Forums → The Tavern → Worm holes, time travel and 4th dimension. Your thoughts?
| 56 | 5318 |
What do you think about worm holes, time travel and the 4th dimension?
I do not think worm holes exist. like a super highway through space and time that allows one to go freely at a whim. I think a person would get hurt if you could even go through one. plus according to Einstein, they are extremely unstable and could collapse in a vary short time. Which would leave you either dead, or stranded. I understand the use of it in math, but I do not think they are real
I think the next two questions are connected. I think time is the 4th dimension. so no, I do not think you can time travel. It would be nice though. Because the only other way to "time travel" would be to travel the speed of light, which according to Einstein is impossible to anything that holds mass.
Your thoughts?
- 56 Replies
I know the thread has gone on to focus on different things right now, but I'd like to bring the causal determinism / free will thing back up again. If one could actually do the math so as to predict with absolute certainty the actions taken by an individual or object, then that would defeat the idea of free will... would it not?
But, what if we had developed this very equation and could use it to do just that? I mean hypothetically the equation should take into account the person under scrutiny's awareness of the equation and what it told them they were going to do in the future. Are you sure that the equation would tell me I had to do one thing and that I couldn't take that information and then go do something else isntead? (the equation should take all of that into account if there is nothing more than non-sentient physical/chemical processes at work, right?)
If the future were set, then there would be nothing I could do to stop me from doing what the equation predicted. If I have free will, then the all knowing equation could state that I have to do one thing and I could simply do another. (as I said, the equation should know that I know about it)
I know that was confusing, but does anyone have any thoughts on this?
@Sonatavarius: How would one go about researching ways to find the formula? How would you then test it? How would you be able to rule out any bias like a thing that happens just bu chance, like winning a lottery?
Also, how could you prove it? most people would think of it is stupid, evil or something that was just made up. How would you go about proving to the world, that you are 100% correct?
I know that was confusing, but does anyone have any thoughts on this?
We had something similar in a phylosophy class. Something with a book in which your future is written, I believe the question was whether we would want to read it or not, but I saw one problem with such a book, and I think it's the same thing you've been writing about:
It can relate exactly your past and the present, but from the moment on when you read it, it changes your future, and the book then either is wrong (fail) or it rewrites itself. However if after it is rewritten you go on reading, the same thing happens and in the end, the book would simply constantly change while you read it (fail). So that kinda doesn't work.
I'm more for something like probabilistic determinism. I would guess that on the smallest scale, there are mainly deterministic events but a few stochastic ones as well, making (independent) future predictions extremely accurate at short time, but loosing accurateness exponentially.
In fact if you consider the string theory there are multiple dimensions, I think the most that has been theorised is 7 but like many things in quantum physics it is a lot educated guess work. You can't necessarily prove or disprove this theory.
I'm with him on this one guys
that would defeat the idea of free will... would it not?
Yes, I mentioned that.
But, what if we had developed this very equation and could use it to do just that?
Equation isn't the right word. This would be a formula, and would probably require many formulas to figure out everything out.
I mean hypothetically the equation should take into account the person under scrutiny's awareness of the equation and what it told them they were going to do in the future. Are you sure that the equation would tell me I had to do one thing and that I couldn't take that information and then go do something else isntead? (the equation should take all of that into account if there is nothing more than non-sentient physical/chemical processes at work, right?)
I guess if this were theoretically possible, then yes, the formula would tell you what you are going to do and there would be no way for you to stray from the path.
@Sonatavarius: How would one go about researching ways to find the formula?
You would have to know all the conditions at the beginning of the universe, and then the laws of how the smallest subatomic particles react with each other.
How would you then test it? How would you be able to rule out any bias like a thing that happens just bu chance, like winning a lottery?
Testing it would be extremely easy. Either calculate everything that would happen from the beginning of the universe until this moment, and see if one leads to the other, or calculate all events that will happen a bit into the future and see if they do.
Also, how could you prove it? most people would think of it is stupid, evil or something that was just made up. How would you go about proving to the world, that you are 100% correct?
You show your proof. You write a scientific paper on it. You demonstrate it. After it is an accepted scientific theory or law, only the idiots will deny it (just like of like evolution).
Causal Determinism as presented in this thread says that every thing in the present is a direct reaction to all of the actions of the past. It effectively says that if you could take into account the motion of every particle in the universe you could hypothetically plot out the course of the universe. It is assuming that there is no such thing as free will. It suggests that our thoughts and actions are the result of chemical reactions that were destined to happen from the very beginning of time. If this theory were absolutely correct, then there would be nothing we could do to deviate from the track. Our lives would be scripted from the very beginning.
Even if it were true, I don't believe we would be able to develop such an equation. It wouldn't be impossible in the way that lets say... dividing by zero is, but it wouldn't be possible on the grounds of the almost infinitely massive scale the universe is on. It would be really hard to account for a mole of gaseous particles (takes up 22.4L at STP), let alone an entire universe. Our sun makes the earth look like a piece of dust... there are stars out there that make our sun look like a piece of dust... and even beyond that there are stars that make those stars look infinitesimally small.... that's a lot of gas.
We may be able to develop similar equations and things on the microscopic level (or smaller), but I doubt that we'd be able to extend the scale much past that.
According to the theory, the lottery numbers are already determined before you roll the dice so to speak. I hold to the notion that there is at least some degree of randomness in the world/universe. Some one once coined the phrase "If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, then you don't really know anything about it." I've never studied that field, but supposedly there are particles at the quantum level that will randomly cease to exist and others that surface out of the sea of virtual particles that had previously not existed. Some say that there is no method to the madness as in there is no discernible reason or logic behind these processes. Maybe we just don't truly understand it, or maybe somehow our world of structured order surfaces out of a quantum world of chaos and absurd uncertainty. (not sure how our level of existence is sustained when it's basest level is supposedly so chaotic).
This CD theory is the epitome of bottoms up causality. Bottoms up means that all of the higher levels or structure and order can be directly and completely explained by the lower levels. This means that you can explain everything about a person based off of how their quarks interact with each other at the quantum level.
I'm more of a fan of a mix between bottoms up and top down causality. TDC is basically saying that the whole is greater than the parts, or another term like "emergent properties" exist. EPs are properties that supposedly arise out of the structuring of the lower levels, but they can't really be entirely explained by the interactions of the lower levels.
I feel that the bottoms up view of things does a marvelous job of explaining a large portion of existence, but I find it to be lacking in the explanation of some things.
I'm not sure that we're akin to the Geth from Mass Effect where our minds are computers and the difference between us pursuing a course of action or not is the difference in our internal codes registering a 1 or a 0 at some point in the internal calculation (they work on binary).
I concede that some actions are somehow hardwired into us, like how a pecking order will arise out of a group of chickens that have never been around adults to see one...but I just can't accept that everything about the human mind is just so easily explainable. Maybe I'm just too dumb to see it.
Even if it were true
You're saying that as if it was a hypothetical situation. It is a very logical idea that may very probably be true. There are no two ways for a normal physics calculation to turn out. If you plug in the one set of variables into the formula for velocity, and then you plug them in a second time, the answer will still be the same. The only problem with it that i found convincing was randomness on quantum levels. Then again, nothing in quantum physics really makes any sense to begin with so I'm not sure we really have a strong enough understanding of the subject to make assertions like this. Maybe one day we will figure quantum physics out fully and prove one side correct.
It wouldn't be impossible in the way that lets say... dividing by zero is, but it wouldn't be possible on the grounds of the almost infinitely massive scale the universe is on
Pretty much my line of thought.
We may be able to develop similar equations and things on the microscopic level (or smaller), but I doubt that we'd be able to extend the scale much past that.
We probably will eventually have powerful enough computers and, a strong enough understanding of the universe, to be able to figure out roughly how everything in a small closed system will turn out.
Some one once coined the phrase "If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, then you don't really know anything about it." I've never studied that field, but supposedly there are particles at the quantum level that will randomly cease to exist and others that surface out of the sea of virtual particles that had previously not existed.
I went into this on the first page.
Some say that there is no method to the madness as in there is no discernible reason or logic behind these processes.
You don't know the half of it, due to the principle of superposition, particles are even able to bounce off themselves o.o
Basically, nothing on a quantum level makes sense. Then you observe it, and you find nothing on a quantum level makes sense x2.
sense is not a demension, can you see sense of smell taste etc.
Vision is a sense. sight, smell, touch/feel, taste, and hearing. Go back to preschool, lol
there are 3 dimensions everyone
up down
left right
forward backward
time travels fluently and constantly but if we could preserve an object and put in a difrent timeline through our own dimension move sideways so that our time is no longer relevant and the present we came from is now past then return to a place were time moved at the same rate as ours or rather into the future i base this theory on the multiverse
We are in the 4th dimension. That is the third dimension+time. Time travel will never be possible. Say you were to turn on a flashlight at night. It takes 2 seconds for that light to get to the moon. Say you hop into a super-fast rocket and get to the moon before the light. then you see the light. This does not mean you went back in time. you just got there before the light. It already happened on earth. And if time travel existed, Don't you think someone would have come back from the future by now? I'm not sure about wormholes though. perhaps wormholes exist.
time travel is imposible on so many levels
1. time is like a river and the universe is like dead fish and the things in the univers are like a fishes scales ime flows in one deretion and pulls dead fish along with it and the scales are on the fish so the fish pulls the scales with it
2. if a train goes right below the speed of light and a person on the trian starts running it slows down the person
but technially a form of time travel is posible in space a person ages faster then a person on earth
but also the present and the future dont exist really because what is the present now is the past a nanosecond later and then what is the future becoses prestent the past i think you get the picture here
well, I think worm hole MIGHT exist. not sure though. As for time travel, not possible. You can technically see back in time though. When you look at say, stars for instance, What you are seeing is the light that is reflecting off of them. And, because light take time to travel, What you would be seeing woudnt be what the star currently looks like, it would be what it looked like in the past. maybe even up to 100 years in the past.
You must be logged in to post a reply!