Is This a CIA, Navy Seal Time Traveling Disclosure?

[RainmanTime]

Have you ever run into a family member or an old friend that you haven't seen in a while? You compare memories, and the other persons memories don't exactly match yours. It does stand to reason that since we all have freedom of choice as to which future we choose, not all of us will choose the same future. And those of us that don't, will have different memories of the past than we do.

This does suggest that our minds have the ability to take us physically to alternate timelines.

You are using an event to select the conclusion that you wish to be true, rather than properly analyzing all potential reasons for the circumstances surrounding that event. I can think of two other reasons that are much more mundane than the one you put forth:

1) The two family members have exercised their free will in what they chose to remember (i.e. what details were important to them). And because we already know the human mind can make decisions based on their biases unconciously, this freedom of choice that alters what the two people remember is not even something they actively recall.
2) The more likely reason has been demonstrated though innumerable studies: Two or more people witnessing the exact same event will remember different things. We have seen this in murder trials many times, and yet you never see a lawyer decide to select the defense strategy of "well those two witnesses were just on different timelines" as a means to get their defendant out of a murder-1 charge.

You cannot just select the reasoning that you desire for what you describe. You must analyze all reasonable possibilities, and I would suggest that the two possibilities I have outlined above are at least a tad more reasonable than the "different timelines" theory.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

You are using an event to select the conclusion that you wish to be true, rather than properly analyzing all potential reasons for the circumstances surrounding that event. I can think of two other reasons that are much more mundane than the one you put forth:

1) The two family members have exercised their free will in what they chose to remember (i.e. what details were important to them). And because we already know the human mind can make decisions based on their biases unconciously, this freedom of choice that alters what the two people remember is not even something they actively recall.
2) The more likely reason has been demonstrated though innumerable studies: Two or more people witnessing the exact same event will remember different things. We have seen this in murder trials many times, and yet you never see a lawyer decide to select the defense strategy of "well those two witnesses were just on different timelines" as a means to get their defendant out of a murder-1 charge.

You cannot just select the reasoning that you desire for what you describe. You must analyze all reasonable possibilities, and I would suggest that the two possibilities I have outlined above are at least a tad more reasonable than the "different timelines" theory.

RMT

Yes, I agree with you. There would be many different explanations for the phenomena I described. I just chose mine because I like it.

And I might suggest an experiment that you might do that may take you to an alternate timeline where you may or may not notice some differences in your surroundings. Make a choice about what you will wear today that you normally wouldn't do. An example that I chose one time was to wear a shirt inside out and backwards along with a different shoe on each foot. And then just go about the day and pay attention to the surroundings. I suppose it all depends on how much detail you are used to remembering. I noticed a neighbor that I hadn't seen in six months. Yet I could have sworn she moved out six months prior. Just little things that are out of place like that. Of course you can reason it out your own way. Another popular theory would be "The Losing Your Mind Theory".

 

[RainmanTime]

Another popular theory would be "The Losing Your Mind Theory".

Believe me, there are times when I fully consider that this theory explains some situations I find myself in!
RMT

 

[Mylo.X.]

You can research the internet it was formed in the 70's but we really didn't get it until the 90's. 20 years later.

I was under the impression that the internet (or Apranet as it was apparently known in the early days) was not initially created for the public. I thought it was a system that was created for easier communication between academics and government agencies?

 

[PaulLev]

I'm still not sure I fully understand what you're trying to convey (it's probably due to my bias and selective viewpoint, lol).

"but neither will they be locked into a pre-ordained or pre-determined certainty."


Your own free choice produces a fixed path for you to travel. That path is created by you and you alone. So we are in agreement on that premise.

"You travel to tomorrow, and see that I am wearing a red shirt..."

Okay, this is how I understand it. I have travelled "forward" to tomorrow (Tuesday) and you are already there in your red shirt and I see you wearing the red shirt. You have made the choice to wear the red shirt.

"But when I wake up tomorrow morning, I'm more in the mood to put on a blue shirt."

This is what I do not quite understand. How can you wake up tomorrow morning again? How can you be in the mood for a blue shirt, when it is already Tuesday and you are wearing a red shirt? I have travelled forward to the future and witnessed you in a red shirt, which should not have impacted on your free will (your choice that has produced the fixed path of you wearing a red shirt). Unless you mean I travel "back" to Monday with the knowledge of you wearing a red shirt on Tuesday? But I thought we were exploring:

"Travel to the future does avoid the paradoxes, but it's inconsistent with free will."

P.S. I now understand what you mean about my analogy about the telegraph pole. If certain people can "see" into the future, then it implies there is a fixed pre-determined path in life, that cannot be altered.

Ok - let me just address the point you say you do not quite understand: "This is what I do not quite understand. How can you wake up tomorrow morning again? How can you be in the mood for a blue shirt, when it is already Tuesday and you are wearing a red shirt? I have travelled forward to the future and witnessed you in a red shirt, which should not have impacted on your free will (your choice that has produced the fixed path of you wearing a red shirt). Unless you mean I travel "back" to Monday with the knowledge of you wearing a red shirt on Tuesday?"

Here is what I mean: Today exists right now, this instant. You, in a time machine, travel to tomorrow and see me wearing a red shirt. Meanwhile, I, still in today, progress to tonight, go to sleep, wake up tomorrow - and choose to put on a blue shirt. The only way you could be seeing me in a red shirt would be if your tomorrow and my tomorrow were different, which would require a multiple worlds interpretation, just like travel to the past. (Or, I have no free will, and have no choice but to wear a red shirt, if you have the ability to travel to tomorrow and see me in a red shirt.)

 

[PaulLev]

Okay, so now I'm a day into the future. And I chose the blue shirt to wear. But my buddy with the time machine went to a future where I chose a red shirt to wear. He is now on another timeline. If I do run into him, the version I meet will be an alternate version of him. He may not share the same memories of the past that I do. And that's a match to a phenomena that I have experienced and possibly you too....

Right - I agree completely with that - which is why I've been saying that time travel to the future either requires a multi-worlds interpretation (just like travel to the past, to avoid the grandparent paradox, etc), or is incompatible with free will (which be the case with just one universe, in which you seeing me in a blue shirt tomorrow would require me to wear a blue shirt tomorrow).

By the way, there is a fun way we could work around this. You see me in red shirt tomorrow. I wake up tomorrow and want to wear a blue. A put a blue shirt on, but, before I leave, I spill my coffee all over it. So I go back to the closet and get the only clean shirt I now have - a red shirt.

In that scenario, the universe is conspiring to deprive me of my free will

 

[PaulLev]

I was under the impression that the internet (or Apranet as it was apparently known in the early days) was not initially created for the public. I thought it was a system that was created for easier communication between academics and government agencies?

Right - the Arpanet was developed for the military in the late 1960s, operated in conjunction with some academic sites, and was turned over completely to the academic world in the 1980s.

 

[Jack Wade]

I was under the impression that the internet (or Apranet as it was apparently known in the early days) was not initially created for the public. I thought it was a system that was created for easier communication between academics and government agencies?

With any great invention, the topic behind the scenes is money, how much can we make.
Between computers, software and e-commerce I would imagine we are now experiencing the original idea.
Things always go gov first, public later. That way those inventors use gov. grants to achieve success.
and The gov. gets the best tech for a while.
It took a long time to develop the filters to remove the frequency range and even though there are many in a power supply it is only one that does the job. The keyboard was the absolute hardest they said. Somehow radiant energy gets in through an adding machine sitting next to it. I would imagine computers always received this information, but the introduction of the operating system is what finally pulled it all together and for the first time they actually realized the phenomena. I do not know what OS they used in the 60's and 70's or the exact dates, it was a long time ago. I was told early 70's when they found the phenomena. If you hold the antenna of a cheap shortwave radio to the monitor, keyboard or the adding machine you can hear the energy leaving. If you sit it next to the computer as you work you will hear the computer working. They say the filters prevent information loss but hackers come through another cable and would it matter on my home computer, what are they going to find that is so important it needs to be filtered out.
They sure don't mind that every child in America enjoys the smut online maybe they need a filter for that.

 

[Mylo.X.]

Here is what I mean: Today exists right now, this instant. You, in a time machine, travel to tomorrow and see me wearing a red shirt. Meanwhile, I, still in today, progress to tonight, go to sleep, wake up tomorrow - and choose to put on a blue shirt. The only way you could be seeing me in a red shirt would be if your tomorrow and my tomorrow were different, which would require a multiple worlds interpretation, just like travel to the past. (Or, I have no free will, and have no choice but to wear a red shirt, if you have the ability to travel to tomorrow and see me in a red shirt.)

I'm still not getting it for some reason. It seems like the above scenario is suggesting "I" reach tomorrow before "you" actually do. It's like the scenario is implying "today" and "tomorrow" are 2 seperate entities.... Picture this scenario.

Outside your house, I climb into my "mylo-mk2", time-machine and decide to venture into the future. I inform you that I will see you tomorrow. From my perspective, it takes me 5 minutes to travel forward and arrive outside your house. I disembark my time machine and see you open your front door, wearing your red shirt. From your perspective, you go to sleep, wake up 7 hours later and after a few moments debating with yourself, you decide to put on a red shirt. As you open the front door, you see me disembarking my time machine. In this scenario, we both arrive at the same destination (outside your house) on the same day, but from my perspective, it has taken 5 mins and from your perspective, 7 hours. As far as I can see, no laws have been violated (in regard to free will). You chose to wear a red shirt (from a choice of 7 different colours). For you, it's a normal morning, that arrived 7 hours after going to sleep. For me, its still a normal morning, but it arrived 5 minutes after climbing into the time machine, due to the incomphrensible speed of the "mylo-mk2".

If I've still got this wrong, I need someone to exactly pinpoint where, as its starting to hurt my brain....lol.

 

[Darby]

I'm still not getting it for some reason. It seems like the above scenario is suggesting "I" reach tomorrow before "you" actually do. It's like the scenario is implying "today" and "tomorrow" are 2 seperate entities.... Picture this scenario.

In Paul's many worlds scenario you really don't need to think of it as today and tomorrow; red shirt, blue shirt or multiple "me". Because there is no spacetime link (or causality link) between the different universes there is no reason to compare people, clocks, calendars or events. Comparison implies commonality. The infinite spacetimes share no commonality. Once the probability wave plays itself out the newly created universes are totally independent of one another. What happens in one universe, after a reasonably short period of time, cannot be used to predict what will occur in another universe because the initial conditions in each universe are somewhat different.

This part of MWI is usually left out of the discussion: you cannot communicate from one universe to another universe. That's a basic premise of the entire theory. If you could communicate between them then there would be a spacetime link. It would be one universe. Even the attempt to communicate is an "event" with infinite possible outcomes. The attempt simply creates a new set of universes each with different outcomes, but none with the outcome of "communication established." While the number of possible outcomes is infinite, thus the number of created universes is also infinite, the only outcomes are those allowed by the laws of physics as contained in the probability function. It is not a situation of "anything that can be imagined is possible."

 

[Jcpo]

In Paul's many worlds scenario you really don't need to think of it as today and tomorrow; red shirt, blue shirt or multiple "me". Because there is no spacetime link (or causality link) between the different universes there is no reason to compare people, clocks, calendars or events. Comparison implies commonality. The infinite spacetimes share no commonality. Once the probability wave plays itself out the newly created universes are totally independent of one another. What happens in one universe, after a reasonably short period of time, cannot be used to predict what will occur in another universe because the initial conditions in each universe are somewhat different.

So let's say I play with 2 dices, each time I launch them there are 21 versum created ?
And so what would determine which one my mind would follow ?

This part of MWI is usually left out of the discussion: you cannot communicate from one universe to another universe. That's a basic premise of the entire theory. If you could communicate between them then there would be a spacetime link. It would be one universe. Even the attempt to communicate is an "event" with infinite possible outcomes. The attempt simply creates a new set of universes each with different outcomes, but none with the outcome of "communication established." While the number of possible outcomes is infinite, thus the number of created universes is also infinite, the only outcomes are those allowed by the laws of physics as contained in the probability function. It is not a situation of "anything that can be imagined is possible."

Well that is more exponential than infinite but actually it's the same. How can this respect the laws of physics ? The amount of energy in the multivers would be rather superior to what we expect. Also when will it stop/how can this stop ?

What I'm sure is that there is only one END.

 

[Jack Wade]

Lets say life is like a deck of cards 1 card for every millisecond of your life
each life has a it's own deck from start to finish
each card in the deck is running in it's own dimension
each card in the deck generally follows the same path as the card before it.

The card each of us is experiencing right now has a frequency relative to everyone else we know, gluing us together in this specific dimension

but if somehow you were able to change your frequency a little lower and jump back 1 minute or 60,000 cards would your friends shirt change color? probably not, they still follow the same path.

Lets say you mark that date on the calender and periodically jump back for he next 50 years to check their shirt would your friends shirt then change color? probably, by that time tiny changes in life would have altered the timeline and you would find out that your friend never bought that shirt.

Lets say you go back in time 5 days change something drastically, a huge change
but you only come forward 4 days instead of returning to us.
would we know you changed something? I don't think so
I think the timeline only effects those who are aware of the fact it is being changed
since you never came back to us, we would not be aware of it

I do think that could be the reason why two people can see the same thing in two separate ways, they may not have seen the same thing at all, maybe they move through their deck a wee bit faster than you.

I often wonder if squirrels are going slow and we are moving fast, experiencing the squirrels life cycle faster.

Only one way to find out I guess...

 

[Jcpo]

Lets say you go back in time 5 days change something drastically, a huge change
but you only come forward 4 days instead of returning to us.
would we know you changed something? I don't think so
I think the timeline only effects those who are aware of the fact it is being changed
since you never came back to us, we would not be aware of it

Where are you ? And where am I ?

 

[Jack Wade]

We both start off in day 5
you travel back 5 days to day 1
the travel forward to day 4
at the conclusion to your travel
I would be in one dimension in day 5, not experiencing any changes you have made
You would be in another dimension totally aware of my dimension in day 4, experiencing your changes

hmmm, a strange thought i have had indeed

 

[Jcpo]

As Doc says : "Don't talk to anyone, don't touch anything, don't do anything, don't interact with anyone and try not to look at anything."

 

[PaulLev]

I'm still not getting it for some reason. It seems like the above scenario is suggesting "I" reach tomorrow before "you" actually do. It's like the scenario is implying "today" and "tomorrow" are 2 seperate entities.... Picture this scenario.

Outside your house, I climb into my "mylo-mk2", time-machine and decide to venture into the future. I inform you that I will see you tomorrow. From my perspective, it takes me 5 minutes to travel forward and arrive outside your house. I disembark my time machine and see you open your front door, wearing your red shirt. From your perspective, you go to sleep, wake up 7 hours later and after a few moments debating with yourself, you decide to put on a red shirt. As you open the front door, you see me disembarking my time machine. In this scenario, we both arrive at the same destination (outside your house) on the same day, but from my perspective, it has taken 5 mins and from your perspective, 7 hours. As far as I can see, no laws have been violated (in regard to free will). You chose to wear a red shirt (from a choice of 7 different colours). For you, it's a normal morning, that arrived 7 hours after going to sleep. For me, its still a normal morning, but it arrived 5 minutes after climbing into the time machine, due to the incomphrensible speed of the "mylo-mk2".

If I've still got this wrong, I need someone to exactly pinpoint where, as its starting to hurt my brain....lol.

Ok - here's the pinpoint: You write, "You chose to wear a red shirt." But my point is: let's say I decide to wear a green shirt? Your point that "no laws have been violated" only holds if I "choose" to wear exactly what you saw. But unless I have a real choice of wearing something else, my "choice" of wearing a red shirt is not really a choice. Hence, your view of me in a red shirt tomorrow afternoon violates my free will (or freedom of choice) about what color shirt I put on tomorrow morning. Your seeing me in a red shirt tomorrow locks me into wearing that shirt.

Does that help?

 

[PaulLev]

As Doc says : "Don't talk to anyone, don't touch anything, don't do anything, don't interact with anyone and try not to look at anything."

Exactly!

 

[Mylo.X.]

Ok - here's the pinpoint: You write, "You chose to wear a red shirt." But my point is: let's say I decide to wear a green shirt? Your point that "no laws have been violated" only holds if I "choose" to wear exactly what you saw. But unless I have a real choice of wearing something else, my "choice" of wearing a red shirt is not really a choice. Hence, your view of me in a red shirt tomorrow afternoon violates my free will (or freedom of choice) about what color shirt I put on tomorrow morning. Your seeing me in a red shirt tomorrow locks me into wearing that shirt.

Does that help?

I'm still missing something.... and I can't see what it is.

In the example I gave you, it doesn't matter what colour shirt you put on, the crux of the issue (how I see it) is that we both arrive at Wednesday morning, at the same destination (your house). It took you 7 hours to get there, it took me 5 minutes to get there in my "mylo-mk2" time machine. Whatever shirt you decide to wear Wednesday morning is your choice, be it red, white or blue. It doesn't necessarily have to be a red shirt. So this, imo, negates your comment:

"But unless I have a real choice of wearing something else, my "choice" of wearing a red shirt is not really a choice."

Wednesday morning is like any other day of the week. There is nothing special about it (apart from me arriving at Wednesday morning in 5 minutes). You still get to make your own choices, determine your own path for the day. Me witnessing whatever colour shirt you are wearing does not impact on those choices.

Remember, I have taken a 1 way trip forward. My "mylo-mk2" machine is incapable of travelling backward. The scenario I present, is no different to me travelling overseas by plane on Tuesday night and arriving at your house on Wednesday morning, to see you wearing whatever coloured shirt you chose to wear.

"Travel to the future does avoid the paradoxes, but it's inconsistent with free will." (your original comment, which prompted my replies).

I'm still struggling to see how any laws have been violated with regards to free will. I'm not being purposefully awkward, but just wondering if anybody else sees it the way I see it?

 

[Einstein]

I'm still missing something.... and I can't see what it is.

In the example I gave you, it doesn't matter what colour shirt you put on, the crux of the issue (how I see it) is that we both arrive at Wednesday morning, at the same destination (your house). It took you 7 hours to get there, it took me 5 minutes to get there in my "mylo-mk2" time machine. Whatever shirt you decide to wear Wednesday morning is your choice, be it red, white or blue. It doesn't necessarily have to be a red shirt. So this, imo, negates your comment:

"But unless I have a real choice of wearing something else, my "choice" of wearing a red shirt is not really a choice."

Wednesday morning is like any other day of the week. There is nothing special about it (apart from me arriving at Wednesday morning in 5 minutes). You still get to make your own choices, determine your own path for the day. Me witnessing whatever colour shirt you are wearing does not impact on those choices.

Remember, I have taken a 1 way trip forward, my "mylo-mk2" machine is incapable of travelling backward. The scenario I present, is no different to me travelling overseas by plane on Tuesday night and arriving at your house on Wednesday morning, to see you wearing whatever coloured shirt you chose to wear.

"Travel to the future does avoid the paradoxes, but it's inconsistent with free will." (your original comment, which prompted my replies).

I'm still struggling to see how any laws have been violated with regards to free will. I'm not being purposefully awkward, but just wondering if anybody else sees it the way I see it?

Yes, I see what it is that you can't get past. It appears that you are assuming only one timeline to exercise freewill. But only one timeline allows for only one freewill choice. Perhaps that's the rule for only one timeline. But what if all the other choices one could make also exist on parallel timelines? And I think that is the part you can't get past. Will the person you see today that puts on a red shirt tomorrow morning, be the same person you were with today? What I'm saying is if that person you were with today chose a blue shirt tomorrow morning, and you arrived in a future where he chose a red shirt instead. Then it becomes obvious that your time machine didn't take you to the correct future. But how would you know which future that would be?

 

[Darby]

So let's say I play with 2 dices, each time I launch them there are 21 versum created ?
And so what would determine which one my mind would follow ?

Well that is more exponential than infinite but actually it's the same. How can this respect the laws of physics ? The amount of energy in the multivers would be rather superior to what we expect. Also when will it stop/how can this stop ?

What I'm sure is that there is only one END.

1. And so what would determine which one my mind would follow ?

You "follow" the outcome that you observe. There is only one "you". The dopplegangers are similar to, but not the same as, you. There is no spacetime or causality relationship between you and your dopplegangers.

2. Well that is more exponential than infinite but actually it's the same. How can this respect the laws of physics ? The amount of energy in the multivers would be rather superior to what we expect.

In this scenario there is no problem with what, on its face, seems to be infinite mass/energy being created. Again, there is no connection between the spacetime of one universe and the others. Mass/energy is conserved in each universe. And in general relativity mass/energy is not a strictly conserved component of the universe. Observation and measurement of events is limited by the speed of light thus conservation of mass/energy is only a local phenomona. You cannot, even in theory, measure the total mass.energy of the universe as it is "now". Everything that you observe is a relic of the past coming from your past light cone. The failure of absolute simultaniety of events is central to special relativity.

3. Also when will it stop/how can this stop ?

It doesn't stop. In this theory every quantum event involving situations that can have multiple outcomes creates as many new universes as there are possible outcomes. You run an electron through a Stern-Gerlach device to determine its spin. You have, at a minimum, five possible outcomes (its actually infinite but there are at least 5). You correctly measure spin up, you correctly measure spin down, you incorrectly measure spin up, you incorrectly measure spin down, you fail to make any measurement. Each of these five outcomes is played out in a newly created universe.

Now, I don't necessarily believe that Hugh Everett's view of quantum mechanics is correct as posited in his 1957 paper that only partially satisfied the dissertation requirement for his PhD. Very few physicists believe that his position, even as extrapolated by follow on papers by other physicists, correctly interprets quantum mechanics. If you've read the paper, and it is available on the Internet, you'll immediately see that it is a very short paper. Everett wasn't a physicist. He was a mathematician and electrical engineer. Brilliant, yes. But not a physicist. In fact, after completing his PhD he left physics entirely, went to work for the DoD and spent the rest of his professional career developing computer game theory for the US military - very secret stuff. That work far surpassed his paper "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Machanics" (incorrectly called Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - that was coined by Bryce DeWitt during the 1960's). A lot of the work that Everett did in the 1950's and 1960's resulted in the current state of military electronics and computer technology.