Covered in dust

[Guest]

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, science is science is science. Has been since, well, let's give Ibn Alhazen the credit for solidifying scientific method, that would have been around 965 CE, or roughly 1045 years ago. No, I don't speak Arabic, but I imagine that Alhazen and I would have similiar principles for pursuing scientific method. These principles have been laid out.

I think the topic did derail there, and I went off on a tangent. I think my point was more on qualifications are irrelevant (in the sense quoting them won't mean people will automatically believe you), and ergo, few time-travellers would bother to qualify as scientists.

I mean, I could claim to be a scientist, simply because I think about time and time travel. But it's dishonest really.

And, btw, your English vernacular is great for a guy from whenever you are. That's the one thing I love about TTs, they always are hip to the lingo, daddy-o. They can pick up what you're putting down. They savvy your patter. They can totally dig what you're bringing to the table, y'know?

I must admit I am not sure if you're humouring me in this instance, but I'll take the bait regardless. Just modern day Britain. I'm not from the future. Don't have one of those mysterious military boxes or weird H.G. Wells time machines (flying unprotected? in a car? honestly?). Or any mechanical device for that matter. I don't wear a top hat, monocle, a 3-piece suit or carry a pocket watch, contrary to popular stereotype. Or speak like 'gud dey guvner', also contrary to popular American belief.

To point; I am sure typical claimants write in an odd manner as a front, but, this is actually my writing style. Has been for the past 4 years.

 

[Guest]

You can't eliminate researcher bias in science. People are people.

Yes. However, it might be a point that can be improved upon with future technology, even if not currently. The original point was in 3000AD they probably would have improved the submission and review process. But that is a logical speculative point (most things should improve given enough time and resources - Moore's law, for example).

Although I am aware maths can overcome bias, it is however restricted notably to mathematics compatible fields, EG predictable models. Unpredictable models, like quantum science, biology [spread and distribution of organisms, for example], psychology [I know people consider this pseudo-science], even the weather, if you've known how many times weathermen get it wrong, cannot be backed-up by mathematics, and thus suffers. An example is 'how do you generate a random number?'; a programmer could tell you how, but you know at the end of the day, it isn't random; invoke issues of chaos theory here (another topic I'd think).

To point; science sits well in it's comfy chair of definable matters. But the unexplored realms - because they are unexplored, and thus not defined enough to taste to prove or get necessary research funding - remain thus unexplored; in a catch-22.

For a related example, how does one gain the funding to build a time machine? With proof, mathematically or otherwise. How does one gain proof? ...[?] Assuming we say 'mathematically', how can we be sure the mathematics predict the alteration of time correctly? We attempt a time machine, said machine fails. One merely has to cite the single attempt's failure [as evidence] and any future attempts are doomed to failure on securing support.

Perhaps I am grossly overgeneralising. But it's the impression I get. Perhaps someone can correct me?

 

[Twighlight]

That is the situation (minus an actual, physical, time machine) I find myself in. If you read the prior post on the lottery numbers (I didn't win - it's vague - I specify, unhelpfully, how many numbers would be correct in which bank), it's dated the 6th. 9th is weds (weds draw). So in effect, I posted information 3 days before it actually took effect. Posts can't be edited after an hour of their writing - so I can't 'fix' anything. I might have to supply a new drawing link though, as the saturday's drawing will occur today.

You'll have to excuse me for not being overly impressed.

As you're including the bonus ball in your count, and there are 49 balls......the chances of getting one ball right are a mere 1 in 7. The chances of getting 2 correct are thus 1 in 56 ( (49/7) * (48/6)).

So you have a 1 in 56 chance for the first line and a 1 in 7 chance for the second line. You can't accumulate these odds as they are distinct events.

Also, strictly speaking the bonus ball ONLY applies when you have 5 numbers correct. So in terms of how the lottery actually works.......you got 2 lines correct, with about a 1 in 8 chance for each.

If this was a Zenner card test for psychic powers, such odds would barely raise an eyebrow. I have myself scored odds of over 1000 to 1 in such a test online.....and even that's not particularly incredible given that 5000 people took the test that day. A true evidence of something remarkable going on would require odds of millions to one. The most remarkable psychic/precognition test I know of, the person tested scored odds of 100 billion to one against chance.....and THAT'S what I call impressive.

Certainly from my own perspective...I'd have to see odds well over at least 1000 to one, on a distinct and unique prediction, to be impressed.

 

[Guest]

Grandfather \'Paradox\' Resolved

A lot of people try to resolve the paradox via alternate dimensions, or citing prevention causes without specifying how. But, in this instance, I am going to explain how it is resolved, and why killing your grandfather is actually impossible.

We have to however run it through step-by-step.

In your mind, imagine a generic grandfather (beard, glasses, pipe, whatever you feel completes the picture). 'Your' (yours only in a hypothetical sense) Grandfather's existence ensures your existence.

We will call this forward force for your current existence 'A', and denote it as forwards with a lame arrow ->.

Now, you hold a gun. It could be a glock, a standard revolver or an AK47. This gun's usage ensures your existence is eliminated. We will call this backwards, resisting, force, 'B', and denote it with a lame arrow <-.

Now, you arm yourself, and travel back in time to kill your grandfather (why is beyond me, but you do).

Now, you raise the gun, and are about to pull the trigger, when our forces ('A' and 'B') now interact (this is the interaction zone - the point that defines your existence). We shall assign them equal time units because they have equal events.

A (10 TUs) -->|<-- B (10 TUs)

At this point, every effort to pull the trigger, powered by your existence, is nullified by your non-existence draining/resisting your energy (it would be defined by either the weakening of your hand, the phasing out of your hand/arm/body to non-solidity, etc etc).

So, no matter how hard you would try to kill your grandfather, the resistance from B (non-existence) would nullify the power from A (your existence) that enables you to do so.

And the law in support of this?

"Every action, has an equal, and, opposite, reaction."
- Issac Newton

It hit me how it occurred, as I found every determined effort to remove myself from existence made me so weak I was unable to continue. So if you exist now - you always will do. Unless you don't, then you never will.

 

[Twighlight]

Actually, regarding statistics there's a point worth making.

In terms of impressive results....it is MORE impressive to get slightly above average scores on a large number of tests, than it is to score a one-off fluke high score.

The best evidence for Zenner cards came not from those who every now and then got all 25 cards in a test correct............but from those who took 1000 such 25 card tests and their average score was marginally above the 5 correct guesses that one would expect. A one off fluke may just BE a one off fluke......whereas getting even just an average 6 out of 25 correct over 1000 tests spreads the results into a definitive 'trend' that is statistically far more significant.

Very important to note :- All such tests have to be specified in advance, and the results made distinct and seperate from any others. Otherwise a person could just cherry pick their 'best' results and ignore the bad ones.

 

[Twighlight]

Re: Grandfather \'Paradox\' Resolved

At this point, every effort to pull the trigger, powered by your existence, is nullified by your non-existence draining/resisting your energy (it would be defined by either the weakening of your hand, the phasing out of your hand/arm/body to non-solidity, etc etc).

Er.....you've ALREADY changed history just by being there. Ok so you don't shoot him, but what if he has such a shock from you suddenly appearing that he goes infertile ?

What if your mere breath of being there disturbs a bacteria in the air, that then gets redirected so it is inhaled by a butterfly, that then flies off and gets eaten by a bird, that then dies from being shot because the bacteria weakened it, and the bird then falls out of a tree and hits a cow, that then goes wild and smashes through a gate right onto a railway line.....where the 10.55 from New York, carrying your Grandad four days after you left to come home, gets derailed killing all on board.

 

[Guest]

Question is Twighlight, how is it I knew you were going to bring up a reference to coincidence?

[And no. I don't know who you are. It would be self-centred to even remotely suggest that someone would actually want to study you.]

Additionally, Twi, it's disappointing you would actually consider using a baseless appeal to statistics in an effort to discredit something. Despite the appeal to emotions, the prediction, is still correct, and the statistics would not even be in favour of that occurring. How many time travel claimants gave you a correct prediction that occurred that didn't involve ambiguous political data or technological suggestions that could be predicted by using Moore's law?

If I was to hazard a guess. None?

In terms of impressive results....it is MORE impressive

It is not to do with impression however, as that is an emotionally descriptive term, and sidesteps the point raised. I am sure we could pop out the scientific 'impress-o-matic' scale at this point in time... assuming such a thing exists, of course.

The prediction was still right. And was done before the event occurred. And I have no influence over the event. And the event occurred real-time [which you had personal observation of, before, during and after], and thus was not 'cherry picked' (the results will be gone from the page in 40 minutes time).

[For archival purposes, anyone reading this after it occurs only needs to compare the date of the drawing (9th Sept, 2010) to the post dates supplied. 3 days in advance is 'real-time'.]

to score a one-off fluke

Fluke is a baseless descriptor as it does not raise how a fluke would be possible in an intended, one-off real-time event. And besides, if you took the liberty of reading my future answer/retort to your statistics appeal future post before you wrote it...

(actually, try running it yourself - take two banks of 6 numbers, and tell me how many of them would be correct [even better, do it for saturdays drawing!]... and get it dead on for both banks.

You still have some time left... aw, you're not going to try to predict this saturday's drawing?

Spoilsport.

You know if you did, you'd get it wrong, and thus won't bother. So if you know you'd get it wrong... why didn't I get it wrong? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

Re: Grandfather \'Paradox\' Resolved

Sorry to summarise your post Twi, but I figured I'd get 'what if you 'fall' on your Grandfather when you phase out - type posts.

But why doesn't X technical event (that results) not kill him?

You've gotten the 'simple' explanation (you need to apply the same system to every event - even ones post or pre-hoc). Time is a very, very complicated matter. Have you ever tried explaining complicated mathematical formulae to someone who doesn't know maths? It's like that.

Okay, you see in the formulae, we have 'time units'? That is the force of every event. Like, conventional physical force. But in time.

Different (time) events have different TUs, and ergo, some won't cause you to phase out and disappear, where-as others will. So, lets say my gun isn't a gun, but, a water pistol. The formulae of force would now be...

10TUs A -->< B 1 TUs.

You'd squirt him in the face, but it's unlikely to actually remove you from existence (unless it causes a series of events that do - in which case, we would total up the other events into the TUs total at the interaction point).

So, for example.

10TUs A --><-- B (1 TU for squirt, 10 TUs for slip on water and die; Total, 11TUs).

Seeing as it overwhelms the time units force of your existence, you would be unable to squirt him in the face (as the backlash is 'real-time', if you understand?). You would phase out on every attempt to squirt (unless the squirt doesn't prevent your existence).

So if you tried to travel back (in the instance of your appearance prevents your existence), then you would find yourself too weak/not solid enough to properly operate the time-machine to be able to go back. The event of travelling back and ending your existence, and your non-existence, cancel each other out so you are unable to modify that event. A 'fixed' point.

Basically, it's a complicated paradox 2# (self-fulfilling).

Remember, the calculations (or effects) of your action don't calculate 'afterwards' (the force/application of time isn't suspended until after you perform an event, such as killing/harming). They calculate all the time. They are calculating now.

It's very hard to explain, and it never gets any easier, unfortunately.

I hope that helps.

[Also, to the guy who suggests falling on your grandfather - you'd be too weak to position yourself there, and if it got to that point, you would actually phase through].

I think I can draw a point; have any of you had a point where, you tried to get someone's attention, and everyone acts as if you don't exist? (Google it - if it doesn't happen to you, it does to others). It's like that; you temporarily phase out (as if the action partially occurs) until it self-rights.

 

[Twighlight]

Additionally, Twi, it's disappointing you would actually consider using a baseless appeal to statistics in an effort to discredit something.

On the contrary.....statistics is the ONLY means by which one would know if a result was 'significant' or not.

I'm not saying your 'prediction' is meaningless or irrelevant. But with such a 'one off' like that there is simply no way of knowing. I think the odds of Paul the octopus correctly predicting the World Cup draws was about 1 in 128 or something.......it seems impressive and makes for good newspaper reports, but any scientist would be wary of such results.

Any experiment needs to be done under controlled conditions. We don't know, for example, if the 'psychic octopus' was being subtley influenced in some way by its owner. And the ultimate criteria for all this would be repeatability. If, for example, a person is psychic.....they need to be able to CONSISTENTLY get high scores over a large range of experiments.

If you got 3 lottery numbers right ( odds of 1 in 1000 ) ten weeks in a row....THEN a scientist might start to be impressed. But however much it might appear 'interesting'....no scientist is going to get interested with odds around 1 in 50. Such odds are just not statistically significant enough.

 

[Guest]

If you got 3 lottery numbers right ( odds of 1 in 1000 ) ten weeks in a row....THEN a scientist might start to be impressed.

For the record, 'I' (alternate-future) tried that with 'you' (alternate-future). Even on three successful tests (and one failure) in a row, 'you' didn't like the probabilities involved anyway (you didn't feel they were high enough, despite this being the LOTTERY - a place where lightning strikes a man more frequently - if I win I alter history, grandfather paradox), and 'you' felt the single failure on the end justified your point I was somehow wrong.

I did point out there wouldn't be many alternate versions that would have gotten as far as ten weeks (this is 2 drawings per week, for 10 weeks... that's at least 20 lifetimes/iterations... I'm not here for pure trial and error science experiments).

I got tired of the expenditure (it's not like it's free... and no, choosing numbers without buying tickets didn't offer the 'photographic proof' required at a later stage by an even more stoic member).

[Note: Aw come on man. Don't give me that 'don't post here if you can't prove it' rubbish. I never intended to prove anything. Read the first post! And properly this time... this *time*... if you get me. You don't. This timeline. It means... this timeline. This alternate dimension timeline.]

[Add. Note: And chill. I am trying to find people 'like me' - I am not trying to troll or 'pull one over' you (and the other skeptics). The first post is simply for others, who experience similar things, to find it here, talk to me, maybe get some answers. In the meantime, I'm just passing on what I know to you. Even if you only see single-linearly. Gets a bit old performing the same experiments and writing the same posts to a same or similar version of you getting the same pretenious skeptic rubbish. You're human. Sure, you don't think it's 'rubbish'. You think it's 'science'. But science isn't an excuse to be a dismissive jerk in every iteration... [It doesn't mean the inverse - that you have to accept it. Just don't. No need to be rude about it though.] and nor is it a reason to be defensive. We could discuss other topics? I'm not here for your 'approval' (I'm pretty convinced already - just looking/waiting for others) - I'm just offering information that you might understand.

You're human Twi. You're not an armchair scientist. Or an egotistical bigot like I am.]


Actually, maybe you'd might like to help. And anyone else for that matter.

Do you know anyone else who has been talking about having a sense of 'deja vu'? And are any of them still active. They are the people I want to talk with.

no scientist is going to get interested with odds around 1 in 50. Such odds are just not statistically significant enough.

It wasn't odds of 1 of 50. That's the odds for a singular pick of one number. 12 numbers drawn, banks of 6, total number of drawn numbers predicted for both banks; both correct (you want the odds for knowing the numbers of drawn ball in two drawn banks). I know you hate statistics number crunching anyway, so I'll skip it this time.

'interesting'

You're thinking of the time traversal post. If I do mention interesting... well, it should raise an eyebrow even in your hardened skeptical heart - which I have yet to convince in any timeline.

Oh, Oh, you think I'm trying to pull some sort of... not at all. No need to be defensive. Put it this way - if I do convince you this time, it's not like I'd automatically convince any of your other 'selves'.

(Pst; how did I know you'd appeal to coincidence? )

Oh. And has anyone experienced a sense of 'deja vu' yet? : )

 

[Darby]

Rusty,

The problem with your Paradox #1 and Paradox #2 is that they aren't at all paradoxical situations. A paradox is self-contradiction.

We don't walk around with an event horizon impinging on the tip of our noses. Virtually every action that we take every day is predicated on our future expectations based on past experiences. We all have "glimpses" of the future. But that in no way implies that we are receiving information in the present from the future. Events either occur as we expect or they don't. There's no contradiction in either case.

Another problem, and most alt-sci time travel "theorists" have the problem, is applying the quantum mechanical behavior of sub-atomic particles to the macro world. Sub-atomic particles quantum tunnel, they have hazy positions and momenta, etc. None of that applies to the macro world where the uncertanties of the quantum are attenuated almost out of existence. Electrons don't have well defined positions. Billiard balls do. Electrons quantum tunnel through electronic components all the time (if they didn't solid state electronics wouldn't exist). A billiard ball will never during the lifetime of the universe quantum tunnel through the table and fall to the floor.

 

[Twighlight]

But science isn't an excuse to be a dismissive jerk in every iteration...

Science is science. It is not something you can reduce down to anyone's 'personal opinion'.....it is the cumulative knowledge and wisdom of thousands of people over several hundred years.

Science rightly demands proof......evidence. That is because there's all manner of claims that outwardly might appear impressive, but which when properly investigated turn out to have a perfectly mundane explanation and are not impressive at all.

There is no other mechanism I know of for determining what is valid and what isn't.