mindtwisters

[Lil' Timmy]

well, it's really pretty simple people. all of these means of 'avoiding thte future' via some sort of foreknowledge or switching between parallel universes is essentially what hunta-killa was refering to by invoking an 'outside' dimension. within our normal space-time (as it is usually understood), there would be no way to change the future, in fact there would not be a way to know anything about the future at all because that would involve being able to transmit information back in time, which, if we stay in our space-time, due to the (at least experiential) linearity of time, is not possible. now one can invoke another universe to allow for information to bypass the time constraint of ours, but at that point, hunta-killa's condition has been met, and bonus, one has a ready-made way of escaping the predicted future (there's another universe right there!).

now, one can invoke all sorts of schrodinger's cats and say, well, at least one of the infinite possiblities proceeds to the fate which was predicted. but again, we can have multiple (infinite) universes with infinite possibilities, so who is to say that the you who died in november (in this example) is anymore the you who didn't (in the other universes). both of you recieved the information that you'd die (it is from this event that the infinite possibilities begin and branch-off afterall). that you've received info from the future is a sign that space time has been fractured, and it would allow you to avoid all paradoxes, because causality only has meaning within it's particular of the time-stream.

it's pretty simple.

also, minority report sucked. i'm personally offended that someone could talk about it in the same breath as oedipus rex :| i feel like aeschylus and euripedes are urinating on sophocles' grave.

also, the equation of everything idea is fine, one has simply to extend the possiblities of knowledge. knowing all variables can be done, as long as it's allowed by our universe. this is probably not the case, btw, think of quantum mechanics again. but if it were, based on first principles alone, there's no reason one couldn't calculate the state of all reality at any given time in the universe if one knows all the variables and physical laws.

it's pretty simple really.

 

[Wraithen]

Originally posted by Lil' Timmy
also, the equation of everything idea is fine, one has simply to extend the possiblities of knowledge. knowing all variables can be done, as long as it's allowed by our universe. this is probably not the case, btw, think of quantum mechanics again. but if it were, based on first principles alone, there's no reason one couldn't calculate the state of all reality at any given time in the universe if one knows all the variables and physical laws.

it's pretty simple really.

This is like saying that if you knew when a bus leaves the station, it's average speed, and planned route you can tell exactly where it is at any given time, but in reality, even if you know the starting position, as soon as it leaves an observed state (the station) you can only caculate the probability of it's location, which would decrease over time. As soon as it leaves the observer, anything could happen, the driver could get aflat tire, could pull over for a nap, could get abducted by aliens.... or maybe not adhere to the speed limits as closely as predicted. This applies to the fortune telling equation, even if you knew the properties of everything in the universe, any predictions made would decrease in accuracy exponentially over time. And that's without taking into account the uncertainty principal which rules out the accurate observations necessary to get the initial state variables. You'd need something from a Transporter to get that working (cookie to the geek who gets that joke)

Or I could just be talking out my ass again... I have a habit of doing that late at night.

"I was pyanilg hlaf lfie aigan tdaoy and tohguht "siht, taht's G-Man in a lab caot cnoimg form the epxereimnt cmhaber, I nveer ntcioed taht wehn I pyaeld it lsat (wihch was aegs ago). Tehn I saw him aagin... and aaign... and I raliesed taht tehy rlealy did use the smae medols over and oevr bcak tehn " -Me, off topic

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Originally posted by Wraithen
Or I could just be talking out my ass again... I have a habit of doing that late at night.

first of all, that's my line. you'll be hearing from my lawyers.

"I was pyanilg hlaf lfie aigan tdaoy and tohguht "siht, taht's G-Man in a lab caot cnoimg form the epxereimnt cmhaber, I nveer ntcioed taht wehn I pyaeld it lsat (wihch was aegs ago). Tehn I saw him aagin... and aaign... and I raliesed taht tehy rlealy did use the smae medols over and oevr bcak tehn " -Me, off topic

HEY! don't you switch the interior letters of your words, whilst leaving the beginning and ending letters in place, so as to demonstrate that the human brain does not read each letter, but instead, reads words as a whole, as per the meme research (probably falsely) attributed to cambridge university... at me!

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

heheh, your posts just get beter and beter!!





:cheers:

 

[The Terminator]

I am a samrt!11!!

 

[Pauly]

is minority report a good movie???...i might rent it

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Originally posted by Pauly
is minority report a good movie???...i might rent it

it all depends on you. if you like horrid awfulness, or if you are blind, deaf and impervious to pain of all kinds.. it'd probably be ok.

 

[MrD]

Originally posted by Wraithen
An equation for a person would only work on probabilities,for example, Mr X doesn't like Chocolate ice cream, so you could say with 99% accuracy that if you offered him some he would refuse. But when you do he accepts it because he likes you even less and doesn't think you should have so much ice cream.

(now someone's going to say that this all encompassing equation would have variables for his dislike of the person giving and whether he had a drink that morning. And it would say that when a butterfly flaps it's wings in france, a bird will siht on my head )

Um, its an all-encompassing equation, so it takes account of everything!

Therefore you would be able to predict with a 100% accuracy, on each individual occassion taking into account current mood, past events, the weather, orbit of the moon, current electromagnetic interference etc. whether the person would refuse his chocolate ice-cream.

Whether such an equation exists or not is another matter. My personal opinion is that one does; if you take a person, frozen in an instant of time, then there must exist some way to determine what happens next, otherwise time could not move forward.

I doubt we will ever understand it fully though, just small parts of it. Like the parts that allow us to make a big honking bucket of steal that floats in the air with people inside it.

EDIT: Hehe I did say exactly what you predicted! Somehow I doubt the equation would have variables like "person a likes person b 33%" or stuff like that. After all, likes & dislikes are all governed by your brain which is a big bag of neurons and stuff. The equation would govern those neurons consistently, but it is the particular pattern they are configured in at any given time that control whether they will refuse the ice-cream.

 

[Element Alpha]

I really feel like having ice-cream suddenly. Am I a victim of some of you guys' equation?

 

[Wraithen]

you set up a snooker table, roll the white ball towards the others, which scatter. It's conceivable that knowing all the properties of the system you could create an equation which would predict where the balls would come to rest, right?

now take a near infinite number of balls, and hurl them towards another set of balls of equally near infinite amount, and place them on a huge mhoter fcuknig snooker table and provide me an equation which will give me the exact locations of each ball over time.

and again we ignore uncertainty, wave-properties and the word I like to use here, PROBABILITY.

(lil'timmy, I have that line copyrighted, have your people contact my people and they can get drunk about it.... oh and Minority Report didn't suck as much ass as people say... it just didn't live up to blade runner expectations )

 

[MrD]

Originally posted by Wraithen
and again we ignore uncertainty, wave-properties and the word I like to use here, PROBABILITY.

Probability is just an excuse for not having a big enough computer.

 

[Dedalus]

a lot of the theories that you guys have are wrong. well not so much wrong but old. i'm not flaming you but they're the theories of lore. now we have string theory, which is to do with the 'equation for everything'. find out more at http://superstringtheory.com/

lemme know what you get from that site. basically, everything is made up of tiny strings that vibrate. there are equations that prove their existence. so if we could find patterns in their vibrations and movements etc then we could predict where it would be at a certain point and how it would be vibrating. we collate all the string results into a system and it gives us a readout which is mathematically correct and mathematically precise.

i hope the string theory doesn't throw all of you off the wagon but it's really easy to understand.

you can also use a purely mathematical system to predict. use logic calculus like truth tables. pretty much all of our decisions are based on logic at some level, and use 'if...then' a lot more then we think. now i'm not even going to attempt to draw up a truth table for a human being, but we can simplify it.

for example, someone mentioned ice cream, "if the ice-cream is chocolate then i will not eat it"

you can express that as:

the ice-cream is chocolate = p
i will eat it = q

p --> ¬q

then you draw up your truth table which i won't do because i'm a lazy bastard, and you get your possibilities. the table will tell you that yes, if the ice-cream is chocolate then he won't eat it. if the ice-cream is not chocolate then he will eat it. but then there's that random element. the ice-cream may be chocolate and he still eats it. how can you predict something like that? pure logic and mathematical precision doesn't calculate for randomness. that's where quantum mechanics and string theory comes in. so read up soldiers.


EDIT: how does the oracle predict neo's actions? huh huh??? an EQUATION. she's a program. just thought i'd bring that theory up.

 

[MrD]

Um, sorry to be the one to break this to you but... well... the Oracle is not real, it is just a made up story.

There I've done it, and now I feel terrible


Seriously though, to say it is "proved" is jumping the gun. Sure maybe these things are all mathematically precise and can predict a whole load of stuff but until someone actually tells me what I am going to do next March I'll just stick to "it's a possibility".

EDIT: I just realised, if someone is going to tell me what I'm going to do next March, then they will have to account for the "telling me" in their equation. The problem is they cannot, since they do not know what they will tell me until they finish the equation! Thus, it is impossible. They will have to write it down instead and tell me not to open the envelope until next March. Of course, I might not be able to resist, and open it before next March, but then they will be able to predict that and ... argh... brain... hurts ...

 

[Dedalus]

Originally posted by MrD
Um, sorry to be the one to break this to you but... well... the Oracle is not real, it is just a made up story.

There I've done it, and now I feel terrible


Seriously though, to say it is "proved" is jumping the gun. Sure maybe these things are all mathematically precise and can predict a whole load of stuff but until someone actually tells me what I am going to do next March I'll just stick to "it's a possibility".

EDIT: I just realised, if someone is going to tell me what I'm going to do next March, then they will have to account for the "telling me" in their equation. The problem is they cannot, since they do not know what they will tell me until they finish the equation! Thus, it is impossible. They will have to write it down instead and tell me not to open the envelope until next March. Of course, I might not be able to resist, and open it before next March, but then they will be able to predict that and ... argh... brain... hurts ...

where did i say i was using the oracle as proof of anything? it just sprung to mind, and it shows there are other people in the world who believe the same theory. stop putting words in my mouth.

i think it's quite feasible that one day we'll be able to accurately predict things like what you're doing next march. it would be very very complicated but i think we'll get there.

let's rework your example how you said. they place the prediction in a sealed envelope and place it in the vault of a bank and only the bank manager has the key and you can only have the key after a certain day. so march comes along and the big even happens, you run over a little old granny. you get a letter from the bank manager saying can you come pick up your envelope it's taking up too much room in our vault. so you go along and take the envelope and open it, and lo and behold it's got the prediction inside and is very accurate. here's the science bit, you didn't know about the prediction until after the event. so that wouldn't have to be conditioned int othe formula beforehand.

 

[SLH]

Originally posted by Dedalus
where did i say i was using the oracle as proof of anything? it just sprung to mind, and it shows there are other people in the world who believe the same theory. stop putting words in my mouth.

i think it's quite feasible that one day we'll be able to accurately predict things like what you're doing next march. it would be very very complicated but i think we'll get there.

let's rework your example how you said. they place the prediction in a sealed envelope and place it in the vault of a bank and only the bank manager has the key and you can only have the key after a certain day. so march comes along and the big even happens, you run over a little old granny. you get a letter from the bank manager saying can you come pick up your envelope it's taking up too much room in our vault. so you go along and take the envelope and open it, and lo and behold it's got the prediction inside and is very accurate. here's the science bit, you didn't know about the prediction until after the event. so that wouldn't have to be conditioned int othe formula beforehand.

But surely if the formula could predict EVERYTHING (which it would have to), then it would have to account for the slim chance that you still saw the prediction in some way.

To put it another way, to predict everything with 100% accuracy a formula would have to consider everything. Including it's own outcome and the scientist's (or whoever) reaction to the result.

 

[king John I]

hey minority report is a good film.

 

[MrD]

Originally posted by Dedalus
where did i say i was using the oracle as proof of anything? it just sprung to mind, and it shows there are other people in the world who believe the same theory. stop putting words in my mouth.

You started your post with "a lot of the theories that you guys have are wrong", so I thought I would bring my post down to your level.

We seem to agree on the predictability issues. The point of my post was that "nothing is proven" which you seem to have missed entirely. Which is probably my fault for wording it in such a sh*t way, and I apologise.

 

[MrD]

Originally posted by SLH
But surely if the formula could predict EVERYTHING (which it would have to), then it would have to account for the slim chance that you still saw the prediction in some way.

To put it another way, to predict everything with 100% accuracy a formula would have to consider everything. Including it's own outcome and the scientist's (or whoever) reaction to the result.

The point is you are not trying to predict everything. Sure, the formula can do that, but its not any different from any other formula in that respect (eg. the formula to describe a bouncing ball can predict the path of every possible bouncing ball). The trick is to single out the case you are interested in, and use the formula to predict that particular case.

 

[Dedalus]

you've completely missed the point. i said "a lot of the theories that you guys have are wrong." and you decided to completely ignore the sentence after it which was "well not so much wrong but old." i then went on to direct you to the string theory website, which is, as it happens, the closest we have come to a 'theory of everything'. so don't bash me for bringing up the oracle or claiming that i was trying to prove something. just point your browser at the string theory website then come back to me.

MrD---> "Seriously though, to say it is "proved" is jumping the gun. Sure maybe these things are all mathematically precise and can predict a whole load of stuff but until someone actually tells me what I am going to do next March I'll just stick to "it's a possibility"."

what does that mean? what was i meant to have proved? string theory? the ice-cream situation? cheese? what?

 

[Wraithen]

There's a part of me that would really like for the unified theory of everything to come down to some incredibly simple equation that will have people everywhere slapping their foreheads cos they over looked it... remember the first time you condensed a whole page of equations down to E=Mc^2? Well it was a fun class for me

As for string theory being the next stage in the evolution of such a concept, it does bring things into focus more... but it also seems to take a lot "faith." well I know what I mean by that. honest.

 

[Pauly]

lol lil timmy...nm then

 

[ADV]

There is no Time. Its a human invention.

 

[MrD]

Originally posted by Dedalus
you've completely missed the point. i said "a lot of the theories that you guys have are wrong." and you decided to completely ignore the sentence after it which was "well not so much wrong but old." i then went on to direct you to the string theory website, which is, as it happens, the closest we have come to a 'theory of everything'. so don't bash me for bringing up the oracle or claiming that i was trying to prove something. just point your browser at the string theory website then come back to me.

MrD---> "Seriously though, to say it is "proved" is jumping the gun. Sure maybe these things are all mathematically precise and can predict a whole load of stuff but until someone actually tells me what I am going to do next March I'll just stick to "it's a possibility"."

what does that mean? what was i meant to have proved? string theory? the ice-cream situation? cheese? what?

The fact that you started effectively with the line 'you are all wrong' gave me the impression that was what you were thinking (regardless of what followed). Maybe you didn't say "proved" but the tone of the post gave that impression.

I have a book on string theory, it is very interesting.

 

[Dedalus]

BUT WHAT THE HELL WAS I SUPPOSED TO HAVE PROVED YOU KNUCKLEHEAD?!?!?!??!?! SPEAK!!!!!

 

[MrD]

Originally posted by Dedalus
BUT WHAT THE HELL WAS I SUPPOSED TO HAVE PROVED YOU KNUCKLEHEAD?!?!?!??!?! SPEAK!!!!!

LOL! You need to chill

 

[Dedalus]

sorry man it's just bugging me cos you keep going on that i proved something BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT?!?!?!

please explain.

 

[MrD]

You didn't prove anything? You implied that string theory was proven.

 

[Shakermaker]

Originally posted by ADV
There is no Time. Its a human invention.

It's not, I'm sorry to say.

 

[Dedalus]

Originally posted by MrD
You didn't prove anything? You implied that string theory was proven.

yes it's been proven mathematically. they have just yet to see a string to prove it's existence, but they know it exists because the maths works out, they just need to see one.

 

[Murray_H]

It would be nearly impossible to see a string, if "an atom were the size of the solar system, a string would be as big as a tree"

 

[MrD]

Originally posted by Dedalus
yes it's been proven mathematically. they have just yet to see a string to prove it's existence, but they know it exists because the maths works out, they just need to see one.

Exactly my point! Saying something is "proven" is jumping the gun.

If you'll recall the formula S=D/T. This can be used for calculating the speed of an object given the distance it has travelled and the time it took to do so. This was once "proven" mathematically. That is until Einstein came along and pointed out that it only actually works at low speeds.

There is always a bigger picture

 

[Dedalus]

MrD...have you actually read the string theory website? if something is proven mathematically, then lo and behold...that's how something is!! simple as that.

mathematics is 100% accurate. there is no ifs and buts. they've proven it's existence through mathematical formulae, the same as einstein did with his theories of relativity. einstein had no way of proving his theories to be real, except for showing his calculations. and yes, hey presto the math added up. so everyone bought it.

Murray_H you're right, it would be nearly impossible to see a string. but much like quarks, you can detect their presense by their absence in certain tests. they're building a new atom smasher at Cern, which will enable them to see more things when they smash atoms, so hopefully they'll be able to detect a string within the next 10 or so years.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

umm.. no people, string theory, in no way shape or form, been "proven". that is, in fact, it's main weakness as a theory. to date, it is not verifiable (the most basic requirement of a scientific theory). it has not been mathematically demonstrated to be necessarily likely even, just possible. until experiments can be devised to test predictions of string theory (gravitons leaking in and out of branes would seem like a good place to start), you can't even talk about how likely it is to be 'right'.

oh btw, relativistic-physics predictions have been made, tested and shown to be correct, dedalus.

 

[Dedalus]

ok you guys keep thinking up your own stories for why i'm wrong and i'll keep pointing you to the string theory website for all your mathematical proofs.

 

[MrD]

Originally posted by Dedalus
MrD...have you actually read the string theory website? if something is proven mathematically, then lo and behold...that's how something is!! simple as that.

mathematics is 100% accurate. there is no ifs and buts. they've proven it's existence through mathematical formulae, the same as einstein did with his theories of relativity. einstein had no way of proving his theories to be real, except for showing his calculations. and yes, hey presto the math added up. so everyone bought it.

Murray_H you're right, it would be nearly impossible to see a string. but much like quarks, you can detect their presense by their absence in certain tests. they're building a new atom smasher at Cern, which will enable them to see more things when they smash atoms, so hopefully they'll be able to detect a string within the next 10 or so years.

I have read my book, but that is irrelevent.

Mathematics is not 100% accurate. To use my example once again, seeing as you seem to have conveniently glossed-over it: S=D/T was once considered "100% accurate" until Einstein figured out that it was only small part of a bigger picture. The formula stops working at high values of S (close to the speed of light). Thus it is not 100% accurate.

This has happened many times throughout human history. So I am always cautious of anyone who says "it is proven", because it is probably just a small part of a bigger picture.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

mathematically "proving" something is simply not enough. until one can experimentally test string theory predictions, it's simply not proven in the same way that quantum mechanics and relativity have been. i'm not saying it won't be sometime in the future, i'm just saying you people need to realize what you're saying when you throw the word "proof" around like a red-headed step-mother.

 

[Dedalus]

*sigh* it really disappoints me.

yes you're right about the speed = time/distance. so does that mean einstein is not 100% accurate? probably. does that mean string theory is not 100% accurate. you can't say. it's a combination of many theories. the formulae of string theory explain everything else. whichever way you look at it, string theory is the closest to a 'theory of everything' that there is. and YES, mathematics IS 100% accurate. it relies on logic which itself is 100% accurate. otherwise they wouldn't call it mathematics!!! they'd call it numerology!!!

YES mathematics is the ULTIMATE form of expression. if you can prove something exists mathematically then by god you're gonna have to be some freak job to say it doesn't exist.

this is where i stop trying to prove something to you as it's clear you're not going to listen, and continue to pick holes.

i still can't believe you said mathematics is not 100% accurate...that has to be the singley most ridiculous thing i've heard in all my time of being an adult.

 

[Dedalus]

Originally posted by Lil' Timmy
mathematically "proving" something is simply not enough. until one can experimentally test string theory predictions, it's simply not proven in the same way that quantum mechanics and relativity have been. i'm not saying it won't be sometime in the future, i'm just saying you people need to realize what you're saying when you throw the word "proof" around like a red-headed step-mother.

how did einstein prove his theories???? any takers?? he didn't prove them practically, he proved them MATHEMATICALLY!! maths is the WHOLE BASIS of science.

i resign.


EDIT: and by the way, nowhere did i state string theory was a 100% proven and done and dusted job. those words were put into my mouth by MrD. i said string theory was proven mathematically, nothing else. get your facts straight.

 

[MrD]

Originally posted by Dedalus
i still can't believe you said mathematics is not 100% accurate...that has to be the singley most ridiculous thing i've heard in all my time of being an adult.

Okay, chill man, now look who's picking holes.

The formulas are not 100% accurate over their expected input domain. That better? The mathematics is sound, but the formulas are flawed.

My point, which you seem to agree with, is that String Theory may well be the "theory of everything that we know so far", but it sure as hell ain't "the theory of everything". Deal?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Originally posted by Dedalus
does that mean string theory is not 100% accurate. you can't say. ....
string theory is the closest to a 'theory of everything' that there is.

that's all i was asking for, thank you. i'm glad you finally heard the light.