Random Thread ~Usagi-Chan ☮ Tūsurī~

[Celedam]

We were enjoying a nice Indian summer up until yesterday, and then a mean-looking storm front came through yesterday afternoon and evening.

We had a similar shift here this past weekend, when it cooled down considerably and even rained a bit.

It's almost as if weather patterns move from west to east across the continent over a span of a few days.

[Celedam]

Previously…

So apparently someone has mathematically proven that paradox-free time travel is possible…

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-09/uoq-yp092320.php
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/aba4bc

The takeaway seems to be that no matter what you might do to disrupt an event in the past, subsequent events will realign themselves to continue in the same direction and maintain causality. You still have freedom of choice, and your choices can have localized effects, but that's it. The river of time keeps flowing.

I don't know how I feel about this. It certainly puts a new spin on the old debate about determinism versus free will — to wit, if no single person can have more than a localized effect, then does it actually matter whether that person has free will?

viewtopic.php?p=255374#p255374

Now, a better and more thorough explanation of what I was thinking about…

[Zunu]

That was roughly 45 minutes worth of material, so maybe I missed the part where Matt said what you said, but specifically, as far as I can tell he didn't say anything relating to the Tobar paper you brought up previously. He didn't discuss any new developments in terms of the question of free will, just surveyed a few basic points. I still don't get where the "new spin on the old debate about determinism versus free will" comes in. Our individual actions have always been local, limited by our future light cone, and in the long run by the eventual (alleged) heat death of the universe. Nothing in that new paper really challenged that, nor anything Matt O'Dowd brought to the table. Plus I'd argue that free will, whatever it means (and good luck getting any two philosophers to agree on that) has nothing to do with our choices having universal consequences anyway. Local consequences are more than sufficient.

Actually, come to think of it, if anything Tobar's results, assuming the interpretation you gave them (if someone goes back in time to change things, "subsequent events will realign themselves" and restore the original timeline) actually help bolster free will. You just have to look at the big picture. The really big picture. Before Tobar, if you went into the past, it was alleged that by exercising your "free will," you could wreak consequences that would forever alter the timeline. Which means, anyone else could also go into the past and wreak consequences that would forever alter the timeline. And if they went far back enough, it would be like Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder" -- you might not even exist. There goes all your choices, all your free will. And whatever THAT meddlesome time traveler did could be completely wiped out by yet another subsequent time traveler. Ad infinitum. For example, if say, Moh decided she didn't like this discussion, she could go back in time and wipe out MY grandfather (no paradox there)! She'd go back to the 40's, kill Gramps before my mom was even born, thereby negating me and all I've ever done. Then when she returned to 2020, Amped would've replaced me as dreaded board admin, and an enraged boinsie would be the one going back in time to stamp out Gramp Amped. One by one we'd all be culled, until jplop was just a deserted one-person blog by user05211. Nobody's free will, particularly mine, would amount to a hill of beans in that scenario. At least per Tobar, we can rest assured that we and all our current actions will still be preserved as part of the block universe's "permanent record" on file in the Cosmic Principal's office. The Tobar universe still has predictability and permanence, without which substrate, free will is irrelevant.

Anyway, as much as I enjoy O'Dowd in general, I think the latter couple of seasons of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. raised a lot more interesting conundrums regarding the issue of free will than anything he's discussed on PBS Space Time.

[Celedam]

Oh for fuck’s sake, man, of course O’Dowd didn’t literally say exactly the same thing I did. All of that was just to establish the framework and get someone in the right headspace to think about that stuff, if they’re interested. Even what I said was just a casual “what if?”, as in “now that we’ve established the framework and are in the right headspace, what comes next?”. So if you thought that was meant for you personally and only you, and you hate-watched all of 45 minutes of it (you totaled it up? geez) just to catch me out, please seek professional help and leave me the hell alone. Sure, you eventually got around to what comes next — sort of, I guess — but only after you took a big ol’ swipe at me. That was your first instinct, and it feels like it has been for a while.

[Zunu]

First of all, no, heh, I didn't "hate watch" one of my favorite YouTube shows. I already saw the first two eps, I just hadn't caught up with the new one yet. It's a ~15 minute show, so three of 'em is roughly 45 minutes.

Second, yes, I do admit I did basically think you had put that up for my sake, since I was literally the only person who responded to your previous post. I mean of course I know that you just want to share something of personal interest with everybody, not just me, but typically when people post things of personal interest, they are looking for engagement of some sort, to stir up conversation, am I wrong? And isn't it logical to think that one single person who engaged you on the subject before would respond again? I mean, it's like if I post something about Cthulhu, I might want everybody to experience the existential dread of Lovecraftian horror. But mostly TotallyUncool, ngl.

Thirdly and mainly...nobody's swiping at you, what in the hell are you talking about. Several weeks ago, you posted about a topic that happens to be of extreme interest to me. Two topics, really, free will AND time travel (and their "intersection.") I responded, and also pointed out what I believed to be small discrepancy between the paper's findings and your interpretation of them. This time around, your saying "Now, a better and more thorough explanation of what I was thinking about…" led me to (incorrectly?) think that Matt O'Dowd was going to say something that would specifically bolster your previous point, so when I eagerly watched the new episode I kept that in mind. After watching it though, I still remained unclear on how it tied into what you were saying earlier, except in the most general fashion. So when I said, "maybe I missed the part where Matt said what you said," I meant that literally, maybe I missed what you were trying to get at. I didn't want to "catch you out," I wanted you to elaborate, go more deeply into what you were trying to convey. I was trying to have a conversation because I (mistakenly) thought you were trying to have a conversation. As far as I can tell, at no point did I say anything negative about you, your personality, or intellect, whatever, so where are you seeing a swipe?

I happen to enjoy the topic of free will and have read extensively about it, both on the philosophical side and by physicists. I just listened to a podcast about it about a week ago in fact. Which might be of interest to you, but honestly it was fairly dry, and inconclusive to boot. So, in your bringing up the topic, it's something that find fascinating and that I enjoy discussing and speculating upon. I don't expect that you and I would necessarily agree in our interpretations, since, like I said, it's not really something any two people are on total agreement about.

Anyway, since I see you had no intention of wanting to continue our previous dialog, just in generally sharing the overall topic, which is totally fine, I'll just thank you for the links, apologize for my misunderstanding, and leave you alone. Have a good one, dude, sorry to have riled you up unnecessarily.

[TotallyUncool]

I mean, it's like if I post something about Cthulhu, I might want everybody to experience the existential dread of Lovecraftian horror. But mostly TotallyUncool, ngl.

Although I am definitely open to the other side of Cthulhu - meaning of course where he has tea with Hello Kitty. Proper tea, that is. With scones.

[Zunu]

Ugh, scones!! I mean, scones are delicious, but the word "scone"

[erilaz]

Although I am definitely open to the other side of Cthulhu - meaning of course where he has tea with Hello Kitty. Proper tea, that is. With scones.

That reminds me of this t-shirt.

[Moh]

Cleaning out some old dresser drawers and found 2 of these. From 2014!


Kinda funny; I've been collecting pins for my denim jacket. I'm not willing to explain this one in public, though.

[CaptainBerryzGiraffe]

Cleaning out some old dresser drawers and found 2 of these. From 2014!


Kinda funny; I've been collecting pins for my denim jacket. I'm not willing to explain this one in public, though.

I still have a whole bunch of them sitting in my H!P cubicle and every time I see them I cherish 'em!