However. before I can clarify what I mean by all that, I have to explain quantum causality.
Before I start losing people who don't want to get too involved in technical explanations, let me point out one of my strengths. I, by nature, share the complicated and comprehensive view of the pure scientist with the simple yet braod view of the untethered philospher. So while I will go into some technical details here (and yes, mathematics of one form or another will almost definitely be mentioned) you can pretty much ignore the specifics and still understand what I'm saying by the generals, unless you're a technical type person, too. See, I can be all things to all people.
So to start...
Causality is the study of cause and effect. Most people, most Americans anyway, learn about cause and affect in Elemetary or Middle School (I don't remember which). But causality is significantly more advanced since, obviously, very few effects have only a single cause. This is proved in physics, where even a penny falling to the ground when you drop it is caused purely by gravity. Though that is the primary cause, there are other factors to consider.
Quantum Causality is even more complicated, because it has to look at all aspects of cause and affect (which is to say, even causes have causes) (basically, Quantum means add another notch).
This is especially relevant when considering the nature of time.
Previously (I don't remember the exact entrie, but it's probaby in my entries worth reading) I discussed the likelihood of time as a dimension.
Caz disagreed with me on that, but I think it was a matter of misundersanding. Assuming the simplest possible interaction of forces and objects, it is possible for something to move in one dimension out of our available three. Let's call our axes x (length), y (width) and z (height or depth). So, it seems obvious that just because something is moving along the x axis, it does not, in fact, have to move along the y or z axis at all. If time (t) is a dimension like the others (for the moment we'll also assume it is at right angles to all three other dimensions so that it remains consistent) then it should be possible to either a) move thorugh time without moving through space or b) move through space without moving through time.
While there are few practical uses for the former ability, the latter would, in fact, be very useful. Instantaneous travel would be more than beneficial, especially since distant would not matter. Since it's not taking any actual time to do it, it doesn't really matter how far you go.
Of course then must be taken into account the idea of objective time and subjective time. The first point being, is there any difference in the two. Realistically, if time is a dimension, then there should be no subjective time at all. It should be an objective space through which we move. And if we cease ot move through that space we should notice no significant difference.
So, going by this hypothesis, the actual likelihood that time is a dimension is, in fact, very low. Which is okay, cause we'd rather it not be a dimension anyway.
So this now brings us to quantum causality, which is where we learn that everything has at least one cause, and possibly many. And also that one thing may cause multiple things.
So, to clarify. Each effet can have multiple causes. Each cause can have multiple effects. Effects can share causes, just like causes can share effects. Oh, wait, that didn't clarify antyhing at all, in fact, I think it was more confusing than my prior statement. Fuck it.
Now to look more at the nature of time, and the past, the present and the future.
We assume that the future is mutable. This is because we understand causality, or rather, that causes have effects. When we first learn it, we learn for certain that one thing can cause many things to happen, so imagine the cause as a point with many lines (rays) branching off of it in sort of a fan-like pattern (visualizations are fun!).
So, again, we assume that the future is mutable, that what we do here, now, in the present, changes the future. So, really, even with only a small sampling of space, you run across near infinite variations on possible futures, because each and every individual existence, animate or not, can act or be acted upon in a number of various ways, then you take combinatorics (you know, the factorials and, uh, other probability stuff, I forget the exact terms, I fucking hated that class anyway) on each of those available actions into account (remembering to remove those that are mutually exclusive) and while you don't necessarily get infinity with a small sample, you take a sample the size of, say, the earth, and there you are. You've pretty much hit on infinite futures just from what can happen now, with the present.
So, what we have is the present. We pretend the past doesn't exist. And we look and see that there are infinite futures with just the Earth as our sample. So our hypothesis that the future is mutable appears to bear out.
Now we're going to take that fact (though it wasn't scientifically proven, we'll assume that logic is an acceptable proof ) (incidentally, it isn't) and form a second hypothesis.
First we pick a point in the past, for convenience's sake, let's choose yesterday, and make it the present. Since, at one point (yesterday) it was in fact the present, this is no hardship. Now, we know from the previous discussion that from the present we have infinite futures, so if past=present, and present=future (as far as yesterday is concerned, today is the futre) then we must have infinite presents as well as infinite futures.
So, again, a basic proof, and we take that, except let's go back three days, and set that period to equal present, and set yesterday to equal future. And again we prove that there are mutliple pasts.
So, we can only assume that if there are infinite futures, and the future is mutable, and there are infinite presents, and infinite pasts, then the present and the past must also be mutable.
So this where we begin to get into the seriously complicated causality. We can only assume that events in the past determine which present we are in, and that if the past is changed, the present will change as well, and so too will the future.
Of course, that isn't necessarily the case. Causality assures us that two totally separate, unrealted events can have exactly the same cause. So it's entirely possible that two different pasts could in fact have the same present (or the same future)...to picture this, imagine the present as a point, the two lines of the past pass through this point to two new points in the future.
So, since all are equally mutable, it's imprecise to refer to anything as the past, the present or the future, but only as a specific point in time.
Which is why we have dates and clocks and nanoseconds.
So, we've established all of that, and it brings up certain questions, such as how people complain that history is mostly fiction. We can prove that changing the past changes the present and changing the present changes the future, and hell, even changing the past changes the future, but it's entirely possible that changing the present changes the past, and changing the future changes the present, and changing the future changes the past.
And, to be perfectly honest, that possibility is a lot more likely than the possibility of time as a dimension (although it is nicely represented using three dimensional diagrams for reference).
Which brings me to my next point, if all this is the case, how do we know that our past isn't in a constant state of flux, and we never know the difference because, of course, or memories change right along with it. In fact, come to think of it, our present could be changing, not just one second to the next as we move through time, but irrespective of time itself, the present could be completely changing itself.
Which gets into the discussion on fate, because my hypothesis is that, of course our past isn't changing, anymore than our future is.
People consistently believe that knowing the future will allow them to change it, but realistically, lots of people know their futures, have the chance to change them, and never do, because while they have many, many choices, most of those choices are so foreign to their nature, they will never make them.
So while there are certainly an infinite number of available futures, there are a finite number of possible futures (using possible, in this instance as a binary quality [what will or will not happen] instead of a grandient [what is possible and what is not possible]). And, because we have determined that there is not distinguishable difference between the nature of the future, the nature of the present and the nature of the past (they are very different in specifics, but in the general of their existence and operation, they are the same) this is true for the other two time states as well. So while there are many, many available pasts, only a few of them are even worth considering as happened.
So, really, time travel is hardly a danger. For the most part, the future, the present and the past are going to be what they ar going to be. Significant changes just are not likely, even with time travel.
I'm sure most of you have read the river metaphor, so I'm not going to repeat it. My hypothesis is similar, except rather than that theory's belief that time is self correcting, I believe that the units within it (the animate beings) maintain their past, present and future by their own choice, and time seems self correcting, because whenever it might go astrary the greater majority acts to return it to it's original path.
So, this means that being able to read the future is, in fact, a useful skill, but only on a small level, unless, of course, you're powerful enough to resist the collective mediocrity of every living being in the universe.
This, in a roundabout way, brings me to my next point, which has to do with earth, resources, and population.
I often hear people complain that we are using up the planet's resources too quickly, and if we don't stop, the planet will die.
Which is, of course, perfectly ridiculous. What we really mean is, if we don't cut it out, we'll run out of all the things we need to keep our lives comfortable. We'll run out of materials to build things, we'll run out of things to eat, and run out of ways to provide ourselves with energy.
The earth will sitll be here, and will be perfectly fine. So really, what we're worried about is using up the earth for humanity, and sicne it's humanity that's using up the earth, why are we so worried again?
True, other animals will die out, but extinction is really not that big a deal.
Because of time and existence. A species that entirely dies out does not cease to exist. The past is just as real as the present, and since they existed at that time, they still exist, they just aren't here in this time with us.
So really, the only thing that is ever lost is that that never happened (this is, of course, working with the assumption that while there are infinite possible pasts, presents and futures, only one exists at any give 'time', and yes, I know how horrible a word that is to use in that place, but have you got a better one?), and there is so much of that to miss, both good and bad, because one active choice out of an infinite number means you have missed the greater majority of everything, that it beomes ridiculous to even consider all that is lost some sort of misfortune.
And really, if we take Murphy's Law as given, that's not even a problem.
Murphy's Law is, 'Whatever can go wrong will go wrong.'. Then, taking all possible events into accout, we will notice that every good thing that happens, is in fact something bad for someone else. This is not because of any sort of mystical balance to the universe, it's just a matter of interests. For instance humans evolved, and lots of bad things resulted from that. Some people find money, which means othe rpeople who might have needed it more didn't find money. Every good thing that happens is something bad happening to someone or something else. So, go wrong is equal to happen. So we have Murphy's Law equals 'Whatever can happen will happen.
Which, admittedly, totally contradicts the argument I had used previously, which was, just because something is possible doesn't mean it's going to happen (to whit, it's entire possible that I could stop typing after this word, but as you can see, it didn't happen, but it was still very possible), which I used when I was trying to convince people that nothing is impossible.
Of course, more than likely, I'm right about both of them, and everything is waiting until the last minute, right before the end of the universe, then it's all going to happen at once.
Anyway, that was long and sort of rambling, and probably didn't really explain anything, and it certainly isn't meant be taken as absolute proof of everything stated. While some of it is probably factual, part of it is also probably false, and I leave it up to you to determine what you believe, and to argue with me as you see fit. Still, I hope this helps someone, though I get the feeling I haven't really explained anything.
recent...
2001-09-10 - Quantum Causality
2001-09-07 - I'm of two many minds.
2001-09-05 - Nakita'dai
2001-09-05 - Stupid work.
2001-09-05 - Still sad.
Step Back ---/// Take a Step ///--- End of the Path