From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Feedback, Boundary Conditions, and Time Travel (long....)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:13:49 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Sep28.192944.13618@unlinfo.unl.edu> aberigan@nde.unl.edu (A. Berigan) writes:
>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

[deletions]

>> Purely out of curiosity, did you jump into this thread or have you been
>>reading it for a while? My money's on #1....
>
>Guilty as charged. :-)

 Thought so. We've already covered some of what I'm going to say below;
if you want, I can email you the five posts I put up that started this thread...

>>>> In the worldview under discussion, I *already* appeared back then. In
>>>>fact, part of the reason history turned out the way it did is because I
>>>>was there to "change the positions of air molecules, block and reflect
>>>>photons, etc."
>
>>>Your putting your effects before your causes in a single Universe.  No
>
>> Isn't "putting effects before causes" the *definition* of time travel?
>
>Technically yes, but there is a way to view it so that the effects are
>still after your causes.

 Sure, by assuming the existence of more than five dimensions. I have
said that, in my own crazed opinion, it is more parsimonious to assume
only one time dimension, and then we've been exploring the consequences
of that re: time travel.

>>>changes have been made until you do them.  Sure you can travel back to
>>                        ^^^^^
>
>> Define "until" in the context of time travel. How do you measure "when"
>>something occurred?
>
>By the order in which the traveller experiences them.  (Don't make me
>use phrases like "wioll haven be retrowhen", please.)

 Well, even now, with relativity, we can have two observers disagree
about which events were simultaneous, but both are 'right' in their
own way. (You know the familiar 'train/tunnel paradox?')
 With time travel, we can have observers disagree on which events came
first and last, but again, there need not be a 'priveleged' chronology
(except in the sense that most people experience the time linearly...).

>>>the "present" and see the effects of your changes, but they weren't
>>>there in the first place.  Indeed, that is not your Universe.
>
>> As has been pointed out in previous articles, this requires at least five
>>dimensions, three of space, one of normal time, and one perpendicualar to
>>normal time.
>
>Myself, I go with 3 of time, just because it is easier for me to think
>about it than just 2 of time.
>
>>Mind you, this doens't make it impossible, but it's not the
>>multiverse I was talking about.
>
>This Universe is a single-dimension Universe, and will continue to be
>one, until time travel is done.  At that point, Time will expand itself
>to handle the problem instantaneously.  But only the traveller can tell
>of such expansion.  Indeed, because of this limited ability to perceive
>it by those that do not travel, it is quite possible that what we
>perceive to be a single-dimension Universe is really multi-dimensional,
>and that our perceived instantaneous expansion always existed.

 Of course, this is just an assumption of yours, right? If you have proof,
I'd *love* to take a ride on your time machine...:->
 So what we have here is a disagreement over axioms, as near as I can tell.
I dislike the complicated interdependencies of multi-universe theories,
even without the conservation-of-energy questions of where the heck all these
'new' universes come from. The causality gets *really* weird when you add
in hypertimes, and since it is simply impossible as you point out) to ever
observe or measure "when" you are in hypertime, I question whether it's
even a useful concept.

>>>> History in this view is a static sculpture in four dimensions. Past,
>>>>present, and future all 'already' exist, just in directions we can't
>>>>normally perceive or gain access to. Whether this view conflicts with
>>>>free will is another topic.
>
>>>In such a universe, time travel is an impossibility.
>>                     ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Not if the travellings are 'already' built into the structure of that
>>universe.
>
>Then boundary conditions still make no difference whether you knew about
>them or you didn't.  If you don't know what you will do in the past, you
>will seem to have free will (it is an inseperable topic).  If you do
>know, you will then realize that you never did have free will, and will
>be forced to do whatever it was you did.
>
>In effect, in such a Universe, boundary conditions are always in
>existence.  You only notice them when you try to work against them.

 That's one way to look at it. I prefer to think of it as that all events
happen 'at once' - all the free choices are made simultaneously in all times
at once, and it adds up to the static sculpture. I'm expressing this concept
badly in English, I'm afraid, so I wouldn't be surprised if nobody got it.
 I'll try to come up with a better way to put it...

[deletions]

>>(BTW, have you ever seen "The Terminator?")
>
>No.  I have seen "The Terminator" though. :-)

 Glad you put that smiley in. Otherwise I'd have to explain to you that
your grammar-flame was out of place, as I was following the standard
American English convention of putting the question mark inside the
quote marks... :->

>I see why you mention it.  Looking only at that movie, ignoring the
>sequel, it depicts both the fated birth of John Connor, the fated
>failure of the CSM-101-T-800, and the fated taking of the picture of
>Sarah fated to fall into the hands of the fated father.  It is full of
>fate, while still John says (via Reese), "The future is not set."
 
 Of course. He had to say that, otherwise Sarah would not have fought as
hard to live. (Note: the "No Fate" line mentioned in 'T2' does *not*
appear on my copy of "The Terminator...")

>Had not the bit about the picture been depicted, I could explain it away
>with a multiverse.  Instead I have to say it is complete fiction, and
        ^^^^^^^^^^
 Yup. That's the whole point- no multiverse is needed. Or desirable.
 And as for the 'complete fiction' part... why? What physical laws
were violated? Where is the paradox (logical inconsistency)? Everything
adds up precisely because it is in one universe; no loose ends.

>that is even ignoring technical inconsistencies such as the T-800 having
>the commented assembly source code for an Apple II RWTS utility
>built-in.

 Are you referring to something that appeared in one of those "Terminator's
point of view" sequences? If not, I'm at a loss as to what you mean...
(If it *is* that, then why pick on Cameron because he had a low budget?)

>With slight changes, what we saw would be of a third artificially-created
>universe, and that is if they could track the T-800's chronal position
>in the second artificially-created universe from the first universe
>where the time machine is.  If not, there would be no T-800 in the
>universe in which Reese found himself.  However there would be a T-800
>in a universe where there would be no Reese anyway.

 Of course, you then get a self-propagating series of universi, where
Termies appear and kill Sarah so Skynet wins, except in some some other
non-Connor person rallies the humans, so someone else is targeted
the next universe over; or Reese appears, Connor is born, and that whole
universe springs off others...
 It just gets silly, IMHO. Oh, well.

>aberigan@nde.unl.edu (Greg Berigan)


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.