Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!husc6!seismo!columbia!cheshire.columbia.edu!hoffman From: hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu (Edward Hoffman) Newsgroups: net.physics,net.origins Subject: Re: Re: A reasonably sane man doesn't believe in time travel Message-ID: <2868@columbia.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Aug-86 14:11:14 EDT Article-I.D.: columbia.2868 Posted: Wed Aug 6 14:11:14 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Aug-86 01:54:51 EDT References: <587@imsvax.UUCP> <2853@columbia.UUCP> <3957@reed.UUCP> Sender: nobody@columbia.UUCP Reply-To: hoffman@cheshire.UUCP (Edward Hoffman) Organization: Columbia University CS Department Lines: 58 Xref: watmath net.physics:4755 net.origins:3355 In article <3957@reed.UUCP> shadow@reed.UUCP (Matthew Giger) writes: > 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. The problem here is that I am not trying to "prove" anything (I don't see how such a thing can be proven, anyway). I should have explained, however, that moving through time may be analogous to moving along a dimmension in space, and that knowing what lies ahead does not necessarily affect the feasability of such motion. This leads to the possibility that, even if we CAN see into the future, we can avoid what we see (in the same way that a pedestrian who sees a wall in his path can avoid hitting it). At the moment I have no time to explain this further, I may try again if anyone is interested. > 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. I stated quite explicitly that this probably was not how he intended it to be read, but it could easily be interpreted that way. I just tried to ex- plain why such arguments are invalid. An argument of this type was advanced by an attorney for the parents in my personal favorite rn subject, the Scopes II trial. He said that there MUST be a God, because without one there would be no moral imperatives. What he really was saying, however, was, "I WANT there to be moral imper- atives. Things will not be this way unless there is a God. Therefore, God exists." Unfortunately, many people are taken in by such arguments. > 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. Again, I'm just stating that someone traveling along a given dimmension can see what lies in front of him without there being a contradiction. Replace the man in the tunnel with a person traveling in the normal manner through time (i.e. 1 second per second), and maybe my analogy will become clearer. Edward Hoffman ARPAnet: hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu BITnet: CC4.EA-HOFFMAN@CU20A UUCP: ...![seismo,topaz]!columbia!cheshire!hoffman