Mop
Temporal Navigator
Man arrested at LHC claims he\'s from the future
Man arrested at Large Hadron Collider claims he's from the future
Man arrested at Large Hadron Collider claims he's from the future
Man arrested at LHC claims he's from the future
- Thread starter Mop
- Start date
KerrTexas
Super Moderator
Re: Man arrested at LHC claims he\'s from the future
Although the April 1st date brings in a large dose of doubt as to the validity of the story, I don't know why people would think it odd that the supposed time traveler vanished from his cell?
IF the government officials thought there was even the slightest chance that he was indeed a time traveler, off to a secret military base/research facility he would go, with nary a trace left behind.
Although the April 1st date brings in a large dose of doubt as to the validity of the story, I don't know why people would think it odd that the supposed time traveler vanished from his cell?
IF the government officials thought there was even the slightest chance that he was indeed a time traveler, off to a secret military base/research facility he would go, with nary a trace left behind.
concusion3
Temporal Novice
Re: Man arrested at LHC claims he\'s from the future
Its obviously an April Fools day post kids, cmon now.
Its obviously an April Fools day post kids, cmon now.
lledbetter2266
Chrono Cadet
Re: Man arrested at LHC claims he\'s from the future
"Time travelers" as you refer to them, are actually physicists who have volunteered as test subjects for various projects, due to their devotion to their scientific field of study.
You do not 'see' "time travelers" from the future. You may read their postings (text-based information acquisition is fully permitted by the equations, and is scientifically proven as a safe means to communicate), but you will never "see" one, or come into physical contact with a person from the future. Correction, you may come into contact, but you will not be able to 'observe' said person, because you will have no conscious awareness that said person is a 'time traveler'. Therefore, you do not 'observe' the said person. This is crucial. And it is all in the mind, or conscious observation of the 'observer'. If I don't "know" that you are a time traveler, then, I have not observed a time traveler (in my mind). Since all existence is dependent upon conscious observation of the 'mind' (still, even now, undefined), therefore seeing what you don't know what you are seeing is therefore not 'observation'. This means, as defined scientifically, "observation" MUST include a conscious thought that one is actually aware of said observation. If not, then one has not "observed". This has been proven in experimental environments and is an accepted scientific fact, not a theory.
Therefore, now, you can understand that there is no possibility that you can "observe" (see) a time traveler from the 'future', because a) the 'time traveler' possesses knowledge of the previously stated conditions, and experiments are designed to avoid physical "observation" of their existence in your 'time', b) the 'time traveler' does not intend to interrupt causality, which could produce an exponentially destructive effect, and c) the 'time traveler' has only two goals: 1) to study historical events for the purpose of more accurately defining the past, and 2) preservation of his or her observed reality. Further, since quantum systems are indeterminable, we risk varying degrees of altered realities upon returning to our own 'time'. These variations can be great, or miniscule, depending upon the accuracy of our calculations relating to range values of the selected grid points. (more information available on this topic if requested, but of course, only in textual format).
I hope this explanation helps you in your understandings of the science. Thank you.
S.Z.
"Time travelers" as you refer to them, are actually physicists who have volunteered as test subjects for various projects, due to their devotion to their scientific field of study.
You do not 'see' "time travelers" from the future. You may read their postings (text-based information acquisition is fully permitted by the equations, and is scientifically proven as a safe means to communicate), but you will never "see" one, or come into physical contact with a person from the future. Correction, you may come into contact, but you will not be able to 'observe' said person, because you will have no conscious awareness that said person is a 'time traveler'. Therefore, you do not 'observe' the said person. This is crucial. And it is all in the mind, or conscious observation of the 'observer'. If I don't "know" that you are a time traveler, then, I have not observed a time traveler (in my mind). Since all existence is dependent upon conscious observation of the 'mind' (still, even now, undefined), therefore seeing what you don't know what you are seeing is therefore not 'observation'. This means, as defined scientifically, "observation" MUST include a conscious thought that one is actually aware of said observation. If not, then one has not "observed". This has been proven in experimental environments and is an accepted scientific fact, not a theory.
Therefore, now, you can understand that there is no possibility that you can "observe" (see) a time traveler from the 'future', because a) the 'time traveler' possesses knowledge of the previously stated conditions, and experiments are designed to avoid physical "observation" of their existence in your 'time', b) the 'time traveler' does not intend to interrupt causality, which could produce an exponentially destructive effect, and c) the 'time traveler' has only two goals: 1) to study historical events for the purpose of more accurately defining the past, and 2) preservation of his or her observed reality. Further, since quantum systems are indeterminable, we risk varying degrees of altered realities upon returning to our own 'time'. These variations can be great, or miniscule, depending upon the accuracy of our calculations relating to range values of the selected grid points. (more information available on this topic if requested, but of course, only in textual format).
I hope this explanation helps you in your understandings of the science. Thank you.
S.Z.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Man arrested at LHC claims he\'s from the future
Citation, please. Because I do not buy it.
In engineering, it is perfectly acceptable that a quantified measurement is also an observation. And it does not require a conscious thought. Only a device that measures and records the observed event.
So again, please cite when you make such claims and say they are scientifically accepted facts. Thanks,
RMT
Citation, please. Because I do not buy it.
In engineering, it is perfectly acceptable that a quantified measurement is also an observation. And it does not require a conscious thought. Only a device that measures and records the observed event.
So again, please cite when you make such claims and say they are scientifically accepted facts. Thanks,
RMT
Darby
Epochal Historian
Re: Man arrested at LHC claims he\'s from the future
LB,
Thank you for posting.
Of, sure, it looks like you're going down the road of a would be time traveler. Hell, this is a time travel site so it is par for the course. But we went for months with nary a post so it's encouraging to see something here to post about.
Now just remember this: Rainman and I are rationalists. Time travel is not impossible, at least so far as the mathematical laws of physics that we are aware of. But as educated rationalists we also know that math resuts of a known and reliable physics theory does not mean that each and every possible solution to the math is correct in the physical sense. Therefore we will sternly question anyone who claims to be a time traveler. What is not so obvious is that if the proposed TT makes logical answer to the questions then we will engage in honest debate. We are not bullies.
Have fun with this. Do your best to come up with well founded answers and be prepared to defend them. Do that and we will all have an enjoyable experience and may even learn something new. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
LB,
Thank you for posting.
Of, sure, it looks like you're going down the road of a would be time traveler. Hell, this is a time travel site so it is par for the course. But we went for months with nary a post so it's encouraging to see something here to post about.
Now just remember this: Rainman and I are rationalists. Time travel is not impossible, at least so far as the mathematical laws of physics that we are aware of. But as educated rationalists we also know that math resuts of a known and reliable physics theory does not mean that each and every possible solution to the math is correct in the physical sense. Therefore we will sternly question anyone who claims to be a time traveler. What is not so obvious is that if the proposed TT makes logical answer to the questions then we will engage in honest debate. We are not bullies.
Have fun with this. Do your best to come up with well founded answers and be prepared to defend them. Do that and we will all have an enjoyable experience and may even learn something new. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Darby
Epochal Historian
Re: Man arrested at LHC claims he\'s from the future
OK. Now having said what I said in the previos post I have to agree with Rainman. Ray and I know that in quantum mechanics the idea of "observation" is not always so straight forward a situation as we would normally think that is is. In QM two sub-atomic particles engaging in an interaction is usually considered an observation. It does not require the srtong (or even weak) anthropic principle for some action to take place in physics. If that were the case then we would have no way to explain, even as an approximation, the Big Bang event.
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to witness the event does is make a sound" is a question that is often asked. Though we can't answer the question in absolute terms we can, however, state that the event - unwitnessed as it may have been - leaves evidence. Studying the evidence compels us to conclude that there was an event that included an energetic movement of the atmosphere that, had a witness with ears had been there, would have resulted in "sound". Sight, sound, touch, smell - anthropic events - are chemical in nature. We can quibble over the anthropomorphic necessity of having a sentient being present to conclude that whatever resulted in the sensual input was necessary to make the event "real" but when we consider the physical evidence left behind from the event we have a hard time denying that it actually occured.
OK. Now having said what I said in the previos post I have to agree with Rainman. Ray and I know that in quantum mechanics the idea of "observation" is not always so straight forward a situation as we would normally think that is is. In QM two sub-atomic particles engaging in an interaction is usually considered an observation. It does not require the srtong (or even weak) anthropic principle for some action to take place in physics. If that were the case then we would have no way to explain, even as an approximation, the Big Bang event.
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to witness the event does is make a sound" is a question that is often asked. Though we can't answer the question in absolute terms we can, however, state that the event - unwitnessed as it may have been - leaves evidence. Studying the evidence compels us to conclude that there was an event that included an energetic movement of the atmosphere that, had a witness with ears had been there, would have resulted in "sound". Sight, sound, touch, smell - anthropic events - are chemical in nature. We can quibble over the anthropomorphic necessity of having a sentient being present to conclude that whatever resulted in the sensual input was necessary to make the event "real" but when we consider the physical evidence left behind from the event we have a hard time denying that it actually occured.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Man arrested at LHC claims he\'s from the future
Are you hearing the same crickets that I am Darby?
RMT
Are you hearing the same crickets that I am Darby?
RMT
Darby
Epochal Historian
Re: Man arrested at LHC claims he\'s from the future
Ray,
Yeah, I hear the chirping.
It's been a week so I'll rebut my own post:
The evidence left behind only came into being when I observed it. That the tree fell and crushed a bush is not evidence of anything but my mental perception - one quantum result among an infinite number of possible results.
Re-Rebuttal:
That's fine and dandy but there's still a problem. If an infinite number of people walk by the "scene of the crime" they will all testify that the tree appears to have fallen and in so doing crushed the bush. (Which might be a ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy because we don't know for sure that the falling tree was the cause of the crushed bush. It could have been crushed before the tree fell because a big old bear sat on it. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif )
Re-Re-Rebuttal as reductio ad absurdum: the infinite number of people all walking bye are in your head...they don't actually exist (which begs the question then, do the tree and bush exist?)
Everything in the universe is not strictly relative and quantum physics does not state that everything is strictly indeterminate. The non-commutating state pairs of subatomic particles (i.e., position, velocity; mass, momentum) are indeterminate as to predicting their future values to arbitrary degrees of precission.
Ray,
Yeah, I hear the chirping.
It's been a week so I'll rebut my own post:
The evidence left behind only came into being when I observed it. That the tree fell and crushed a bush is not evidence of anything but my mental perception - one quantum result among an infinite number of possible results.
Re-Rebuttal:
That's fine and dandy but there's still a problem. If an infinite number of people walk by the "scene of the crime" they will all testify that the tree appears to have fallen and in so doing crushed the bush. (Which might be a ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy because we don't know for sure that the falling tree was the cause of the crushed bush. It could have been crushed before the tree fell because a big old bear sat on it. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif )
Re-Re-Rebuttal as reductio ad absurdum: the infinite number of people all walking bye are in your head...they don't actually exist (which begs the question then, do the tree and bush exist?)
Everything in the universe is not strictly relative and quantum physics does not state that everything is strictly indeterminate. The non-commutating state pairs of subatomic particles (i.e., position, velocity; mass, momentum) are indeterminate as to predicting their future values to arbitrary degrees of precission.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Man arrested at LHC claims he\'s from the future
Ahhhh, nice touch Darby. I shall have to employ that strategy some time.
RMT
Ahhhh, nice touch Darby. I shall have to employ that strategy some time.
RMT