-
When should you upgrade your hi-fi? How to control ‘upgradeitis’
bigboss
Moderator
C'Mon Vlad play the game - it's just a film I know but while it's fresh give your views on its concept/premise.
If you don't want to at least have the decency not to try to derail it with your pointless pictures.
Just read - but feel free to comment one way or the other.
simonlewis said:
Yes....Lol
After reading all these positive opinions it had to be done.
Problem was the 2nd viewing only caused more eye rolling and head shaking from me.
Even looked at the link posted by bigboss.
My conclusion.
The film is a bit stupid...why?
The idea/concept of the film is that of an extremely arrogant man who in his wisdom believes man will evolve into god - a being that transcends time and space.
Capable of creating a 'worm hole' and building a safe space on the event horizon of a black hole.
But to have a present we first have to live through a past. That said if we did evolve into God we did it on our own - without help from our future selves, who would not be there if we did not make it - escape from a dying Earth.
Unless we discovered how to travel into the future..... *CRAZY*
Ether way the events in the film make no sense, it's silly.
I'm quite a big stargate fan, so the idea of ascended beings evolving from humanoids is a bit of a staple there. The question of what is a God is an interesting one, science can give what apears like godlike powers to those who don't understand.
The mastery of gravity or manipulation of other dimensions would appear godlike to us, he wasn't talking God in the biblical scence. Ascended being sits better to this atheist
The mastery of gravity or manipulation of other dimensions would appear godlike to us, he wasn't talking God in the biblical scence. Ascended being sits better to this atheist
fr0g said:
Yeah but like Vlad you're a coward.
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me even if they say I'm talking b#@¥¥%*¥.
But be brave enough to make your reasoning clear - lets hear your logic on the things that I have commented on.
Good or bad.
Having watched the film I'm responding to the opening post.
C'mon let's discuss it.
Native_bon
Well-known member
Whats the point really. Even if there really was a good God, some people will hate him/her. Thats just humans. Ok lets try Ali g for a movie. *biggrin*
eggontoast
Well-known member
fr0g said:
You think, if you watch a film then need to read up on it understand what it was about..........hmm what can I say without being rude, did mummy tell you you were special ?
Thompsonuxb said:
It would be interesting to see if you would call Vlad and myself cowards to our faces.
Your sense of humour is sadly lacking and you're resorting to direct name calling now.
eggontoast said:
Ignoring the resort to name calling, your question was asinine.
Of course, any film such as this which is challenging in a logical sense, and can be difficult to comprehend, can lead one to seek answers. I see no problem searching for other people's interpretations.
And yes, of course my mum told me I was special. Didn't your's? ;(
John Duncan
Well-known member
Thompsonuxb said:
I personally think there is no such thing as future and past in time. There is only now. Future and past are tricks of the mind considering we are beings who evolved into having memory and predictive modeling in order to survive. There are creatures with none of those and live only in the now.
We are like twigs traveling on a river. Time travel is impossible because the river is never the same at any moment, you can't just move the twig back, you need to carry back the whole river. What machine can control the universe at expanding/contracting? None.
Time completely may not exist at all, just space. It could be a made up evolutionary tool. Just like God.
Native_bon
Well-known member
Very right. Well said. I did put this point to Cnoevil some weeks ago. Only now really does exist. Chemical & physical reactions take place around & within us but only the moment now exist.Vladimir said:
bigboss
Moderator
Here's an article which talks about the science experiment which Cno mentioned:
Has any serialized sci-fi story ever managed not to dip a toe into the stream of nonlinear time travel? If such a thing exists, I can't think of it. We're all just collectively fascinated by the idea of going back in time and killing Hitler, or going forward in time to see how terrible we'll look when we get old.
But there's never been any real time travel, right? And that is due at least in part to the fact that traveling backward in time would almost certainly create some kind of causality paradox, right?
Well, the bad news is that, no, there probably hasn't been any time travel, at least not happening within our universe. But the good news is that if there was, there's mathematical evidence to suggest you won't have to worry about wacky paradox problems.
Here are the necessary facts you need going in. Warning: serious math and science ahead.
Einstein's theory of general relativity does not prohibit the possibility of traveling back in time. According to that theory, it could be possible to create a gravitational field strong enough to bend spacetime back in on itself. This is referred to as a closed timelike curve, or CTC.
The problem is that most theorists, thinking in relative terms, have said that an object traversing a CTC would inherently create paradoxes. In 1991, though, theorist David Deutch theorized (as theorists do) that paradoxes could be avoided if thought of in terms of fuzzy probability rather than strict determinism. So the theory goes that if you send a fundamental particle back in time to flip a switch that will create itself, it has more or less equal probability that it will succeed or fail. The fact that it could succeed is enough to prevent its existence from becoming a paradox even if it fails.
Which brings us to University of Queensland physicist Tim Ralph and his Ph.D. student Martin Ringbauer, who wanted to devise an experiment to test Deutch's theory. Ralph and Ringbauer decided to study the interactions between pairs of polarized photons within a quantum system. Says Ralph, "Of course, we're not really sending anything back in time but [the simulation] allows us to study weird evolutions normally not allowed in quantum mechanics." The simulation, they suggest, is mathematically equivalent to having a proton travel along a CTC.
According to Ringbauer, "We encode their polarization so that the second one acts as kind of a past incarnation of the first.” Effectively, they have one photon go through a time-loop simulator and then see if it exactly resembles the state of the non-time-traveling photon at the moment prior to the simulation taking place.
The result? Says Ralph, "The state we got at our output, the second photon at the simulated exit of the CTC, was the same as that of our input, the first encoded photon at the CTC entrance." The experiment was repeated multiple times with the same result.
Conclusion? It's possible that you can go back in time, irrevocably change the past, but still exist in your original state despite the change.
Has any serialized sci-fi story ever managed not to dip a toe into the stream of nonlinear time travel? If such a thing exists, I can't think of it. We're all just collectively fascinated by the idea of going back in time and killing Hitler, or going forward in time to see how terrible we'll look when we get old.
But there's never been any real time travel, right? And that is due at least in part to the fact that traveling backward in time would almost certainly create some kind of causality paradox, right?
Well, the bad news is that, no, there probably hasn't been any time travel, at least not happening within our universe. But the good news is that if there was, there's mathematical evidence to suggest you won't have to worry about wacky paradox problems.
Here are the necessary facts you need going in. Warning: serious math and science ahead.
Einstein's theory of general relativity does not prohibit the possibility of traveling back in time. According to that theory, it could be possible to create a gravitational field strong enough to bend spacetime back in on itself. This is referred to as a closed timelike curve, or CTC.
The problem is that most theorists, thinking in relative terms, have said that an object traversing a CTC would inherently create paradoxes. In 1991, though, theorist David Deutch theorized (as theorists do) that paradoxes could be avoided if thought of in terms of fuzzy probability rather than strict determinism. So the theory goes that if you send a fundamental particle back in time to flip a switch that will create itself, it has more or less equal probability that it will succeed or fail. The fact that it could succeed is enough to prevent its existence from becoming a paradox even if it fails.
Which brings us to University of Queensland physicist Tim Ralph and his Ph.D. student Martin Ringbauer, who wanted to devise an experiment to test Deutch's theory. Ralph and Ringbauer decided to study the interactions between pairs of polarized photons within a quantum system. Says Ralph, "Of course, we're not really sending anything back in time but [the simulation] allows us to study weird evolutions normally not allowed in quantum mechanics." The simulation, they suggest, is mathematically equivalent to having a proton travel along a CTC.
According to Ringbauer, "We encode their polarization so that the second one acts as kind of a past incarnation of the first.” Effectively, they have one photon go through a time-loop simulator and then see if it exactly resembles the state of the non-time-traveling photon at the moment prior to the simulation taking place.
The result? Says Ralph, "The state we got at our output, the second photon at the simulated exit of the CTC, was the same as that of our input, the first encoded photon at the CTC entrance." The experiment was repeated multiple times with the same result.
Conclusion? It's possible that you can go back in time, irrevocably change the past, but still exist in your original state despite the change.
Time is our perception of change in space. No change = no time. We are constantly 'time' traveling because we are matter and energy in constant movement. You can't stop and chose a direction, you'd have to stop all the Universe. Our atoms, molecules, electrons etc. are part of the Universe exploding or imploding.
Humans thinking about themeselves as something appart from nature is called anthropocentricity. I presume this is where Thompson's criticism was directed at (sadly by using archaic religious beliefs).
As a simple experiment go and live few months in enviroment where there is no day and night and you'll go mad or come close to going mad. Check medical journals of any expedition to the North or South poles. Perception of time is our adaptation to our environment, our solar system, no different than a giraffs long neck to reach top branches of trees.
We are primates who develop complex languages (sciences) to better organize themselves as social groups in conquering our environment, expanding and prospering by the help of complex prosthesis (machines, tools). Our success has been so great at this that we are drunk with glory and pride.
If time travel was invented in the future, our presence would have been wonderfull. It isn't. So much hunger, death, suffering and terror in the world currently. What about the Hitlers of today? I see no bloody wormholes appearing on the sky to save us. It really is all up to us. If we want to time travel to a better tomorrow, we work on things today.
One thing I'm certain. Religion or any other form of Deus Ex Machina (wormhles from future man) is just not accepting responsibility. I don't want a reverend Jim Jones exploiting my resources and labor in return for a cup of Flavor-Aid. Or even a bag of pebbles from Machina Dynamica. *fool*
Humans thinking about themeselves as something appart from nature is called anthropocentricity. I presume this is where Thompson's criticism was directed at (sadly by using archaic religious beliefs).
As a simple experiment go and live few months in enviroment where there is no day and night and you'll go mad or come close to going mad. Check medical journals of any expedition to the North or South poles. Perception of time is our adaptation to our environment, our solar system, no different than a giraffs long neck to reach top branches of trees.
We are primates who develop complex languages (sciences) to better organize themselves as social groups in conquering our environment, expanding and prospering by the help of complex prosthesis (machines, tools). Our success has been so great at this that we are drunk with glory and pride.
If time travel was invented in the future, our presence would have been wonderfull. It isn't. So much hunger, death, suffering and terror in the world currently. What about the Hitlers of today? I see no bloody wormholes appearing on the sky to save us. It really is all up to us. If we want to time travel to a better tomorrow, we work on things today.
One thing I'm certain. Religion or any other form of Deus Ex Machina (wormhles from future man) is just not accepting responsibility. I don't want a reverend Jim Jones exploiting my resources and labor in return for a cup of Flavor-Aid. Or even a bag of pebbles from Machina Dynamica. *fool*
Lol....ok.
Vlad interesting points - I have to disagree ref your views on time.
The past is real - we have evidence all around us. We have points of references, time lines - we live in the present/moment I agree but history even though it cannot be altered it cannot be dismissed.
That makes no sense.
The future does not exsist - I have time for the chaos theory .
Interesting view.
Vlad interesting points - I have to disagree ref your views on time.
The past is real - we have evidence all around us. We have points of references, time lines - we live in the present/moment I agree but history even though it cannot be altered it cannot be dismissed.
That makes no sense.
The future does not exsist - I have time for the chaos theory .
Interesting view.
Vladimir said:
'archaic religious beliefs'
An interesting phrase.
I think the thing that annoys me about this film is its atheist premise that man is the alpha and omega.
The idea that man -who for whatever reason is here, are the only intelligent beings in the the universe and who will eventually evolve into God is absurd - a being capable of manipulating time and space or have the ability to operate outside his current dimensions able to create wormholes etc.
That idea of man evolving or the aspiration of man to become something men don't believe exsist.....it's kinda ridiculous.
In the films conclusion it was interesting to note what price would have to be paid to achieve this higher form.
Physical contact, love.....
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Something is not right and I’m hoping a forum member will help me
- Started by Fuel4life1234
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram