OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe - VMS

This is a discussion on OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe - VMS ; This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

  1. OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.



    Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
    with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.

    Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.

    The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
    one and the same.

    When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
    absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
    identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
    with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).

    There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during
    fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.

    This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
    genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
    come from his mother, producing an exact replica.

    Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting
    somewhere:

    Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on
    the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same
    person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father
    etc etc. Infinite loop.

    At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
    (so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
    with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
    genetic makeup and create an offspring.

    However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have
    never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time
    (the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more
    than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a
    different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his birth.

    So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin
    air, or just merely exist.



    Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big
    bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years
    and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big bang.

    If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
    back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
    universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
    loop where it creates itself over and over again.

    And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
    all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
    matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.

  2. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    In article <4869bdfc$0$30363$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.


    > When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
    > absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
    > identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
    > with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).


    The laws of quantum mechanics would prevent absolute prediction.

    > At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
    > (so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
    > with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
    > genetic makeup and create an offspring.


    You are assuming that history is absolutely knowable, an immutable
    frozen record. Heisenburg shows it is not.

    >
    > If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
    > back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
    > universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
    > loop where it creates itself over and over again.


    What would possibly initiate the universe's reverse time travel? And
    who created the whole thing infinite loop thing to begin with? I'm
    an atheist, but you won't stop a believer this easily.

    > And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
    > all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
    > matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.


    OK, now you can get a little close to reality. There have been
    discussions of the end of the universe comming as a big squeeze,
    which might be followed by a new big bang. But that was when the
    known value of Hubble's constant allowed the possibility of a big
    squeeze. There's a reason the Large Space Telescope was renamed the
    Hubble Space Telescope, and one of it's most important results is
    an established value of Hubble's constant which rules out a big
    squeeze.



  3. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    On Jul 1, 12:17*am, JF Mezei wrote:
    > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.
    >
    > Person X,male, *aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
    > with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.
    >
    > Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.
    >
    > The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
    > one and the same.
    >
    > When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
    > absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
    > identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
    > with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).
    >
    > There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during
    > fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.
    >
    > This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
    > genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
    > come from his mother, producing an exact replica.
    >
    > Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting
    > somewhere:
    >
    > Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on
    > the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same
    > *person. *The person would be his own father, and be his father's father
    > etc etc. Infinite loop.
    >
    > At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
    > (so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
    > with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
    > genetic makeup and create an offspring.
    >
    > However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have
    > never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time
    > (the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more
    > than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a
    > different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his birth..
    >
    > So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin
    > air, or just merely exist.
    >
    > Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big
    > bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years
    > and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big bang.
    >
    > If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
    > back in time, *it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
    > universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
    > loop where it creates itself over and over again.
    >
    > And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
    > all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
    > matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.


    To further this OT topic and have a little fun with it:

    Were not some of these questions fully answered in the Back to the
    Future and Terminator movies?

    And I believe the Adam and Eve question - where did we come from -
    was answered in the X-files movie for those interested.


  4. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    On Jul 1, 9:09*am, DaveG wrote:
    > On Jul 1, 12:17*am, JF Mezei wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.

    >
    > > Person X,male, *aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
    > > with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.

    >
    > > Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.

    >
    > > The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
    > > one and the same.

    >
    > > When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
    > > absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
    > > identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
    > > with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).

    >
    > > There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during
    > > fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.

    >
    > > This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
    > > genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
    > > come from his mother, producing an exact replica.

    >
    > > Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting
    > > somewhere:

    >
    > > Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on
    > > the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same
    > > *person. *The person would be his own father, and be his father's father
    > > etc etc. Infinite loop.

    >
    > > At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
    > > (so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
    > > with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
    > > genetic makeup and create an offspring.

    >
    > > However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have
    > > never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time
    > > (the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more
    > > than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a
    > > different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his birth.

    >
    > > So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin
    > > air, or just merely exist.

    >
    > > Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big
    > > bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years
    > > and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big bang.

    >
    > > If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
    > > back in time, *it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
    > > universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
    > > loop where it creates itself over and over again.

    >
    > > And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
    > > all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
    > > matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.

    >
    > To further this OT topic and have a little fun with it:
    >
    > Were not some of these questions fully answered in the Back to the
    > Future and Terminator movies?
    >
    > And I believe the Adam and Eve question - where did we come from -
    > was answered in the X-files movie for those interested.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I forgot to add that I cannot spend any more time pondering this
    subject. I must return to Stellar Cartography and plot an intercept
    course for this object called a "Nexus", last seen in the Gamma
    quadrant.


  5. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote:
    > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.
    >
    > Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
    > with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.
    >
    > Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.
    >
    > The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
    > one and the same.
    >
    > When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
    > absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
    > identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
    > with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).
    >
    > There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during
    > fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.
    >
    > This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
    > genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
    > come from his mother, producing an exact replica.
    >
    > Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting
    > somewhere:
    >
    > Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on
    > the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same
    > person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father
    > etc etc. Infinite loop.
    >
    > At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
    > (so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
    > with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
    > genetic makeup and create an offspring.
    >
    > However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have
    > never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time
    > (the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more
    > than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a
    > different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his birth.
    >
    > So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin
    > air, or just merely exist.
    >
    > Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big
    > bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years
    > and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big bang.
    >
    > If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
    > back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
    > universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
    > loop where it creates itself over and over again.
    >
    > And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
    > all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
    > matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.


    Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to
    Him ...

  6. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 6:23 PM, wrote:

    > On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote:
    > > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.
    > >
    > > Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
    > > with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.
    > >
    > > Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.
    > >
    > > The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
    > > one and the same.
    > >
    > > When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
    > > absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
    > > identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
    > > with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).
    > >
    > > There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during
    > > fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.
    > >
    > > This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
    > > genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
    > > come from his mother, producing an exact replica.
    > >
    > > Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting
    > > somewhere:
    > >
    > > Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on
    > > the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same
    > > person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father
    > > etc etc. Infinite loop.
    > >
    > > At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
    > > (so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
    > > with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
    > > genetic makeup and create an offspring.
    > >
    > > However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have
    > > never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time
    > > (the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more
    > > than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a
    > > different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his

    > birth.
    > >
    > > So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin
    > > air, or just merely exist.
    > >
    > > Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big
    > > bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years
    > > and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big

    > bang.
    > >
    > > If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
    > > back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
    > > universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
    > > loop where it creates itself over and over again.
    > >
    > > And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
    > > all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
    > > matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.

    >
    > Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to
    > Him ...
    >


    Unless He's really, really, really bored with us-- I think you got that
    backwards.

    WWWebb


  7. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    On Jul 1, 5:23 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    > On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote:
    >


    > > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.


    88

    (JF, I think Doctor Who a few regenerations ago explained why this
    wouldn't work.)


    >
    > Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to
    > Him ...


    That's not what god told me but I'll ask him again just to be sure. He
    might have to ask his god who created his universe, though, and his
    god might have to ask his god who'll have to ask his god who'll have
    to ask.... ah, forget about it. It doesn't look like we'd ever get a
    definitive answer. (Or did you think god created himself?)

    Now I suppose someone will bring up quantum mechanics -- OH NO! Bob
    Koehler already did!

  8. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    In article <1cab9383-de95-40d6-af61-236f55d82188@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes:
    >On Jul 1, 5:23 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    >> On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote:
    >>

    >
    >> > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.

    >
    >88
    >
    >(JF, I think Doctor Who a few regenerations ago explained why this
    >wouldn't work.)
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to
    >> Him ...

    >
    >That's not what god told me but I'll ask him again just to be sure. He
    >might have to ask his god who created his universe, though, and his
    >god might have to ask his god who'll have to ask his god who'll have
    >to ask.... ah, forget about it. It doesn't look like we'd ever get a
    >definitive answer. (Or did you think god created himself?)
    >
    >Now I suppose someone will bring up quantum mechanics -- OH NO! Bob
    >Koehler already did!


    I think that the string theorists have this debate all tied up.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  9. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    In article <4869bdfc$0$30363$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.
    >
    >
    >
    >Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
    >with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.
    >
    >Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.
    >
    >The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
    >one and the same.
    >
    >When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
    >absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
    >identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
    >with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).
    >

    You are presupposing a deterministic universe so that the result would be the
    person who travelled back in time. If you don't make that supposition then if
    he has sex with his mother and got her pregnant then the genes from the mother
    need not necessarily be the same since he only gets half of her genes.
    Sure this would create a paradox since the birth of a different child when he
    was due to be born would mean he had in effect killed himself which meant he
    couldn't then have traveled back to have sex with his mother etc etc
    ie A variant of the Grandfather paradox.


    This is a rather old SCI-FI staple. The best version of which is probably
    Robert Heinlein's - All You Zombies

    http://ieng9.ucsd.edu/~mfedder/zombies.html

    where a hermaphrodite is seduced by way of a time machine by himself and gives
    birth to herself and then recruits himself into a time agency which gives him
    access to the time machine ...
    This overcomes the problem of only having half the mother's genes.
    (Note. Again this is a deterministic universe ie no free will since if the
    hermaphrodite doesn't travel back and seduce herself she/he won't exist).

    Perfectly logical if the hermaphrodite exists but how did the loop get started
    to produce the hermaphrodite to travel back in time ...
    A Universe in which the time travelling hermaphrodite doesn't exist is less
    complicated.


    >There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during
    >fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.
    >
    >This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
    >genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
    >come from his mother, producing an exact replica.
    >
    >Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting
    >somewhere:
    >
    >Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on
    >the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same
    > person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father
    >etc etc. Infinite loop.
    >
    >At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
    >(so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
    >with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
    >genetic makeup and create an offspring.
    >
    >However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have
    >never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time
    >(the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more
    >than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a
    >different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his birth.
    >
    >So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin
    >air, or just merely exist.
    >
    >
    >
    >Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big
    >bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years
    >and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big bang.
    >
    >If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
    >back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
    >universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
    >loop where it creates itself over and over again.


    As mentioned above that doesn't really explain why such a loop should exist
    rather than nothing existing.

    >
    >And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
    >all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
    >matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.


    This also sounds like the cyclic universe idea ie

    Big Bang occurs
    Universe expands
    Universe eventually slows
    Universe collapses
    Universe contracts to a point
    Point explodes in Big Bang


    Anyway as you say this is extremely of topic.


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


  10. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >In article <4869bdfc$0$30363$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >> This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.

    >
    >
    >> And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
    >> all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
    >> matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.

    >
    > OK, now you can get a little close to reality. There have been
    > discussions of the end of the universe comming as a big squeeze,
    > which might be followed by a new big bang. But that was when the
    > known value of Hubble's constant allowed the possibility of a big
    > squeeze. There's a reason the Large Space Telescope was renamed the
    > Hubble Space Telescope, and one of it's most important results is
    > an established value of Hubble's constant which rules out a big
    > squeeze.
    >

    Yes the results which show the expansion of the Universe speeding up seem to
    mean that it is unlikely that the Universe will collapse. However since we are
    still uncertain about what dark energy is and its long term behaviour it is not
    totally impossible that it might become an attractive force at some point in
    the far far future.
    However I seem to recall that some mathematical studies of possible cyclic
    universes (before the discovery of dark energy) pointed out some problems with
    the theory which meant such loops wouldn't be stable either leading to
    universes which would expand forever or universes which would be smaller and
    smaller each time. I think it was something to do with entropy - unfortunately
    I can't recall the details.


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University



    >


  11. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe



    JF Mezei wrote:
    > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.
    >
    >
    >
    > Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
    > with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.
    >
    > Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.
    >
    > The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
    > one and the same.
    >
    > When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
    > absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
    > identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
    > with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).
    >
    > There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during
    > fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.
    >
    > This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
    > genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
    > come from his mother, producing an exact replica.
    >
    > Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting
    > somewhere:
    >
    > Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on
    > the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same
    > person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father
    > etc etc. Infinite loop.
    >
    > At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
    > (so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
    > with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
    > genetic makeup and create an offspring.
    >
    > However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have
    > never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time
    > (the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more
    > than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a
    > different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his birth.
    >
    > So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin
    > air, or just merely exist.
    >
    >
    >
    > Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big
    > bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years
    > and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big bang.
    >
    > If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
    > back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
    > universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
    > loop where it creates itself over and over again.
    >
    > And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
    > all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
    > matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.


    I normally don't participate in off topic subjects, but since others
    have responded, here goes.

    I have been trying to digest the book "A World Without Time: the
    Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein"

    See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...7/ai_n13595656

    If Godel is right, then the whole question of time travel is, I
    understand this book, not relevant to our universe.

    Jeff Coffield

  12. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    In article , "Jeffrey H. Coffield" writes:
    >
    >
    >JF Mezei wrote:
    >> This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >I normally don't participate in off topic subjects, but since others
    >have responded, here goes.
    >
    >I have been trying to digest the book "A World Without Time: the
    >Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein"
    >
    >See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...7/ai_n13595656
    >
    >If Godel is right, then the whole question of time travel is, I
    >understand this book, not relevant to our universe.
    >

    Not quite. The world without time part of the title refers to the intuitive
    concept of time as flowing from the past through a present to the future.
    In Special Relativity space-time forms a block with the concept of simultaneity
    and "now" depending on the position and velocity of the observer. All times
    past, present and future have an exactly equal status and there is no flow of
    time. There is no universally agreed "now".


    However there existed the possibility that GR could somehow resurrect the
    notion of intuitive time by singling out privileged frames of reference namely
    those frames which follow the mean motion of matter in the Universe. Godel
    refers to time relative to those frames as "cosmic time".

    Godel then proved that there exists solutions of General Relativity which allow
    travel into the past. This effectively destroys the possibility of regarding
    "cosmic time" in GR as a surrogate for intuitive time since it destroys the
    distinction between past, present and future.

    For Godel intuitive time cannot exist in a Universe compatible with GR and SR.
    Time though in the form of a space-like dimension which is part of the block of
    space-time exists and GR allows for the possibility of travel within that
    dimension in the same way as travel in space is permitted.


    This is covered in most detail in
    Chapter 7 - The scandal of Big "T" and Little "t"
    in "A World Without Time: the Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein"



    Godel's particular solution involved the whole universe rotating which
    although a valid mathematical solution of the equations of General Relativity
    doesn't seem to be an accurate depiction of our Universe.
    However work since then has produced smaller scale solutions involving
    distributions of matter within the universe which could produce the same
    possibility of travel into the past.

    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    >Jeff Coffield


  13. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    On Jul 1, 12:17*am, JF Mezei wrote:
    > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.
    >
    > Person X,male, *aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
    > with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.
    >
    > Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.
    >
    > The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
    > one and the same.
    >
    > When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
    > absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
    > identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
    > with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).
    >
    > There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during
    > fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.
    >
    > This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
    > genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
    > come from his mother, producing an exact replica.
    >


    The premise is incorrect: the mixture of genes does NOT occur in an
    absolutely predictable way. Each gamete (sperm or ovum) contains a
    mixture of chromosomes from the person's mother and father. There are
    23 pair of chromosomes, thus each person produces gametes with 2^23
    (8,388,608) different sets of chromosomes (not including genetic
    mutations).

    Accepting, for the sake of discussion, the premise of time travel, and
    further assuming that the act of intercourse fertilized the same egg,
    the probability of the resulting embryo having the same genetic
    combination as the original is less than 1 in 8.3 million (assuming
    the original father and mother have no common genetic material). If
    the same egg is not fertilized, the probability of the two embryos
    having the same genetic material decreases to less than 1 in 70
    trillion 70*10^12) -- quite possibly nil (a female has only
    approximately 700,000 primary oocytes (the cells that develop into
    ova), so the chances of more than one having the same genetic content
    is less than 1 in 10; assuming there are two with the same genetic
    combination, the chances of one of those two being released during any
    given cycle is approximately either 1 in 350,000 or 1 in 700,000,
    depending on whether one of the two has already been released.)

    Hardly deterministic.

  14. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >
    > where a hermaphrodite is seduced by way of a time machine by himself and gives
    > birth to herself and then recruits himself into a time agency which gives him
    > access to the time machine ...


    "How do I know he didn't invent it?"
    - Scotty


  15. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    Doug Phillips wrote:
    > On Jul 1, 5:23 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    >> On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote:
    >>

    >
    >>> This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.

    >
    > 88
    >
    > (JF, I think Doctor Who a few regenerations ago explained why this
    > wouldn't work.)


    According the the British news reports, Doctor Who is dating Doctor
    Who's daughter.

    -John
    wb8tyw@qsl.network
    Personal Opinion Only

  16. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.
    >
    >
    >
    > Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
    > with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.
    >
    > Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.
    >
    > The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
    > one and the same.
    >
    > When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
    > absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
    > identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
    > with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).
    >
    > There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during
    > fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.
    >
    > This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
    > genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
    > come from his mother, producing an exact replica.
    >
    > Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting
    > somewhere:
    >
    > Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on
    > the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same
    > person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father
    > etc etc. Infinite loop.
    >
    > At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
    > (so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
    > with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
    > genetic makeup and create an offspring.
    >
    > However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have
    > never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time
    > (the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more
    > than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a
    > different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his birth.
    >
    > So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin
    > air, or just merely exist.
    >
    >
    >
    > Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big
    > bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years
    > and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big bang.
    >
    > If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
    > back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
    > universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
    > loop where it creates itself over and over again.
    >
    > And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
    > all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
    > matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.


    some people have way too much time on their hands...

  17. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:21 AM, wrote:

    > In article <4869bdfc$0$30363$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <
    > jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
    > >This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
    > >with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.
    > >
    > >Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.
    > >
    > >The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
    > >one and the same.
    > >
    > >When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
    > >absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
    > >identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
    > >with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).
    > >

    > You are presupposing a deterministic universe so that the result would be
    > the
    > person who travelled back in time. If you don't make that supposition then
    > if
    > he has sex with his mother and got her pregnant then the genes from the
    > mother
    > need not necessarily be the same since he only gets half of her genes.
    > Sure this would create a paradox since the birth of a different child when
    > he
    > was due to be born would mean he had in effect killed himself which meant
    > he
    > couldn't then have traveled back to have sex with his mother etc etc
    > ie A variant of the Grandfather paradox.
    >
    >
    > This is a rather old SCI-FI staple. The best version of which is probably
    > Robert Heinlein's - All You Zombies
    >
    > http://ieng9.ucsd.edu/~mfedder/zombies.html
    >
    > where a hermaphrodite is seduced by way of a time machine by himself and
    > gives
    > birth to herself and then recruits himself into a time agency which gives
    > him
    > access to the time machine ...
    > This overcomes the problem of only having half the mother's genes.
    > (Note. Again this is a deterministic universe ie no free will since if the
    > hermaphrodite doesn't travel back and seduce herself she/he won't exist).
    >
    > Perfectly logical if the hermaphrodite exists but how did the loop get
    > started
    > to produce the hermaphrodite to travel back in time ...
    > A Universe in which the time travelling hermaphrodite doesn't exist is less
    > complicated.
    >
    >
    > >There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during
    > >fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.
    > >
    > >This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
    > >genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
    > >come from his mother, producing an exact replica.
    > >
    > >Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting
    > >somewhere:
    > >
    > >Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on
    > >the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same
    > > person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father
    > >etc etc. Infinite loop.
    > >
    > >At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
    > >(so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
    > >with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
    > >genetic makeup and create an offspring.
    > >
    > >However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have
    > >never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time
    > >(the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more
    > >than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a
    > >different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his

    > birth.
    > >
    > >So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin
    > >air, or just merely exist.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big
    > >bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years
    > >and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big

    > bang.
    > >
    > >If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
    > >back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
    > >universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
    > >loop where it creates itself over and over again.

    >
    > As mentioned above that doesn't really explain why such a loop should exist
    > rather than nothing existing.
    >
    > >
    > >And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
    > >all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
    > >matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.

    >
    > This also sounds like the cyclic universe idea ie
    >
    > Big Bang occurs
    > Universe expands
    > Universe eventually slows
    > Universe collapses
    > Universe contracts to a point
    > Point explodes in Big Bang
    >
    >
    > Anyway as you say this is extremely of topic.
    >
    >
    > David Webb
    > Security team leader
    > CCSS
    > Middlesex University
    >
    >

    And the Heinlein story was the first place I ever heard of that song. It
    was in a sci-fi anthology, the title of which eludes me, although I remember
    that the hardcover was red.


    WWWebb


  18. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    In article <8660a3a10807021602v6b4880b7o8d6793c7430fd4b3@mail. gmail.com>, "William Webb" writes:
    >------=_Part_5263_19863835.1215039747321
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >Content-Disposition: inline
    >
    >On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:21 AM, wrote:
    >
    >> In article <4869bdfc$0$30363$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <
    >> jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
    >> >This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
    >> >with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.
    >> >
    >> >Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.
    >> >
    >> >The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
    >> >one and the same.
    >> >
    >> >When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
    >> >absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
    >> >identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
    >> >with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).
    >> >

    >> You are presupposing a deterministic universe so that the result would be
    >> the
    >> person who travelled back in time. If you don't make that supposition then
    >> if
    >> he has sex with his mother and got her pregnant then the genes from the
    >> mother
    >> need not necessarily be the same since he only gets half of her genes.
    >> Sure this would create a paradox since the birth of a different child when
    >> he
    >> was due to be born would mean he had in effect killed himself which meant
    >> he
    >> couldn't then have traveled back to have sex with his mother etc etc
    >> ie A variant of the Grandfather paradox.
    >>
    >>
    >> This is a rather old SCI-FI staple. The best version of which is probably
    >> Robert Heinlein's - All You Zombies
    >>
    >> http://ieng9.ucsd.edu/~mfedder/zombies.html
    >>
    >> where a hermaphrodite is seduced by way of a time machine by himself and
    >> gives
    >> birth to herself and then recruits himself into a time agency which gives
    >> him
    >> access to the time machine ...
    >> This overcomes the problem of only having half the mother's genes.
    >> (Note. Again this is a deterministic universe ie no free will since if the
    >> hermaphrodite doesn't travel back and seduce herself she/he won't exist).
    >>
    >> Perfectly logical if the hermaphrodite exists but how did the loop get
    >> started
    >> to produce the hermaphrodite to travel back in time ...
    >> A Universe in which the time travelling hermaphrodite doesn't exist is less
    >> complicated.
    >>
    >>
    >> >There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during
    >> >fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.
    >> >
    >> >This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
    >> >genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
    >> >come from his mother, producing an exact replica.
    >> >
    >> >Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting
    >> >somewhere:
    >> >
    >> >Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on
    >> >the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same
    >> > person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father
    >> >etc etc. Infinite loop.
    >> >
    >> >At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
    >> >(so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
    >> >with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
    >> >genetic makeup and create an offspring.
    >> >
    >> >However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have
    >> >never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time
    >> >(the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more
    >> >than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a
    >> >different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his

    >> birth.
    >> >
    >> >So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin
    >> >air, or just merely exist.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big
    >> >bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years
    >> >and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big

    >> bang.
    >> >
    >> >If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
    >> >back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
    >> >universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
    >> >loop where it creates itself over and over again.

    >>
    >> As mentioned above that doesn't really explain why such a loop should exist
    >> rather than nothing existing.
    >>
    >> >
    >> >And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
    >> >all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
    >> >matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.

    >>
    >> This also sounds like the cyclic universe idea ie
    >>
    >> Big Bang occurs
    >> Universe expands
    >> Universe eventually slows
    >> Universe collapses
    >> Universe contracts to a point
    >> Point explodes in Big Bang
    >>
    >>
    >> Anyway as you say this is extremely of topic.
    >>
    >>
    >> David Webb
    >> Security team leader
    >> CCSS
    >> Middlesex University
    >>
    >>

    >And the Heinlein story was the first place I ever heard of that song. It
    >was in a sci-fi anthology, the title of which eludes me, although I remember
    >that the hardcover was red.
    >

    I'm my own grandpaw - for lyrics and explanation see

    http://gean.wwco.com/grandpa/index.html

    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University

    >
    >WWWebb
    >


  19. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    On Jul 2, 2:13 am, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article <1cab9383-de95-40d6-af61-236f55d82...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups..com>, Doug Phillips writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Jul 1, 5:23 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    > >> On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote:

    >
    > >> > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.

    >
    > >88

    >
    > >(JF, I think Doctor Who a few regenerations ago explained why this
    > >wouldn't work.)

    >
    > >> Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to
    > >> Him ...

    >
    > >That's not what god told me but I'll ask him again just to be sure. He
    > >might have to ask his god who created his universe, though, and his
    > >god might have to ask his god who'll have to ask his god who'll have
    > >to ask.... ah, forget about it. It doesn't look like we'd ever get a
    > >definitive answer. (Or did you think god created himself?)

    >
    > >Now I suppose someone will bring up quantum mechanics -- OH NO! Bob
    > >Koehler already did!

    >
    > I think that the string theorists have this debate all tied up.
    >
    > --
    > VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
    >
    > "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
    >
    > http://tmesis.com/drat.html


    Yes, they have "tied it up" into possibly infinite variations of 11 or
    26 dimensional Gordian Knot (or is that a Gödelian Knot?) providing
    enough added variables to the Standard Model that they can finally
    represent not only one, but many Unified Field Theories. However
    nobody knows which one has anything to do with reality, or whether the
    added dimensions are real or simply a mathematical expediency
    explaining nothing. Unraveling the multidimensional Gordian Knot does
    not appear likely with the energy densities available to man-made
    devices. The use of visible natural high-energy phenomena in
    neighboring star-systems or galaxies come closer to the needed energy-
    levels. Despite CERN's ambitious LHC project the extended future of
    experimental quantum mechanical physics research will likely be
    increasingly dependent on astronomical observation rather than
    localized particle collisions.

    String theorists are really more busy unraveling their "Gordian Knots"
    than theorizing "who" tied the knots in the first place.

    Probably the ultimate solution will be something similar to Alexander
    the Great's solution to the Gordian Knot.

    Use the Sword to cut through it.

    By this I mean a completely different logical approach which
    identifies a much more simple Unified Field Theory. In this regard I
    also have a couple ideas. :-)

    To get this discussion (about time travel and determinacy) a little
    more on topic, I propose reviewing the ideas presented by a former DEC
    engineer James P. Hogan in his book "Thrice Upon a Time", in which a
    DEC PDP 22/30 is used in sending messages into the past or future by
    manipulation of time traveling quanta. His take on the time paradox
    was that time is not serial and a person affecting himself in the past
    effectively cuts their own timeline and creates a new one. Here Hogan
    allows that events from "potential" futures can be experienced without
    the events actually taking place. For him "Free Will" and
    Heiseburgische Indeterminancy reign supreme.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrice_Upon_a_Time
    http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...ce-Upon-a-Time

    I found not only the use of a DEC machine amusing, but also the clever
    use of a previously unused memory area of the machine to extend
    messages further back in time over multiple hops to prevent the roots
    of a world disaster occurring earlier than the machine would
    otherwise be able to communicate.

    Cheers!

    Keith Cayemberg

    P.S. Hogan's ideas are not identical to mine, and I will also make no
    attempt to defend them.


  20. Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe

    In article <681e0038-e924-43cb-ac4f-4bc4f15f4f0b@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Keith Cayemberg writes:
    >On Jul 2, 2:13 am, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >> In article <1cab9383-de95-40d6-af61-236f55d82...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups=

    >..com>, Doug Phillips writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >On Jul 1, 5:23 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    >> >> On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote:

    >>
    >> >> > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.

    >>
    >> >88

    >>
    >> >(JF, I think Doctor Who a few regenerations ago explained why this
    >> >wouldn't work.)

    >>
    >> >> Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to
    >> >> Him ...

    >>
    >> >That's not what god told me but I'll ask him again just to be sure. He
    >> >might have to ask his god who created his universe, though, and his
    >> >god might have to ask his god who'll have to ask his god who'll have
    >> >to ask.... ah, forget about it. It doesn't look like we'd ever get a
    >> >definitive answer. (Or did you think god created himself?)

    >>
    >> >Now I suppose someone will bring up quantum mechanics -- OH NO! Bob
    >> >Koehler already did!

    >>
    >> I think that the string theorists have this debate all tied up.
    >>
    >> --
    >> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)C=

    >OM
    >>
    >> "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
    >>
    >> http://tmesis.com/drat.html

    >
    >Yes, they have "tied it up" into possibly infinite variations of 11 or
    >26 dimensional Gordian Knot (or is that a G=F6delian Knot?) providing
    >enough added variables to the Standard Model that they can finally
    >represent not only one, but many Unified Field Theories. However
    >nobody knows which one has anything to do with reality, or whether the
    >added dimensions are real or simply a mathematical expediency
    >explaining nothing. Unraveling the multidimensional Gordian Knot does
    >not appear likely with the energy densities available to man-made
    >devices. The use of visible natural high-energy phenomena in
    >neighboring star-systems or galaxies come closer to the needed energy-
    >levels. Despite CERN's ambitious LHC project the extended future of
    >experimental quantum mechanical physics research will likely be
    >increasingly dependent on astronomical observation rather than
    >localized particle collisions.
    >
    >String theorists are really more busy unraveling their "Gordian Knots"
    >than theorizing "who" tied the knots in the first place.
    >
    >Probably the ultimate solution will be something similar to Alexander
    >the Great's solution to the Gordian Knot.
    >
    >Use the Sword to cut through it.
    >
    >By this I mean a completely different logical approach which
    >identifies a much more simple Unified Field Theory. In this regard I
    >also have a couple ideas. :-)
    >
    >To get this discussion (about time travel and determinacy) a little
    >more on topic, I propose reviewing the ideas presented by a former DEC
    >engineer James P. Hogan in his book "Thrice Upon a Time", in which a
    >DEC PDP 22/30 is used in sending messages into the past or future by
    >manipulation of time traveling quanta. His take on the time paradox
    >was that time is not serial and a person affecting himself in the past
    >effectively cuts their own timeline and creates a new one. Here Hogan
    >allows that events from "potential" futures can be experienced without
    >the events actually taking place. For him "Free Will" and
    >Heiseburgische Indeterminancy reign supreme.
    >
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrice_Upon_a_Time
    >http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...ce-Upon-a-Time
    >
    >I found not only the use of a DEC machine amusing, but also the clever
    >use of a previously unused memory area of the machine to extend
    >messages further back in time over multiple hops to prevent the roots
    >of a world disaster occurring earlier than the machine would
    >otherwise be able to communicate.
    >
    >Cheers!
    >
    >Keith Cayemberg


    Keith, my comment was intended to be humorous. I am no fan of the
    crazy zany string theories. It seems to me that they've created a
    mathematical pseudo-reality that, when certain boundary conditions
    are applied, distill out the current accepted physics. They have
    yet to actually predict anything substantial to substantiate their
    validity which any good theory would provide.


    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast