Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!tektronix!reed!shadow From: shadow@reed.UUCP (Matthew Giger) Newsgroups: net.physics,net.origins Subject: Re: Re: A reasonably sane man doesn't believe in time travel Message-ID: <3957@reed.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Aug-86 12:52:50 EDT Article-I.D.: reed.3957 Posted: Tue Aug 5 12:52:50 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 7-Aug-86 06:06:20 EDT References: <587@imsvax.UUCP> <2853@columbia.UUCP> Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon Lines: 85 Xref: watmath net.physics:4753 net.origins:3353 > In article <587@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > 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 > > . . . > > 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 I fail to see the point that you are making with your "analogies". It seems to me that you are trying to uphold your views of the possibility of time-travel with proof-by-example. This is one of the poorest way of proving something. Analogies are helpful in conceptualizing some abstract ideas, but they should not be used to prove something or give a model of how things actually happen. You claim that in Ted's article, he is trying to say that time travel is contradictory to what he believes in, so it shouldn't be allowed. If you take a closer look at his article, he does say that is indeed contradictory to what he believes in, but he does not base his argument on what he believes, he is stating that it is contradictory to the idea of humans having free will. He further says that if we do not have free will, we (Humans that is) shouldn't have the intelligence capable of creating such a time machine. I must admit that I do not quite understand or agree with how he made this point, but it is not too outlandish. Your analogy about the teflon tunnel seems lacking in one point, you are assuming that this person who is falling down the tunnel can see the bottom, if it is close enough to see it then I dare say that he can predict the imminent future. If he was far away from it, then perhaps he couldn't see the bottom, he could only see the point of convergence of the walls. I am not trying to rip your argument apart and say that you are wrong, I just wish that you would make a better case of it. --- The opinions expressed here are mine, but they should be everyones. -- Matt Giger tektronix!reed!shadow