If you could change something in the past would you? I started the thread yesterday on Suicide and was thinking if I could go back and make that person alive again I would. Would it change my world in ways I do not even realize-probably so. My husbands dad died when he was little if he had not died I would never have met my husband or I would not have my children. It would have been a better life for my husband and his mother but maybe my children or future grandchildren will contribute something good to the world someday. So what would you change? Would Hitler die young? Would Lincoln or Kennedy not have been shot? What would your decision do to your world? Do you think time travel will ever be a possibility? Or maybe it should never be a possibility?

-- Missy (timem@chine.com), April 19, 2000

Answers

i would go back and shoot my parents before I was born or maybe ladylogic's parents, definitely y2kpro's, that is if he she or it was conceived in the "normal" way

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), April 19, 2000.

Richard,

Are you having a Bad day dude or what? (smile) Dont be to rough now, Missy is new here.

Missy, I posted under your suicide thread few moments ago.

Richard, BEHAVE YOURSELF

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 19, 2000.

If a future society was constantly going back into the pastand making changes we would have no knowledge of those changes.

I remember an interesting movie (forgot the name) which involved removing people from doomed aircraft and transporting them to the future.

-- tc (tc@webtv.net), April 19, 2000.

Richard, Are you having a Bad day dude or what? (smile) Dont be to rough now, Missy is new here

oops yes you're right, I shall go and shut myself in my room until I behave (ceaselessly inflicting self punishment by flagellation, no hang on I might enjoy that)

Yes I suppose I'm getting a bit ratty with my posts, but you have to be on your guard cos LL or y2kpro might be about...look out here they come

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), April 19, 2000.

What if Hitler had been run over by a beer truck in Munich in 1922.

What if............

Butterfly effect, butterfly effect, butterfly effect

-- (nemesis@awol.com), April 19, 2000.

If you could not help your friend's pain, why would you bring him back to suffer? There is no one I would kill, not even Hitler. You can't predict what the world would be by even the smallest change. Another tyrant in Hitler's place may have been even more bloody and may have gone farther toward conquering the world.

-- r (r.1@juno.com), April 19, 2000.

Missy:

If you have cable TV, there's a show called "Sliders" on the Sci-Fi channel. The young people in the show "slide" between parallel universes, which are typically representative of how things COULD BE had something happened/not happened to make things the way they are. The show has been discontinued as far as making new episodes, but you may enjoy the reruns.

Going back in time has unexpected ramifications. Some folks think that a current dissatisfaction could have been avoided had they done something differently in the past. Folks that are happy with life tend to look at the past and think that the person they are now is a result of everything that happened to them before. There's kindof a "If it's not broken, don't fix it." type of thinking going on there.

How many times have you heard someone say, "I wish I would have met you earlier?" The assumption is that had you met earlier, you would be the same people you are now and that time was wasted previously. I disagree with this philosophy. We [as the world] would have been far different had different events unfolded. If we see ourselves [or the world] through positive eyes, we wouldn't change a thing. If we see ourselves [or the world] through negative eyes, we'd want to change MANY things.

I don't KNOW if time travel will ever be a possibility. If it does, however, I want Rachmaninoff's music as accompaniment.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 19, 2000.

I am not a particle physicist, but I do recall reading an essay (or was it Dr. Hawking's book?) that stated that the best equations today for describing particle behavior did not indicate an inherent direction for time. But these were quantum equations, and they only apply to very tiny quantities of time.

As for the desirability of unconstrained time travel, I remain true to my doomer-leaning personality in that as in so many things...I think it would cause more problems than it could ever solve.

We rely heavily on the orderliness and predictability of the universe for whatever happiness we have. Unconstrained time travel would introduce an element of chaos and disorder into everything around us.

We already get stuck replaying the past in our minds. Imagine if everyone were constantly tinkering with the past in actual fact! I find that thought horrifying!

It is already a terrible moral burden to be responsible for our decisions in the present, not knowing how they will play out. If we could go back and change the past or leap ahead and know the future, our moral responsibilities would become overwhelming, because we would have far fewer excuses for achieving imperfect results - while remaining just as unable to encompass perfection as today.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 19, 2000.

Assuming that time is actually linear, I would not change a thing. As Anita said, there are folks like me that are happy with how things are and the choices I make today to avoid pain or to bring more love to others and myself today are based on the wisdom gained from mistakes in the "past".

Now I started by saying "assuming" time was linear-I think that time, as a dimension, is not constrained to linearity-The theory of relativity speaks to the fact that object traveling close to the speed of light and beyond "age" more slowly than an object which is "stationery". Since I believe that all points in time exist simultaneoulsy, I do not believe that we can "change" anything.

All possibilities of how our physical reality can play out already exist in the universe-not "pre-determined" but, to put it simply, "results" happen due to binary choices we make-to do or not to do in each situation which presents itself. I could be leading the same incarnation in this "life" as I did in another corporeal incarnation, but in this lifetime I stopped abusing alcohol-maybe in another experience of "FutureShock" I did not and died of alcoholism.

The point is that nothing can be "changed". Each moment is crystallized and can be visited-there is anecdotal evidence of far eastern monks being capable of being in two places at once(It is reported that Jesus did this also) and evidence of "time" travel.

In another manifestation of the world, maybe there was not hitler, or maybe the entire population of europe was killed off in multiple nuclear blasts. Who knows?

Anything is possible-and I learn more from not approaching issues with a either/or mind frame.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 19, 2000.

I was visiting a physic's website last night...some interesting studies are currently taking place on "time" and reversing it. Fascinating!!!

If I can find the link I'll post it.

-- In the realm of elemental particles E=M (karlacalif@aol.com), April 19, 2000.

Check out this time travel link, to a bonafide scientist doing time experiments. I heard this man on Art Bell a few weeks ago. Good stuff.

-- johno (jobriy2k@yahoo.com), April 19, 2000.

Nice link. Thanks johno.

-- Debra (Thank@You.com), April 19, 2000.

Never change the past. Never, ever, ever, change the past. It contains too many lessons. The future is forward with our past experiences as our guide. To go back would waste too much of what precious little time we have.

-- (Burt @nd .Ernie), April 19, 2000.

Richard,

Come on out of that room, i did NOT say you could enjoy yourself...LOL......

Come on time for some poetry.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 20, 2000.

I would have studied more, and partied less. Harvard is a truly awesome place. :(

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), April 20, 2000.

IMO, everything happens exactly as it is supposed to.

Brian, In the words of the immortal David Cassidy--I think I love you. You nearly always express my own thoughts in a more succinct and eloquent style than I could muster. (Your crystal-clear analysis of LL a while back made me wonder whether you'd read my mind.) In that light, this phrase makes me curious:

We rely heavily on the orderliness and predictability of the universe for whatever happiness we have. Unconstrained time travel would introduce an element of chaos and disorder into everything around us.

I personally find joy in acknowledging the absolute UNpredictability of the universe. Chaos and disorder are already present in every moment of our existence. That may be the only thing I've learned thus far.

FS, I enjoyed your insights. Thanks.

-- (Miss Ann@th.rope), April 20, 2000.

OK I've let myself out now (but enjoyed my little sojourn) blinking in the daylight (room had no windows)

poetry - please suggest a "target" (apart from LL)

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), April 20, 2000.

Brian: >> We rely heavily on the orderliness and predictability of the universe for whatever happiness we have. Unconstrained time travel would introduce an element of chaos and disorder into everything around us. <<

Miss Ann: >> [...this phrase makes me curious...] I personally find joy in acknowledging the absolute UNpredictability of the universe. Chaos and disorder are already present in every moment of our existence. That may be the only thing I've learned thus far. <<

I suppose I should have said it would introduce a further element of disorder and chaos into the world around us. Certainly, we cannot control more than a tiny part of the world, and very shakily, but that little is better than nothing.

I suppose what I was trying to express was how much it helps us that there are physical laws we can count on. When we put the milk carton in the refrigerator, we know it won't transport itself anywhere on its own. If we come back and it's gone, there is a limited number of probablitites to sort out to find out where it went.

Similarly, when we pour milk, the milk obeys gravity and falls toward the earth and not fly up our nose. That's the kind of orderliness I was thinking of. It is an inestimable boon.

One of the laws we tend to rely on is that what is past is immutable.

If we remember that last week we saw Aunt Minnie and had a particular conversation, we can trust that memory. If last week we got married to our spouse, we have chosen and that choice cannot be unmade, but only a new choice made.

If our past could always be changed it would negate every choice we ever make at every step of our lives. In effect, no choice would ever be excluded from living somewhere in time -- as in Future Shock's vision of time. But, if every choice is always made, that is the very same as saying that no choice is ever made.

By removing the actuality of choice (as opposed to the illusion), direction becomes a meaningless concept. At every moment, every particle of the universe would be moving in every direction at once, in order to meet Future Shock's idea of time.

If direction becomes meaningless, so does motion. If motion is removed, the myriad universe(s) of infinite posiibility should be conceived as a completely static monad. I forget which of the Greek philosophers came to this same conclusion (Parmenides?).

I can accept that this existance might possibly be described as enmeshed in a web of illusion, or Maya as the Hindus call it. But, if it is, then I would rather embrace this illusion of time and space as having more granduer and meaning than some static monad.

Oops! Did I answer your question?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 20, 2000.

From another thread:

>>Brian- I may have a response to some of your other thoughts later.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 20, 2000. <<

FS: I presume you were referring to this thread. I'm just tossing this up to the top of New Answers, in case you still wanted to pursue it. Hope you had a pleasant weekend.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 24, 2000.

Thanks, Brian.

I am not sure that my vision of all points in time existing simultaneously leads to a static monad. I think I previously stated on some thread that we may go through the same life again, making different choices, and thereby bringing about different results.

I said on another thread that time might be BOTH linear and non- linear.

Brian, you said:

"If our past could always be changed it would negate every choice we ever make at every step of our lives. In effect, no choice would ever be excluded from living somewhere in time -- as in Future Shock's vision of time. But, if every choice is always made, that is the very same as saying that no choice is ever made."

I am not sure what you mean. There are an infinite number of possible outcomes to our choices in non-linear time. Every choice I make today changes the outcome of the future. Do I go for a smoke now or in 5 minutes, thereby maybe missing the call which leads to a $10,000 sale? All I was saying is that IF I can chose to live various lifetimes over again, I may experience deja vu when I reach a particularly important decision-such as right before I got sober- During a previous experience I may not have stopped drinking, and maybe I did that 10 times and died a different way each time. I do not know.

Brian, you then said:

By removing the actuality of choice (as opposed to the illusion), direction becomes a meaningless concept. At every moment, every particle of the universe would be moving in every direction at once, in order to meet Future Shock's idea of time.

I do not believe choice is removed in my vision, but let's follow your path, anyway. I am not sure how my premise leads to every particle moving in every direction at once-though the idea of direction is only valid in certain dimensions, particularly the three we experience(4 if you count time. Maybe particles do move in every direction at once, but the direction they are moving in is up to the observer(I believe quantum physics deals with this issue. Direction is meaningful in some dimensions and irrelevant in others.

Then you finally said:

If direction becomes meaningless, so does motion. If motion is removed, the myriad universe(s) of infinite posiibility should be conceived as a completely static monad. I forget which of the Greek philosophers came to this same conclusion (Parmenides?).

Again, I do not accept direction has become meaningless, but I will follow you to the end. Again, I will say that motion is only important in certain dimensions-the physical universe we can see or measure. What if this static monad contained within it infinite possibility? Maybe the sum of all possible conclusions exists, unchanged, and IS therefore Monadic. If it would take infinite lifetimes to experience the consequences of all possible choices, would that not be interesting?

Talk to you later.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 24, 2000.

I'll try not to over-quote, since Phil Greenspun's threading makes it really easy to see what you said.

>> I may experience deja vu when I reach a particularly important decision-such as right before I got sober-During a previous experience I may not have stopped drinking, and maybe I did that 10 times and died a different way each time. I do not know. <<

In the simple, linear model of time that most of us naturally assume, our individual choices (whether to go out for a smoke now or in 5 minutes) are a one-shot deal. Future possibilities may be infinite, but there is only one past that resolves itself out of that infinitude of choice and becomes concrete and experienced.

Now let us presume that you are right, and you have a sense of deja vu only at certain times because these represent a sort of inflection point, a particular decision that gravely affects the remainder of your life, and you have chosen to come back and choose again.

Well, the problem I see with this explanation is that it amounts to a sort of special providence rather than to physics. In your explanation, some unknown powerful force sets back the clock just for you and just for some especially important decisions in your life. This makes it a very personal force, whatever it is.

So, the first obvious question would be, why you? Why would the universe revolve around your personal needs in this way?

Would it not be equally just for a cockroach to be allowed to set back the clock, so it would avoid choosing to scurry out from under the couch and being stepped on?

How would any predator ever eat under those circumstances, if all the prey kept forcing a new roll of the dice to avoid death and all the predators kept forcing another roll of the dice to avoid starvation?

The only way to avoid these kinds of questions is to envision a physical mechanism that is universal and not personal. And the only impersonal physical mechanism I can imagine that would allow for the possibility of replaying time with a new ending would be for time to contain all physical possibilities at all times.

The reason I say that choice would be meaningless under those conditions is that it would become physically impossible for any choice to be excluded. Since the essence of choice is exclusion of some possibilities, choice would become an illusion. Nothing would ever be excluded from existing by making a choice. That is equivalent to no choice at all.

Of course, you can always take the point of view that God stands outside the universe, and God has choice. God can make the sun stand still in the sky if he likes. Then you can have a personal universe again. God can choose to move time backwards and forwards for you, and yet disregard the cockroach or the gazelle's prayers for deliverance.

>> Maybe the sum of all possible conclusions exists, unchanged, and IS therefore Monadic. If it would take infinite lifetimes to experience the consequences of all possible choices, would that not be interesting? <<

I don't know. It would be kind of hard to have a personality in a universe like that. I would be monad. Monad would be. However many lifetimes one lived, nothing real would ever change. That's kind of comforting in a way. Pain would be illusory, so would mistakes. But it's all awfully static.

Somehow I prefer choice. Even if it means death.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 24, 2000.

What I am about to speculate on has no scientific merit whatsoever, and is pure speculation:

I think time is round. A small amount of information does come from the future and leak into the past. If particles exist that travel faster than light (tachyons), then the basis for this in particle physics occurs. Information from the future does not mean causality is violated--since, for all we know, we might be supposed to get it in the first place. Furthermore, the past does not disappear but is always with us. From some vantage points in the Cosmos (say, past the event horizon of large black holes), it is possible to witness the entire, epic trillion year birth and death of the universe in the twinkling of an eye. From other points of reference, a mere stretch of milliseconds for one person could take billions of years for another observer of that person. Gravity bends time. It is not as absolute and linear as we ordinarily think.

If two particles whose spin-states were linked could be separated as in those up-and-coming "quantum telephones," one observer on one end of the line could pass the event horizon of a black hole. He could have a big telescope trained on our planet, and then tell us about the future in real time by watching events in fast-forward before we live them. Linked quantum spin states, in theory, allow faster than light communication. This, in theory, means that information can come from the future under certain circumstances.

If you, yourself traveled back in time, messed things up a bit, you'd probably return to a different present. This is not impossible given that some people in quantum mechanics think we live in a multiverse, an infinite spectrum of parallel and not-so-parallel universes. Within a universe, causality is not violated. When you travel back in time, you probably branch off into a whole other universe. I don't have any idea how someone could transport one's whole being into the past.

If it's true that much of the mass of the universe is in particles that are barely detectable or unknown, then perhaps there is a seamless interface between them, the mind, and the brain. Perhaps the mind can remain organized in the absence of a brain, being partly made of these ethereal, ephemeral particles. If some of these particles are tachyons, then an explanation for rare incidents of clairvoyance may be presented. If this idea is real, then it enables people to excercise genuine free will and exist beyond bodily death.

Or at least it would be nice to think so.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), April 25, 2000.

coprolith

What do you think is the mechanism for receiving thoughts of future events, I experience them all the time, somehow I "know" it is a prediction rather than just some random thought going round the mind. Can the brain pick up tachyon messages or something. How does the brain "know" it is a prediction, is it encoded as such.

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), April 25, 2000.

Coprolith:

Excellant theory. It is pretty close to what I believe. You actually said it better than I could.

I would be interested in your answer to Richard's last question.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 26, 2000.

Again, what I said was pure speculation and be warned that I did not get the best grades in physics class. What I was saying was that the universe and the mind could be stranger than we imagine, is all.

I don't know how you could "prove" if something was clairvoyance or beyond coincidence--perhaps Psi researchers could answer that. Also I don't know how the brain's architecture can support an interface with a mind beyond the body. It is true that the arrays of brain neurons are dazzlingly complex with trillions of connections. They are arrayed in a way that is chaotic on some levels and ordered on others. Phenomena that seem random happen that way because of a delicate balance of tiny forces pushing their observed effects to and fro. Maybe the probability for brain nerves to form a connection and fire is slightly altered by quantum effects beyond the brain. Who knows?

There is a tendency to relgate all weird and unexplainable thigns to quantum mechanics as if it were some kind of synonym for "magic." I don't believe in magic. Still, I'll cop out and say that QM laws could allow or be responsible for some "non-local" aspect of consciousness.

I could be flat out, dead wrong. You are free to tell me that I am full of s***. I might even agree with you. Also, I think most people who claim to be "psychic" are either quacks or well-endowed with imagination and extaordinary intuition. Such people may pick up on non-verbal cues and stimuli better than others, being more sensitive. Because they notice things better they attribute it to psi. I suspect genuine psi is more subtle, harder to detect, and very rare.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), April 26, 2000.

tc:

You are describing a novel called "Millennium", written by John Varley. I didn't know it had been made into a movie.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 26, 2000.

>> If two particles whose spin-states were linked could be separated ... <<

coprolith:

By odd coincidence I was just reading in a book last night (The Neandertal Enigma, by James Shreeve) about a new dating technique called electron spin resonance (ESR).

At the heart of this technique is the fact that particles with linked spin-states are naturally separated over time by sub-atomic collisions and, if the material to be dated has a crystaline structure, these unlinked particles are captured and preserved in their unlinked state.

The dating technique measures the number of such particles (indirectly, of course) and draws conclusions about the age of the material. Tooth enamel is the preferred material for ESR dating in paleoanthropolgical circles. Cool stuff.

So, anyway, such separation is possible in nature and already being put to good use.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 26, 2000.