Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Time Travel?....To What Exactly? / OO-Universe

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by HEADHURTS/">HEADHURTS on August 9, 1999 07:55:27 UTC

>>I MERELY stated that binary would be the ONE math base ANY civilization would be able to understand as presented by another.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but...

Did you actually read what I wrote? That is a *huge* assumption (MERELY?!)! It's really two huge assumptions rolled into one:

(1) ANY other civilization would be able to understand binary - If they can do mathematics, then I'll go along with this one, if they can't do mathematics yet, then I don't

(2) There are civilizations that exist who understand mathematics, but who would be unable to understand a message purposely designed to demonstrate that we too understand mathematics if it where communicated to them in a base other than two - this is the one I have the problem with (and have tried support my position in previous posts)

If you look at your first statement, and feel my breakout of assumption #2 is putting words in your mouth (does not accurately convey, or is not a direct result of the topmost statement), then we have a language barrier - and I appologize.

>>Regardless of what math base(s) any society used, binary would always a good starting point for understanding or communicating with an unknown race. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Agreed, but this is a far cry from your first statement, and it also fully covered by it (since there would be no sense starting out with something some another civilization could not understand)

>>: I believe the abstract is in thinking of the past or future as tangibles. We humans have complicated the whole time issue beyond what is necessary. THIS IS MY REAL POINT. You may be making it for me again here.

Yes, in this case I'll admit to trying to...

>>If I achieve light speed, will I become God?!

>>: (I thought you turned digression mode off.) : :-)

Couldn't resist, just wanted to see if you really had all the answers ;) >>Semantically, *I* do not call time dilation (the classic Twins Paradox) time travel since both twins still progress along the same time line.

What is a "time line"? Could any two objects in the universe (like the classic twins) ever be on different "time lines"? If so, under what circumstances? If not, what does this have to do with *your* decision not to call the effects of time dilation "time travel"?

: I could have used mythology or religion as a topic to demonstrate how concepts are formed and become commonplace, but I chose decimal math since I thought it would be a "safe" analogy that wouldn't spark some side philosophical discussion that was off point.

: Maybe I was wrong on THAT score.

...and I could have been a doctor, lawyer, or Indian chief, so what?! A flawed analogy is never a "safe" one - sorry. This is especially true when it is the *basis* of your whole argument - that's what makes it *on point*.

: I would think that anyone could see how DECIMAL math is but a concept of human thought, not math itself. The computer operation analogy was merely to drive the point home about it being conceptual as a method when other methods not only exist, but are used every day. Thats all.

No, that is not an accurate summation of your original post. You went *much* farther than to say that other methods of representation exist. You indicated that we humans where somehow seriously screwed up by continuing to use the decimal system ("plod along?!), like we are about time travel.

The bottom line is that, while I agree that there doesn't seem to be a realistic model to support time travel, I think the argument that you used to arrive at this conclusion in your original post has some *serious* problems.

This is *my* annotated summary of your argument, I went back and reread your original post since you have accused me of putting words in your mouth:

P1. Using base ten representation is "enigmatic" a) there are more "natural" alternatives (I reject - insufficent data to support) b) we have to be taught to do it (non issue - we have to be taught how to do mathematics in some base in any case) c) it is "unnatural in any way that pertains to the construction of machines that process, store and convey information". (I reject - premise assumes a particular method of construction but speaks to the general case) d) programmers have to "force" computers to deal with "decimal mathematics" (agree, but feel point is grossly overstated) e) We "plod along" with it because it has "become ingrained" to us (I reject - other reasons exist to continue to use decimal representation like compactness of representation) f) binary math is "of course universal" (agree, but I believe mathematics in any base to be universal as well) I reject premise #1 that using base ten is somehow unatural, enigmatic, or in *any* way incorrect for the reasons show above.

P2. Our concept of time may be as flawed as our using choice of using decimal representation

C1: Therefor it is.

If I missed something in your argument here, by all means, please point it out. You keep telling me what your point is, I fully understand what your point is - believe me. What you seem to be missing is the fact that I'm telling you that I don't believe your argument supports your conclusion. I thought that I had pointed out, what I believe to be, some valid concerns with your argument. If you choose to dismiss them as "some side philosophical discussion that was off point", so be it.

>>: I stand by the original composition.

As do I of it's critique.

>>: Thanx.

Your welcome.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins