Re: Time Machines, FTL, and P=NP

George W Harris wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:44:40 -0500, James Burns <burns.87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> 
> :But then, without the wackiness to force consistency in highly
> :unlikely ways, it looks to me not too hard to set up a situation
> :where /no/ possible outcome is consistent. For my simple example,
> :just put the received signal through a NOT gate before sending
> :it back in time. What happens in that case? Hard reboot on the
> :universe?
> 
> 	Mechanical failure of the time machine, or some 
> other break in the chain.

But, under the assumption that a zero or a one completely characterizes
the message from the future, there are only two links in the chain.
-- What happens when I receive a zero? I send a one.
-- What happens when I receive a one? I send a zero.
There is no "What happens the 8,471,843,189,287,125th time
I send a one?" If it didn't crash on the first loop, it didn't crash.

And, by assumption, the machine was built to be extremely reliable.
I don't see how the machine could be expected to crash,
except by the sort of wackiness that the assumption I started with
was supposed to banish.

Jim Burns