"Manifesting" -- maybe those girls that are into it, are right ;)
World-line travel my friend
https://metallicman.com/detailed-breakdown-of-consciousness-...
A growing number of scientists are convinced the future influences the past
131–140 of 455 posts
Re: A growing number of scientists are convinced the future influences the past
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we reverse time and this implies running everything backwards in physics, do we include gravity in the set of things that are reversed? Then everything would fly off the face of the earth in reverse-time.
Let's check. F = ma F = m dv/dt u = -t dv/dt = -dv/du - F = m dv/du If you stop there it looks like you're right, but you also must change the definition of velocity to account for the new time. v = dx/dt = -dx/du +F = m dx/du So the direction of gravity (the force F) stays the same when you flip time. I can explain that without the math by pointing out that if you took a video of a ball being thrown up and caught an…
> I can explain that without the math by pointing out that if you took a video of a ball being thrown up and caught and played it in reverse, it would still depict a ball being thrown up and caught.
That's amazing, thanks. The portion where you caught the ball in forward time is equivalent to throwing the ball in reverse time.
I need to rewatch Tenet some day
Re: A growing number of scientists are convinced the future influences the past
#133It does make explaining some things much easier, like the "Delayed-choice Quantum Eraser"[0] experiment. Basically what's possible next is anything that can solve for conditions set by the past, and some from the future. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
I think it relates more to Wheeler's Anthropic Participatory Principle[0], where multiple observers of some event in the past, can influence it from the future.
Re: A growing number of scientists are convinced the future influences the past
#134> It may seem eerie to our brains, which process events sequentially, but the history of science is also littered with examples of human biases leading to bad conclusions, such as the Earth-centric model of the solar system. Slow down. Assuming that time moves in one direction is not comparable to geocentrism.
Here's the analogy, per Sean Carroll [1]:
- There seems to be a special direction "down", where things fall by default, because we live in the vicinity of an influential object in space, called Earth
- There seems to be a special direction "forward in time", where things happen by default, because we live in the vicinity of an influential event in time, called Big Bang
If we had stuck to the local Earth context and geocentrism, the objectivity of the "down" direction would remain unquestioned. It's when we started modeling other things outside of Earth, it became clear there's no objective "down" direction, just a more general concept of Gravity.
Carroll's argument is that it's the Big Bang, an extremely low-entropy configuration of the universe, that gives rise to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the resulting emergence of an arrow of time in the forward direction. It's purely a statistical phenomenon at larger scales, and attributable to being "next to an influential event", according to him.
Re: A growing number of scientists are convinced the future influences the past
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And no practical amount of shaking the jar will ever return the marbles to a high order state again. This can't be true. Take the case where there's only 2 marbles, it's likely that at some point that shaking them will return them to the original state. For higher numbers of marbles the probability becomes lower and lower, but is never 0.
With enough marbles, the discrete distribution behaves like a continuous distribution. The point probability of a continuous distribution is infinitely improbable -- in other words it is 0. (0.00..0..1 = 0 just as 0.99 repeating equals 1)
> infinitely improbable -- in other words it is 0
This sounds like a rather bold statement to make, as long as we're already speaking so metaphysically.
Re: A growing number of scientists are convinced the future influences the past
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sun being classified as a yellow dwarf does not mean it's "only yellow hot". You can observe that by going outdoors and holding up a white piece of paper and noting it is not yellow in sunlight. powered by a nuclear explosion Not quite accurate. The nuclear fusion going on inside the sun's core is not an explosion. In a nuclear explosion, a significant fraction of the fuel in a given area is consumed in an instan…
The sun is the color it is because its surface is 5500 Kelvin, which we have defined as white. The sun is cooler than most visible stars, so it can be called yellow by comparison.
The sun appears slightly yellow because the atmosphere scatters blue light more than the rest. The result is the sky looks blue, the sun is slightly yellowish, and the cumulative light (both directly from the sun and diffuse light from the sky) is white. Outside the atmosphere, our sun appears proper white.
Re: A growing number of scientists are convinced the future influences the past
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
The factual past is what actually happened, history is what we wrote down. Perception and reality are not in fact the same thing.
Can you show that there is a factual past without parsing it through your perception? It was factual that the earth was 6000 years old, until it wasn't.
No, that was never factual. Radiocarbon dating gives us evidence, factual without the lense of perception or opinion. Saying the earth is 6000 years old is just repeating propaganda.
Re: A growing number of scientists are convinced the future influences the past
#138The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics also says this[1]. Retrocausality and non-locality are why a lot of physicists don't like it. It's just an interpretation too, but is otherwise consistent with all other QM theories.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation
Re: A growing number of scientists are convinced the future influences the past
#139Re: A growing number of scientists are convinced the future influences the past
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we reverse time and this implies running everything backwards in physics, do we include gravity in the set of things that are reversed? Then everything would fly off the face of the earth in reverse-time.
Gravity is a universal constant. If you reverse time, you just reverse the order of cause and effect, not what the effect is . Does that make more sense to you?
If we reverse time, would gravitational waves flow backwards?