How to study the grandfather paradox

[KingMerv00]

I'm bored so...

I've only heard two ways to resolve the grandfather paradox. One says that time travel is actually travel into the past of an alternate universe. The other says that changing the past is impossible and is called the "stable time loop" theory. This is my "serious" attempt to resolve this. Please critique.
___________________________________________

Required Materials

1. Myself
2. A surefire method to kill a human that takes no more than 10 minutes (I recommend 10 shotgun blasts to the brainstem).
3. The services of a camera crew
4. A time machine capable of traveling into the past and the future.
5. A large, secure experimental chamber in which to perform the experiment.

___________________________________________

Initial conditions

12:00PM - Crew begins recording and will continue until experiment is complete. I read this procedure aloud from beginning to end while being filmed.

12:01PM to 12:59PM - Wait and observe. If I am killed, go to "Observations Section 1" if not, read on.

1:00PM - The camera crew and myself enter time machine. Set destination for experimental chamber 45 minutes in the past.

The past - Leave time machine. I attempt to kill myself using method in materials section above. If sucessful, go to "Observations Section 2". If I am not successful, go to "Observations Section 3".

___________________________________________

Observations Section 1

If I am dead, it is presumably because my future self (accompanied by the future camera crew) arrived in a time machine and killed me. Upon killing me, my future self and the future crew will immediately get back into their time machine and disappear. Remaining camera crew will present film to physics journal.

Possible Conclusion 1: I conclude time travel paradoxes are possible. Further, one can use time travel to predict future events without even getting into a time machine.

Possible Conclusion 2: I conclude that time travel is actually travel to the past of an alternate universe. Altering the past of a different universe would not affect the time travelers' universe, thus there is no paradox. Further, one can use time travel to predict future events without even getting into a time machine.

___________________________________________

Observation Section 2

After killing my past self (while being filmed by two camera crews), time travelers get back into the time machine and travel forward in time to 1:05PM. Upon arrival, I search for my own dead body. Regardless of outcome, film is submitted to physics journal.

Possible conclusion 1: If I find my dead body, I conclude time paradoxes are possible.

Possible conclusion 2: If my dead body is not in the room, I conclude that time travel is actually travel into the past of an alternate universe. Altering the past of a different universe would not affect the time travelers' universe. Thus there is no paradox.

___________________________________________

Observation Section 3

If I have failed to kill my past self after 10 minutes of trying, all time travelers return to time machine and travel forward in time to 1:05PM. Film is submitted to physics journal.

Conclusion: Time travel into the past does not allow one to alter history. I conclude the "stable time loop" theory is correct.
___________________________________________

Afterward

If the time-space continuum is unraveled (AKA "The Emmett Brown" hypothesis), I would submit a proposal to Congress that would outlaw similar experiments in the future.

[Emerson Street]

Wouldn't 'you' in an alternate universe also have to be doing the same experiment for it to work?

I am probably missing something, tired...

[sasquatchx]

Hmmm.... maybe it's my early morning brain not kicking in yet, but wouldn't a machine gun go through the same grandpa paradox that a person would? It had not yet been made therefore it could not .... ah forget it!

[Wowbagger]

I once tried this, myself, but it doesn't work too well when one is immortal.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by sasquatchx

Hmmm.... maybe it's my early morning brain not kicking in yet, but wouldn't a machine gun go through the same grandpa paradox that a person would? It had not yet been made therefore it could not .... ah forget it!

Not in this scenario. I never said I invented the time machine. Even if I did, I killed my past self AFTER the time machine was built...no grandfather paradox for the time machine.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Emerson Street

Wouldn't 'you' in an alternate universe also have to be doing the same experiment for it to work?

I am probably missing something, tired...

Let's say I come out of the time machine and the alternate me wasn't doing the experiment. That would prove that time travel was travel to alternate realities, thus solving the grandfather paradox.

[Emerson Street]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Let's say I come out of the time machine and the alternate me wasn't doing the experiment. That would prove that time travel was travel to alternate realities, thus solving the grandfather paradox.

Fair enough, but then, how do you return to your own reality?

[Singularitarian]

The thing about having our histories played out in other universes, is our conistency in believing such a radicalized theory. It requires that our memory is not effected by a shift from one universe to another; but rather a memory which fits the information very snug as to not be able to differentiate between the two. Our minds are thus tied to an infinite amount of minds, located in an equally infinite amount of universes.

What happened to the day, when theories suggested which what counts, is specifically-located in this spacetime realm alone?

[UncaYimmy]

The problem as I see it is that there is no such than as 12:00 PM. It's either noon or midnight.

[linusrichard]

I always thought the best solution to the grandfather paradox is that time travel is impossible. At least going back in time.

[Singularitarian]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Let's say I come out of the time machine and the alternate me wasn't doing the experiment. That would prove that time travel was travel to alternate realities, thus solving the grandfather paradox.

Not exactly. The information must fit exactly, meaning that when you enter that universe, there is an [parallel you] just leaving that universe.

In many models of parallel universes, information can enter other universes, even if there is a specific amount of information ready to leave the universe in question.

For instance, a famous thought-experiment i remember, is to imagine a tachyon moving through a black hole. Theoretically, it is possible for it to move into other universes, but usually in this model, we can say the tachyon might be lucky enough to see another tachyon just passing it by as it entered the other universe. One universe satisfies another in this case, and removes your problem.

[Singularitarian]

Originally Posted by linusrichard

I always thought the best solution to the grandfather paradox is that time travel is impossible. At least going back in time.

It means that time travel is not easily conceptual, that's all.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Emerson Street

Fair enough, but then, how do you return to your own reality?

Get back into the time machine I brought with me.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

The thing about having our histories played out in other universes, is our conistency in believing such a radicalized theory. It requires that our memory is not effected by a shift from one universe to another; but rather a memory which fits the information very snug as to not be able to differentiate between the two. Our minds are thus tied to an infinite amount of minds, located in an equally infinite amount of universes.

What happened to the day, when theories suggested which what counts, is specifically-located in this spacetime realm alone?

You tried to pull this in the other time travel thread. You know what a hypothetical question is right?

I'm not saying I believe anything about time travel. This is just a thought experiment for laughs.

[Emerson Street]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Get back into the time machine I brought with me.

but if there are multiple examples of reality, and you have shifted to another, why would you shift back to your own and not *another* reality, maybe one with milkshake instead of air!

Ok, maybe not the last bit, but wouldn't you become 'unstuck'?

Thanks for the civil replies to my trivial questions by the way

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Not exactly. The information must fit exactly, meaning that when you enter that universe, there is an [parallel you] just leaving that universe.

I don't think you get the alternate world solution to the grandfather paradox.

The grandfather paradox occurs when you go back in time and kill your grandfather before your father was conceived. This is supposedly a paradox because your grandfather's death erases you from history. If you don't exist, you can't go back in time and kill your grandfather.

The alternate world solution says that you travel back in time but you arrive in a different universe. You kill your grandfather but you aren't erased from history because you come from an a different continuity. If you get back into your time machine and travel back to the future, you arrive back in the present in your own universe. In your universe, you grandfather was never murdered.

Quote:

In many models of parallel universes, information can enter other universes, even if there is a specific amount of information ready to leave the universe in question.

For instance, a famous thought-experiment i remember, is to imagine a tachyon moving through a black hole. Theoretically, it is possible for it to move into other universes, but usually in this model, we can say the tachyon might be lucky enough to see another tachyon just passing it by as it entered the other universe. One universe satisfies another in this case, and removes your problem.

I'm pretty sure you are just talking in word salad.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Emerson Street

but if there are multiple examples of reality, and you have shifted to another, why would you shift back to your own and not *another* reality, maybe one with milkshake instead of air!

Ok, maybe not the last bit, but wouldn't you become 'unstuck'?

Thanks for the civil replies to my trivial questions by the way

There really isn't an answer for you because as things stand now, time travel is imaginary. You might become unstuck you might not who knows?

My point is that the alternate world solution prevents the grandfather paradox.

[Ysidro]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

The problem as I see it is that there is no such than as 12:00 PM. It's either noon or midnight.

Um, I know you're joking but 12PM is noon. Though I never understood why. I guess it all depends on when you start counting, but who decided to start at 12?

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by Ysidro

Um, I know you're joking but 12PM is noon. Though I never understood why. I guess it all depends on when you start counting, but who decided to start at 12?

To pedants, 12 p.m. doesn't exist. It goes 11:59 a.m., 12 noon, 12:01 p.m. Why? Because p.m. stands for post meridiem, which means after noon. 12:00 is not after noon, it is noon. So 12 p.m. doesn't work.

ETA: In ordinary usage, though, you're absolutely correct, 12 p.m. is noon.

[vIQleS]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I don't think you get the alternate world solution to the grandfather paradox.

The grandfather paradox occurs when you go back in time and kill your grandfather before your father was conceived. This is supposedly a paradox because your grandfather's death erases you from history. If you don't exist, you can't go back in time and kill your grandfather.

The alternate world solution says that you travel back in time but you arrive in a different universe. You kill your grandfather but you aren't erased from history because you come from an a different continuity. If you get back into your time machine and travel back to the future, you arrive back in the present in your own universe. In your universe, you grandfather was never murdered.

See also: Back to the Future...

AKA - the trousers of time theory.

[Thabiguy]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I've only heard two ways to resolve the grandfather paradox. One says that time travel is actually travel into the past of an alternate universe. The other says that changing the past is impossible and is called the "stable time loop" theory. This is my "serious" attempt to resolve this. Please critique.

I think the experiment is cleverly designed, but I believe there are still some possible scenarios you have not addressed.

For example:

1) You wait and observe. At 12:15, a shotgun-carrying zombie with a camera crew arrives and shoots you dead. They then return to the time machine and disappear. You lie dead on the floor. Time passes. There is a quiet but passionate debate among the camera crew about legislation concerning safety of scientific experiments. Some worry whether the waiver they signed will be enough to protect them from legal troubles. At 12:59, your dead body suddenly reanimates, and the zombie says, "Braaaaains, everyone. Let's get on with this." Your zombie and the crew enter the time machine, get back into the past, kill you and return back to the future, at which point the zombie drops dead again.

Disregarding the fact that you're dead, what do you conclude?

2) You do not get killed, you successfully travel to the past and proceed to kill yourself, but at the moment you do, the time machine disappears and you are unable to return to the future, thus unable to decide whether there is a paradox or not as per your Observation Section 2. If you do further experimentation, you discover that this happens as soon as you do something that seems to prevent your past self from getting into the time machine.

What do you conclude?

3) You wait and observe. At 12:15, your grandfather arrives (without a camera crew), hesitatingly kills you, remarks, "Sorry, but I had to do that," gets into the time machine and disappears. Furthermore, it is known that your grandfather had died many years before the experiment took place.

Disregarding the fact that you're dead, what do you conclude?

4) You wait and observe. At 12:15, you see your future self arrive and attempt to kill you, but fail to do that. At 12:25, he gives up, gets back into the time machine and disappears. At 13:00, you travel to the past and try to kill your past self, but find yourself unable to, failing the same way you had previously observed yourself to. As per Observation Section 3, you conclude that the "stable time loop" theory is correct, and return to the future.

However, upon arriving back at 13:05, you find your own dead body and a slightly distressed camera crew. They tell you that they have seen you kill yourself and leave. They insist that according to the protocol, this corresponds to Observation Section 1, therefore the "stable time loop" theory is not correct and it is possible to affect one's past in an apparently paradoxical way. The camera crew that arrived with you argues that their past has been perfectly consistent, and even if this strange encounter is taken into account, your actions affected only your future, which is quite normal, thus there are no paradoxes and the experiment supports the "stable time loop" theory. The other camera crew disagrees and they begin to quarrel about the contents of the article in the physics journal and who gets to write it. The discussion quickly turns to who gets to sleep in the crew's homes tonight.

Among all the shouting that gets uglier by the minute, what do you conclude? Who is right?

5) At 12:01, you wait and observe.
At 12:08, two short men arrive in a strange-looking time machine. One of them sighs and says, "No, you pushed it way too far now. Here, let me do it." They disappear.
At 12:15, you see yourself (B) arrive in a time machine, accompanied by a camera crew. You see B aim a shotgun at you.
At 12:15:05, a woman suddenly appears, snatches the shotgun away from B, then turns to you, smiles at you and says, "Thank you." She then disappears.
It's 12:15:10 and B appears confused. He takes out a paper with the protocol from his pocket and studies it. He then says, "Hmmm... the protocol is somewhat ambiguous. Under "Initial conditions", it says I should try to kill you using the prescribed method, but "Observation section 3" would seem to imply that I should just try to kill you. So now that I don't have my shotgun, do you think I should improvise?" You reply, "I'm just here to wait and observe. You decide."
It's 12:16, and suddenly another instance of you (C) arrives in a strange-looking time machine, wearing a Star-Trek-like costume. He grabs surprised B and pushes him into the strange machine. He then turns to you and says, "Listen. You will see me arrive twice more and tell you not to enter the time machine. I may sound quite persuasive, especially the second time, but just ignore it, okay? I come from a more distant future and I know better now. So please, trust me and do enter the time machine." He then places a small device on the floor, gets into the time machine and disappears.
At 12:17, you are standing alone with two camera crews. On the floor, there is a small device and a paper with the protocol that B has dropped.
At 12:18, the device starts projecting a holographic image of yourself.
At 12:19, two short men arrive in a strange-looking time machine. They take out a weapon of some sort and fire at the holographic image. When they realize it does not work, they appear confused. One of them says, "What's going on here?" The other one points at you and says, "Look, he has the shotgun. I think we should -"
At 12:19:10, another pair of those two men arrives. One of them says, "See? Now we're just in time." He takes out a weapon and zaps the first pair. The first pair dissolves in a puff of foul smelling smoke. Then they zap the first pair's time machine, wave goodbye to you, and disappear.
At 12:20, what appears to be B and C reappear again. C pushes B out of the machine, grabs the holographic projector and says, "Good luck," to you.
At 12:20:15, another instance of yourself (D) appears in a time machine. He says, "Hi," to C. C replies, "Hey," gets into his own machine and disappears. D turns to you and explains, "I forgot to do this," takes out a weapon and zaps the camera crew that arrived with B and all their equipment. He then gets into his time machine and disappears.
It's 12:21. You stand next to B, who looks very confused.
At 12:22, another instance of yourself appears. He looks injured and exhausted. He mutters, "Please, for the sake of humanity, do not enter the time machine!" Then he disappears.
At 12:25, one of your camera crew puts the camera away and takes off her mask. It turns out to be the woman you saw at 12:15. She takes B's hand and together they enter B's time machine and disappear.
At 12:26, another instance of yourself appears, again in a Star-Trek-like costume. He says, "Listen, I don't have much time. I talked to you twice; the first time I told you to enter the time machine, the second time I told you not to. I know the first time I told you to ignore what I would be saying now. You must not listen to that; I was lying. They made me say that. Please, trust me now when I say: do not enter the time machine. For the sake of the world." Then he disappears.
At 12:30, everything appears quiet. You pick up the paper B had dropped at 12:16. On the back side, you find a hastily written inscription saying, "Do not trust the story the woman told you. I've been there, and she's lying. The time machine is rigged, do not get into it."
At 12:48, two short men in a strange-looking time machine appear. One of them says, "You didn't push the lever far enough. Try again." Then they disapppear.

a) What do you conclude?
b) Will you enter the time machine or not?

[Molinaro]

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

King Merv.


Look into the ''many-minds model'' of quantum physics and parallel universes. You will see this is not..

...salad, you ignorant.. **.

There is no such area of physics as the many-minds model.

KingMerv is 100% bang on in his assessment of your posts in this thread as word-salad.

You are taking concepts and words and stringing them together into a meanignless jumble of nonsensical ramblings.

How many times do you have to see that exact same assessment of your posts from so many different people, who all agree with each other before you realize that you are a complete loon?

[Starthinker]

Once an older me showed up and said he was going to kill me to see what would happen to him. So I shot him. That showed him.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Thabiguy

I think the experiment is cleverly designed, but I believe there are still some possible scenarios you have not addressed.

For example:

1) You wait and observe. At 12:15, a shotgun-carrying zombie with a camera crew arrives and shoots you dead. They then return to the time machine and disappear. You lie dead on the floor. Time passes. There is a quiet but passionate debate among the camera crew about legislation concerning safety of scientific experiments. Some worry whether the waiver they signed will be enough to protect them from legal troubles. At 12:59, your dead body suddenly reanimates, and the zombie says, "Braaaaains, everyone. Let's get on with this." Your zombie and the crew enter the time machine, get back into the past, kill you and return back to the future, at which point the zombie drops dead again.

Disregarding the fact that you're dead, what do you conclude?

2) You do not get killed, you successfully travel to the past and proceed to kill yourself, but at the moment you do, the time machine disappears and you are unable to return to the future, thus unable to decide whether there is a paradox or not as per your Observation Section 2. If you do further experimentation, you discover that this happens as soon as you do something that seems to prevent your past self from getting into the time machine.

What do you conclude?

3) You wait and observe. At 12:15, your grandfather arrives (without a camera crew), hesitatingly kills you, remarks, "Sorry, but I had to do that," gets into the time machine and disappears. Furthermore, it is known that your grandfather had died many years before the experiment took place.

Disregarding the fact that you're dead, what do you conclude?

4) You wait and observe. At 12:15, you see your future self arrive and attempt to kill you, but fail to do that. At 12:25, he gives up, gets back into the time machine and disappears. At 13:00, you travel to the past and try to kill your past self, but find yourself unable to, failing the same way you had previously observed yourself to. As per Observation Section 3, you conclude that the "stable time loop" theory is correct, and return to the future.

However, upon arriving back at 13:05, you find your own dead body and a slightly distressed camera crew. They tell you that they have seen you kill yourself and leave. They insist that according to the protocol, this corresponds to Observation Section 1, therefore the "stable time loop" theory is not correct and it is possible to affect one's past in an apparently paradoxical way. The camera crew that arrived with you argues that their past has been perfectly consistent, and even if this strange encounter is taken into account, your actions affected only your future, which is quite normal, thus there are no paradoxes and the experiment supports the "stable time loop" theory. The other camera crew disagrees and they begin to quarrel about the contents of the article in the physics journal and who gets to write it. The discussion quickly turns to who gets to sleep in the crew's homes tonight.

Among all the shouting that gets uglier by the minute, what do you conclude? Who is right?

5) At 12:01, you wait and observe.
At 12:08, two short men arrive in a strange-looking time machine. One of them sighs and says, "No, you pushed it way too far now. Here, let me do it." They disappear.
At 12:15, you see yourself (B) arrive in a time machine, accompanied by a camera crew. You see B aim a shotgun at you.
At 12:15:05, a woman suddenly appears, snatches the shotgun away from B, then turns to you, smiles at you and says, "Thank you." She then disappears.
It's 12:15:10 and B appears confused. He takes out a paper with the protocol from his pocket and studies it. He then says, "Hmmm... the protocol is somewhat ambiguous. Under "Initial conditions", it says I should try to kill you using the prescribed method, but "Observation section 3" would seem to imply that I should just try to kill you. So now that I don't have my shotgun, do you think I should improvise?" You reply, "I'm just here to wait and observe. You decide."
It's 12:16, and suddenly another instance of you (C) arrives in a strange-looking time machine, wearing a Star-Trek-like costume. He grabs surprised B and pushes him into the strange machine. He then turns to you and says, "Listen. You will see me arrive twice more and tell you not to enter the time machine. I may sound quite persuasive, especially the second time, but just ignore it, okay? I come from a more distant future and I know better now. So please, trust me and do enter the time machine." He then places a small device on the floor, gets into the time machine and disappears.
At 12:17, you are standing alone with two camera crews. On the floor, there is a small device and a paper with the protocol that B has dropped.
At 12:18, the device starts projecting a holographic image of yourself.
At 12:19, two short men arrive in a strange-looking time machine. They take out a weapon of some sort and fire at the holographic image. When they realize it does not work, they appear confused. One of them says, "What's going on here?" The other one points at you and says, "Look, he has the shotgun. I think we should -"
At 12:19:10, another pair of those two men arrives. One of them says, "See? Now we're just in time." He takes out a weapon and zaps the first pair. The first pair dissolves in a puff of foul smelling smoke. Then they zap the first pair's time machine, wave goodbye to you, and disappear.
At 12:20, what appears to be B and C reappear again. C pushes B out of the machine, grabs the holographic projector and says, "Good luck," to you.
At 12:20:15, another instance of yourself (D) appears in a time machine. He says, "Hi," to C. C replies, "Hey," gets into his own machine and disappears. D turns to you and explains, "I forgot to do this," takes out a weapon and zaps the camera crew that arrived with B and all their equipment. He then gets into his time machine and disappears.
It's 12:21. You stand next to B, who looks very confused.
At 12:22, another instance of yourself appears. He looks injured and exhausted. He mutters, "Please, for the sake of humanity, do not enter the time machine!" Then he disappears.
At 12:25, one of your camera crew puts the camera away and takes off her mask. It turns out to be the woman you saw at 12:15. She takes B's hand and together they enter B's time machine and disappear.
At 12:26, another instance of yourself appears, again in a Star-Trek-like costume. He says, "Listen, I don't have much time. I talked to you twice; the first time I told you to enter the time machine, the second time I told you not to. I know the first time I told you to ignore what I would be saying now. You must not listen to that; I was lying. They made me say that. Please, trust me now when I say: do not enter the time machine. For the sake of the world." Then he disappears.
At 12:30, everything appears quiet. You pick up the paper B had dropped at 12:16. On the back side, you find a hastily written inscription saying, "Do not trust the story the woman told you. I've been there, and she's lying. The time machine is rigged, do not get into it."
At 12:48, two short men in a strange-looking time machine appear. One of them says, "You didn't push the lever far enough. Try again." Then they disapppear.

a) What do you conclude?
b) Will you enter the time machine or not?

An excellent summation!! And almost complete too.
R A Heinlein had a lot of fun working and reworking the time travel meme. He Built a Crocked House, All You Zombies and I am an Unmarried Mother come to mind.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

What if i had faries living in my backgarden...

...

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Anyway, I'm done arguing with you. Let's re-rail the thread.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Let's say I come out of the time machine and the alternate me wasn't doing the experiment. That would prove that time travel was travel to alternate realities, thus solving the grandfather paradox.

.
But, if the machine travels to alternate realities, how can you get back to #1 to prove the condition was satisfied? Or not.

[Singularitarian]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

...

Don't you see? Your ''what if'' statements are just about as good as me saying, ''what if i had faries at the bottom of mt garden,...'' These questions give just as insipid an answer as one which asks them.

[Singularitarian]

Originally Posted by Molinaro

There is no such area of physics as the many-minds model.

KingMerv is 100% bang on in his assessment of your posts in this thread as word-salad.

You are taking concepts and words and stringing them together into a meanignless jumble of nonsensical ramblings.

How many times do you have to see that exact same assessment of your posts from so many different people, who all agree with each other before you realize that you are a complete loon?

Did you mean: the many-minds model of physics - minds separate in the multiverse theory


Search ResultsResults include your SearchWiki notes for the many-minds model of physics - minds seperate in the multiverse theory. Share these notes


Oh dear, i am yet to do more homework.

Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia MWI is one of many Multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. .... or mental postulates (such as the many-minds interpretation makes). .... Also, it is a common misconception to think that branches are completely separate. .... been used in the theory of probability since the mid 1930s for instance to model ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation - Cached - Similar -


Apology?

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
But, if the machine travels to alternate realities, how can you get back to #1 to prove the condition was satisfied? Or not.

BTW, I did a poor job explaining the alternate world solution. Essentially, the two universes would be identical but your interference would send it off on an alternate tangent where your grandfather is murdered and you don't exist.

If getting back in the time machine doesn't work, I supposed you could only prove it to yourself, the camera crew and the citizens of the tangent universe.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Don't you see? Your ''what if'' statements are just about as good as me saying, ''what if i had faries at the bottom of mt garden,...'' These questions give just as insipid an answer as one which asks them.

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingMerv00
Anyway, I'm done arguing with you. Let's re-rail the thread.

[Singularitarian]

Ok. On rail.

What if the conditions you require for this hypothetical question are not validated by current scientific beleif?

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

In many models of parallel universes, information can enter other universes, even if there is a specific amount of information ready to leave the universe in question.

Assuming that is true, what is to prevent an equivalent amount of information from moving out of the Universe that is not KingMerv, as KingMerv enters it?

You could then have exactly the same amount of information in both Universes, but two KingMervs will be in one, and none in the other.

If you think the content of the information matters, how would the Universes distinguish that the content is supposed to be in a different form?

[Ysidro]

Originally Posted by linusrichard

To pedants, 12 p.m. doesn't exist. It goes 11:59 a.m., 12 noon, 12:01 p.m. Why? Because p.m. stands for post meridiem, which means after noon. 12:00 is not after noon, it is noon. So 12 p.m. doesn't work.

ETA: In ordinary usage, though, you're absolutely correct, 12 p.m. is noon.

Yes, but pedants don't get laid.

[Chase_the_Bass]

The implications of fairies in one's garden are rather boring compared to the implications of time travel. Although my niece might disagree.

[Singularitarian]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Assuming that is true, what is to prevent an equivalent amount of information from moving out of the Universe that is not KingMerv, as KingMerv enters it?

You could then have exactly the same amount of information in both Universes, but two KingMervs will be in one, and none in the other.

If you think the content of the information matters, how would the Universes distinguish that the content is supposed to be in a different form?

Let's be arbitrary in our calculations. The brain is made of particles. The body itself i know from biology class, is made of around 90 trillion cells. Our bodies being made of mostly carbon and hydrogen, there are about atoms in the human body, let alone calculate the entire subatomic system, which continuously changes in mass through absorbingg electromagnetic energy. This means that is takes many statistical averages (more than what a scientist could cope with due to uncertainty), so even if we speculated a correct amount of particles that leaves a specific universe (such as a specific collection of subatomic particles which account for his body) we are still talking statistics which far outweigh any possible conceivement. Also, the universe would not be very parallel to our own if that be the case. Probability in parallel universe theory dictates that if we do move into another universe, it will be the [most probable universe]. It won't be a universe which spits out information in the form of particles which may or may not fit the object closing in, but rather it will be a universe much like our own, where you are also closing in on another universe. Michio Kaku reminds us in his book, ''Hyperspace'' that the quantum difference will be as small as talking about the colour change in the subjects tie.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Ok. On rail.

What if the conditions you require for this hypothetical question are not validated by current scientific beleif?

In that case, I would still start this thread because this is a thread about a hypothetical situation, which by defiition doesn't have to be validated by current scientific belief.

Didn't you accusing US of taking science too seriously?

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Let's be arbitrary in our calculations. The brain is made of particles. The body itself i know from biology class, is made of around 90 trillion cells. Our bodies being made of mostly carbon and hydrogen, there are about atoms in the human body, let alone calculate the entire subatomic system, which continuously changes in mass through absorbingg electromagnetic energy. This means that is takes many statistical averages (more than what a scientist could cope with due to uncertainty), so even if we speculated a correct amount of particles that leaves a specific universe (such as a specific collection of subatomic particles which account for his body) we are still talking statistics which far outweigh any possible conceivement. Also, the universe would not be very parallel to our own if that be the case. Probability in parallel universe theory dictates that if we do move into another universe, it will be the [most probable universe]. It won't be a universe which spits out information in the form of particles which may or may not fit the object closing in, but rather it will be a universe much like our own, where you are also closing in on another universe. Michio Kaku reminds us in his book, ''Hyperspace'' that the quantum difference will be as small as talking about the colour change in the subjects tie.

Let me get this straight, you jump on me for posing a hypothetical question and then you pull out a nonsense hypothetical law of science to address it.

This is a hypoTHETICAL exercise not a hypoCRITICAL exercise.

[Singularitarian]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

In that case, I would still start this thread because this is a thread about a hypothetical situation, which by defiition doesn't have to be validated by current scientific belief.

Didn't you accusing US of taking science too seriously?



Let me get this straight, you jump on me for posing a hypothetical question and then you pull out a nonsense hypothetical law of science to address it.

This is a hypoTHETICAL exercise not a hypoCRITICAL exercise.

Except the work i showed is scientific fact. It is true we would move into the most probable universe, with all the neat stuff i added, such as information transferral between universes.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Ysidro

Yes, but pedants don't get laid.

.
How well I know! Sob!

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Except the work i showed is scientific fact. It is true we would move into the most probable universe, with all the neat stuff i added, such as information transferral between universes.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

.
Beginning from a "arbitrary" position makes no sense, but that's typical with you.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Probability in parallel universe theory dictates that if we do move into another universe, it will be the [most probable universe]. It won't be a universe which spits out information in the form of particles which may or may not fit the object closing in, but rather it will be a universe much like our own, where you are also closing in on another universe.

That might make sense for parallel universe theories.

However, the thought exercise has the person travelling 5 minutes back in time, though. That means he will arrive five minutes before he leaves.

Perhaps time travel could work in a way that is not relevant to parallel universes.

For the sake of argument, if we assume such travel is possible, would Merv's experiment be good for testing the Grandfather paradox? That is the question.

I, for one, think it's a good start.