You find yourself in the cretaceous

[untermensche]

You are saying it may be possible. That is a positive assertion.

When did "I don't know" become a positive claim? Arguably "... and neither do you" is a positive claim, but it's not extraordinary - not knowing is the default -, nor unsupported - the lack of any reference of modern physics in your line of reasoning strongly supports the conclusion that you've reached your conviction by declaring what you want to be for true. Unless you're a God who can wish laws of physics into existence, that's not a valid method to discern facts about the world, and it's certainly not science.

Saying I don't know means you think something might be possible. You don't know. It might be.

That is a positive statement.

You are also saying it might be impossible. Another positive statement.

You are making two contradictory positive statements.

I would like to know how people conclude it might be possible.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Jokodo]

You are saying it may be possible. That is a positive assertion.

When did "I don't know" become a positive claim? Arguably "... and neither do you" is a positive claim, but it's not extraordinary - not knowing is the default -, nor unsupported - the lack of any reference of modern physics in your line of reasoning strongly supports the conclusion that you've reached your conviction by declaring what you want to be for true. Unless you're a God who can wish laws of physics into existence, that's not a valid method to discern facts about the world, and it's certainly not science.

Saying I don't know means you think something might be possible. You don't know. It might be.

That is a positive statement.

You are also saying it might be impossible. Another positive statement.

You are making two contradictory positive statements.

I would like to know how people conclude it might be possible.

Based on what evidence?

Based on the fact that nothing we know definitely rules it out.

"It feels wrong" or "I don't like my universes that way" aren't arguments. "Only the present exists" isn't either when we know that the present is an illusion.

And there's nothing contradictory in "it might or might not be possible". A modal verb of possibility is essentially existential quantification: saying it might be possible and it might be impossible boils down to saying there are conceivable universes where it's possible and ones where it's impossible that are both compatible with what we know about this universe; it is every bit as contradictory as saying there are cats and there are dogs. It merely recognises that we are not omniscient. You could use a bit of that humility, to be honest.

 

[Jokodo]

This is a rehash of the dumb creationist assertion that microevolution is real, but macroevolution is not.

You claim miracles are possible without any evidence they could ever be possible.

You claim an observer could possibly go backwards in time.

And you base this on what?

An unsupported speculation that isn't tested.

If you have some of anything, you can have any finite quantity by simply repeating the method that got you some in the first place.

Of course.

If you have some velocity then of course your velocity can increase without limit.

The universe has no limits.

If "the present" between two observers can vary even a little bit it can vary indefinitely.

Of course.

So you're claiming there's a maximum amount of time by which the present of any two observers A and B who are contemporaries in observer C's reference frame can diverge, and this maximum is less than 70 million years? Can you give a give a number to it? Or at least a hard upper limit? And how did you derive it? What observations confirm it?

 

[untermensche]

Based on the fact that nothing we know definitely rules it out.

In the present it is definitely impossible. That kind of rules it out in the present.

You are claiming it is possible some totally unknown technology will exist to send a human back to some time in the past.

What will this technology do to a person to send them back in time?

What is it possible to do to a person to send them back in time that we just don't have the technology now to accomplish?

 

[untermensche]

So you're claiming there's a maximum amount of time by which the present of any two observers A and B who are contemporaries in observer C's reference frame can diverge, and this maximum is less than 70 million years? Can you give a give a number to it? Or at least a hard upper limit? And how did you derive it? What observations confirm it?

I'm saying time between observers is not evidence every instant in time is stored somehow.

It is just evidence of a less than flat surface to time.

But if I drop the glass there is no observer that can pick it up whole.

 

[Jokodo]

So you're claiming there's a maximum amount of time by which the present of any two observers A and B who are contemporaries in observer C's reference frame can diverge, and this maximum is less than 70 million years? Can you give a give a number to it? Or at least a hard upper limit? And how did you derive it? What observations confirm it?

I'm saying time between observers is not evidence every instant in time is stored somehow.

It is just evidence of a less than flat surface to time.

But if I drop the glass there is no observer that can pick it up whole.

The question of whether time travel is possible is logically independent of the question whether it is possible to change the past.

And of course, you didn't answer my question. You compared the leap from small temporal inconsistencies to large ones with the leap from small speeds to large speeds. We know there is a limit to speeds in this universe. Do we also know there is a limit to temporal inconsistencies, how do we know, can we quantify it, can you name an experiment that confirms it?

 

[Jokodo]

Based on the fact that nothing we know definitely rules it out.

In the present it is definitely impossible. That kind of rules it out in the present.

You are claiming it is possible some totally unknown technology will exist to send a human back to some time in the past.

What will this technology do to a person to send them back in time?

What is it possible to do to a person to send them back in time that we just don't have the technology now to accomplish?

Now here we have a contradiction. Maybe you should muse on the meaning of "totally unknown".

 

[untermensche]

Based on the fact that nothing we know definitely rules it out.

In the present it is definitely impossible. That kind of rules it out in the present.

You are claiming it is possible some totally unknown technology will exist to send a human back to some time in the past.

What will this technology do to a person to send them back in time?

What is it possible to do to a person to send them back in time that we just don't have the technology now to accomplish?

Now here we have a contradiction. Maybe you should muse on the meaning of "totally unknown".

I think you should think hard and deep about it with your claims of future possibilities. In your universe the entire future exists and yet there is no evidence of any human popping up somehow from the future.

What is it possible to do to a human to send them back in time?

If there is nothing known that could be done then obviously we can't say it may become possible. We have no way to make that positive claim. It is not like flying. We could see things flying. We knew flight was possible.

In the absence of any way to say something is possible we must conclude it is impossible.

 

[untermensche]

So you're claiming there's a maximum amount of time by which the present of any two observers A and B who are contemporaries in observer C's reference frame can diverge, and this maximum is less than 70 million years? Can you give a give a number to it? Or at least a hard upper limit? And how did you derive it? What observations confirm it?

I'm saying time between observers is not evidence every instant in time is stored somehow.

It is just evidence of a less than flat surface to time.

But if I drop the glass there is no observer that can pick it up whole.

The question of whether time travel is possible is logically independent of the question whether it is possible to change the past.

And of course, you didn't answer my question. You compared the leap from small temporal inconsistencies to large ones with the leap from small speeds to large speeds. We know there is a limit to speeds in this universe. Do we also know there is a limit to temporal inconsistencies, how do we know, can we quantify it, can you name an experiment that confirms it?

Putting yourself in the past changes the past.

It changes the present.

 

[Jokodo]

The question of whether time travel is possible is logically independent of the question whether it is possible to change the past.

And of course, you didn't answer my question. You compared the leap from small temporal inconsistencies to large ones with the leap from small speeds to large speeds. We know there is a limit to speeds in this universe. Do we also know there is a limit to temporal inconsistencies, how do we know, can we quantify it, can you name an experiment that confirms it?

Putting yourself in the past changes the past.

Unless you already were there.

And still no answer.

 

[untermensche]

The question of whether time travel is possible is logically independent of the question whether it is possible to change the past.

And of course, you didn't answer my question. You compared the leap from small temporal inconsistencies to large ones with the leap from small speeds to large speeds. We know there is a limit to speeds in this universe. Do we also know there is a limit to temporal inconsistencies, how do we know, can we quantify it, can you name an experiment that confirms it?

Putting yourself in the past changes the past.

Unless you already were there.

And still no answer.

That is gibberish.

Even if we accept this extraordinary claim that the entire past is stored somehow the time of the dinosaurs does not contain a person from the present walking around.

To go back to that time would change the past.

And change the present.

What happens if a 50 year old goes back 30 years and runs into himself? With some of the exact same tooth enamel he had at 20.

 

[untermensche]

What if I told you I had a way to talk to the dead?

Would you believe this is possible without evidence?

What if I said I just go back in time to talk to them?

Is it now more believable?

 

[Jokodo]

Unless you already were there.

And still no answer.

That is gibberish.

Even if we accept this extraordinary claim that the entire past is stored somehow the time of the dinosaurs does not contain a person from the present walking around.

How do you know, have you been there?

To go back to that time would change the past.

And change the present.

What happens if a 50 year old goes back 30 years and runs into himself? With some of the exact same tooth enamel he had at 20.

I don't know, you tell me. You're the one who claims to know how time really works better than all of physics.

 

[Jokodo]

Now here we have a contradiction. Maybe you should muse on the meaning of "totally unknown".

I think you should think hard and deep about it with your claims of future possibilities. In your universe the entire future exists and yet there is no evidence of any human popping up somehow from the future.

If you have all of the past and future available, would you choose to vacation in the middle of a pandemic?

What is it possible to do to a human to send them back in time?

If there is nothing known that could be done then obviously we can't say it may become possible. We have no way to make that positive claim. It is not like flying. We could see things flying. We knew flight was possible.

We didn't know manned space flight was possible when my parents were born. We didn't know hand-held devices with a a computing capacity multiple times that of my first PC were possible when I was born. Medieval Europeans didn't know whether sailing to India was possible - for all they knew, the Atlantic was disconnected from the Indian and Pacific oceans, or the temperatures in the tropics were not survivable.

In the absence of any way to say something is possible we must conclude it is impossible.

Only those of us with virtually unlimited confidence in their own knowledge.

 

[Elixir]

In the absence of any way to say something is possible we must conclude it is impossible.

Only those of us with virtually unlimited confidence in their own knowledge.

Unter has long since appointed himself Ultimate Arbiter of the Impossible, to the detriment of his overall credibility.

I am reminded of AC Clarke's profound maxim:
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

I think it applies in spades when the declarer isn't even a distinguished elderly scientist.

It's worth noting that there was a chorus of "unters" saying it was impossible when Clarke proposed communications satellites in 1945.

 

[untermensche]

How do you know, have you been there?

That's the problem with thinking absurd extraordinary claims are possible.

You have to add on to your argument more and more absurd claims with no evidence to support them to counter every rational objection.

You end up saying that maybe humans walked with dinosaurs like some creationist.

I don't know, you tell me. You're the one who claims to know how time really works better than all of physics.

It is very easy to think absurd extraordinary claims are possible if you never examine any implications of the claims.

Part of the tooth enamel in the 50 year old would be the same tooth enamel that existed in the 20 year old.

If they both exist together you have a duplication of identical matter.

But to you that is a problem to overcome. Not impossible.

 

[untermensche]

Unter has long since appointed himself Ultimate Arbiter of the Impossible, to the detriment of his overall credibility.

Don't worry I am not going to stop you from planning your time travel.

When we look at our abilities to displace a human we can put them in a rocket and move them through space at pretty high speeds.

When we ask how would we displace a human in time we are a bit baffled.

Perhaps you could help.

How is it done? What do we need to do to a body to get it to move backwards in time?

 

[Jokodo]

How do you know, have you been there?

That's the problem with thinking absurd extraordinary claims are possible.

You have to add on to your argument more and more absurd claims with no evidence to support them to counter every rational objection.

Maybe you should learn to read.

I didn't make a claim. You did.

You end up saying that maybe humans walked with dinosaurs like some creationist.

The notion that if we don't fully understand how something might be possible it's ipso facto impossible is the bread and butter of creationism.

 

[Jokodo]

In the absence of any way to say something is possible we must conclude it is impossible.

Only those of us with virtually unlimited confidence in their own knowledge.

Unter has long since appointed himself Ultimate Arbiter of the Impossible, to the detriment of his overall credibility.

I am reminded of AC Clarke's profound maxim:
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

I think it applies in spades when the declarer isn't even a distinguished elderly scientist.

It's worth noting that there was a chorus of "unters" saying it was impossible when Clarke proposed communications satellites in 1945.

He's mostly just the ultimate personification of mistaking the map for the countryside. Irrational numbers don't exist because you can't write them out, past and future don't exist because because we can't directly perceive it, free will is real because it feels real, what did I miss?

 

[bilby]

How do you know, have you been there?

That's the problem with thinking absurd extraordinary claims are possible.

You have to add on to your argument more and more absurd claims with no evidence to support them to counter every rational objection.

You end up saying that maybe humans walked with dinosaurs like some creationist.

I don't know, you tell me. You're the one who claims to know how time really works better than all of physics.

It is very easy to think absurd extraordinary claims are possible if you never examine any implications of the claims.

Part of the tooth enamel in the 50 year old would be the same tooth enamel that existed in the 20 year old.

If they both exist together you have a duplication of identical matter.

But to you that is a problem to overcome. Not impossible.

All regular matter is "identical matter". It's literally made of two quarks, two leptons, and a handful of bosons, all of which are completely indistinguishable from others of their type.

Do you think each carbon atom has a unique identifier that cannot be duplicated or repeated anywhere in the universe? Given that there's no absolute time, that position is not even wrong; It's incoherent.