[tlhIngan Hol] vIb - propagate
willmartin2 at mac.com
Thu Mar 26 07:48:31 PDT 2020
Good discussion. Thanks for the response.
My point about Relativity is that there are aspects of it that it seems even Einstein didn’t quite get right, and he is credited with coming up with the idea.
The core of the problem is that mathematics has a method for creating a model of reality that is radically inaccurate due to its simplicity, but it is accurate enough to analyze and predict certain effects, like the ones you mention.
Meanwhile, the mathematical model of physical objects uses the concept of points — a location with zero volume — and instants — a time span with zero duration. This is the flaw that makes the mathematical model ridiculous. It is useful, but it is far more limited than science will admit, especially through its more public face.
Science classes don’t teach students that, as Bergson theorized and no one has successfully disputed, the concept of an event requires a duration; that the closer you get to observing anything to zero duration, the less information you can ascertain about whatever it is you try to measure or observe, because observation requires information in motion, which freezes when you reduce the duration to zero. Zero duration yields zero observation.
This is why any distance can be expressed as a consistent rate of motion measured for a given duration and vice versa. The distance doesn’t actually exist without the motion. Time and space are not discrete. They are arbitrary abstracts of the same stuff. That’s the core of Relativity. Space/Time is Motion. That’s the step that Einstein didn’t take. It’s the thing about Relativity more elemental than the constancy of the speed of light.
And similarly, the closer you get to zero volume, the less you can observe about the location or substance of any object.
So, when you use “dimensions”, you use a model that is a sparce skeleton of the reality it pretends to represent. That wiggle space between reality and the model is like pulling out a measuring tape and measuring a door frame. Yes, you can get a number close enough to build a door that will technically fit the doorframe, but you will never accurately measure the doorframe because at the subatomic level, the doorframe doesn’t exist. It’s boundaries are vague at that level, and there is a level magnificently smaller than the subatomic level long before you get to points of zero volume.
Einstein described that the reality of time is dictated by the observer. There is no objective measurement of time. When we observe a star explode millions of light years away, the reality of the observer is that the star is exploding NOW. We can create an abstract, mathematical model of objective time to say that the star exploded millions of years ago, but the fact remains that measured by the observer on Earth, it is exploding now. Time measured at the star is not more real than time measured here.
We can’t observe faster than light informs us. Our reality is created by the speed of light. Motion is at the core of every observation, and motion requires a duration and a distance, both of which need to be greater than zero.
Meanwhile, Time Travel exists because people believe that time consists of a sequence of instants represented by a number, each instant having zero duration because that’s the mathematical model, and since you can just change the numbers and go backwards in the mathematical dimension of time, you ought to be able to go backward in the reality of time. The model is treated as if it were the reality. Change the model and reality changes.
I’m sorry. That’s just not how it works. It is OBVIOUSLY not how it works. It’s not just that we haven’t developed the technology to do it yet, and in the future, it could happen.
It can’t happen.
You can have some philosophically interesting conclusions if you pretend that it can happen, but you delude yourself if you believe any of those constructions.
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
> On Mar 26, 2020, at 9:51 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 3/26/2020 9:05 AM, Will Martin wrote:
>> Have I mentioned that I despise the fictional concept of Time Travel?
>> It basically treats Time as if it were a separate dimension instead of recognizing that the concept of a dimension is abstract and fictional. Everything that exists is in motion. That’s the core of Relativity.
> The concept of dimension certainly is abstract, but it is not fictional. You can demonstrate dimensionality with effects like the intensity of light as distance from its source increases.
>> Mathematicians arbitrarily invent the concept of an X axis, which doesn’t exist, a Y axis, which doesn’t exist, and a Z axis, which doesn’t exist, in order to mathematically model an object’s position at a given instant, which doesn’t exist, and then creates an artificial model of motion as a series, which doesn’t exist, of instants, that don’t exist, and calls that fictional series “Time”, which doesn’t exist.
> Axes are fictional, but space-time exists. What we call time might be an emergent property of motion through space-time, but that doesn't mean time doesn't exist. Similarly, temperature is just an emergent property of the motion of particles in a delimited area, but it still exists. You can measure it. It has tangible effects. Just because it's made up of components doesn't mean the pattern doesn't exist.
> Anyway, there is no single "concept of time travel." Fiction has lots of different ideas about time travel, many of which are contradictory. Some of them go the way you've gone in despising time travel: they say that time travel could work if you recognize that space and time are just abstractions with which we filter our perception of reality, and if we can remove those filters we can see all the infinite timelines of the universe and manipulate them. (See Douglas Adams's Mostly Harmless and the concept of the Whole Sort Of General Mishmash.) Others go in exactly the opposite direction and suggest that all one has to do to travel in time is to manipulate mathematics itself to have tangible effects on the universe, including altering one's location in time and space. (See Doctor Who, "The Shakespeare Code." I also reference the never-quite-published role-playing game Narcissist, in which the inventor of time travel did so by manipulating mathematics so deftly that he just appeared somewhen else. This isn't quite spelled out in the pre-release version of the game, but I've had conversations with the author, where he described this idea for me.)
> Even Star Trek isn't consistent on how time travel works. Slingshot around a star or imploding planet. Step through an alien device that has no origin. Have your body "prepared" and step through a doorway. Hang around with aliens that exist outside of time, then leave at any point in history or the future. Time cannot be rewritten, time flows around nexus points that can change the future, any casual change in time can have major ripple effects, no one remembers changed history, our heroes remember changed history, everyone remembers changed history. To try to analyze the physics of a word by Okrand when the franchise itself is completely muddy on the subject would be folly.
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol