|
Post by Bigboy on Oct 26, 2006 17:17:38 GMT -5
The concept of retrocausality (future events directly affecting the past) has been around ro a long time, but a recent article in New Scientist caught my eye: "What's done is done… or is it?" From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 28 September 2006, page 36-39 www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125710.900Most of the article describes what retrocausality is, how the laws of physics allow for it, and an experiment being developed to attempt to demonstrate it, but a subsection stood out: The part highlighted in red is the crux of this post, as this example applies directly to Franks seemingly circluar existence [dieing in the future so he can affect the past to ensure he dies in the future]. If we assume that the effects of retrocausality are real, and that the Manipulators (those that manipulate the Manipulated Dead/Living, be it God/Scientists/Aliens/Flying Spaghetti monster) have advanced control over those effects, then providing the events of future and past in the TU are mutually consistent (which they are) then the problem of apparent circular logic vanishes. In other words retrocausality means that there is no need for any Groundhog-esque time loop to explain Frank!
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Oct 30, 2006 19:34:02 GMT -5
Hawkings recent ideas of a 'Flexiverse' run along in a similar vein:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “It's all to do with perspective, Hawking says: if we could stand outside the world, we would see the present affecting the past”
Putting the you into universe Hawking and Hertog's cosmology adds an interesting twist to the ongoing debate in physics about the existence of multiple universes. At issue is the fact that string theory, physicists' most popular candidate for a "theory of everything", describes not just one universe but a near infinity of them. Some physicists are willing to accept that these theoretical universes actually exist, both because string theory doesn't seem to favour any particular universe over all the others in the bunch, and because their existence could help explain the apparently fine-tuned features of our universe.
Take, for example, the value of the cosmological constant, the force that appears to be causing the expansion of the universe to speed up. It is a very small force, and no one has yet explained why it should be so. The trouble is, its size happens to be a number that sits in a very narrow range of values that would allow life to exist. This coincidence has compelled some physicists to make the so-called anthropic argument: maybe there are multiple "pocket" universes that branch off from one another, and within each the constants take a different value. In that scenario, there is bound to be one universe with a cosmological constant like ours and we should not be surprised to find ourselves in the one universe hospitable to life.
Many physicists argue that this is just giving up on the problem of explaining why our universe is the way it is - it is not, they say, science. Hawking and Hertog's new idea adds fuel to this fire. The picture of a never-ending string of pocket universes is only meaningful from the perspective of an observer outside any one universe, Hawking says - and that, by definition, is impossible. Parallel pocket universes can have no effect on a real observer inside a single pocket, so, according to Hawking, they are theoretical baggage that should be eliminated from cosmology.
But Hawking has a replacement in mind - and it is just as mind-boggling. His view is that the string theory landscape is populated by the set of all possible histories. Rather than a branching set of individual universes, every possible version of a single universe exists simultaneously in a state of quantum superposition. When you choose to make a measurement, you select from this landscape a subset of histories that share the specific features measured. The history of the universe - for you the observer - is derived from that subset of histories. In other words, you choose your past. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From issue 2548 of New Scientist magazine, 20 April 2006, page 28
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Oct 30, 2006 20:13:39 GMT -5
Having recently read these articles which led me to re-examine Darko in the context of these ideas, I've also been put in mind of Richard Kelly's description of Frank as a "reverse ghost".
In the context of retrocausality this totally makes sense if you go one stage further and posit that the MD actually exist backwards in time. Apart from clearing up his rather awkward timeline, it also accounts for his prophetic nature.
We also never see MD Frank after the death of ML Frank; granted there's not much movie left after that point, BUT, if MD Frank exists backward in time from the point of ML Frank's death, then MD Frank can't exist after ML Frank's death. The notion that Donnie is completely on his own from that point really cements the Ensurance Trap as significant pivotal moment.
|
|
Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane
Guest
|
Post by Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane on Nov 18, 2006 10:40:51 GMT -5
Bigboy, your posts on retrocausality, flexiverse, string theory, and flying spaghetti monster have been simmering on the mental back burner and may have come to a bit of a boil.
just wondering if it (retrocausality) might in some way be related to morphogenetic field theory (100th monkey) in that people are (re)creating the universe constantly via thoughts/expectations of common-consensus-reality as well as through the collective unconscious. (2 parts meta-physics to 1 part physics?)
scientists looking "backward" in time (by tracing the origin of the universe to the Big Bang) are confirming their own theories even as they are postulating them. "our" universe continues because we all want it to; or, we are continually stepping from this universe into another one, bringing with us all the "facts" and memories of the previous ("previous" in the sense of the one before, not necessarily in time), with each step coming down in the "next" universe, tangent or otherwise. (this seems hinted at near the end of your post Oct 30, 7:34pm) in any event, kudos for bringing all that info to bear on DD, and for offering a satisfying explication of the Frank and Frank anomaly.
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Nov 19, 2006 15:43:00 GMT -5
I suppose that the RC and FV ideas are structurally similar to morphogenetic field theory, but I personally don't think they are necessarily directly connected to 'mind'/consciousness. FV comes closest in that the sum of histories is determined my measurement; but is measurement necessarily a conscious act? Quantum affects are often determined by measurement, but they got by on their own for billions of years before intelligent life ever turned up to observe them. It also seems unlikely that such a disparate set of viewpoints represented by mankind could produce, by consensus, a machine with the elegance of precision such as the universe. A single mind is another matter though... if the universe is an illusion of some great dreamer, so is the precision apparent within. But such existential musing often spiral into absurdity. Interesting that you should mention FSM and the idea of shaping our own past; wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if there is Intelligent Design inherent in the universe - and that it is our descendants that are responsible!? Also interesting that you highlight the traversal of a universal state-space (from the FV article); I used a similar concept in an alternate 'proof' of Frank: Here.NB best not to refer to posts by time/date unless you qualify it with a time zone. Took me off guard, because according to my post history I didn't post on Oct 30th at all. But of course I'm GMT, and Im guessing that you are in the Eastern US (GMT-5).
|
|
Reed
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by Reed on Nov 20, 2006 16:08:01 GMT -5
But Hawking has a replacement in mind - and it is just as mind-boggling. His view is that the string theory landscape is populated by the set of all possible histories. Rather than a branching set of individual universes, every possible version of a single universe exists simultaneously in a state of quantum superposition. When you choose to make a measurement, you select from this landscape a subset of histories that share the specific features measured. The history of the universe - for you the observer - is derived from that subset of histories. In other words, you choose your past. So in some universes, I'm nailing Jordan Capri! Me likey physics!
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Nov 20, 2006 21:40:20 GMT -5
;DLOL ...but simultaneously, in another universe you are having a threesome with Micheal Jackson and Uri Gellar. Best not to think about it too deeply!
|
|
Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane
Guest
|
Post by Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane on Dec 2, 2006 16:04:27 GMT -5
they got by on their own for billions of years before intelligent life ever turned up to observe them.
that is, before the intelligent life known as homo detritus. who knows what was going on while the universe was dreaming of/dreading our arrival (scheming our arrival?).
It also seems unlikely that such a disparate set of viewpoints represented by mankind could produce, by consensus, a machine with the elegance of precision such as the universe.
quite true. we can't even agree upon which side of the road to drive, let alone if the electrons should spin clockwise, counter-clockwise, or alternate based on leap years. "machine with the elegance of precision" sounds like part of a Clockmaker argument. unless of course you're referring to such as the nautilus, the water molecule, and the exchange of gasses between plants and animals. these all possess elegance and precision w/o being perceived as machines, or parts thereof.
wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if there is Intelligent Design inherent in the universe - and that it is our descendants that are responsible!?
very funny! also, depends on how flexible one is willing to be w/ the term "intelligence". is an atom intelligent? is a star? a closed mind may contain knowledge and information but how intelligent is it? (no intent to offend but am skeptical of the FSM and its authorship. personally find the cult of the very stealthy maroon pegasus to be more appealing intellectually, morally, and, needless to say, scientifically.)
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Dec 2, 2006 21:36:56 GMT -5
Touche. Perhaps 'machine' was the wrong word... although the point being made was that IF there is mind shaping the universe it's far more likely to be one mind than many. But I'm not suggesting that that mind be God or similar - more the concept that you can't be sure that the universe extends beyond your own experience or that there are other minds than your own. If YOU even exist - you could simply be the avatar through which a vast puff of mind/consciousness/thought-stuff experiences it's eternal dream of a universe of it's own devising. Could you call that omni-dreamer God? Perhaps - but I don't think such concepts could never extend beyond speculation. Having waffled for a bit, I do agree with your second thought - processes such as evolution, geology, and other self organising systems in nature were really where I was heading with the machine analogy - no watch maker necessarily required. One of my university professors once demonstrated that, properly configured, a stick of rock could satisfy most definitions of 'alive' and 'intelligent'. This was part of a machine intelligence course, but he wasn't really clear whether this was to demonstrate that the definition of intelligence is ill-defined, or that on some level intelligence is inherent in all things. I expect it's the former, but the latter would fit with what you're saying. Which opens up all sorts of questions - did the universe retroactively design itself (and by extension us)? The idea of the giant pink unicorn has been around for years - maybe your sect is an ideological offshoot? As it is I'm staying for the Beer volcano and Stripper Factory that awaits us all...
|
|
Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane
Guest
|
Post by Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane on Dec 3, 2006 23:51:24 GMT -5
Perhaps 'machine' was the wrong word didn't mean to take you to task for the term; more myself thinking of the universe as a harmoniously functioning organism, precise and elegant as you suggest. still, one may argue that a ctyoplast is a "machine", etc. sounds like part of a Clockmaker argument sorry; was having a bit of a yank on your chain, as seems doubtful to me that you subscribe to the intelligent design/watchmaker theory (should have used one of these ). but this does meander into the next point about intelligence. one could argue an innate "intelligence" operating in the universe, in the formation of stars, heavy elements, life and so on; not necessarily a thinking or designing intelligence ("hm, a supernova would like nice right about here") but more an organizing intelligence in which natural progressions are followed. (you hint at as much so i'll assume you get it w/o more verbiage.) One of my university professors once demonstrated that, properly configured, a stick of rock could satisfy most definitions of 'alive' and 'intelligent'. yes, one may say a rock "knows" how to be a rock but this seems more semantic chicanery than a case for igneous thought processes. as far as intelligence inherent in all things, does seem to be something on the atomic level in the holographic theory and in quantum mechanics generally; not sure though as could be the intelligence of the perceiver at work. as you point out, definitions can become slippery. did the universe retroactively design itself (and by extension us)? this one's going to have to spend some time simmering on the back burner! it's a wonderful pretzel in the brain. personally find the cult of the very stealthy maroon Pegasus to be more appealing intellectually, morally, and, needless to say, scientifically The idea of the giant pink unicorn has been around for years - maybe your sect is an ideological offshoot? exactly so! again being facetious in the hopes for a laugh. (actually, i'm not much of an adherent in such matters as a character flaw prevents me from sticking to anything for a decent length of time. ) thanks for the exchange; your posts certainly keep the dust off the old cerebral cortex.
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Dec 4, 2006 9:00:15 GMT -5
Don't worry - I 'lolled' (NB - a 'stick of rock' is a traditional candy over here - similar to candy-cane.)
|
|
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Dec 4, 2006 19:13:40 GMT -5
I just don't think Richard Kelly is that smart. I mean, I don't think he is a stupid man by any means, but I think this particular forum gives him far too much credit. Or, have we officially taken the story out of his hands at this point? Does the movie now belong to us and not him? Quite amazing the form it has taken so long (relatively) after its release.
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Dec 5, 2006 7:58:24 GMT -5
I'm not necessarily saying that retrocausailty or the flexiverse are conscious parts of Kelly's DD universe - but they are theoretical/real world examples that mirror/justify certain aspects of DD logic.
Kelly never needed to go any further than describing Frank as a 'Reverse Ghost' to get it 'right' - these ideas just suggest that a being existing backwards in time is not quite as outlandish as it first seems.
|
|
Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane
Guest
|
Post by Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane on Dec 5, 2006 19:54:05 GMT -5
stick of rock?!? thought you meant stick or rock! goofy! here we have "rock" candy: chunks of pure cane sugar crystals not unlike lumps of quartz (you too?). is similar to eating rocks, albeit sweet rocks. maybe when Frank went to get beer he also picked up some sticks of rock and some rock candy for the Darkos to dispense as Halloween treats...? ;D
|
|
|
Post by greedy on Dec 19, 2006 19:50:55 GMT -5
now heres a cunundrum for you perhaos this movie was put in place so that we could understand this concept maintian the nalance and put the movie in place. ok not really a conundrum but my word bank hurts right now
|
|