The Couch

Butterfly Effect :Sensitive Dependence On Initial

Comments on Butterfly Effect :Sensitive Dependence On Initial

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 05/09/09 - 9:10 AM:
Subject: Butterfly Effect :Sensitive Dependence On Initial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect


The butterfly effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. Small variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. This is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position.

It is a common subject in fiction when presenting scenarios involving time travel and with "what if" scenarios where one storyline diverges at the moment of a seemingly minor event resulting in two significantly different outcomes.



smiling faceHave you contemplated on it?

smiling faceThe phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that may ultimately alter the path of a tornado or delay, accelerate or even prevent the occurrence of a tornado in a certain location. The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale alterations of events. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different. While the butterfly does not cause the tornado, the flap of its wings is an essential part of the initial conditions resulting in a tornado.


smiling faceThe aspects of chaos theory you are interested in?

smiling faceDo you think about 'what if' scenarios as in time travel?



Your ideas are welcomezen



Thank You
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
Posted 05/10/09 - 11:52 PM:

"A candle flame in Tibet leans when I move."

-William Stafford

Great topic. Let me get back to you.


Zum

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 05/11/09 - 1:05 AM:

Zum wrote:


Great topic. Let me get back to you.


Zum





Thank you.You are welcome!zen
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 05/11/09 - 3:56 PM:

hi thinker,

time travel is a funny idea. i'm curious to know what motivations people might have for wanting to time travel.

-- i'm guessing some people would be interested in it in order to acquire power or money, by "fixing" certain events so they could theoretically later benefit from them in some way.

-- some people may be motivated by a strong sense of regret over mistakes made, and the desire to correct them.

-- then there is the simple desire for exploration. along the lines of this motivation, it may be possible to construct a sort of time machine which allows people to re-experience the past without changing it.

the fables all seem to agree that trying to change the past is a recipe for disaster. it's an interesting idea, though, appealing and pervasive... it raises the question of whether there may actually be a figurative key somewhere out there, waiting to be discovered, which ignites pandora's time travel machine.

what are your thoughts thinker13?

favorite time travel stories anyone?

smiling facelib
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 05/11/09 - 10:03 PM:

libertygrl wrote:
hi thinker,

time travel is a funny idea. i'm curious to know what motivations people might have for wanting to time travel.



I have read your opinions below and agree completely with you.I would try to say a few things not covered by you.


libertygrl wrote:

-- i'm guessing some people would be interested in it in order to acquire power or money, by "fixing" certain events so they could theoretically later benefit from them in some way.


Without doubt.We have already seen many such cases in fictional works.These end in disasters as does every selfish and greedy venture.



libertygrl wrote:

-- some people may be motivated by a strong sense of regret over mistakes made, and the desire to correct them.



Indeed.I find it to be a stronger factor than the previous one.We all are entrenched in the quagmires of ideals.Therefore very few of us find our lives to be 'perfect'.Hence,we keep on regretting over things and wonder whether such a thing as 'time travel' could help us.



libertygrl wrote:

-- then there is the simple desire for exploration. along the lines of this motivation, it may be possible to construct a sort of time machine which allows people to re-experience the past without changing it.


Indeed.I think it is best of your opinions.Is it not wonderful to imagine that you can walk side by side to Buddha OR Jesus.OR see 'dinosaurs' OR see inventors of wheel(perhaps greatest inventors of all times).It would certainly cause least distortion,yet,future would not be same after knowing the actual history.What do you think you want to witness,lib,with such an option available to you?



libertygrl wrote:

the fables all seem to agree that trying to change the past is a recipe for disaster. it's an interesting idea, though, appealing and pervasive... it raises the question of whether there may actually be a figurative key somewhere out there, waiting to be discovered, which ignites pandora's time travel machine.



Yes.And it is because of lack of wisdom.I read in a book by Stephan Hawking that possibility of time travel is only 10^(-56)(I am sorry if it is not accurate,since,it was a long ago I read it).Again : Possibility of "Back To The Future " type time travel is totally wiped out by the fact that we have never noticed in our history any proto-modern man(OR should I assume that "Leonardo Da Vinci" and Einstein etc came from future? laughing ).If time travel of that type has been possible,then,why do we not meet any man from future?Is it because they are modern enough to hide themselves from our world,yet,observe it?


The last option suggested by you seems to be most compatible with our perception.It is very much possible that "man from future" are witnessing us all in a passive way --like we watch a movie,without affecting anything in it.



libertygrl wrote:

what are your thoughts thinker13?

smiling facelib


I think quality of time travel fables has improved a lot with advancement of technology.Now you might be aware of "Parallel Universe" theory based on quantum mechanics--which renders time travel more possible.Chaos theory and 'butterfly effect' are also good for contemplating 'what ifs' of time travel.



libertygrl wrote:

favorite time travel stories anyone?


I know that you do not like "The Butterfly Effect" much.In spite of that I love the story.I think it is the most modern story of time travel as far as I am aware.It is beautiful because it takes in account all parallel universes.Still,flaw is,protagonist retains all of the memories,contrary to the parallel universes.I also think that sequels are crap.



zen Thank You zen
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 05/12/09 - 6:43 PM:

T13 wrote:
I know that you do not like "The Butterfly Effect" much.

hmm, i wouldn't say that i didn't like it. it was thought-provoking, and i liked how it ended. smiling face "bedazzled" addresses some similar themes in a comedic way.

T13 wrote:
If time travel of that type has been possible,then,why do we not meet any man from future?Is it because they are modern enough to hide themselves from our world,yet,observe it?

perhaps so.

carter scholz wrote a great short story called "the ninth symphony of ludwig von beethoven and other lost songs" in which some time-travelers spend a fair amount of time visiting the mind of beethoven and unwittingly drive him mad.

i admit that the idea that we should have discovered time travelers by now, if it were to be possible eventually, does not make sense to me. the history of the universe is a vast place, surely a time traveler could visit thousands of destinations and still not happen upon ours in a way that might be obvious? (especially among a world full of skeptics).

or. what if time travelers are incorporeal and we're not evolutionarily advanced enough to know how to detect them? food for thought.

also there may be a karmic imperative not to confer such a tremendous power upon a society which is not mature enough to handle it responsibly.

T13 wrote:
Is it not wonderful to imagine that you can walk side by side to Buddha OR Jesus.OR see 'dinosaurs' OR see inventors of wheel(perhaps greatest inventors of all times).It would certainly cause least distortion,yet,future would not be same after knowing the actual history.What do you think you want to witness,lib,with such an option available to you?

off the top of my head, i would be interested in seeing the development of indigenous cultures in mexico and south america. also the work of the ancient egyptians. smiling face your suggestions sound good too.
Timshel
New

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 1
Timshel
Posted 05/12/09 - 8:03 PM:

One of my favorite stories about time travel is Slaughter House Five. Imagining time as a line connecting two points, not as a circle, may change one's outlook on the possibility of time travel. Although, if time were a circle it would be destined to repeat itself. The latter idea more adequately describes the laws of life. Life tends to move in circles: history, calendars, sleep patterns, emotions, and the movement of the entire universe. I tend to lean toward time being finite. Most likely because the idea of something being infinite frightens me. I'll stop rambling and get back on topic. In the novel Vonnegut said time was a line and one could move and see freely between all the points that are possible on any given line. Time travel may be deemed impossible due to the fact that we have never met someone from the future, changing the past by making the smallest presence will inevitably and undoubtedly change the future, and ,maybe, the human mind could not delineate between past, present, and future if all 3 were possible to encounter. If I were able to travel through time, backwards or forwards, I might opt to stay home instead. Knowing everything would certainly be enticing.... but as human nature goes I believe I would most likely corrupt myself and abuse my new found past time.

I enjoyed reading the above posts and am looking forward to your responses.

libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 05/12/09 - 11:04 PM:

hi timshel, welcome! smiling face

slaughterhouse five was a great book. it's been over 20 years since i've read it but i loved it for being the first exposure i had to a nonlinear plot, also it introduced me to the concept of a fourth dimension. an excellent book on that subject is rudy rucker's the fourth dimension (although this is not narrative fiction). another book of his which may interest you is infinity and the mind which i find makes the difficult subject of infinity a little more approachable (at least in a mathematical sense).

here is a quote from another related book, jill purce's the mystic spiral:

jill wrote:

In a second, the faintest perfume may send us plummeting to the roots of our being, our whole life verticalised by a fleeting sensation: we have been connected by a mere smell to another place and another time. The amount we have changed in the recognition of this moment - this is the spiral: the path we have followed to reach the same point on another winding.

All our experiences are like that haunting scent: situations recur with almost boring familiarity until we have mastered them in the light of the previous time round. The more we do this, the steeper the gradient, which is the measure of our growth. The spiral we travel round life is the means we have to compare ourselves with ourselves, and discover how much we have changed since we were last in the city, met our brother, or celebrated Christmas. Time itself is cyclic, and by the spiral of its returning seasons we review the progress and growth of our own understanding.

Ours is the spiral house we build to keep us from life’s continuous outpouring, from an otherwise unchecked flow into the unknown. Since what is unknown has power over us, we should otherwise be as vulnerable as the snail would be if his shell grew long and straight. The familiarity of life’s experiences curls round and protects us, creating those mysterious mountain views of half-concealed windings which keep us bright with speculation and anticipation.

The steepness of the straight path is prohibitive for most of us. The mystic calls this the ‘shortcut’, the path of illumination; but that which lights the mystic’s way blinds the ordinary man, unprepared for the light of full knowledge. For him, unveiled truth is death; instead he must make his gradual ascent, allowing himself the protecting reassurance of its gentle windings.



Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 05/13/09 - 9:52 AM:

libertygrl wrote:

i admit that the idea that we should have discovered time travelers by now, if it were to be possible eventually, does not make sense to me. the history of the universe is a vast place, surely a time traveler could visit thousands of destinations and still not happen upon ours in a way that might be obvious? (especially among a world full of skeptics)


Yes a time traveler can explore multitudinous stations in his time line.Still have a look at :

smiling faceMy argument was--we have no traces of evidence in our history of millions of years--about any such travel.

smiling faceLack of any such evidences reinforces only two deductions(especially in case of "Back To The Future" type time travel--about which we are conversing here):

zenEither there has been no time travel.

zenOR we are not evolved enough to fathom remnants of time explorers in our history(Perhaps Leonardo Da Vinci and Einstein etc were time travelerslaughing ).

zenYou ought to realize the fact that it is highly unlikely that there is a possibility other than the two cases mentioned above--because,a time traveler would definitely wish to look at critical periods in human history(such as 'Renaissance' and 'Enlightenment')--I do not think that there should not be an evidence of a time travel in our recorded history of last two thousand years-if-we are efficient enough to explore it.


libertygrl wrote:

or. what if time travelers are incorporeal and we're not evolutionarily advanced enough to know how to detect them? food for thought.


Exactly.Seems to be a more viable idea as mentioned earlier.


libertygrl wrote:

also there may be a karmic imperative not to confer such a tremendous power upon a society which is not mature enough to handle it responsibly.


Sorry,unable to get you here.



libertygrl wrote:

off the top of my head, i would be interested in seeing the development of indigenous cultures in mexico and south america. also the work of the ancient egyptians. smiling face your suggestions sound good too.


Good ideas.We are always keen to see our ancestorsclap





zen Thank You zen


Edited by Thinker13 on 05/13/09 - 1:02 PM
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/13/09 - 10:08 AM:

Timshel wrote:
Imagining time as a line connecting two points, not as a circle, may change one's outlook on the possibility of time travel.


Hello Timshel.Time travel is very much like watching the recorded videos(in case you are talking about 'passive time travel'-which seems to be a more viable idea compared to 'active time travel'--though,chaos theory(butterfly effect) and parallel universe theories allow us to travel in an active way.).In this way,even recalling our past is a type of time travel--we are doing this all day long.If it would be possible to have some sort of "universal records"(Akashic records of Cayce,you might have heard of!)--we have to just play those records before us.

Timshel wrote:

Although, if time were a circle it would be destined to repeat itself. The latter idea more adequately describes the laws of life. Life tends to move in circles: history, calendars, sleep patterns, emotions, and the movement of the entire universe. I tend to lean toward time being finite. Most likely because the idea of something being infinite frightens me.


I beg to differ here.Only if you care to discuss,I can explain,whyzen



Timshel wrote:

maybe, the human mind could not delineate between past, present, and future if all 3 were possible to encounter. If I were able to travel through time, backwards or forwards, I might opt to stay home instead.


Elaborate this point and it would make for good conversation.



Timshel wrote:

Knowing everything would certainly be enticing.... but as human nature goes I believe I would most likely corrupt myself and abuse my new found past time.



Look at a few better aspects of having more freedom.Though,as you put it,a known fact is--fatal nature of human desire,which aggravates exponentially.



Timshel wrote:

I enjoyed reading the above posts and am looking forward to your responses.




It is pleasing to interact with yousmiling face



Thank You
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/13/09 - 12:45 PM:

T wrote:
My argument was--we have no traces of evidence in our history of millions of years--about any such travel.

let me use an example from aztec history to help illustrate the problem i have with this argument. the templo mayor was the site of a double pyramid at the center of the aztec capital, tenochtitlan. the aztecs considered this sacred site the center of the earth. however, shortly after the spanish conquered the aztec capital in the early 16th century, spain destroyed the pyramids and built a colonial city over the top of it, what is now the heart of mexico city.

for more than five centuries the aztec capital was lost. archeologists spent many years searching for it. someone may have argued at some point, "well if the city really did exist, surely we would have found it by now." but why should this be true? why should we believe that just because we haven't found something yet, it never existed?

in 1978, some workers excavating for the metro discovered the templo mayor in downtown mexico city. but imagine if this had not happened. imagine if by chance, the excavators missed discovering the templo mayor by just a few feet. imagine a few more centuries passing until it begins to be questioned that spain was even responsible for the destruction of the city. after all, these future skeptics may argue, why would someone want to destroy such an academically advanced civilization? (as an aside, did you know that there are some people who question that the holocaust even happened?)

on another note. in discussions we've had here at the couch on the subject of evolution, some have argued that surely we would have found proof of evolution from monkey to man if such a thing were true. again, i am lost at this line of reasoning. it's not like everything in history is always so well preserved that we have a perfect record to look through. also, it's not like we have turned the whole earth inside out and looked at its insides many times to know what there is to be found. every year, archaeologists make amazing new discoveries, like that of the templo mayor, that resolve many old debates and create many new ones.

T wrote:
because,a time traveler would definitely wish to look at critical periods in human history(such as 'Renaissance' and 'Enlightenment')--

these are critical periods in human history relative only to our point of view at this time in history. to me it is a culture-centric view, like the aztecs feeling that their capital was the center of the earth. then imagine that some warfaring civilization comes along who, for some inexplicable reason, wishes to destroy all evidence of the "renaissance" and "enlightenment" periods. or imagine that when it comes that time travel is invented, the earth no longer exists and no one even has any idea of how to find where it used to be.

T wrote:
smiling faceMy argument was--we have no traces of evidence in our history of millions of years--about any such travel.

let us imagine that a time traveler decides in the future to visit the renaissance period of our past. if i may ask, what kind of evidence do you suppose we should have found by now? or more specifically, what kind of evidence do you think would convince skeptics that certain individuals were really time travelers, rather than people who delusionally believed that they were?

T wrote:
I do not think that there should not be an evidence of a time travel in our recorded history of last two thousand years-if-we are efficient enough to explore it.

in my opinion it's not just a matter of efficiency, or of even being evolved enough to find it, as the evidence may have existed at one time but not anymore.

T wrote:
smiling faceLack of any such evidences reinforces only two deductions(especially in case of "Back To The Future" type time travel--about which we are conversing here):

zenEither there has been no time travel.

zenOR we are not evolved enough to fathom remnants of time explorers in our history(Perhaps Leonardo Da Vinci and Einstein etc were time travelers:laughingsmiling face.

you left out the possibility that maybe we have yet to discover such evidence. smiling face

i wrote:
also there may be a karmic imperative not to confer such a tremendous power upon a society which is not mature enough to handle it responsibly.

T wrote:
Sorry,unable to get you here.

karmic imperative may not be as apt an expression as perhaps moral imperative. but to make an analogy, perhaps introducing time travel to our wartorn civilization would be something like handing a gun to a small child.

what are your thoughts?

smiling facelib
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/13/09 - 1:28 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

let us imagine that a time traveler decides in the future to visit the renaissance period of our past. if i may ask, what kind of evidence do you suppose we should have found by now? or more specifically, what kind of evidence do you think would convince skeptics that certain individuals were really time travelers, rather than people who delusionally believed that they were?


Good question.Since we are talking about "Back To The Future" Type time travel here,why not to cite examples from the movie itself?

zenSomeone who seems to be an oddball,trying to communicate with us OR telling,like prophets(Was Nostradamus a time traveler?grin )--not exactly like prophets,but in a peculiar way,telling us about things to come,prophecies,major events OR anything like this.
zenSome technologies like ultramodern vehicles,watches,robots etc which are way too difficult to understand with our current technology.


libertygrl wrote:

in my opinion it's not just a matter of efficiency, or of even being evolved enough to find it, as the evidence may have existed at one time but not anymore.


Yes it is very much possible but it might also be otherwise.



libertygrl wrote:

you left out the possibility that maybe we have yet to discover such evidence. smiling face


No,semantics,methinks.The quote below says the same thing in my earlier post :


Thinker13 wrote:

zenOR we are not evolved enough to fathom remnants of time explorers in our history(Perhaps Leonardo Da Vinci and Einstein etc were time travelers laughing ).





libertygrl wrote:

karmic imperative may not be as apt an expression as perhaps moral imperative. but to make an analogy, perhaps introducing time travel to our wartorn civilization would be something like handing a gun to a small child.

what are your thoughts?

smiling facelib


Your moral perspective is no doubt good,still,there are lot of things in the world in the hands of corrupt people.


Abraham Lincoln wrote:

any man can tolerate adversity, but if you want to measure a man's character, you give him power,"


That,I think,is not a sufficient reason for 'time travel' to not exist,OR,not to be detected.smiling face



Thank You
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/13/09 - 1:44 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

let me use an example from aztec history to help illustrate the problem i have with this argument. the templo mayor was the site of a double pyramid at the center of the aztec capital, tenochtitlan. the aztecs considered this sacred site the center of the earth. however, shortly after the spanish conquered the aztec capital in the early 16th century, spain destroyed the pyramids and built a colonial city over the top of it, what is now the heart of mexico city.

for more than five centuries the aztec capital was lost. archeologists spent many years searching for it. someone may have argued at some point, "well if the city really did exist, surely we would have found it by now." but why should this be true? why should we believe that just because we haven't found something yet, it never existed?



Exactly.I think I also said the same thing but somehow we have missed it in semantics.See my quote below :

Thinker13 wrote:

zenOR we are not evolved enough to fathom remnants of time explorers in our history(Perhaps Leonardo Da Vinci and Einstein etc were time travelers laughing ).


Does this quote not suggest you that there might have been a time travel but we have not searched thoroughly enough?If it does not,then,it is miscommunication,because,my intent was to convey that we have not searched thoroughly enough simply means "lack of proper" tools OR "LACK OF PROPER TECHNOLOGY" or "lack of efficiency"--to discern the time travels.




lib wrote:

in 1978, some workers excavating for the metro discovered the templo mayor in downtown mexico city. but imagine if this had not happened. imagine if by chance, the excavators missed discovering the templo mayor by just a few feet. imagine a few more centuries passing until it begins to be questioned that spain was even responsible for the destruction of the city. after all, these future skeptics may argue, why would someone want to destroy such an academically advanced civilization? (as an aside, did you know that there are some people who question that the holocaust even happened?)




Good example but I don't think that I ever said otherwise--I was already talking along these linesshaking head




on another note. in discussions we've had here at the couch on the subject of evolution, some have argued that surely we would have found proof of evolution from monkey to man if such a thing were true. again, i am lost at this line of reasoning. it's not like everything in history is always so well preserved that we have a perfect record to look through.



Indeed.I think you have deliberately explained it with a good example.Still,I think it was never the point of contention.Yet,as usual,it is always good to get things properly communicated,which,I didn't,methinks.zen


lib wrote:

also, it's not like we have turned the whole earth inside out and looked at its insides many times to know what there is to be found. every year, archaeologists make amazing new discoveries, like that of the templo mayor, that resolve many old debates and create many new ones.


Again,what can I say?

Thinker13 wrote:

zenOR we are not evolved enough to fathom remnants of time explorers in our history(Perhaps Leonardo Da Vinci and Einstein etc were time travelers laughing ).



Thank You




libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/13/09 - 8:19 PM:

please note the items i have underlined:

Thinker13 wrote:
smiling faceLack of any such evidences reinforces only two deductions(especially in case of "Back To The Future" type time travel--about which we are conversing here):

zenEither there has been no time travel.

zenOR we are not evolved enough to fathom remnants of time explorers in our history(Perhaps Leonardo Da Vinci and Einstein etc were time travelerslaughing ).

this presentation fits the format of a false dichotomy, in which other viable possibilities are not acknowledged.

T13 wrote:
zenYou ought to realize the fact that it is highly unlikely that there is a possibility other than the two cases mentioned above--because,a time traveler would definitely wish to look at critical periods in human history(such as 'Renaissance' and 'Enlightenment')--I do not think that there should not be an evidence of a time travel in our recorded history of last two thousand years-if-we are efficient enough to explore it.

T13 wrote:
Does this quote not suggest you that there might have been a time travel but we have not searched thoroughly enough?

it suggests to me explicitly, on account of the underlined statements, that the only reason for not finding such evidence is that we are not evolved enough to find it. also, it fails to acknowledge the possibility that such evidence may have existed at one time and since been destroyed. (you did acknowledge this possibility later, after it was pointed out.)

T13 wrote:
my intent was to convey that we have not searched thoroughly enough simply means "lack of proper" tools OR "LACK OF PROPER TECHNOLOGY" or "lack of efficiency"--to discern the time travels.

ok.

T13 wrote:
zenSomeone who seems to be an oddball,trying to communicate with us OR telling,like prophets(Was Nostradamus a time traveler?grin )--not exactly like prophets,but in a peculiar way,telling us about things to come,prophecies,major events OR anything like this.

i think it raises the question of what a person would stand to gain by offering themselves up as evidence from the future?

T13 wrote:
zenSome technologies like ultramodern vehicles,watches,robots etc which are way too difficult to understand with our current technology.

it is possible that such concrete evidence of time travel did exist at one time and was destroyed, either intentionally or unintentionally. also possible that it was found and secretly exploited.

T13 wrote:
Your moral perspective is no doubt good,still,there are lot of things in the world in the hands of corrupt people.

T13 wrote:
That,I think,is not a sufficient reason for 'time travel' to not exist,OR,not to be detected.smiling face

the moral imperative does not deter everyone, i agree, but it is nonetheless a deterrent.

bearing in mind the excerpt from deleuze on identity that you posted in the great thinkers thread, i wonder what it would be like to meet yourself from a parallel universe? how could we rightly conceive of another version of ourselves as sharing the same identity? food for thought.

smiling facelib
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/13/09 - 10:08 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

this presentation fits the format of a false dichotomy, in which other viable possibilities are not acknowledged.


Yes.Let us include other possibilities such as :

zen"Back To Future Type" TT and "not being evolved enough"(not being evolved enough means not having right levels of intelligence,technology,methodology,thoroughness etc.)

zen"Back To The Future Type" TT and "being evolved enough" and "evidence getting destroyed".??

It is the point of contention--I think "being evolved enough" does not suggest to you "evidence getting destroyed"--then what does it ?

If there are other possibilities-please enumerate them(now don't say that "we are evolved enough and yet, we have not discovered it, is a possibility".)


Thinker13 wrote:

"We are evolved enough means that we are equipped enough and intelligent enough to have identified,an event,provided,it has occurred".



lib wrote:

it suggests to me explicitly, on account of the underlined statements, that the only reason for not finding such evidence is that we are not evolved enough to find it.


No.Either "time travel has not taken place" OR "we are not evolved enough"."We are not evolved enough" takes into account the possibility of "evidence lost" otherwise what does "being evolved enough" mean according to you?


lib wrote:

also, it fails to acknowledge the possibility that such evidence may have existed at one time and since been destroyed. (you did acknowledge this possibility later, after it was pointed out.)


No.Please see above and elaborate "evidence lost".To me : "evidence lost" simply means "lack of enough technology to detect it".

I think evidence of supernovas or dinosaurs,were always there--it was only the matter of being "evolved enough" to detect them.


Thinker13 wrote:

Another example:Right now,we are evolved enough to send our satellites into the space.Suppose after a grand catastrophe,nearly entire civilization is lost and only a few humans are left in very rural areas(who are not aware of satellites etc).After a thousand years from now : The civilization is again prospering,evolving,but still not evolved enough to find something called 'satellite'.What would you say "evidences have been lost"(evidences are all instruments associated with satellite technology and documentation etc) OR "They are not evolved enough" to detect the evidences for satellites which are available to them?




lib wrote:

i think it raises the question of what a person would stand to gain by offering themselves up as evidence from the future?


I do not know.May be for fun,may be by mistake,he leaves these clues.Educating your ancestors might also seem a good choice OR greed to change past?kooky


lib wrote:

it is possible that such concrete evidence of time travel did exist at one time and was destroyed, either intentionally or unintentionally. also possible that it was found and secretly exploited.


"Out of question".I think it is already suggesting that time travel has been detected.Still,evidences being not available to humanity as a whole means "being not evolved enough" as for example can be considered in general in field of science--"It takes at least a certain group of elites,to affirm a theory,it takes a book,for example,"Origin Of Species" for a theory of evolution to be accepted as a "general truth".Of course,it does not establish that there is no evidence until it has been made public--yet--it points to the "not being evolved enough" is cause of being unable to bring it forth to the public.When you are 'evolved enough',technology becomes widespread,instead of being available only to a handful of persons from top echelons of science and technology.




Thank You





Edited by Thinker13 on 05/14/09 - 1:16 PM
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/13/09 - 10:22 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

the moral imperative does not deter everyone, i agree, but it is nonetheless a deterrent.



Agreed.zen


lib wrote:

bearing in mind the excerpt from deleuze on identity that you posted in the great thinkers thread, i wonder what it would be like to meet yourself from a parallel universe? how could we rightly conceive of another version of ourselves as sharing the same identity? food for thought.

smiling facelib



Indeed.A jet-li movie titled "The One" has been made on the subject,which is almost crapgrin.I think "parallel universes" theory is an interesting subject.The movie does not follow the actual theory but rather distorted version.shaking head




Thank You
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/14/09 - 1:57 PM:

if i may pose to you a hypothetical scenario.

let us say that mr. X from the future takes an excursion to the jurassic period of our history. he uses his time transporter to "beam" into this time period, star trek style, bringing with him concrete "evidence" from the future, which, aside from his person, includes the suit that he's wearing, and his camera for taking pictures.

what mr. X does not realize is that he has beamed himself onto a live volcano. the volcano erupts, and before he can return to the future, all evidence of him is burned and swallowed by the hot lava. thus, the evidence is "lost".

what kind of technology would have been adequate to locate such evidence? do you feel that no matter what, eventually we could evolve to the point to be able to have detected the presence of mr. X in this time period?

if so, then i disagree, and this is why. in order for a thing to be found, there are a certain number of prerequisites:

1) we need to know where to look.
2) we need to have the tools required to find it.
3) we need to know how to recognize it when we find it.
4) it needs to actually still be there (ie. not destroyed, for example by fire or decay or other means)

if any one of the above prerequisites are not met, the thing will not be found.

as far as i know, no amount of evolution is going to help you with items 1 and 4. you can be a genius but if you don't know where to look, you don't know where to look. this is illustrated by the example of the lost aztec temple. all you needed was a shovel. from an evolutionary perspective, we had long been sufficiently advanced - technologically, biologically, intellectually - to find it.

i also believe that it is possible for a thing to have long decayed past a point of us being able to identify what it once was, no matter how technologically advanced we are. not only decayed, but pieces of it recycled into thousands or millions of other material forms.

i wrote:
it is possible that such concrete evidence of time travel did exist at one time and was destroyed, either intentionally or unintentionally. also possible that it was found and secretly exploited.

T13 wrote:
"Out of question".I think it is already suggesting that time travel has been detected.Still,evidences being not available to humanity as a whole means "being not evolved enough" as for example can be considered in general in field of science--"It takes at least a certain group of elites,to affirm a theory,it takes a book,for example,"Origin Of Species" for a theory of evolution to be accepted as a "general truth".Of course,it does not establish that there is no evidence until it has been made public--yet--it points to the "not being evolved enough" to bring it forth to the public.

i think i understand what you mean, but i disagree with this use of the word "evolved". to me, "evolve" implies an evolutionary process, a form of development such as technological development, biological development, cultural development - through a progression of causally-related events. i acknowledge that there is also a spontaneous, acausal factor connected to evolution, but it is always identified together with the causal chain. random events in isolation are not considered evolution.

that having been said, i'm not sure what kind of evolution you could be referring to here, unless it's perhaps a form of moral evolution. even so, i don't think moral evolution is implied by your initial statement about being evolved enough to fathom remnants of time explorers. i could understand applying the word "fathom" to an intellectual process or a technological one, but not a moral one.

it's more clear to me now how it's coming down to semantics (so often true). thanks for taking time to explain your point of view.

smiling facelib




Edited by libertygrl on 05/14/09 - 2:24 PM. Reason: typos
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/14/09 - 2:42 PM:

lib wrote:

it's more clear to me know how it's coming down to semantics (so often true). thanks for taking time to explain your point of view.

smiling facelib




You are always welcome,libzenIt is more often a matter of semantics than not.

lib wrote:

if i may pose to you a hypothetical scenario.

let us say that mr. X from the future takes an excursion to the jurassic period of our history. he uses his time transporter to "beam" into this time period, star trek style, bringing with him concrete "evidence" from the future, which, aside from his person, includes the suit that he's wearing, and his camera for taking pictures.

what mr. X does not realize is that he has beamed himself onto a live volcano. the volcano erupts, and before he can return to the future, all evidence of him is burned and swallowed by the hot lava. thus, the evidence is "lost".

what kind of technology would have been adequate to locate such evidence? do you feel that no matter what, eventually we could evolve to the point to be able to have detected the presence of mr. X in this time period?

if so, then i disagree, and this is why. in order for a thing to be found, there are a certain number of prequisites:



The problem is,we always see our own perspective onlysmiling faceI think,you are not taking into account a factor that there could always be a technique to find evidence.For example,if we take your case above,is it not possible that there are some waves in the space,which could be retrieved by our sensors and analyzed by the spectrograph?

I know,that,you could suggest that there is always a possibility of having no evidence.While I suggest that evidence is merely more subtle than supposed.Now,we are looking at the same object from two different sides.You may agree OR disagree,I have proposed my viewpoint.




lib wrote:

1) we need to know where to look.


Yes.We are looking to find evidence of TT.


lib wrote:

2) we need to have the tools required to find it.


Yes.That is what I call 'being evolved enough technologically'.Sensors,spectrograph etc would serve the purpose in our hypothetical case.


lib wrote:

3) we need to know how to recognize it when we find it.


'evidence' in itself,suggests "something well recognized".Let me take an example.Darwin,while on HMS beagle,collects,random samples of fossils.He has no idea that these are 'evidences'.These are merely 'objects'.Once recognition has been done,fossils fit in well to explain,theory of evolution.Now these very fossils are to be termed 'evidence'.Evidence is the name given to the object which has been exploited to judge something.


evidence(n)1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.


lib wrote:

4) it needs to actually still be there (ie. not destroyed, for example by fire or decay or other means)



No.You are imagining something which is not there.As said earlier,evidence is not a 'non-being' but rather a 'being'.You are explaining something by 'absence' of it.It is an imaginary perspective,not your own perspective.By your perspective I mean,the context in which you can measure,analyze,detect.For example :If I say that "Evidence of aliens has been lost"--It is a wrong statement,because,it hints towards 'alien',which should be a well defined,existing entity.Such an entity would have been recognized at least once,on the basis of some evidence.Alien is an imaginary entity right now.So your sentence,which suggests that "evidence for tt should not have been destroyed"--suggests that there was an 'evidence'--the question is "who had the evidence"--we didn't.So--evidence is the name given to those entities which have been used by human cognitive process in judgment.






Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/14/09 - 3:02 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

if any one of the above prerequisites are not met, the thing will not be found.


It is not so and I have tried to give you reasons.


lib wrote:

as far as i know, no amount of evolution is going to help you with items 1 and 4. you can be a genius but if you don't know where to look, you don't know where to look.


It is certainly a problem of interpretation of words.By "being evolved enough"--I mean, being intelligent,equipped,efficient and so on.For example : Suppose I have to find a solution to merge all existing theories--I suppose that there is a theory of everything.Now,only when I am intelligent enough to find it,I will know where to look.So being genius and "looking at wrong places" is not plausible from my point of view.Being 'evolved' means "looking at the right place" itself.Therefore,I disagree with your objection.

.
lib wrote:

i also believe that it is possible for a thing to have long decayed past a point of us being able to identify what it once was, no matter how technologically advanced we are. not only decayed, but pieces of it recycled into thousands or millions of other material forms.



Indeed.Why are you thinking only in terms of material decay?Is it not possible that we become so complex a civilization that we can detect the evidence of each and every being who visited our planet,by merely analyzing waveforms?


lib wrote:

i think i understand what you mean, but i disagree with this use of the word "evolved". to me, "evolve" implies an evolutionary process, a form of development such as technological development, biological development, cultural development - through a progression of causally-related events. i acknowledge that there is also a spontaneous, acausal factor connected to evolution, but it is always identified together with the causal chain. random events in isolation are not considered evolution.


So as I said,it was a semantics problem,perhaps,because of the way I use words.Still,I think,I have always elaborated 'evolved'.To me : 'evolved' means 'changed'--generally towards more complexity.


lib wrote:

that having been said, i'm not sure what kind of evolution you could be referring to here, unless it's perhaps a form of moral evolution. even so, i don't think moral evolution is implied by your initial statement about being evolved enough to fathom remnants of time explorers. i could understand applying the word "fathom" to an intellectual process or a technological one, but not a moral one.



I think,I have taken care to rephrase it many times over.I say it is being intelligent,equipped,complex and so on..





zenThank Youzen
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/15/09 - 4:17 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:
I think,you are not taking into account a factor that there could always be a technique to find evidence.For example,if we take your case above,is it not possible that there are some waves in the space,which could be retrieved by our sensors and analyzed by the spectrograph?

i acknowledged this factor under item 2 of my itemized list.

i wrote:
2) we need to have the tools required to find it.

T13 wrote:
Yes.That is what I call 'being evolved enough technologically'. Sensors,spectrograph etc would serve the purpose in our hypothetical case.

i don't think we were ever in disagreement on this point.

i wrote:
4) it needs to actually still be there (ie. not destroyed, for example by fire or decay or other means)

T13 wrote:
No.You are imagining something which is not there.As said earlier,evidence is not a 'non-being' but rather a 'being'.You are explaining something by 'absence' of it.It is an imaginary perspective,not your own perspective.By your perspective I mean,the context in which you can measure,analyze,detect.For example :If I say that "Evidence of aliens has been lost"--It is a wrong statement,because,it hints towards 'alien',which should be a well defined,existing entity.Such an entity would have been recognized at least once,on the basis of some evidence.Alien is an imaginary entity right now.So your sentence,which suggests that "evidence for tt should not have been destroyed"--suggests that there was an 'evidence'--the question is "who had the evidence"--we didn't.So--evidence is the name given to those entities which have been used by human cognitive process in judgment.

what i said was that "the evidence may have existed at one time but not anymore".

if you say, "evidence of aliens has been lost", i agree that it would be an incorrect statement, only if we have no way to know if such evidence ever existed. however, the statement "evidence of aliens may have been lost" is not incorrect.

likewise, "evidence of time travel may have been lost" is not an incorrect statement. it means that we don't know if it existed or not. maybe it existed and it was lost, or maybe it never existed. both of these possibilities are provided by the statement.

T13 wrote:
Now,only when I am intelligent enough to find it,I will know where to look.So being genius and "looking at wrong places" is not plausible from my point of view.Being 'evolved' means "looking at the right place" itself.

i think even geniuses have to resort to trial and error sometimes. does this mean they are not geniuses?

T13 wrote:
Why are you thinking only in terms of material decay?Is it not possible that we become so complex a civilization that we can detect the evidence of each and every being who visited our planet,by merely analyzing waveforms?

i would speculate that there is too much fluctuation (chaos) in our atmosphere for a tool to be accurate in gathering such information beyond a certain extent (for example beyond X number of days, like the weather). i'm not well versed in chaos theory though, so who knows. i have to concede that it's possible. thus, i acknowledge that your initial either-or statement holds true.

cheers,
smiling facelib
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/15/09 - 5:09 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

i acknowledged this factor under item 2 of my itemized list.


OK.



i don't think we were ever in disagreement on this point.

lib wrote:

i wrote:
4) it needs to actually still be there (ie. not destroyed, for example by fire or decay or other means)



T13 wrote:

T13 wrote:
No.You are imagining something which is not there.As said earlier,evidence is not a 'non-being' but rather a 'being'.You are explaining something by 'absence' of it.It is an imaginary perspective,not your own perspective.By your perspective I mean,the context in which you can measure,analyze,detect.For example :If I say that "Evidence of aliens has been lost"--It is a wrong statement,because,it hints towards 'alien',which should be a well defined,existing entity.Such an entity would have been recognized at least once,on the basis of some evidence.Alien is an imaginary entity right now.So your sentence,which suggests that "evidence for tt should not have been destroyed"--suggests that there was an 'evidence'--the question is "who had the evidence"--we didn't.So--evidence is the name given to those entities which have been used by human cognitive process in judgment.




what i said was that "the evidence may have existed at one time but not anymore".



Yes.That is where I object.Why?What is the context in which the statement is being made?It is 'our' context.It is the joint context of lib and T13.In this context,'evidence of tt' is not a fact but rather an imaginary thing.Therefore:When you say --

lib wrote:

i wrote:
4) it needs to actually still be there (ie. not destroyed, for example by fire or decay or other means)


What do you mean by 'it'?It is the "evidence of tt"--an imaginary thing.Now,how could there still be an imaginary thing?As I suggested about the 'evidence'--it is a 'fact' rather than a fabrication.Isn't it?Keep our joint context in the mind(In which,'evidence' is only a figment of imagination) and then reconsider our prepositions.zen






lib wrote:

if you say, "evidence of aliens has been lost", i agree that it would be an incorrect statement, only if we have no way to know if such evidence ever existed.


No.Again,I should suggest to reconsider the term 'evidence' above.Evidence is aftermath of recognition,while your sentences presume them to be premath of recognition.smiling face


lib wrote:

however, the statement "evidence of aliens may have been lost" is not incorrect.


Yes.smiling face



lib wrote:

i think even geniuses have to resort to trial and error sometimes. does this mean they are not geniuses?


It is my mistake to have used 'genius'(used by you,in place of 'evolved') along with 'evolved'.smiling face

lib wrote:

i would speculate that there is too much fluctuation (chaos) in our atmosphere for a tool to be accurate in gathering such information beyond a certain extent (for example beyond X number of days, like the weather). i'm not well versed in chaos theory though, so who knows. i have to concede that it's possible. thus, i acknowledge that your initial either-or statement holds true.

cheers,
smiling facelib


Our discussion has still not entertained 'Chaos Theory'.It is interesting to note that semantics causes so many differenceszen




Thank You



libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/19/09 - 1:07 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:
Yes.That is where I object.Why?What is the context in which the statement is being made?It is 'our' context.It is the joint context of lib and T13.In this context,'evidence of tt' is not a fact but rather an imaginary thing.Therefore:When you say --


T13 wrote:
What do you mean by 'it'?It is the "evidence of tt"--an imaginary thing.Now,how could there still be an imaginary thing?As I suggested about the 'evidence'--it is a 'fact' rather than a fabrication.Isn't it?Keep our joint context in the mind(In which,'evidence' is only a figment of imagination) and then reconsider our prepositions.zen

i don't understand what you're getting at here.

let us look at the 2 possibilities as you have previously stated:

1) there exists evidence of time travel but we are not "evolved" enough to detect it.

OR: 2) time travel has not happened yet.

if number 1 is true, then whether or not we have detected the evidence, it is not imaginary. do you agree with this?

T13 wrote:
No.Again,I should suggest to reconsider the term 'evidence' above.Evidence is aftermath of recognition,while your sentences presume them to be premath of recognition.smiling face

it sounds like what you are trying to say here is that the word "evidence" is a label or cognitive judgement which we apply to the thing after we discover it. if so, i am not in disagreement. but what i am trying to say is that no matter what label we apply to it, the thing either exists or it does not. it is not our labeling it as "evidence" which makes it imaginary or not imaginary. the thing either exists or it does not.

T13 wrote:
It is my mistake to have used 'genius'(used by you,in place of 'evolved') along with 'evolved'.smiling face

i was trying to make a particular point by choosing the word "genius". the point had to do with potential limitations of evolution, specifically that we may have "evolved" the necessary cognitive ability (and thereby technological ability) but that the "evidence" (for example the waveforms you suggested) may simply have disappeared through the natural passage of time.

T13 wrote:
Our discussion has still not entertained 'Chaos Theory'.It is interesting to note that semantics causes so many differenceszen

it makes for interesting conversation, i find smiling face and hopefully will facilitate future communication the more we take time to explain our perspectives.

what are your thoughts on chaos theory?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/19/09 - 1:20 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

i don't understand what you're getting at here.

let us look at the 2 possibilities as you have previously stated:

1) there exists evidence of time travel but we are not "evolved" enough to detect it.

OR: 2) time travel has not happened yet.

if number 1 is true, then whether or not we have detected the evidence, it is not imaginary. do you agree with this?


Yes,I have to agree.smiling face


lib wrote:
]
it sounds like what you are trying to say here is that the word "evidence" is a label or cognitive judgement which we apply to the thing after we discover it. if so, i am not disagreement. but what i am trying to say is that no matter what label we apply to it, the thing either exists or it does not. it is not our labeling it as "evidence" which makes it imaginary or not imaginary. the thing either exists or it does not.


But how do we know that "It is the evidence"?It is only after the recognition of it as an object which has played the key role in our judgment.How can you say that something is an evidence OR not before it?


lib wrote:

i was trying to make a particular point by choosing the word "genius". the point had to do with potential limitations of evolution, specifically that we may have "evolved" the necessary cognitive ability (and thereby technological ability) but that the "evidence" (for example the waveforms you suggested) may simply have disappeared through the natural passage of time.
.

Still we are at opposite ends of the riverlaughingI have already said that I believe that if there is an evidence,there is a technology,a method to obtain it and vice versa.That is to say,how can you guess about the possibility of not having another way to get an evidence?

lib wrote:

it makes for interesting conversation, i find smiling face and hopefully will facilitate future communication the more we take time to explain our perspectives.


Yes.It has been interesting.


lib wrote:

what are your thoughts on chaos theory?


I would try to post soon.




Thank You




libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/19/09 - 1:53 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:
But how do we know that "It is the evidence"?It is only after the recognition of it as an object which has played the key role in our judgment.How can you say that something is an evidence OR not before it?

i feel the labeling of something of evidence is separate from the question of whether it exists or not. it is like the question of whether a tree makes a sound when no one is around to hear it. i believe that it does.

T13 wrote:
Still we are at opposite ends of the riverlaughingI have already said that I believe that if there is an evidence,there is a technology,a method to obtain it and vice versa.That is to say,how can you guess about the possibility of not having another way to get an evidence?

i'm surprised by your feeling of certainty that we can develop the technology to detect the existence of such things. as i said before, i do concede that it is possible. however, i also believe it's possible that we will never develop such technology, or that if we do, its capability will be limited. evolution does not always take us in the direction we want to go, or even in the direction we need in order to survive.

cheers,
smiling facelib

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/19/09 - 9:16 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

it is like the question of whether a tree makes a sound when no one is around to hear it. i believe that it does.


No.Sound may exist for others but not for YOU until you have detected(Or you are somehow privy to it).How do you know about a sound OR absence of it,without some sort of evidence?

libertygrl wrote:

i'm surprised by your feeling of certainty that we can develop the technology to detect the existence of such things. as i said before, i do concede that it is possible. however, i also believe it's possible that we will never develop such technology, or that if we do, its capability will be limited. evolution does not always take us in the direction we want to go, or even in the direction we need in order to survive.

cheers,
smiling facelib



I do not know where we are heading,still,there is no way to know a thing until you know a thinggrin.So it boils down to Optimism and Pessimism rather than to a fact.


Thank You
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.