Now you're telling me what I believe?

Post #251,443 by drewk 4/9/06 11:54:54 AM Reply	Now you're telling me what I believe? Yup, you sound just like a fundamentalist. Look, you've spent a lot more time reading the "sacred texts" of science then I have. You believe some things that I find a bit far-fetched. You believe if I only spent enough time reading the same books you have, I would believe the same things you do. Think about who usually talks like that. But yes, I do believe stars are lighted by fusion. We can do fusion experiments. We can produce things that look pretty much like what the sun does. We know that the sun, from the distance of some of our probes, looks just like other stars. So there's nothing really stretching plausibility. But travelling backwards in time is one of those extrordinary claims that is going to require some extrordinary evidence. We can't do anything like that. And it seems too intuitively implausible for me to accept it without some evidence. I'm not saying it won't someday be demonstrated. I'm saying that just because the math suggests that it should be possible is not nearly enough for me to think it's likely. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #251,446 by ben_tilly 4/9/06 2:33:05 PM Reply	And I was right, too! I said that you believed it, and in point of fact, you do! Shall we call it coincidence? However when it came time to stating my beliefs, you mangled it. Pretty badly. Sorry. I don't believe that we have a way of travelling backwards in time if we can just build it. I do have the following beliefs though: There is a theory that predicts that we can travel backwards in time. That theory is scientific. In the long run, science tends to wind up with accurate statements. Science is often wrong. Science is often spectacularly right. It is possible that science is right in predicting that travel backwards in time should be possible. Which is why I replied to [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=251205\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=251205] and pointed out that there is a theory that you've seen which allows backwards time travel. And in point of fact this is true. You claimed that theory was religion. I disagree that the theory is religion. I'm not saying that the theory is true, just that it is not religion. As for whether I'm a fundamentalist, I highly doubt it. Were I a fundamentalist, I doubt I would spend as much energy as I do carefully drawing shades of gray. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #251,448 by drewk 4/9/06 3:39:14 PM Reply	I'll simplify Do you believe, as Mallett predicts, that we will have "human time travel this century"? If you do, that's religion. If you don't, you're disagreeing with the position you'd like me to have, not the one I actually stated. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #251,450 by ben_tilly 4/9/06 3:48:23 PM Reply	I'll complexify Where in our discussion did "this century" ever show up as a qualifier? In fact where was there a qualifier in our discussion saying that "likely human time travel" was what was under discussion? Nowhere until you just said it. Again, in [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=251205\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=251205] you said that all theories for time travel that you've seen are ways to go to the future. My point was, and still is, that there is a theory for time travel that allows travel to the past. I've never claimed that time travel in either direction (other than the prosaic means of just living) was going to happen or be feasible within any given time frame. In short I'm disagreeing with the position that you actually stated, and not the position that you likely have. Cheers, Ben PS To bring this full circle, I felt at the start that you'd probably stated a position that was somewhat different from the one that you have. Which is why in [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=251313\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=251313] I made the comment about People Who Know This Stuff But Weren't Paying Close Attention 101. I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #251,451 by drewk 4/9/06 4:00:01 PM Reply	I'll simplify some more READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE! You know, the one at the top of this thread. The one with a headline of Professor Predicts Human Time Travel This Century Did you see it? Good. Now, given that my first post -- the first content in this thread that wasn't a quote from that article -- was in reference to and in the context of that statement; and given that my first response to you was to refer you back to that article; do you finally see why I'm not the one missing the point? === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #251,462 by boxley 4/9/06 6:28:40 PM Reply	I have to read the article to disagree with you? why? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #251,464 by drewk 4/9/06 6:39:44 PM Reply	The specific disagreement he made, yes When I say, "The position put forth in the article is bogus," to say that I'm wrong it would help to know what it is the article says. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #251,465 by broomberg 4/9/06 6:49:21 PM Reply	But.... If a time traveler from the distant future travels to the timeframe specified within the article, wouldn't that satisfy the prediction?
Post #251,466 by drewk 4/9/06 7:04:46 PM Reply	That'll work, but kind of hard to perform that experiment === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #251,471 by Another Scott 4/9/06 8:01:19 PM Reply	It's been done. [link\|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12208638/\|MSNBC] via [link\|http://www.theinquirer.net/\|The Inquirer]: Chiropractor claims to travel through time Updated: 4:16 p.m. ET April 7, 2006 COLUMBUS, Ohio - A chiropractor who claims he can treat anyone by reaching back in time to when an injury occurred has attracted the attention of state regulators. The Ohio State Chiropractic Board, in a notice of hearing, has accused James Burda of Athens of being "unable to practice chiropractic according to acceptable and prevailing standards of care due to mental illness, specifically, Delusional Disorder, Grandiose Type." Burda denied that he is mentally ill. He said he possesses a skill he discovered by accident while driving six years ago. [...] Cheers, Scott.
Post #251,484 by ben_tilly 4/10/06 12:03:10 AM Reply	This is getting silly Drew, I read the article. I understand it. And I agree with your current criticism. However your current criticism has nothing to do with your initial comments. And my reaction to your original comments still stands. We could go through a bunch more rounds of this, with your trying to yell louder and louder, and me pointing out that what you're yelling about has nothing to do with the start of our conversation. But I'll make this the last round because I see no point in continuing to repeat myself. So go ahead. Yell again. Call me names. Whatever you like. The last word is yours. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #251,494 by Ashton 4/10/06 5:49:36 AM Reply	Still, in Bertie's words - (Russell) Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. (That is - too - when speaking of 'the arrow of time' etc. etc. via means of mathematical manipulations of formulae ... such exercises probably are covered in that blanket statement: which neatly slips in the Biggest bugaboo of all (?) an idea of the true. The whole topic IMO is squarely akin to all published essays on 'causality' - ie you/theProf are in metaphysics territory; love it or leave it. ;-) :-\ufffd

Welcome to IWETHEY!