Philosopical Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Time, space, the paranormal, the supernatural.

They all present their own interesting philosopical problems and blessings. Now, I've run a few of this case scenarios (you don't have to hold them as true or anything, it's theory) past myself, but I've always wondered how other people would react to them, and what course of action (or inaction) they would take in response. If you aren't keen of having philosopical ideas that convey a negative standpoint or bring up some incredibly objectional questions. Don't continue reading. Not even if you're just curious - if you prefer your current standpoint, imagine all these theorical ideas as tosh and click away.

Eternity

What if you live forever? Would you want to always continue living your life, regardless of how bad or good it gets? I'm not neccessarily talking the religious 'Heaven and Hell' kinda stuff, just always existing, always being, never able to die (not in an invincible sense, just when you die, you live a different life else-where).

What about the thought of never existing? Once you die, you're gone. You perceive nothing. An Eternal nothing. Forever. You will never come back, you will never walk the earth, go into space, or think, you're gone. Stopped. Halted.

Now, the real perplexing question lies here... Do you want to live forever, or be dead forever?

The second perplexing question is (if you want to live forever), would you want to remember your past, or, in the sense of reincarnation, would you prefer to be a blank slate everything you die? To be completely unaware of what's happening to you. If your memory is erased, then you, your persona, ego, abilities, skills, what makes you YOU is gone. Is it better to know the horrors of your past and be yourself, or be an ignorant fool forever?

Time

Now, take a pinch of the second perplexing question with this one. You are able to randomly see into the future, which gives you a 'lasting impression' of what the future might be, or could be, and lasts from 2 to 10 seconds each time...

You have a lasting impression you will die, however, you ignore this...

You're in a heated conversation with a friend, both of you are very angry. You get an impression of the various possible futures. From it, you learn if you continue with the argument, you're friend will hate you, and leave the conversation, which you know he won't ever speak to you again. You also learn if you stop arguing, you will always regret making that decision, and your friend will use it as a personal insult in future arguments. You can also tell him your impression of the future, however, he will not believe you, and thinking you was trying to get him to back down out of the argument, he will leave the conversation, and, again, will never speak to you. You get the distinct impression that the timeframe is limited, you have roughly 15 seconds to choose or formulate a solution.

Do note if you pick a potiential future, and then try to use the knowledge to prove it (say, by typing out what your friend will say before he says it, then saying you knew what he was going to say), your friend will only mis-inteprete that as mocking him, and if you say you knew due to the prediction, will believe you're trying to work your way out of the argument and never speaks to you again.

There is another option. Because the prediction is somewhat open-ended, you can formulate a new outcome, but remember, you have only 15 seconds to think it up and pull it off before it defaults to him leaving the conversation and never talking to you again.

Now, here's the perplexing part which will blow your brains. Do you pick the choices offered, and prove that fate exists, thus you will die? Or do you create a new solution? If you do create a new solution, how do you know it's not just part of fate, because remember, something has to give you the prediction in the first place so you know to make a new solution. What would you do? If you choose your own solution, what would it be? Try to fit it within the 15 second timescale.

Now, I said take the second perplexing question from Eternity. Apply it here. Are you remembering your choices from a previous life, or, are they truly predictions? If they are predictions, why can it not give you the prediction of what you *are* going to do? If it is your previous life/lives, why does it keep repeating? If they are your previous lives, does that mean you have suffered as many times as there have been choices? Or does forgetting what you suffered mean you never suffered at all? If someone is hurt, then has their memory erased, will the end result be a person who has never suffered because they can't remember it, or someone who has suffered, but has yet to learn how?

If anyone wants, I can present more philosopical questions on various instances. I just don't want people reading forever if they don't enjoy it.
 
You're in a heated conversation with a friend, both of you are very angry. You get an impression of the various possible futures. From it, you learn if you continue with the argument, you're friend will hate you, and leave the conversation, which you know he won't ever speak to you again. You also learn if you stop arguing, you will always regret making that decision, and your friend will use it as a personal insult in future arguments.
Click to expand...

This one is easy. This isn't your friend.

A real friend doesn't hedge an argument in this manner. Therefore, if you continue the argument your friend won't go away holding a new emotion concerning you (hate). That was already his/her feeling.

On the other hand, if you walk away from the argument and regret it because your not-so-friendly friend uses it against you it is you, not your friend, who has a screw loose. It sounds like an abuser-enabler "friendship" with you playing the part of enabler.

You didn't have to have access to a time machine learn these things about your friend and yourself. You already knew about them - and apparently was willing to ignore it.

The best choice, if you are no longer willing to playing the part of enabler (which you had been doing all along), is to walk away. You won't regret it because you won't be hanging around your friend anymore thus s/he won't have the opportunity to guilt load you.

Note: When I write "you" I 'm not talking about you. I'm refering to whomever plays the part of the time traveler in your scenario.
 
But, these events haven't been proven to the time traveller yet as they haven't occured. Which throws in the risk of the time traveller doing something completely unneccessary and embarassing themselves. Which is partly the question, is time travel an illusion, and we really don't have a choice in the matter? This one has been digging at me for some time now. Is it that we can't time travel simply because we're not morally, or spiritally ready? Even if thats not the case, it might be an idea to think of the philosopical consequences of time travel. Travel to the future, grab futuristic medicine, travel to the past, make yourself immortal.

I would like to hear other philosopical views on time travel in regards to the implications if it can be done.
 
Rusty,

But, these events haven't been proven to the time traveller yet as they haven't occured.
Click to expand...

As I said, you wouldn't have to have access to a time machine to know these truths about yourself, your "friend" and the relationship between the two of you.

You know your friends and you know if they are jerks or not. This friend is a jerk and you know it. Therefore you actually do know what the outcomes will be without access to a time machine or the "dreams".

Frankly, if someone had to have access to a time machine to make choices about how to react to his/her friends that person probably needs to be in therapy. S/he has "relationship issues".
 
In general terms which some people will not agree with, and for a reason in the way I can only explain:

The brains have become so open, the brains have fallen out. This is why some people who actually are not really thinking but reacting have reacted to other's thoughts about the future, which in one case, as far as I am concerned, is both Protestant and Catholic. Mix in the others whom we seem to dedicate our protection to, with now the extremist muslims and the Lord has left the vicinity and for some reason it seems Ireland has spread across western civilization. The first ones (the Protestants) seem to explain it will be an Act of God (but not really because we will try and change it) while the Catholics state that "No" that is not right so we will change it to reflect how wrong you are (in which case - use talk instead of force to deal with the problem) leaving it beyond some comprehension in which case is not really a truth about religion in the first place, leaving those ones who the USA protects and the others whom they wish to change wary the rest of the world all seemingly saying "Why?" and both try and make some sense out of whatever it is you are doing. This adds tensions to this world and then step in the other political factor of the extremists muslims who are only thought to be in the way of deciding which religion is crazier perhaps, so in the end, it seems the Lord has left the vicinity while only it seems that he is thinking that in the end all these type of time travellers are not really what is really going to happen, since He is the Lord. Now, one can throw in the other factors in which case, Saints seem to indicate that Ireland will end up in the Ocean soon according to that time travelling phase unless precautions are taken to dictate of realizing that another course of action has to be taken, which is developing but again, it is probably too late, and probably not really enough to force the changes coming along. Enters in NASA with their program model about the weather just recently seen where they dictate that storms will be more fierce and hail the size of baseballs travelling down at 100 mph, and lightning worse and the forces of nature generally all worse, and others who state that their model may be off and in fact global warming will not be as bad and generally will lessen the forces of nature I guess until the heat melts everyone or something to that effect; it seems that the philosphy is something they all feel they much teach and preach, ending up in -- really -- why just don't get to work because all the discussion seems to indicate that perhaps all the brains have become so loose, that the brains have all fallen out from competition, instead of working towards a real solution while time marches on. Probably add in the Vatican wanting more money so help the Mexicans and Sept. 1, you have Mexican trucks that are suppose to enter and drive in this Country, however one can find at least one thread with numerous replies on that stating that the Mexican trucks are in such bad shape that other drivers in this Country have had to wait up to 8 hours for a drop-off of a truck trailer because the Mexican trucks had to be fixed first, while Canada has more stringent laws than the DOT of this Country but less drivers and all of a sudden you have where they think the little truck companies and not the large truck companies will end up losing their livelihood instead of large truck companies and that the philosophy is only to counteract the European Union which may have stated on the News that it is not sure it will remain intact while I am sure that the Asian Union is also thinking of forming, but where is Russia in all of that?

Teaching young people again more socialist values and how Russia should be number 1 and holding camps to train these young people to make Russia even more again, and one should know the history of Russia of the last 1000 years and perhaps even before that.

All these time travellers seem to be competing against this impression of this world, which is the only philosophy coming out of again I hate to be included with any of it -- white men - and a few others in which case history has already shown how Western Civilization tends to destroy its self while others think no one really now knows what year it really is in this world, and thus no records to look up anything except what will be thought of as next to use computers for but not for really teaching anything that seems to be of real value. (or else it is just the area I live in and all the negativity that seems to dwell out of the same type of people they seem to be here.)

Well, I only hope that all the brains that seem to be sucking out tend to be sucked back into the cavity known as the cranium of anyone in this world.
 
Oh, and do not forget the YouTube BoobComputerTube videos that have people on their death bed stating that UFOs are real and Roswell was real and spacealiens are real probably despite this Planet not going around in circles but doing spirals because everyone should have a dog or something similiar that may tend to do spirals in the back yard. ( perhaps something like having a friend.)
 
I think that was bordering Adspam, Timenot. I mean, everyone's entitled to their insane bouts, but isn't usually more constructive being muttered secretly, away from prying eyes?

@ Darby
Perhaps the context of the theory detracted from the underlying point of the philosopy. Instead of discussing time-based philosopy we're now considering sending the time traveller to the psychiaric ward for having supposedly obvious relationship issues. I would point out everyone argues, and you wouldn't know how the time traveller's friend reacts without the time travelling. If we took, for example, the point where the TT continues with the argument, and the friend understands and accepts the viewpoint, it would be a whole new relationship ballgame - something not apparent without the 'foresight'. In-fact, how can we be sure any friend reacts in any specific way all the time? Everyone has their breaking point.

Different Temporal Theory then. You're thinking about a highly debated subject (suitable punishment for criminals - the government is implementing new legislation saying criminals should be hanged) as you walk down the stairs. Suddenly, you're struck by a foresight and you see that riots will be sparked as a result of the hanging of a well-known convict (exactly who is unknown), destablising the government, and replacing it with complete anarchy and total economic colapse.

Now, philosopy time... Do you try to inform the government, with a potiential chance this could be a complete lie, with no means of varification, with the chance of them listening to you, and keeping the government in power... Or do you say nothing, and observe, despite the ramifications of failing to act (no money, no job, no benefits, nothing)? How do you know the new government will be better than the old one?

What choice would you take?
 
Rusty,

You say nothing. If the government is so weak that the hanging of one well known convict destabilizes it into total anarchy it's not much of a government.
 
Do I sense an attempt to stick with the known and avoid the areas of the unknown?
Click to expand...

Not at all. But if you have to make a choice then you should have some reason for the choice..."The Unknown" notwithstanding.

Jus tbecause someone has some special ability doesn't necessarily mean that pragmatism has to go out the window. If the government, in your last scenario, is actually that weak then the execution really has little to do with it's fall. It's going to fall anyway. There's no reason to attempt to "change" anything.

It might not be your answer or the answer than you want from me - but it is my answer. Let the event run its course.
 
Darby- a question for you:

"Black holes can have any mass. Since gravity increases in inverse proportion to volume, any quantity of matter that is sufficiently compressed will become a black hole. However, when black holes form naturally, only a few mass ranges are realistic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Is this really true? Does gravity increase in inverse proportion to volume? Are they saying pi r2 in reverse?
 
Alright, rather than try and dig up a scenario which might point out the underlying issues (I understand your reasoning for choice, but what's underlying it - EG the suggestion of fate if the government's downfall cannot be averted that is what I am trying to hammer at), I'll put it in a different context...

Is it morally wrong to use time travel? If you're thinking no, try considering it as cheating - knowing the answers to the exam before the question is even made! If you're thinking it is, then, alternately, consider it as a method of self-improvement (gaining knowledge) and helping others (warning them before it's too late).

What do you believe are the underlying implications of using time-travel (both sciencifically and philosophically)?

What should it be used for?

And finally, who should be allowed to use it?
 
A problem is that we are products of the past--both the "good" and the "bad". For example, our ancestors always lived long enough to produce offspring. Suppose that the bad guy you were dealing with happened to be the distant relative of yourself? There might be a good reason for not messing with the past at all.

The arguments about an 'ethical' course of action all seem to be based on somebody's idea of what it should be, and that often comes down to their own self-interest or desire for control. We're always overestimating our ability to change things for the better.

Isn't it usually better if people just minded their own knitting and left everyone else do their own thing?
 
Darby- a question for you:

"Black holes can have any mass. Since gravity increases in inverse proportion to volume, any quantity of matter that is sufficiently compressed will become a black hole. However, when black holes form naturally, only a few mass ranges are realistic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Is this really true? Does gravity increase in inverse proportion to volume? Are they saying pi r2 in reverse?
Click to expand...

It's a true statement but it's incomplete.

The strength of a gravitational field is the same no matter whether the mass is uncompressed or compressed into a black hole . That is, everywhere except at the "surface".

On a sphere the strength of the gravitational field is strongest at the surface, i.e. surface gravity. If you start digging a shaft straight down toward the center of the Earth the strength gravitational field will decrease because you no longer have the entire mass "under" your feet. It's now all around you. Gravity is pulling you in every direction not just "down". At the center of the Earth the force of gravity is ~0 because the mass is approximately equally distributed in every direction around you.

But if instead of tunnelling down you decrease the volume of the sphere while maintaining the same mass the surface is then closer to the center and all of the mass is still under your feet. The surface gravity increases.

If you continue to compress the volume you'll eventually hit the critical density where the mass collapses to a singularity and a black hole is formed. The volume decreases to zero and the surface gravity increases to infinity. Of course there's no real surface anymore - it's a point of zero volume and infinite density.

So, yes. The strength of the surface gravity is inversely proportional to the volume of a sphere of constant mass. On the other hand, if your sphere of constant mass started with a radius of 1000 km and was compressed to a black hole and you are floating in space at a distance of 1000 km (where the original surface was located) the strength of the gravitational field is precisely the same at that point as it was before the sphere collapsed.

The reason that Wiki says that the range of mass for natural black holes is limited is because a galaxy has a limited mass. The central black hole will suck up all matter that comes close to it. "Close" depends on the course and velocity of the "stuff" that is affected by the field. Eventually a kind of vacuum (actually a void) is formed around it. Some matter wil still spin in if its close enough and doesn't have sufficient velocity to avoid the event horizon. Over time there is no more matter close enough to be sucked in in any great amounts. The central black hole becomes somewhat static surrounded by the other stars.

Away from the central black hole stars have a limit to their mass. That's somewhere around 50 solar masses in very rare cases. They collapse, super nova, blow a lot of their mass off to form new things - like people, planets, new stars, etc - and the remaining mass collapses to form a black hole that is relatively isolated from any other massive body.
 
What do you believe are the underlying implications of using time-travel (both sciencifically and philosophically)?

What should it be used for?

And finally, who should be allowed to use it?
Click to expand...

Rusty,

Here's the crux of the issue of ethics and morality in a universe where time travel within that universe is possible:

Once time travel is invented the cat is out of the bag, so to speak There's no theoretical way to guarantee that access to the technology is limited to any particular group. In fact, the invention virtually guarantees that given sufficient time (and in a time travel enabled universe you have forever) the technology will get out. No secret can be kept a secret for very long.

What should it be used for? Based on what our would-be time travelers have proposed over the past seven years...nothing. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for it other than to come onto a website and say "I don'tcare if you believe me but I'm a time traveler who knows nothing at all about time travel and I'm here to quibble with the Community and tell you how nasty the USA is and how much doom and gloom there will be in the future."

Can it be used to change the past or to visit historical events in the past? Given the stipulation that I posed above (travel within our own universe) one could then visit the past. But given the same stipulation you can't change the past - you can fulfill it. You already know the outcome of past events, at least in their gross details, before you take the time trip. But the destination of the time trip lies in your past light cone. It's events have already occured. Whatever you may have done in the past resulted in your recollection of those events.

But let's suppose for a moment that you really could alter past events within this universe to make the outcomes better. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. We can plug in a scenario.

You travel back to May of 1944 and are able to alter the D-Day air assault package so that the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions are able to land their troops in the proper LZ's with all of their equipment. You also are able to assure that the 1st and 29th Divisions are able to hit their Omaha beach LZ's properly and with their armored support. This effort reduces US D-Day casualties from >10,000 to 3,000. Thereafter the Allied Forces roll up the Western Front and are in Berlin by Christmas. There is no Battle of the Bulge, no disaster with Operation Market-Garden. The war in Europe is over by New Year'sDay, 1945.

That's a great outcome for everyone. Casualties are reduced on both sides by 100's of thousands in Europe.

But remember the Eye of the Beholder. Even today, and I have first hand experience, the Nazi Party exists and has thousands of loyal followers. Also remember that the technology does get out given sufficient time.

Sometime in the future a group of Neo-Nazi loyalists decide to make their own "better" outcome. They travel to early May 1944 and are able to convince Hitler that the invasion will be in Normandy, not Pas d'Calais. They also convince him to move his five reserve SS-Panzer brigades from Belgium to Normandy. The allied invasion is defeated and the war is extended into 1946 when Germany and Japan are able to develop an atomic weapon of their own to go along with their V-2 rockets. A negotiated end of hostilities results and Nazi Germany survives.

This cycle can be repeated forever. There's not much to be gained by attempting to alter history.
 
Would there be anything gained if we could only look at history from any time & place?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "any time & place".

If you mean any time and place within our universe the answer is no. Everyone else who has access to time travel has the same opportunity to alter the alterations that you made. There's no "final" outcome for any historical event. (Wow. That's confusing, isn't it?)

If you are suggesting alternate universes then the answer is still no. Altering the outcome of an event in this universe in another universe has no consequence on your life. In the MWI scenario that altered event has already played itself out in one of the infinite universes suggested, at least on alt-sci Internet boards, by the Many Worlds Interpretation (of quantum physics). You haven't altered anything. It's already occured, in theory, on an infinite number of alternate universes. Infinity is infinity.
 
I guess thought would have to be either pre-planned or already exist in some form. Pretty weird idea /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
You can go here and read the threads after looking for them, I do not have the time to keep up with it or even all of it. Some of it false, as in fear mongering, in a sense, and some of it real, as in the case of YouTube videos suppose to have been made by people claiming this stuff. It changes every day, and other News sources are mentioned, usually some of it also has been on CNN lately too, also.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/

I do not have the time to look up the individual threads from a few days ago, but they are still there. I have not had the time to look at YouTube videos having a slow connection. I do not expect to spend time downloading videos to look at later. These threads are started by other people and some of them are about 2012 and all of that. Some seem to be real and mention what others are reporting.

Also the thread there about troops being Ordered to Washington D.C. thought originally to be about the Holiday, but it is mentioned that they will be there for a year. Apparently other people have other News sources that they are giving out as being the links providing the information.

I just do not have the time to look anything else up, just know that reading through some threads take long enough, and also people from other Countries are also posting things there, but most of the time, I just read it, do not know the people, or the people claiming anything, nor anything else. I assume that since some UFOs sites like to show supposed text written out by these people and I think (guessing ) signed that they have done some of this, perhaps not. I do not know exactly, but then again some of it is in News Sources that do not share what is commonly shown on the normal News channels.
 
Back
Top