Three Laws of Chronodynamics

[Harte]

Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"strangelove\")</div>

where do alternate realities come from?[/b]

Strangelove,
You posted this 4 hours ago according to the time on this board. I think it's safe to assume you have never shaken my hand, that is you had no memory of shaking my hand when you posted the above question. If I were to go back into the past to a point 5 hours before now and come to wherever you are and shake your hand, I would be doing it in an alternate universe, since in the universe where we are now sitting, the handshake never happened.

 

[Chronodynamic Jim]

Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

Strangelove,
You posted this 4 hours ago according to the time on this board. I think it's safe to assume you have never shaken my hand, that is you had no memory of shaking my hand when you posted the above question. If I were to go back into the past to a point 5 hours before now and come to wherever you are and shake your hand, I would be doing it in an alternate universe, since in the universe where we are now sitting, the handshake never happened.[/b]

Why conjur up the notion of alternate universes?

Let's say for instance that Strangelove does actually remember you shaking his hand and was confused by your later statement concerning alternate universes and posts so. In order to explain you post the above, travel back and shake his hand. No alternate universe required. He remembered the handshake because it happened in his past, you did not because it is in your future (1st Law). You traveled back and shook hands, changing nothing because you did it at the one and only time the handshaking happened (2nd Law). The handshake was the effect happening first, the post was the cause happening second (3rd Law). This seems out of order to strange love, the stationary observer, however is not out of order from your point of view since the post (cause) happened before you decided to go back in time and shake hands(effect)

Wow, thanks for helping me make my point Harte.

 

[Chronodynamic Jim]

Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

The opposition is speechless!

:grin:

 

[Harte]

Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Chronodynamic Jim\")</div>

Why conjur up the notion of alternate universes?

Let's say for instance that Strangelove does actually remember you shaking his hand and was confused by your later statement concerning alternate universes and posts so. In order to explain you post the above, travel back and shake his hand. No alternate universe required. He remembered the handshake because it happened in his past, you did not because it is in your future (1st Law). You traveled back and shook hands, changing nothing because you did it at the one and only time the handshaking happened (2nd Law). The handshake was the effect happening first, the post was the cause happening second (3rd Law). This seems out of order to strange love, the stationary observer, however is not out of order from your point of view since the post (cause) happened before you decided to go back in time and shake hands(effect)

Wow, thanks for helping me make my point Harte.


The opposition is speechless!

[/b]

Jim,

The opposition was offline!

Please do not consider me the opposition. I already said I like the idea. BTW, does anybody out there have any memory of any time traveler shaking his hand? Strangelove, have you met me?

My personal belief is in opposition to the 2nd law. Since we have no evidence or memories of time travelers, and since I believe that time travel will be invented in the future, then the alternate time line theory best explains this apparent contradiction. My belief in this scenario is augmented by the fact that some physicists have put forth the "Many Worlds" theory to explain the unreasonable truths discovered in quantum mechanics. This theory supposes the existence of alternate parallel universes.

I certainly have no patent on the truth though. You could be right. Your way makes for the better scifi story anyway, as I said previously.

H.

 

[Chronodynamic Jim]

Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

^^ That's Cool.


We'll just agree to disagree concerning alternate universes. One question though, if you believe in parallel universes, do you agree that since they are infinite, that there is a universe out there where the earth is inhabited by a race of fleshly versions of Donald Duck?
If no, why not? Other than the desire not to be associated with the little seen silly aspects of "Many Worlds Theory"

 

[Harte]

Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Chronodynamic Jim\")</div>

^^ That's Cool.


We'll just agree to disagree concerning alternate universes. One question though, if you believe in parallel universes, do you agree that since they are infinite, that there is a universe out there where the earth is inhabited by a race of fleshly versions of Donald Duck?
If no, why not? Other than the desire not to be associated with the little seen silly aspects of \"Many Worlds Theory\"[/b]

Jim,

No, I do not believe your Donald Duck scenario, especially since I laughed so hard I couldn't read it through the tears:lol: . I remember Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast" using exactly this infinite possibility idea to drive the plot. I, however, do not believe such universes to be infinite in number, just that there are so many that it is permissible to use the word infinite when talking about them. In any case, even if the many worlds theory posited infinite universes, I would not go with the Donald Duck scenario for the following reason.

Mathematically speaking, the existence of an infinite number of universes does not imply all possibilities will exist. Are you aware that there exist more numbers between 0 and 1 than there are whole numbers on the entire number line? Yet the number 2 does not exist between 0 and 1. Therefore all number possibilities do not exist in an infinite array of numbers. (In fact, there exist more irrational numbers than rational, meaning there are more numbers that you can't express as a fraction that numbers that you can.) Heinlein be damned.

Read my explanation of the many worlds theory here:
http://www.timetravelforum.net/showthread....25748#post25748

and then tell me about these so-called "silly aspects". I know of none that do not also crop up in any other explanation of the quanta.

Harte

 

[Heinrich Hundekok]

Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

AHHHHH!!

At last some serious single-timeline theory going on. Thank you Jim! I'm backing you up 100% - just want you to know that.

H.H.

 

[Chronodynamic Jim]

Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Heinrich Hundekok\")</div>

AHHHHH!!

At last some serious single-timeline theory going on. Thank you Jim! I'm backing you up 100% - just want you to know that.

H.H.[/b]

Would you like to join the club?

 

[Heinrich Hundekok]

Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

Why, thanks for the invitation, Jim!

But since I'm a general sceptic, critic and discuss-o-phile, I'd like to turn and toss those sweet theories a bit before joining.

For instance...

How about single timeline travel and causality? When the time traveler suddenly appears on a mud bank in the early cretaceous, no action has happened to justify this "reaction" - no cause preceeds the effect. Remember this is single-time-line; mankind doesn't even exist yet! The cretaceous isn't the past, it's the one-and-only present.

Since the timeline with all its actions is "singular and immutable" according to the 2. law of C.D. the traveler doesn't really "go back" in time (since he doesn't exist yet), he simply appears in the cretaceous, and much further in the future he simply disappears. Or in other terms, before even building the machine he was already there in the past (beeing of course an obvious side-effect to time travel 8-D)

But isn't this "appearing-before-disappearing" business a break in causality and thereby a violation to the 3. law of C.D. ?

happy grinding

H.H.

 

[Chronodynamic Jim]

Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

You may have misunderstood the Third Law since you what you say agrees with it. The Third Law is saying that Cause must preceed Effect from the traveler's POV, not when looking at the timeline from a higher perspective. Using your example of the cretaceous visitor, his sudden appearance is the Effect, and his disappearance from his native time is the Cause. From his point of view, his traveling back (Cause) happens first, and his arival (Effect) happens second.

Third Law: Cause must preceed Effect, though it may not appear to do so to the stationary observer.

From a stationary POV, in other words if events were listed in chronological order, his arival (Effect) happens first with no apparent cause. Later in the timeline, seemingly with no connection to the cretaceous event, the traveler disappears (Cause).

Third Law: Cause must preceed Effect, though it may not appear to do so to the stationary observer.

The Third Law could be worded less suscinctly thus:

Cause must preceed Effect as witnessed by a time traveler, however it may not appear to do so to the stationary observer.

Does this clear it up for you?