesn't always go the same way in time. And you can have little loops.
Mojo_Jojo on
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
If time travel exists then it's inconsequential and anything that can be changed has already been changed.
If time travel doesn't exist then it's inconsequential because nothing can be changed.
So there is no causality, then. We're all just drifting along like a train car on a rail.
its irrelevant.
if time travel exists and you can go back to change what has happened then it stands to reason that those people who wanted to go back and fix something have already done so or have already created a universe destroying time paradox in trying to do so.
the fact that you have free will to choose does not mean that your choice wasn't already made by you in the cyclical future/past that is effecting the timeline you're in. you just don't know about it yet because you haven't done it yet.
Posts
so you never really travelled in time
atleast not directly
you travelled to an alternate 1920 not the original one
And, even if the hay IS infinite, we can use previous data to more quickly sort through it. For example, knowing which pieces of hay most closely match a needle in shape, size, and weight allows us to disregard pieces that don't fall within these boundaries.
I travel to the future all the time.
I'm having some minor problems travelling faster than one second per second though, but I'll figure it out.
One thing that comes out of this is that traveling back in time to "fix" things is kind of pointless and selfish.
You are choosing to live in a reality where some random dude stopped WW2, WW2 and all its attendant suffering still happened, just not in YOUR new better reality.
I can get behind any time travel theory that does not involve an infinite number of multiple universes.
Speaking completely in regards to fiction. Just seems super fucking lazy to me.
Other than we haven't seen it happen yet?
try amphetamines
We may not be able to visualize or interact with those timelines, but that is because we are bound to four dimensions
Yes I know how this sounds
Deal with it.
me too
Yeah. I don't think you can travel to the original 1920. Because you weren't there. Just being there is a change. New dimension.
Don't read the post I made right after this
just need infinite energy first
I mean... you kind of have causality or pre-destination, right?
There's no third door.
that makes it slower
There will definitely be more LoL in the future! Though, probably not tonight for me. Boardgame night tonight, and that usually runs from 3 in the afternoon...till, well... 3 in the morning. :oops:
If time travel doesn't exist then it's inconsequential because nothing can be changed.
The problem is we don't know if it has been violated since paradox and all that. Also there was an awesome article on how certain types of paradox can't happen because it leads to an infinite loop and such.
I can manipulate my perception to make it seem like I am traveling faster or slower in time however.
Apparently if you assume causality is violated you can do some mathematical trickery to make wormholes into the future behave like subatomic particles.
He demonstrated to me that there were infinite hypotheses. He drew three points on a board and said that these were three recorded positions of Jupiter over the horizon (for an example, maybe you'd like something harder to measure like the position of subatomic particles or something) at different time intervals. Say you are formulating a hypothesis to account for the motion that Jupiter traveled to be at those three points at those points in time. You can make an infinite number of paths between those three points, so there are infinite possible hypotheses that fit to that data.
Hm. I feel pretty much the opposite.
Seems the only logical way to think to me.
Everything that can be or could be, is.
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be anyway, since it's not like you'd exist in your own little pocket of time by yourself.
Things that happen in the past affect you because they lead to what happens now. If you travel back in time, you're just changing the "now" that's affecting you.
In other words, if you're born in the year 1985, and you go back the 1920 and kill your grandfather, you'd still be around, because now that you're in the 20s nothing that happens in 1985 will affect you since it hasn't happened yet. Time doesn't loop around with you, you just become part of a different time.
So there is no causality, then. We're all just drifting along like a train car on a rail.
try mass quantities of liquor
Of course you can travel to the original 1920. You just have to assume causality is more a guideline, really.
but you can't change anything. At all. 1920 is 1920. Going back there from the future no more changes it than all the people who went there from the past changed it, in this case.
If you want a "the future is changed" thing to make sense you should just have the "we're hopping to an alternate universe where I appeared in the year 1920"
closed time loops are cooler though
look at homestuck
but if you know about the movement of jupiter in the past (I.E., you have data collected on the movement of jupiter) you can begin to eliminate the paths that don't make sense
I finally got some Agricola in!
We played family rules the first game.
Very fun. I can't wait to try it again w/ the job cards.
I have mastered a technique that allows me to enter a deep meditative state and allow several hours to pass while in that state.
I think about it all the time
As we all know, instant coffee is instant, which is as fast as fast gets.
We also all know that cooking anything in a microwave makes it cook faster.
So, if you make instant coffee in a microwave, you go faster than instant and therefore travel forward in time.
By about a couple seconds.
but in 1984, before you went back to kill your grandfather, 1920 has already happened
where you killed your grandfather
And Earthworm Jim taught us of the speed of lint.
I am only considering falsifiability as of any importance. The rest only have to do with why you might pick any potential hypothesis.
I've never had a chance to play Agricola though I have heard very good things, the price tag has always put me off of it a little bit to be honest. I hear that drafting the job cards or whatever the starting cards are called is a fun way to do it once people get good at the game.
I suppose we have that antiparticles can just be considered particles that go in the other direction (of time). When you draw Feynman diagrams you end up with arrows in both directions, and then some lines without arrows.
In a way, there's causation, but it doesn't always go the same way in time. And you can have little loops.
its irrelevant.
if time travel exists and you can go back to change what has happened then it stands to reason that those people who wanted to go back and fix something have already done so or have already created a universe destroying time paradox in trying to do so.
the fact that you have free will to choose does not mean that your choice wasn't already made by you in the cyclical future/past that is effecting the timeline you're in. you just don't know about it yet because you haven't done it yet.