From: Eric Hardison (bijaz@mindspring.com)
Date: Fri Jun 25 1999 - 13:49:17 MDT
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> I happen to believe that time travel is explicitly
> permitted by General Relativity, which forbids a
> single correct direction of time just as Special
> Relativity forbids an "ether" or single correct
> reference frame.
Time is just movement of matter. The presupposition that dimensions
exist is Platonism at its worst.
We "describe" wave-particles of matter and energy as having three
dimensions. But in the end, they simply exist. And they move, so we say
they move through the fourth dimension, which is fine as a
description -- but they're just moving. Part of the problem is not
seeing that there is a fabric to space (a unique fabric with special
unintuitive properties no doubt -- like a speed limit). Matter isn't
moving through anything -- it is a modulation of "something."
It is a leap to say that we are moving through "time" -- and a weird
leap at that. Time is our description of movement of matter and energy,
which are descriptions themselves of reality. So time is a
meta-description.
Let's substitute the meta-definition back into the definition: matter is
moving through movement of matter. What!? You see it's clear: a "real"
thing can't interact with an abstract idea.
Now, it's true that general relativity says that there is no preferred
arrow of time. But there's this thing called symmetry breaking, and the
GUTs force and the E-weak force lost that symmetry. So there is an arrow
of time. The 2nd law of thermo does apply, etc. These laws all describe
the way processes happen -- the movement of matter and energy.
So we go back to the problem of time travel. Clearly, it's possible for
time to pass more slowly or quickly for one individual compared to
another (subject to the "movement" of clocks in their respective frames
of reference and likewise their biochemical clocks). So, as long as it's
understood what exactly is meant by the expression, it's fine to say
that "traveling" into the future is possible (subject to some odd
properties of movement of waves along the fabric of space). No confusion
between abstract idea and reality exists here.
The problem is when someone talks about "traveling" into the past. You
see, if you didn't properly understand what was meant by "traveling" in
the previous paragraph, you are apt to make this mistake. Time doesn't
exist as anything but a description. You can't physically travel through
a description.
Our mathematics, by treating time as though it were real, does a
wonderful job of describing movement along the fabric of space. But it
is wrong to reify descriptions as if they were real. Math is not real.
It's just a language -- a tool. And paradoxes are the inherent flaw of
any language (as per Epimenides). As Gödel proved, all languages are
essentially incomplete. Thus, we can expect to have to use many
different languages to describe reality. The hope of unifying everything
under one language stems from a complete misunderstanding of the
inherent limits of "isomorphic description."
Eric (mailto:bijaz@mindspring.com)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:18 MST