time travel?

Is this proposition of “essentialistic” following on from your comment about “time-space” being “a 4D object”?

A 4D object that has existence not only across all of each spatial dimension but across all of a temporal one too is not hard to imagine, at least in the abstract, though it’s a problem to reconcile thinking of all time at any one given time. One would rather be required to think of either one time at one given time, as we do normally, or somehow all time across all times - to be perfectly consistent concerning this 4D object. Even regardless of your future, if you accept yourself as having been born at any one time, you don’t exist across times before then in order to perceive all time at all times. Or perhaps I’m still being too Deterministic here?

Is “limited choice” a separate point to the “Essentialistic” worldview? At least within Determinism, it seems untenable to suggest there can be situations that are limited enough to not cause significant change to the way things are. Particularly with quantum considerations that involve phenomena like entanglement that is not constrained by distance, but also with wave/particle behaviour above the quantum realm being subject to the chaos theory principle of “sensitivity to initial conditions”, where even the slightest difference of initial conditions has an exponentially significant impact on changing subsequent events. I’m not sure that an “Essentialistic” worldview can improve upon all the empirical evidence that supports this Deterministic worldview. It needs fleshing out, but even then, to put things in terms that defy causation is somewhat counter to the nature of understanding itself: one understands something to the extent that they know what causes what, no?

“I’m not sure that an “Essentialistic” worldview can improve upon all the empirical evidence that supports this Deterministic worldview. It needs fleshing out, but even then, to put things in terms that defy causation is somewhat counter to the nature of understanding itself: one understands something to the extent that they know what causes what, no?”

Not necessarily, but that doesn’t absolutely disqualify re-sourceful requalification.

If, it is sustained by the myths surrounding their tenancy,
If that is difficult enough , then imagine how hard it is to conceive such a state a-posteriori.
In the event that is tried outside of it’s own set up, how difficult a job an evolutionary inception could possibly be! (Within even a.
modicum of tenancy)

In terms of a fed back repetitive process)

And then,

“one understands something to the extent that they know what causes what, no?”

Not necessarily, most people do, but some figure that even though unfounded knowledge is insufficient in terms of retaining it’s manifold reasons for understanding, the buried myths below levels of understanding retain some connective strings.

Socrates said,

" I can not make people understand, but only to teach them how to think"

I wish time travel was possible so I could get the hell out of here.

2500 B.C. Europe sounds nice. The fun I could have, I would like to do some re-writing of global history as well. Global time cops wouldn’t be able to stop me.

I would also go back in time to murder John Locke in his sleep with a pillow. After that classical liberalism would be no more. Take that you, liberal bastards!

Except You are wrong. There is eternal time travel, if unafraid to fly there.
Course not You individually, but as an enlightened being who is unafraid to morph or reinvent yourself and realize that You are not who you think You are.
That is where karmic effects try to define the effects of a never stopping merry go round, from which you can not get off, even if you decide to checkout.

No, these are entirely unrelated concepts.

I agree with the principles you’re expressing here, though they have less to do with time travel than what I discussed in the other, chemical aliens thread.
Lifeforms are clearly a product of their environment, even though at heart the principle whereby they exist is universal, what I now call “valuator logic”, formerly known as “value ontology” and “self-valuing logic”.

Good to know.
Care to embellish a little?
Much to my chagrin I’m not telepathic (nor “telelogic”?).

I’m sure you would class your ideas as original and unconventional, so a little help in translating them would help you spread them more effectively, no?

Glad I was of help.

I can repeat myself If you wish: No, the two concepts aren’t related.

Oh, haha. A joke.

Which ideas of mine are those? That time space is a 4d object is hardly unconventional and obviously not my own. The “essentialism” term comes from Faust.

You were under the impression that these ideas were mine?

If you don’t understand a thing just come out and say it. No need to pretend you’re offering me a favour when you’re asking me for one.

To be clear, I am asking you a favour because I don’t understand what you’re saying.

I had no intention of coming across as otherwise, my apologies if that’s how it turned out.
No need to repeat yourself - I requested embellishment not repetition, if you recall.

I don’t understand what you want to have embellished.

The “essentialism” thing is probably most interesting to embellish.

So does anyone here actually believe in time travel or is this another mind game?

I actually believe in it.

Why do you believe it?

I believe it because belief is similar to faith, and faith is not onto-logical, faith in anything is primordial , built in to reality. You have faith in an existential premise of li ing, even if, those premises are challenged.

If not, if you are the kind who wish to end it all, it offers no design for others because life goes on, in spite of the overwhelming amount of hardship that accumulates and contrarily, does not diminish with the passage of time.

So the idea that a process, consisting not of indistinct flow, is wrong, because if there was a powerful magnifier, we could see the particles which build the flow, and why?

Because our act of seeing will break the flow down for us.

Reality will be of service to the me el and power of magnification, so the matter will exhibit an unlimited reduction toward a required visibility.
There is never an absolute, because an absolutely powerful magnifier can never be needed, for constructing a reality, but if there was, then, the absolute nothingness would be perceived and not merely conceived as containing itself, the absolute everything.

With that, that the assumed, reducible sense of our understanding of a timeless passage, always near absolutely bending itself into a near perfect universe, satisfactorily proves on every lower level it’s intangible difference between absolute and relative tangency, requires an absolute measure , where by all circular examples of relarovr measures are computed, either in the cosmos’ planetary, galactic forms, or the atomic configurations within and upon which the forms of behavior are predicated upon.
This mathe-intelligence is made up of blocks , blocks of information, which are eternally spliced from the stills that are a permanent feature of.universal under-standing.
The appearent flow, is this incessant requirement to replace missing pieces that tie each bit to the next.

This is super human, and that becomes appearent becomes appearent is revealed with increasing long etude, while the opposite does the same in simultaneous tandem.

The bit are forgotten but always recoverable, by various created mediums of reception, and they also become part of the whole manufactured mechanism of perception.

So consciousness becomes the fuel which increasingly accelerates the vehicles by which connections of the bits are placed into a continuous flow of required understanding through preception.

The absolute requirement of.varifocatio parallels the process by further magnification , which process again has to be upward generalized, so that memory will retain the most.general aspects.

The individual ego, in accordance with such structure, in order to perceive all the corelational strands of information , break into as many particles to simulate this process, the end result is that these individuals get closer to thenrequired absolute, and become more and more intangible to the absolute, confirming to the confirmation of that.
At approaching critical points of tangency, the individual spaced out relative points , become indistinguishable to each other, and create the effect of a flow, as they have always been, but perceived otherwise in moments of less magnified relational structures.

The idea still works within lower levels of abstraction, because there has always been perceptions of this ‘a-priori’.
The travel is a simulation before simulation became figurable, and hence Parmenides, not Heraclitus became the transcendental objectivist.

So wishful suspicion built upon rumors?

You sound like a re-publican re-tractor.
Not that is necessarily a bad thing.
How ever, not necessarily pro-ductive, to put it mildly.

The intention was to relay that you seem to propose no science or reputable source for your priori assertions used to justify your “faith”. I am not claiming that you should do otherwise. I am just noting what appears to be the case, whether good or bad.

Obsrvr524,

Actually no.

It is a-posteriori from ‘It from Quibit’, a study shared by hundreds of scientists the world over .

Reference link?

Oh, never mind. I found the kind of thing that you are talking about. A quibit is a information bit, not an actual physical bit. It is an idea.

And it seems highly disputed that quantum ideas directly relate to the physical world (as mentioned on this board quite often by James - over 1000 posts on it). I am not really qualified to dispute it myself, but as you said - it’s your faith.

Everyone has to stay in their bubble of belief.

Ok.But.
Where would science be if it did not follow a pattern, in fact where would have philosophy began, not from one and then the other, but an appearent interplay, of one within the other, structuring a coincidental idea with an observation.
In fact the interplay between the one and the other is becoming shorter spaced, the hypotheticals have become more closely deduced as the induced , minimal approximations are becoming smaller.
In fact the integrated , or the pre differentiated a-prior/a-posteriori distinction , between philosophy and science indicate a unified field of pre-Socratic awareness of a prior field , for which knowledge is inscribing the same vindicated state.
After all, consciousness and consciousness of some ‘thing’ has this transcendence to model learning, as it’s mode of operation, all along the way, only exhibiting a different schema, as for example a flow becomes broken up into bits of informed realization at it’s core.
You don’t need to re-invent the concept within the development of the study of light and mass to come up with relativity, because it was already implicit in the characteristics of their very prefuncture.
That is how it behaves, and it has taken two thousand years to come to realize that idea. It was not an invention in the sense of utilization, but a discovery of the application of that idea.
I believe You merit the idea, which does not oppose this flow of information, within the strictest modeling within the modicum of calculation , consisting of an unconscious-unaware preception of the connection of irreducibles, as a hypothetical terrain which does not induce a further breaking up into minute parts, an anti-derivitive which has no epistemological basis, but only a structural progression, which may figure in the evolution of conscious manifestation as premordially significant.
I tend to agree with those who dismiss circular argument as a criteria for disqualifying in terms of finely tuned quanta-behavior info, for various reasons, and in the idea of mathemagic , the
value that disappears, behaves as the cutting point where the deducements effect a separation from it’s inducements.
In astronomy, the antithesis to particle physics, the horizon that exists around a black hole produces these kinds of effects around curvature in general.
Mathematically, the lineal versus the non linear function describes how long the kind of functionality will require the kind of specification corresponding to it , whereby the curvature will delimit toward an imploding number of repetitive cycles, before it is perceived to approach a minimum, rather than toward a maximum.
This grey area is sustained, until the function remains fairly consistent between invention-application and model In-design.

I held the pre-eminence of this idea with James as fairly probable, though he ironically held the logical construction of reality at bay, he did not think it arguable in the manner in which, one tions arose toward the ideas put forward in the principia mathematica, where Russel fails to demonstrate the basic idea of the make-up of ‘sense’ or awareness of data as constitutive of consciousness.(sense data)
This, up to the present day, has been the block to present a unified field, and the description of micromanagement of it’s representation within, as an adequate objective , to transcend it’s own premises.
But I don’t see this as a complete negation of it’s basic suppositions …
I am aware of an incomplete representation of circulatory in this argument, but it remains to see how compelling the counter position tends to de-differentiate them, within the next decade or two.

I am not a mathematician per se, but view the conscious manifestation of the logical prereception to be the essential cognitive foundation of it.