GENIUS FORUMS

In my thread "programmer philosophy", I asked whether or not the philosophy espoused by the forum owners makes any predictions about evidence not yet observed. In the thread "To QSR: Is There Peace in Enlightenment?", Kevin Solway said

You might come to understand truths that you are absolutely certain are true, such as the fact that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously.

I don't know if you intended this Kevin, but I think you've just ruled out time travel from the future into the past. Imagine a portal opens in thin air, and on the other side is 20 years in the future, where a time machine has been invented and has created the portal. Yes, the state of the world in the future is caused by the state of the world in the present, but the portal is not entirely caused by things that happened previous to the portal. Part of the causal chain of events that lead to the portal opening is chronologically after the portal opened.

Anything that happens as a result of stuff coming back through the portal is not entirely caused by things that had happened previously. For example, if my future self comes back through the portal and bumps into your present self today, this was not entirely caused by things that happened previous to today. In part, it was caused by things that will happen in the future, such as my future self walking toward the portal, the time machine being invented, etc.

Yes, this kind of time travel seems unlikely, but nonetheless, it is a matter of empirical observation. I would second the hypothesis that you will not find any time portals to the future. However, if a time portal to the future did suddenly open, you'd have to discard the hypothesis and revise the theory that made the erroneous prediction. No amount of being sure the portal won't open will prevent it from opening if the laws of physics allow it. There's plenty of physics yet to be understood, and the possibility of time travel is open. I don't think you can be absolutely sure all things are entirely caused by things that have happened previously.

An enlightened mind is able to travel both forward and backward, instantly in time.

What seems as now as a universe has happened before, infinitely over again.

Everyone already travels back in time when they observe things. With modern tools some of the light we can recognise are images from 13 billion light years ago. All our observances are of the same general nature. Compared to infinity, what is 0.00001 milliseconds ago or 13 billions light years ago is irrelevant.

To potentially go back in time would require more than a wormhole, one would have to at least travel faster than the speed of light (or whatever else might be faster), and even more than that, go faster than the speed of gravity (which may be instantaneous). You would need this to move outside of the fabric of Spacetime. I cannot imagine anything ever doing this. It would essentially be a breakdown in cause and effect, as in . . . What cause would be sufficient to produce a break of the fundamentals of existence? No cause, except the infinite entirety of causality, could separate all the causes that presently create the existence of anything. No SET of causes, no matter how powerful, are sufficient to completely remove the existence of any thing in the present, least of all for such causes being capable of enabling a thing, such as a human in a time-bubbleship, to retain its qualities in the transition.

In any case, the past is actually ALL that manifests in the present, things consist of variations of the past. Things are the past fluctuating into the present. Causality is the relationship between different ages of time, and properties, things, are 3 dimensional sets of different ages. Time is ever expanding, and the "ages of time" is an infinite spectrum of points between the power of time as it was (lesser than the present) and as it is now (greater than the past). Time does not expand into anything external, there is no such thing, it expands into itself. It expands in power, but this power flows inward. It flows "inwards" from infinity to finiteness, everywhere, which creates the effect of points - newer time surrounds older time. It is this effect that causes the required "fundamental imperfection", differentiation, from which form can then evolve.

There was no big bang of the Totality, though there may have been one of all the universe that we observe. Matter manifests out of the void merely as a result of time aging, of time continually spiralling into itself.

When we look away from our point in space, we cannot help but peer into the past in all directions, but that is just because we observe matter. We being of old time, naturally focus only on other occurrence of old time. At the centre of our galaxy there is a spiral into the past, a black hole, where time is so much older than us that we cannot peer into it, light from our time infinitely spirals down into the depths of the older black hole time and never reflects back.

The older something is the closer together it will appear to be to other points of the same age. Mass is created by age, but it is a relative appearance. Were you to travel into a black hole, you would see the same galactic forms and spaces you see now.

|read| wrote:I think you've just ruled out time travel from the future into the past.

Time is relative. From the perspective of any time traveler, they are always travelling into the future, as per normal, at a rate of one second per second. It's just that the environment around them is changing, as it normally does.

Kevin Solway wrote:You might come to understand truths that you are absolutely certain are true, such as the fact that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously.

Kevin Solway wrote:

|read| wrote:I think you've just ruled out time travel from the future into the past.

Time is relative. From the perspective of any time traveler, they are always travelling into the future, as per normal, at a rate of one second per second. It's just that the environment around them is changing, as it normally does.

It's amazing watching you dig yourself into a hole Kevin! Wow. The answer to read's enquiry about your philosophy is so simple, yet it seems to completely elude you! I'm loving it. Delicious!

.

Kevin Solway wrote:

|read| wrote:I think you've just ruled out time travel from the future into the past.

Time is relative. From the perspective of any time traveler, they are always travelling into the future, as per normal, at a rate of one second per second. It's just that the environment around them is changing, as it normally does.

I'm with Kevin on this one, how one can travel back in time defies logic.

As one ages, just look in a mirror (cosmetic surgery aside), those beginning wrinkles eventually turn to grand canyons. The hair turns colors, or begins to fall out. The shell, the human body is just that. To imagine two movements at the same time occurring, cannot be accomplished. No imagined wormholes, no imaginary time machine.

In regards to mirror, I've a few black mirrors, now they are interesting. Reflections of Nostradamus...

Now, what Dan , David have to comment about this are unknown. Where each are in this second-per-second future with the(ir) ever-changing present environmental circumstance is the Big Question.



.

Jason wrote:The answer to read's enquiry about your philosophy is so simple, yet it seems to completely elude [Kevin]!

I can guess at what that answer is, but I don't know whether I'm thinking what you're thinking, so spill the beans, Jason.

Kevin Solway wrote:Time is relative. From the perspective of any time traveler, they are always travelling into the future, as per normal, at a rate of one second per second. It's just that the environment around them is changing, as it normally does.

Consider the example of my future self going through the portal and bumping into your present self. Yes, from the perspective of my future self, all of the chain of events that caused the collision is in my past. However, from the perspective of your present self, part of the chain of events that caused the collision is in your future. Only after the collision will you see the time machine being invented, my future self walking toward the portal, etc. So what of your original claim?

Kevin Solway wrote:You might come to understand truths that you are absolutely certain are true, such as the fact that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously.

In light of the above, the latter part of this sentence can be amended to

"If (and only if) seen from a perspective such that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously, all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously."

Of course, this is tautological. The chronological part of your original claim is insubstantial. The only part which may yet have substance is

"All things are entirely caused to happen by things"

If you can agree with me up to this point, we can proceed to the meat of the claim - the idea of cause.

Jason wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:You might come to understand truths that you are absolutely certain are true, such as the fact that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously.

Kevin Solway wrote:

|read| wrote:I think you've just ruled out time travel from the future into the past.

Time is relative. From the perspective of any time traveler, they are always travelling into the future, as per normal, at a rate of one second per second. It's just that the environment around them is changing, as it normally does.

It's amazing watching you dig yourself into a hole Kevin! Wow. The answer to read's enquiry about your philosophy is so simple, yet it seems to completely elude you! I'm loving it. Delicious!

J, it seems you LIVE to..... one day, maybe one day, just ONCE! and then you can leave this horrible place that so much disagrres with you, if only just ONCE you might trip up one of these know-it-alls that have befuddled you again and again.

Or is it to 'hear' "yes, there i was mistaken, sorry"???

Of course they are HUMAN man! Yes they can make mistakes, YES THEY CAN!
You dont need to catch them at one to prove they arent perfect.

You give then too much power over you, dont you see?

(just trying to enlighten, dont be mad buddy)

In my thread "programmer philosophy", I asked whether or not the philosophy espoused by the forum owners makes any predictions about evidence not yet observed.

(Read), when you asked him what was his answer? Yes predictions, or no none made?

Did you know sometimes peresons in his position have good reason not to answer something asked? After all many eyes are watching, his concern is ONLY on a specific few, i beleive.
All he answers or not is mainly what he beleives certain (others, or maybe you I dont know) are ready to process.
Just basic classroom proceedures.
You may be just a means to an end, like Jason seems to be.
I dont pay much attention so here i just talk, guess, maybe you find worth, take care.

By the way, hard to understand what your point is exactly, i know what you disagree about but your reasoning looses me.

J, it seems you LIVE to..... one day, maybe one day, just ONCE! and then you can leave this horrible place that so much disagrres with you, if only just ONCE you might trip up one of these know-it-alls that have befuddled you again and again.

Or is it to 'hear' "yes, there i was mistaken, sorry"???

Of course they are HUMAN man! Yes they can make mistakes, YES THEY CAN!
You dont need to catch them at one to prove they arent perfect.

You give then too much power over you, dont you see?

(just trying to enlighten, dont be mad buddy)

It's that obvious is it? I was aware of these things, but what you've said is insightful mansman. Ultimately it's their ideas, not them, that is the issue. Though, admittedly, part of the reason I take their ideas so seriously is because of the respect I developed for them - but that is waning. Also, I'm not certain that I'd leave here if and when these powers no longer have a hold over me, but I might.

By the way, I'm not mad.

My reasoning is as follows. Kevin said

Kevin Solway wrote:You might come to understand truths that you are absolutely certain are true, such as the fact that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously.

If time travel from the future into the past is possible, some things can be partly caused to happen by things that will happen afterward. For example, the aforementioned collision between Kevin's present self and my future self is partly caused to happen by the invention of the time machine, which happens after the collision and not previously (from Kevin's perspective.)

I'm not arguing that time travel is possible. I'm arguing that whether or not time travel is possible is a matter to be decided by empirical observation, not pure logic. That is, if Kevin found a time portal to the future, and my future self came out of it, he'd have to admit the possibility of time travel from the future into the past, and he has no way to guarantee beyond any doubt that he will never find such a portal. Thus, he cannot know with absolute certainty that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously.

Then Kevin brought up the point that the order of events is relative to the observer. For example, the aforementioned collision between Kevin's present self and my future self is partly caused to happen by the invention of the time machine, which happens previous to the collision from my perspective (as does everything else that partly caused the collision.) In light of this, the only way Kevin's original claim could be true is we amended it to

"You might come to understand truths that you are absolutely certain are true, such as the fact that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously from some perspective."

namely,

"You might come to understand truths that you are absolutely certain are true, such as the fact that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously if they are seen from a perspective such that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously. If seen from a different perspective, some things can be partly caused to happen by things that will happen afterward."

If time is relative as Kevin says, then the chronological part of his original claim is relative as well. That is, the chronological part of his claim is not absolutely true, but only true from certain specific perspectives, and false from others. The only part of his claim that may yet have a chance of absolute truth is

"all things are entirely caused to happen by things"

that is,

"Everything is caused"

If Kevin can follow me this far, I'd like to explore the meaning of the above statement in more detail.

.


-Kevin Solway-
Time is relative. From the perspective of any time traveler, they are always travelling into the future, as per normal, at a rate of one second per second. It's just that the environment around them is changing, as it normally does.


-tomas-
One billion seconds ago, it was 1959.


.

|read| wrote:My reasoning is as follows. Kevin said

Kevin Solway wrote:You might come to understand truths that you are absolutely certain are true, such as the fact that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously.

If time travel from the future into the past is possible, some things can be partly caused to happen by things that will happen afterward. For example, the aforementioned collision between Kevin's present self and my future self is partly caused to happen by the invention of the time machine, which happens after the collision and not previously (from Kevin's perspective.)

I'm not arguing that time travel is possible. I'm arguing that whether or not time travel is possible is a matter to be decided by empirical observation, not pure logic. That is, if Kevin found a time portal to the future, and my future self came out of it, he'd have to admit the possibility of time travel from the future into the past, and he has no way to guarantee beyond any doubt that he will never find such a portal. Thus, he cannot know with absolute certainty that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously.

Then Kevin brought up the point that the order of events is relative to the observer. For example, the aforementioned collision between Kevin's present self and my future self is partly caused to happen by the invention of the time machine, which happens previous to the collision from my perspective (as does everything else that partly caused the collision.) In light of this, the only way Kevin's original claim could be true is we amended it to

"You might come to understand truths that you are absolutely certain are true, such as the fact that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously from some perspective."

namely,

"You might come to understand truths that you are absolutely certain are true, such as the fact that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously if they are seen from a perspective such that all things are entirely caused to happen by things that have happened previously. If seen from a different perspective, some things can be partly caused to happen by things that will happen afterward."

If time is relative as Kevin says, then the chronological part of his original claim is relative as well. That is, the chronological part of his claim is not absolutely true, but only true from certain specific perspectives, and false from others. The only part of his claim that may yet have a chance of absolute truth is

"all things are entirely caused to happen by things"

that is,

"Everything is caused"

If Kevin can follow me this far, I'd like to explore the meaning of the above statement in more detail.

Ok i get you but if your going to be so nit picky about words then i suggest rereading what he wrote, maybe you find out he not actually say that that statement is "an absolute truth" if you look close then he states only that its a "truth" (i.e. posibly conditional) while the other person may be (or may not be, cant have a "may" without suggest of also "may not") "certain" its absolutely true, either way it would merely be that persons opinion (not Kevins) and his certainty may be an error in fact. Its too late for you to say "but thats not what Kevin meant!" since you are holding him to exact words. So you see now why K is not bothering to answer. Besides i would bet he could care less about misleading someone if the words ended up getting him closer to where he wants him, right?

Also you may be considering contexts that were not ever considered when first said.

This not really worth our time, right?

Hmm, I can't see where you're coming from at all. Kevin's phrase

"truths that you are absolutely certain are true"

unambiguously refers to absolute truth, and the following "such as..." clearly introduces an example.

Are you actually suggesting this was intended as a mere example of what some random person might incorrectly think is an absolute truth, such as "the moon is made of green cheese"? I don't think Kevin needs that kind of dishonest defense. If this discussion isn't worth your time, let him answer for himself.

Yes, I suspect I'm considering contexts he did not when he made his original claim - this is my way of stripping away the superfluous, chronological part of the claim and focusing in on the meat, that is, the idea of cause. I'll move on to that presently whether Kevin replies or not, but I don't plan on debating what Kevin meant with you, because you don't know.