Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!ogicse!milton!matt@MAPS.CS.CMU.EDU From: matt@MAPS.CS.CMU.EDU (Matthew Diamond) Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds Subject: Re: "Space" -- apology and clarification Message-ID: <1990Aug20.204814.3479@cs.cmu.edu> Date: 20 Aug 90 20:48:14 GMT References: <9007250107.AA01311@hitl.vrnet.washington.edu> <19539@well.sf.ca.us> Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu Organization: Carnegie Mellon University Lines: 82 Approved: hitl@hardy.u.washington.edu Apparently-To: In article <19539@well.sf.ca.us>, apple!well.sf.ca.us!well!on@uunet.UU.NET (Owen Rowley) writes: |> > > TIME is just another space, one that we have forgotten how to travel |> > > freely in. |> > 1. I cannot but interpret this to mean that humans have had the ability to |> > journey through time. This to me is not a justifiable scientific statement. |> > Will is, I think, being a bit overzealous here. From my (limited) readings, |> |> Hmmmm. well I interpret Williams statement in a somewhat different light. |> The key word for me is freely.. |> We are traveling in time/space now, but we are constrained by the light |> cone. You are asserting that all we can modify is our perception of |> conditions within the light cone. I have personally performed experiments |> which took place *outside* the light cone, and the results were definitly |> "time travel" in the literal sense. Now it's all fine and good for me to say |> this, and it's a foregone conclusion that folks like this guy who cannot |> justify science that he doesn't understand, will think I'm full of shit. |> My experiments and results are subjective in nature and only valuable to me. |> However I have benefited by the knowledge gained in the experiment, what else |> matters! |> It was prudent of him to back off from his original *attack pose*, but |> that retraction was *backhanded* and still shows that he does not understand |> there is more to time and space than what he thinks he knows! I have a few things to say at this point. 1) For me, the key word is SCIENTIFIC, not freely. The original objection was that Williams' statement abused mathematical/physical terminology. In other words, that it pretended to be more scientific than it really was. I personally agree with this. That doesn't mean that it was wrong, but it SOUNDED like someone who didn't know what he was talking about trying to impress the masses. I thought the apology was needed, but the basic idea was sound: abusing terminology will confuse those not familiar with the terminology, and invalidate your ideas among those who are. Owen's comment about "the guy who cannot justify science that he doesn't understand" is completely off the mark. Science by definition is concerned with reproducible results, which can be explained in rigorous terms for others to understand. Some of us were confused by Williams' statements; that alone justifies further explanation. Maybe we were wrong to assume that he didn't know what he was talking about, but it is not wrong to question anything which was unclear in the original article. Unless noone wants to actually be scientific about virtual reality, in which case I'm wasting my time. 2) Owen, your "subjective experiments" sound a lot like drugs. If not, could you be more specific? Maybe you should read what Richard Feynman had to say about subjective experiments. He was drawing all sorts of conclusions about the nature of thought from his experiences in an isolation tank, but he suddenly realized that NO CONCLUSIONS COULD BE DRAWN. His subjective reality COULD be reality, he realized, but there is no way of telling. Anything experienced (time slowing/reversing, etc.) could easily just be a hallucination with no basis in reality whatsoever. Bottom line is, we're glad you learned something from your experiments but they mean nothing to anyone else. They don't prove Williams is right or us wrong. Some of you guys out there have been trying to clarify Williams' post in a reasonable way; you're the only reason I'm still reading this bboard. Thanks. But I'm confused when I read some of the mumbo jumbo that goes on here. Some people seem to think that "virtual reality" means "not based in reality", as far as discussion and scientific justification goes. I'm interested in this stuff, but I'm not interested in someone else's imaginative fantasies about the true nature of space and time, when they are presented as other than speculation. If I have misjudged the intended tone of discussion here, please let me know. (I'm sure you will!) I would not have posted this, but I felt that I had to speak out in favor of treating virtual reality scientifically. Matthew Diamond matt@maps.cs.cmu.edu