GR and Time Travel Paradoxes

[moving finger]

Time travel can occur in general relativistic models in which one has closed time-like curves (CTC's). A time like curve is simply a space-time trajectory such that the speed of light is never equalled or exceeded along this trajectory. Time-like curves thus represent the possible trajectories of ordinary objects. If there were time-like curves which were closed (formed a loop), then travelling along such a curve one would never exceed the speed of light, and yet after a certain amount of (proper) time one would return to a point in space-time that one previously visited.

There are a number of solutions to Einstein's field equations which permit the theoretical existence of such CTC's (eg Goedel's rotating universe).

Does this mean that time travel is at least a theoretical possibility?

If yes, how do we address the infamous paradoxes that arise (eg I could go back in time and, God forbid, kill my own mother before I was born)?

Or does the emergence of CTC solutions within GR point to some basic problem with the internal consistency of GR that has remained hidden until now?

see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0211/0211051.pdf

Interested to hear your thoughts!

MF :smile:

[Garth]

I go with "basic problem with the internal consistency of GR that has remained hidden until now?"

Garth

[SpaceTiger]

For some serious academic discussion on the issue, do a search on Richard Gott. Here's an example (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1991PhRvL..66.1126G&db_key=AST&high=41fa938d2e27030).

It's not my area at all, so I can't say much about it other than the fact that it is being seriously considered.

[JesseM]

If yes, how do we address the infamous paradoxes that arise (eg I could go back in time and, God forbid, kill my own mother before I was born)? One possible way of addressing paradoxes that scientists have explored is simply to postulate that only self-consistent histories are allowed, meaning you don't really have the free will to do whatever you want when you reach the past. Human actions are hard to model, so instead they like to look at simpler models involving inanimate objects. For example, if you have two mouths of a wormhole that function as a time machine, so if you go in the right mouth, you will exit the left mouth before you entered the first, then you can imagine shooting a billiard ball into the right mouth, and trying to create a paradox by aiming it on a trajectory such that when it comes out of the left mouth, it will hit its earlier self and knock it away from the wormhole entirely. This is known as "Polchinski's paradox" for the physicist who thought it up. But what was found was that no matter what initial position and velocity you give the billiard ball, there will be at least some self-consistent solutions--in the case of Polchinski's paradox, what can happen is that the ball's future self will come out at an angle to give a glancing blow to its earlier self, which instead of completely knocking it away from the wormhole just alters its angle of approach slightly, and this altered angle is exactly the right one to insure that it will come out the other mouth at the right angle to give its earlier self the same glancing blow! There was still a problem, though--it was found there could actually be multiple self-consistent outcomes for the same set of initial conditions (an infinite number of possible outcomes, if you allow the ball to loop through the wormhole multiple times), yet this was supposed to be a purely deterministic classical model, so how would nature decide which outcome would happen in a given case? Later they were able to apply quantum mechanics to the problem and actually calculate the probability of different outcomes, though, so this seemed to be the solution. Of course this does not show that GR is correct in predicting CTCs, but it shows that such a prediction doesn't necessarily have to lead to paradoxes. All this is discussed in detail on pp. 508-515 of physicist Kip Thorne's book Black Holes and Time Warps.

[moving finger]

One possible way of addressing paradoxes that scientists have explored is simply to postulate that only self-consistent histories are allowed, meaning you don't really have the free will to do whatever you want when you reach the past.
.......
All this is discussed in detail on pp. 508-515 of physicist Kip Thorne's book Black Holes and Time Warps.
yep, and if you don't have the book then check out the following very readable link for a similar explanation :
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-travel-phys/

If you follow all this, then you should come to the conclusion that some kind of self-consistent histories mechanism could remove the paradoxes of time travel - but at what price?

It's easy to model self-consistent histories for billiard balls and quantum objects, but what happens when humans are involved?

The implication is that if CTC's and time travel is allowed, and only self-consistent histories are allowed, then it would be possible for me to go back in time and visit my mother, but somehow (becasue of the self-consistency constraint) it would be impossible for me to prevent my own birth, no matter what I do.......... is this feasible?
What exactly would prevent me from putting a gun to my mother's head?
If I would be so prevented, what implications does it have for our free will?

MF :smile:

[JesseM]

The implication is that if CTC's and time travel is allowed, and only self-consistent histories are allowed, then it would be possible for me to go back in time and visit my mother, but somehow (becasue of the self-consistency constraint) it would be impossible for me to prevent my own birth, no matter what I do.......... is this feasible? Sure, why not? Your brain is just a large collection of particles whose individual behavior is not so much more complicated than a billiard ball's. I'd think that the quantum principles that were used to calculate the probabilities of different billiard ball outcomes could in principle be used to calculate the probabilities of different outcomes for an arbitrarily complicated system of particles, including a whole planet and all the human brains on it. What exactly would prevent me from putting a gun to my mother's head? Maybe you would change your mind, or you'd get hit by a truck on your way to do so, or humans would never reach the point where they are able to build time machines in the first place. If I would be so prevented, what implications does it have for our free will? Doesn't every theory that treats the mind as the behavior of a physical brain, as opposed to some supernatural entity that manipulates the brain from the outside, pretty much negate the idea of "free will"? Any deterministic theory of the brain would seem to be incompatible with free will, and quantum randomness is just randomness, not "freedom" (if you feed the output from a random number generator into a deterministic A.I. computer program to give it unpredictability, that's not really the same as 'free will', is it?) Personally I don't think the concept of free will even makes sense as a philosophical idea, regardless of the how the laws of nature work, but that's another issue.

[Chronos]

That whole concept is just wrong. You can spiral around in spacetime, but never break the time barrier. Even if you did [which you can't], you would be in imaginary space. That is an unphysical solution.

[JesseM]

That whole concept is just wrong. You can spiral around in spacetime, but never break the time barrier. Even if you did [which you can't], you would be in imaginary space. That is an unphysical solution. What does "break the time barrier" mean? In GR there are solutions where you can travel into the past while never locally exceeding the speed of light or moving backwards in time. I don't think there's any disagreement among physicists that GR does allow for closed timelike curves in certain situations, the open question is whether these would still be possible in a theory of quantum gravity (most physicists would probably bet the answer is no).

[moving finger]

Maybe you would change your mind, or you'd get hit by a truck on your way to do so, or humans would never reach the point where they are able to build time machines in the first place. .
OK, time for a Gedanken experiment.
We have a time machine, I go back in time and put a loaded gun to my mother's head....... so far nothing wrong, I have not violated any self-consistency constraint. As long as I do not pull the trigger, the universe is OK, and this should all (in theory) be possible - do you agree?

So there I am, standing with a loaded gun to my mother's head.

Are you suggesting that it will be physically impossible for me to pull the trigger?

If so, what exactly (in a physical sense) will stop me from pulling the trigger?

Doesn't every theory that treats the mind as the behavior of a physical brain, as opposed to some supernatural entity that manipulates the brain from the outside, pretty much negate the idea of "free will"? Any deterministic theory of the brain would seem to be incompatible with free will, and quantum randomness is just randomness, not "freedom" (if you feed the output from a random number generator into a deterministic A.I. computer program to give it unpredictability, that's not really the same as 'free will', is it?) Personally I don't think the concept of free will even makes sense as a philosophical idea, regardless of the how the laws of nature work, but that's another issue.
I agree that's another issue, and whether free will exists or not depends very much on how you define free will. Humans have a "feeling" of free will, and in a certain sense they are free even in a deterministic universe - what we need to do is to encapsulate that "feeling" of free will in a definition of free will which is compatible with determinism.
No matter what you think of free will, the fact is that I am free to take a loaded gun and put it to my mother's head and pull the trigger in the present day if I so choose..... what exactly would constrain me from choosing to do exactly the same thing in the past?

MF :smile:

[JesseM]

OK, time for a Gedanken experiment.
We have a time machine, I go back in time and put a loaded gun to my mother's head....... so far nothing wrong, I have not violated any self-consistency constraint. As long as I do not pull the trigger, the universe is OK, and this should all (in theory) be possible - do you agree?

So there I am, standing with a loaded gun to my mother's head.

Are you suggesting that it will be physically impossible for me to pull the trigger?

If so, what exactly (in a physical sense) will stop me from pulling the trigger? What will stop you? The fact that only self-consistent histories are allowed, and a history where you kill your mother before you are born would not be self-consistent. Perhaps the conceptual problem is that you are thinking of time flowing forward, with the universe deciding "what happens next" on the fly, based on past conditions. A better way to think about it is simply generating a whole bunch of random histories, and then throwing out all the ones that don't fit with the laws of physics.

Here's an analogy. Imagine you want to write a computer program to generate a possible chess game. One way is to start with the pieces in their starting configuration, then have the program generate each successive configuration on the next turn from the configuration on the previous turn, using only legal chess moves. But here's another, more elaborate way to do it. have the computer generate an entire series of configurations at once, completely randomly, so it just picks randomly which pieces to put in which positions on which turn. It is very unlikely that the resulting series will look like a legal chess game--a piece might randomly be on a particular square on one turn, but then the next turn randomly be on some totally different square that it shouldn't be able to get to in one move by the rules of chess. But suppose you have access to an idealized computer with nearly infinite speed and memory, and you have it generate a gigantic number of random series this way--if your number is large enough, chances are at least some of the series would just happen to satisfy the rules of a legal chess game. So you could specify that the computer should throw out all series which violate the rules of chess, and be left only with series that represent legal chess games. But since you are dealing with an entire series at once, you could also place other constraints on them, like "throw out all series where white wins", or "show me only series where the black rook checkmates the king in 25 moves", whatever you want. For sufficiently detailed conditions, it might be very hard to generate a chess game that matched them in the traditional way of starting from the beginning and basing each new configuration of pieces on the configuration of the previous turn, but using this brute-force method of generating a near-infinite number of entire histories, and throwing out all but the ones that satisfy your constraints, it's easy to get a game that satisfies any conditions you like without even having to think about it or plan the details of the game.

Similarly, suppose you were using this incredibly powerful computer to generate a simulation of an entire universe--instead of picking some initial conditions and then letting it evolve forward according to some set of laws of physics, you could again specify your "laws" in terms of constraints on entire histories, with the computer generating a huge number of random histories and then throwing out all the ones that don't satisfy the conditions. If the "laws of physics" you pick happen to allow time travel, then obviously any universe that respects the laws of physics locally at every point in spacetime must be globally self-consistent, and the computer will find some histories satisfying this condition. But the computer does not need to have any intelligence to do this, it's just randomly generating a huge number of possibilities until it finds one that satisfies the constraints. From the point of view of a time traveler in this universe, it might seem like the universe was cleverly finding ways to "outsmart" them and thwart their plans, but it would actually be the result of a fairly simple rule, just not a dynamic rule. No matter what you think of free will, the fact is that I am free to take a loaded gun and put it to my mother's head and pull the trigger in the present day if I so choose..... Do you? If you think in terms of the block time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_time) view as opposed to the "moving present" view, then there is "already" a timeless truth about what you will do in the future...so if the spacetime we are living in does not include you shooting your mother, then in a sense you don't have the "free will" to do so. But perhaps what you mean is just that there are possible spacetimes consistent with the laws of physics where you do kill her, and other possible spacetimes where you don't, so in this sense you do have the "freedom" to do so even if in this particular spacetime it happens to be true that you will not.

[moving finger]

What will stop you? The fact that only self-consistent histories are allowed, and a history where you kill your mother before you are born would not be self-consistent. Perhaps the conceptual problem is that you are thinking of time flowing forward, with the universe deciding "what happens next" on the fly, based on past conditions. A better way to think about it is simply generating a whole bunch of random histories, and then throwing out all the ones that don't fit with the laws of physics.

.......

From the point of view of a time traveler in this universe, it might seem like the universe was cleverly finding ways to "outsmart" them and thwart their plans, but it would actually be the result of a fairly simple rule, just not a dynamic rule.
Wow, my head hurts! But thankyou for taking the time to explain. I understand the concept (I think), but I'm still having trouble translating that into what it would mean in reality.

For example, I consider myself free and if I take it into my head to do so then I can jump about all over the place but no matter how hard I try, the laws of physics do not allow me to jump from here to the moon..... I accept that and I can rationalise it in terms of what I understand of the constraints of the laws of physics.

But where I have trouble is translating this into the time-travel scenario. There would seem to be no constraint preventing me from going back in time and putting a gun to my mother's head, in fact no constraint that would prevent me from pulling the trigger (the gun might be loaded with blanks after all). But somehow, if the gun is loaded with real ammo, some "cosmic censor" manages to step in at the last moment and prevent me from pulling the trigger?

Maybe I'm being very dense, or stupid, or both, but I just do not see how it can work, what physical process would suddenly step in at the critical moment to prevent an action or event which violates self-consistency?

If you think in terms of the block time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_time) view as opposed to the "moving present" view, then there is "already" a timeless truth about what you will do in the future...so if the spacetime we are living in does not include you shooting your mother, then in a sense you don't have the "free will" to do so.
But... and here is the crux of it....if you tell me that I do not have the free will to shoot my mother in the present day, I can if I so choose prove you wrong by doing just that, without violating any laws of physics..... whereas what you are saying is that this does not apply in the time travel case, that somehow in that case there IS a law of physics which will prevent me from shooting my mother, regardless of whether you tell me in advance that I can shoot my mother or not, and regardless of whether I want to prove you wrong or not.

But perhaps what you mean is just that there are possible spacetimes consistent with the laws of physics where you do kill her, and other possible spacetimes where you don't, so in this sense you do have the "freedom" to do so even if in this particular spacetime it happens to be true that you will not.
The multiverse theory, is that what you mean here? - that if I kill my mother before I was born I am simply causing another version of reality, that there is a timeline existing, in a "parallel universe" where my mother is killed and I am not born? Personally I'm not comfortable with that (but that's my problem!)

MF :smile:

[JesseM]

Wow, my head hurts! But thankyou for taking the time to explain. I understand the concept (I think), but I'm still having trouble translating that into what it would mean in reality.

For example, I consider myself free and if I take it into my head to do so then I can jump about all over the place but no matter how hard I try, the laws of physics do not allow me to jump from here to the moon..... I accept that and I can rationalise it in terms of what I understand of the constraints of the laws of physics.

But where I have trouble is translating this into the time-travel scenario. There would seem to be no constraint preventing me from going back in time and putting a gun to my mother's head, in fact no constraint that would prevent me from pulling the trigger (the gun might be loaded with blanks after all). But somehow, if the gun is loaded with real ammo, some "cosmic censor" manages to step in at the last moment and prevent me from pulling the trigger?

Maybe I'm being very dense, or stupid, or both, but I just do not see how it can work, what physical process would suddenly step in at the critical moment to prevent an action or event which violates self-consistency? Again, just think in terms of my thought-experiment earlier where some mega-computer generates entire histories at random (randomly curved spacetime manifolds with random lines drawn on representing worldlines of particles, perhaps) and then checks each one to see if it obeys the laws of physics at every point in spacetime, and throws out all the ones that don't, leaving only the tiny fraction that do to return as output to the user. If this computer program generated a particular history for you to examine, then just by knowing the rules the computer used to do so, you could know with 100% certainty that any time travel would be perfectly self-consistent, right? So suppose you examine it, and see that somewhere in spacetime intelligent life evolved, and one of the simulated beings was asking the same questions you're asking. Since the history is already complete you can't actually interact with this simulated being, but if you wanted to think up an appropriate response in your mind, what would it be?

One problem with the way you're thinking about this is saying that the thing that would prevent you from killing your mother would only intervene at the last minute. But if you think in terms of generating entire histories and then throwing out all the ones that aren't consistent with the laws of physics at every point, then it's probably much more likely that inconsistencies would be avoided in a more "subtle" way that involved events long before the critical moment of the time traveler meeting his mother, like no time travelers would decide to try to kill their mothers in the first place, or no one would even invent time travel even though it's allowed by the laws of physics. As an analogy, suppose you program a computer to generate 10 random numbers from 1-100, and then throw out all the strings of numbers that don't contain three eighteens. It would be wrong to expect that the first seven numbers would simply obey the normal laws of probability, and then if (as would be more likely than not) none of those first seven was an 18, you would "miraculously" see three 18s in a row at the end. In fact, if you use this rule you are likely to see the three 18s distributed at random throughout the string of ten numbers--do you agree? But... and here is the crux of it....if you tell me that I do not have the free will to shoot my mother in the present day, I can if I so choose prove you wrong by doing just that, without violating any laws of physics..... But what do you mean "can if I so choose"? Again, it seems to me you're not thinking in terms of the "block time" view, where the future is just as set as the past. If you imagine a God's-eye-view of spacetime as a whole, like unrolling a movie film so you can see every frame at once, from this perspective you can timelessly see whether or not whether someone shoots their mother...if you can see that the answer is no, then is that person correct in saying he "can shoot her if he chooses to"? The multiverse theory, is that what you mean here? No, I didn't really mean that. I just meant that if there is a possible universe where you shoot your mother, in some sense maybe that means you "can" do it, even if in the real universe it is already set that you never will. Again, I'm trying to clarify what you mean by "can", from the block-universe perspective.

[moving finger]

Another thought :
Causal loops are also possible with CTCs. Though not strictly a paradox, they do pose challenging questions to our intuitions. For example, with a time machine I could send the answer to "Fermat's last theorem" back to a mathematician in the past, he/she could publish it as his/her theorem, and it becomes part of the accepted literature, which (one day) I then copy and transmit back to a mathematician in the past.......

This is entirely possible within GR, CTCs, Block Time and violates no self-consistency rules...... but the problem is : Where did the original solution come from?

MF :smile:

"There's the King's Messenger. He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn't even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all."
"Suppose he never commits the crime?" said Alice.
"That would be better, wouldn't it?"

[moving finger]

So suppose you examine it, and see that somewhere in spacetime intelligent life evolved, and one of the simulated beings was asking the same questions you're asking. Since the history is already complete you can't actually interact with this simulated being, but if you wanted to think up an appropriate response in your mind, what would it be?.
But that's exactly the problem, I don't know!
Being : "Can I travel back in time to visit my mother before I was born?"
Consistency-Cop : "Yes"
Being : "Can I then put a loaded gun to her head?"
Consistency-Cop : "Yes"
Being : "Can I then pull the trigger and kill her?"
Consistency-Cop : "No"
Being : "What exactly prevents me from doing this final act?"
Consistency-Cop : "The law of self-consistency"

It's an "answer", yes... but I'm sorry it's not an answer that I can make any rational sense out of!

One problem with the way you're thinking about this is saying that the thing that would prevent you from killing your mother would only intervene at the last minute. But if you think in terms of generating entire histories and then throwing out all the ones that aren't consistent with the laws of physics at every point, then it's probably much more likely that inconsistencies would be avoided in a more "subtle" way that involved events long before the critical moment of the time traveler meeting his mother, like no time travelers would decide to try to kill their mothers in the first place, or no one would even invent time travel even though it's allowed by the laws of physics.
Likely, maybe, but not essential. I see no reason why there should not be a self-consistent solution which includes me putting a loaded gun to my mother's head... but just not pulling the trigger. If that is a self-consistent solution then it is allowed. I hope you agree with this?

If so, if I am standing there with the loaded gun at my Mother's head (God bless her!), I simply cannot see what it is that "forces" me not to pull the trigger?

As an analogy, suppose you program a computer to generate 10 random numbers from 1-100, and then throw out all the strings of numbers that don't contain three eighteens. It would be wrong to expect that the first seven numbers would simply obey the normal laws of probability, and then if (as would be more likely than not) none of those first seven was an 18, you would "miraculously" see three 18s in a row at the end. In fact, if you use this rule you are likely to see the three 18s distributed at random throughout the string of ten numbers--do you agree?.
From the point of view of pure probability yes I agree, but the fact is there is an acceptable solution which contains 3 x 18's as the last three numbers in the sequence (in fact there are many such solutions). You are not saying that such a solution is forbidden, are you? We already know that we do not live in a very "likely" universe (just look at how low entropy is at our present time, compared to how high it could be).

But what do you mean "can if I so choose"? Again, it seems to me you're not thinking in terms of the "block time" view, where the future is just as set as the past. If you imagine a God's-eye-view of spacetime as a whole, like unrolling a movie film so you can see every frame at once, from this perspective you can timelessly see whether or not whether someone shoots their mother...if you can see that the answer is no, then is that person correct in saying he "can shoot her if he chooses to"?
Yes, my statement is still correct - I can shoot my mother if I so choose. From God's perspective, He sees that the person never chooses to shoot his mother. But the universe could equally well be that the person does shoot their mother, in which case God will see that this person does choose to shoot their mother. There is no "law" either way, constraining me to either shoot or not shoot my mother. But in the time travel case, you are saying there IS a law, the self-consistent history law, which would prevent me from shooting my mother no matter what I choose to do. There is a subtle difference.

No, I didn't really mean that. I just meant that if there is a possible universe where you shoot your mother, in some sense maybe that means you "can" do it, even if in the real universe it is already set that you never will. Again, I'm trying to clarify what you mean by "can", from the block-universe perspective.
I'm lost here. How can there be a universe (if we exclude the multiverse approach) where I shoot my mother before I was born, if this is ruled out by the self-consistent history law?

MF :smile:

Alice laughed, "There's no use trying," she said, "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

[JesseM]

But that's exactly the problem, I don't know!
Being : "Can I travel back in time to visit my mother before I was born?"
Consistency-Cop : "Yes"
Being : "Can I then put a loaded gun to her head?"
Consistency-Cop : "Yes"
Being : "Can I then pull the trigger and kill her?"
Consistency-Cop : "No"
Being : "What exactly prevents me from doing this final act?"
Consistency-Cop : "The law of self-consistency"

It's an "answer", yes... but I'm sorry it's not an answer that I can make any rational sense out of! But would you agree that in the computer simulation analogy, there's no "force" that prevents a simulated being from killing his mother? In this case, it's just that any of the randomly-generated histories that contained discontinuous points where the laws of physics don't hold (as would probably have to be the case in any spacetime which contained both the events of the being killing his mother before he was born and of the same being around to make the trip back in time years later) would have been thrown out by the computer program. The only ones remaining would be the ones that just happened to contain no inconsistencies.

As another analogy, suppose someone goes through a huge amount of footage or convenience store robberies and throws out all the ones where someone is shot, leaving only the ones where no one is. He then gives you some of the footage he has selected. Knowing how the footage was selected, you know that the robbers will never shoot anyone, even if you see them holding a gun to the clerk's head and looking like they could shoot at any moment...is there some "force" that's preventing them from doing so? Likely, maybe, but not essential. I see no reason why there should not be a self-consistent solution which includes me putting a loaded gun to my mother's head... but just not pulling the trigger. If that is a self-consistent solution then it is allowed. I hope you agree with this?

If so, if I am standing there with the loaded gun at my Mother's head (God bless her!), I simply cannot see what it is that "forces" me not to pull the trigger? In the "block time" view, all your future actions are set anyway, so again, think of the analogy of watching footage of a robbery that's already happened, knowing in advance that the person who gave you the footage rejected all the clips where anyone actually got shot, only leaving the ones where no one did. As you watch a particular clip, would you ask "what is it that forces the robber not to pull the trigger?" Yes, my statement is still correct - I can shoot my mother if I so choose. From God's perspective, He sees that the person never chooses to shoot his mother. But the universe could equally well be that the person does shoot their mother, in which case God will see that this person does choose to shoot their mother. OK, that's what I meant in the earlier posts when I was talking about the meaning of "can" in terms of there being a possible universe where you shoot your mother. I'm lost here. How can there be a universe (if we exclude the multiverse approach) where I shoot my mother before I was born, if this is ruled out by the self-consistent history law? On this particular tangent about possible worlds, we weren't talking about time travel, we were talking about the question of whether you "can" shoot your mother now, after you've already been born.

[moving finger]

But would you agree that in the computer simulation analogy, there's no "force" that prevents a simulated being from killing his mother? In this case, it's just that any of the randomly-generated histories that contained discontinuous points where the laws of physics don't hold (as would probably have to be the case in any spacetime which contained both the events of the being killing his mother before he was born and of the same being around to make the trip back in time years later) would have been thrown out by the computer program. The only ones remaining would be the ones that just happened to contain no inconsistencies.
Yes, I agree there is no force, but there is an "active selection of possible histories", and I think this points to the problem. In the present time, the only constraints on my free will to do as I choose seem to be physical laws which "force" me to do only those things which are physically possible, and I can rationalise this. But in the time travel scenario, there is no force involved..... that is why I cannot rationalise exactly what it is that would prevent me from killing my own mother (if I so choose). I believe you would agree that I can have the intent, the wish, to kill my own mother in both the present and the time-travel scenario? And in the present I could carry out that wish. But in the time-travel scenario I could not carry out that wish, even though I could go all the way up to putting a gun to her head and even pull the trigger.... its just that she cannot die!

As another analogy, suppose someone goes through a huge amount of footage or convenience store robberies and throws out all the ones where someone is shot, leaving only the ones where no one is. He then gives you some of the footage he has selected. Knowing how the footage was selected, you know that the robbers will never shoot anyone, even if you see them holding a gun to the clerk's head and looking like they could shoot at any moment...is there some "force" that's preventing them from doing so?
Yes, I can see this. But also, if there are enough videotapes, there will be some tapes which contain scenes where the robbers have the intent to kill, where they put the gun against the victim's head, and they pull the trigger..... but for some strange reason the victim never dies. I can see this is logically plausible, but it is still very hard to rationalise it.

In the "block time" view, all your future actions are set anyway, so again, think of the analogy of watching footage of a robbery that's already happened, knowing in advance that the person who gave you the footage rejected all the clips where anyone actually got shot, only leaving the ones where no one did. As you watch a particular clip, would you ask "what is it that forces the robber not to pull the trigger?"
Yes, I would ask that. At least, I would ask : "there have been so many times in these clips that robbers have tried to shoot their victims, how come none of them ever succeeded?"

It's almost like there is a cosmic censor, who eliminates all the non-consistent histories? I know you will say that there does not need to be a supreme being or controlling entity which carries out this censorship, that the "censor" is simply the laws of logic and self-consistency......hmmm.

BTW - I'm interested to know what you think of causal loops (post #13 in this thread)?

Thank you.

MF :smile:

"And what does it live on?"
"Weak tea with cream in it."
A new difficulty came into Alice's head, "Supposing it couldn't find any?" she suggested.
"Then it would die, of course."
"But that must happen very often," Alice remarked thoughtfully.
"It always happens," said the Gnat.

[Crosson]

This is a great thread discussion, I never thought about how the nonexistence of free will solves the classic time travel paradoxes. I have nothing more to add to this simple but elegant idea, but I would like to make a point about free will.

the only constraints on my free will

ha! You are assuming that you have free will. This is not very likely, because you are made of matter and matter moves according to deterministic laws. ( Please do not object using QM, because the probabilities are deterministic and so can hardly be called free).

In this excerpt from an essay I wrote, I use the term "Metaphysical Freedom" to mean the genuine type of freedom . This as opposed to common usage where a gun to your back or a prison cell effects your freedom.

Theorem: Metaphysical Freedom is a force.

Proof: In order for a decision to be acted upon, an electrical current stimulates various parts of the nervous system. If there is to be a correspondence between the physical actions of the body and the decision of the mind, the decision must be related in a one to one way with this electrical current. This one to one relationship is precisely what we think of as cause and effect, and the cause of electrical current is a force. Therefore, by the definition of a force as the cause of a deviation in smooth motion, the decision is a force.

Heuristic Argument: Clearly, Metaphysical Freedom cannot be a Newtonian Force, because it does not depend on the position or energy of any other particles in the universe. The MF force is a very peculiar force indeed. Actually, it is at least 6 billion different forces (depending on how you feel about animals) because my MF force cannot interact with the matter in your body, or anyone else’s. Adding to the strangeness is that our brains seem to be made of ordinary matter, with no additional properties (of the likes of charge or mass) to affect the interaction with our minds. Also, my MF force did not exist in the universe before 1985 and will not exist after my death, in the sense that it won’t be able to interact with any matter in the universe.

Summary: It is easier for me to believe that Metaphysical Freedom is an illusion rather than believing in a hopelessly complex, highly non-universal, peculiar force. Occam’s Razor is very clear about this issue, simplicity itself should be used when deciding between two theories which cannot be distinguished.

[moving finger]

This is a great thread discussion
Thank you :biggrin:

ha! You are assuming that you have free will
ha! You make the presumption that your definition of free will is the same as mine!

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

I think we have a deep problem with epistemology here.

From the discussion so far, it would seem that the self-consistent histories (SCH) hypothesis does provide at least a possible theoretical solution to the causal paradoxes associated with time travel in GR.

The SCH hypothesis simply put : Only self-consistent histories are allowed, such that any possible history which included, for example, me going back in time and killing my own mother before I am born, would be eliminated by SCH.

The SCH hypothesis seems to solve the problem?

But let us examine this SCH hypothesis in greater detail.

The SCH hypothesis does not prevent me from going back in time and meeting my mother before I was born, therefore the statement (A) :

(A) "I go back in time to meet my mother before I was born, and I pass on the knowledge to her that I am her future son"

is allowed to be true under SCH.

On the surface, what the SCH hypothesis appears to be saying (and this is what we have been debating so far) is that, given (A), then the following statement (B) is also necessarily true :

(B) "I cannot kill my mother before I am born"

BUT the SCH hypothesis is actually much stronger than the above suggests. What the SCH hypothesis is actually telling is that, given (A), then the following more general statement (C) is necessarily true :

(C) "my mother CANNOT DIE before I am born".

(Why is (C) necessarily true? Because from the moment of our meeting due to (A), my mother knows that the universe is necessarily such that I will be born as her son, therefore she knows that she will not die before I am born)

This is a very different proposition altogether.

What this means is that NO MATTER WHAT MY MOTHER DOES from the moment of our meeting until my birth, she will not die.

She can jump off a building, starve herself, drink poison, do absolutely anything, but the SCH hypothesis will not allow her to die....

Is this credible?

I don't think so. There is obviously still something very dubious about either the SCH hypothesis, or about time travel in GR, or both.

MF :smile:

"That's the effect of living backwards," the Queen said kindly: "it always makes one a little giddy at first-----"

[moving finger]

ha! You are assuming that you have free will.
We can discuss the definition of free will if you wish (I would love that!), but in the meantime, if it helps, replace the words "free will" in the post you refer to by the word "ability".

Therefore instead of the phrase :

the only constraints on my free will to do as I choose

my phrase becomes :

the only constraints on my ability to do as I choose

happy now?

MF :smile:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone," it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

[JesseM]

What this means is that NO MATTER WHAT MY MOTHER DOES from the moment of our meeting until my birth, she will not die.

She can jump off a building, starve herself, drink poison, do absolutely anything, but the SCH hypothesis will not allow her to die....

Is this credible?

I don't think so. There is obviously still something very dubious about either the SCH hypothesis, or about time travel in GR, or both. Why is this not credible to you? Do you agree that if we had a sufficiently powerful computer that could generate a near-infinite number of random histories and then throw out all the ones in which the laws of physics are not obeyed at every point in spacetime, then it would output a bunch of histories in which any time traveler who goes back to talk to his mother will find that this is true? If you do agree, how can something that's credible in a perfect simulation of a universe obeying our own laws of physics not be credible in real life?

And again, you seem to assume that because your mother could imagine choosing to try to kill herself, that she would actually go through with it in a non-negligible number of histories, but that probably wouldn't be true (the assumption that the feeling of freedom translates to actual freedom of action)--more likely, in the vast majority of histories where you interacted with her, she would happen to choose not to attempt to kill herself. But yes, in the tiny fraction where she does, somehow she will fail, like she jumps out of a plane but happens to land on a truck transporting 10,000 pillows or something.

I'll get back to you on your other post soon...

[moving finger]

Why is this not credible to you? Do you agree that if we had a sufficiently powerful computer that could generate a near-infinite number of random histories and then throw out all the ones in which the laws of physics are not obeyed at every point in spacetime, then it would output a bunch of histories in which any time traveler who goes back to talk to his mother will find that this is true? If you do agree, how can something that's credible in a perfect simulation of a universe obeying our own laws of physics not be credible in real life?

And again, you seem to assume that because your mother could imagine choosing to try to kill herself, that she would actually go through with it in a non-negligible number of histories, but that probably wouldn't be true (the assumption that the feeling of freedom translates to actual freedom of action)--more likely, in the vast majority of histories where you interacted with her, she would happen to choose not to attempt to kill herself. But yes, in the tiny fraction where she does, somehow she will fail, like she jumps out of a plane but happens to land on a truck transporting 10,000 pillows or something.

I'll get back to you on your other post soon...
But just imagine what her situation would be like.
She would feel like she has supernatural powers; she would be able to do absolutely anything and still she knows she will survive. She could test this to the limits, using everything and anything possible to try to bring about her demise.... but no matter what she does, she will survive.

Houdini would be very envious :biggrin:

Sorry, it just seems totally preposterous to me.

I have a feeling that the problem hinges on the assumption that we can ever have "certain" knowledge of the future - if in the present we have certain knowledge of a future event then the implication is that no matter what we do, that event must come to pass.

That works fine for things that we can hardly affect like "the sun will rise tomorrow"..... but when it comes down to more mundane things like "I will eat two eggs for breakfast tomorrow" then (armed with this apparent foreknowledge) I cannot see how the SCH hypothesis can intervene to prevent me from eating porridge (if I so choose) instead of two eggs for breakfast tomorrow......

In other words - if you predict what I am going to do at some future date - I believe I can easily prove you wrong.

The SCH hypothesis would imply, on the other hand, that (if your prediction is based on actual knowledge of the future) then I cannot prove you wrong.

MF :smile:

[JesseM]

But just imagine what her situation would be like.
She would feel like she has supernatural powers; she would be able to do absolutely anything and still she knows she will survive. She could test this to the limits, using everything and anything possible to try to bring about her demise.... but no matter what she does, she will survive. If believing she couldn't die would make her more likely to risk her life, then in most universes maybe she just won't believe it in the first place. Houdini would be very envious :biggrin:

Sorry, it just seems totally preposterous to me. You never really answered my question about the computer simulation: Do you agree that if we had a sufficiently powerful computer that could generate a near-infinite number of random histories and then throw out all the ones in which the laws of physics are not obeyed at every point in spacetime, then it would output a bunch of histories in which any time traveler who goes back to talk to his mother will find that this is true? If you do agree, how can something that's credible in a perfect simulation of a universe obeying our own laws of physics not be credible in real life? What are your answers to this? I have a feeling that the problem hinges on the assumption that we can ever have "certain" knowledge of the future - if in the present we have certain knowledge of a future event then the implication is that no matter what we do, that event must come to pass. Do you agree that in the computer simulation thought-experiment, simulated beings in histories the computer spits out could in certain cases have this sort of certain knowledge of the future? That works fine for things that we can hardly affect like "the sun will rise tomorrow"..... but when it comes down to more mundane things like "I will eat two eggs for breakfast tomorrow" then (armed with this apparent foreknowledge) I cannot see how the SCH hypothesis can intervene to prevent me from eating porridge (if I so choose) instead of two eggs for breakfast tomorrow......

In other words - if you predict what I am going to do at some future date - I believe I can easily prove you wrong. What would be your response to a being in such a simulated universe who made the same arguments? Do you think he'd have the freedom to "prove wrong" anything a time traveler told him he was going to do?

[moving finger]

We seem to be stuck on : "the SCH hypothesis explains why there is no paradox" vs "the SCH hypothesis doesn't seem to make sense".

Instead of each side simply re-stating positions, it might be more productive if I re-phrase the problem as I see it?

Re-Phrasing The Problem

The fundamental problem (to me) seems to hinge on the possibility of Epistemic Determinism - ie that infallible foreknowledge can somehow constrain the history of the universe.

If someone tells you that he/she has infallible foreknowledge and he/she KNOWS that you will eat two eggs for breakfast tomorrow, then we have several possible alternatives, which I summarise as A B and C below :

A : Infallible foreknowledge is possible, and no matter what you do, you cannot avoid eating two eggs for breakfast tomorrow. This is a variation on the "I can't kill my own mother before I am born" time-travel paradox, and requires some kind of Self-Consistent Histories (SCH) hypothesis to be correct (ie SCH somehow eliminates all non-consistent histories).

B : Infallible foreknowledge is possible, but armed with this information you can still avoid eating two eggs for breakfast tomorrow if the Multiverse hypothesis is correct, ie there are multiple possible futures.

C : Infallible foreknowledge is not possible, in which case you can easily avoid eating two eggs for breakfast tomorrow, thus proving him/her wrong.

Thus it seems we must adopt one or other of the following scenarios is true :

A : Infallible Foreknowledge combined with the SCH hypothesis.
B : Infallible Foreknowledge combined with the Multiverse hypothesis.
C : Infallible Foreknowledge is not possible.

Now there seem to be solutions to GR which do allow time travel, hence it would appear on the surface that infallible foreknowledge could be possible in GR. In this case, it would appear that either the SCH hypothesis or the Multiverse hypothesis is also required to ensure full consistency.

My problem with (A) is that I simply cannot conceive of a situation where someone tells me that I will eat two eggs for breakfast tomorrow, and I simply find it impossible, no matter what I do, to prove that person wrong.

An alternative solution is that there is something wrong with GR, that time travel is in fact not possible, hence (C) would be correct.

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

What would be your response to a being in such a simulated universe who made the same arguments? Do you think he'd have the freedom to "prove wrong" anything a time traveler told him he was going to do?
Jesse

Thank you for your contributions - they have been very stimulating!!!!

I owe you a much more detailed reply, I know that, and I will provide it, but I am unfortunately short of time right now - please bear with me and I'll be back in the next couple of days.

Meanwhile - a little something to ponder on :

The problem here I believe is one of infinite self-referential loops.

I grant you that the simulated Block universe may have a certain configuration prior to my intervention, and this configuration is fixed.

If I now interact with that universe by inputting information at a certain point (ie I tell one of the simulated beings what his/her future is going to be) then my simple act of inputting that information CHANGES THE UNIVERSE, so that the outcome is no longer constrained to be what it was prior to my intervention, in other words the infallible foreknowledge of the simulated being's future that I imparted is no longer infallible, because the simple act of me imparting that knowledge changes the universe and hence allows the future to change.

I believe if we follow this through, then we will find that infallible foreknowledge is in general not possible, for this very reason.

I'm going to mull over it for the next day or so.......

MF :smile:

[chronon]

Being : "Can I travel back in time to visit my mother before I was born?"
Consistency-Cop : "Yes"
Being : "Can I then put a loaded gun to her head?"
Consistency-Cop : "Yes"
Being : "Can I then pull the trigger and kill her?"
Consistency-Cop : "No"
Being : "What exactly prevents me from doing this final act?"
Consistency-Cop : "The law of self-consistency"This assumes that the consistency-cop steps in at the last minute to ensure consistency. This isn't how it would work at all. The consistency cop just ensures something happen somewhere in the chain of events to prevent the final outcome. In the wormhole/billiard ball situation the consistency-cop doesn't swerve the ball at the last minute, but rather makes sure the whole situation is consistent. I've written a Java applet simulating the wormhole+billiard ball at http://www.chronon.org/Applets/bouncer.html.

In the case of shooting your mother, maybe a passer-by is traumatised by the experience of seeing someone having a gun fired at her head, and as a result goes round secretly replacing live ammo with blanks in the future, some of which ends up in your gun. Or maybe there is some other path which results in the same effect.

[moving finger]

Jesse

Just posting ideas & issues as they occur to me......

Asymmetry in the Block Time view

If you think in terms of the block time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_time) view as opposed to the "moving present" view, then there is "already" a timeless truth about what you will do in the future...
Imagine the computer simulated universe that you have suggested a couple of times.

This might seem to be a good example of a "Block Time" universe. There is perhaps just one history consistent with a particular set of space-time conditions (which, as long as information is not detroyed, I think it does not matter if these are initial conditions or final conditions).

Looking at this simulation from outside, we "hyperbeings" can see the worldline of every simulated being in this universe. For any simulated being at time "t", we see their entire past and future mapped out, and fixed. We see that these simulated beings have no genuine "free will", they are constrained to do exactly what the deterministic program makes/tells them to do. Their future is just as determined as their past, there seems to be no asymmetry to time in their universe.

I think you will agree with me so far.

These simulated beings, as part of the program, "process information" and they act on the information they have available at the present time - purely deterministically - such that for any time "t", the "future" for each being is dependent on the information available at time "t". Now IF the information at time "t" is produced entirely self-consistently within the simulation (ie there is no interaction with the outside), then it is also true (assuming no information is lost or destroyed) that there should be only one unique set of "past" states which is consistent with the information at time "t". This is simply another way of saying the model is completely time-symmetrically deterministic.

What happens if we hyperbeings now interact with this Block Universe?

In other words, what happens if we "inject" additional information into the simulation at a particular time "t"?

It is then possible for that information to change the history/worldlines of the beings in that simulation at all future times >"t", but it is not possible for it to change the simulation for any past times <"t". In this sense, time now becomes asymmetric within the simulation. We haved created a discontinuity at time "t" where the new information has been introduced, such that the future states (after "t") are no longer simply determined from the past states (prior to "t")

If some hyperbeing therefore intervenes and provides information (eg "infallible foreknowledge") to a simulated being (about that simulated being's future and past) at time "t", then this very input of information can change the future but not the past, hence the "infallible foreknowledge" is not in fact infallible.

Still have to develop this further.....

Just mulling things over......

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

This assumes that the consistency-cop steps in at the last minute to ensure consistency. This isn't how it would work at all.
How do you know that?
There is nothing inconsistent with me putting a loaded gun to my mother's head, therefore the SCH hypothesis should not forbid this, therefore there should exist self-consistent worlds where this will happen.
The only inconsistency is if she dies, and this and only this is what the SCH hypothesis forbids.

The problem is more general in that not only can I not kill my mother before I am born, there is simply no way she can die before I am born. Therefore if she knows infallibly that she will give birth to me on some future date, then (like Superman) she knows also that she is effectively "unkillable" until that future date - better than Superman, she's not even vulnerable to Green Kryptonite - she simply cannot die (the SCH hypothesis will not allow her to die).

The idea that a person can be, or even think themselves to be, "unkillable" seems silly and wrong, which points to an error in our assumptions somewhere - maybe the SCH hypothesis is wrong, or maybe the assumption that we can ever have infallible foreknowledge is wrong (which would also imply that our idea of time travel is flawed). I suspect the latter.

MH :smile:

[chronon]

Therefore if she knows infallibly that she will give birth to me on some future date, then (like Superman) she knows also that she is effectively "unkillable" until that future date In the case of going back in time to change the past to be inconsistent with the present, the self-consistency hypothesis says that somehow your actions will result in a consistent world. You are looking at the idea of an oracle which can tell the future infallibly. Such oracles have appeared in fiction, and the moral is invariably that although what they say is true, it is also highly misleading.

[Crosson]

Moving Finger, please understand this point:

When I say you don't have free will, I mean that you don't have the ability to choose the actions of your body.

Untill you understand that this is where some of the other posters are coming from, you will continue to argue on the grounds that:

There is nothing inconsistent with me putting a loaded gun to my mother's head

Correct, this action would be consistent. But you can't choose to do this action! (you do not have the "ability")

You can't choose to do anything ever; all we do is go around riding rails (having deterministic collisions in our brain which make our body act certain ways) like robots, thinking that we have the ability to choose (right before my arm goes up, I get a sensation of thinking about raising my arm).

It may be impossible for you to believe that you never have the ability to choose in any situation, but feel free to reread the argument for this position that I originally posted.

[JesseM]

Jesse

Thank you for your contributions - they have been very stimulating!!!!

I owe you a much more detailed reply, I know that, and I will provide it, but I am unfortunately short of time right now - please bear with me and I'll be back in the next couple of days. No problem--I also still have to reply to some of your earlier posts, like the one about information-loops. Meanwhile - a little something to ponder on :

The problem here I believe is one of infinite self-referential loops.

I grant you that the simulated Block universe may have a certain configuration prior to my intervention, and this configuration is fixed.

If I now interact with that universe by inputting information at a certain point (ie I tell one of the simulated beings what his/her future is going to be) then my simple act of inputting that information CHANGES THE UNIVERSE, so that the outcome is no longer constrained to be what it was prior to my intervention, in other words the infallible foreknowledge of the simulated being's future that I imparted is no longer infallible, because the simple act of me imparting that knowledge changes the universe and hence allows the future to change. Actually, I wasn't imagining that you had the ability to interact with the universe--the computer will just split out complete histories, all you can do is view them. But in these histories, there may be simulated intelligent beings who learn to time travel, and a time traveler may meet another being and tell him in advance what he was going to do. So if this being asks the time traveler, "but what will prevent me from doing something different?", I'm asking you what you think the best answer to him would be if you were to imagine responding to him in your head, you can't actually tell him the answer since you are not part of the simulation.

[chingkui]

Another thought :
Causal loops are also possible with CTCs. Though not strictly a paradox, they do pose challenging questions to our intuitions. For example, with a time machine I could send the answer to "Fermat's last theorem" back to a mathematician in the past, he/she could publish it as his/her theorem, and it becomes part of the accepted literature, which (one day) I then copy and transmit back to a mathematician in the past.......

This is entirely possible within GR, CTCs, Block Time and violates no self-consistency rules...... but the problem is : Where did the original solution come from?


I think I am more interested in this type of "spontaneous generation of information" paradox...
I begin to like this idea: A crazy scientist who clone himself bring his clone to a time machine and send him back 50 years, and when the clone grow up, he become the scientist who clone himself... :yuck:

Anyone know anything about this type of paradox? thanks.

[Garth]

I think Star Trek did something similar with 'transparent aluminium' if I recall.

Garth

[Alkatran]

Don't you see the problem with your logic?

1: Yes, universes where you can travel back in time would be permitted
2: Universes where you stuck a gun to your mother's head would be permitted, but ONLY THOSE IN WHICH YOU DIDN'T SHOOT.

For example, you go up to your mother, put the gun to her head, and a police officer shoots you. Or she starts to cry and you decide you can't do it. Or you just decide you don't want to do it. ETC

If you want to justify time travel in a very science-fictiony way, think of events as progressing through time. IE you're 30 when you shoot your mother the day before you were born, so for the 30 years, until that 'event' reaches the time when you went back in tiem, your mother dies. Then the time line switches back because no on is going back in time and 30 years later, when you grow up, you go back... etc. That would also explain the 'solve theorem, send back' problem. Someone solves it originally, sends it back in time, and THEN the loop starts.

[moving finger]

Hi Crosson

When I say you don't have free will, I mean that you don't have the ability to choose the actions of your body.
With respect, Crosson, I think this depends on one's definition of "you" and "your body".

When it comes to "choice", I believe that even a simple machine can "choose", in the sense of taking two or more inputs and producing one output. The ability to choose says nothing about "free will" (whatever that may be - and there are many ways to define it).

Correct, this action would be consistent. But you can't choose to do this action! (you do not have the "ability").
Please explain what it is precisely that prevents me from having the "ability" to put a loaded gun to my mother's head (before I am born), since you already agree there is nothing in the SCH hypothesis which prevents this?

You can't choose to do anything ever; all we do is go around riding rails (having deterministic collisions in our brain which make our body act certain ways) like robots, thinking that we have the ability to choose (right before my arm goes up, I get a sensation of thinking about raising my arm).
The simple fact is that I do choose. A choice is simply "taking 2 or more inputs and producing 1 output" - even a machine can "choose" in this sense. Please understand that I am not suggesting there is any free will involved in the choice. Even if there is no "free will" involved (please define free will?), agents still make choices about whether to do (A) or (B). Even a simple machine bereft of free will makes choices. I grant you it may be a deterministic process, but that does not mean that there is no choice involved. It is simply a choice governed by determinism, that's all. Even a choice governed by determinism is still a choice.

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

I think I am more interested in this type of "spontaneous generation of information" paradox...
I begin to like this idea: A crazy scientist who clone himself bring his clone to a time machine and send him back 50 years, and when the clone grow up, he become the scientist who clone himself... :yuck:

Anyone know anything about this type of paradox? thanks.
One of the strange aspects of this type of causal loop is that it is in fact NOT a paradox! There is nothing inconsistent or self-contradictory about it, although it DOES fly in the face of our naive concepts of causality (ie that everything must have a cause).

The causal loop is entirely self-consistent and is ALLOWED by general relativity (as GR presently stands).

The causal loop implies there is something wrong either with our intuitive view of causation, or with GR.......

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

In the case of going back in time to change the past to be inconsistent with the present, the self-consistency hypothesis says that somehow your actions will result in a consistent world. You are looking at the idea of an oracle which can tell the future infallibly. Such oracles have appeared in fiction, and the moral is invariably that although what they say is true, it is also highly misleading.
This is what I am trying to get at.
I suspect there is something wrong with the idea that my mother can know infallibly that she will give birth to me at some future date, (similarly there is something wrong with the idea that anyone, including myself, can ever know infallibly at some time in the past that she will give birth to me at some future date), ie there is something wrong with the idea of infallible foreknowledge.

Why? Because the mere fact of possessing such infallible foreknowledge gives one powers which seem to be unrealistic (for example being "unkillable").

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

Hi Jesse

Actually, I wasn't imagining that you had the ability to interact with the universe--the computer will just split out complete histories, all you can do is view them.
Actually, sorry to correct you, but you asked :

What would be your response to a being in such a simulated universe who made the same arguments?
I'm not sure how I can respond to such beings (as you suggest) without interacting with them?

But in these histories, there may be simulated intelligent beings who learn to time travel, and a time traveler may meet another being and tell him in advance what he was going to do. So if this being asks the time traveler, "but what will prevent me from doing something different?", I'm asking you what you think the best answer to him would be if you were to imagine responding to him in your head, you can't actually tell him the answer since you are not part of the simulation.
Agreed, we may not interact with the simulation because to do that would require modifying the simulation.

I believe the answer to your question is that, whilst I as an external observer can have infallible foreknowledge of the simulation, no being within the simulation can have infallible foreknowledge.

Let me put a question of my own.

Suppose we grant the power of infallible foreknowledge to being (A) within the simulation (A does not have to be a time-traveller, but to keep it within the context of this thread we should make A a time-traveller), and suppose (A) then tells another being (B) that the statement (C) "B will have two eggs for breakfast tomorrow" is true.

Are you seriously suggesting that (B) is then constrained to ensuring that (C) is true, ie that he/she must have 2 eggs for breakfast tomorrow, and he/she can do nothing to avoid that coming to pass?

Either there is something wrong with the idea of infallible foreknowledge (within the simulation), or you have to posit some very strange constraints on B's ability to choose what he/she will have for breakfast.

I think the assumption of infallible foreknowledge is the culprit.

Therefore, to my mind the correct answer to your question "but what will prevent me from doing something different?" is simply : "ummmm, well nothing actually, because (since I am part of this simulation and I am interacting with you) I don't really have infallible foreknowledge of your actions, therefore I do not actually know what you are going to do......"

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

Don't you see the problem with your logic?

1: Yes, universes where you can travel back in time would be permitted
2: Universes where you stuck a gun to your mother's head would be permitted, but ONLY THOSE IN WHICH YOU DIDN'T SHOOT.

For example, you go up to your mother, put the gun to her head, and a police officer shoots you. Or she starts to cry and you decide you can't do it. Or you just decide you don't want to do it. ETC
No, I do not see the problem with my logic. :smile:

In fact, the logic suggests that such a scenario is not realistic.

Imagine instead that I go back in time and I tell my brother what he will have for breakfast tomorrow (let's say two eggs). Are you seriously suggesting to me (once I tell him this) that my brother is constrained to having two eggs for breakfast tomorrow, and there is absolutely nothing he can do to prevent it (regardless of whether one believes in free will or not, whatever that might be!)?

I suppose your "logic" conclusion would lead you to say "yes, even though he is told in advance that he will eat two eggs for breakfast tomorrow, there is in fact absolutely nothing he can do to avoid eating two eggs for breakfast tomorrow, it is written in stone"?

Whereas my logic conclusion would be : "There must be something wrong with at least one of the assumptions!"

And the shakey assumption I would suspect is the assumption that anyone can have infallible foreknowledge of a future in which he/she participates.

MF :smile:

[JesseM]

Actually, I wasn't imagining that you had the ability to interact with the universe--the computer will just split out complete histories, all you can do is view them. Actually, sorry to correct you, but you asked :What would be your response to a being in such a simulated universe who made the same arguments? I'm not sure how I can respond to such beings (as you suggest) without interacting with them? Like I said, what I was imagining was that you were formulating a mental response in your head, but yes, the question was ambiguous. Also, I was just repeating the same question I had asked in post #12 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=508575&postcount=12) on this thread, and in that one I did spell out what I meant: If this computer program generated a particular history for you to examine, then just by knowing the rules the computer used to do so, you could know with 100% certainty that any time travel would be perfectly self-consistent, right? So suppose you examine it, and see that somewhere in spacetime intelligent life evolved, and one of the simulated beings was asking the same questions you're asking. Since the history is already complete you can't actually interact with this simulated being, but if you wanted to think up an appropriate response in your mind, what would it be? I believe the answer to your question is that, whilst I as an external observer can have infallible foreknowledge of the simulation, no being within the simulation can have infallible foreknowledge. Why not? Suppose you are looking at such a simulation spit out by the computer, and in it you see that a simulated being travels back in time and tells a second simulated being about some of his future actions. Do you agree that this second simulated being now knows what he's going to do in the future, and he does not have the power to avoid it? If so, why can't you imagine the same would be true for you if a time traveler came back and told you what you were going to do in the future? Suppose we grant the power of infallible foreknowledge to being (A) within the simulation (A does not have to be a time-traveller, but to keep it within the context of this thread we should make A a time-traveller), and suppose (A) then tells another being (B) that the statement (C) "B will have two eggs for breakfast tomorrow" is true.

Are you seriously suggesting that (B) is then constrained to ensuring that (C) is true, ie that he/she must have 2 eggs for breakfast tomorrow, and he/she can do nothing to avoid that coming to pass? Of course. Remember, this simulation was selected by the computer because it is self-consistent, so if A sees B having eggs for breakfast one day, then goes back in time and tells him about it, how could the history possibly be self-consistent if B didn't do so? Either there is something wrong with the idea of infallible foreknowledge (within the simulation), or you have to posit some very strange constraints on B's ability to choose what he/she will have for breakfast. Are you suggesting that the thought-experiment involving the computer that generates a near-infinite number of possible histories, and then throws out all the ones that don't obey the laws of physics at every point in spacetime, is somehow logically impossible? If not, then it seems you must agree that the output of this computer program would be only self-consistent histories, and that if the laws of physics allow backwards time travel, then some of these histories must feature time travelers telling other simulated beings what they are going to do in the future. And you can also see that the computer does not need any specialized rules to constrain the behavior of such beings, the fact that they must take the action they were told they would is just a consequence of the fact that the computer will only output histories that obey the laws of physics at every point in spacetime (and are thus completely self-consistent).

If you disagree with any of this, which part are you disagreeing with?

[moving finger]

Why not? Suppose you are looking at such a simulation spit out by the computer, and in it you see that a simulated being travels back in time and tells a second simulated being about some of his future actions. Do you agree that this second simulated being now knows what he's going to do in the future, and he does not have the power to avoid it?
From whose perspective are we looking now?
I agree that from my perspective outside the simulation, as long as I do not interact with the simulation, then I can have "infallible foreknowledge" of what the beings will do, and they do just that.
However, from the perspective of someone inside the simulation, I do not believe that infallible foreknowledge necessarily works, ie it can fail, because we now have the possibility of infinite self-referential loops. If the second simulated being is told what he is going to do, you are suggesting that, armed with this knowledge, he is then necessarily constrained to do it? I don't think so.

Remember, this simulation was selected by the computer because it is self-consistent, so if A sees B having eggs for breakfast one day, then goes back in time and tells him about it, how could the history possibly be self-consistent if B didn't do so?
It couldn't be self-consistent in this case, we agree on that point - hence there must be something wrong with the assumptions. Where we differ is that you conclude from this that infallible foreknowledge is possible and it is the SCH hypothesis which ensures consistency; whereas I conclude from this that the assumption of infallible foreknowledge is at fault, and incorrect foreknowledge then ensures consistency.

Are you suggesting that the thought-experiment involving the computer that generates a near-infinite number of possible histories, and then throws out all the ones that don't obey the laws of physics at every point in spacetime, is somehow logically impossible?
No, I'm suggesting the assumption of infallible foreknowledge is at fault.

If not, then it seems you must agree that the output of this computer program would be only self-consistent histories, and that if the laws of physics allow backwards time travel, then some of these histories must feature time travelers telling other simulated beings what they are going to do in the future. And you can also see that the computer does not need any specialized rules to constrain the behavior of such beings, the fact that they must take the action they were told they would is just a consequence of the fact that the computer will only output histories that obey the laws of physics at every point in spacetime (and are thus completely self-consistent).

If you disagree with any of this, which part are you disagreeing with?
I disagree with the idea that someone can (come from the future and) tell me exactly what I will have for breakfast tomorrow, and (no matter what I do) I simply cannot prove him/her wrong. This seems absurd to me, but obviously not to you (you would presumably be happy with this notion since it is compatible with the SCH hypothesis).

One way to escape this absurdity is to suggest that the notion of infallible foreknowledge is faulty.

Let me provide a very simple model that shows the flaw in the assumption of infallible foreknowledge. It does not involve free will (whatever that is) and it does not even involve human choices; it is a purely mechanistic, deterministic algorithm.

Suppose we have a simple machine within our "life" simulation with one input and one output.

Let us also suppose that the input must be a single binary digit, either 0 or 1. Similarly the output must also be a single binary digit, either 0 or 1.
Let us suppose that the machine is hardwired such that when the input is 0 then the output is always 1, and when the input is 1 then the output is always 0, and the conversion from input to output happens instantaneously.
We also suppose that the machine is precise and infallible, and that it cannot "dither" or select an indeterminate output.
The final rule is : If someone tells the machine what it's output will be at a particular time, then it uses this supposed "prediction" as its input for that particular time.

We now have a (possibly infinite) self-referential loop.

However, the machine is perfectly deterministic. From outside the simulation, if I know the input then I also know the output. Hence I can predict what the machine will do as long as I do not interact with it.

But can anyone inside the simulation predict to the machine what the machine's output will be at a particular time? No, this is not possible, because no matter what we predict, the machine will use this as input and will output the opposite.

The SCH hypothesis would presumably say that the machine will break down, or will continuously switch infinitely fast between 0 and 1, or will produce an indeterminate output?

Whereas my hypothesis would simply say : The machines' output is just not predictable from within the simulation, time travel or no time travel.

MF :smile:

[JesseM]

From whose perspective are we looking now?
I agree that from my perspective outside the simulation, as long as I do not interact with the simulation, then I can have "infallible foreknowledge" of what the beings will do, and they do just that.
However, from the perspective of someone inside the simulation, I do not believe that infallible foreknowledge necessarily works, ie it can fail, because we now have the possibility of infinite self-referential loops. If the second simulated being is told what he is going to do, you are suggesting that, armed with this knowledge, he is then necessarily constrained to do it? I don't think so. Well, do you agree that from your perspective outside the simulation, if you see that a particular history contains a time traveler, and that time traveler observes what another simulated being does on thursday and then travels back in time to wednesday and tells him about it, that the non-time-traveler now knows what he is going to do on thursday and cannot do anything different? Of course from his perspective, he couldn't be sure that the time traveler wasn't lying, so I guess it's not "infallible" foreknowledge in that sense. But it is infallible in the sense that if the time traveler isn't lying, then this being is absolutely guaranteed to do what the time traveler told him he'd do. It couldn't be self-consistent in this case, we agree on that point - hence there must be something wrong with the assumptions. Where we differ is that you conclude from this that infallible foreknowledge is possible and it is the SCH hypothesis which ensures consistency; whereas I conclude from this that the assumption of infallible foreknowledge is at fault, and incorrect foreknowledge then ensures consistency. Are we still just talking about the computer simulation thought-experiment, rather than the real world? I'd like to stick to this thought-experiment, because in this case we know that the "SCH hypothesis" is true. So when you talk about "incorrect foreknowledge", are you just talking about the time traveler lying, or mistaking someone's twin brother for that person, or something of that nature? I disagree with the idea that someone can (come from the future and) tell me exactly what I will have for breakfast tomorrow, and (no matter what I do) I simply cannot prove him/her wrong. But do you disagree that this can happen to a simulated being in the thought-experiment, where time travel is possible and where the SCH hypothesis is guaranteed to be correct in any history the computer spits out? Let me provide a very simple model that shows the flaw in the assumption of infallible foreknowledge. It does not involve free will (whatever that is) and it does not even involve human choices; it is a purely mechanistic, deterministic algorithm.

Suppose we have a simple machine within our "life" simulation with one input and one output.

Let us also suppose that the input must be a single binary digit, either 0 or 1. Similarly the output must also be a single binary digit, either 0 or 1.
Let us suppose that the machine is hardwired such that when the input is 0 then the output is always 1, and when the input is 1 then the output is always 0, and the conversion from input to output happens instantaneously.
We also suppose that the machine is precise and infallible, and that it cannot "dither" or select an indeterminate output.
The final rule is : If someone tells the machine what it's output will be at a particular time, then it uses this supposed "prediction" as its input for that particular time.

We now have a (possibly infinite) self-referential loop.

However, the machine is perfectly deterministic. From outside the simulation, if I know the input then I also know the output. Hence I can predict what the machine will do as long as I do not interact with it.

But can anyone inside the simulation predict to the machine what the machine's output will be at a particular time? No, this is not possible, because no matter what we predict, the machine will use this as input and will output the opposite. Well, since we're guaranteed to get only self-consistent histories, then assuming this machine was 100% accurate, then in any history containing such a machine, no time traveler would end up feeding the machine's output back to itself as input (just like no time traveler would end up murdering their own mother before they were conceived). However real people aren't like that machine, even if they intend to avoid doing something tomorrow I assume there'll always be some small chance they'll do it anyway, so unlike with the case of the machine there could be self-consistent histories in which a person is told what they are going to do tomorrow and ends up doing exactly that. The SCH hypothesis would presumably say that the machine will break down, or will continuously switch infinitely fast between 0 and 1, or will produce an indeterminate output? No, none of those would be self-consistent, because the time traveler apparently remembers it having given a definite output in the future. And switching "infinitely fast" doesn't sound like something that would be allowed by the laws of physics.

[TheUnknown]

Hi all, i just signed up today! i think this is the best site i have ever been to. Time Travel cannot be used to go back in time and change OUR future outcomes. These "future outcomes" would be future outcomes in OUR world, how do we know they would occur in another time? And if we did go back and try to protect a future outcome, we might totally mess up someone else world. On another note, if there are multiple worldlines, then how can you assume that all the same people will even be born? on a serious note, this is totally serious.. say somehow.. my dad was born in another timeline, and the day i was supposed to be born, he decided to pleasure himself, and my sperm was lost?! I believe, If you can imagine time travel, then you have to be open to multiple world lines, which in turn means that none of these would be the same, and going back in time to a "perfect" worldline that fits ours, and interacting with ANYONE's life, would totally mess everything up. I believe distorting time is very possible... but i am not sure how we'd be able to harness this, and domesticate it to go back in time... and then for what? if it is ever created it should be kept top secret and left alone. Why do we need to go back in time if everything i just stated is correct. Thanks :) i'd love a reply, i have a lot of unanswered questions, i've been reading and studying this stuff for about 6 months now, and i have never once expressed my opinion, so i am itching! :P

[moving finger]

Well, do you agree that from your perspective outside the simulation, if you see that a particular history contains a time traveler, and that time traveler observes what another simulated being does on thursday and then travels back in time to wednesday and tells him about it, that the non-time-traveler now knows what he is going to do on thursday and cannot do anything different? Of course from his perspective, he couldn't be sure that the time traveler wasn't lying, so I guess it's not "infallible" foreknowledge in that sense. But it is infallible in the sense that if the time traveler isn't lying, then this being is absolutely guaranteed to do what the time traveler told him he'd do.
I disagree. Later in your post you agree the binary machine I suggested is not "absolutely guaranteed" to do what it is told it will do - and the self-consistent "escape" from this scenario is that the only self-consistent history is one in which nobody ever predicts to the machine what it will do (thereby saving consistency). If this solution can be suggested for a simple machine then I see no reason why the same solution cannot be suggested for a complex human, or a simulated agent.

The solution to ensuring consistency is therefore NOT that someone can predict what I will have for breakfast and I am then constrained to have that, but instead that nobody ever successfully and infallibly predicts what I will have for breakfast!

Are we still just talking about the computer simulation thought-experiment, rather than the real world? I'd like to stick to this thought-experiment, because in this case we know that the "SCH hypothesis" is true. So when you talk about "incorrect foreknowledge", are you just talking about the time traveler lying, or mistaking someone's twin brother for that person, or something of that nature?.
It could be any of these, the important thing is that the time-traveller simply cannot have infallible foreknowledge.

But do you disagree that this can happen to a simulated being in the thought-experiment, where time travel is possible and where the SCH hypothesis is guaranteed to be correct in any history the computer spits out? .
If the simulated being (agent) is sufficiently complex then I think it is possible for any such being to then "behave" like the binary machine I have outlined, whereby it takes a prediction and deliberately tries to falsify that prediction. I cannot see why any sufficiently complex agent could not behave in this fashion, in which case your suggested solution (I believe) is either that the agent is constrained to do as predicted, or that it will never happen within the simulation that another agent makes an infallible prediction about the first agent's behaviour.

Well, since we're guaranteed to get only self-consistent histories, then assuming this machine was 100% accurate, then in any history containing such a machine, no time traveler would end up feeding the machine's output back to itself as input (just like no time traveler would end up murdering their own mother before they were conceived).
OK, I think you have agreed that what happens in this case is that there is no infallible foreknowledge possible, therefore no infallible predictions are made. I do not see why this solution cannot also be applied in the cases with simulated agents or in the case of real human beings - ie not that we are constrained to do exactly as a time-traveller predicts we must do, but that it is simply not possible for a time traveller to make infallible predictions (in most cases) in the first place.

However real people aren't like that machine, even if they intend to avoid doing something tomorrow I assume there'll always be some small chance they'll do it anyway, so unlike with the case of the machine there could be self-consistent histories in which a person is told what they are going to do tomorrow and ends up doing exactly that.
Yes, I agree this could happen, but is highly unlikely, and the overwhelmingly most likely scenario is in fact that no infallible predictions will be made in the first place.

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

Hi all, i just signed up today! i think this is the best site i have ever been to.
Welcome, and I hope you enjoy!

Time Travel cannot be used to go back in time and change OUR future outcomes.
By definition, if they ARE our future outcomes then they cannot be changed (otherwise they wouldn't BE our future outcomes, would they?).

These "future outcomes" would be future outcomes in OUR world, how do we know they would occur in another time?
Not sure I understand the question here?

And if we did go back and try to protect a future outcome, we might totally mess up someone else world.
Are you assuming multiple worlds/universes?

On another note, if there are multiple worldlines, then how can you assume that all the same people will even be born?
One possible solution to some of the paradoxes of time-travel is to posit multiple universes (in fact there would have to be an infinite number of parallel universes, one corresponding for each "decision" at a quantum level)

on a serious note, this is totally serious.. say somehow.. my dad was born in another timeline, and the day i was supposed to be born, he decided to pleasure himself, and my sperm was lost?!
Yes, but fortunately for you he was with your mother instead :smile:

I believe, If you can imagine time travel, then you have to be open to multiple world lines, which in turn means that none of these would be the same, and going back in time to a "perfect" worldline that fits ours, and interacting with ANYONE's life, would totally mess everything up.
There are those in this thread who believe in something we are calling the Self Consistent Histories (SCH) hypothesis, which basically means that nothing get's messed up :smile:

I believe distorting time is very possible... but i am not sure how we'd be able to harness this, and domesticate it to go back in time... and then for what? if it is ever created it should be kept top secret and left alone.
Why?

Why do we need to go back in time if everything i just stated is correct.
Because we are curious animals? :smile:

MF :smile:

[JesseM]

I disagree. Later in your post you agree the binary machine I suggested is not "absolutely guaranteed" to do what it is told it will do - and the self-consistent "escape" from this scenario is that the only self-consistent history is one in which nobody ever predicts to the machine what it will do (thereby saving consistency). No, I agreed that if the machine is 100% guaranteed to work properly (to give the opposite output as its input), then the only self-consistent escape would be for no time travelers to feed its ouput back as input. However, if the machine has even a small chance of malfunctioning and returning the same ouput as its input--say, an 0.000000000001% chance--then there will be at least some self-consistent histories in which a time traveler does feed its output back to it as input, and it malfunctions and returns an output identical to its input. Such histories may be much less likely than histories where a time traveler doesn't mess with it at all, but they are not nonexistent.

And human behavior is so complex that I doubt there is any situation in which you could say, without knowing the details of what was going on in a person's brain (and without having traveled in time), that they were 100% guaranteed to do anything. Imagine humans have spread throughout the galaxy, and there are 500 quadrillion humans alive on different planets. If I go to each one pretending to be a time traveler and say "I know you will have eggs tomorrow for breakfast", then each one is filmed having breakfast tomorrow and all the films showing people having something other than eggs are thrown out, are you suggesting we could be confident there wouldn't be a single film in which someone did decide to have eggs the next day? The solution to ensuring consistency is therefore NOT that someone can predict what I will have for breakfast and I am then constrained to have that, but instead that nobody ever successfully and infallibly predicts what I will have for breakfast! Yes, that is one solution, and it may be that it's by far the most likely one, but there would be at least some self-consistent histories where a person was told what they were going to do by a time traveler, even if they were extremely rare. It could be any of these, the important thing is that the time-traveller simply cannot have infallible foreknowledge. I don't agree there is any reason they "simply cannot" have such knowledge, and you have given no real arguments for why they can't besides a vague feeling of free will (even though you know this doesn't apply to the computer simulation thought-experiment). If the simulated being (agent) is sufficiently complex then I think it is possible for any such being to then "behave" like the binary machine I have outlined, whereby it takes a prediction and deliberately tries to falsify that prediction. If it's complex, then even if it decides to try to act like that binary machine, it may get distracted, or change its mind, etc. My calculator will always give the right answer for a complicated multiplication problem; a human, with its complex brain, will sometimes get it wrong. I cannot see why any sufficiently complex agent could not behave in this fashion Well, surely you agree it is also possible for any sufficiently complex agent to decide to see what his friend eats on thursday and then go back in time and tell him on wednesday--yet your solution to the self-consistency problem was that no agent would ever choose to do so. So why doesn't your argument "I cannot see why any sufficiently complex agent could not behave in this fashion" also apply here? And if you can see that self-consistency might imply that no agent would choose to give a friend foreknowledge in this way, why can't you also see that it might imply that no agent would ever choose to behave like your binary machine, or why no agent would ever choose to kill his mother before he's conceived? in which case your suggested solution (I believe) is either that the agent is constrained to do as predicted, or that it will never happen within the simulation that another agent makes an infallible prediction about the first agent's behaviour. The second one is just another way of saying that any time-traveling agent is "constrained" not to choose to tell his friend what he'll eat the next day, so I don't see why you'd prefer the second to the first. Anyway, like I said, as long as it is possible for an agent to occasionally do exactly what he is predicted to do, then there should be at least some self-consistent histories in which he does recieve such an infallible prediction. Yes, I agree this could happen, but is highly unlikely, and the overwhelmingly most likely scenario is in fact that no infallible predictions will be made in the first place. If we're getting into the domain of likelihood, it also seems unlikely that time travel would be widely available yet no time traveler would ever decide to make an infallible prediction, so perhaps the most likely type of self-consistent history would simply be one where sentient beings simply never invent time travel, even if it is permitted by the laws of physics.

[TheUnknown]

haha indeed... we are just very sophisticated curious animals. ok, ok, i meant... what if i went back in time, supposing that i could warn someone of some catostrophic event that is going to happen(not in nature... assuming the earth ages the same and almost all the same geological catastrophes happen in synch with normalcy to our Known universe/world)... how do i know this will happen in their world? how do i know if that person(s)even exist in where i am going? on a differnt subject. if we do have parallel universes in the world.. as far as living things go? and we all just happen to be born in these parellel universes because of some unknown mystery yet to be figured out. Then why go back? to save yourself in another universe which is you... but won't actually effect "YOU"... i think there is a huge information gap involved with the discussion of time travel, and there always will be until we can figure it out (which i do believe is not to far off), Also about the Dad thing, i meant if my dad has lost that sperm when i went back in time.. acknowledging the fact that we have free will in all of these parallel universes. Then where i went to find myself, i would not find... but i would still find my Dad... and possibly a child that took my place :)(being that he still marries my Mom) very interesting... love the feed back, i think this is brain food, not tuna. ha. Maybe i'm missing something here? but i don't see how even in parallel universes... (whatever that means in full.. i'd love a total explanation...) how are we denied the right to free will? this theory does not mix well with my logic. :)

[Alkatran]

You can tell your brother that he will eat two eggs only if this won't cause him to not eat two eggs according to the 'select valid spacetimes' theory.

It's not that, given the assumption that your brother has free will, he literally CAN'T deviate from this page, it's that he WON'T. All the timelines where he decides not to are destroyed, therefore he must.

Your problem is that you're mixing science with free will.

[TheUnknown]

without free will we don't have science... it's not a problem.. or maybe it is? maybe this means time travel can never exist. If there is someone living that is me right now in a parallel universe... why are you so certain he will not get in a car crash and die tomorrow whereas here, i keep on living? Please tell me where science explains that. So you're image of parallel universes is a bunch of robots programmed running around doing the EXACT same things with no free will? that is not Science...

[TheUnknown]

also so all of his timelines are "destroyed" where he decided not to? so this is just a figment of imagination then? how can they be destroyed? what causes this destruction? so the universes aren'yt really real? they can be destroyed and created according to actions made by the free will of time travelers? so say two time travelers that live in the same wordline will meet each other in their own timeline in the year 2040. so if time traveler A lives in the year 2036, and then he travels to 2040, finds out some things about time traveler B, they meet (and become friends from then 'till 2060+), then travels to the year 2061 and time traveler B tells A something that will happen while he's in 2061 (Example eggs... so all other universes where he does/doesn't are destroyed), and then travels to the year 2000... time traveler B lives in the year 2060... he travels to the year 2000 also... by some anomalis accurance they both meet up, they both tell each other what they are and aren't going to do... so the whole universe is theoretically "destroyed" because of two time travelers? or could this is theory never happen because the year 2061 would not exist for time traveler A to meet time traveler B? So i think we do have parallel universes... but only we can access our OWN parallel universes... we could never time travel into a world where we weren't born? so there are infinite worldlines, with infinite outcomes, and infinite different human beings in each one. And also if you continuously jumped back and fourth between universes telling people what would happen you would be destroying the universe? i don't understand this theory... it makes no sense to me and is utterly and completely wrong. But then again if religios nuts are right and we shouldn't be messing with this stuff... maybe we will destroy our universe by time travel according to that theory. Basically what that theory there is projecting is that time travel destroys the universe. Here's another one, say time traveler A and time traveler B are brothers... A travels to the previous morning and tells his brother he will eat two eggs.. his brother doesn't, so all the ones where he did are destroyed... he then travels back to the next day again where he left from... he then travels back to the previous day again... tells his brother he will eat 2 eggs... his brother does... so the others are destroyed... again their whole known universe is destroyed by time travel? and if it's not destroyed yet... then what if brther B does the exact same thing to brother A... would that finish off the universe? that theory is eeeeextremeeely faulty! it's saying that you can destroy the whole universe by traveling in time and telling someone something haha.. it really sounds like something the government would say to keep people away from time travel. Really though.. is that a real theory that is trusted by scientists and astrologist? i hope not... so any day now a time traveler could come and we could all vanish because our timeline would be "destroyed" if he told someomne how many eggs they were going to eat.... wow.. lol, sounds more like wishful thinking than scientific analysis and hypothesis by trial and error.

[TheUnknown]

if you put a man in a room, and set the clock to 12:30 and have him wake up from a banging noise (so he can wake up at 12:30)... and set the day to Monday April 4th on his calender... record him and watch what he does... take that man, brain wash him... leave his calender alone, set his clock to 12:30 again, and do it all over, are you certain he will make the exact same choices? is this in any way different from parallel universes? and if so, how? are we predetermined to make decisions? and if so, why do you think this? If we commit the same actions in every single universe, then sending a time traveler back to ONE of them, would totally mess it up... then what happens? just that one universe is messed up, and the rest of us go on unparallel to it? or is it instantly and mysteriously "destroyed" ...? nice convo btw :)

[Ich]

Those multiple universes are not a theory, they are rather an interpretation of quantum mechanics which happen to solve some paradoxes of time travel.
Besides that, nobody knows if time travel really exists and so all this thread is speculation, more or less a "what if" scenario. It´s just fun talking about and letting your thoughts flow. Hope you don´t have a problem with that.
p.s. multiple universes are thought by some people to be a rather straightforward interpretation of QM; the only real alternative today is the "copenhagen interpretation" - I´d like to see your reaction to IT. :devil:

[moving finger]

No, I agreed that if the machine is 100% guaranteed to work properly (to give the opposite output as its input), then the only self-consistent escape would be for no time travelers to feed its ouput back as input. However, if the machine has even a small chance of malfunctioning and returning the same ouput as its input--say, an 0.000000000001% chance--then there will be at least some self-consistent histories in which a time traveler does feed its output back to it as input, and it malfunctions and returns an output identical to its input. Such histories may be much less likely than histories where a time traveler doesn't mess with it at all, but they are not nonexistent.
Agreed. I did make the initial assumption that the machine would not malfunction, but I agree with you that if there is a non-zero chance of malfunctioning then there would be at least some self-consistent histories within GR which involve a time-traveller predicting the machine's output. However I believe the overwhelming odds would be that such a prediction would not be possible (because the probability of the machine malfunctioning is so small), hence for each possible universe where such a prediction is made, there would be an overwhelming number of possible universes where such a prediction cannot be made. And I believe similar statistics would be true of the prediction of human actions.

And human behavior is so complex that I doubt there is any situation in which you could say, without knowing the details of what was going on in a person's brain (and without having traveled in time), that they were 100% guaranteed to do anything. Imagine humans have spread throughout the galaxy, and there are 500 quadrillion humans alive on different planets. If I go to each one pretending to be a time traveler and say "I know you will have eggs tomorrow for breakfast", then each one is filmed having breakfast tomorrow and all the films showing people having something other than eggs are thrown out, are you suggesting we could be confident there wouldn't be a single film in which someone did decide to have eggs the next day?
Well firstly if you do go to each one and merely pretend to be a time traveller then you do not have infallible foreknowledge and it makes no difference whether they have eggs or not does it?
But even if you were a real time traveller, I am not saying this. What I am saying is that I believe there would be an overwhelming number of instances where people "could" manage to falsify your so-called infallible prediction, and hence by your own account the prediction is simply not possible and therefore cannot be made in the first place.

Yes, that is one solution, and it may be that it's by far the most likely one, but there would be at least some self-consistent histories where a person was told what they were going to do by a time traveler, even if they were extremely rare.
I think we agree.

I don't agree there is any reason they "simply cannot" have such knowledge, and you have given no real arguments for why they can't besides a vague feeling of free will (even though you know this doesn't apply to the computer simulation thought-experiment).
No, it's nothing to do with free will, and yes I have in fact given a very real argument supporting the idea that agents cannot exercise infallible foreknowledge. It’s to do with self-referential loops. We have seen that even a simple machine can negate the possibility of usefully using apparently infallible foreknowledge through the use of a very simple self-referential loop, and the same idea can be extended to humans and other agents.

If it's complex, then even if it decides to try to act like that binary machine, it may get distracted, or change its mind, etc.
It "may" fail, but I believe in the overwhelmingly likely number of cases it will succeed.

Well, surely you agree it is also possible for any sufficiently complex agent to decide to see what his friend eats on thursday and then go back in time and tell him on wednesday--yet your solution to the self-consistency problem was that no agent would ever choose to do so.
By your own argument - there must be instances where the agent CANNOT do as you suggest if we are to maintain self-consistency. All I am arguing is that these cases will be the overwhelmingly most likely cases. However cases where agents DO travel back in time and DO successfully predict another agent's future, whilst theoretically possible in principle (at least according to GR as it stands today), will necessarily be extremely rare.

So why doesn't your argument "I cannot see why any sufficiently complex agent could not behave in this fashion" also apply here? And if you can see that self-consistency might imply that no agent would choose to give a friend foreknowledge in this way, why can't you also see that it might imply that no agent would ever choose to behave like your binary machine, or why no agent would ever choose to kill his mother before he's conceived?
I never said that it was not possible for an agent to choose not to kill his mother. Of course an agent can choose not to kill his mother, that is not the issue here. What I objected to was the implication that no agent could ever kill his mother, even if he so chose.

The second one is just another way of saying that any time-traveling agent is "constrained" not to choose to tell his friend what he'll eat the next day, so I don't see why you'd prefer the second to the first.
There is a big difference.
One solution (the self-consistent histories solution) implicitly assumes that both time-travel and infallible foreknowledge are possible, and that somehow additional “constraints” are placed on agents’ abilities in the present time to ensure consistency with both.
The other solution (the impossibility of infallible foreknowledge) does not assume time-travel, and does not place any additional constraints on agents’ abilities in the present time. In addition, it might turn out in the end that we find there is something wrong with GR as it stands, and time-travel is simply not possible (which would be consistent with the “impossibility of infallible foreknowledge” solution).

Anyway, like I said, as long as it is possible for an agent to occasionally do exactly what he is predicted to do, then there should be at least some self-consistent histories in which he does recieve such an infallible prediction.
Agreed, but this neither proves that time travel is possible, nor does it prove that such histories actually exist (only that they are possible in principle assuming GR as it stands).

If we're getting into the domain of likelihood, it also seems unlikely that time travel would be widely available yet no time traveler would ever decide to make an infallible prediction, so perhaps the most likely type of self-consistent history would simply be one where sentient beings simply never invent time travel, even if it is permitted by the laws of physics.
This is closer to what I believe is the truth – but I would go even further and suggest the simplest solution of all is that in fact time travel is not permitted by the laws of physics, we just haven’t realised it yet.

MF :smile:

[TheUnknown]

Those multiple universes are not a theory, they are rather an interpretation of quantum mechanics which happen to solve some paradoxes of time travel.
Besides that, nobody knows if time travel really exists and so all this thread is speculation, more or less a "what if" scenario. It´s just fun talking about and letting your thoughts flow. Hope you don´t have a problem with that.
p.s. multiple universes are thought by some people to be a rather straightforward interpretation of QM; the only real alternative today is the "copenhagen interpretation" - I´d like to see your reaction to IT. :devil:

It's not my opinion though, i'm pretty sure i just proved it to be factually flawed?

[TheUnknown]

or if i didn't prove it wrong, i proved if time travel is possible we can destroy the universe accoring to this theory.. i'll go check out that other stuff btw thanks for the link :)

[moving finger]

haha indeed... we are just very sophisticated curious animals. ok, ok, i meant... what if i went back in time, supposing that i could warn someone of some catostrophic event that is going to happen(not in nature... assuming the earth ages the same and almost all the same geological catastrophes happen in synch with normalcy to our Known universe/world)... how do i know this will happen in their world?
How do you know there is more than one world?

how do i know if that person(s)even exist in where i am going?
You cannot warn soemone who does not exist.

on a differnt subject. if we do have parallel universes in the world
That's a very big IF :smile:

.. as far as living things go? and we all just happen to be born in these parellel universes because of some unknown mystery yet to be figured out. Then why go back? to save yourself in another universe which is you... but won't actually effect "YOU"
One wouldn't necessarily want to go back to save oneself. As I said, humans are curious animals, or maybe we just want to escape from our existing future and find another future?

... i think there is a huge information gap involved with the discussion of time travel, and there always will be until we can figure it out (which i do believe is not to far off), Also about the Dad thing, i meant if my dad has lost that sperm when i went back in time.. acknowledging the fact that we have free will in all of these parallel universes.
lol - what is "free will"?

Then where i went to find myself, i would not find... but i would still find my Dad... and possibly a child that took my place :)(being that he still marries my Mom) very interesting... love the feed back, i think this is brain food, not tuna. ha. Maybe i'm missing something here? but i don't see how even in parallel universes... (whatever that means in full.. i'd love a total explanation...) how are we denied the right to free will?
Define free will first, then we can debate whether it exists....

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

You can tell your brother that he will eat two eggs only if this won't cause him to not eat two eggs according to the 'select valid spacetimes' theory.

It's not that, given the assumption that your brother has free will, he literally CAN'T deviate from this page, it's that he WON'T. All the timelines where he decides not to are destroyed, therefore he must.

Your problem is that you're mixing science with free will.
Your problem is that you assume I am arguing in favour of, or on the basis of, free will. Read the posts - I am not.

There will be an overwhelming number of times that you cannot infallibly tell your brother he will eat two eggs, because he can prove you wrong. Therefore the vast majority of times you simply will not be able to make the infallible prediction (you can make a prediction, yes, but most times you will be wrong). This has nothing to do with free will, but everything to do with self-referential loops.

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

nobody knows if time travel really exists and so all this thread is speculation, more or less a "what if" scenario. It´s just fun talking about and letting your thoughts flow. Hope you don´t have a problem with that.
I have no problem with it, Ich, but if you read the first post in the thread you will see what its all about. According to GR as it stands today, time travel is theoretically possible - ie it is not ruled out by current theories. In this thread we are simply exploring some of the implications of that.
multiple universes are thought by some people to be a rather straightforward interpretation of QM; the only real alternative today is the "copenhagen interpretation" - I´d like to see your reaction to IT. :devil:
I disagree. There are a number of interpretations of QM apart from Copenhagen and multiple universes, including the Hidden Variables interpretation. However the various interpretations of QM are off-topic for this thread.

MF :smile:

[Ich]

or if i didn't prove it wrong, i proved if time travel is possible we can destroy the universe accoring to this theory.. i'll go check out that other stuff btw thanks for the link :)

You just found out that time travel brings you a great deal of trouble, vanishing universes maybe the least of it. People here know that, and that´s why they´re discussing a lot.
BTW , time trave really is speculation, but i´m sure there are two or three things about the behaviour of our universe which would lead you to PROVE it wrong in less than five minutes ;)

[moving finger]

without free will we don't have science...
? pardon? what does science have to do with something called free will? What is this thing you call free will anyway?

it's not a problem.. or maybe it is? maybe this means time travel can never exist. If there is someone living that is me right now in a parallel universe...
How can someone else be you, unless they really are you, and you them?

why are you so certain he will not get in a car crash and die tomorrow whereas here, i keep on living?
that's the whole idea of parallel universes, that different things can happen given the same starting conditions

Please tell me where science explains that. So you're image of parallel universes is a bunch of robots programmed running around doing the EXACT same things with no free will? that is not Science...
free will, what's that again?

MF :smile:

[Ich]

moving finger,

admitted, GR allows for time travel under certain conditions. It also allows for wormholes and superluminal velocities, if you just can gather enough exotic matter. Don´t misunderstand me, I welcome discussion about it and enjoy it myself. Nevertheless it´s speculation, because we´re just beginning to explore the consequences of GR - already knowing that it cannot be strictly correct (TOE and so on).
To QM, i thought Bohm ran into problems with his hidden variables, and decoherence is up to date. But You´re right, that´s another forum.

[moving finger]

BTW , time trave really is speculation, but i´m sure there are two or three things about the behaviour of our universe which would lead you to PROVE it wrong in less than five minutes ;)
ok, Ich, and with the deepest respect, go ahead and be my guest and try to prove time travel "wrong" - I'll be generous and let you have 5 days, never mind 5 minutes :biggrin:

MF :smile:

[Ich]

ok, Ich, and with the deepest respect, go ahead and be my guest and try to prove time travel "wrong" - I'll be generous and let you have 5 days, never mind 5 minutes :biggrin:

MF :smile:
sorry, moving finger, this one was meant for theunknown. I didn´t want him to prove time travel wrong, but out whole universe. :biggrin:

[TheUnknown]

You just found out that time travel brings you a great deal of trouble, vanishing universes maybe the least of it. People here know that, and that´s why they´re discussing a lot.
BTW , time trave really is speculation, but i´m sure there are two or three things about the behaviour of our universe which would lead you to PROVE it wrong in less than five minutes ;)

Don't get me wrong! i am not trying to prove time travel wrong, i am trying to prove it right.. but first we need to ask questions about theories, and get rid of ones that are so absurd, if we don't.. we'll never move forward... vanishing universes? i mean c'mon.. destroying the universe because you went back in time 2 times, once told your brother he was going to eat 2 eggs... he did.. so the ones where he didn't suddenly blew up, or vanished, then go again and tell him he's gunna eat two eggs, and he does.. so they vanish too, so then what are you left with? where did that theory come from? where do the universes go if they vanish? what happens to them? it sounds... extremely wishful to me. It's not that simple... well it can't be! or we'd be destroyed already, because obviously the universe is omnipresent when it comes to thinking on a time travel level, so we could have already experienced time travelers? or is it not... do you think we are the first earth/universe to reach 2005? i believe all the questions i have posted here and in my previous posts need to be applied to all time travel theories... it can't be that universes dissapear, you could not just destroy a whole dimension of Earth just from time travel, or i'm sure we'd be destroyed by now being that the universe is omnipresent ... it's really strange isn't it? arg... maybe it's only omnipresent up to our current and previous dates.. would this explain no time traveler visits? really weird.. now i'm lost lol ah.. maybe if time travel exists, then it is not used much... don't you think? or we would have seen something by now? ( i mean does not exist... being that the universe is omnipresent... no futuristic people have visited us yet saying they are time travelers with concrete evidence)

[moving finger]

moving finger,

admitted, GR allows for time travel under certain conditions. It also allows for wormholes and superluminal velocities, if you just can gather enough exotic matter. Don´t misunderstand me, I welcome discussion about it and enjoy it myself. Nevertheless it´s speculation, because we´re just beginning to explore the consequences of GR - already knowing that it cannot be strictly correct (TOE and so on).
To QM, i thought Bohm ran into problems with his hidden variables, and decoherence is up to date. But You´re right, that´s another forum.
Godel found a solution to Einstein's equations which allowed time travel but did not require wormholes, exotic material or superluminal velocities. It is generally recognised that within GR as it stands, time travel is possible at least in theory. As to speculation - well even the possibility of manned flight was "speculation" until someone had the curiosity and the courage to try to make it happen for real :smile:

The only problem with QM (and it's a problem for ALL interpretations, not just Hidden Variables) is that any viable solution must be non-local. This has been (ignorantly) used as a "proof" that no hidden variables theory can work (von Neumann has a lot to be blamed for!), whereas in fact non-local hidden variables theories can work.

MF :smile:

[Ich]

theUnknown -
absurd things/theories happen to come along every day. I didn´t say tou should believe it. My point was that you can´t actually DISPROVE it, so join the discussion and have fun.
Moving Finger -
agreed to all. Still QM is (at least) strange, and time travel is not shown to be possible.

[DaveC426913]

I get it. I get it! :biggrin: :biggrin:


All the thought experiements about travelling to the past and setting up a paradox make the same assumption; they make the assumption that the past is open, i.e. that it has not happened yet, i.e. that it is still possible to shoot one's mom.

The past is not the future. It has happened. We know that you will not return to the past and shoot your mother because it did not happen. (That's the one advantage of the past, that we know what (will have) actually transpired).

This plays right into the concept that time is an illusion, that past and future are merely the myopia of living creatures. If the past present and future have already been painted on the canvas (this is the "block time" referred to), then there is, simply put, no picture of our universe that was painted where a paradox occurred.

Does this mean we do not have free will? Maybe. It doesn't require the preposterous notion that some 'thing' will prevent you from pulling the trigger, it just means that the universe you are attempting to describe wherein those events occurred, is simply not in existence. You did not shoot your mother. Period.

[TheUnknown]

How do you know there is more than one world?


You cannot warn soemone who does not exist.


That's a very big IF :smile:


One wouldn't necessarily want to go back to save oneself. As I said, humans are curious animals, or maybe we just want to escape from our existing future and find another future?


lol - what is "free will"?


Define free will first, then we can debate whether it exists....

MF :smile:

free will... the ability to make your own decisions? if you believe in time travel you must believe in free will... because you have the free will to go back in time and mess with someone and they have thr free will to agree with you, or not agree with you, and the list goes on... when thinking about time travel you MUST incorporate free will, or certainly the universe will end, to many contradicting factors with no free will.. so by my studies over the last 6 months i've come to the conclusion of many things, that is one of them.... about warning someone if they do not exist... that was my point! :) if you decide to time travel and warn someone of something.. how do you know if their parents got together and successfuly had you, or the parents of their parents? or their parents? and all the way back to the ice ages, can you imagine the probability of that happening? it all has an effect, if any one thing is altered the whole world changes. again it's free will at work... you may be way more special than you think, you may be the only YOU in this universe/world/etc. also how could you go back to escape your future? how do you know your future? and if you did, and we did, don't you think we'd stop our own future from happening instead of escaping? we can never know our future with 100% accuracy... or so i believe, and if we did escape to another world where there was no time travel what would we tell them? how would we have enough room to fit all of humanity into another worldline? would humans be scattered through multiple universes or many worldlines? would we then warn every worldline of the possible catastrophes that lie ahead? see what i mean? this destruction of universes thing cannot exist... i can't find any reasonable logical explanation of it that i can't contradict.

[TheUnknown]

theUnknown -
absurd things/theories happen to come along every day. I didn´t say tou should believe it. My point was that you can´t actually DISPROVE it, so join the discussion and have fun.
Moving Finger -
agreed to all. Still QM is (at least) strange, and time travel is not shown to be possible.


i am having fun! you don;'t like me? :(

[Ich]

still have ;)

[TheUnknown]

I get it. I get it! :biggrin: :biggrin:


All the thought experiements about travelling to the past and setting up a paradox make the same assumption; they make the assumption that the past is open, i.e. that it has not happened yet, i.e. that it is still possible to shoot one's mom.

The past is not the future. It has happened. We know that you will not return to the past and shoot your mother because it did not happen. (That's the one advantage of the past, that we know what (will have) actually transpired).

This plays right into the concept that time is an illusion, that past and future are merely the myopia of living creatures. If the past present and future have already been painted on the canvas (this is the "block time" referred to), then there is, simply put, no picture of our universe that was painted where a paradox occurred.

Does this mean we do not have free will? Maybe. It doesn't require the preposterous notion that some 'thing' will prevent you from pulling the trigger, it just means that the universe you are attempting to describe wherein those events occurred, is simply not in existence. You did not shoot your mother. Period.

ah very bright, i love it ;) but don't forget the possibility of the multiple worlds theory.. although it is just a theory, it does seem very possible. but you may want to rethink your 'can't go into the future cause it hasn't been done', if there are parallel (again i am just using different theories that i believe possible, since they cannot be proved wrong yet) universes, then the universe would be omnipresent, and you could go into the future, because... if you can go back in time, then you can go into the future, because by going back in time, that means that "the past" is still unfolding at that present worldline... therefore the universe is omnipresent, and the future must also be unfolding as well.... aren't astro physics tricky.

[TheUnknown]

also the destruction of universes from the consequence of time travelers would not make much sense in the fact that... if you told your brother he was going to eat 2 eggs... and he didn't... then EVERY single Earth/universe... and the people in it suddenly dissapear "destroy"... so the only logical possible outcome from then on... would be for him to EAT the eggs right? so now this is where you come in... travel back again, and kill him! then what? uh oh! so he dies in every other parallel universe to.. the way this theory is thought out.. is that the consequence of one worldline effects anther? i don't believe in this because it assumes that EVERY universe where he doesnt eat the eggs is DESTROYED, why?! there is still no explanation for this... therefore if I FORCE him not to eat the eggs... the universe ends? remember all the universes where he HAS to eat the eggs has been destroyed... so am i creating a new universe by making him eat eggs? i hardly think so... this is almost laughable, because that's where this theory comes to an end :-/ it can't be true because it is incomplete and lacks a lot of logic, everytime i read it, it sounds like someone who, don't get me wrong, is very brilliant... but it sounds like their wishful thinking, desperately trying to be made true, and i think i exposed a LOT of faults here to undeniably dismiss it? don't get mad at me ich... remember i am not against time travel.. i am just pro fact, and pro logic and reasoning... i want to prove time travel to be right, and i believe it can be done... but the crazy theories trying to scare people who can't analyze the theory for themselves begin thinking time travel is going to destroy the universes.... it's abs.... ahhem.. you see what i mean now :)

[DaveC426913]

I think the key is that the universe getting destroyed does not happen in "our experience" of time. i.e.: "Yesterday, a universe. Today, not so much with the universe."


But it happens outside of time. i.e that universe just didn't happen.


Same thing as with the double slit experiment. Measuring the photon doesn't destroy the offending path, it makes it that the path did not happen.

[TheUnknown]

I think the key is that the universe getting destroyed does not happen in "our experience" of time. i.e.: "Yesterday, a universe. Today, not so much with the universe."


But it happens outside of time. i.e that universe just didn't happen.


Same thing as with the double slit experiment. Measuring the photon dopesn't desotry the offending path, it makes it that the path did not happen.

but that is not reasonable... i mean if suddenly a time traveler came and did something that destroyed our World... we'd KNOW, and he would too! so we did exist! and he knew about it as well as us! he still has to go back to his time knowing we existed(being he survived, which he should, since he is not a part of our universe, unless it suddenly self destructs while he's there... this is why i don't buy this theory again.)... therefore we did exist in time, and our universe was both destroyed in his time and ours. either way you put it for US... he still witnessed his actions destroy our universe. That is very interesting... our existence of time.. i'll have to think about that one for a while, let me get back to you, my brain is scattered right now lol. I still don't believe in universes being destroyed by time travel! :)

[TheUnknown]

anyone just looking at this page, i ask you to please read all of them :)!!! i need some input on this, i am studying this topic very hard, i believe time travel is possible, but so far it is beyond our comprehension... and i am trying to move us forward by dismissing old faulty theories, and possibly create new ones.. if anyone would like to collaborate? because before we try and attempt something that has the potential for a number of universal flaws... we should first theorize logically, and lift up every stone, not turn a blind eye to any suggestion, and look around every corner... humans are amazing... look what one of us can do... put 5 brains together and it's very possible.

[DaveC426913]

but that is not reasonable... i mean if suddenly a time traveler came and did something that destroyed our World... we'd KNOW, and he would too! so we did exist! and he knew about it as well as us! he still has to go back to his time knowing we existed(being he survived, which he should, since he is not a part of our universe, unless it suddenly self destructs while he's there... this is why i don't buy this theory again.)... therefore we did exist in time, and our universe was both destroyed in his time and ours. either way you put it for US... he still witnessed his actions destroy our universe. That is very interesting... our existence of time.. i'll have to think about that one for a while, let me get back to you, my brain is scattered right now lol. I still don't believe in universes being destroyed by time travel! :)

No. We know that a time traveller will/did not destroy this universe: it exists.

Brian Greene's book 'Fabric of the Cosmos' shows how time can be seen as an illusion. That both past and future already exist**; it is merely our limited perception that we view time as "passing". Since the future exists, it is impossible to have a future exist wherein a time traveller destroys it in the past. That particular series of events just never happened.



**In a nutshell: Using GR, you can show that one man's past is another man's future. If you slice it just so, the two events can be shown to have happened simultaneously in spacetime.

[Raparicio]

You can supply the paradoxes, by division of x->x' and t->t' formula of A. Einstein. Now, you work with velocities, and this have no paradoxal time. An example of another post is:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=69849

where is de paradox??? In our minds.

[TheUnknown]

No. We know that a time traveller will/did not destroy this universe: it exists.

Brian Greene's book 'Fabric of the Cosmos' shows how time can be seen as an illusion. That both past and future already exist**; it is merely our limited perception that we view time as "passing". Since the future exists, it is impossible to have a future exist wherein a time traveller destroys it in the past. That particular series of events just never happened.



**In a nutshell: Using GR, you can show that one man's past is another man's future. If you slice it just so, the two events can be shown to have happened simultaneously in spacetime.

so what you're saying is that ultimately... we'll never have any factual evidence of this?! and all of this is just going to be theories forever, since if we are destroyed we never existed anyway? and no other universes/world parallel with us or not.. would have ever known of us since we were destroyed and therefore did not exist in "time".? doesn't sound very plausible to me... although it does make 100% sense. so then this paradox WOULD be created only in our mind... if all of this NEVER really happens... so are we then... crazy? Maybe this paradox is so much that it doesn't really exist? and it is just a figment of our imagination, and wishful thinking to be able to go back in time and into the future. :) thanks for stuff guys.

[TheUnknown]

No. We know that a time traveller will/did not destroy this universe: it exists.

Brian Greene's book 'Fabric of the Cosmos' shows how time can be seen as an illusion. That both past and future already exist**; it is merely our limited perception that we view time as "passing". Since the future exists, it is impossible to have a future exist wherein a time traveller destroys it in the past. That particular series of events just never happened.



**In a nutshell: Using GR, you can show that one man's past is another man's future. If you slice it just so, the two events can be shown to have happened simultaneously in spacetime.

you also stated that, if our universe was destroyed then we never existed.. i have a question... if the time traveler that comes to destroy our world ... let's say world... say he brings a nuclear device with him.. with enough explosives to destroy that world.. sets it on a timer... and then leaves, and takes someone from that universe with him... then what? he saw this world before it was destroyed... so what i'm saying is, it did exist. it was not lost in time, and did not dissapear, and there would be a survivor to tell of this. unless we go by another theory saying that there is only one worldline, and once the nuclear device goes off, they cannot return to any world... and they are stuck in time, traveling inside a black whole until he passes away... or does he immediatly die as well? since his "twin" would be on that world and die when the nuke goes off? and what happens to the man he took with him... whose universe and world never existed? to many flaws. the destroyed universes theory still does not win over any kind of credibility with me :-/ i do believe in time travel... i want to see it happen... but i am looking for a theory on time travel that doesn't come to any dead ends. One dead end, is enough. Or here's another view, say.. since the explanation i was given earlier about this "destroying universes by time travel theory" that's what i'll refer to it as from now on... :P the information i was given about it, was that if you go back in time and tell your brother he will eat 2 eggs... and he does.. then all the universes where he doesn't are destroyed? which still makes absolutely no sense.. then we are limiting our time travel window every time we go back into the past by destroying universes with every action we make(makes no sense to me... seems eventually we'd all be destroyed, and then why would we be here today if the universe is omnipresent and we destroy ourselevs through time travel?)... also by stating this.. this theory is suggesting that the universe is not infinite.. and in fact it is finite.. example.. if there are 100 universes, and you go back in time, and in 50 universes your brother does eat the 2 eggs, and in the other he doesn't... so 50 universes will dissapear... so say you do this.. you go back in time, you don't tell your brother he will eat the eggs.. instead you watch him eat them.. you take him with you to travel to another universe where you tell him he will and doesn't... so how can this first brother exist still if he is supposed to be destroyed? does he dissapear before your eyes? or is he still there because of the fact that you did not intervene with him eating the eggs the first time around? starting to make sense? so if you just kept going back in time and taking a your same brother from different times, and continued to expirment with him eating and not eating eggs.. and taking him with you each time to other wordlines, you'd eventually destroy the whole universe through these actions? i hardly think so... thanks guys, just discussing this here has probably amounted to 3 months worth of study. I'd really like the discussions to continue if you guys would please :) i enjoy this very much, thanks guys.

[TheUnknown]

? pardon? what does science have to do with something called free will? What is this thing you call free will anyway?


How can someone else be you, unless they really are you, and you them?


that's the whole idea of parallel universes, that different things can happen given the same starting conditions


free will, what's that again?

MF :smile:

this is what i'm trying to tell everyone about this multiple world theory, and this other theory which states that universes are destroyed by going back in time... "that different things can happen given the same starting"... the start wasn't 20 years ago.. it was billions... who's to say we survived or didn't survive the ice ages in every worldline, and that mankind even exists? or for those of you who believe in evolution... that we ever evolved correctly? imagine going back in time to a similar earth with strange beings. who's to say any of us exist in any other multiple world line? everyone i talk to about this always assumes that there are parallel universes with exact replicas of us, just making different decisions.... wich is a paradox in itself... if we make different decisions... then why couldn't we make the different decision to mate with a different male/female and the list goes on, what i'm saying is people only theorize the way THEY want it to be... and don't open their mind to the IF's and What's... which makes a good theorizer.. GREAT. there are an infinite number of decisions you can choose throughout the existence of human kind that would forever change the world as we knowit ... lwhether it be small... or big decisions. or then again.. maybe the multiple world theory is true.. and my vision of it is correct.(also in multiple universes, why are we so generous to overlook if the earth would ever even be placed perfectly in the position it's in now to support life?)

[TheUnknown]

you guys might like this one.. let's put an extremely fascinating twist on this... going back in time actually results in going into the "future" of our world... but the past's present... since we now understand free will, who's to say an einstein like person would not have been born or came about 1,000 years before ours, and that worldline is technologically 1,000 years more advanced? then this past wordline we are visiting now gives us insite into future technologies etc... so we now open up the past and the future by time traveling into the "past" only... neat huh? :rofl: the universe is omnipresent with many different outcomes, this is very possible. What i am trying to prove here is we can't use "wishful thinking" theories to use to go by for time traveling information. We can't make the assumption that WE are LIVING in other universes parallel to ours... we have the will to make different choices... BUT since you HAVE to keep the theory alive, you have to say that for some reason we cannot make the DECISION to kill someone in another wordline... whereas their family tree would discontinue, and if they went back in time they would not exist in that worldline, or that our parents could NOT (this is a choice they can make, why deny them it just to fit the specifications of the theory? it's beyond all logic and reasoning, and even physics) get together with smeone else, and we don't exist. why does it seem so hard to accept for a lot of hardcore time traveler fanatics? I swear i think i am going to write a book on this, i think by proving every fault of every theory that is out there, i will in the end be able to put all working parts of these theories together, and have one final and correct solution. Time travel will and does exist! :)

[moving finger]

Moving Finger -
agreed to all. Still QM is (at least) strange, and time travel is not shown to be possible.
I'm sorry, but in generally accepted solutions to Einstein's equations time travel IS shown to be very possible.

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

I get it. I get it! :biggrin: :biggrin:


All the thought experiements about travelling to the past and setting up a paradox make the same assumption; they make the assumption that the past is open, i.e. that it has not happened yet, i.e. that it is still possible to shoot one's mom.

The past is not the future. It has happened. We know that you will not return to the past and shoot your mother because it did not happen. (That's the one advantage of the past, that we know what (will have) actually transpired).

This plays right into the concept that time is an illusion, that past and future are merely the myopia of living creatures. If the past present and future have already been painted on the canvas (this is the "block time" referred to), then there is, simply put, no picture of our universe that was painted where a paradox occurred.

Does this mean we do not have free will? Maybe. It doesn't require the preposterous notion that some 'thing' will prevent you from pulling the trigger, it just means that the universe you are attempting to describe wherein those events occurred, is simply not in existence. You did not shoot your mother. Period.
Congratulations, Dave, this is the SCH hypothesis that we have been discussing in this thread at length (basically : that only self-consistent histories are allowed). If we assume a deterministic universe then this leads to the Block Time picture, and all of our future is just as fixed and determined as is our past, and no time traveller can "change" the past any more than we can "change" the future. It is not that "the past is not the future" as you suggest, it is that both past and future are fixed and determined, both past and future "have happened" in the sense that they are both out there, simply waiting to be discovered.

There are a couple of problems we need to address with this picture however :

1 : If we allow time-travel then in theory you could travel back to your own past and tell yourself in detail what you will have for breakfast tomorrow. Armed with such knowledge, are you seriously telling me that you would accept that your tomorrow's breakfast menu is now fixed, and there is absolutely nothing you can do now to ensure that the prediction turns out to be false? If you believe in the possibility of time travel and in the SCH hypothesis then you must answer "yes" to this question. I answer "no" to this question, not because I believe in something called "free will" or anything airy-fairy like that (what is free will anyway?), but because I believe the absurd situation that presents itself suggests to me that there is something fundamentally flawed with the suggested experiment, and the flaw is probably the possibility of time travel in the first place.

2 : Time travel and the Block Time picture also imply that the universe must be super-deterministic with no possibility of any uncertainty in anything, even at a quantum level (the perfect consistency of spacetime would require a super-deterministic universe). Hence, QM is deterministic (Hidden Variables?) and not indeterministic as the conventional interpretation would have us believe.

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

free will... the ability to make your own decisions?
The decisions you make are based on the information and experiences in your brain (if you like, based on the software you have been "programmed" with). A computer also makes decisions based on the software that it has been programmed with.
Does this mean that by your definition a computer has free will?
If not, why not?

Sorry, but I think there is something very slippery about trying to define free will, and then to prove that humans act freely.....

if you believe in time travel you must believe in free will... because you have the free will to go back in time and mess with someone and they have thr free will to agree with you, or not agree with you, and the list goes on... when thinking about time travel you MUST incorporate free will, or certainly the universe will end, to many contradicting factors with no free will.. so by my studies over the last 6 months i've come to the conclusion of many things, that is one of them.... about warning someone if they do not exist... that was my point! :) if you decide to time travel and warn someone of something.. how do you know if their parents got together and successfuly had you, or the parents of their parents? or their parents? and all the way back to the ice ages, can you imagine the probability of that happening? it all has an effect, if any one thing is altered the whole world changes. again it's free will at work... you may be way more special than you think, you may be the only YOU in this universe/world/etc. also how could you go back to escape your future? how do you know your future? and if you did, and we did, don't you think we'd stop our own future from happening instead of escaping? we can never know our future with 100% accuracy... or so i believe, and if we did escape to another world where there was no time travel what would we tell them? how would we have enough room to fit all of humanity into another worldline? would humans be scattered through multiple universes or many worldlines? would we then warn every worldline of the possible catastrophes that lie ahead? see what i mean? this destruction of universes thing cannot exist... i can't find any reasonable logical explanation of it that i can't contradict.
in all of this you are assuming the past is not "fixed", that somehow the past can be changed. That would require some kind of multiple universes viewpoint (which is legitimate, I agree), but has nothing to do with "free will" (whatever that turns out to be in the end).

MF :smile:

[Ich]

I'm sorry, but in generally accepted solutions to Einstein's equations time travel IS shown to be very possible.

MF :smile:
Yep, and as I said, we already know that GR cannot be strictly true, because it does not match with QM. And even if we stick to GR, maybe the conditions to achieve time travel are unphysical.
Don´t get me wrong: I´m not trying to show that time travel is impossible, because I can´t. My point is that we do not KNOW yet whether it´s possible, even if it´s a solution to a theory. Only experiment can tell for sure.
And after the consequences are so mind-boggling, one rather brings to mind that maybe we´re talking about angels dancing on a pin.

[moving finger]

also the destruction of universes from the consequence of time travelers would not make much sense in the fact that... if you told your brother he was going to eat 2 eggs... and he didn't... then EVERY single Earth/universe... and the people in it suddenly dissapear "destroy"... so the only logical possible outcome from then on... would be for him to EAT the eggs right? so now this is where you come in... travel back again, and kill him! then what? uh oh! so he dies in every other parallel universe to.. the way this theory is thought out.. is that the consequence of one worldline effects anther? i don't believe in this because it assumes that EVERY universe where he doesnt eat the eggs is DESTROYED, why?! there is still no explanation for this... therefore if I FORCE him not to eat the eggs... the universe ends? remember all the universes where he HAS to eat the eggs has been destroyed... so am i creating a new universe by making him eat eggs? i hardly think so... this is almost laughable, because that's where this theory comes to an end :-/ it can't be true because it is incomplete and lacks a lot of logic, everytime i read it, it sounds like someone who, don't get me wrong, is very brilliant... but it sounds like their wishful thinking, desperately trying to be made true, and i think i exposed a LOT of faults here to undeniably dismiss it? don't get mad at me ich... remember i am not against time travel.. i am just pro fact, and pro logic and reasoning... i want to prove time travel to be right, and i believe it can be done... but the crazy theories trying to scare people who can't analyze the theory for themselves begin thinking time travel is going to destroy the universes.... it's abs.... ahhem.. you see what i mean now :)
Hi Unknown

Perhaps (with respect) you could try writing a little more coherently and succinctly? I am trying to follow your ideas but I find your writing very chaotic, which makes it difficult.

I gather that you "want" to believe in time travel, but that you find some of the potential paradoxes alarming, also that you seem to favour the multiple universes idea.

I can sympathise with this, since I also find the potential paradoxes alarming. This leads me to think that either there is something fundamantally flawed with the idea of time travel in the first place, or that the solution must be in something like the multiple universes idea.

However, I advise you to drop the idea that any of this is in any way linked to something called "free will". I think you will find that is a non-starter (if only because it is notoriously difficult to agree a sensible definition of free will, and even if one can be agreed I do not see how it could further our understanding of the problem at hand).

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

you also stated that, if our universe was destroyed then we never existed.. i have a question... if the time traveler that comes to destroy our world ... let's say world... say he brings a nuclear device with him.. with enough explosives to destroy that world.. sets it on a timer... and then leaves, and takes someone from that universe with him... then what?
The SCH hypothesis (assuming one universe) would say this simply would not/could not happen, because it is a non-self-consistent solution.

he saw this world before it was destroyed... so what i'm saying is, it did exist. it was not lost in time, and did not dissapear, and there would be a survivor to tell of this. unless we go by another theory saying that there is only one worldline, and once the nuclear device goes off, they cannot return to any world... and they are stuck in time, traveling inside a black whole until he passes away... or does he immediatly die as well?
No, it simply could not occur as you describe it in "one world" because of the SCH hypothesis.

since his "twin" would be on that world and die when the nuke goes off? and what happens to the man he took with him... whose universe and world never existed? to many flaws. the destroyed universes theory still does not win over any kind of credibility with me :-/ i do believe in time travel... i want to see it happen... but i am looking for a theory on time travel that doesn't come to any dead ends.
Then you have it in your multiple worlds theory.

Or here's another view, say.. since the explanation i was given earlier about this "destroying universes by time travel theory" that's what i'll refer to it as from now on... :P the information i was given about it, was that if you go back in time and tell your brother he will eat 2 eggs... and he does.. then all the universes where he doesn't are destroyed?
no, its not that the universes would be destroyed, because (assuming just one world) those universes never existed in the first place. SCH simply says that the scenario you portray is not possible, the only possible world is one which is self-consistent.

which still makes absolutely no sense.. then we are limiting our time travel window every time we go back into the past by destroying universes with every action we make(makes no sense to me... seems eventually we'd all be destroyed, and then why would we be here today if the universe is omnipresent and we destroy ourselevs through time travel?)... also by stating this.. this theory is suggesting that the universe is not infinite.. and in fact it is finite.. example.. if there are 100 universes, and you go back in time, and in 50 universes your brother does eat the 2 eggs, and in the other he doesn't... so 50 universes will dissapear... so say you do this.. you go back in time, you don't tell your brother he will eat the eggs.. instead you watch him eat them.. you take him with you to travel to another universe where you tell him he will and doesn't... so how can this first brother exist still if he is supposed to be destroyed? does he dissapear before your eyes? or is he still there because of the fact that you did not intervene with him eating the eggs the first time around? starting to make sense? so if you just kept going back in time and taking a your same brother from different times, and continued to expirment with him eating and not eating eggs.. and taking him with you each time to other wordlines, you'd eventually destroy the whole universe through these actions? i hardly think so... thanks guys, just discussing this here has probably amounted to 3 months worth of study. I'd really like the discussions to continue if you guys would please :) i enjoy this very much, thanks guys.
seems like you need to separate in your mind the "multiple universe" idea from the "single universe" idea.

In the multiple universe idea then (assuming time travel is possible between universes) there would be no paradoxes and universes could be created and destroyed, and there is no need for a SCH hypothesis.

In the single universe idea then (assuming time travel is possible) it seems that we need something like the SCH hypothesis to ensure the world is self-consistent and there are no paradoxes.

Try not to mix the two ideas and you will be OK.

Hope this helps,

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

this is what i'm trying to tell everyone about this multiple world theory, and this other theory which states that universes are destroyed by going back in time... "that different things can happen given the same starting"... the start wasn't 20 years ago.. it was billions... who's to say we survived or didn't survive the ice ages in every worldline, and that mankind even exists? or for those of you who believe in evolution... that we ever evolved correctly? imagine going back in time to a similar earth with strange beings. who's to say any of us exist in any other multiple world line? everyone i talk to about this always assumes that there are parallel universes with exact replicas of us, just making different decisions.... wich is a paradox in itself... if we make different decisions... then why couldn't we make the different decision to mate with a different male/female and the list goes on, what i'm saying is people only theorize the way THEY want it to be... and don't open their mind to the IF's and What's... which makes a good theorizer.. GREAT. there are an infinite number of decisions you can choose throughout the existence of human kind that would forever change the world as we knowit ... lwhether it be small... or big decisions. or then again.. maybe the multiple world theory is true.. and my vision of it is correct.(also in multiple universes, why are we so generous to overlook if the earth would ever even be placed perfectly in the position it's in now to support life?)
For the multiple worlds theory to work there must be an unlimited (infinite?) number of parallel worlds, not simply to cater for different human "decisions" but also to cater for every possible outcome in every quantum mechanical event (assuming that QM is not deterministic).

If time travel is allowed, it boils down to :

Either the laws of physics are not super-deterministic and there are multiple worlds to cater for the various possible outcomes and to allow non-paradoxical time-travel.

Or the laws of physics are super-deterministic (even at a quantum level) and there is only one world with one (fixed) past and future, and (to ensure no paradoxes) this must be an entirely self-consistent solution even allowing for the possibility of time-travel.

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

Yep, and as I said, we already know that GR cannot be strictly true, because it does not match with QM. And even if we stick to GR, maybe the conditions to achieve time travel are unphysical.
Don´t get me wrong: I´m not trying to show that time travel is impossible, because I can´t. My point is that we do not KNOW yet whether it´s possible, even if it´s a solution to a theory. Only experiment can tell for sure.
And after the consequences are so mind-boggling, one rather brings to mind that maybe we´re talking about angels dancing on a pin.
I am inclined to agree that there is something "not quite right" about the idea of time-travel within a single world (ie if we discount the multiple-worlds idea), it seems we are forced into a situation where we need something like the SCH hypothesis to ensure no paradoxes arise, but even with this hypothesis I think the possible outcomes are absurd (such as me travelling back in time and telling myself yesterday what I will have for breakfast today, and then being powerless to do anything but have what I have been told I will have). This absurdity suggests to me there is a fundamental flaw in the idea of time travel that we have yet to discover.

MF :smile:

[TheUnknown]

The decisions you make are based on the information and experiences in your brain (if you like, based on the software you have been "programmed" with). A computer also makes decisions based on the software that it has been programmed with.
Does this mean that by your definition a computer has free will?
If not, why not?

Sorry, but I think there is something very slippery about trying to define free will, and then to prove that humans act freely.....


in all of this you are assuming the past is not "fixed", that somehow the past can be changed. That would require some kind of multiple universes viewpoint (which is legitimate, I agree), but has nothing to do with "free will" (whatever that turns out to be in the end).

MF :smile:

A computer may NEVER have "free will" because of the fact that is has already been created by us, that destroys it's whole concept of free will, because yes it IS programmed by the creator, now if you believe in God you may argue that we then.. have no free will, but religion states that God works in mysterious ways, and that we DO have Free will, although he is omnipresent and all knowing, one of many paradoxes yet to be discovered. No i do not believe we are programmed to act a certain way or do a certain thing... we have the software, but we make our own decisions, no one is clicking a mouse or hitting Enter. Humans MUST act freely for time travel to be possible. You cannot dismiss this and then come up with a theory lacking the free actions of humans, and prove it to have no paradoxes, a paradox is a problem, it is not a solution. for free will/timetravel/multi universes to be possible, there must be only one of YOU in the entire universe, and every other earth is full of different humans or beings. i take that back.. in a sense... there may be another you since there are an infinite amount of universes, but it is not really YOU, or they are living in your current time(i don't want to believe this can happen, but i'll give it the benefit of the doubt, on a quantum multiverse scale i find it highly unlikely you'd ever run into yourself), i take that all back, there must certainly be another you if the multiverse is infinite, but it's not YOU.. if you know what i'm saying? or when you both met, since the universe is omnipresent, your minds would explode or something, how can anyone fathom that? how can YOU be talking to YOU and listening to what YOU are saying... but not knowing what YOU are going to say before you say it, even though it is YOU talking... hm. :-/ u know? different YOU brains each not knowing what the other is thinking, yet they are both YOU. can't be possible?

[TheUnknown]

The SCH hypothesis (assuming one universe) would say this simply would not/could not happen, because it is a non-self-consistent solution.


No, it simply could not occur as you describe it in "one world" because of the SCH hypothesis.


Then you have it in your multiple worlds theory.


no, its not that the universes would be destroyed, because (assuming just one world) those universes never existed in the first place. SCH simply says that the scenario you portray is not possible, the only possible world is one which is self-consistent.


seems like you need to separate in your mind the "multiple universe" idea from the "single universe" idea.

In the multiple universe idea then (assuming time travel is possible between universes) there would be no paradoxes and universes could be created and destroyed, and there is no need for a SCH hypothesis.

In the single universe idea then (assuming time travel is possible) it seems that we need something like the SCH hypothesis to ensure the world is self-consistent and there are no paradoxes.

Try not to mix the two ideas and you will be OK.

Hope this helps,

MF :smile:

explain to me what a "self consistent situation is?" who's to say in 20 years i decide to become a terrorist, and i am able to get my hands on time travel, and i do indeed travel back in time and the "nuclear episode" occurs exactly the way i want it to, because i believe it will destroy the universe according to your theory. Again the free actions of humans simply cannot be dismissed. I still haven't seen anything that makes me like the "dissapearing universes" theory, as i stated... if i became a terrorist, destroyed a world, took someone from that time (because i believe in this hypothesis, that it will somehow destroy the universe... this seems to easy to me and i jump at the chance to get a time travel machine and surely enough i am able to do it, and boom the whole universe as we know it doesn't exist because of my actions.) So what you are implying is that these universes simply DO NOT exist... until we go there... then they are created upon our arrival? and they dissapear while leaving? still contradicts taking someone from that universe back to our time if they don't actually exist. Sorry if i am mixing ideas... like i said i am trying to assert all of these theories and hypothesis to get a clear view of what can and cannot happen, and then come up with a very reasonable theory.. i like mulitple worlds, although there is a lot of information lacking, like the free actions of humans, and the free actions of the universe as a whole, giving an infinite number of outcomes and earths that could or could not have been created exactly in tis place in the universe. what if we time traveled and upon coming out of the minurature black holes (supposively the source of time travel) we find ourselves in the middle of no where, and the solar system as we know it is 3,000,000,000,000 miles away from where we are today? and that any earth in any other universe may not be 1000 years more advanced than us if we traveled back to 1970 because another "Einstein" came along before ours.

[TheUnknown]

For the multiple worlds theory to work there must be an unlimited (infinite?) number of parallel worlds, not simply to cater for different human "decisions" but also to cater for every possible outcome in every quantum mechanical event (assuming that QM is not deterministic).

If time travel is allowed, it boils down to :

Either the laws of physics are not super-deterministic and there are multiple worlds to cater for the various possible outcomes and to allow non-paradoxical time-travel.

Or the laws of physics are super-deterministic (even at a quantum level) and there is only one world with one (fixed) past and future, and (to ensure no paradoxes) this must be an entirely self-consistent solution even allowing for the possibility of time-travel.

MF :smile:

i agree... i want to prove time travel is possible, but sometimes the paradoxes seem not to allow it... but we have come so far in physics, we know the possibility is not to far off, and if we are able to harness it, we need some type of reasonable solution, so the first time travelers aren't going back in time thinking they do not have free will : --->the ability to act freely and change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time<----.(on the basis that time travel exists, one has these free will choices inside themself while time traveling, THEY control what they do and don't do while time traveling, and that either effects the world they are currently visiting, or doesn't, and causes consequences, and rewards[action/reaction]) i think you could in a sense.. on a time travel level, relate free will to action/reaction, free will is the actions and reactions that occur because of our actions... and we do have the free will to make these actions(nuclear episode), and they need be applied to these theories in whole.

[TheUnknown]

i do believe as well, if we can put together a plausible theory... that has no dead ends, and can be explained to any nay sayer, or questioner, that the possibility of time travel MUST be true. Example... planet hunting... Hubble picks a star, it can see this star, the scientist can measure the "wobble effect" on the star, and therefore a planet must exist, and they have been right everytime so far, a real theory must lead to reality, right? we can see the star (time) we know it's there, now we are measuring it's wobble(possibility of existence). if there is no wobble then the travel does not exist.

[Ich]

I am inclined to agree that there is something "not quite right" about the idea of time-travel within a single world (ie if we discount the multiple-worlds idea), it seems we are forced into a situation where we need something like the SCH hypothesis to ensure no paradoxes arise, but even with this hypothesis I think the possible outcomes are absurd (such as me travelling back in time and telling myself yesterday what I will have for breakfast today, and then being powerless to do anything but have what I have been told I will have). This absurdity suggests to me there is a fundamental flaw in the idea of time travel that we have yet to discover.

MF :smile:
guess we have a common point. This multiverse stuff seems to be the most approproiate to handle time travel, but I don´t really like it.

[TheUnknown]

[QUOTE=TheUnknown]free will : --->the ability to act freely and change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time<----.(on the basis that time travel exists, one has these free will choices inside themself while time traveling, THEY control what they do and don't do while time traveling, and that either effects the world they are currently visiting, or doesn't, and causes consequences, and rewards[action/reaction])

[DaveC426913]

Personally, I don't get this multiple worlds idea. The logic is backwards.

"If we can't travel back into our own time, then at least we should be able to travel to the past by traveling back into an alternate time."

See, it starts with the premise that we simply cannot travel back into our own time. Then it goes on to say "but I really *want* to believe time travel of *some* sort is possible, so I'm ging to invent an alternate way it could happen - subjectively - from my point of view."

It's inventing a phenomemon out of "whole cloth" for no reason (other than because we want fodder for stories). It doesn't resolve *anything*.

The only way this would make sense is if we *had* a working time machine, that really *did* travel to a place that looks just like our past. And we were standing around scratching our heads, and saying "How is this possible? Where are they going when they go to the past? Since our universe hasn't disappeared in a puff of illogic, perhaps they're going to an alternate history."

[TheUnknown]

Personally, I don't get this multiple worlds idea. The logic is backwards.

"If we can't travel back into our own time, then at least we should be able to travel to the past by traveling back into an alternate time."

See, it starts with the premise that we simply cannot travel back into our own time. Then it goes on to say "but I really *want* to believe time travel of *some* sort is possible, so I'm ging to invent an alternate way it could happen - subjectively - from my point of view."

It's inventing a phenomemon out of "whole cloth" for no reason (other than because we want fodder for stories). It doesn't resolve *anything*.

The only way this would make sense is if we *had* a working time machine, that really *did* travel to a place that looks just like our past. And we were standing around scratching our heads, and saying "How is this possible? Where are they going when they go to the past? Since our universe hasn't disappeared in a puff of illogic, perhaps they're going to an alternate history."

alternate history/alternate worldline multiverse can all be tied together.. it is not just taking an opinion and saying believe this! it's taking all these other theories and saying.. look how faulty and wrong these are, they could never happen, since we have phylosophy and we understand that humans make choices everyday, they cannot be, the only way this could be possible is by doing it this way... there are no dead ends and no paradoxes, so why can it not be true? how could we travel back into "our" own time? if you really sit and think about, it does not work, time travel of that sort is not possible, if that's the only way time travel... could work, then i guess time travel is impossible in that sense. going back to a different history would suggest the multiple world theory, and with the multiple world theory, you then get back to square 1, which says, if there is an alternate universe with people making different decisions to have different histories, then everything in that world as we know it will be different, because every single human being every single day will make a different decision than he made today, or a different thought, at least once! at the least! and that's being generous! what if john wilks booth decided not to kill lincoln? what if america never dropped it nukes and germany came to power with the first nukes? alternate history is exactly what i am suggesting, and you are saying you believe in it... but you only want it to work according to this theory(which would say that for some reason the earth started 100 or so years ago, forgetting about everything that has occured over the past billions of years on earth, with all the people in it now, so if you went back to 1975, all the same people are there.. but with a different history?), you only want the histories to be different, but all the same people still exist, and all the planets lined up right, and (again if you believe in evolution) and all animals evolved the same, creating the same people to die from certain animals etc. etc. you see how cimplicated and how much of an amazing anomoly it would be to actually have an exact replica of our earth with all the same people in it, but only making decisions that change in OUR view of OUR "historical events", but somehow still has all the same people living in it,. also physics are starting to expose the travels in time... so if it's possible, and we know it can't work a certain way, then it must work another way... which would mean 1.) multi universes do exist. Or 2.) time travel is not possible, or is a figment of the imagination created by intense gravitational fields (black holes).. or you do go back in time, and everything you think you are doing is not actually happening, although all the events around you are truly unfolding... i'm trying to figure out some way that time travel may be true.. but false at the same time, more of a mental lapse created by the gravitational field, that actually takes you back to these times and allows you to visualize or something, anyway, that sounds very incomplete and ridiculous, because it is incomplete, i'll put more thought into it, and see what i can come up with. also, when we do figure time travel, and the multiverse idea is true, then surely religion will have be rethought by many athiest... how could something like this beyond our thoughts be created over and over and over and over again unless a greater power wanted it to be that way so that we COULD time travel?

[moving finger]

the computer will just split out complete histories, all you can do is view them. But in these histories, there may be simulated intelligent beings who learn to time travel, and a time traveler may meet another being and tell him in advance what he was going to do. So if this being asks the time traveler, "but what will prevent me from doing something different?", I'm asking you what you think the best answer to him would be if you were to imagine responding to him in your head, you can't actually tell him the answer since you are not part of the simulation.
Hi Jesse

Can we examine the simulations analogy in more detail please?

The hyperspace computer producing these simulations is presumably generating each of these simulations at random, using some kind of "starting point" or “seed” in the time-axis of 4D spacetime (it could be at the beginning of time, the end of time, or any point on the time-axis, since using Block Time and the deterministic view, we should be able to generate any particular history, past and future, given the precise spacetime coordinates for one particular point on the temporal axis of that history). Do you agree?
The computer then uses the deterministic algorithm to simply generate the full 4D spacetime history from a given starting point (seed).
I am interested in the selection process for complete histories - the process the computer uses to select and “split out” only complete (ie self-consistent) spacetimes for the hyperbeings to view.
The computer presumably selects seeds at random and generates a multitude of random spacetime histories?

Are we saying (A) that it is possible (in principle) for the computer to generate (given a particular starting seed) a spacetime history which is inconsistent and therefore incomplete? In which case the entire set of histories generated by the computer will contain both complete (consistent) and incomplete (inconsistent) histories, and the computer then presumably retrospectively discards the incomplete histories?

Or are we saying (B) that the computer will only use seeds that will always generate only complete and consistent spacetime histories?

If (A), then there is some point in the “hypertime” of the computer when each incomplete history “exists”, prior to being discarded. Presumably, the simulated beings within this incomplete history “experience” that existence, just as much as the simulated beings within a complete history. In which case, both complete and incomplete histories, at some point in hypertime, give rise to conditions whereby 4D simulated beings experience existence. This being the case, it is clearly possible that our present universe could be one with either a complete or an incomplete history (if incomplete, we simply have not yet reached the point of inconsistency which renders our spacetime incomplete).

If (B), then this implies there must be some kind of preferential “pre-selection” of seeds that will produce ONLY complete spacetimes, ie seeds that will produce incomplete spacetimes are somehow eliminated from the batch of seeds used for the simulations BEFORE they are used to produce an incomplete history. But in this case we must ask the question – what is the selection process? How are seeds pre-selected to “weed out” the ones that will lead to incomplete spacetimes (it cannot be by actually RUNNING the simulation and generating the relevant spacetime, since this leads us back to (A))?

Interesting questions……which seem to suggest that the “self-consistent histories” solution is perhaps not such a complete and neat solution after all….

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

explain to me what a "self consistent situation is?"
a self-consistent solution is only relevant to the single universe scenario. basically, any timeline which creates a paradox (such as me going back in time and killing my mother before I am born) would be non-self-consistent (ie could not result in a single coherent and complete 4D spacetime within a single universe, because it contains the paradox that i exist and yet my mother died before i was born).

who's to say in 20 years i decide to become a terrorist, and i am able to get my hands on time travel, and i do indeed travel back in time and the "nuclear episode" occurs exactly the way i want it to, because i believe it will destroy the universe according to your theory. Again the free actions of humans simply cannot be dismissed. I still haven't seen anything that makes me like the "dissapearing universes" theory, as i stated... if i became a terrorist, destroyed a world,
again, please be clear about whether you are talking about the single universe scenario, or the multiple universes scenarion.

If multiple, then self-consistent solutions are not necessary or relevant.

If single, then how can you "exist" if at the same time you have destroyed your past (this is the non-self-consistent timeline).

took someone from that time (because i believe in this hypothesis, that it will somehow destroy the universe... this seems to easy to me and i jump at the chance to get a time travel machine and surely enough i am able to do it, and boom the whole universe as we know it doesn't exist because of my actions.)
Again - if single universe you have created a paradox, a non-self-consistent solution.

If multiple universes, no problem.

So what you are implying is that these universes simply DO NOT exist... until we go there... then they are created upon our arrival? and they dissapear while leaving? still contradicts taking someone from that universe back to our time if they don't actually exist.
No, I never said that. If multiple universes, then they DO all exist, every one of them, in parallel with our own, all equivalent.

Sorry if i am mixing ideas... like i said i am trying to assert all of these theories and hypothesis to get a clear view of what can and cannot happen, and then come up with a very reasonable theory.. i like mulitple worlds, although there is a lot of information lacking, like the free actions of humans, and the free actions of the universe as a whole, giving an infinite number of outcomes and earths that could or could not have been created exactly in tis place in the universe.
There you go again talking of "free" actions. Please define what is a "free action"?

what if we time traveled and upon coming out of the minurature black holes (supposively the source of time travel)
nope. Black holes are not necessary.

we find ourselves in the middle of no where, and the solar system as we know it is 3,000,000,000,000 miles away from where we are today? and that any earth in any other universe may not be 1000 years more advanced than us if we traveled back to 1970 because another "Einstein" came along before ours.
yes..... and your point is?

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

A computer may NEVER have "free will" because of the fact that is has already been created by us, that destroys it's whole concept of free will, because yes it IS programmed by the creator, now if you believe in God you may argue that we then.. have no free will, but religion states that God works in mysterious ways, and that we DO have Free will, although he is omnipresent and all knowing, one of many paradoxes yet to be discovered.
But none of this follows from your definition of free will!!!!

Are you saying that nothing "created" by a human being can ever have free will? How are human beings created..... by other human beings!

Why does the fact that something has been created "destroy its whole concept of free will"? There is nothing that leads to this conclusion in your definition of free will.

There is also nothing in your definition that says free will can be endowed on a creature only by God.

Please can you re-define free will such that it is consistent with what you have said?

No i do not believe we are programmed to act a certain way or do a certain thing... we have the software, but we make our own decisions, no one is clicking a mouse or hitting Enter.
A machine can be designed to make decisions without any outside observer clicking a mouse or hitting "Enter", does this make it free?

Humans MUST act freely for time travel to be possible.
why?

You cannot dismiss this and then come up with a theory lacking the free actions of humans, and prove it to have no paradoxes, a paradox is a problem, it is not a solution. for free will/timetravel/multi universes to be possible, there must be only one of YOU in the entire universe, and every other earth is full of different humans or beings.
what does this have to do with free will?

i take that back.. in a sense... there may be another you since there are an infinite amount of universes, but it is not really YOU, or they are living in your current time(i don't want to believe this can happen, but i'll give it the benefit of the doubt, on a quantum multiverse scale i find it highly unlikely you'd ever run into yourself), i take that all back, there must certainly be another you if the multiverse is infinite, but it's not YOU.. if you know what i'm saying? or when you both met, since the universe is omnipresent, your minds would explode or something, how can anyone fathom that? how can YOU be talking to YOU and listening to what YOU are saying... but not knowing what YOU are going to say before you say it, even though it is YOU talking... hm. :-/ u know? different YOU brains each not knowing what the other is thinking, yet they are both YOU. can't be possible?
There is only one of you. Even someone who is almost identical to you in another universe is still not you. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of free will (which we cannot debate yet because we still don't have a definition that we are happy with)

MF :smile:

[JesseM]

Hi Jesse

Can we examine the simulations analogy in more detail please?

The hyperspace computer producing these simulations is presumably generating each of these simulations at random, using some kind of "starting point" or “seed” in the time-axis of 4D spacetime (it could be at the beginning of time, the end of time, or any point on the time-axis, since using Block Time and the deterministic view, we should be able to generate any particular history, past and future, given the precise spacetime coordinates for one particular point on the temporal axis of that history). Do you agree? No, that's not how I was thinking of it. Your "seed" comment suggests you're thinking in terms of picking a random set of initial conditions, then evolving them forwards using dynamical laws. I'm thinking of generating entire histories at random, with no laws constraining them whatsoever. I used the analogy of a chess board earlier--instead of picking a starting configuration for the board and evolving it forward using only legal moves, imagine simply picking a random number of moves that the game will last, then making a slot for each position on the board at each move, and then assigning each slot a piece (or designating it empty) completely at random, like "A4 on move 12 will contain a black rook" or " E11 on move 3 will be empty". The vast majority of histories generated by this method won't look like a legal chess game at all, the number of pieces and their positions will be changing randomly from one move to another, but the computer can then go through and throw out every history that does not obey the "laws of chess" from beginning to end. Similarly, I am imagining something like a computer which generates a spacetime manifold whose curvature varies in a completely random way, with the worldlines of objects also drawn at random, and then all of these are thrown out except for the spacetimes where the metric relates to the density of matter/energy according to the rules of GR, and where the worldlines also obey the correct laws of physics (being geodesics in the absence of non-gravitational forces, for example). Of course, the complete description of a "history" in quantum gravity may be something other than worldlines on curved spacetime, but whatever the basic description you should be able to come up with an analogous notion of "random histories". Are we saying (A) that it is possible (in principle) for the computer to generate (given a particular starting seed) a spacetime history which is inconsistent and therefore incomplete? In which case the entire set of histories generated by the computer will contain both complete (consistent) and incomplete (inconsistent) histories, and the computer then presumably retrospectively discards the incomplete histories? Yes. These histories are not logically inconsistent, but they contain points where the laws of physics are not obeyed. This would probably be because the laws of physics are not obeyed throughout the entire history, just zigzagging worldlines and changing spacetime curvature that follow no laws at all, but there would also be occasional histories where the laws of physics were mostly obeyed but that contained specific points where they weren't, like if I went back and killed my mother but then at some moment her dead body suddenly disappeared and she was suddenly walking around with no memory of having been visited by a time traveler. If (A), then there is some point in the “hypertime” of the computer when each incomplete history “exists”, prior to being discarded. Yes, but this is just an analogy, the point is just that the histories we see the computer return as output will obey the laws of physics throughout, and will thus be consistent. I'm not suggesting that there is some entity sorting through random histories and then picking one where the correct laws of physics are obeyed throughout, waving his magic wand over it, and making it a "real universe"; it's just a way of thinking about what it means for the "laws of physics" to exist as timeless constraints on entire histories (like general relativity, or the principle of least action in classical physics) as opposed to dynamical rules that start from some initial conditions and evolve them forward.

[moving finger]

TheUnknown - I take it this is your definition of free will?

free will : --->the ability to act freely and change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time<----.
Sorry, but this is a tautology - you are defining free will in terms of the ability to act freely - which is a circular definition (ie is meaningless).
The rest of your definition (being able to change oneselves or others mind causing certain..... etc) describes properties that a demonstrably deterministic machine can have.

(on the basis that time travel exists, one has these free will choices inside themself while time traveling, THEY control what they do and don't do while time traveling, and that either effects the world they are currently visiting, or doesn't, and causes consequences, and rewards[action/reaction])
I do not see what free will has to do with time travel, sorry. We can (theoretically) create a machine that could time travel, in place of a human, are you saying that this machine must be endowed with "free will" before it can travel in time?

MF :smile:

[TheUnknown]

no, this machine would not have free will because it cannot think for itself, we would be controlling it.

[TheUnknown]

a self-consistent solution is only relevant to the single universe scenario. basically, any timeline which creates a paradox (such as me going back in time and killing my mother before I am born) would be non-self-consistent (ie could not result in a single coherent and complete 4D spacetime within a single universe, because it contains the paradox that i exist and yet my mother died before i was born).


again, please be clear about whether you are talking about the single universe scenario, or the multiple universes scenarion.

If multiple, then self-consistent solutions are not necessary or relevant.

If single, then how can you "exist" if at the same time you have destroyed your past (this is the non-self-consistent timeline).


Again - if single universe you have created a paradox, a non-self-consistent solution.

If multiple universes, no problem.


No, I never said that. If multiple universes, then they DO all exist, every one of them, in parallel with our own, all equivalent.


There you go again talking of "free" actions. Please define what is a "free action"?


nope. Black holes are not necessary.


yes..... and your point is?

MF :smile:
hehe my points are that a self consistent singular universe cannot allow time travel, because i am allowed to make any actions i want when i go back in time, and if i killed my mother before i was born, then the paradox would be created, not allowing me to return to my current time, and if you say i could, then the butterfly effect must be true :P I'm saying that multiple universes must be the only explanation, all with different histories (over the billions of years of existence, not just the last 20 or so) if time travel is to even exist. If i was to back in time, and not be able to kill my mother because it is a self consistent situation, then what's the point of going back in time? i can't do anything i want, i am being controlled by "something", that is not allowing me to make decisions, therefore what could we gain? all our actions would be restricted, it doesn't make sense, the single universe cannot exist. Since there an infinite number of universes in the multivierse theory, it may be possible that we are able to figure out a way to only time travel to Earths similar to ours, unless it's always going to be totally random.

[TheUnknown]

But none of this follows from your definition of free will!!!!

Are you saying that nothing "created" by a human being can ever have free will? How are human beings created..... by other human beings!

Why does the fact that something has been created "destroy its whole concept of free will"? There is nothing that leads to this conclusion in your definition of free will.

There is also nothing in your definition that says free will can be endowed on a creature only by God.

Please can you re-define free will such that it is consistent with what you have said?


A machine can be designed to make decisions without any outside observer clicking a mouse or hitting "Enter", does this make it free?


why?


what does this have to do with free will?


There is only one of you. Even someone who is almost identical to you in another universe is still not you. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of free will (which we cannot debate yet because we still don't have a definition that we are happy with)

MF :smile:
i'm going to work on this free will thing until i come to a conclusion, and please critique it everytime, so i can adjust it, until it can no longer be critiqued... the only way to get an answer is by this process i believe :) So, only a natural and intelligent entity that is aware of it's conscience that is not created by the hands of human beings or is created in a natural way of life(as we know it, example, you can include babies being produced in labs, since it is natural, sperm and egg.) has free will, a computer does not have free will because we are restricting it to what it can and cannot do, and what it can and cannot understand, if we create a perfect computer then it can never mess up, it does not have the free will to be wrong, therefore it does not have free will. When we make a computer, we endow it with it's accessabilities, and it is not created naturally, we are using our knowledge of what we consider free will and trying to create it into an artificial machine with our two hands. Human beings are allowed to make decisions on their own with no intervention from a controller or creator (as far as we know), we were evlolved or created perfectly to fit the prequisite of free will. Yes humans create humans... but we do not use metal and elecricity harnessed from the earth... that'd be the day :-/. Computers cannot actually choose what they want to do or not do... we create them that way, we say ok if this situation occurs, you choose this!... humans have free will... humans with the same "software" (working brain?) all act differently in the same situations... computers and machines do not, unless their software malfuncitons, you can create 100 of the same computer, and it will act exactly the same in every situation if you have programmed it that way, you cannot give a machine free will, because it cannot analyze a situation the way we can, and you should know this. Is a machine conscience of it's conscience? this is almost silly that we are comparing humans to machines on the basis of free will.... humans created computers with what they can and can't do, computers are only a bi-product of humans perception of free will, and can never have it.

[moving finger]

only a natural and intelligent entity that is aware of it's conscience that is not created by the hands of human beings or is created in a natural way of life(as we know it, example, you can include babies being produced in labs, since it is natural, sperm and egg.) has free will, a computer does not have free will because we are restricting it to what it can and cannot do, and what it can and cannot understand, if we create a perfect computer then it can never mess up, it does not have the free will to be wrong, therefore it does not have free will.
Problem here is that you are attempting to define which entities can possess free will, before you actually define what free will is.

When we make a computer, we endow it with it's accessabilities, and it is not created naturally, we are using our knowledge of what we consider free will and trying to create it into an artificial machine with our two hands.
Why should this make any difference?

Human beings are allowed to make decisions on their own with no intervention from a controller or creator (as far as we know),
A machine could also be so constructed, that after it has been constructed it is then “free” to make decisions on its own without intervention or constraint from outside. If a human being is deemed to have free will, why is such a machine also not deemed to have free will?

we were evlolved or created perfectly to fit the prequisite of free will.
Who says so? That is your supposition.

Yes humans create humans... but we do not use metal and elecricity harnessed from the earth... that'd be the day :-/ .
What difference does that make? Are you suggesting that free will is somehow linked with biological machines and never with electromechanical machines?

Computers cannot actually choose what they want to do or not do
What is choice? I define choice as “taking two or more inputs and creating one output”. By this definition then even a simple machine chooses. How do you define choice?

... we create them that way, we say ok if this situation occurs, you choose this!
Not necessarily. It is possible to create a “learning machine” which uses its experiences to modify its future decisions. This way, we cannot necessarily predict what it will do.

... humans have free will.. .
by definition? Whose definition?

humans with the same "software" (working brain?) all act differently in the same situations... computers and machines do not, unless their software malfuncitons, you can create 100 of the same computer, and it will act exactly the same in every situation if you have programmed it that way,
again, not so, if you create a learning machine (possible today) then you can create 100 identical machines on day one, and by day two you will have 100 individual and different machines

you cannot give a machine free will, because it cannot analyze a situation the way we can, and you should know this.
Who says so? What is unique about the human way of analysing things that cannot be carried out by a machine?

Is a machine conscience of it's conscience?
I see no reason why a machine could not be conscious if it was sufficiently complex and self-reflecting. I agree that simple computers are not conscious, but I see nothing “special” in human beings which could not in principle also be created within a machine

this is almost silly that we are comparing humans to machines on the basis of free will.... humans created computers with what they can and can't do, computers are only a bi-product of humans perception of free will, and can never have it.
I disagree. But we can never determine what can and cannot have free will until we agree a definition of free will…… so we have come back to where we started….. what is your definition?

MF :smile:

[TheUnknown]

biological entities, endowed only by a father and mothers sperm have free will. Anything created by man may never have free will, free will subsides only in biological entities. Free will is the ability to think of time travel, the ability to think of physics, without humans machines do not exist... WE have free will, again, read my first definition of free will now that we have gotten past this machine/human thing, and without questiong it by using machines, tell me what you think.

[TheUnknown]

Problem here is that you are attempting to define which entities can possess free will, before you actually define what free will is.



Why should this make any difference?


A machine could also be so constructed, that after it has been constructed it is then “free” to make decisions on its own without intervention or constraint from outside. If a human being is deemed to have free will, why is such a machine also not deemed to have free will?


Who says so? That is your supposition.


What difference does that make? Are you suggesting that free will is somehow linked with biological machines and never with electromechanical machines?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Exactly.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


What is choice? I define choice as “taking two or more inputs and creating one output”. By this definition then even a simple machine chooses. How do you define choice?


Not necessarily. It is possible to create a “learning machine” which uses its experiences to modify its future decisions. This way, we cannot necessarily predict what it will do.




by definition? Whose definition?

again, not so, if you create a learning machine (possible today) then you can create 100 identical machines on day one, and by day two you will have 100 individual and different machines.

Answered.


Who says so? What is unique about the human way of analysing things that cannot be carried out by a machine?

I see no reason why a machine could not be conscious if it was sufficiently complex and self-reflecting. I agree that simple computers are not conscious, but I see nothing “special” in human beings which could not in principle also be created within a machine.

I disagree. But we can never determine what can and cannot have free will until we agree a definition of free will…… so we have come back to where we started….. what is your definition?



MF :smile:

No, I am defining which entites can posses free will on the basis of my original definition of free will. I did already define it.

again because we are endowing a machine with man made characteristics which it can portray but never fully have.

This machine does not have a conscience, it is programmed to make these "free" decisions... which are programmed. It does not actually know what it is doing, it is not a biological living entity aware of it's surrounding environments and life, it cannot connect with life and thought on a phylisophical or psychological level, therefore it feels no emotions, and all of it's actions only result from pre-programmed(might i add man made) software.

This should be fact, we are living entities.. . a machine is not, how can you even argue this? A human being is infinitely smarter than any machine it can ever create, the machine may beat it out in one aspect, but the human will always have deeper and more variety of thought, this is why human CREATES machine, and not the other way around, are you a machine? or do you just like to defend them :)

Choice is not in any free will. (it isn't, it is much deeper, although choice does play a role) I never said choice = free will.

Common sense. Phylosophy. How else better to explain it? You and I should both know we have free will, if you would like to help me explain it, it would be nice... but saying a machine has free will is... crazy. A machine being able to learn is hardly choice. This machine, like i said before, is already endowed with it's software, which man gave it, and is now only a micro-fraction of mans perception of free will. A machine will never have free will.

Yes this is possible, but will it evolve? will it build bridges? will it reproduce? will it uptake a profession in physics and rewrite the limits on speed? no, it is impossibl, a machine will forever be limited.

Everything. I've already explained, a computer does not understand what a star is when it looks at it, a computer does not understand it's ancestory, a computer cannot understand quantum mechanics the way we can, it is just programmed software... so is it actually learning?

Machines can never be conscience of their conscience, there is no conscience to be conscience of. May a computer feel emotion? Does emotion
constitute many of the actions we make? Maybe this will help clear up free will in Humans and Machines. If i go back in time and i am angry, i may kill my mother before she is born, that is my free will to do so, a computer may also do this... but it must be programmed to do so :D

Is this Good enough? :)

[TheUnknown]

Updated version... free will : State of mind that can only be possesed by a biological entity that is aware of it's conscience and can connect with life phylisophically and phsycologically, as well as experience emotions which will cause it and allow it to act and think in any way it desires not restricted by "self consistent situations" at any point in time, traveling to any universe, and while in any universe. (multiple universe free will explanation) possibly more acn be added, critique pls.

[moving finger]

No, I am defining which entites can posses free will on the basis of my original definition of free will. I did already define it.
Your definition was (please correct me if I am wrong) :

free will : --->the ability to act freely and change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time<---

As I have already pointed out, to define free will as the ability to act freely is a tautology (circular) hence meaningless. Your definition therefore reduces to :

free will : --->the ability to change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time<---

I see absolutely nothing in this definition which leads us to the conclusion that “only a natural and intelligent entity that is aware of it's conscience that is not created by the hands of human beings or is created in a natural way of life(as we know it, example, you can include babies being produced in labs, since it is natural, sperm and egg.) has free will”

Therefore you are making an unwarranted assumption that only “natural” entities can possess free will, since this does not follow from your definition.

again because we are endowing a machine with man made characteristics which it can portray but never fully have.
How do you know this? Again, this is an unwarranted assumption with no supporting evidence.

This machine does not have a conscience, it is programmed to make these "free" decisions... which are programmed. It does not actually know what it is doing, it is not a biological living entity aware of it's surrounding environments and life, it cannot connect with life and thought on a phylisophical level.
Again, none of this has anything to do with your definition of free will!!! I grant you that most present-day machines fall into this category, but there is nothing which says that we cannot create a machine which actually knows what it is doing, is aware of its surroundings etc etc. But even when we do this, what relevance does this have to the way you have defined free will?

This should be fact, we are living entities.. . a machine is not, how can you even argue this?
We are debating free will, not “living entities”. If you wish instead to debate living entities, then please define what you mean by a living entity.

A human being is infinitely smarter than any machine it can ever create, the machine may beat it out in one aspect, but the human will always have deeper and more variety of thought, this is why human CREATES machine, and not the other way around, are you a machine? or do you just like to defend them :)
Yes, I am a machine. I am also human. Why do you say that humans will always have deeper and more variety of thought than the machines it creates? You believe that a human cannot create something which is smarter than itself? Why not?

Choice is not in any free will. (it isn't, it is much deeper, although choice does play a role) I never said choice = free will.
That’s good. Then we don’t need to debate “choice” any more. (just for the record, it was not me who started talking about choice, it was you who said that “Computers cannot actually choose what they want to do or not do”)

Common sense. Phylosophy. How else better to explain it? You and I should both know we have free will, if you would like to help me explain it, it would be nice... but saying a machine has free will is... crazy.
I don’t see why it is crazy. Why does it seem so crazy to you? You believe that only humans can possess free will? You defined free will as “the ability to change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time”….. I see nothing in this definition which precludes a machine from having free will as defined. If there IS something in that definition which precludes machines from ever having free will, please do point it out (but please do not just simply say that “only humans can have free will”, because this does NOT follow from your definition).

A machine being able to learn is hardly choice.
Ohhh, I thought we had put “choice” to bed?

This machine, like i said before, is already endowed with it's software, which man gave it, and is now only a micro-fraction of mans perception of free will. A machine will never have free will.
That is your opinion. I think differently. And I see nothing in your definition of free will which would preclude a machine from having free will.

Yes this is possible, but will it evolve?
If it is capable of reproducing itself, yes, why not? (but this has nothing to do with free will!!!!!)

will it build bridges?
Why not? (but this has nothing to do with free will!!!!!)

will it reproduce?
If it has been given the physical possibility of reproducing, why not? (but this has nothing to do with free will!!!!!)

will it uptake a profession in physics and rewrite the limits on speed?
I see no reason why not. (but this has nothing to do with free will!!!!!)

no, it is impossibl, a machine will forever be limited.
No more limited than a human.

Everything. I've already explained, a computer does not understand what a star is when it looks at it, a computer does not understand it's ancestory, a computer cannot understand quantum mechanics the way we can, it is just programmed software... so is it actually learning?
Present day computers, yes, I agree. But there is nothing in principle to prevent us developing a machine which can understand all these things. And learn.

Machines can never be conscience of their conscience, there is no conscience to be conscience of.
Present-day machines, yes I agree. But there is nothing in principle to prevent us developing a machine which is conscious.

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

Updated version... free will : State of mind that can only be possesed by a biological entity that is aware of it's conscience and can connect with life phylisophically and phsycologically, as well as experience emotions which will cause it and allow it to act and think in any way it desires not restricted by "self consistent situations" at any point in time, traveling to any universe, and while in any universe. (multiple universe free will explanation) possibly more acn be added, critique pls.
What is a "biological entity"? This needs to be defined. For example, if a silicon-based life-form were to evolve on another planet, would that mean it could not have free-will as so defined here?
The definition could then be criticised for necessarily limiting free will to biological entities, and that would need to be defended.

MF :smile:

[TheUnknown]

if we ever created a machine capable of reproducing biologically... then it would HAVE to be biological, there is no other way for a machine to reproduce and still fit the specifications of my definion. Therefore we would in fact be creating a living naturally created biological entity, as i explained. please read my new definition of free will. Updated version... free will : State of mind that can only be possesed by a biological entity that is aware of it's conscience and can connect with life phylisophically and phsycologically, as well as experience emotions which will cause it and allow it to act and think in any way it desires not restricted by "self consistent situations" at any point in time, traveling to any universe, and while in any universe. (multiple universe free will explanation) possibly more acn be added, critique pls. Can you re read my last reply to you too, i edited some things while you were replying, so it got mixed up, sorry :) u don't have to reply to it again, i just added some things that i thought were important after i re read what i had typed.

[TheUnknown]

"will it build bridges?" "Why not? This has nothing to do with free will" ... yes it does, you are missing my points, it can build bridges, but it must be built to build bridges, and programmed to understand bridges, you cannot create a machine that will come to a river and think "build a bridge to get across". And even if you can, which might be possible, then you have to make it be able to build a bridge, and then it would also have to understand how to construct a bridge, and take into effect, the wind, the sway it eneds to hold up agains the wind, what resources to use, etc etc etc. the list goes on. the only way this could be done is with a biological entity, do you deny this? "we can make computers smarter than humans" you said something like this, or implied this. i never denied this, i said in one aspect you make be able to, example is a calculator, so? what else can a calculator do? And that also is not free will it is programmed to be perfect, it can never be wrong, it cannot learn, it is nothing. it has no pulse, it cannot make decisions. computers will NEVER be smarter than humans, since we program with the technology they need(we make their brains, we know everything they know and can possibly ever know).

[moving finger]

if we ever created a machine capable of reproducing biologically... then it would HAVE to be biological, there is no other way for a machine to reproduce and still fit the specifications of my definion.
You now need to define biological. See my last post re silicon-based life-forms.

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

"will it build bridges?" "Why not? This has nothing to do with free will" ... yes it does, you are missing my points, it can build bridges, but it must be built to build bridges, and programmed to understand bridges, you cannot create a machine that will come to a river and think "build a bridge to get across".
In principle, yes I can.

I could argue that "humans are built to do what they do". Does that imply they do not have free will?

And even if you can, which might be possible, then you have to make it be able to build a bridge, and then it would also have to understand how to construct a bridge, and take into effect, the wind, the sway it eneds to hold up agains the wind, what resources to use, etc etc etc. the list goes on. the only way this could be done is with a biological entity, do you deny this?
Yes I do deny it! Why should it be only a "biological entity" which can do all these things? Please also define biological entity.

MF :smile:

[TheUnknown]

You now need to define biological. See my last post re silicon-based life-forms.

MF :smile:

i don't need to explain biological, you know what biological is, that is a good enough definition of free will, if you want me to define every single word, then this will get no where, but i can if you think that will help. :P

[TheUnknown]

In principle, yes I can.

I could argue that "humans are built to do what they do". Does that imply they do not have free will?


Yes I do deny it! Why should it be only a "biological entity" which can do all these things? Please also define biological entity.

MF :smile:

this is what i am explaining to you(or trying to to :-/), humans are not built to do what they do, we take it upon ourselves to figure out problems, a machine is simply a reincarnation of a false human, what humans percieve as free will, and they will never be able to amount to a human in all aspect of life, they can only be built for certain specifications. a biological entity, is any living breathing being (plant/anima/microbial, or of any aspect of life that is consistent with being biological)that lives off of and uses it's surroundings to survive and is created biologically, and consists 100% of biological substance.

[TheUnknown]

"... could imply humans are built..." humans are simply not built...

About your silicon thing, that does not fit into the specifications of a biological entity... so when i write my definition on free will, i may have to change biological entity, but as far as we know there are no other life forms, so for this Earth, that definition stands true.

[TheUnknown]

Should i call a biological entity a universal intelligent entity? what can i call it? i think this definition is quite proper, i just need to find a name or names that correspond with all life anywhere in the universe that could have possibly evolved from any type of substance or matter. heck that sounds good enough... any life anywhere in the universe that evolved from any substance or matter that is naturally produced and reproduced, and is aware of it's conscience? something along those lines, help me out, i think i almost have it. :) I'm not that bright, you know... i need some help on this.

[moving finger]

No, that's not how I was thinking of it. Your "seed" comment suggests you're thinking in terms of picking a random set of initial conditions, then evolving them forwards using dynamical laws.
Yes, that’s what I was initially thinking.

I'm thinking of generating entire histories at random, with no laws constraining them whatsoever. I used the analogy of a chess board earlier--instead of picking a starting configuration for the board and evolving it forward using only legal moves, imagine simply picking a random number of moves that the game will last, then making a slot for each position on the board at each move, and then assigning each slot a piece (or designating it empty) completely at random, like "A4 on move 12 will contain a black rook" or " E11 on move 3 will be empty".
Ahhh, OK yes I see. So it would be something akin to taking the total n-dimensional configuration phase-space for all particle histories in the universe (where n is an extremely large number!) and generating each of the points in this configuration phase-space (each point would represent a whole 4D spacetime, a unique combination of 4D spacetime histories for all particles in the universe), but only some (very few!) of these points would represent spacetimes that are self-consistent.

The vast majority of histories generated by this method won't look like a legal chess game at all, the number of pieces and their positions will be changing randomly from one move to another, but the computer can then go through and throw out every history that does not obey the "laws of chess" from beginning to end. Similarly, I am imagining something like a computer which generates a spacetime manifold whose curvature varies in a completely random way, with the worldlines of objects also drawn at random, and then all of these are thrown out except for the spacetimes where the metric relates to the density of matter/energy according to the rules of GR, and where the worldlines also obey the correct laws of physics (being geodesics in the absence of non-gravitational forces, for example). Of course, the complete description of a "history" in quantum gravity may be something other than worldlines on curved spacetime, but whatever the basic description you should be able to come up with an analogous notion of "random histories".
OK, I get it.

But even some of the “non-self-consistent” histories will contain portions or segments of spacetime which are locally self-consistent (just as a limited sequence of moves in a random movement of chesspieces on the board may just happen to follow the rules of chess, even if the overall set of moves is not legal). In fact, if we are selecting universes in the configuration-space at random, then we would expect the number of universes which are overall non-self-consistent but containing self-consistent limited subsets or segments to greatly outnumber (by a truly astronomic ratio) the number of totally self-consistent universes. Thus, for every totally self-consistent universe we produce, we can expect to also produce an astronomic number of universes which are self-consistent say from Big Bang to 15 billion years after the Big Bang, with non-self-consistency only appearing after the 15 billion-year mark (for example).

These histories are not logically inconsistent, but they contain points where the laws of physics are not obeyed. This would probably be because the laws of physics are not obeyed throughout the entire history, just zigzagging worldlines and changing spacetime curvature that follow no laws at all, but there would also be occasional histories where the laws of physics were mostly obeyed but that contained specific points where they weren't, like if I went back and killed my mother but then at some moment her dead body suddenly disappeared and she was suddenly walking around with no memory of having been visited by a time traveler.
Yes, as I referred to above, if we produce universes at random then for every totally self-consistent universe there must be a multitude which are “almost” self-consistent, but with just one or two inconsistencies, which may (for example) occur after the 15 billion year age point, thus the spacetime history from Big Bang to 15 billion years would be self-consistent.

Now I need to ask : At what point do the beings within each of these universes actually “experience” existence?

Are you suggesting that the complete set of universes (non-self-consistent and self-consistent) are first generated, and then the non-self-consistent ones are somehow “destroyed”? But surely the “beings” (if there are any) within these universes will exist at the moment the universes are “created”, they will surely not wait until the non-self-consistent versions are destroyed until they “suddenly experience existence”?

but this is just an analogy, the point is just that the histories we see the computer return as output will obey the laws of physics throughout, and will thus be consistent. I'm not suggesting that there is some entity sorting through random histories and then picking one where the correct laws of physics are obeyed throughout, waving his magic wand over it, and making it a "real universe"; it's just a way of thinking about what it means for the "laws of physics" to exist as timeless constraints on entire histories (like general relativity, or the principle of least action in classical physics) as opposed to dynamical rules that start from some initial conditions and evolve them forward.
Yes, I see that. And this is where the analogy apparently breaks down. I believe what you would say is that the non-self-consistent versions would never be created in the first place, that there is some kind of cosmic pre-selection rule which only allows a completely self-consistent universe to ever be created (even though there is no way to know in advance whether any point in configuration space chosen at random will produce a self-consistent universe or not prior to creation, just as there is no way to know in advance whether a random assortment of pieces on a chess board will be a “legal” configuration or not, until we actually examine the configuration).

It could be the case (taking the random selection analogy more literally) that we live in a universe which is self-consistent from Big Bang to present day, but without guarantee of self-consistency in the future. I know you will disagree with this, but surely it then comes down to a personal belief, which cannot be proven one way or another?

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

i don't need to explain biological, you know what biological is, that is a good enough definition of free will, if you want me to define every single word, then this will get no where, but i can if you think that will help. :P
Sorry, I am not deliberately being pedantic or obstructive, but I believe this is important.

Biological according to my dictionary is "pertaining to living things", but this then begs the question : What is a living thing? and whether machines could one day ever be construed to be living things.

"Biological" to you may mean "organic life-form based on DNA, proteins etc", whereas there may be evolved lifeforms on other worlds which believe themselves to have free will yet they are silicon-based rather than carbon-based. Would you claim they do not have free will simply because of their chemistry?

MF :smile:

[TheUnknown]

Sorry, I am not deliberately being pedantic or obstructive, but I believe this is important.

Biological according to my dictionary is "pertaining to living things", but this then begs the question : What is a living thing? and whether machines could one day ever be construed to be living things.

"Biological" to you may mean "organic life-form based on DNA, proteins etc", whereas there may be evolved lifeforms on other worlds which believe themselves to have free will yet they are silicon-based rather than carbon-based. Would you claim they do not have free will simply because of their chemistry?

MF :smile:

No a machine could never ever be constructed to be a living thing, EVER, if it were then it would be living, and would then not be a machine :)(also what machine are we talking about? if you create a machine from all biological matter, then it is in a sense, a frankenstien, and it is a living thing, and it is not scrap metal and silicon.) No i believe that any intelligent living being that has emotions, a conscience and understand the realms of phsycology and phylosophy, and are aware of their conscience has free will... as far as living things go... again for time travel, all matter, not just living things must have free actions to be placed anywhere throughout the galaxy because of any chance happening in a multiverse(universe) different than ours, so free will must be asserted to all living creatures that are able to go back in time and feel emotions that may cause them to do something that is not in a "self consistent scenario"... and the universe must be givin free action to displace itself nonsequentially(or sequentially? now we get into the question if there are multiverses and all histories must be different, then why does the big bang necessarily always have to occur at the same point in time in every universe?) randomly throughout the mulitverse.

[moving finger]

this is what i am explaining to you(or trying to to :-/), humans are not built to do what they do, we take it upon ourselves to figure out problems, a machine is simply a reincarnation of a false human, what humans percieve as free will, and they will never be able to amount to a human in all aspect of life, they can only be built for certain specifications.
In other words, humans are flexible and adaptable. I agree.
But why do you insist that it will never be possible for a machine to also be flexible and adaptable in the same way?

a biological entity, is any living breathing being (plant/anima/microbial, or of any aspect of life that is consistent with being biological)that lives off of and uses it's surroundings to survive and is created biologically, and consists 100% of biological substance.
Sorry, circular definition again. Defining biological as any being which consists of 100% biological substance gets us nowhere (it’s like defining a circle as a thing which is circular).

"... could imply humans are built..." humans are simply not built...
But you see, I think humans are built. Humans do not suddenly and miraculously “come into existence”. Humans are built by and according to the designs encoded in our DNA, starting from the first seeds or sperm and egg. At some stage during this construction process (actually a long time after birth), humans start to think and start to believe that they maybe have free will (but where is their free will prior to them starting to think? It does not exist)

Should i call a biological entity a universal intelligent entity? what can i call it? i think this definition is quite proper, i just need to find a name or names that correspond with all life anywhere in the universe that could have possibly evolved from any type of substance or matter.
I do not think free will should be defined in terms of the entities or agents that are endowed with free will. Free will should be a universal property, and an agent either has free will or it does not, according to the definition. Whether it is a biological agent or not should make no difference. Free will is a property that an agent possesses regardless of it’s chemistry, it’s origins or background.

heck that sounds good enough... any life anywhere in the universe that evolved from any substance or matter that is naturally produced and reproduced, and is aware of it's conscience? something along those lines, help me out, i think i almost have it. :) I'm not that bright, you know...
Now you need to define life, and you will undoubtedly claim that a machine can never be alive (and I will disagree).

i need some help on this.
I’m afraid you may find my help limited, because you and I seem to have different fundamental beliefs. I cannot help you to construct a definition of free will which I think is incorrect. I see no reason why free will must be limited to “biological” agents or “intelligent” agents or “living” agents. Free will is not restricted to these types of agents.

MF :smile:

[TheUnknown]

ah biological entity definition... you said "Sorry, circular definition again. Defining biological as any being which consists of 100% biological substance gets us nowhere (it’s like defining a circle as a thing which is circular)." i was just simply defining it for you, since you asked, i didn't mean anything by it.... and well a circle is a thing which is curcular in structure containing no edges or points, with no beginning and no end.

[moving finger]

No a machine could never ever be constructed to be a living thing, EVER, if it were then it would be living, and would then not be a machine :)
Oh dear. I believe that humans are machines. Before we can agree whether a machine could ever be alive, we need to agree what we mean by life. This could get very tricky, given that some lifeforms (viruses for example) can exist as purely passive chemicals for long periods of time.

(also what machine are we talking about? if you create a machine from all biological matter, then it is in a sense, a frankenstien, and it is a living thing, and it is not scrap metal and silicon.) No i believe that any intelligent living being that has emotions, a conscience and understand the realms of phsycology and phylosophy, and are aware of their conscience has free will... as far as living things go... again for time travel, all matter, not just living things must have free actions to be placed anywhere throughout the galaxy because of any chance happening in a multiverse(universe) different than ours, so free will must be asserted to all living creatures that are able to go back in time and feel emotions that may cause them to do something that is not in a "self consistent scenario"... and the universe must be givin free action to displace itself wherever it may be.
and I believe that a machine can (in principle) have emotions, conscience, understanding, etc etc, all the things you have described above. There is nothing "holy" about biological organisms which gives them the exclusive right to these properties.

MF :smile:

[TheUnknown]

"But you see, I think humans are built. Humans do not suddenly and miraculously “come into existence”. Humans are built by and according to the designs encoded in our DNA, starting from the first seeds or sperm and egg. At some stage during this construction process (actually a long time after birth), humans start to think and start to believe that they maybe have free will (but where is their free will prior to them starting to think? It does not exist)"

But this cannot be true... if we were created then our only creator must be God, or you run into a paradox... if aliens(not saying you said this, but hear me out) created us as an experiment, or seeded us here, then how did they get here? either way you look at it, there has to be free will involved, so i cannot stop my attempt to define free will because of the above statement. regardless if we have it or not, there must still be a definition of it. But that does not mean we could not go back into time and kill our mother before she was born, so the multiverse theory still stands true. So we do have some sort of free action/will inside of us if time travel exists.

[TheUnknown]

if you create a "machine" that is living... and it is biological... then in my eyes it is no longer a machine, it is a hybrid of some sort or a newly created biological entity, which lives, and is created in our image(just as God says in the Bible, do you think the Bible was placed here by aliens?)... and if it has all of the "free will multiverse theory" characteristics then indeed i now classify it as a biological entity, and it now has free will, just as we do. but be aware that these debates do not conflict... once you give a machine a biological brain, it now has free will... if a machine is restrained to metal and electricity, it will never have free will.

[Garth]

I believe that a machine can (in principle) have emotions, conscience, understanding, etc etc, all the things you have described above. There is nothing "holy" about biological organisms which gives them the exclusive right to these properties.
MF :smile:
You may well be right, but until a machine is built that can demonstrate these properties of emotion, conscience, understanding, etc. you are simply stating an article of faith, just as one is doing who believes biological organisms are in some sense 'holy' .

Such a machine will have to demonstrate these properties to be original rather than simply a clever emulation of human consciousness. I can program my computer to print, "I love you", "I feel depressed" or "What is the meaning of life?" without there being any such emotion or thought.

Garth

[TheUnknown]

You may well be right, but until a machine is built that can demonstrate these properties of emotion, conscience, understanding, etc. you are simply stating an article of faith, just as one is doing who believes biological organisms are in some sense 'holy' .

Such a machine will have to demonstrate these properties to be original rather than simply a clever emulation of human consciousness. I can program my computer to print, "I love you", "I feel depressed" or "What is the meaning of life?" without there being any such emotion or thought.

Garth

this is also what all of my previous post are pertaining to, it may be able to simulate these things, but it's not really feeling emotion, and there it is not conscience of it's conscience, i think that is the key.

[moving finger]

You may well be right, but until a machine is built that can demonstrate these properties of emotion, conscience, understanding, etc. you are simply stating an article of faith, just as one is doing who believes biological organisms are in some sense 'holy' .
which is why i prefaced my comment with "I believe" :biggrin:

Such a machine will have to demonstrate these properties to be original rather than simply a clever emulation of human consciousness. I can program my computer to print, "I love you", "I feel depressed" or "What is the meaning of life?" without there being any such emotion or thought.
Agreed. I see no reason why this should not, in principle, be possible.

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

But this cannot be true... if we were created then our only creator must be God, or you run into a paradox...
I think you are talking here about the “original creation” of life/humans etc, and not the creation of each individual human? Or are you suggesting that something called God creates each and every human?

if aliens(not saying you said this, but hear me out) created us as an experiment, or seeded us here, then how did they get here?
I am not suggesting that the first humans were produced by a seed planted by aliens. I was talking about how each individual human is produced – each human grows from a seed created by a sperm and an egg, and the entire design of our bodies is contained in the DNA within that seed.

either way you look at it, there has to be free will involved, so i cannot stop my attempt to define free will because of the above statement.
Nope, I don’t see why there “has to be” free will involved.

regardless if we have it or not, there must still be a definition of it. But that does not mean we could not go back into time and kill our mother before she was born, so the multiverse theory still stands true. So we do have some sort of free action/will inside of us if time travel exists.
The multiverse theory may be true, but I still see no reason why it must be connected with free will.

if you create a "machine" that is living... and it is biological... then in my eyes it is no longer a machine,
OK. But in my eyes even human beings are machines. Just because humans are biological does not mean that they are not machines.

it is a hybrid of some sort or a newly created biological entity, which lives, and is created in our image(just as God says in the Bible, do you think the Bible was placed here by aliens?)
No, I believe the bible was written by humans. What does this have to do with anything we are discussing here?

... and if it has all of the "free will multiverse theory" characteristics then indeed i now classify it as a biological entity, and it now has free will, just as we do. but be aware that these debates do not conflict... once you give a machine a biological brain, it now has free will... if a machine is restrained to metal and electricity, it will never have free will.
I disagree. But I think we are simply repeating ourselves now. You are entitled to your beliefs, but I think you overestimate the importance of biology and underestimate the power of machines.

MF :smile:

[TheUnknown]

I think you are talking here about the “original creation” of life/humans etc, and not the creation of each individual human? Or are you suggesting that something called God creates each and every human?


I am not suggesting that the first humans were produced by a seed planted by aliens. I was talking about how each individual human is produced – each human grows from a seed created by a sperm and an egg, and the entire design of our bodies is contained in the DNA within that seed.


Nope, I don’t see why there “has to be” free will involved.


The multiverse theory may be true, but I still see no reason why it must be connected with free will.


OK. But in my eyes even human beings are machines. Just because humans are biological does not mean that they are not machines.


No, I believe the bible was written by humans. What does this have to do with anything we are discussing here?


I disagree. But I think we are simply repeating ourselves now. You are entitled to your beliefs, but I think you overestimate the importance of biology and underestimate the power of machines.

MF :smile:

underestimate the power of machines? no, the power of machines can never be greater than humans, because humans create them with what they can and cannot do, and a machine will never have emotions, carry on intense and maticulous relationships with other humans or machines, smell, taste, have sex, reproduce, grow hair, understand logic, be conscience of it's conscience, phylosophize about phylosophy, understand physics in depth, question physics, question time travel, and question whether machines can ever be as smart as humans... i put my view to rest :) you can get the last word if you wish. and my final conclusion on this particular subject is that, if time travel exists, free will exists, no matter how much you don't want to believe it, or argue against it, because a universe with no self consistent restrictions, is a universe with free will for all, even those coming from other universes who are allowed to inerfere.

[TheUnknown]

i just wanted to note, that the whole time you kept talking about evolving extra terrestrial entities consisting of a siliconic DNA(evolution) and then saying that us, humans just appeared... i don't know if you're hell bent on making this theory sound incorrect but all logic and anthropology shows the history of human beings back millions of years.. but you say we just appeared, or you believe that, so you have contradicted yourself many times, but i have just tried to answer it all to the ebst of my knowledge... seems more like you didn't care whether you kept your side of the debate balanced and consistent or not, you just wanted to make mine look wrong at any cost :P no big problem though, it was fun answering it all, i gained a great deal of knowledge i never knew i had. Thanks for the debate, i enjoyed it, and if you want to go on about anything else, i'd be glad to, i really enjoy debating and further expanding my knowledge.

[moving finger]

underestimate the power of machines? no, the power of machines can never be greater than humans, because humans create them with what they can and cannot do
I disagree. Humans can already create machines that outperform humans in most physical and mental tasks. I believe it is only a question of time before humans create a conscious machine.

and a machine will never have emotions,
why not?

carry on intense and maticulous relationships with other humans or machines,
why not?

smell, taste, have sex, reproduce, grow hair, understand logic,
why not?

be conscience of it's conscience, phylosophize about phylosophy, understand physics in depth, question physics, question time travel, and question whether machines can ever be as smart as humans
why not?

I have been trying to help you by showing that these are all unsupported assertions on your part, you have not shown why any of them is necessarily true, but it seems that you choose not to listen.

... i put my view to rest :) you can get the last word if you wish. and my final conclusion on this particular subject is that, if time travel exists, free will exists, no matter how much you don't want to believe it, or argue against it, because a universe with no self consistent restrictions, is a universe with free will for all, even those coming from other universes who are allowed to inerfere.
travel well my friend, you are entitled to your human beliefs, may your god go with you.

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

i just wanted to note, that the whole time you kept talking about evolving extra terrestrial entities consisting of a siliconic DNA(evolution) and then saying that us, humans just appeared...
I have no idea what you mean here. I never said "siliconic DNA", I said "silicon-based lifeforms", and I never said that "humans just appeared".

i don't know if you're hell bent on making this theory sound incorrect but all logic and anthropology shows the history of human beings back millions of years.. but you say we just appeared, or you believe that, so you have contradicted yourself many times,
Where did I say that humans "just appeared"? Please check, I think you are mistaken.

but i have just tried to answer it all to the ebst of my knowledge... seems more like you didn't care whether you kept your side of the debate balanced and consistent or not, you just wanted to make mine look wrong at any cost :P
it seems you feel aggrieved for some reason. All I was trying to do was to point out the flaws in your logic, but you choose not to listen and instead to believe that I had other motives? You are sadly mistaken.

no big problem though, it was fun answering it all, i gained a great deal of knowledge i never knew i had. Thanks for the debate, i enjoyed it, and if you want to go on about anything else, i'd be glad to, i really enjoy debating and further expanding my knowledge.
Then I am glad about that :smile:

MF :smile:

[TheUnknown]

I disagree. Humans can already create machines that outperform humans in most physical and mental tasks. I believe it is only a question of time before humans create a conscious machine.


why not?


why not?


why not?


why not?

I have been trying to help you by showing that these are all unsupported assertions on your part, you have not shown why any of them is necessarily true, but it seems that you choose not to listen.


travel well my friend, you are entitled to your human beliefs, may your god go with you.

MF :smile:

ah you keep missing my point, you will never be able to create a machine with ALL human characteristics, yes i agreed already that you CAN create a machine that can outperform a human in specific areas... but that still has nothing to do with human qualities, elephants can outperform humans, but they are nothing close to human, guerillas can outperform humans, they are much stronger... but they are no where near human in the mind... computers can decipher many things... but are and never will be anywhere near humans... simply put ONE SINGLE Machine cannot experience every realm of the human mind, they will never dream, they will never love, they will never lust, they will never get hungry, they will never get thirsty(and truly feel it because they need it.. again unless they ARE living) it seems i cannot make any logical sense to you on this. Machines will never go jog 2 miles to lose weight, and be depressed because they are fat, machines will never believe in religion and truly understand what it means to some humans, machines will not have families and work, and come home and kiss their wife goodnight and get a feeling of comfort from it... do you see what i am saying? you cannot create a machine out of wires and metal that will out perfrom or even come close to the human mind... it really erks me that people think this is possible.. the only way this is possible would be to create a whole different DNA strand, and watch it come to life as an intelligent being, similar to us... then it is not a machine, it was created, but it is living... you see? ONE MACHINE cannot have ALL living qualities, and never will, simply because of the fact that it cannt experience all the needs of a living thing that needs to eat, drink, poop, pee, have sex, lust, read to get smart, watch t.v., be concerned about friends, go to a funeral because someone old died of their age because their biological clock stopped ticking.

[TheUnknown]

sorry.. lol i said you could get the last word didn't I ? :-/ I'll stop now

[TheUnknown]

if it doesn't function biologically... it can only be machine.

[TheUnknown]

"But you see, I think humans are built. Humans do not suddenly and miraculously “come into existence”. Humans are built by and according to the designs encoded in our DNA, starting from the first seeds or sperm and egg. At some stage during this construction process (actually a long time after birth), humans start to think and start to believe that they maybe have free will (but where is their free will prior to them starting to think? It does not exist)" I'm thinking by suddenly and miraculously come into existence you mean that they have not always been here(on earth?), OR they were placed here? otherwise this is has no meaning.. this would exactly be the reason for humans and machines to be different, machines suddenly and miraculously come into existence because we create them... humans enjoy the mysteries of being alive and biological and they are endowed through lifes natural process with everything we know and enjoy... they start out as sperm and egg, then they develop as an embryo, then they are children, not to smart yet, then they become adults, and they are aware? is this what you mean? do you know any machine that goes through this cycle? thanks for proving my point hehe :)

[TheUnknown]

""Biological" to you may mean "organic life-form based on DNA, proteins etc", whereas there may be evolved lifeforms on other worlds which believe themselves to have free will yet they are silicon-based rather than carbon-based. Would you claim they do not have free will simply because of their chemistry?" so aliens can evolve as long as it proves the theory wrong, but humans just come into existent out of no where. And i still don't see how just because their DNA strand would be different becuase they consist of silicon, or silicon is a large part of their biological make up, how that then makes them not elligable to fall under biological entity. is that what you were implying, or were you simply asking me? i mean, of course i would agree they have free will, in my definiton, i stated any "biological entites."

[moving finger]

sorry.. lol i said you could get the last word didn't I ? :-/ I'll stop now
yes, sure...... will you? really? :smile:

just let me know if you would like me to reply to any more of your posts, or whether you prefer to keep having the last word.....

MF :smile:

[moving finger]

Just tying up a few loose ends and resolving some misconceptions in the last few posts :

if it doesn't function biologically... it can only be machine.
All you are saying here is "not all machines function biologically". That is true, but proves nothing relevant to this debate.

"But you see, I think humans are built. Humans do not suddenly and miraculously “come into existence”. Humans are built by and according to the designs encoded in our DNA, starting from the first seeds or sperm and egg. At some stage during this construction process (actually a long time after birth), humans start to think and start to believe that they maybe have free will (but where is their free will prior to them starting to think? It does not exist)"

I'm thinking by suddenly and miraculously come into existence you mean that they have not always been here(on earth?), OR they were placed here?
Please read what I said, TheUnknown. I said Humans do not suddenly and miraculously “come into existence”. I do not know how you get from this statement to your suggestion that “you mean that they have not always been here(on earth?), OR they were placed here?”

otherwise this is has no meaning..
What I meant (and is explained in the subsequent sentence if you bother to read it) was that individual humans (I was not talking about the start of the entire human race) “are built by and according to the designs encoded in our DNA, starting from the first seeds or sperm and egg”.

this would exactly be the reason for humans and machines to be different, machines suddenly and miraculously come into existence because we create them.
Machines do not suddenly and miraculously come into existence. Neither do humans. Both are built.

humans enjoy the mysteries of being alive and biological and they are endowed through lifes natural process with everything we know and enjoy... they start out as sperm and egg, then they develop as an embryo, then they are children, not to smart yet, then they become adults, and they are aware? is this what you mean? do you know any machine that goes through this cycle?
I have never said that any existing machine can do all of the things that a human can do. What I have said is that there is no logical reason to believe (and you have not offered any logical reason to believe) that it might not one day be possible for a machine to do these things. You have simply asserted, without any reasoning or logic or substantiation, that no machine will ever be able to do the things that a human can do.

thanks for proving my point hehe :)
the only point that has been proven is that you have many unsubstantiated beliefs.

""Biological" to you may mean "organic life-form based on DNA, proteins etc", whereas there may be evolved lifeforms on other worlds which believe themselves to have free will yet they are silicon-based rather than carbon-based. Would you claim they do not have free will simply because of their chemistry?"

so aliens can evolve as long as it proves the theory wrong, but humans just come into existent out of no where.
Who says humans come into existence out of nowehere? Are you making this up as you go along?

And i still don't see how just because their DNA strand would be different becuase they consist of silicon, or silicon is a large part of their biological make up, how that then makes them not elligable to fall under biological entity.
I never said it did. I asked you to define what you mean by the word “biological” which you introduced into the discussion, but as with 99% of my questions, you never bothered answering.

is that what you were implying, or were you simply asking me?
I usually try to answer your questions, but as I have said, and as you can usually tell by the question marks after the statements, I have asked you many questions which you simply ignore.

i mean, of course i would agree they have free will, in my definiton, i stated any "biological entites."
But did not define what a biological entity is.

Bye

MF
:smile:

[TheUnknown]

"humans are not built to do what they do, we take it upon ourselves to figure out problems, a machine is simply a reincarnation of a false human, what humans percieve as free will, and they will never be able to amount to a human in all aspect of life, they can only be built for certain specifications. a biological entity, is any living breathing being (plant/anima/microbial, or of any aspect of life that is consistent with being biological)that lives off of and uses it's surroundings to survive and is created biologically, and consists 100% of biological substance." PAGE 8 i think i've discussed everything, you just seem to forget, because you believe machines are better than humans... sad... remember "it's like saying a circle is something that's circular" quote from you... thats's because a circle is something that is circular in nature with no edges or points, with no beginning or end! a BIOLOGICAL entity.. are you folliwng me sir? is a BIOLOGICAL... that's why it has to be 100% BIOLOGICAL to fit under the definition of BIOLOGICAL entity... and that is also why any circular shape with no points or edges, with no beginning or end... still there? falls under CIRCLE... THANK YOU! ENJOY

[TheUnknown]

"But you see, I think humans are built. Humans do not suddenly and miraculously “come into existence”. Humans are built by and according to the designs encoded in our DNA, starting from the first seeds or sperm and egg. At some stage during this construction process (actually a long time after birth), humans start to think and start to believe that they maybe have free will (but where is their free will prior to them starting to think? It does not exist)" just to answer one more of your questions.. this is a quote from you... i'm really done discussing now, because it is getting no where, and you are seeming to forget every past thread that either you or I typed. How can i have a debate if you just continue to ask the same questions over and over again that have already been answered? or go into a state of amnesia and forget everything you've ever said?

[TheUnknown]

"humans enjoy the ---->mysteries<---- (THERE IS NO MYSTERY SIR... WHEN YOU CREATE A MACHINE OR A COMPUTER, YOU ENDOW IT WITH EVERYTHING IT WILL BE ALLOWED TO DO) of being alive and biological and they are endowed through lifes natural process with everything we know and enjoy... they start out as sperm and egg, then they develop as an embryo, then they are children, not to smart yet, then they become adults, and they are aware? is this what you mean? do you know any machine that goes through this cycle? " you just replied to this saying i have given no reason why machines cannot share all common bonds with humans, seems you didn't read to well. I think you should really go back and read the last 3 pages, i explained many times over, till my fingers were about to fall off, why humans and machines may never experience the same emotions, feelings, dreams, common bonds, needs. (you should also read that quote.. it would save you some time)

[TheUnknown]

"Machines do not suddenly and miraculously come into existence. Neither do humans. Both are built." ..... can i laugh? will YOU ever decipher the difference between being reproduced naturally, and forming inside a mothers womb, from being built by human hand from scrap metal and electricity? or are your stubborn ways shutting down that part of your mind. Excuse me sir... but you are using two different versions of what the word "build" means to you, and trying to bring them together, at any cost (mostly to your humiliation) just to try and prove a theory wrong... i say it's time to let go of your ego, and admit that i am right, and i'm sure 90% of any people that view this page would agree.

[TheUnknown]

"What I meant (and is explained in the subsequent sentence if you bother to read it) was that individual humans (I was not talking about the start of the entire human race) “are built by and according to the designs encoded in our DNA, starting from the first seeds or sperm and egg”." once again thank you for deciphering what a biological entity is and the way it is created, from a machine, and not even knowing you did it.

[TheUnknown]

"Please read what I said, TheUnknown. I said Humans do not suddenly and miraculously “come into existence”. I do not know how you get from this statement to your suggestion that “you mean that they have not always been here(on earth?), OR they were placed here?”" then maybe you sir... should be a little more clear, in my dictionary existence alone has another meaning.

[TheUnknown]

"All you are saying here is "not all machines function biologically". That is true, but proves nothing relevant to this debate." this is very RELEVENT we are discussing the existence of FREE WILL INSIDE BIOLOGICAL ENTITES... where have you been?!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or has your consistent ranting gotten you no where. looks like another case of amnesia. GOOODBYE SIR, THIS DEBATE IS FINISHED, I HOPE I HAVE MADE ENOUGH SENSE TO YOU, you said free will could never be explained, and once again i have proved the skeptics wrong, with definition after definition of free will and who is subsides in(intelligent and "non" intelligent biological entities), if not, then God be with you. (whatever that means to you)

[TheUnknown]

also sir, i would like to share something with you, that you can either believe or not believe. I AM a time traveler, and you will most likely see time travel in your life time. The particle collider that came online at CERN will make tremondous advancements in time travel and open the door for it's technology. Do not take my "biological entities" definition lightly... you may find it useful one day. Time travelers are among you, but only few speak out, who would believe us anyway? we'd lose all credability (which i hope does not happen here) a few things to worry about... your scientists should stop portraying global flooding as the number one need for the stop of pollutants, and worry about global pollution and the greenhouse effect, and the effect it will have on human evolution in the next 300 years(and animals), and make these things the top priority... watch your foreign policies, be wary of your presidents and the counties in which you reside. Civil war is near, an another natural catastrophe is around the corner. these "vigilantes" as your president calls them, are looked at as heroes to us... and Einstine's theories still all most hold true. Anti gravity will be an important way in the future for harnessing clean flight... your scientists should also make a huge discovery soon on that. If you're wondering why i was here, i came here to understand your era... the "era of ignorance" as we call it... and bring back important facts and beliefs of this time. As you should now assume, the mulitple worlds theory... is not a theory at all... it is very true... it is hard for even our scientists to get a grasp on. Also upon making contact with extra terrestrials, religion will again play a large part in society... i'm not going to go into detail... If you're wondering why i cannot go into detail on many of these subjects, we have rules and policy that we are to follow.... we cannot interefere or change another world timeline unless it is on our agenda to do so. I can tell you all these things that will happen... but you are helpless against it anyway, and most people will not believe a word i say (as we have found out from studies). oh and by the way... we still have not harnessed any type of gravity warp on a large scale level... we think of it as our future means of transportation. As of now we use lasers that are positioned on planets to speed up craft as they exit the solar system... you should also start to unravel these means of travel very soon (or has it already happened?) in our worldline we had these things in 2001. So leave you with my trust and my credability, embrace it, or laugh at it, it means nothing to me, as i will not be here in 2 days. Just so you know, i come from the year 2326 in my worldline. God bless, and may man have mercy on himself... final word... be prepared for WW 3... get a good missile defense system or the US will be contaminated for by nuclear waste for 200 years.

[Garth]

I AM a time traveler, ........
Just so you know, i come from the year 2326 in my worldline.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The six numbers of tomorrow's UK National Lottery will do me nicely....

Garth

[moving finger]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The six numbers of tomorrow's UK National Lottery will do me nicely....

Garth
:rofl:

that should be allowed - I don't think it breaks the self-consistency hypothesis!

:rofl:

MF

[moving finger]

you just seem to forget, because you believe machines are better than humans...
groan :grumpy: I never ever said that machines are better than humans. You are reading things that are not there and twisting everything.

... remember "it's like saying a circle is something that's circular" quote from you... thats's because a circle is something that is circular in nature with no edges or points, with no beginning or end! a BIOLOGICAL entity.. are you folliwng me sir? is a BIOLOGICAL... that's why it has to be 100% BIOLOGICAL to fit under the definition of BIOLOGICAL entity... and that is also why any circular shape with no points or edges, with no beginning or end... still there? falls under CIRCLE... THANK YOU!
:zzz: look up tautology in the dictionary

just to answer one more of your questions.. this is a quote from you... i'm really done discussing now, because it is getting no where, and you are seeming to forget every past thread that either you or I typed. How can i have a debate if you just continue to ask the same questions over and over again that have already been answered? or go into a state of amnesia and forget everything you've ever said?
What question does this answer?

"humans enjoy the ---->mysteries<---- (THERE IS NO MYSTERY SIR... WHEN YOU CREATE A MACHINE OR A COMPUTER, YOU ENDOW IT WITH EVERYTHING IT WILL BE ALLOWED TO DO)
not necessarily true. No more than when I create a human I endow it with everything it will be allowed to do.

of being alive and biological and they are endowed through lifes natural process with everything we know and enjoy... they start out as sperm and egg, then they develop as an embryo, then they are children, not to smart yet, then they become adults, and they are aware? is this what you mean? do you know any machine that goes through this cycle? " you just replied to this saying i have given no reason why machines cannot share all common bonds with humans, seems you didn't read to well. I think you should really go back and read the last 3 pages, i explained many times over, till my fingers were about to fall off, why humans and machines may never experience the same emotions, feelings, dreams, common bonds, needs. (you should also read that quote.. it would save you some time)
but this is the whole point, my friend, you have NOT explained WHY, you have simply asserted that machines will never be able to do these things, without justifying your reasoning. You might prefer to talk to a brick wall, it would be as useful for you. I can say that a blue sun will rise tomorrow, but the mere fact of me saying it does not make it true. And the mere fact that you say that machines will never be able to do the things that humans can do DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

"Machines do not suddenly and miraculously come into existence. Neither do humans. Both are built." ..... can i laugh? will YOU ever decipher the difference between being reproduced naturally, and forming inside a mothers womb, from being built by human hand from scrap metal and electricity?
You are reading things into my posts which are not there. I never said that they are built the same way, I just said they are both built :zzz:

or are your stubborn ways shutting down that part of your mind. Excuse me sir... but you are using two different versions of what the word "build" means to you, and trying to bring them together, at any cost (mostly to your humiliation) just to try and prove a theory wrong... i say it's time to let go of your ego, and admit that i am right, and i'm sure 90% of any people that view this page would agree.
I agree, I am wasting my time with you.

I’m off to find someone who makes sense.

MF
:grumpy:

[TheUnknown]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The six numbers of tomorrow's UK National Lottery will do me nicely....

Garth

for such things to occur precicely exact in both our times would contradict and restrain free will. Would you like to know this? money is so important in the "era of ingornace" instead of asking me questions that matter, and possibly greatening your knowledge of the world and it's hpysics, you'd rather ask me about tommorows lotto. oh and by the way, check your news for the latest earthquake that happened today. and read up on the faulty missile defense system that was just addressed by scientists, must i prove myself? my time here is limited, and all you worry about is your ego and your money.

[Garth]

for such things to occur precicely exact in both our times would contradict and restrain free will. Would you like to know this? money is so important in the "era of ingornace" instead of asking me questions that matter, and possibly greatening your knowledge of the world and it's hpysics, you'd rather ask me about tommorows lotto. oh and by the way, check your news for the latest earthquake that happened today. and read up on the faulty missile defense system that was just addressed by scientists, must i prove myself? my time here is limited, and all you worry about is your ego and your money.
What other extraordinary evidence can you offer to support your extraordinary claim?

Garth

[TheUnknown]

if it helps you believe anything i say... i will give a little more knowledge to the quote i made about WW 3... watch china and japan... why is no one intervening in their relationship? is it really ok to let such a large country take over a defensless land?

[TheUnknown]

there seems to be one more thing i can tell you... enlighten those who will otherwise be left behind... those that are tied to religion. in our age we believe in God, as do other entities, but "religion"(for you finger, an idea created and intended to gather a following) has long since been left behind. The obvious belief in a creator and a greater power is accepted universally, religions vary from (the simple civilizations still holding onto "religion")planet to planet and we cannot visit these worlds.. just as we were not intervened with by extra terrestrials because the fear they felt from our religious beliefs, attacks, and mass suicides(which did occur in some cases) on finding out they existed. We have found that it is very common for early civilizations to believe they are the only ones in the universe. We all communicate with a universal communications system. I would also tell you to keep an eye on the Pacific coastline.

[dgoodpasture2005]

ok i noticed this post was a little old, sorry i just signed up, i just put them in order from most replies, i skipped straight to the end because it had so many pages... and the last quotes this guy made were watch the pacific coastline. Is he for real? i mean i know a lot of people fake stuff. but he did predict a couple things, and now there is a lot of siesmic and volcanic activiity ramping up all over the west coast of the US and the east coast of japan... the pacific coastline(s)... hm oh well i'm just interested in these things since i read about John Titot ( who i believe is a fake! ) anyway someone give me some feedback, just curious to what you all think! peace in the middle east and peace for all, let antigravity propulsion systems guide us into the next era of space age technologies and exploration! :)