ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (08/04/86)
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.
Similar considerations force me to disbelieve the
possibility of any being in our universe being omnipotent i.e. I
believe the universe cannot contain anything bigger than IT. An
omnipotent being would necessarily be omniscient and would be
able to see into the future (if he COULDN'T, that would be
something he couldn't do, and that contradicts the definition of
omnipotence). Aside from being able to see what I figured to be
doing tommorrow at 5:00PM, and there being nothing I could do to
alter it, he would also be able to see what HE figured to be
doing at 5:00 PM tommorrow, and there would be nothing HE could
do about it either.
Therefore, I regard the idea of omnipotence as a one-word
contradiction of terms. That doesn't mean that I am an atheist
or a total evolutionist, merely that I believe that ALL beings in this
universe must live within certain limits, time being one of
these.hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu (Edward Hoffman) (08/04/86)
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
shadow@reed.UUCP (Matthew Giger) (08/05/86)
> 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
hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu (Edward Hoffman) (08/06/86)
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