Re: Pamela\'s Top Ten Most Leading Titor Questions
mmmmmmmm.......................I just do not think that anyone can begin to give a hard-science angle to any sort of time travelling. Take this statement as posted via the article:
The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes. © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.
First to me that statement is half-witted. A similiar version may go like this:
I show that mathematically that the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself, that I can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.
This is not an attack on whether or not the math can explain exactly what they have stated. No, it is an attack on how the article is presented. First, there is nothing to explain what experiments actually were done to condone the math done in the first place, and it seems to be a self-cycling prediction. To me, anyone can not have probabilistic outcomes if predictions in the first place exclude probabilistic outcomes. The only thing the prediction can do with that math is show what a person wanted as a result in the first place. In the end, it leaves many questions unanswered, or at the best, a lot of research has to be done to even begin to know what it is that they were talking about.
A person would have to develop paranormal abilities to know anything in the first place then, or psychic powers as whatever term is applied. And again this seems to have been done to a degree in some psychology experiments, but again, all I ever hear is that it never pans out, that in the end, the statements by some of some extraordinary events out of some people never seem to be born out in the controlled experiments that would prove such statements.
All I can say then, is that scientists or people have to be careful about what is really going on, and not get caught up in the hype of any such statements, including mine in this post. I am not assuming here in the end. Perhaps it is just that I do not know as much, but again if someone else claims to know about all of this, then it has to be proved -- not so much as to any time travelling, but then as a science that can be born out of experiments that actually prove it to be the case.
In my case I just do not have the time to endeavor in a field where I have to know totally more of what is going on, then what the people in the field of study would know what is going on. I merely state that they never give all the details when making these statements in articles that preclude that I can make any judgement as to the validity of what was stated.
In other words, if all of that would be probabilistic outcomes, then perhaps my head is just dense, because I can not understand how or why any such quantum computer would ever come out with an answer. First it would give this answer and due to the probabilistic outcomes, it would give another answer if ran again. Again this all leads to deterministic outcomes or a fate kind of destiny, and that does not leave the future open to have the grace or power to come out with another probability. Seems kind of self-defeating to me.
All I can come up with then, is that scientists have a concern as to where they think the future is heading, just as anyone else can have a concern, and by its own merits it all may be a defeatists' attitude. The same can apply to that phrase that "Death can be defeated" kind of thinking, that life can be extended, and all of that. It is the mixing up of unrelated theories that again can not define any meaningful purpose in the end, and sets up a state whereby it can be made to be self-consistent to be defeatist, instead of open-ended whereby it can be a win-win conclusion. Afterall, there have been books out also on that subject. So, whether as JT stated that it is a bell-shaped curve or not seem to be a question that infers perhaps too much on such a shape, and only models that should and I say should determine truths can only be models that determine the outcome before the experiment is done, and that the experiments were wrong in jumping to conclusions in the first place and not be the type of experiments that they should be - and that is the experiment that shows a result then the determination of that experiment made that fits the reality of what the experiment showed the reality to be.
I prefer not to run around in circles like a dog chasing its own tail either clockwise or counterclockwise. I do support fuzzy logic though, and that, that is much harder to program than mere comparison statements that may leave only one conclusion in the end. That statement would be similiar to - the world blew up, because no one could actually create time travel, and not the other way around -- the world blew up, because people were creating time travel. The two are not the same in the end, and whether time travel would have been created in the first place, a person can not say that any increase in science experiments or funding can lead to a false conclusion of a determinent experiment in the first place.
I can not place any faith in such dim-witted or half-witted statements in articles. I call it hype, of hoping something can come out of such endeavors such as trying to creat a quantum computer as such for example. But again, one has to have an idea of what a quantum computer would be capable of, and not merely that it should be able to do such and such. That is similiar to the thinking that the human brain should be able to think of all the answers instead of just some answers to certain questions, because in the end, humans all equated to being the same, instead of being unique.
It all seemed to me that science was trying to create something new out of illogical and irrational answers to questions that were illogical and irrational in the first place, and then, something was created new in science, but it was again nothing that was thought of as being in the first place. It only came around because all the other things could not happen being as illogical and irrational as they were. Just another way of saying that things can only be found out by being dumb and by luck.
Perhaps then people should believe in miracles, because by that definition, a miracle would only come about by being dumb and by luck. I doubt though that the definitions can change because still there is a standard via which the Word and Rules seem to go by. The rest just seems to be boredom that some subjects are not happening faster in results to some Grand Design via some person. I rather believe in some Grand Design by Some Intelligent Being such as God.
I can only imagine how to feel not having the same experiences as some other people. But my, how boring that all would be if everyone did have all the same expeiences. Life would absolutely be boring then. Thank God, that Life is not what others would have you think it is, and that All of Creation is Unique.
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif
