Say something controversial

Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
506
Yup, it's just that IMO it's a lot easier to imagine timelines being chaotic instead of resilient (why is it resilient? how is it resilient? why is one timeline preferred over another? can this preference be changed? why or why not? sooo many questions). Not to mention the fatalistic worldview seems to often lead to less-than-useful ways of thinking, including depression, feelings of helplessness, impending doom etc. -- so in the face of lack of evidence in either direction, I'd rather the "anything's possible" worldview.
Well the reason we could assume that it's 'resilient' is essentially the theory that the past no longer exists. (Has problems of its own).

I.e, you can't travel back to the past because there's no past to travel back to. Just an eternal present.

The opposite theory being that the Past is still happening and always will exist at its own point in space time. As if a rock has been thrown into a pond, and the ripples circle outwards forever into the future.
 
Aggregator gang
Joined
Apr 12, 2019
Messages
60
Theres also a theory that changing anything would create a parallel universe at the point you altered the original timeline. 🤔🤓
Here's a very simplistic but slightly more rigorous way I convince myself that the chaotic worldview makes more sense than practically anything else:

Classical physics is deterministic, that is, it has a very rigid set of rules that is always followed; no exceptions. If you start 100 copies of the same experiment with the exact same setup and conditions, all of them will yield the same result 100% of the time. However, even such a rigid system of physical laws can easily give rise to a chaotic system where changing the initial conditions even the tiniest bit gives results that are completely different than before. The double-pendulum GIF on the wikipedia page on Chaos Theory is a great visual example of this.

The point is that even the very rigid rules of classical physics are not immune to chaos -- what then of the real world, which turns out is governed instead by quantum physics, whose nature is not deterministic but probabilistic instead? Seems to me that it's just going to be even more chaotic.

Well the reason we could assume that it's 'resilient' is essentially the theory that the past no longer exists. (Has problems of its own).

I.e, you can't travel back to the past because there's no past to travel back to. Just an eternal present.
That goes counter to special (and general) relativity, which is 100% proven (and is part of the basis of our current GPS systems). Time is not "alone", space and time are two sides of the same coin, and are more properly referred to as spacetime. This gives rise to some mind-bending seemingly nonsensical consequences like the Twin Paradox.

To conclude: My past might be someone else's future, and vice versa, so claiming that "the past" ceases to exist raises the question: whose past?
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
506
Here's a very simplistic but slightly more rigorous way I convince myself that the chaotic worldview makes more sense than practically anything else:

Classical physics is deterministic, that is, it has a very rigid set of rules that is always followed; no exceptions. If you start 100 copies of the same experiment with the exact same setup and conditions, all of them will yield the same result 100% of the time. However, even such a rigid system of physical laws can easily give rise to a chaotic system where changing the initial conditions even the tiniest bit gives results that are completely different than before. The double-pendulum GIF on the wikipedia page on Chaos Theory is a great visual example of this.

The point is that even the very rigid rules of classical physics are not immune to chaos -- what then of the real world, which turns out is governed instead by quantum physics, whose nature is not deterministic but probabilistic instead? Seems to me that it's just going to be even more chaotic.


That goes counter to special (and general) relativity, which is 100% proven (and is part of the basis of our current GPS systems). Time is not "alone", space and time are two sides of the same coin, and are more properly referred to as spacetime. This gives rise to some mind-bending seemingly nonsensical consequences like the Twin Paradox.

To conclude: My past might be someone else's future, and vice versa, so claiming that "the past" ceases to exist raises the question: whose past?


You might find this interesting, pursuant to this topic.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
1,753
That goes counter to special (and general) relativity, which is 100% proven (and is part of the basis of our current GPS systems). Time is not "alone", space and time are two sides of the same coin, and are more properly referred to as spacetime. This gives rise to some mind-bending seemingly nonsensical consequences like the Twin Paradox.

To conclude: My past might be someone else's future, and vice versa, so claiming that "the past" ceases to exist raises the question: whose past?
Except relativity also has a universal speed limit which prevents you from going back in time by going very fast, so while our perception of events may differ they can be reconciled. I am suspicious that physics does actually have a hard 'no backwards time flow' rule for those of us existing in this 'forward' flow of time, though how that limit comes to be and is enforced is well out of my understanding.
 
Aggregator gang
Joined
Apr 12, 2019
Messages
60
Except relativity also has a universal speed limit which prevents you from going back in time by going very fast, so while our perception of events may differ they can be reconciled. I am suspicious that physics does actually have a hard 'no backwards time flow' rule for those of us existing in this 'forward' flow of time, though how that limit comes to be and is enforced is well out of my understanding.
Well, not exactly. Relativity is based on the postulate that the speed of light is constant and the same in all frames of reference. So while it's often (semi-jokingly) called the speed limit of the universe, it's not a "hard rule" as far as actual "distance" one can traverse in spacetime is concerned.

For example, relativity does not explicitly rule out the possibility of tachyons (hypothetical particles traveling faster than light). It also doesn't rule out the possibility of spacetime "folding" (the basis of a hypothetical form of FTL that doesn't actually violate known physical laws, the Alcubierre drive/bubble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive).

So it's a lot more complex and interesting than "nothing can ever be faster than light".
 
Contributor
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
1,138
Instead of going with theories without understanding the basis, go back to studying Math & Physics as I'm seeing a lot of mixed concepts. There's a lot of gurus of quantum physics that mix science with their own assumptions and say a lot of unscientistic things. For time-travel, it's not what you expect (just a difference in aging) and it's only moving forward. There's even a fascist theory about how an external entity makes sure everything advances through history the right way. You can read Wells and watch Star Trek to enjoy some time-travelling, but so far is pure fantasy. And about the conception of history, nowadays the predominant vision is the one inherited from the three great monotheistic religions, in which history is a lineal development with a start and an end (Hegel obviously wrote in this line). The traditional conception of time is circular, it changes but returns to the same point and starts again. When Marx speaks about "history is the fight among classes" it's done in a circular way too. Think about anime seasons: new waifus are advertised, people call dibs, the season ends and then another one starts with new waifus. Easier to understand now, right?
 
Aggregator gang
Joined
Apr 12, 2019
Messages
60
Instead of going with theories without understanding the basis, go back to studying Math & Physics as I'm seeing a lot of mixed concepts.
No thanks, I already spent 20+ years doing that professionally. Now I'd rather kick back and enjoy the slow-motion trainwreck that is our end-stage capitalistic society.
There's a lot of gurus of quantum physics that mix science with their own assumptions and say a lot of unscientistic things.
Yes there are. None of them were referenced until you brought them up, though.
You can read Wells and watch Star Trek to enjoy some time-travelling, but so far is pure fantasy.
Nobody said otherwise. We were just throwing out unproven but plausible hypotheses as far as current scientific understanding is concerned.
And about the conception of history...
Imma just stop you there and clarify that I was talking about the nature of spacetime as implied by our current scientific understanding of universal laws. That's a separate thing from the perception of time and/or philosophical musings on the linear or cyclical nature of human history.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
May 17, 2023
Messages
1,236
suddenly, I hate you now

for no particular reason
do we shame men because growing up they dreamed of being one day the strongest man in the world ?
should we now shame the ropan empire for trying to bring a more civilized way of life to the barbaric tribes they conquered ?

besides, its hot the more it becomes taboo/stygmatized.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Apr 11, 2024
Messages
1,454
do we shame men because growing up they dreamed of being one day the strongest man in the world ?
should we now shame the ropan empire for trying to bring a more civilized way of life to the barbaric tribes they conquered ?

besides, its hot the more it becomes taboo/stygmatized.
not saying you're unwelcome to feel dominant or anything, I just hate you for no particular reason whatsoever
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
May 17, 2023
Messages
1,236
He actually good leader if not for racism.

German who suffered heavy loss in WW1 recovered so quickly and become threat once again. Something that should not be possible after all the sanctions
I mean, alot lf their labour was due to them making slaves out of POW, which they gained mostly cause europe post ww1 was really anti war, had some incompetent policies reguarding armies in general and stuff.

also, towards the end the dude was aparently becoming hella delusional and schyzophrenic. so maybe they should have ditched him if they weren't also at war.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top