On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 22:32, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

According to my dictionary, “propagate” means:

1 breed specimens of (a plant or animal) by natural processes from the parent stock: try propagating your own houseplants from cuttings. • [no object] ( of a plant or animal) reproduce by natural processes: the plant propagates freely from stem cuttings. 2 spread and promote (an idea, theory, etc.) widely: the French propagated the idea that the English were violent and gluttonous drunkards. 3 (with reference to motion, light, sound, etc.) transmit or be transmitted in a particular direction or through a medium: [with object] : electromagnetic effects can be propagated at a finite velocity only through material substances | [no object] : a hydraulic fracture is generally expected to propagate in a vertical plane | (as adjective propagated) : a propagated electrical signal.

The first meaning applies to plants or animals, and the gloss only mentions that it doesn’t apply to plants. Odd that he doesn’t just say it has nothing to do with breeding, be it plants or animals. Since that’s very ambiguous — it could mean that it does apply to animals, or it could mean that he simply didn’t think about animals when he wrote the gloss — we are not served well by this definition.

I think it's obvious that the comment means "does not mean 'propagate' in the sense applied to plants" and not "can also mean to breed specimens but isn't applied to plants". Considering that the main definition is "move through time toward the future", I take it that the idea is that {vIb} more generally means to move through any medium in the forward direction, but that it's so often used with time-travel that that's the assumed default unless context dictates otherwise. Speculatively, it hints that at the etymology of the word as having the broader meaning which narrowed as it propagated forward in time. I would use it in a sentence like so: {bIQDaq vIb 'otlhmey; cha' 'ujmey lID} "the photons propagated through two ujes of water". (I wonder if {vIbHa'} could be used for "back-propagation" in the neural network sense.) -- De'vID

On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 09:10, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

...

{bIQDaq vIb 'otlhmey; cha' 'ujmey lID} "the photons propagated through two ujes of water".

That's my next question: why not {bIQ luvIb 'otlhmey}?

Because the definition is "propagate", not "propagate in/through"? Although, looking at the examples, we have: {wa'vatlh DIS vIvIb} "I time-travel 100 years into the future" This indicates that the object of {vIb} is the distance, so the following should also be possible: {bIQDaq cha' 'ujmey vIb 'otlhmey} "the photons propagated two ujes into the water" {bIQ luvIb 'otlhmey} would mean "the photons propagated water". I suppose that might make sense if {bIQ} is referring to a specific body of water. That is, it could be analogous to something like {bIQ'a' luvIb 'otlhmey} "the photons propagated the ocean (i.e., the length? width? area? of the ocean)", though I wouldn't write it that way. -- De'vID

On Mar 29, 2020, at 04:36, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Again, I need to add that I am asking this because I do not entirely understand the English word. But Maybe this is one of the things that need some explanation from Maltz.

I can’t say with certainty what the Klingon word means, but as for the English one, it has several meanings, and it can be used intransitively or transitively. The relationship between the intransitive and transitive versions, when both exist for a particular sense, is somewhat like the relationship between a Klingon intransitive verb and that same verb with the suffix {-moH}. e.g.: The idea propagated quickly through the community. She propagated the idea through the community. So I imagine {vIb} to be naturally intransitive in Klingon. It’s entirely possible that {vIb} can take a medium as a direct object, a relationship which is expressed with a preposition in English. As De'vID pointed out, there’s no preposition in the English gloss for {vIb}, which could be a hint that it doesn’t take a medium as a direct object, but the only way to know for sure is explicit info from Maltz or a canon example of it being used with a medium as either a location or a direct object. I also now wonder whether {vIb} can be used for science fiction style time travel to the future. I’m thinking it can’t, if the meaning is to propagate through time, but I’m not sure how to express this concept. {vIbqu'} doesn’t really seem right.

On Mar 30, 2020, at 05:13, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 14:13, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylis.net> wrote: I also now wonder whether {vIb} can be used for science fiction style time travel to the future. I’m thinking it can’t, if the meaning is to propagate through time, but I’m not sure how to express this concept. {vIbqu'} doesn’t really seem right.

nuqjatlh? If {vIb} isn't used for science-fiction-style time travel to the future, what is this example then?

{wa'vatlh DIS vIvIb} "I time-travel 100 years into the future"

Oops. I had forgotten about or never knew about that example, which both demonstrates {vIb} with a direct object and apparently expresses the sense of non-natural time travel to the future, and didn’t think to look for existing examples. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.

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. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Mar 26, 2020, at 9:51 AM, SuStel <sustel@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.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org