In article <1203362504.633495@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Michael Ash <mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I never said I was making a scientific hypothesis. I was engaged in
> speculation, pure and simple.
>
> I wish you would stop putting words into my mouth. This is the second
time
> you've accused me of claiming to have observed things when I've made no
> such claim. I'm not putting forth any fact, or basing any of my
> speculation on things I've personally seen. I'm just asking a question
> about real-world chaotic behavior and how much a small effect can
disrupt
> a macroscopic system in a short period of time. I don't know what your
> problem is with me, but that's all I'm doing.
I guess my "problem" is that you're posting in a science fiction
newsgroup with, apparently, no regard for solid science and no interest
in creating fiction. If it seems like I'm putting word in your mouth,
it's only because I'm trying to turn what you're actually saying into
something reasonable. As it stands, all I'm hearing from you is "In a
reality where time travel exists, I expect chaos to operate in a
familiar way." I'm saying you need to prepare to be disappointed,
because if research on very fast/slow and very small/big scales has
shown us anything, it's that classical views of the universe often break
down at the extremes.
> > Then you need to ask a question that makes sense. In reality, it's an
> > untestable system (which you can take to mean very sensitive). In a
> > fictional reality with time travel, it is up to the author to pick
> > something that works for the story.
>
> Just because a question cannot be tested does not mean that it does not
> make sense. Such questions are asked in this group constantly.
They are usually asked with the intent of determining their plausibility
as a plot device. Since your intent is not to work it into the
framework of a story line, the thread has quickly become pointless.
> > The only thing nonsensical is you trying to reconcile classical chaos
> > with time travel. All I'm saying is that you need to take your
> > curiosity another step. If you are willing to discard your notion of
> > what time is, you should be willing to discard your notion of what
chaos
> > is. Sometimes a butterfly is just a butterfly.
>
> Why? The interesting thing about the science in SF is taking *one*
> interesting change and seeing how it fits into what's known. If I'm just
> going to make up *everything* as I go along, I'll move to a fantasy
group.
I think that is a very good idea for you. The simple fact is that
everything *is* made up with respect to time travel. Everything we
currently know makes it impossible to the point of fantasy. It's all
good and fine to speculate how things might happen, but your odds of
being right are are even less than that of . . . wait for it . . .
winning the lottery! :-) As I originally stated, if the rules of the
universe are such that the mere presence of a time traveller can change
such a chaotic system, then all predictability about the future is out
the window in a flurry of cascading effects. That really boils down the
old idea that the only stable timeline is one where time travel is not
invented.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com,
googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org
|
