Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!cheshire.columbia.edu!hoffman From: hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu (Edward Hoffman) Newsgroups: net.physics,net.origins Subject: Re: A reasonably sane man doesn't believe in time travel Message-ID: <2853@columbia.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Aug-86 23:54:09 EDT Article-I.D.: columbia.2853 Posted: Sun Aug 3 23:54:09 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Aug-86 07:10:32 EDT References: <587@imsvax.UUCP> Sender: nobody@columbia.UUCP Reply-To: hoffman@cheshire.UUCP (Edward Hoffman) Organization: Columbia University CS Department Lines: 73 Xref: mnetor net.physics:2532 net.origins:1960 In article <587@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > Basically, the idea of time travel does violence to any >reasonable notion of free will. I fail to see any conceptual >difference between traveling forward or backwards in time; the >possibility of someone in the future sending anything back to us >more or less IMPLIES the possibility of us seeing the future and >vice versa. The possibility of seeing into the future implies >that there is something there to see, basically unalterable, and >written out like the pages of a book, essentially what you would >call predestination. > > The idea of predestination should be hateful to any rational >person and, in a way, it contradicts the law known as Occam's >razor. Why should humans or any other creature have intelligence >or any capability of analyzing data and making decisions if the >future is laid out for them in an unalterable manner? Given >predestination, intelligence simply isn't NEEDED, and should not >have evolved. It shouldn't exist. Sorry, Ted, I don't think I can agree with you on this part of the posting. Let me draw the analogy of a man falling down a deep hole (we can assume that it is lined with Teflon, so as to make it inevitible that he will hit the bot- tom). He is thus travelling through space and is unable to alter the path that he must take. He does, however, have the ability to see what awaits him (we can also assume that the bottom of the hole is lit well enough for him to see it). I believe that the same can be said of travelling through time; it may not be possible to jump through different periods (I am inclined to believe that there just might be a way), but not because of a "contradiction" of the type you describe. By the way, when you state that you feel there is no difference between travel- ing forward or backward in time, you should remember that we are all traveling forward at this very moment. As for the assertion that intelligence need not arise, allow me to point out that there is no real conflict here. You imply that there is some sort of purpose which our intelligence was meant to achieve (i.e. beyond the main- tenence of life), which is not a terribly solid basis upon which to build an argument. Here I will draw another analogy which may seem a bit out of con- text, so please bear with me. In the Saragasso (sp?) Sea, there are vast quantities of non-swimming ani- mals and plants living among the rafts of seaweed. Periodically, one of these rafts becomes too heavy to float, and begins a long descent to the bottom. Those creatures which are unable to swim away go to the bottom, where the lack of light and the increased pressure eventually kills off the entire food chain (of course, the remains serve as food for the deep-sea creatures that live at the bottom, but that's besides the point). However, during the descent (which takes a couple of weeks in some cases), the animals continue to hunt each other, to mate, to rear their famillies, etc. They are doomed to die in a very short period, but this does not prevent life from continuing in as close to a "normal" manner as possible. Indeed, it is quite possible that some vastly improved mutation will appear on the way down--a mutation which might have been able to successfully compete and thus propogate its genes had the raft remained at the surface. There would be no "need" for it to appear, but that does not mean that it couldn't. Just let me add one more point. The seeming (though perhaps unintentional) gist of your argument is as follows: The consequences of time travel are appalling to those who believe in free will, therefore it must not be pos- sible. I hope that when put into this context, the error of such a position becomes obvious (besides, you assume a few things along the way which may not be true). Like I said, this may not be the way the article was intended, but that's how it seemed to me; I just took the opportunity to make a point I've wanted to put forward for a while. Edward Hoffman ARPAnet: hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu BITnet: CC4.EA-HOFFMAN@CU20A UUCP: ...![seismo,topaz]!columbia!cheshire!hoffman