Deep thinking Created 13 years ago2011-07-08 07:39:29 UTC by zeeba-G

It's because stuff like this I slowly refuse to turn back to good threads.

If I invented a time machine tomorrow, I would actually go into the future, see how it turned out (I would of course also have a heavy-duty radsuit, firearm, etc, just in case) find out the history of what happened between my time and then, and then attempt to prevent the bad stuff from happening.

Just don't bring a sports almanac back from the future, Jeff.

/BttF2 reference

Here's a deep thought:

If its tourist season, why can't we shoot them?

...What?

You said you would ask the question "What would you do in the future knowing it could yada yada?"
Then you said "A lot of people would answer that they would stop Hitler from being born."
Hitler was born in the future?

No I didn't, I said what would you do if you had a time machine, knowing that anything you change in the past would have consequences in the future.

If there's anything you should know, you CAN'T change the past. So you definitely can't go back and kill Hitler. Something will happen that will prevent you from doing so and history will remain as you knew it all along. Sort of like that "Timeline" film.

BUT, I TOTALLY know what I'd do.

First, I'd go back to year 0 and bring along some red food dye. Invite everyone in town to dinner at home, and while they're looking, pour water into cups along with the red dye. Wine at the time was probably pretty crappy so they probably couldn't tell the difference in taste.

There!

If there's anything you should know, you CAN'T change the past.

theres a theory somewhere that says that if theres multiple choice in a situation, and you pick one of the choices, other "universes" will be created (or branch out) where you picked one of the OTHER choices. if that makes sense

therefore, the theory could suggest, take hitler for example, that other universes were created from things like if he was assasinated or if he won WW2 etc.

(just backing myself up here, this is a theory im putting out there that isnt my opinion or something i exactly belive in, but thought you may find interesting)

Yeah well in that case Inglourious Basterds could have very well been true. But, the other theory was better at supporting my plan

nice one rim...

What is outside the universe? And do the dimensions we deal with expand past its edges?

What is outside the universe? And do the dimensions we deal with expand past its edges?

A popular theory right now is that neighboring universes are "right next" to each other like bubbles, but that there is no way of exiting one universe without moving to higher dimensions.

Doesn't really answer your question, though.

This level of thinking isn't kosher.

We have to go deeper.

Yo Dawg, I heard you like Thinking, so we put a thought, inside a thought!

Back from a few posts ago on time travel, If I went back/forth in time, I wouldn't touch anything, I would sit and watch what really happened.

I read another time travel theory that states time travel is impossible simply because it would change the past; that potential disruptions in history are the reason we can't complete the trip. The paper I read had lots of physics math above me that included a heavy discussion about closed timelike curves. That's the only buzz word that I remember.

In that case it will be impossible to go back in time unless we can invent a true full-spectrum electromagnetic cloak. We would have to go back in time to an area of space so the time machine wouldn't bump into any rogue particles just floating around (because even space has some reallly small amount of hydrogen). We would have to produce an effect of zero gravity around the time machine (because even small amounts of gravity affects something somewhere). Also we'd probably have to figure out how to redirect neutrinos as well. There's probably a ton of other phenomenon we don't even know about that would have to be compensated for.

By that logic, we really cant go back in time at all to do anything meaningful. If you can observe something, you've already changed the universe.

Edit: Doh' vs49688. I took too long to type. ;D

After perusing this thread for a while I have come to the conclusion that Dimbark wouldn't manage a deep thought if he fell down a well.

In that case it will be impossible to go back in time unless we can invent a true full-spectrum electromagnetic cloak. We would have to go back in time to an area of space so the time machine wouldn't bump into any rogue particles just floating around (because even space has some reallly small amount of hydrogen). We would have to produce an effect of zero gravity around the time machine (because even small amounts of gravity affects something somewhere). Also we'd probably have to figure out how to redirect neutrinos as well. There's probably a ton of other phenomenon we don't even know about that would have to be compensated for.

But as vs49688 stated, we would also have to figure some way of not disturbing the quantum state of the particles at that time. Therefore, we would have to not be able to observe.

I believe time travel is just an utopia. Here's an analogy of what I think: time travel is like an old cassette player, not like a mp3 player: you can't skip, you have to rewind everything back.

Urby is probably my favorite person on TWHL. Just Sayin.

Watch one day thousands of years from now, we find a new planet to rape, and everything about it defys all the laws of Gravity and Physics and all the other Laws. That shit will be CASH.

If it defys the laws of gravity it couldn't possibly form a planet
I'm just sayin

As far as we can see (litteraly) the laws of physics are the same universally. I find that pretty amazing actually. And the fact that if you were to change a universal constant even the slightest then everything as we know is ceases to be. To me that is proof of the multiverse theory in a way. For there has to be at least one which allows there to be starts and planets and life. If there only was one universe the probability of it actually supporting life as we know it would be incredibly low

Here's a thought. It seems that all "laws" of physics are simply explorations and observations that we make observing our surroundings.

Are they secondary to what already exists? Or is what exists secondary to the laws.

Here's another thought. Christianity sure does ordain some peace and keep things moving smoothly. Just this week I cheated on my girlfriend and kissed another girl. I feel horrible but because I haven't been as religeous I didn't feel as much reason not to do it. I know its not religion alone but morals that tell me it was wrong but when I see it from a "humanist" look I did it because it was more benefitial to me as a man to get another girl. It all sounds silly but the point is I probably wouldn't have done it if I was still a strong christian. So religion does a pretty good job keeping people out of trouble.

I also probably did it because of the numerous girls that have been recently unfaithful to me. And another guy that was with us just wanted to hook up with her and have nothing else to do with her so I wanted to intervene in a way even though I have a girlfriend.

Probably going back or forward in time creates paradoxes at a macro-level, but what happens if this is achieved using quantum physics?

How do interactions at a quantum level, a time travel for ex, translate to bigger objects? Such as human-sized ones.

How do you think true invisibility could be achieved? You'd either need to devise a way to make light be able to pass through you, or a way to reflect light around you yet be projected as though it just went straight, I guess. Any thoughts?

Come to think of it, how is glass see-through? What's so special about its composition?

or a way to reflect light around you yet be projected as though it just went straight, I guess. Any thoughts?

This. Imagine a boulder sitting in a stream of water. The flow of the water is affected by the boulder, yet a few meters away, the flow looks the same.

This is what we should achieve with some kind of special equipment that can distort the movement of electromagnetic waves.

Come to think of it, how is glass see-through? What's so special about its composition?

It's just that glass permits visible electromagnetic radiation to pass through it.

What if, instead of turning invisible, there was some weird fucked up thing, and you just, didn't exist, but you did, Kinda like a ghost, no one sees/interacts with you, but you can see/interact with people and things. I think it would take forever to come up with technology to do this, but it would be pretty cool.

How would you selectively choose what to interact with? And how would you not fall through the ground? Hypothetically though, still an interesting concept.

Actually reflecting electromagnetic waves arount you is probably a little too impossible. Though, what if like you said, there was a way you could get the waves to conform to your body? Say, if you could somewhat repel incoming waves as they approached and draw them back as they passed so that they swung around you, like your boulder in stream model.

The only real way yo could remotely do invisibility today would be to display visual information from your far side and display it on the visble side. Though it would be really dodgy, and I can't see it happening on more than one side at once.

WE need tech that puts us IN video games, then we can go into like fallout 3, take the Chinese stealth suits, bring them OUT with us, and reverse Engineer stuff. Another interesting thing, Putting yourself INTO things, movies, games, etc. I think that would be cool, Like in CoD you wouldn't feel the bullet wounds, maybe a little sting if you got shot. A long fall would just make your legs stiff up. Kinda like Tron.

If you played gordon freeman, your suit would make it so you dont even feel the little stings, but that suit surely doesn't protect against gravity.

Video game + Holodeck technology = Win.
That's basically all there is to it.

What if, instead of turning invisible, there was some weird fucked up thing, and you just, didn't exist, but you did, Kinda like a ghost, no one sees/interacts with you, but you can see/interact with people and things. I think it would take forever to come up with technology to do this, but it would be pretty cool.

You mean kinda like noclipping?

We totally need that in games.

WE need tech that puts us IN video games, then we can go into like fallout 3, take the Chinese stealth suits, bring them OUT with us, and reverse Engineer stuff.

For the love of god don't take anything from Postal.

For the love of god don't take anything from Postal.

I read online that shit of a game is going on the Source engine, that true?!

Lol when I first noclipped in halflife my balls exploded!

I read online that shit of a game is going on the Source engine, that true?!

Unless it's a third-party mod, no, then no. I don't even recall them even developing a third.

There was a third being developed for a long time, but I haven't heard anything about it for ages (thank god). Last I heard, it was on the Source engine.

Yep.

It looks about as crappy as you would expect.

You believe in aliens? Thought about why nobody contacted us? Or why we didn't find someone out there yet?You'll have to zoom in the image.

To be honest, that's just hilarious

It's hilarious and also tragic.

Wow, that's kinda depressing to see. Hard to imagine that our galaxy is 100 000 ly in diameter. Our species will probably be extinct befor our signals reach any of the edges.

Also, you asked about how events at a quantum level can interfere with the real macro world. And that was what the "Schrödingers cat" thought experiment was all about. It can indeed have an effect.

I'm not a biologist but I believe that cancer caused by radiation is another slightly more common event where the micro world interacts with the macro world. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

And that isn't even an accurate approximation. It's not even at best. Not even realistic. At best it's about 90 light-years, when the first regular radio shows began to broadcast.

And that was what the "Schrödingers cat" thought experiment was all about. It can indeed have an effect.

I always thought that was not a serious mind experiment. Somebody shows you a box and asks you: is the cat dead or alive? And then you get this scientific explanation that it can both exist and not exist. But if you look at it, it's only one of the options.
But in REALITY, something happened and there were never 2 possibilities happening at the same time. The experiment is only mind-blowing because it works in the context of rational thinking, therefore requiring a... mind.
I think it's all about the difference between the real, existent Universe and our known part of it.
So, in ancient time Europeans thought the Earth is flat and at the end there's an infinite gap, or probably a path to hell. But there were more lightened people who disagreed. So, there were 2 possibilities. The rest of the continents both existed and not existed at the same time.

Slowly we discovered that the Earth is a planet, and not a flat piece of dirt, and explored the rest of the continents. The real Universe meets the acknowledged one(which is virtual) and annihilates one of the options. That's how I see it.

Now you have to ask yourselves: Where are these non-matter//non-energy types of events having effect upon?( like the event of annihilating on of the options above) Are they stored somewhere? Is something keeping track of this? Does this involve determinism?

I wonder how doctor Manhattan perceives this.

But in REALITY, something happened and there were never 2 possibilities happening at the same time

I guess I can't argue against this because I could never prove the opposite, however all the experimental data and mathematics and theory seems to apply so perfectly to reality! Too perfect to be coincidental. And if the mathematics is right, then so is the theory.

Quantum scientists claim that the cat is in a sort of super state where it isn't dead nor alive until someone actually opens the box and by doing that collapsing the wave function. One couldn't possibly understand what that actually means, like they say; "if you think you've understood quantum mechanics, then you've not".

Perhaps multiverse theory comes in handy here. The universe is split into all possible outcomes, and by collapsing the wave we force our universe into one of those "paths".

Edit: Also, sorry if this wasn't related to what you said. Again my english fella bit short while reading your post. I think I understood it, but again maybe I didn't

And that was what the "Schrödingers cat" thought experiment was all about. It can indeed have an effect.

Wasent that created just so same asshole could kill cats, like an asshole?

But in REALITY, something happened and there were never 2 possibilities happening at the same time

That's not the point. The point is to consider the possibility, not to actually prove anything.
It's a mental exercise.

Quantum scientists claim that the cat is in a sort of super state where it isn't dead nor alive until someone actually opens the box and by doing that collapsing the wave function. One couldn't possibly understand what that actually means, like they say; "if you think you've understood quantum mechanics, then you've not".

These claims are based on the ever popular notion that "reality" is a relative state of being purely unique to the observer. That's the entire basis for quantum anything.

Knowing how we are in our efforts. We will likely figure out how to fold space, send a hyper-lightspeed probe to a location because those speeds would be unsafe at first, the probe would help in creating the gate portal and then we'd travel freely back and forth through the portal. The probe would take 50+ years of travel anyway. In the advances of Mankind, time doesn't really matter, or at least shouldn't. We just need to resist blowing ourselves up first. :/

My girlfriend and I got into a religeous discussion. She's mormon and i'm christian. We went over the book of mormon and the bible. I showed her a quote that said you shouldn't "add" any thing to the bible. And in the book of mormon it says that it is "comparable" to the bible "thus not part of the bible but "added on stuff"". And it said you will become closer to God through the book of mormon than any other book. Which of course is saying it is "better than the bible".

The thing is she came at it with the perspective that she already believes in mormon and all the inbetween junk "the mormon scripture" she bends and twists it to make sense.

The way I came at it was saying "I don't believe in God" or atleast I don't even know if I do or not.

I began comparing good vs. bad in accordance with scripture and the ten commandments basically like bad equals stealing and good equals not stealing and than started laying out equations and discovering some interesting stuff.

Comparing Good to "building a model of a house to depict your idea" and bad to "destroying the model because it ruins the model's purpose which was good". I learned that good is hard because it is harder to build the model and bad is easy because it is easier to destroy it. So. Good=hard to aquire/ do. Bad= easy to aquire/do. Or shortly good=hard, bad=easy.

Than in my lack of faith I decided heck i'll just take it easy and let life figure itself out for me and if God is real, i'll let him come to me. But than I realized that the goos is harder to obtain and in accordance to what I think atleast, than God is good so it is harder to aquire him or conceive him so I have to dig deap and try to figure it out which is harder than not doing anything at all which I originally was going to do.

I figured out some more stuff but don't feel like going into it because you would have to believe in God atleast some to understand it with out saying it is foolish. Atleast what i've said seems to make some sense. I also whent deaper into why stealing is bad and not stealing is good and how stealing appears to be good because you aquire something yet you don't see the other partie's loss whish is bad when it was rightfully there's to begin with. So good can look bad and bad can look good when bad can only equal bad and good can only equal good.

Any comments? Don't get pissy its just logics here.

Those who say oh pshh, religion lets not discuss it are simply taking the "easy" path which is "bad". The "harder" path would be to try to discover weather it is right and true or not which is "good".

*whether

One important (imo) comment:

The thing is she came at it with the perspective that she already believes in mormon and all the inbetween junk "the mormon scripture" she bends and twists it to make sense.

This happens more than you must think. Really, a hell of a lot of people do this, in their own way and to their own extremity. It's the reason anyone still has religious debates.
People come to their conclusions and don't want others to shift them, religious or otherwise. If something is almost conclusively proven wrong, people will go to a similar idea that still works.
People want to believe (or not believe, if that's the case).

The "harder" path would be to try to discover weather it is right and true or not which is "good".

You might say atheistic approaches are harder; You need more patience to wait for sufficient evidence, while religious people jump to the ultimate conclusion that theists texts are correct. I do consider myself 'agnostic', in that god may exist in some form, but its almost certainly not the Christian definition. God is a concept, or a phenomenon, but its not an omnipotent intelligent being. I tend to lean towards more atheistic views because there is no evidence in favor of religion that couldn't be a mass-placebo effect.

You could also say there is a 'lazy' class among both theists and atheists. There are those who are blindly atheistic because they are lazy, don't want to put in the time, and simply argue against religion without actual reasons. There are also those who are blindly religious because they've grown up being taught what they believe whilst being cheered on by their peers. There's an air of social acceptance around both flavors of laziness that powers the placebo both ways.

In turn, people can be so religiously ignorant and naive that the excuse and reason for everything is God. This is much easier than the good=hard bad=easy complex because it requires considerably less thought than both. I've been there once as a kid in Church when I was a youngling. It was so easy to do it, yet I felt so compelled to preserve my free will. Later I found out that questioning the ethics of a church is a bad idea.

Sometimes, the right thing to do isn't always the good thing, and I know I did the right thing.

Jason Stackhouse

What says questioning it is a bad thing? Maybe extremists but the average person I know would consider it ok because you are seeking the truth in what you believe.

When I was catholic, we were even given the opportunity to seek what we believe whether it be other religion or none at all. Of course most people lazily decided sure, i'm catholic like I did but some fell out of it at this time or took extra time questioning everything. In this case, questioning our religion was encouraged by the church. It's because until that point everything was sort of chosen by our parents and once you reach the certain age they leave it up to you. I remember I didn't do jack squat. I was just lazy.

I've even seen this sort of thing done with other religions too.

One should question everything, especially authorities. The church is an authority. The way I see it questioning something could never be a bad thing.

Scientific theories are questioned on a daily basis, and that is why we get progress.