I don’t generally delve into the subject of time travel because it’s kind of hard for my poor mammal brain to comprehend.
Well, I kind of understand Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity (or is it Special Theory of Relativity?) because I’ve read science-fiction for 45 years and have actually taken physics courses in high school and college. I get (not grok) that as an object approaches light speed it increases in mass and if an observer was on the object, time would go slower for them than the outside Universe, in essence transporting the observer into the Future.
I get that.
What I don’t get is quantum theories that speculate time travel to the past and this tanj-blasted Grandfather Paradox.
Yeah, that one. The one where the perpetrator manages to travel to the past and kills an ancestor, either purposely or accidently, resulting in the conundrum of if his ancestor dies, how does this person come to the past in the first place?
And he gives an explanation why it isn’t possible to begin with.
Just two days ago here at Barf Stew – I blasted the idea of Time Travelers –http://barfstew.blogspot.com/2010/07/time-travel-is-impossible.html presenting many reasons why it was impossible. Not only that I didn’t even use the ONE REASON the simple thinkers always trot out – the one that says – IF you could go back in time you could end up killing off your ancestry (ie:killing your father, or grandfather – why is it never your mother?) and therefore making one’s own existence impossible to occur.
Well, it seems the mathematicians have finally, possibly, figured out a way for their `time equations’ to filter actions like that out of the equations. Time travel theory avoids grandfather paradox –http://www.physorg.com/news198948917.html(my thanks to Bruce Duensing for sending me this link yesterday). And, if you go to the link – you can see the equations and hear the convoluted logic employed to justify the mathematical possibility.
But, I am here to say this – IT DOESN’T MATTER – that math provides such a scenario. And, the reason is tangled up in two of the reasons I presented two days ago: 1) we live on a planet 2) actualization provides realness as Phenomenology overrides `math potentials’. ———- Let me explain the best I can.
First, let me say that IF we didn’t live ON a planet – that I’d probably be willing to accept `math answers’ to the time-traveler saga – but we do live on a planet. OUR space (body) is directly tied to this other object – our planet. But, if it didn’t – if somehow we were a `freely occurring space’ (maybe like we will be AFTER we are DEAD) – with NO TIES to outside phenomena (the entire motion of our galaxy in our particular location) – then, and only then, perhaps `time’ wouldn’t matter.
But, Phenomenology provides a basis for actualization of space – a determinism to spaces– turning our local reality for a singular observer (like a human) into a `not-able-to-not-be’ AS the moment of NOW. Indeed, EVERY actualized space-moment is `not-able-to-not-be’. And that `not-able-to-not-be’ is what `provides realness’ to our experience; and to even the `sperm’ of our grandfathers.
We simply – CAN’T GO BACK – to realness. Realness IS ONLY an attribute of the NOW; of the `not-able-to-not-be’ for the observer-experiencer. The not-able-to-not-be’s of the past EXISTED but DO NOT EXIST (to return to). `Closed time-like curves’ – do not reverse the Earth’s motion in some sort of `running the film backwards’. Earth’s motion is in a `frame of reference’ to `other spaces’ and ONLY has NOW as it’s attribute.
The `Earth’, and placement of that Earth to our grandfather, is not only NOT HERE – it is NOT NOW. That here and that now – RAN OFF the structure of phenomenology as it provided `realness’ to existence. And, the fact that mathematicians can use equations to show that the past has/had areas that prohibit CHANGING THE REAL is hardly surprising to a Phenomenologist as myself – as the actualized, determined, past WAS the real.
So, I will end today’s post the same way I ended the post two days ago – It is good that the past can’t be changed – because – IF it could – it wouldn’t have been real. And, since REAL is only an attribute of NOW – the fact that mathematicians have solved the Grandfather Paradox – Doesn’t Matter.
More Phenomenology here –http://whatisnotabletonotbeis.blogspot.com/
Hmm…one can not return to ‘the real?’
But isn’t ‘real’ a property of ‘perception?’
That’s the trouble with this stuff, nobody really truly knows anything!
But as the wise man once said, “It’s not the destination, it’s the journey!”
For this edition of the carnival, Centauri Dreams sends Prospects for Red Dwarf ‘Earths’. Paul Gilster analyzes a new paper by Greg Laughlin and Ryan Montgomery that looks at whether Earth-class planets might be found in the habitable zone around red dwarfs. These stars make up over 70 percent of the galactic population, so such a result would mean vast numbers of potentially habitable planets.
From the NWO/Police State Department:
The London police have bested their own impressive record for insane and stupid anti-terrorism posters with a new range of signs advising Londoners to go through each others’ trash-bins looking for “suspicious” chemical bottles, and to report on one another for “studying CCTV cameras.”
It’s hard to imagine a worse, more socially corrosive campaign. Telling people to rummage in one another’s trash and report on anything they don’t understand is a recipe for flooding the police with bad reports from ignorant people who end up bringing down anti-terror cops on their neighbors who keep tropical fish, paint in oils, are amateur chemists, or who just do something outside of the narrow experience of the least adventurous person on their street. Essentially, this redefines “suspicious” as anything outside of the direct experience of the most frightened, ignorant and foolish people in any neighborhood.
Even worse, though, is the idea that you should report your neighbors to the police for looking at the creepy surveillance technology around them. This is the first step in making it illegal to debate whether the surveillance state is a good or bad thing. It’s the extension of the ridiculous airport rule that prohibits discussing the security measures (“Exactly how does 101 ml of liquid endanger a plane?”), conflating it with “making jokes about bombs.”
The British authorities are bent on driving fear into the hearts of Britons: fear of terrorists, immigrants, pedophiles, children, knives… And once people are afraid enough, they’ll write government a blank check to expand its authority without sense or limit.
What an embarrassment from the country whose level-headed response to the Blitz was “Keep Calm and Carry On” — how has that sensible motto been replaced with “When in trouble or in doubt/Run in circles scream and shout”?
Great Britain is fast becoming Airstrip One.
Somewhere, Eric Blair is crying.
Hat tip to Boing Boing.
On the “morality” of “uplifting” some animal species to human level “intelligence”:
Biological uplift describes the act of biologically enhancing nonhuman animals and integrating them into human and/or posthuman society. There is no reason to believe that we won’t some day be able to do so; the same technologies that will someday work to augment the human species could also be applied to other animals. The big questions now have to do with whether or not we should embark on such a project and how we could do so in an ethical and responsible manner.
Recently on his blog, David Brin wrote, “[See] Developmental and ethical considerations for biologically uplifting nonhuman animals,” by George Dvorsky… opining that we humans will soon attempt what I described 30 years ago, when I coined “uplift” in several novels that explored the concept from many angles. George’s fascinating paper, might have benefited from more on the sfnal history of the idea. Before me, HG Wells, Cordwainer Smith, and Pierre Boulle depicted humans endowing animals with powers of intelligence and speech – though always in a context of abuse and involuntary servitude. Indeed, those cautionary tales may have helped ensure that it will be done openly and accountably, hence qualifying the tales as “self-preventing prophecies.” Allowing me to be the first to ponder “what if we tried to do uplift ethically and well?”
But I noticed a few comments around the InnerTubes that have linked to this post asking why should we uplift animals to sapience in order to have “alien” companions? Many have said they wouldn’t be alien at all, only anthropocentric animal versions of ourselves. And some have suggested what the article stated, that we would use them as slaves, (read Cordwainer Smith’s classic, “The Dead Lady of Clown Town“).
Alternative history researchers Zecharia Sitchen and Lloyd Pye have suggested that humanity itself is a result of uplift from hominids by the Annunaki of Ancient Sumerian legends, however, they do have their detractors.
Could the urge to ‘uplift’ come naturally to us because we are a result of the process?
According to Brin’s fiction, that’s the case.
But is it inadvertantly the truth?