Wolfire Games Forums

Even though I agree with what you just said, I just have to counter with:

What about the Big Bang, then?

Terry Pratchett wrote:In the beginning, there was nothing.
Which exploded.

The fact that it "doesn't make sense" is exactly the point. Quantum mechanics shows us how naive our "intuitive" understanding of the universe is. On the surface, we seem to be able to explain everything with neat math equations and relations and laws, but underneath all of the order is a set of rules that make next to no sense- to us, anyways. It doesn't mean there's not some logic to them, but rather, that we just can't understand it.

All I can say is: God's a troll.

Did you just mix God and Science in the same post? Oh shi-

• • • • ESCAPE THREAD

inb4 debates

If anyone posts a serious response to that, in the randomness thread, I will do unspeakable things

to their anus

Well wait, no, I was only saying that the output before input doesn't make sense if you're actually trying to define the output. If you define the input and find that the output arrives beforehand, that's fucking cool and needs to be explored. If you're talking about defining the output to get a certain input, well, it just seems like you've got your terms mixed up.

http://bachiller.sabuco.com/ingles/eloy ... estion.pdf

Jacktheawesome wrote:If you're talking about defining the output to get a certain input, well, it just seems like you've got your terms mixed up.

What I was trying to get at was, if the Output comes into existence before you've sent the input, there is no way you could change your decision for the input so that you would have a different output before your send the input off (or is there?), hence my claim that the output defines the input.

Output says: "You're going to press the 'F' key"
You can't really change the cause for the output by pressing another key. You will press 'F'.

Unless...

The 10th Doctor wrote:People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, its more like a big ball of wibbely-wobbely... timey-wimey... stuff.

Korban3 wrote:http://bachiller.sabuco.com/ingles/eloy ... estion.pdf

Oh man I want to read that so bad. Later. Must read later.

Freshbite wrote:

Jacktheawesome wrote:If you're talking about defining the output to get a certain input, well, it just seems like you've got your terms mixed up.

What I was trying to get at was, if the Output comes into existence before you've sent the input, there is no way you could change your decision for the input so that you would have a different output before your send the input off (or is there?), hence my claim that the output defines the input.

Output says: "You're going to press the 'F' key"
You can't really change the cause for the output by pressing another key. You will press 'F'.

Unless...

The 10th Doctor wrote:People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, its more like a big ball of wibbely-wobbely... timey-wimey... stuff.

Well this is interesting. To me, this brings to mind the whole time travel debate. Not necessarily whether it exists, but more whether paradoxes are possible, or whether it is all one big, congruous loop. Like this video:

I'm sure there are more scholarly videos on the subject, but I thought he illustrated it nicely.
My question would be would it matter if you had observed the output before sending the input, or not? Could you retroactively affect the output by changing your mind on what the input is at the last minute, or would the output always reflect your final decision from the beginning, either way?

Time, is an illusion.
It does not exist.
I came totally prepared because i've already had my time rant last night. =D

Jacktheawesome wrote:My question would be would it matter if you had observed the output before sending the input, or not? Could you retroactively affect the output by changing your mind on what the input is at the last minute, or would the output always reflect your final decision from the beginning, either way?

Yeah that's what I was wondering about.

One thing that I've been thinking about is interesting, but cannot possibly be proven. If we were to change our mind about the decision of what key to press, could the time rewrite itself and connect us into an altered 'timeline' in which we believe that the new key is what we wanted to press in the first place?

Output: "You will press the 'F' key."
Person 1: "Fuck that, I'm going to press the 'B' key instead."
Person 2: "Yep, 'B' key, you're totally bending time right now."

[TIME WARP]

Person 1: "Alright, the button is pressed, what did the output say again?"
Output: "You will press the 'B' key."
Person 2: "You did press the 'B' key!"
Person 1: "Just like the output said, that's amazing!"

Tricky to explain. Even harder to actually think logically about.

Freshbite wrote:

Jacktheawesome wrote:My question would be would it matter if you had observed the output before sending the input, or not? Could you retroactively affect the output by changing your mind on what the input is at the last minute, or would the output always reflect your final decision from the beginning, either way?

Yeah that's what I was wondering about.

One thing that I've been thinking about is interesting, but cannot possibly be proven. If we were to change our mind about the decision of what key to press, could the time rewrite itself and connect us into an altered 'timeline' in which we believe that the new key is what we wanted to press in the first place?

Output: "You will press the 'F' key."
Person 1: "Fuck that, I'm going to press the 'B' key instead."
Person 2: "Yep, 'B' key, you're totally bending time right now."

[TIME WARP]

Person 1: "Alright, the button is pressed, what did the output say again?"
Output: "You will press the 'B' key."
Person 2: "You did press the 'B' key!"
Person 1: "Just like the output said, that's amazing!"

Tricky to explain. Even harder to actually think logically about.

I think there is a hypothesis that matches this. I can't get you the source, but I once read about the possibility that each time you made a decision like that, two different versions split into different dimensions: one where the output was B, and one where the output was F. Personally, I've always put more faith in the congruous loop explanation. If the output is F, and you by some chance already know that F is the output, someone will fall through the roof and land their ass on the F key a millisecond before you press B. Everything just makes so much more sense this way. That's why I'm actually doubtful of time travel ever happening. If there really was going to be a point in the future where we would be traveling back in time, we would see all sorts of time travelers walking around nowadays. I don't see there being multiple versions of our timeline, all infinitely layered so that we can travel back in time to different versions of ourselves, and alter the events of the past. If we alter anything, it would only be to create the events as we know them today. Or else, if the dimensional splitting idea is true, someone did go back in time to assassinate Hitler, and that created an alternate dimension, one where that never happened. Unfortunately, we ended up in the Holocaust version. Oh well. I think Zelron is right. Time doesn't exist. Or else it's a governmental conspiracy devised to keep all the smart people occupied while they slowly introduce a police state.

Jacktheawesome wrote:each time you made a decision like that, two different versions split into different dimensions: one where the output was B, and one where the output was F.

That's the multiverse theory. Which states that there are an infinite number of parallel universes, and every single possible eventually has occured once in each universe.
Meaning there is a universe where you press "F", there is a universe where you press "B", there is a universe where the computer exploded in your face before you pressed any button, there is a universe where you are too poor to afford a computer, there is a universe where humans have never existed, and there is a universe where all humans have anuses for eyeballs.

Actually that's where I learned that quantum mechanics is bullshit.

Zelron wrote:

Jacktheawesome wrote:each time you made a decision like that, two different versions split into different dimensions: one where the output was B, and one where the output was F.

That's the multiverse theory. Which states that there are an infinite number of parallel universes, and every single possible eventually has occured once in each universe.
Meaning there is a universe where you press "F", there is a universe where you press "B", there is a universe where the computer exploded in your face before you pressed any button, there is a universe where you are too poor to afford a computer, there is a universe where humans have never existed, and there is a universe where all humans have anuses for eyeballs.

Actually that's where I learned that quantum mechanics is bullshit.

Yeah, that's it. Come to think of it, I believe I heard about it on some video on the internet. As always, the most credible source of information. The video was a graphical explanation of the 12 dimensions theory. Well hell, I'll go and find it.
Part 1:



Part 2: