time travel?

[Meno_]

I actually believe in it.

[obsrvr524]

I actually believe in it.

Why do you believe it?

[Meno_]

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.

[obsrvr524]

So wishful suspicion built upon rumors?

[Meno_]

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.

[obsrvr524]

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.

[Meno_]

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 .

[obsrvr524]

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.

[Meno_]

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.

[Meno_]

I found the reference to the idea, which may be k own to you guys , but rather new to me:


String Theory

Tangled Up in Spacetime

Hundreds of researchers in a collaborative project called “It from Qubit” say space and time may spring up from the quantum entanglement of tiny bits of information

By Clara Moskowitz on October 26, 2016

أعرض هذا باللغة العربية







“All the world’s a stage…,” Shakespeare wrote, and physicists tend to think that way, too. Space seems like a backdrop to the action of forces and fields that inhabit it but space itself is not made of anything—or is it? Lately scientists have begun to question this conventional thinking and speculate that space—and its extension according to general relativity, spacetime—is actually composed of tiny chunks of information. These chunks might interact to create spacetime and give rise to its properties, such as the concept that curvature in spacetime causes gravity. If so, the idea might not just explain spacetime but might help physicists achieve a long-sought goal: a quantum theory of gravity that can merge general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two grand theories of the universe that tend not to get along. Lately the excitement of this possibility has engrossed hundreds of physicists who have been meeting every three months or so under the banner of a project dubbed “It from Qubit.”

The “it” in this case is spacetime, and the qubit (pronounced “cue-bit,” from “quantum bit”) represents the smallest possible amount of information—a computer “bit” on a quantum scale. The idea suggests the universe is built up from some underlying code, and that by cracking this code, physicists will finally have a way to understand the quantum nature of large-scale events in the cosmos. The most recent It from Qubit (IfQ) meeting was held in July at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, where organizers were expecting about 90 registrants. Instead, they got so many applications they had to expand to take 200 and simultaneously run five satellite sessions at other universities where scientists could participate remotely. “I think this is one of the most, if not the most, promising avenues of research toward pursuing quantum gravity,” says Netta Engelhardt, a postdoctoral researcher at Princeton University who is not officially involved in It from Qubit but who has attended some of its meetings. “It’s just taking off.”

Because the project involves both the science of quantum computers and the study of spacetime and general relativity, it brings together two groups of researchers who do not usually tend to collaborate: quantum information scientists on one hand and high-energy physicists and string theorists on the other. “It marries together two traditionally different fields: how information is stored in quantum things and how information is stored in space and time,” says Vijay Balasubramanian, a physicist at the University of Pennsylvania who is an IfQ principal investigator. About a year ago the Simons Foundation, a private organization that supports science and mathematics research, awarded a grant to found the It from Qubit collaboration and finance physicists to study and hold meetings on the subject. Since then excitement has grown and successive meetings have drawn in more and more researchers, some official members of the collaboration funded by Simons and many others simply interested in the topic. “This project is addressing very important questions, but very difficult questions,” says IfQ collaborator Beni Yoshida, a postdoctoral researcher at Perimeter. “Collaboration is necessary—it’s not like a single person can solve this problem.” Even scientists outside of the project have taken notice. “If the link with quantum information theory proves as successful as some anticipate, it could very well spark the next revolution in our understanding of space and time,” says string theorist Brian Greene of Columbia University, who is not involved in IfQ. “That’s a big deal and hugely exciting.”



ENTANGLING SPACETIME

The notion that spacetime has bits or is “made up” of anything is a departure from the traditional picture according to general relativity. According to the new view, spacetime, rather than being fundamental, might “emerge” via the interactions of such bits. What, exactly, are these bits made of and what kind of information do they contain? Scientists do not know. Yet intriguingly, “what matters are the relationships” between the bits more than the bits themselves, says IfQ collaborator Brian Swingle, a postdoc at Stanford University. “These collective relationships are the source of the richness. Here the crucial thing is not the constituents but the way they organize together.”

The key to this organization may be the strange phenomenon known as quantum entanglement—a weird kind of correlation that can exist between particles, wherein actions performed on one particle can affect the other even when a great distance separates them. “Lately one absolutely fascinating proposal is that the fabric of spacetime is knitted together by the quantum entanglement of whatever the underlying ‘atoms’ of spacetime are,” Balasubramanian says. “That’s amazing if true.”



The reasoning behind the idea comes from several earlier discoveries by physicists, such as a 2006 paper by Shinsei Ryu and Tadashi Takayanagi showing a connection between entanglement and the geometry of spacetime. Building on that work, in 2013 Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind found that if two black holes became entangled, they would create a wormhole—a shortcut in spacetime predicted by general relativity. This discovery (nicknamed ER=EPR, after physicists’ shorthand for wormholes and entanglement) and others like it suggest, surprisingly, that entanglement—which was thought to involve no physical link—can produce structures in spacetime.



To understand how entanglement might give rise to spacetime, physicists first must better understand how entanglement works. The phenomenon has seemed “spooky,” in the words of Albert Einstein, ever since he and collaborators predicted it in 1935. Lately scientists have been studying the various kinds of entanglement that can exist. For instance, conventional entanglement involves linking a single characteristic (such as a particle’s spin) in multiple particles of the same type spread out in space. But one could instead entangle multiple particles of a certain kind at one location with particles of a different kind at the same location. “That’s not entanglement in space,” Balasubramanian says. “I’ve come to realize that there are other forms of entanglement that turn out to be relevant for this project of reconstructing spacetime—conventional entanglement is not enough.” Scientists are also tackling the confusing complexities of entangling larger numbers of particles.

Once the dynamics of entanglement are clearer, scientists hope to comprehend how spacetime emerges, just as the microscopic movements of atoms in the air give rise to the complex patterns of thermodynamics and weather. “This is an emergent phenomenon—when you zoom out of something, you see a different picture that you wouldn’t know comes about because of smaller dynamics,” Engelhardt says. “This is one of the most fascinating things about It from Qubit, because we don’t understand the fundamental quantum dynamics from which spacetime emerges.”

COSMIC HOLOGRAMS

The major goal of all this work is to finally achieve a theory that describes gravity from a quantum perspective. Yet physicists chasing this goal have been stymied for a century so far—Einstein himself pursued such a theory doggedly until his death, with no success. The It from Qubit scientists are banking on an idea known as the holographic principleto help them.



Sign up for Scientific American’s free newsletters.



This principle suggests that some physical theories are equivalent to simpler theories that work in a lower-dimensional universe, in the same way that a 2-D postcard with a hologram of a unicorn on it can contain all the information necessary to describe and portray the 3-D shape of the unicorn. Because finding a working theory of quantum gravity is so hard, the thinking goes, physicists could aim to discover an equivalent, easier-to-work-with theory that operates in a universe with fewer dimensions than ours.

One of the most successful embodiments of the holographic principle is a discovery known as the AdS/CFT correspondence, found by Maldacena in 1997 within the framework of string theory. String theory, itself an attempt at a theory of quantum gravity, replaces all the fundamental particles of nature with tiny vibrating strings. In the AdS/CFT correspondence Maldacena showed that one can completely describe a black hole purely by describing what happens on its surface. In other words, the physics of the inside—the 3-D “bulk”—corresponds perfectly to the physics of the outside—the 2-D “boundary.”





 

The physics inside a black hole (shown here in an artist’s conception) could be encapsulated by the physics on its surface, according to an idea called the holographic principle. Credit: NASA, JPL-Caltech

AdS/CFT might allow physicists to discover a theory that is equivalent to quantum gravity, accomplishes all the same goals and can describe all the same physics, but that is much easier to work with—by leaving out gravity altogether. “Theories with gravity are very difficult to get quantum descriptions of whereas theories that don’t have gravity are much easier to describe completely,” Balasubramanian says. But how, one might ask, could a theory that leaves out gravity ever be a theory of “quantum gravity”? Perhaps what we think of as gravity and spacetime is just another way of looking at the end product of entanglement—in other words, entanglement might somehow encode the information from the 3-D bulk into bits stored on the 2-D boundary. “It’s a very exciting direction,” he adds.

For the past 20 years scientists have found that the AdS/CFT correspondence works—a 2-D theory can describe a 3-D situation—but they do not fully understand why. “We know these two theories are dual but it’s not exactly clear what makes the duality work,” Swingle says. “One output [of IfQ] you could hope for is a theory for how these dualities arise. That’s something I think definitely can and will happen as a result of this collaboration or at least major progress towards that.”

Quantum information theory may be able to help because it turns out that a familiar concept from this field, quantum error–correcting codes, could be at work in the AdS/CFT correspondence. In quantum computers, quantum error–correcting codes are a method scientists devised to help protect information from being lost if the entanglement between any particular bits gets broken. Rather than using single bits to encode information, quantum computers use highly entangled states of multiple bits to stand in for each bit, so that a single error cannot affect the overall bit. “There’s an underlying mathematical structure that seems to be common to the error-correcting codes and AdS/CFT,” says quantum information scientist Dorit Aharonov, an IfQ principal investigator at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In computers that redundancy is being used to correct errors, but in AdS/CFT it may be able to encode the bulk physics into an entangled state on the boundary. “It’s very intriguing that you find quantum error–correcting codes inside black holes,” she says. “Why on Earth would that happen? These connections are just fascinating.”

If physicists do eventually understand the how the AdS/CFT correspondence works—and come up with a lower-dimensional theory that stands in for quantum gravity—they are still not home free. The correspondence itself only works in a “toy model” of the universe that is somewhat simplified from the fully realized cosmos we inhabit. “AdS/CFT has a kind of gravity, but it’s not the theory of gravity in an expanding universe like we live in,” Swingle says. “It describes a universe as if it was in a bottle—if you shine a light beam, it bounces off the walls of the space. That doesn’t happen in our expanding universe.” This model gives physicists a useful theoretical playground in which to test their ideas, where the simplified picture makes tackling quantum gravity easier. “You can hope it’s a useful way station in the eventual goal of understanding gravity in our own universe,” Swingle explains.

Some skeptics have questioned how productive IfQ can ever be if it is based on an unrealistic foundation. “That certainly is one very valid criticism: Why are we focusing on this toy model?” Engelhardt says. “All of this depends on the validity of the toy model, and the idea that in the end the toy model is representative of our universe. I would like to make sure that if we understand the toy model, we understand the real deal.”



THE PAYOFF

Regardless of whether It from Qubit will ultimately achieve the holy grail of a unified theory, scientists inside and outside the project say the approach is worth trying and is already turning up many new avenues to pursue. “I’ve long felt that the relation between quantum information and quantum gravity is of fundamental importance,” says Raphael Bousso, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is not involved in IfQ but has worked with some of its collaborators. “The connection has deepened over the years, and I’m thrilled that so many outstanding scientists are now working together to confront these questions and see where they lead us.” Stanford University theorist Eva Silverstein, who is not part of the collaboration, concurs. “It is clearly worthwhile to develop and apply quantum information to these problems. But to understand the dynamics [of quantum gravity] much more is required, and it is important for the field not to focus too narrowly on a single approach.”

Furthermore, even if the project does not pay off with a theory of quantum gravity, it is still likely to have beneficial offshoots. Bringing the techniques and ideas of string theory and general relativity to bear on questions of quantum information can, for instance, help to better define the different types of entanglement that can exist, both for purposes of understanding spacetime as well as constructing quantum computers. “When you start playing with these tools in a new setting, it’s very likely that it will bring up ideas that are interesting and might be useful in other areas,” Aharonov says. “It looks like people are making progress on questions that have been out there for many, many years, so it’s exciting.” For instance, scientists have found that measuring time within wormholes may be possible by thinking of the wormhole as a quantum circuit.

Furthermore, combining quantum information science with string theory may help not just in deriving a theory of quantum gravity but in evaluating whatever theory the researchers find. “A crucial question we would ask—once we actually manage to come up with a detailed-enough physical theory of quantum gravity—is what is the computational power of this model?” Aharonov says. Any physical theory can be thought of as a computational model, its input and output akin to the theory’s initial state and a later state that can be measured—and any computational model has a computational power. “If that power is too large, if our quantum gravity model would be able to compute things that we don’t believe can be computed in our world, that would at least raise a question mark on the theory. It’s a way to actually tell whether the theory is sensible or not from a different point of view.”

The project is reminding some physicists of the heady days in the past when other big ideas were just getting started. “I became a grad student in 1984 when the so-called ‘first string theory revolution’ took place,” says Hirosi Ooguri, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology who has been working on IfQ. “That was a very exciting time when string theory emerged as a leading candidate for a unified theory of all the forces in nature. I do see the current explosion of excitement around this similarly. This is clearly an exciting time for young people in the field as well as those of us who received our PhDs decades ago.”

[obsrvr524]

I'm sure that all of what you said is well beyond me. And what they said seems to be based on a quibit of nonsense (physical matter forms from information about physical matter).

When things get too complicated for me, I try to explore from a different angle. In this case the paradox issues begin my lack of faith in time travel.

The first objection is the grandfather paradox (if you go back and kill your grandfather then you would not be born in order to go back and kill him). That alone is enough for me to say "time travel has to be nonsense".

But also there is the whole non existence of the past and future. If there was some device that caused you to shoot into the past, an entire new universe would have to be instantly created. From what I have read that requires not only an infinity of energy but also breaking a few speed records.

And if you go with the whole M-theory "every possibility already exists" idea, you have to accept some ridiculously infinite numbers of infinite numbers of infinite numbers, ad infinititum. And all of that repeated infinitely upon infinitely upon infinitely ad infinititum. And staggeringly all of that wouldn't even begin the quantity of "already existent timelines". The big bang theory would definitely be shot to hell but so would any preexisting infinite time line theory. And all based up someone imagining, without evidence, "what if".

It all just seems far too silly for me. And that leads me to be far more in favor of James' much more plausible theory that these quantum guys are just playing mind games or they really are just nuts.

[Meno_]

I'm sure that all of what you said is well beyond me. And what they said seems to be based on a quibit of nonsense (physical matter forms from information about physical matter).

When things get too complicated for me, I try to explore from a different angle. In this case the paradox issues begin my lack of faith in time travel.

The first objection is the grandfather paradox (if you go back and kill your grandfather then you would not be born in order to go back and kill him). That alone is enough for me to say "time travel has to be nonsense".

But also there is the whole non existence of the past and future. If there was some device that caused you to shoot into the past, an entire new universe would have to be instantly created. From what I have read that requires not only an infinity of energy but also breaking a few speed records.

And if you go with the whole M-theory "every possibility already exists" idea, you have to accept some ridiculously infinite numbers of infinite numbers of infinite numbers, ad infinititum. And all of that repeated infinitely upon infinitely upon infinitely ad infinititum. And staggeringly all of that wouldn't even begin the quantity of "already existent timelines". The big bang theory would definitely be shot to hell but so would any preexisting infinite time line theory. And all based up someone imagining, without evidence, "what if".

It all just seems far too silly for me. And that leads me to be far more in favor of James' much more plausible theory that these quantum guys are just playing mind games or they really are just nuts.

Again plausible, all too plausible.
Infinity is just as difficult to conceive as the idea of a curve, a perfect circle , as well as the idea of progressive spaced out diminishing rates of , or , increasing rates of change, of awareness.
Relativity, is an idea, but so far, a proven idea, related to the linear slowly, very slowly become awareness, that the perfectly appearing line, is really PART of an extremely straight appearing arc, which has an ever slight curvature, based on being part of a huge circle, or bubble.(whose measurements always ebb or increase)

The bubble is part of a foam of many spheres which pop up & burst. at the limit periodically.

If the idea of the absolute straight line is conceived, then there must be a universe which has no dimension other than pure extension. But can You, or anyone conceive a single universe which includes all space and time while, it merely describes a non spatial extensive idea?

That is equally absurd, and that is what has been described as the characteristic, the primacy, of god.

So you see, both conceptions involve mind games, and as any game, the predominant one that tries to solve this is the mind game concerning the philosophy of mind as central in the ontological games of trying not to ask whether the God game is pre eminent or not, but what that game entails by or education of what it means, by virtue of it's manifestation.

That game has been played almost since the question was asked about what universals mean next to particulars, and whether, a universal, as a pure idea, missed some thing in it's self, or whether consciousness or the idea of it are different in succession, and if so does the idea of god, generate the ideas of evolving consciousness, as anthropomorphical or not.

But all these games, always go back to the circular, and the calculus which determine the idea of the near circular meaning of many universes .
Or, that the curvature can generate as many new realities as is conceivably needed to signify even a single scope of forming relationships between the possible 'human' limits of recognizing as many possible universes as required , based on a number of similar ones.
This is how I see it, and it leads to the game, the recognition of which, like a turtle like apprehension, just slightly different from the preceding one which rests on it, making just enough difference to note it, to prevent if from falling into identity. The game of being sufficient to form enough of a difference ,to become aware that is different enough to form a subsequent foundation.

Why? What function is there to derive such a difference? The idea 'turtle' tried to resolve this puzzling - mind game. It is the catch all - of all of the differently appearing animals that conceivably belong into that set, class.

But again, sets do have to belong to awareness of how they appear to function, and the ideal set forms a sphere, and the sphere has an infinite spatially extended sets of diminishing or increasing rates of change, which coincidentally do contain both, the extremely slight, and the overwhelming sets of relationships between various variables; between Mass, Energy, Limits (C), .....

The increasing rate of linear change, can be played as an infinite number of derivable circles, again to return to the basic idea, of the infinite number (-+1) functionally necessary universes. As is approached functionally .
Where, the absolute is the pure form of the idea that is necessary, to have the other turtles underneath, because if that was not so, then how would even a child's play get started?

You can not conceive of a universal set which contains even it's self without figuring even any two things which may look similar enough to form a basic identity.

The diminishing and the accelerating rates of change then, once it becomes both: integral and differential in this context, (as it can be broken down into more strangeness, peculiarity, individuality, of 'things', ~or less,~ depend on the ability and the need arising out of applications of memory, or pretension , as the mind can apprehend the codex, within which such apprehension can be set, SET, and recalled.
.Eventually the problems become connected to investigation of the human mind's limits, of being able to store into memory, giving rise to the need to code them ; forming more and more general sets, and so on.
.
Back to the circle, again and again. The maximised and minimized number of sets, imply an actual graphic representation, eternally recurring, to traverse the reason, and the meaning and the function of a field, that makes possible such relation, simulating it(and harmonics invented this input, output, feed back process);and it best works visually, as such:


And this is not nutso, it works best as a game everybody plays, the game of I'm ok, with it and you the same:

The very straight appearing line, is an arc, which becomes curved, if incorporated into a possible set of an increasing number of conceivable sets.- Where the area of the circle increases to be able to approximate the straightened of the linear segment. Not the other way around, that is, to take the circle first, then derive, or differentiate the segment!

As the simulation game progresses, we end up to an approach to a critical point, where a hyper or a hypo(Thetical) feed back is established, the hypothetical sequentially creating required forms of lesser and lesser redundant sets of codes, into which the brain dumps categories of memory bits.

The number and the need for these sets diminish in accordance with the mind-limit of storage, directly tied to recall, the rate at which they require recall.

Categorization into more general types of information will correlate with longer recall times, as the rate of change if the time it takes to get to the more specific -lengthens. Such lengthening in time is observed in preception, first in the actual sense of hearing it as such-when the tone and pitch of the sound a moving train makes, and how it is perceived. The same occurs with light, in the study which changes through awareness of infrared teloscopy, as the measure of distance effects - distances of astronomical distances of events in the universe are studied.


Finally, our awareness is changed by seeing these effects, and again can only interpret them in terms of relative consciously manifested events, as the changes, are set into our awareness, while our awareness is set within the process of the change, which the always were, but now( in the instant EUREKA can be uttered, that the game can never end.

It has no end , and, alas such, it always becomes while it is both ending and becoming of as many forms of awareness, as there are requirements to play the games, while the question is asked, whether a maturity is ever reached.Where games need not be played, the resounding answer is : no, we never really ever grow up, we really never appear to want to, because then we would kill the god who created us, and we really can not do it, because if we tried that the gods would destroy us by driving us mad. ( angry gods must get mad at least some times)

[Meno_]

But what of travel in, and through time?

That game is also a change, if you change time, the measurements of it, and you as maybe a seed of some sort, of which there are many, think of a single spermatozoa,(among countless of others), and you compete with innumerable others whom or with which you are intimitely connected , only one of you gets to the goal, you can process this as an eternal game, if the idea of eternal return is accepted, you play this game for ever, and the combination of Your self will again and again re-occur, even if you accept more general models of YOU , or reversely wish to have less simulated versions, or more, with more exact criteria of identification, coming to the limit of totally exact resemblance.( Weather such awareness is self directed or outer directed)

But then who will be capable of judging the degree of similarity and identification? Of who You really are?

Certainly not You your self?
This calls for the other, causing another seminal flow, and here you are again!

You traveled through time, and you actually have no knowledge how many grandfather's you killed, as you don't really know in battle that the man you killed was in another far away time and place, that that he was actually your grandfather once, trying to make friends again, coming all that way, trying to appear to play the game of peace, by utilizing a piece of this or that?
Maybe he came from some underground in guise of opposition, and you could not single mindedly fathom that and shut him down
Who knows your intentions, who knew them a very long time ago, this instant?
Does anyone, maybe some gods or a mature one nor one certainly that wants to play dice.

[obsrvr524]

I tried this kind of thing with Silhouette for a while just to see where it would lead. I could discern most of what he was trying to say and could detect errors in his reasoning. I could not get him to see those errors and eventually realized that it is like trying to get a dog to see color. Some people simply cannot follow clear logic and never will (hence religion).

With you, now and then I can understand a sentence, but its rare. I can't tell if you are making any kind of reasoning error because I can't discern what you are trying to say. Most of your sentences come across as just a bunch of unassociated words. Perhaps mine seem the same to you.

I tried to get Sil to go slow, one issue or statement at a time, but to no avail. He insisted on continuing with wallpaper posts where the number of errors just exponentially compounded. I realized the cause of the problem and had to give up.

I'll make a brief effort to try to understand what you are trying to say but I have to let you know that I am not very good at unscrambling words so as to discern intent. And after a short while I am likely to just drop the effort if I don't see any progress. And I will not tolerate wallpaper posts when I am trying to work through someone's cryptic wording and possibly flawed reasoning. So if you want to continue, I am game for a short while.

Again plausible, all too plausible.
Infinity is just as difficult to conceive as the idea of a curve, a perfect circle , as well as the idea of progressive spaced out diminishing rates of , or , increasing rates of change, of awareness.

I followed you up to that point.

Relativity, is an idea, but so far, a proven idea,

And even up to that point, although I don't entirely agree.

From there it seems that all communication just got scrambled.

related to the linear slowly, very slowly become awareness, that the perfectly appearing line, is really PART of an extremely straight appearing arc, which has an ever slight curvature, based on being part of a huge circle, or bubble.(whose measurements always ebb or increase)

I can only make a wild guess as to what all of that was supposed to mean. My guess is that you were trying to say that what appears to be straight lines are, in fact, slightly curved. If that is what you meant, I could argue the point but I don't want to branch off onto that trail if that wasn't even your point.

The bubble is part of a foam of many spheres which pop up & burst. at the limit periodically.

I understand the sentence but I have no idea what any bubble or foam has to do with anything.

If the idea of the absolute straight line is conceived, then there must be a universe which has no dimension other than pure extension.

And there you completely lost me. I am tempted to disagree, but I don't really even know what you said.


Even though you posted much more, I cannot and will not continue to attempt to make sense of the rest because, as with Sil, the rest might well be dependent upon these ideas that I already am uncertain of. I can't follow along and verify an argument if I can't make sense of the premises.

So if you can clarify those few sentences, we can continue to a few more. Please limit yourself and go slow.

[Meno_]

And don't think that my analogous pause has any other basis , that mirror the mirrors Your reticence describes.
I'm briefly on a few days holiday to some thing resembling a seasonal winter wonderland, ..for my 5 year old grandson who can not associate it with the coming holidays.

This is no cop out, but a realization that it will take digging to put it in the right spin.

[Silhouette]

I tried this kind of thing with Silhouette for a while just to see where it would lead. I could discern most of what he was trying to say and could detect errors in his reasoning. I could not get him to see those errors and eventually realized that it is like trying to get a dog to see color. Some people simply cannot follow clear logic and never will (hence religion).

With you, now and then I can understand a sentence, but its rare. I can't tell if you are making any kind of reasoning error because I can't discern what you are trying to say. Most of your sentences come across as just a bunch of unassociated words. Perhaps mine seem the same to you.

I tried to get Sil to go slow, one issue or statement at a time, but to no avail. He insisted on continuing with wallpaper posts where the number of errors just exponentially compounded. I realized the cause of the problem and had to give up.

I'll make a brief effort to try to understand what you are trying to say but I have to let you know that I am not very good at unscrambling words so as to discern intent. And after a short while I am likely to just drop the effort if I don't see any progress. And I will not tolerate wallpaper posts when I am trying to work through someone's cryptic wording and possibly flawed reasoning. So if you want to continue, I am game for a short while.

Even though you posted much more, I cannot and will not continue to attempt to make sense of the rest because, as with Sil, the rest might well be dependent upon these ideas that I already am uncertain of. I can't follow along and verify an argument if I can't make sense of the premises.

Thanks for name-dropping me three times. You wouldn't be the first to experience trouble interpretting Meno_ fyi.

My issue with speaking with you before was that I could see where you were going, I kept trying to head you off, and it was consistently too much of a leap for you to keep track of. It's my fault for being too impatient to follow your babysteps, and of course you were and are still right that discussions can benefit from babysteps to make sure every detail is precisely covered at every step of the way.

Nevertheless, we successfully narrowed it down to you claiming that you can define the undefinable, through rejecting the concept of undefinable as definable but not yet defined. Still, it was frustrating for both of us, in our different ways, to take so long just to get there. And you still think you were detecting errors in my reasoning, just as I was detecting errors in your reasoning: it's obvious to me that the infinite is a quality and not a quantity, that ways to describe infinities are means and not ends, and that infinite is the literal opposite of finite/definite/definable. I can only try to get you to see the same obviousness, but I can't guarantee success when such a thing is not fully down to me.

[Meno_]

'Sil said':
"Thanks for name-dropping me three times. You wouldn't be the first to experience trouble interpretting Meno_ fyi."

It was said equally about You, I am afraid.


'Sil' said:



"Nevertheless, we successfully narrowed it down to you claiming that you can define the undefinable, through rejecting the concept of undefinable as definable but not yet defined."


That is not the impression I got from what he had to say, but let that pass.

I would put it down to sustaining the same kind of problem that this forum concerns it's self, which is the basis of holding the reductibility of the continuum to the particular part.

Again the levels describe another set, or a purported set of incomparable languages, whose symbolic significance does not correspond into the admitted formal frame of reference.
The bottom of this next set level of inconsistency is based on the circulatory of the shared set of formal discussions implied by the varience of similitude underneath the anti deravetive of their differing planes of reference.

[obsrvr524]

I just begin to try to take a "babystep" to understand meno and I come back to find that the topic has changed already.

I have enough trouble trying to communicate with either one of you. Both of you together is clearly a hopeless encounter.

Sil, do you too believe in time travel? A yes or no would be fine but feel free to express your reasons. I will avoid rebuttal. Apparently James had reasons for these encounters but it's not for me.

Meno, you mentioned that you are a grandfather. I don't want to out anyone, but is there some reason behind your language being so different than others here?

[Silhouette]

I just begin to try to take a "babystep" to understand meno and I come back to find that the topic has changed already.

I have enough trouble trying to communicate with either one of you. Both of you together is clearly a hopeless encounter.

Sil, do you too believe in time travel? A yes or no would be fine but feel free to express your reasons. I will avoid rebuttal. Apparently James had reasons for these encounters but it's not for me.

I'm sorry to overwhelm you even by my presence alone.
I can clearly see the urgency to take as small steps as possible if conversing with you.

I don't believe in time travel, no.

At the risk of supplying you with too much, I explained what I find to be logical issues with time travel on an earlier post on this very same thread.
Any avoidance of any rebuttal is fine, I have no intention to make you uncomfortable.

[Meno_]

I just begin to try to take a "babystep" to understand meno and I come back to find that the topic has changed already.

I have enough trouble trying to communicate with either one of you. Both of you together is clearly a hopeless encounter.

Sil, do you too believe in time travel? A yes or no would be fine but feel free to express your reasons. I will avoid rebuttal. Apparently James had reasons for these encounters but it's not for me.

Meno, you mentioned that you are a grandfather. I don't want to out anyone, but is there some reason behind your language being so different than others here?

I believe in time travel, but time doesent travel I travel through time

[obsrvr524]

I believe in time travel, but time doesent travel I travel through time

Those mean the same thing to me.

And I guess that you believe in it because of what the quantum guys (what James called the "Quantum Magi") have espoused?

[obsrvr524]

Does everyone agree with the idea that time is the "relative measure of change"?

If that is right then time travel would just mean changing everything either back to the way it was without you changing back or changing it much faster into what it will be while not changing faster yourself.

It seems to me that changing the entire universe in any direction or by any speed (especially the light) is ridiculous.

[surreptitious75]

Time travel as a concept already exists but it is not something we have any control over which is why it fascinates us so much

However when this question comes up it helps to define as rigorously as possible what time actually is
Is it therefore a physical entity like space or is it merely a construct of our apparently temporal minds

Time is usually defined as the distance between any two points but is that time itself or merely the measurement of the distance
Is it possible that it does not truly objectively exist but we still had to invent it in order to separate different points of reference

Is time more accurately an effect rather than a dimension
Is it merely a property of anything that cannot travel at c

Remember when Newton and therefore everyone else thought that it was absolute and that that false wisdom then remained unquestioned for over two centuries
Is it possible that Einstein simply brought us closer to the reality but we still have to make yet another leap across the ontological abyss to get to the actual truth

Is the concept of timelessness something that needs to be seriously considered simply because we know so little about the reality we perceive
As we currently cannot account for 96 per cent of the observable Universe which is predicated up on the model of four dimensional spacetime
And so does time itself need a complete rehaul as well or are we truly satisfied that our mathematical model of it is what it is in actual reality

Should we therefore not be very wary indeed of equating the map with the territory when the map in question currently only has a miserable 4 per cent accuracy
Remember at the end of the nineteenth century when physics was declared virtually complete since it had no more serious questions that needed to be answered

And then this thing called Quantum Mechanics was suddenly discovered followed a bit later on by this other thing called General Relativity
And over I00 years later we still have absolutely no idea how to join these two incompatibles together no matter how hard we actually try

I have no definitive answers to these questions but there are interesting ones to ask even if only from a philosopical perspective
Although I still think that they are just as much scientific ones as they are anything else

Say my watch has stopped ... does anyone happen to have the correct time on them ...

[Meno_]

I believe in time travel, but time doesent travel I travel through time

Those mean the same thing to me.

And I guess that you believe in it because of what the quantum guys (what James called the "Quantum Magi") have espoused?

They don't mean exactly the same, and their similarity can be discovered, as they had been. Quantum Magi came after I intuited the difference, and intuition may very well have a pretty fair batting average.

I am still waiting for an answer to a question posed to the Oracle of Delphi

[obsrvr524]

I am still waiting for an answer to a question posed to the Oracle of Delphi

?