Time Travel

[rhev]

I suppose you could look at it that way (shrodinger-ly?), or you could also say that the tree does not exist at all without any perception of it.   If there's no known proof that the tree exists in either a fallen or non fallen state, then why accept the premise that such a tree ever did exist?

[Will]

But that's the philosophical crux of the argument!

What I'm saying is that for literally thousands of years philosophers have argued that perception DOES determine the universe.

That philosophers have said doesn't make it sensible; they don't exactly have the best credentials. 

"Things don't exist until I see them" is how an infant thinks.  You take away their teething ring, and bam, it no longer exists for them.  We know better, I would think.  There is no reason to believe that our perception creates the universe, other than an esoteric desire for weirdness.

As far as the whole quantum thing, that only happens on quantum scales.  Particles, and such.  Schrodinger's cat wasn't meant to be literal, only to illustrate an oddity of quantum mechanics in a way people could understand.

[rhev]

That philosophers have said doesn't make it sensible; they don't exactly have the best credentials. 

With all due respect, philosophers like Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc etc etc have far better credentials than anyone you'll find on this or any other message board.  Their work, their thinking changed and shaped the nature of human reality for literally millennium and will continue to do so for several millennium more.  You don't have to agree with their philosophy, but you can't dismiss it.

"Things don't exist until I see them" is how an infant thinks.  You take away their teething ring, and bam, it no longer exists for them.  We know better, I would think.  There is no reason to believe that our perception creates the universe, other than an esoteric desire for weirdness.

What you're referring to here is the idea of persistence of objects, a concept that infants in the sensorimotor stage of cognitive development have difficulty understanding.  Usually between 8 and 12 months of an infant's life they move into the secondary circular coordination stage, where they begin to grasp concepts such as persistence.  Jean Piaget called this the first stage of proper intelligence.   By the way.... can you tell I just got done taking an "Infancy and small childhood development" class this semester?

However, what I was referring too wasn't the nature of an object that leaves our perception.  It was on the nature of reality itself, what does perception mean, and what is an object, perceived or not.  I'm sorry if this mode of communication (forums) doesn't allow for the subtleties in such a discussion.  It's very hard to have this type of a conversation with people familiar with the concepts when you're face to face... I'm starting to think that it was a mistake to bring it up on a forum where tonality and body expression is completely absent.

My entire point was to simply present a different viewpoint to the whole "time is a straight line" scenario that had been previously discussed in this thread.  I didn't mean to cause such a ruckus.

As far as the whole quantum thing, that only happens on quantum scales.  Particles, and such.  Schrodinger's cat wasn't meant to be literal, only to illustrate an oddity of quantum mechanics in a way people could understand.

Finally, just so you know, Schrodinger actually presented the 'cat' scenario NOT as a way to illustrate quantum mechanics, but as a way to poke fun of quantum mechanics.  He's saying "Look how silly this all is.  It would be like saying a cat is both alive and dead at the same time!  Such silliness!"  He was actually critiquing the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum states.

[TheGlyphstone]

Finally, just so you know, Schrodinger actually presented the 'cat' scenario NOT as a way to illustrate quantum mechanics, but as a way to poke fun of quantum mechanics.  He's saying "Look how silly this all is.  It would be like saying a cat is both alive and dead at the same time!  Such silliness!"  He was actually critiquing the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum states.

That's a good point, and one not brought up very often. It's like how people interpret Macheavelli's the Prince as a how-to guide for ruthless dictators, when it was (widely believed to be) a gigantic satire against the people who paid him to write it and had just finished locking up and torturing him.

[Shjade]

With all due respect, philosophers like Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc etc etc have far better credentials than anyone you'll find on this or any other message board.  Their work, their thinking changed and shaped the nature of human reality for literally millennium and will continue to do so for several millennium more.  You don't have to agree with their philosophy, but you can't dismiss it.

Actually, according to you, yes we can, since his perception is that their views are without merit.

What's that? Conflicting perceptions? Unpossible! Now the universe is going to implode! (Which it must, since I think it will.)

See how quickly it becomes silly to think your point of view determines anything other than your own thoughts and actions?

[Oniya]

I'm fairly sure that Descartes managed to show that perception was not the be-all and end-all of existence in one of the later Meditations (some time after proving self-existence with Cogito, ergo, sum.)  I could also make a stretch and invoke Lorenz - the air motion caused by that falling tree would end up causing a thunderstorm in north-east Ohio, or some other effect that was perceptible to people hundreds of miles away from where the tree might or might not be.  ;D

Of course, I can either know where the tree is, or how fast it's falling, not both.   *looks innocent* ::)

[rhev]

Actually, according to you, yes we can, since his perception is that their views are without merit.

Ah hah, you got me!  Good point.

What's that? Conflicting perceptions? Unpossible! Now the universe is going to implode! (Which it must, since I think it will.)

See how quickly it becomes silly to think your point of view determines anything other than your own thoughts and actions?

No, because a true skeptic (of which I am not actually one) would simply say that you did not actually believe that it would.   In addition my point about the perception of time wasn't about belief but on how we perceive reality.   If you were to die immediately after reading this post, would it matter that you had read it or if you had died before reading it?   Or would it not matter because your consciousness, (if you hold to the commonly accepted "off light switch" view of the afterlife) would no longer be?  You would cease and the state of consciousness, of the you that makes up you, would no longer be thinking or perceiving this thread.  So from your newly dead and no longer perceiving reality point of view, this thread may or may not exist and ultimately it matters not one iota.

[ReanimateMagnus]

I believe there are an infinite number of parallel universes where each decision is made differently, like the flip of a coin being different or someones choice in hair styles is only slightly different. And through that if time travel would be possible it would be only traveling to a different parallel universe that is set that many years back in time.