🚀 go-pugleaf

"argusy" <argusy@slmember.on.net> wrote in message
news:13t68ndb71tucaa@corp.supernews.com...
> Don H wrote:
> > "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:2b2195c5-e847-412b-a17d-ff739cad876c@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Mar 6, 2:34 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> >>> Surely that's a tautology. But as usual depends on your unstated
> >>> definitions. Obviously the universes matter comes from the original
> > point.
> >>> Equally obviously the original point did not encompass the current
size
> > of
> >>> the universe. Scientists do accept a singular point every time they
> > claim a
> >>> particular age for the universe by working backwards from the current
> >>> positions at measured/calculated velocities. Something that seems to
be
> >>> widely accepted I might add.
> >> We're sort of saying here's an inflated balloon: where did it begin,
> >> and one person is saying "it started as a uninflated balloon, the
> >> whole thing is the origin point" and the other is saying "it started
> >> here where you blow the air in"
> >>
> >> Right?
> >>
> >>> And you know exactly how the earths gravity will affect a time machine
> > that
> >>> hasn't yet been invented, HOW exactly?
> >> Which is why you have to discuss hypothetical types of time machines.
> >>
> >>> Not according to most cosmologists, of course it depends on your
> > definition
> >>> of explosion. Size increasing to encompass earths orbit before
> > subsequently
> >>> collapsing, is a widely accepted theory.
> >> Would the speed of expansion be a factor?
> >>
> >>> Proof will have to wait a while :-)
> >>> But if you have PROOF to the contrary, by all means let's hear it.
> >> Why wait, can't we initiate something to cause it now?
> >>
> >> ===
> >> = DUG.
> >> ===
> >
> > #  I'd claim that "time travel" is impossible - if you regard the whole
> > universe as a chain of causal consequences, all more-or-less
interdependent.
> >    Hence, it is impossible to detach any Time Traveller, and/or Machine,
> > from the totality of events.
> >    The Past is gone, never to return.  The Future doesn't yet exist.
Only
> > the Present has existence, and only Duration is possible - to extend the
> > Present into the Future.  And even Duration implies changelessness.
> >    While Doctor Who and similar "time travellers" are pleasant fictions,
> > that is what they will probably always remain - fiction.  In the movies,
> > anything is possible.
> >     To travel backwards in time, you'd have to "rewind" the whole causal
> > chain, and we'd all go backwards together - not merely one entity.
> >     "Time Travel" depends on prior philosophical problems being first
> > resolved, and I doubt you can get past them.
> >     As to an "exploding universe", and balloon analogy, these tend to
suffer
> > from the same basic flaw.  The Origin of the Universe assumes the
Universe
> > had an Origin - and if so, what was there beforehand?
> >
> >
> Philosophical problems??
> Huh!!
> I don't think that philosophy has anything to do with time travel.
> Maybe you were thinking of the word "theoretical"
>
> What if time can be treated like the two dimensional analogy, where a
piece of
> paper (the two dimensions) can be folded to have non-adjacent points (in
the two
> dimensions) adjacent
>
> What if we could 'move' into a five (or higher) dimensional state of
existence,
> 'fold' time to be in the past (or future), move, then return to our state
of
> existence. Space co-ordinates would probably by-passed as well.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what I vaguely read about string
theory,
> the mathematicians have been theorising eleven dimensions, so is time
travel
> possible in our state of existence?
>
> Maybe!!
>
> I think we'd need help from a being from one of those five or more
dimensional
> states to give us a hand, but would they even know we exist?
>
> After all, we haven't established there's ANY beings living in three
dimensions
> (length, breadth, time), let alone one or two dimensions!!
>

# "Words" are human artefacts which we apes like to monkey around with.
    We humans have a large cerebral cortex, which is one reason why we
create Science (learning by trial-and-error) to come back to what most
animals know by instinct.
    I saw on TV recently, a group of women learning about "Science", so they
could help their kids with schooling.  But what did it degenerate into? -
gimmicky parlour tricks.  What is Science, if not its Method?
    As to analogies, and other dimensions.  Don't bother with the
mathematicians (bean counters), and eleven dimensions - unless you ask them
for empirical proof.
    So, I'm afraid the mundane world of our five senses is what we're stuck
with - and even it won't last much longer if 6.5 billion human locusts keep
destroying the planet.
    Philosophy may be discussing the meaning of meaning, but, even so, it
keeps a check on our verbal output - to which Science must give empirical
content.