A Test For Time Travellers
- Thread starter Twighlight
- Start date
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
What does not surprise me in the least is that not one of our illustrious 'time travellers' has taken up the challenge of this thresd....which has now been up a month or so.
When you consider how easy internet access into the past allegedly is for all our 'time traveller' claimants....after all that is precisely how they claim to be posting here.......one is left to wonder WHY it is so hard for them SIMPLY to go back another 5 years and get the manager list from the said forum. To anyone with TRUE ability to time travel as claimed here....it would be the proverbial '5 minute job' to join the forum and view the manager list.
No takers. Well of course not....as whilst it would be a dead easy task for a time traveller...it's an almost impossible task for a hoaxer.
The silence speaks volumes.
When you consider how easy internet access into the past allegedly is for all our 'time traveller' claimants....after all that is precisely how they claim to be posting here.......one is left to wonder WHY it is so hard for them SIMPLY to go back another 5 years and get the manager list from the said forum. To anyone with TRUE ability to time travel as claimed here....it would be the proverbial '5 minute job' to join the forum and view the manager list.
No takers. Well of course not....as whilst it would be a dead easy task for a time traveller...it's an almost impossible task for a hoaxer.
The silence speaks volumes.
I agree, it should be easy. But what if someone met the challenge? Then what? Has anyone even thought of the next step? "Okay, you're a time traveler. You've proven it. Now give me a million, wait, no, a trillion dollars. Yes. And a time machine of my own. And let me rule the world." I can hardly see a useful outcome from one passing the test. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Darby
Epochal Historian
The next step is the bottom line in getting meaningful experimental results - repeatability. One-in-a-row isn't a winning streak (unless you're the LA Clippers
No, I'm saying once you're satisfied with the proof. Say it's been repeated 100 times, and you can no longer deny that it's real. Are you looking for someone from the future to give you all the science of time travel? Or are you looking for something else? Maybe just hope that science isn't yet complete? (We already know it isn't) I'm just not sure what people want from this. (I can guess) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
Oh - proof of time travel would have profound implications.....scientific, philosophical, religious, ethical, legal...you name it. And I suspect that after any initial euphoria there would come a somewhat unsettling concern......just what have these people been up to that we don't already know about, and how on Earth could one legislate and police what travellers from the future got up to. I strongly suspect that there would arise a sense of 'interference' from the future.....and that far from being a panacea, time travel would lead to all manner of issues.
But..of course.....that does all depend on there actually being time travellers.
The first thing people want to do with something new is control and police it. Terrible. Absolutely terrible. Why can't people just let humans be free? Have a car? You must get registration and tags, pay taxes, etc. Want to sail a boat? You must register etc. Want to fly? Don't get me started. The point is that things that should be free and unencumbered are the most strictly controlled because of greed, fear, and lust for power. It makes me despise this planet. Especially this era. Freedom is what time travel represents. But only if it is not policed or controlled.
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
My point was more that it simply won't be possible to police. Let's say someone from 2079 comes back and murders someone in 2009 and then pops home again. Hmm..if you then issue a future dated arrest warrant you end up with a Minority Report type situation because even when the time traveller is born in 2050 or whenever there would be an arrest warrant against him ! At what point do you intervene ?
Actually..I'm surprised none of our 'time travellers' have mentioned such issues. I would expect a real time traveller to be bogged down in a whole heap of legal paperwork and laws. There would even be a whole new branch of lawyers....Retrospective Lawyers, for dealing with misdemeanours while time travelling. Now if a time traveller here had mentioned such a thing....I'd have pricked my ears up because yes there most certainly WILL be legal issues by the bucket load and the mention of it would be at least an indicator someone might be genuine. ( Of course....now I've raised the issue.....I'd want to know what the laws are to be convinced ).
There are no laws in time. When one becomes a time traveler they are exempt from all laws. Of course that doesn't mean they can't get arrested in one era or another if they're not careful. One might say that they're subject to the laws of the time and place they visit. However, I prefer total freedom and responsibility over any such thing.
You don't. At some point people must realize that they have no right to control others. This society you have is very young. Don't be so arrogant.
No. Freedom and responsibility. It's the freedom to murder but the responsibility and self-control to not do it. Why bother? Laws are restrictions upon life and existence. They stifle the soul. Lift the barriers and humans are free. But it is necessary to elevate oneself beyond crude emotion and animal rage. People think that technology alone will save them. But it is technology combined with philosophy that will save the day. Just think of it. People powerful enough to destroy the universe but kind enough to harm nothing and help others.
ruthless
Rift Surfer
thats good and all, but thats not a very realistic way of looking at the world. very few people achieve that level, and if you studied philosophy like you claim, you would know that.
tech will not save the day. philosophy will not save the day. self realization is the only way a single person can achieve harmony. you will always have people in this world that will take the easy way out. its very unfortunate, but its the truth.
rules are there to keep people civil, and to punish the bad. it is our duty, as good people, to give law and justice a good name and testify upon its behalf, for it is our only protection.
lift the barriers and people are animals, including you. it is then survival of the fittest. you must understand all, not just your perception, if you wish to achieve true balance and harmony.
dimaggio
Chrono Cadet
I concur with ruthless on this. Laws and rules have their justification.
But I have to agree also with you that these weren't necessary if ALL people would be, let's call it enlightened.
Having an environment where every single person on this planet would get what he/she (at least) needs - and that is possible with the earths resources as a whole - then the motivation for most crimes would fall away. Why steal a TV when you can get one without stealing?
The problem though is that, even though if everyone would be enlightened, then you still have a problem with people who just can't get enlightened because they lack the mental capacity.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying only over-intelligent people could live in such a world.
I'm saying that we are so diverse in every aspect from each other, that humanity can never have a consensus on something.
And because of that I hope it will never be possible that any everyday joe could get his hands on a time machine in the future. THAT would be very scary. Just imagine a psychopath who wants to go on a killing spree. He travels back in time over and over again to bring back dozens and dozens of himself until he has an army, just to wreak havoc!
Then again I wouldn't want this technology in the hands of governments either.
Time travel and corruption go easily hand in hand.
So the best scenario would be for a single scientist to make the discovery who, at the same time, has a very stable psyche and is something like a philantropist.
But then again, maybe his stable psyche would tell him that manipulating the past could never lead to fully controlled, good circumstances and thus decides to destroy it.
OR he could use it only for the sole purpose of preventing others from inventing their own time machine. So as soon as he knows someone made the discovery, he jumps back and prevents it.
Maybe THAT's the reason why we haven't yet been (knowingly) visited by time travellers, since the good scientist from before plays time cop.^^
Just kidding.
But I have to agree also with you that these weren't necessary if ALL people would be, let's call it enlightened.
Having an environment where every single person on this planet would get what he/she (at least) needs - and that is possible with the earths resources as a whole - then the motivation for most crimes would fall away. Why steal a TV when you can get one without stealing?
The problem though is that, even though if everyone would be enlightened, then you still have a problem with people who just can't get enlightened because they lack the mental capacity.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying only over-intelligent people could live in such a world.
I'm saying that we are so diverse in every aspect from each other, that humanity can never have a consensus on something.
And because of that I hope it will never be possible that any everyday joe could get his hands on a time machine in the future. THAT would be very scary. Just imagine a psychopath who wants to go on a killing spree. He travels back in time over and over again to bring back dozens and dozens of himself until he has an army, just to wreak havoc!
Then again I wouldn't want this technology in the hands of governments either.
Time travel and corruption go easily hand in hand.
So the best scenario would be for a single scientist to make the discovery who, at the same time, has a very stable psyche and is something like a philantropist.
But then again, maybe his stable psyche would tell him that manipulating the past could never lead to fully controlled, good circumstances and thus decides to destroy it.
OR he could use it only for the sole purpose of preventing others from inventing their own time machine. So as soon as he knows someone made the discovery, he jumps back and prevents it.
Maybe THAT's the reason why we haven't yet been (knowingly) visited by time travellers, since the good scientist from before plays time cop.^^
Just kidding.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Ruthless is correct. The ideal world and the real world are not completely congruent. In fact, they interact with one another. They are in tension. You could even say they are at the extreme opposite ends of a sine wave cycle...
And the paradox is that if you are ever truly "totally free" then you are also free to not be enlightened. And if you are "totally free" then that means you are free to come up with your own, valid, reasons for why you do not wish to act in an enlightened manner towards one, some, or any other person.
Can we begin to see how freedom of choice is not a blessing, but a lesson? Some people learn what the lesson is all about, and choose to become enlightened.
Others never learn the lesson, and that is what karma is for... to keep the lesson going.
Still others are somewhere in between these two extremes.
When you step back, and look at it from a distance, it forms an unbroken cycle ("circle"). Furthermore, it can be one (powerful) explanation and answer for the question "why are we here?"
RMT
And the paradox is that if you are ever truly "totally free" then you are also free to not be enlightened. And if you are "totally free" then that means you are free to come up with your own, valid, reasons for why you do not wish to act in an enlightened manner towards one, some, or any other person.
Can we begin to see how freedom of choice is not a blessing, but a lesson? Some people learn what the lesson is all about, and choose to become enlightened.
Others never learn the lesson, and that is what karma is for... to keep the lesson going.
Still others are somewhere in between these two extremes.
When you step back, and look at it from a distance, it forms an unbroken cycle ("circle"). Furthermore, it can be one (powerful) explanation and answer for the question "why are we here?"
RMT
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Follow-up to my previous post:
If it ever came to pass that the ideal world that aerohead yearns for were to come into being (everyone was enlightened and no one committed despicable acts against each other), there would be no reason for the "real" world to exist anymore (since it had become congruent with the ideal world). Hence, that would be the end of the universe and... "the end of time". The lesson would be over.
BTW... this view of totality (the real world and the ideal world and their tension/interaction) is part of the teachings of Hermetic traditions (one of which is Freemasonry, but there are plenty of others). Interesting, no? Think it has any relationship to some "religions" and what they teach and the stories they tell?
RMT
If it ever came to pass that the ideal world that aerohead yearns for were to come into being (everyone was enlightened and no one committed despicable acts against each other), there would be no reason for the "real" world to exist anymore (since it had become congruent with the ideal world). Hence, that would be the end of the universe and... "the end of time". The lesson would be over.
BTW... this view of totality (the real world and the ideal world and their tension/interaction) is part of the teachings of Hermetic traditions (one of which is Freemasonry, but there are plenty of others). Interesting, no? Think it has any relationship to some "religions" and what they teach and the stories they tell?
RMT
dimaggio
Chrono Cadet
I'm a bit confused. You essentially said in reply to my "being enlightened":
being enlightened -> totally free -> one can therefore choose to not be enlightened.
Then you say:
Freedom of choice -> is a lesson -> some people who learn the lesson -> choose to become enlightened
Now I don't know why you chose the first chain in direct answer to my post. But what I meant with people being enlightened is exactly the same as the being enlightened at the end of the 2nd chain (your chain).
So was your post more an answer to aerohead's understanding of freedom of choice, or really to my meaning of enlightenment? *headscratch*
being enlightened -> totally free -> one can therefore choose to not be enlightened.
Then you say:
Freedom of choice -> is a lesson -> some people who learn the lesson -> choose to become enlightened
Now I don't know why you chose the first chain in direct answer to my post. But what I meant with people being enlightened is exactly the same as the being enlightened at the end of the 2nd chain (your chain).
So was your post more an answer to aerohead's understanding of freedom of choice, or really to my meaning of enlightenment? *headscratch*
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Sorry,
It was really more of a comment to both aerohead and ruthless. Mostly to aerohead to try and suggest what the "paradox" of being free really is: That you can choose to NOT be enlightened, and that is what leads people to doing "bad" things that harm others.
Aerohead seems to think that if everyone were simply completely free, everything would be grand and everyone could reach enlightenment. But humanity (or any sentient beings) are not all at the same level of enlightenment, and some do not even choose that path at all.
RMT
It was really more of a comment to both aerohead and ruthless. Mostly to aerohead to try and suggest what the "paradox" of being free really is: That you can choose to NOT be enlightened, and that is what leads people to doing "bad" things that harm others.
Aerohead seems to think that if everyone were simply completely free, everything would be grand and everyone could reach enlightenment. But humanity (or any sentient beings) are not all at the same level of enlightenment, and some do not even choose that path at all.
RMT
dimaggio
Chrono Cadet
Alright, then I misunderstood. Thanks for carification.
And I agree that simply being free does not lead to everybody being "good".
As neo already said it: The problem is choice.^^
If we can do what we want, even the bad stuff, then there bound to be at least one person doing something bad eventually. That's the sole reason why we have rules today.
They (are supposed to) punish the people doing bad things so that there'll be less people doing these things. And since bad stuff still happens, even WITH these rules, just shows us what would happen if we wouldn't have these rules.
So I guess before we can have total freedom, we have to earn it by being enlightened first.
Only then does freedom not lead to people choosing to do bad stuff (since they are enlightened enough not to do it).
But somehow I doubt we'll ever reach that point. :\
And I agree that simply being free does not lead to everybody being "good".
As neo already said it: The problem is choice.^^
If we can do what we want, even the bad stuff, then there bound to be at least one person doing something bad eventually. That's the sole reason why we have rules today.
They (are supposed to) punish the people doing bad things so that there'll be less people doing these things. And since bad stuff still happens, even WITH these rules, just shows us what would happen if we wouldn't have these rules.
So I guess before we can have total freedom, we have to earn it by being enlightened first.
Only then does freedom not lead to people choosing to do bad stuff (since they are enlightened enough not to do it).
But somehow I doubt we'll ever reach that point. :\
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
Oh boy...that's all we need....time travelling anarchists.
I would argue that laws exist precisely to protect people from those who think that the only freedom that exists should be theirs.
As for people behaving responsibly...hmm....the track record is not that good when the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Polpot, etc, find that freedom to do what they like is theirs.
bowtiesarecool
Chrono Cadet
I agree with the person who asked "why would time travelers want to be tested?" And also, if someone was doing something as grand as traveling through time, I really doubt they'd want to bother with such a mundane, meaningless task as you are giving here. Then again, if someone were a real time traveler, why would they be sitting around talking about it on message boards? And why are they always from the future?
I'm not saying I believe them.....in fact, I am stating right now that I don't...due to the outrageous nature of some of their claims as well as wha t I just said above, however, I'm just wondering why none of them claim to be from the past?
Since an awful lot of the people here seem to believe that it's possible to travel to the future, but not the past, you'd think the people saying they traveled to our time would be saying they came here from an earlier time to try to make themselves more believable
I'm not saying I believe them.....in fact, I am stating right now that I don't...due to the outrageous nature of some of their claims as well as wha t I just said above, however, I'm just wondering why none of them claim to be from the past?
Since an awful lot of the people here seem to believe that it's possible to travel to the future, but not the past, you'd think the people saying they traveled to our time would be saying they came here from an earlier time to try to make themselves more believable