Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Real title but couldn't fit it in subject:

Science hopes to change events that have already occurred

"Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd like to take back an unfortunate voice mail message, or rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make yourself the winner.

Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible -- what's done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you might change the circumstances by which your parents met, derailing the key event that led to your birth.

Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the door remains wide open for a demonstration."

"If it exists, the presence of conscious observers later in history could exert an influence on those first moments, shaping the laws of physics to be favorable for life. This may seem circular: Life exists to make the universe suitable for life. If causality works both forward and backward, however, consistency between the past and the future is all that matters. "It offends our common-sense view of the world, but there's nothing to prevent causal influences from going both ways in time," Paul Davies says. "If the conditions necessary for life are somehow written into the universe at the Big Bang, there must be some sort of two-way link."

Link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL

Blacknad.

.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Oh, that's brilliant. Nice find.

It also speaks to an atemporal universe, which I like. (What Einstein called a "Block Universe".) Very nice.

w

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
The the operative words from the article are:

"If retrocausality is confirmed -- and that is a huge if...."

Were it proven possible, and I am open minded to the possibility, you can throw out every single bedrock foundation piece of human psychology, philosophy, and religion. The concept of god(s) goes away completely to anyone that understands the implications.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Heh. How ironic.

I look at this and see how confirmation of retrocausality would confirm so many of the things I've been writing about here on this forum and make God so much more believable to everybody, and you look at it and say that the concept of God goes away.

Wow, Dan, I think I would really, really enjoy drinking a beer and shootin' the breeze with you at a bar somewhere. You and I are two sides of the same coin, we are.

w


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
The way I read Dan is that it would be future humans who are responsible for events we blame on God at present.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Let me be explicit. It wouldn't matter what Jesus Christ or Buddha or Mohammed or Moses or Mahatma Ghandi did in the past.

Because someone, anyone, in the future could change it.

If you can change the past you can Make Josef Stalin the saviour and Martin Luther King Caucasian.

The are no rules. There is no causality.

I am willing to grant it possible for this to occur at the quantum level. I think it can be simply proven to be impossible at the macro level because if it did ... we would experience it.

Wayne ... if you want miracles ... you'd best pray there is a god and not a lack of causality. The two are polar opposites. And while you can cling to one ... I think neither a satisfactory solution to understanding the universe.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
If there is reverse causality, then that speaks to a static time dimension - one that quanta can flow in either direction on. It means the universe is, in fact, atemporal. And if time is just another dimension like length, then one properly equipped in mind and body can sidestep it and exist outside of it. And can also reach in and change things as needed (read as: create miracles).

If the past was changed, how would we know? We remember it as it is now. Our history can never be changed in a way that we can notice.

Quantum fluctuations allow for incredibly unlikely things. The only reason a Ferrari doesn't suddenly pop into existence in my driveway with my name on the pink slip is because it is so incredibly unlikely that we deem it impossible. But it's not really impossible - it's just barely on this side of impossible. So wildly unlikely that the chances are less than 1 in <insert square of the number of quanta in the universe here>. But, if the universe is atemporal and there is a god being who can exist outside of time (and therefore outside of space as we know it) then that being can finetune and make adjustments. He can multiply the loaves and fishes, he can solidify the water under his son's feet. And he can do this through the adjustment mechanism that he built into the whole thing: Quantum fluctuations. And, because he's outside time and this whole universe is accessible to him, he can do it on as many planets as he wants all at the same (subjective, to us) time.

An atemporal universe makes the activities of God do-able. It makes it possible for somebody outside the time dimension to do an infinite number of things at the "same time". Reverse causality would prove an atemporal universe.

He built the world in six days plus a day of rest? Sure, whatever. The term "days" is irrelevant and meaningless. Maybe he came inside and checked it out at six different time coordinates. Then, after a job well-done, he came in a seventh time and experienced it first-hand from inside (a bit of a rest).

It all makes sense, but only in an atemporal self-contained universe.

This is the most exciting research I've seen when it comes to DISproving the IMpossibility of God. It won't prove God exists, but it sure goes a long way towards proving he could.

w

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Wayne wrote:
"And can also reach in and change things as needed (read as: create miracles)."

But a god, a deity, does not require that. If it does it becomes just the equivalent to the statement: "What is technically more advanced looks like magic." Your god is reduced to a 23rd century trickster whose gotten bored or lost the knack.

And it is no more likely that someone in the future would use the ability for good than it is that they would use to to buy stock or bet on horses after they knew the outcome.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
But Dan, you're still thinking like a time traveler. I'm not talking about a traveler - I'm talking about somebody off the timeline entirely.

God doesn't need to come in and fix something after something has gone wrong. It's all part of the creation of the whole thing. This gives him the ability to fine tune everything as he's making it. He didn't create the universe a long time ago or in the future - those mean nothing. He simply made it, independent of our time, and in the process can reach in and adjust anything along any timeline. He doesn't wait for it to go wrong - it's already in need of fine tuning while he built it.

As for future people coming back and changing things...

If a person in the future reached back and changed a lottery result, then he'd never have to change the result because it will have already come up the way he wanted it.

You know for certain that you'll never go back and make an armored car crash near you last week and dump money all over you because if you were ever going to do that then an armored car would have already done so last week. Maybe it already did crash and dump money on you but you'll go back and keep that from happening because the money brought you nothing but grief, so you've already robbed yourself of the chance for free riches.

Just because you can change the past doesn't mean that you can ever know that the past has been changed. And anybody who changes the past will cease to exist and will be replaced by whoever they became as a result of the change. (Actually whenever somebody changes the past the entire universe would cease to exist and would be replaced by the Universe it became as a result of the change.)

From that standpoint, it could be argued that nobody in the future will ever change the past, because anybody who ever does will not exist when the time comes that they do it. "Hey, look, that die rolled and came up with a 1. I'm going to change it so it came up with a 6." That person will never see the 6. The person who does see it won't know that the result was altered because it wasn't altered - it always came up as a 6. In the timeline where it came up as a 6, nobody goes back and changes it.

One interesting facet to this would be a message transmitted from the future. The sender, having no memory of the message being received, would send it. He would then be replaced by a person in whose world the message WAS received and therefore would never need to send it. (And if he did anyway, then he would be replaced by a person who still hasn't sent it but remembers it being received twice.) The Universe where the message was received would go forth from that point, never to have the message sent. So any message we receive from the future would, by definition, never actually get sent. These would be messages that were never written, from people who will never exist. So, they were never sent even though they were received. Therefore, even if we receive messages from the future, we can still say that nobody will ever send one.

We may build working machines that let us change the past in any way we want, on any scale, at any time, at will. But we'll never, ever use that capability.

Maybe some future practical joker is responsible for getting George W. Bush elected. God knows he shouldn't have been able to do it without some kind of assistance like that. But, now that he's elected, nobody will ever have to arrange for him to get elected. The people who would no longer exist. (And good riddance.)

w

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 18
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 18
Wouldn't it make logical sense that the present is unalterable by actions done in the past because if you're there to attempt going about doing it, it already failed?

For example, if I go back in time to assassinate Gandhi, I already failed because I didn't do it.

I suppose the essense of my point would be if time travel/alteration did exist, none of us would ever know about it because the change made would always be how it happened.

Seem like cyclical logic? It should.

The god reference fascinates me, because if you think about god enough to reference it, then no one has, or apparently ever will, go back in time to erase it. Why? Because that's not how it is now.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Wayne.
"God doesn't need to come in and fix something after something has gone wrong. It's all part of the creation of the whole thing. This gives him the ability to fine tune everything as he's making it. He didn't create the universe a long time ago or in the future - those mean nothing. He simply made it, independent of our time, and in the process can reach in and adjust anything along any timeline. He doesn't wait for it to go wrong - it's already in need of fine tuning while he built it."

I don't want to harp on this, as it's a science thread, but -
Is this a hypothesis Wayne? If not, you seem to know very well what God can and cannot do, and about what he actually did/does/will do (whatever the tense should be). Do you think your fellow believers believe as you do?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
Anyone noted that if you choose to measure the undelayed photon first, you actually predetermine the future? How do you guys feel about predestination? Better than about retrocausality?

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Pasti
If you find your way back in this thread to posts from 15th-21st March, you'll see how a discussion on predestination/freewill developed. That doesn't have to be the end of the story though. I stated my conclusion based solely on the current scientific evidence, but science is still in it's infancy, and I have reason to doubt that my conclusion is correct in reality. What's your view?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Quote:
Is this a hypothesis Wayne?

Well, of course it is. God didn't call me on the phone and tell me his plans.

I think you'll find few theists that would disagree that God has the ability to effect the universe at will, at any time coordinate. And you'll find even fewer who don't believe God created the Universe. In that sense, yes: I would say my fellow believers agree.

If he can affect any time coordinate, that implies that He is unconstrained by time, which implies that He exists in a state outside of time, non-dependent upon the time dimension to which we all are so closely tied.

And if the universe is a self-contained block wherein time is just another dimension, which reverse causality implies, then it becomes much easier to imagine how such a being could fine-tune things by altering them in the block. Doing so from outside the time dimension, there is no saying he did it "before" or "after" or "a long time ago": It was simply done.

So you ask if my fellow believers believe as I do, and I say that my beliefs are completely compatible with the teachings of the Catholic church - so I guess they do. Or, at least, they do as long as they understand the science involved.

Quote:
If not, you seem to know very well what God can and cannot do


Actually, no - that is not correct. You have never seen me state anything that God cannot do. The best you can say is that I've suggested ways in which he might do them. (eg, Reaching in through the quantum fluctuation from outside time and adjusting things so that they come out as desired.) Telling people what God cannot do is the purview of the Fundamentalists who insist that God is incapable of bringing about intelligent life through the process of evolution. It is they who say that all suicides and non-believers go to Hell because God is incapable of showing mercy and deciding for himself. It is they who claim to know the mind of God and so can tell you with such assuredness that homosexuality is a fast road to damnation. I don't do that. I am about finding ways to show that God is possible and that what seems omniscience and omnipotence to us is a defined side effect of living outside out timestream with the ability to reach into it and manipulate quantum fields. Is that how He does it? I dunno. Might he do it that way? Absolutely! And if he does, it wouldn't violate anything we know about science.

Nothing riles me faster than somebody attributing fundamentalist thought processes to me, and that's what you do when you tell me that I know and say what God can't do. I know that's not what you meant, so I'm not irritated - but it sure makes me type fast, hearing stuff like that.

w




Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Wayne wrote:
"But Dan, you're still thinking like a time traveler. I'm not talking about a traveler - I'm talking about somebody off the timeline entirely."

I'm following you but not agreeing with you.

If the laws of nature allow events in the future to alter events in the past. They will be altered. And they will be altered in a manner that benefits some unless you've seen a dramatic change in human behaviour since I turned off the news.

Wayne wrote:
"God doesn't need to come in and fix something after something has gone wrong. It's all part of the creation of the whole thing. This gives him the ability to fine tune everything as he's making it."

Except that the bible, the basic tenant of your religion specifically states otherwise. It says he makes floods, he kills first born, he knocks down walls, he heals, he turns people into pillars of salt. These are not the actions of someone content to let nature run its course.

Now if you want to say he was an activist up until 21 centuries ago and now only dabbles in the occasional piece of toast or road sign ok but I don't think most Catholics or Protestants would receive much pleasure considering that possibility.

It strikes me that you believe what you wish to believe, disregard the rest, and struggle in the middle. This may work for you, it certainly worked for me for awhile, but I suspect a certain German cleric would take umbrage.

My read Wayne, and I don't intend this to be disrespectful, is that you accept that you have a religion not based upon the supporting pillars of your faith but rather on those few remaining pillars not yet torn down by science to your satisfaction.

Statements such as "it took as long to create the universe as it took" should, I think, be no more satisfying to you than they are to a physicist. For example: I'm not happy with the square root of minus one.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Originally Posted By: Pasti
Anyone noted that if you choose to measure the undelayed photon first, you actually predetermine the future? How do you guys feel about predestination? Better than about retrocausality?


That's an interesting point, but I imagine that they would say that they are causing the effect.

If you throw a crystal wine glass to the concrete floor with great force, is it predestined to shatter? Or did you simply cause a chain of events that is going to include the shattering of the glass? When the glass breaks I don't think you've proven predestiny.

By the same token, when you measure the undelayed photon first, you cause the second one to take on the opposite traits. Is that predestiny or simply a closely controlled cause and effect?

w



Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
It is entanglement. The photon is not given a choice.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
If the laws of nature allow events in the future to alter events in the past. They will be altered. And they will be altered in a manner that benefits some unless you've seen a dramatic change in human behaviour since I turned off the news.

Sure. But when they are, the changes will be completely undetectable to anybody living in the timeline. Completely and totally undetectable. So who's to say they ever happened? Eventhe people who benefit from it will never know that they have benefactors in a no-longer existing universe who set things up to make them the richest person in the world. Perhaps Bill Gates is, in some alternity, a wildly intelligent but completely impoverished person. So he creates his time-tailoring machine and changes things so that he becomes wildly successful. To us, Bill Gates is just wildly successful. Nobody changed a thing. Or did they? Or does it matter? No.

Quote:
Except that the bible, the basic tenant of your religion specifically states otherwise. It says he makes floods, he kills first born, he knocks down walls, he heals, he turns people into pillars of salt. These are not the actions of someone content to let nature run its course.

Now if you want to say he was an activist up until 21 centuries ago and now only dabbles in the occasional piece of toast or road sign ok but I don't think most Catholics or Protestants would receive much pleasure considering that possibility.


Nature doesn't run a course. It exists. It happens to incorporate a dimension we experience as time. He created it, and decided that at certain parts of it he would astound the intelligent creations within it. At other coordinates along the time dimension he would let them wonder. He didn't lose interest, because that implies he was interested at one time and not another. The whole thing exists at once - there is no "time" for him to lose interest. Instead, there are places where he makes amazing things and other places where his very existence is open to debate.

Quote:
It strikes me that you believe what you wish to believe, disregard the rest, and struggle in the middle. This may work for you, it certainly worked for me for awhile, but I suspect a certain German cleric would take umbrage. [...] you accept that you have a religion not based upon the supporting pillars of your faith but rather on those few remaining pillars not yet torn down by science to your satisfaction.


Nothing in science has ever torn down anything in Catholicism. That's part of why I was drawn to that particular faith. Interpretations may need to be adjusted to make way for fact, but those adjustments can only further purify the faith.

You ask me how to know what parts of the Bible are factual and which are allegory. I say that you must err on the side of learning, and as long as you are learning from the lessons therein then it doesn't matter. Of course it matters to you because you live in a binary life where everything must be perfectly defined. It makes you uneasy to consider that there might be things to be learned that can't be measured with a graduated stick.

Quote:
Statements such as "it took as long to create the universe as it took" should, I think, be no more satisfying to you than they are to a physicist. For example: I'm not happy with the square root of minus one.


I'm having a hard time understanding why that statement of mine gave rise to so much ire. Can you tell me how long it should have taken to create the universe? No matter what your answer is I can still ask, "Why did it take so long?" Or, alternatively, I could ask, "What was the rush?" Of COURSE it took as long as it took. That's how long it would have taken, no matter how long it took! So what's the problem? Are you in such a hurry for the Universe to be created? Is the long timeframe of evolution going to make you miss a dentist appointment?

I really don't understand the response I've gotten to pointing out that the anthropic principal applies to the question of why it took so long. It took that long because that's how long it had to take for us to sit here asking why it took that amount of time. Had it taken some other amount of time then we'd be sitting here asking why it took that other amount of time.

Besides, if time is just another dimension as reverse-causality implies, then the universe is a static contruct. How long did it take to build? That question is exactly the same as "What happened before the Big Bang?" or "How long does it take an electron to get from one side of the nucleus to the other?" If something happens outside of time, like the "orbit" of an electron or the goings-on before the Big Bang, or the establishment of the contruct we call the Universe, then how can you answer the question of how long it took? It took zero time, or it took an eternity. Whichever you like. But if you don't like the fact that you and your planet were inserted on the time axis a little too far to the right, then you should take a look at the living conditions further to the left and be glad you didn't have to deal with hot Universe before matter began to form. And be glad you weren't inserted further to the right in a part of the Universe where everything is cold and all the stars have burnt out. Be glad, in fact, that you were inserted into the time axis exactly where you were so that you could sit and complain about it taking so long to come into existence.

w

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Wayne

"Nothing riles me faster than somebody attributing fundamentalist thought processes to me"

No, you don't fit the bill for fundamentalism, and I hope your adrenalin dissipated without further ado. Take it easy.

Incidentally, this caught my eye:

"it's already in need of fine tuning while he built it."

Meaning, I suppose, that he was unable to get it quite right with his first shot.

"I really don't understand the response I've gotten to pointing out that the anthropic principal applies to the question of why it took so long. It took that long because that's how long it had to take for us to sit here asking why it took that amount of time. Had it taken some other amount of time then we'd be sitting here asking why it took that other amount of time."

Try this:

What you are saying is that the laws of physics being such as they are, the events since the Big Bang necessarily took the time that they did. No scientist can argue against that. Now, since God, according to your view, chose those laws of physics, the time taken is precisely as He intended.

Is that accurate?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Incidentally, this caught my eye:

"it's already in need of fine tuning while he built it."

Meaning, I suppose, that he was unable to get it quite right with his first shot.


Not at all what I'm saying. Let's say you build a car. You have exact plans and you know exactly how it has to be and you can get it right the very first time because you're the best car builder that ever was.

Part of your plan is to make the fuel line curve just so around the doohickey on the flimmajamma.

So you build your car, careful to get just the right curve of fuel line around the doohickey to avoid flimmajamma problems.

Is that a fine tuning? Yes. Did you get it right the first time? Yes. Does the fact that you had to go in and curve it just right mean that you made a mistake? No.

Quote:
Try this:

What you are saying is that the laws of physics being such as they are, the events since the Big Bang necessarily took the time that they did. No scientist can argue against that. Now, since God, according to your view, chose those laws of physics, the time taken is precisely as He intended.

Is that accurate?


That is exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for putting it more eloquently than I.

w

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
You're welcome. Actually, Wayne, do you really think there's a place for the fine tuning analogy? Couldn't you dispense with it altogether? Wouldn't the universe with the requisite laws would have been sufficient?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
(deleted duplicate)


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Originally Posted By: redewenur
You're welcome. Actually, Wayne, do you really think there's a place for the fine tuning analogy? Couldn't you dispense with it altogether? Wouldn't the universe with the requisite laws would have been sufficient?


Is an artist content with throwing paint on a canvass?

Would a parent be content with letting their child grow up in whatever way they want without parental guidance?

Sufficient? Yes. An act of love? Hardly.

Some primitive religions have very strange creation myths. In one of my favorites, the Creator literally farted the world.

In a universe like that, there would be no need of fine tuning. I personally prefer to think that God is more interested in us than in a fart.

w

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
"Is an artist content with throwing paint on a canvass?

Would a parent be content with letting their child grow up in whatever way they want without parental guidance?"

I would say (if it were given that I believed in God) that He embodied His will in the laws. That is indeed sufficient for all physical events through the history of the universe. As for His presence, and guidance, that would be experienced in spirit - perhaps you would say the "Holy Ghost", I don't know.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Moderators,

I think this thread should really be moved now to 'Not Quite'. Although I am fascinated by it and would love to join in, I do not want to be responsible for infecting the science board with a mixture of science/philosophy/theology. We have managed to keep it clean for quite some time now - as it should be.

Blacknad.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Blacknad's right. 'God' entered the discussion almost at the outset. Not surprising considering the subject.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Had I the power to do so I would ... but alas that power is reserved for the almighty (Kate).

I recommend the discussion continue here as gods and goddesses have a lousy track record for doing what we lowly humans think they should.

So ... to continue ... the question at the table is:
"Is an artist content with throwing paint on a canvas?"

And my response would be no. An artist would not be. But if you wish to posit a deity that is more than a human on steroids you need to assume more IQ points than that of a guy sitting in a single's bar an hour before closing time too.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
And yet it is through artistic endeavors that I feel we most closely begin resemble the mind of God. (Of course, that's a romanticized view and not 'official' dogma of any kind.)

God is the ultimate scientist, but I think also the ultimate artist. If you think God doesn't have an artistic streak, take a look at an Arizona sunrise some time.

w

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Wayne
"God is the ultimate scientist, but I think also the ultimate artist. If you think God doesn't have an artistic streak, take a look at an Arizona sunrise some time.

Let's remember that this speaks only to those who believe in God. Others will say something like "Cezanne was the greatest artist," and, "An Arizona sunset is one of nature's awesome beauties".

You have your religious opinions, and that's all they are to the atheist, no matter how you present them as fact.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Redewenur, let's not be pedantic.

You could very easily see the words "I think" in that sentence. How does that imply me stating fact?

And I've made it abundantly clear that I respect the beliefs of others, including atheists.

I even took the time to say that the opinion was not official dogma. How much more removed from stating fact could I have made my post?

But, for you, I have added a signature to my profile. Hopefully it will meet with your approval.

w




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Pedantic. No. You stated as fact that God is the ultimate scientist. I stated the obvious - that you don't speak for atheists.

"But, for you, I have added a signature to my profile. Hopefully it will meet with your approval."

OK, Wayne, that's a little too aggressive for me. I'll leave you to it.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Okay, I guess I was feeling a little snarky. I'll remove the signature line. But I'm hoping that it made it's point: I cannot be expected to put disclaimers in every single statement that somebody might disagree with.

The post you were criticizing had a grand total of four sentences, and it had three qualifiers regarding that these were MY thoughts and opinions. Apparently, putting disclaimers into 75% of my statements and assuming that the reader would have the intellectual wherewithal to realize via context that I wasn't pushing religion as fact if I don't say it in the other 25% too isn't enough for you.

What's your problem?

w

Last edited by Wayne Zeller; 03/24/07 10:50 PM.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Everybody takes your seats. Five minute time-out.

Thank you.

Now what was it we were discussing before the intermission?

The topic is: "Science hopes to change the past" and I see nothing in evidence, either in science or any other discipline, that would lead me to conclude that it ever has happened or ever will happen at the macroscopic level.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Exactly. Even if throngs of people in our future(s) are constantly changing the past on whatever scale you like, we will never ever see any evidence of it. Nor will we ever see it done. Because when it is done, the time line leading up to it being done is destroyed and so it never happens.

If we could sidestep the timeline and see it from the side (a la Flatfland-style), we might see a web of alternities with a plethora of changes being made all the time. But, from our position here in the timeline being effected, we can never notice the results.

Any such changes would be from timelines that we can never experience. They will be, to us, done in the same kind of places as the place electrons go to traverse over to the other side of the atom instantaneously.

From the confines of our timeline, those making the changes cannot and will not ever exist.

w

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Wayne wrote:
"Exactly. Even if throngs of people in our future(s) are constantly changing the past on whatever scale you like, we will never ever see any evidence of it. Nor will we ever see it done. Because when it is done, the time line leading up to it being done is destroyed and so it never happens."

So how is that different from it never happening?

How do we distinguish the difference between what does not happen and what happens and can not be detected? Sounds like making a choice between 12 eggs or a dozen.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
redewenur, sorry, I did not find the posts you mentined. More info about them would be helpful (e.g. what thread/topic).

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Pasti. Go to the top of this column. Click on Forums or General Discussion. Go down what is then displayed to Not Quite Science. Click. Find Knock the Revs. I've just checked. The discussion about free will starts on page 6. finishes some pages later.

Last edited by terrytnewzealand; 03/25/07 05:54 AM.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Oops! Sorry about that, Pasti!

I said, "...find your way back in this thread to posts from 15th-21st March..." - error.

Follow Terry's directions (above).


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
Wayne wrote:
So how is that different from it never happening? How do we distinguish the difference between what does not happen and what happens and can not be detected?


It's not that it can't be detected - it's that it never happened. The time and place where it will happen will never come into existence. Asking what that world is like is the same as asking what happened before the Big Bang.

w

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Which is identical to saying it is impossible.

The outcome is the same.

Go with Occam's Razor.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
You're right: The Big Bang is impossible. We don't exist.

huh?


Just because nobody will ever exist who can honestly claim to have changed the past doesn't mean the that timeline is never altered by somebody who destroys their own timeline in the process in favor of another.

To detect it you would have to be able to step in some direction other than the left/right/forward/back/up/down directions we are used to and view the world from the side, so to speak. If you could rip free of the dimensions we are tied to, a la Flatland, and see the time line, then you could see a person make a change to their past. But the people living in the instant that was changed would go forward from it without an inkling that anything is out of place. To those people, asking what the previous version of the Universe was like would be like trying to see past the Big Bang - they would need to see outside their timeline, which they can't.

Dan - you often say that electrons that tunnel from one side of an atom to the other instantaneously do so by traveling somewhere outside our normal dimensions where time isn't an issue. Makes sense to me. So why do you have such a hard time seeing the possibility that you might be right about that? Where does the electron go when it makes that teleport? Sounds to me like it leaves the timeline. That's what you're saying, isn't it? So why do you have difficulty admitting that time is anything but a direction?

w

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Wayne wrote:
"You're right: The Big Bang is impossible. We don't exist."

What I wrote has nothing to do with the Big Bang. The Big Bang, actually now more correctly referred to as "Inflation" is provable. We have evidence of it and can predict affects and observe them.

You are claiming that people from the future can affect the past and that we can not detect it and that this should receive equal weight. There is no equivalence.

Wayne wrote:
"Just because nobody will ever exist who can honestly claim to have changed the past doesn't mean the that timeline is never altered."

If you are talking about religion and faith based beliefs you are correct. If you are talking about science then the inability to conform your thinking to the scientific method is a fatal flaw.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
I am not talking about faith based beliefs. I am talking about physics.

You keep dodging the questions I put to you regarding dimensionality of time. It is there that you will find your answers. When the electron teleports across an impenetrable barrier without occupying the space in between the place it left and the place it arrives at, where does it go? It makes the trip instantly. Clearly, it's traveling without being restricted to time. If it can go somewhere that time is not an issue, then clearly time is not omnipresent. If you can go to a place where time can be viewed from outside then you will see that it isn't necessarily a straight line.

But if a person takes advantage of this and changes the past, it won't be visible without that special vantage point. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it means it happens outside of our observable universe. Just like that electron that travels instantaneously.

If nothing can exist outside our universe, then nothing could have formed the big bang. The formation of the singularity that gave birth to this universe demands that it came from somewhere. Saying that it is impossible for a vantage point to exist outside our comfortable dimensions is to say the big bang is impossible. Thus, you would have to argue we don't exist. Last time I checked, I was still here.

w

Last edited by Wayne Zeller; 03/26/07 09:22 PM.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Wayne asks:
"When the electron teleports across an impenetrable barrier without occupying the space in between the place it left and the place it arrives at, where does it go?"

The same place it goes when moving around an atomic nucleus. Where does it go when it first appears in one place, then appears in another, without ever traversing the space between.

Honest answer ... we do not know.

But we believe it relates to the space and time being quantized.

That is substantially different from what you are trying to claim with respect to the properties of time.

Wayne wrote:
"If nothing can exist outside our universe, then nothing could have formed the big bang."

I can't think of many physicists in the last 30 years that would agree with your premise. You set up a straw man and then knocked it over but it is pure straw and it conflicts with the majority of the thinking in physics for about 70-80 years. Let me take it apart so you can see what is wrong.

You refer to the existence of stuff and thus the nothing could have formed. But the Big Bang has nothing, nada, zilch to do with stuff. It has to do with space and time. No one in the physics community has ever written that stuff formed. They write that space and time form.

We know for a fact we can pack all of the stuff into the universe into a theoretical point (or if you prefer string). We do that in the lab all the time with Bose Einstein condensate. And it is quite likely that this is precisely the nature of a singularity inside the event horizon of a black hole (we just don't know).

If our best understanding and if our theories are correct mass is the result of a reaction with the Higgs boson and not an intrinsic property of quarks and leptons so the original universe may well have had a zero mass too.

You are making assumptions about what physics is saying that are incorrect and thus drawing incorrect conclusions. Again: The Big Bang had nothing to do with the creation of the stuff of the universe. Only the space it currently occupies and the metric we refer to as time.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Okay. Here's a possibility I'd not considered, and perhaps one that you could agree with...


You split up a team of scientists. You put one of them in the "receiving room" and one in the "transmitting room". You tell those waiting in the receiving room that some time today they will receive a message, but that they are to do nothing about it for ten minutes. After ten minutes, they are to come into the transmission room and report the precise time at which they received the signal.

In the transmitting room, you tell them to pick a random moment more today than ten minutes into the experiment to transmit a signal to the receiving room that will be received five minutes in the past.

Allow no other communication between the rooms.

If the signal is received, the senders will have no indication of it and thus no reason to not send it. Five minutes after they send it, the other scientists will bust in saying that they got he signal ten minutes ago - five minutes before it was sent.

With me so far?

Now, remove the wall. The receiving scientists receive a signal and immediately the transmitters know it will not be sent for another five minutes. One of two things will now happen: The transmitting scientists will be compelled to send that signal at a pre-ordained time, or they will be free to not send it.

Now it becomes a question, unfortunately, of philosophy - only because science doesn't yet know the answer: Is everything preordained, or does the Uncertainty Principal really grant us free will?

Personally, I go the free will route. So the transmitting scientists choose not to send it. But it came from somewhere. Where? Well, it came from a timeline that was obliterated the instant the signal was received. To the scientists, it's a message from nowhere. An acausal blip. And they have no possible way to determine the point of origin because it comes from a place that is now parallel to the universe they are in.

Is that a better/more acceptable explanation of what I'm trying to say?

w





Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Far more acceptable but provably wrong unless we are to throw out all that is known of physics.

What we know is that some of what you describe is standard physics. Right up to the point where it involves a message.

Let me restate your experiment.

In one room I have you and a microwave and inside the microwave is a frozen dinner. In another room I have someone else with a switch that turns on the microwave.

What are the chances of the food being cooked before the switch is thrown?

Let us hope it is not just small ... but zero.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Well, that's exactly what the experiment that this thread was started about is setting out to answer. If the switch can send a signal to the microwave to start seven minutes ago, then the dinner will be cooked by the time the switch is thrown. (Unless it's one of those big Marie Callendar's dinners that take 8-10 minutes, in which case it will be cooked but still cold in the middle. I hate that.)

Dan, I honestly know pretty much nothing about your credentials except to say that they are almost certainly more extensive than mine. However, unless I've missed something, John Cramer of the University of Washington - who is the one apparently in charge of performing the experiment - is more up on this stuff than ANY of us on this board. If he and his team are thinking that this might be possible, then I have a hard time understanding where you find the wherewithal to dismiss it out of hand without experimental evidence of your own.

w

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
DA, a question re:
"We know for a fact we can pack all of the stuff into the universe into a theoretical point (or if you prefer string). We do that in the lab all the time with Bose Einstein condensate. And it is quite likely that this is precisely the nature of a singularity inside the event horizon of a black hole (we just don't know)."

The difference, surely, is that a Bose-Einstein condensate occupies the space of an atom, whereas, by definition, a singularity occupies zero space. Isn't that correct?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Wayne Zeller wrote:
"John Cramer of the University of Washington - who is the one apparently in charge of performing the experiment"

I've spoken with Dr. Cramer a few times. Again we must separate the quantum world from the macroscopic world. I don't think anyone, at the level of microwave ovens, expects to see causality overturned.

redewenur wrote:
"The difference, surely, is that a Bose-Einstein condensate occupies the space of an atom, whereas, by definition, a singularity occupies zero space. Isn't that correct?"

Not necessarily. We really don't know what a singularity is but assuming we tried to pack all of the mass of the universe into a point ... even all of the mass of the earth for that matter ... the energy involved would be so great that atoms would cease to exist. Protons and neutrons, too, would break down to their constituent quarks. So what you would end up with, at worst, would be a collection of particles that are one-dimensional strings. Zero width, zero depth, and the length of, presumably, one Planck. Close enough to zero for me.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
I've spoken with Dr. Cramer a few times. Again we must separate the quantum world from the macroscopic world. I don't think anyone, at the level of microwave ovens, expects to see causality overturned.


But we're talking about a signal. If the signal is received in a detector then people looking at that detector will react and say, "Hey, look! It worked! Woo hoo! I think I'll have some popcorn to celebrate." They then go to the microwave and toss in a bag of corn. By the time it's done popping, it's time to send the signal.

w

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
(Actually, they'd say, "Hey look! An acausal signal! It's going to work! Woo hoo! I think I'll have some popcorn.")



Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Wayne wrote:
"But we're talking about a signal. If the signal"

Not according to Einstein and relativity.

A signal is energy.
Energy has mass.

Hold a flashlight and aim it out into space. Sweep it from left to right as fast as you can. There is no question, one year in the future, that the sweep of that beam will traverse one light-year in less than a second. But no message will traverse that distance faster than the speed of light.

The speed of light is the law. It must be obeyed.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Dan,

So what form would this 'change events in the past' take - or is it just phrased that way to get media copy?

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Media copy.

These concepts are difficult for science reporters
More difficult for the lay public
And impossible for typical reporters more concerned about what drugs were in whatever-her-names body were


DA Morgan
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5