Time Travel Rant - Part 2

This is a continuation of a post I did a while back. Part 1 can be found here.

In mathematics, there is this concept called consistency. An axiomatic mathematical system is consistent, if you cannot prove contrary things. For example, you would not be able to prove that 1+1=2 and 1+1≠2.

An axiomatic mathematical system is built upon 3 things: undefined terms, defined terms, and axioms (or assumptions.) Given these things, you can build amazing mathematical systems like Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry. The difference between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry are the assumptions made. However, the two geometries are (in general) not compatible with each other. If you combine the two geometries, you will quickly find that it is non-consistent. In other words, you would be able to prove two contrary theorems.

For a mathematician, non-consistent systems are not very interesting. This is because of the way these systems are built. If you can prove two contrary statements, you can prove ANY two statements. Thus, if you can state a conjecture in the language of the system, it is automatically true. While the proof might not be trivial, you could prove any statement to be true.  With any statement being true, you can imagine that these systems are not very compelling or interesting.

So, why am I mentioning this in a post about time travel? Simply because non-consistent systems are not interesting. If you have conflicting assertions, both of which are true, you end up with uninteresting systems. This is a problem with time travel being impossible. It opens up a realm of things, that quickly devolve into something uninteresting.  You strip a story of the things that may make it compelling.

To illustrate, let us explore Star Trek! In the original series, the transporter was simply a way to get the crew of the USS Enterprise quickly and easily to the planet. It was a short cut. It was a device that allowed them to put more story in their timeslot. Anything beyond that was mostly ignored. It was just a way to get on with the story the writers were telling.

Flash forward to Star Trek: The Next Generation. The new series began with the premise, we have this technology, what are the consequences of this technology? Thus, instead of being a plot device to speed up a story, they explored the consequences of having this impossible technology at their disposal. It quickly devolved into farcical plot devices.

For instance, in the second season, there is an episode entitled Unnatural Selection. In it, Dr. Pulaski beams down to a research station where these genetically modified children are living. Everyone around these kids suddenly and rapidly age. (More info can be found here.) Dr. Pulaski finds herself unnaturally aging, and they use the transporter to fix her. So, what this means is that if some redshirt beamed down and was killed, they should be able to fix him using this technique with the transporter. (Not once does this happen.)

Moreover, it means that you could live forever. All you would have to do is store a particular pattern in the "pattern buffer" and use the transporter to restore you to that pattern at the end of the day. You would be perpetually that pattern. This is in essence what they did to bring Scotty onto the show. Thus, all of the near-death experiences and dangers were meaningless because everyone could be restored using the transporter.

By looking at the consequences of this technological impossibility, it could easily devolve into non-interesting story arcs. What was meant as a shortcut to telling interesting stories, became a Deus Ex Machina to resolve plot points. This is the problem with allowing individuals to travel backwards in time. Instead of a shortcut to exploring a world without Stalin, there are stories that relish the great paradoxes of the entire genre. They are like non-consistent mathematical systems. Anything is possible, so they are not very interesting.

I would like to propose a theory of time that allows for a world without WWII, but removes the paradox. I wish for a more sciencey science fiction if you will.  Because of the grandfather paradox, we need a believable way to get around that.  Most stories that attempt to explain away the paradox have failed.   That includes Dr. Who.  Hence, we need to look at time differently.

I think of time as an unraveling carpet. We sit on the string that trails behind. That string is the unchanging past. However, if we look in the other direction, we see an expanse of possibilities. The future is wide open. We do not know what will unfold ahead as the future is dependant upon our actions. However, once our moment has unraveled, there is no going back.

The future is determined by our decisions and random occurrences. If we make that wrong turn at Albuquerque, we do not know what the future would bring. If we purposely take that right turn instead of the left, we change which part of the future comes our way and is set on that string the trails behind us. Steven Hawking proposes a sort of Heissenburg uncertainty principle into time. Thus, the future is always uncertain.  We can guess with a level of confidence, a probability if you will, of what is going to happen in the future.

Now, just because there is a string that trails behind us that we call the past, does not mean that there are not other strings. This could be the building blocks for a multiverse. It should be our foundation for any time travelling based stories.

Instead of travelling back in time to kill Hitler, we travel across the multiverse to a timeline where Hitler never becomes chancellor or is never born. In this way, our characters appear in that timeline in whatever technology that is used. We do not change things -- since it is impossible. Further, we do not travel to their past. We appear in their present, but can look into their past. We can observe the differences in this part of the multiverse.

Currently, there are theories that indicate their are other dimensions. Thus, this type of travel could theoretically be possible. At our current level of technology, we do not know if this is impossible like we know that traveling back in time is impossible. Thus, this is much more acceptable to me than the old time travel scenario.

In an effort to facilitate this technology, I would propose some sort of infinite improbability drive to get to these dimensions. The future is unknowable, as I stated. However, there are probabilities for things to occur. For instance, it is highly improbable that I will be enjoying the beaches of Barbados tomorrow. Thus, if we use some probability type device to go to a time and place where I would be at the beach, we have our hook. This is our way into that dimension. Getting back is another issue.

In any event, this is a much more acceptable view of time and exploring differing timelines. It rids us of the grandfather paradox. It is vastly more probable than the completely impossible old science fiction time travel paradigm. It is time to retire the old view, and start using a more updated model of time. Thanks!

Time Travel Rant - Part 1

So, I was listening to this Escape Pod podcast, featuring the story The Grandfather Paradox. At the end, they mentioned that some people hate time travel stories, but they did not know why. I am here to tell you why I do not particularly care for them.

Each of us has a particular view of the past. We have experiences that we remember, and those may reverberate into other people's remembrances. Look at the movie It's a Wonderful Life. You can see from that movie the impact one person has on so many other people. If you change even the minutest detail of someone's life, that could reverberate to so many other people's experience. If my view, you simply cannot change the past without dire consequences  (IE paradoxes will arise).

As Sean Carrol puts it, there is an arrow of time. If we look into the past, that arrow is pointing at us. We live in a world of increasing entropy. Thus, if we are reading or writing Science Fiction, we expect it to somewhat obey the laws of science -- at least as we currently understand them. If you want to get the idea of how time works, perhaps you should read Dr. Carrol's book From Eternity to Here. It is on the nature of time. He talks about why remember the past, but not the future. He is a leading authority of space/time, and he states that you cannot change the past. Thus, science fiction, which is suppose to be moderately scientific, should not include things that are patently unscientific.

I will note that I know that time travel is possible. We are traveling in time right now. However, like the arrow of time, we only travel in one direction. We are traveling in time at 1 day per day. It is pretty amazing!

Einstein theorizes that we can move faster than 1 day per day. It is complicated relativity stuff. It involves moving faster than our point of reference, etc. There is complicated math and junk involved, so I will not delve into the traveling forward in time business. We know it is possible and how that part basically works. Thus, stories that work in that direction are fine.

However, the realm of science fiction has great quantities of time traveling stories. Individuals travel back and forth in time and space. The Grandfather Paradox, mentioned above is one such story. Doctor Who is another example. He travels throughout time and space -- having all kinds of adventures. Nevertheless, these are all wrong!

In order to travel against the arrow of time, the science fiction author must overcome one particular paradox. It is often referred to as the Grandfather/Grandmother Paradox. That is, if you could travel back in time, you could travel back to meet your grandfather or grandmother. If you could do that, you could kill said grandparent before your parents were born. Thus, preventing your own birth. However, if you were not born, you could not travel back in time. Hence, you could not kill your grandparent before your parents were born. However, if your grandparents do not die, they can have your parents, and thus you. Hence, you can exist to go back and kill your grandparents. This can go on and on.

If you are going to write a science fiction story, you must explain how you get past this particular paradox. At the very least, you should gloss over it. You should not highlight the impossibility of your story's entire premise. For instance, the Doctor is often saying he is the last of the Time Lords. Why does he not go back in time to when Time Lords existed? He seems to be able to go to any place in time and space. Why he cannot go back to visit his grandmother is a mystery.  I have heard various reasons -- Time Lords live outside of time and space. Rubbish!  If he can take someone who does live in time and space -- IE his companion -- then they exist in time and space.

What I am saying is that when we look at things in the past, they are set -- set in stone. The past is always the same. Once we look into changing the past, we run into these types of paradoxes. You simply cannot get away from them. Each action, no matter how seemingly insignificant, will be part of the series of events that lead up to you now. Further, all of the science points to this being true.  Time is a one-way street.

While it may be great to go back into time and kill Hitler before he becomes Chancellor of Germany, we simply cannot do it. Further, we never will. World War II happened, and there is no changing that. Therefore, any story about this type of thing is based upon an impossibility, and we should stop doing that. In general, science fiction should be based upon the possible scientific realities. We know these types of time travel are impossible, so we need to stop relying upon them. Good or bad, we got to where we are right now because of the past occurrences -- even the bad ones.

We got here because of Hitler and the war, and not despite of them. What happens with the A-Bomb if there is no WWII? What happens with all those people that do not die fighting the war? There are simply too many permutations that would be different for that one event to not happen. Lots of people's parents met because of the war. You cannot take that away...

Now, you may be thinking, going faster than the speed of light is scientifically impossible. Is that out of the question for science fiction? Some would say that it is. However, it is just a shortcut to get interesting stories. Thus, if your time traveling story is interesting, then I am usually willing to give it a break. Interesting stories is what drew me to the current incarnation of Doctor Who.

I really liked Christopher Eccleston's doctor. They told some really good stories. Many of David Tennant's episodes were really good too. However, in my opinion, they got really lazy. How many times do they have to kill every last Dalek? I know many long time fans like them, and they are compelling opponents to the Doctor. However, if they can come back every season and every last one can be wiped out -- again, then so can other Time Lords. Thus, you end up in paradox territory.  It revels in its paradoxes rather than gloss over them and tell compelling stories.

I am not like the mundane science fiction people, I do not necessarily mind the scientific impossibilities in my science fiction. However, I would like a bit more plausibility. Quite frankly, I find this sort of time travel very implausible. If you cannot convince me otherwise, then I am not interested in your story.  If I think, oh no -- another one of these, you have lost me.  In fact, if I was reading the Grandfather Paradox podcast, I would not have made it past the first 100 words.

Having said all of that, I do have a theory of time travel. I would find my version (naturally) acceptable, and many stories could be adapted to this newer better model of time. However, that will have to wait, as I have ranted long enough. Next time!

On Wisconsin.

As a former State employee (Minnesota), I thought I would weigh in on the situation in Wisconsin.

First, when they say things like this action will save the state such and such, that is a distortion.  They are taking money away from people.  They are not saving money.  Thus, the actions in Wisconsin are a tax on state workers.  It is nothing less.  You are taxing the state employees on the wages and benefits that they had bargained for in good faith.  If the state wishes to get concessions from the state workers, they can bargain with them for those concessions.  From what I have read, the state workers' unions have made concessions in recent years.  This includes unpaid furlough days and wage freezes.  Naturally, these were negotiated.

Second, there is lots of talk about average salary.  Both sides use their statistics to show how much this group or that group makes more on average.  However, averages are meaningless!  There are far fewer state employees than there are private sector employees.  Thus, anyone making a large salary on the public side will greatly skew the average.  So, the athletics coaches at the state universities will raise the average salary.   However, the Milwaukee Bucks players will have less of an impact if they are included at all (which I doubt.) Further, if you wish to be fair about things, you talk about the median income.  Of all the employees, what does the person in the exact center make.  It is the only fair measure.  Also, include full compensation.  In that way, you can include all of the people making exorbitant salaries, but that will not affect the median income.  Otherwise, you are just comparing apples to oranges, and lying with statistics.

Third, all of these statistics are irrelevant!  As I said before, this is a tax.  In fact, it is a highly regressive tax.  Those employees just scraping by are going to pay a lot bigger percentage of their pay to cover this.  It does not matter whether the average salary is higher on the public side or not.  Those state employees that can least afford this, are going to take the brunt of it.  If you want to hire good teachers, how are you going to do it now?  This tax will place a larger burden on the state's school districts.  No longer can they offer a nice benefits package (in lieu of a nice salary) to prospective teachers.  Not to mention all of the other state jobs.  If you think it is hard to find good teachers now, take away their collective bargaining rights.  Hence, this will adversely affect the Wisconsin educational system.

Fourth, the people who were receiving these wages and benefits have obligations just like everyone else.  The level of obligation was measured on the level of salary and benefits that was negotiated at the beginning of employment.  You are taking the rug out from under these employees.  Further, those employees that expected these benefits and now they have them taken away.  It is a bit of a bait and switch.  This may be a breech of contract.  This law will most certainly end up in court.  It will also result in a worker slow-down and possibly a strike.  If you do not think this will cost the state money, you are sorely mistaken.

Any way you look at this, it is wrong.  It is wrong on every level.  You do not select a group of people and simply tax them.  This is not a majority rule thing.  The majority have to look out for the rights of the minority in this type of action.  You could pass a tax on all people named Scott.  I am sure the majority of non-Scotts would approve of this tax.  While there are a number of people named Scott, they are certainly not in the majority.  Thus, with a majority vote you could possibly create such a tax.  However, it is not a fair way to raise revenue.  This is particularly true of the people named Scott who are barely scraping by.  Of course, the government is not spinning it this way...

Rant of the week -- I guess.

So, I watched the movie "The Losers" on DVD.  If you like mindless spy/action movies, you will probably like this one.  Lots of action, some intrigue, some comedy -- in other words -- my kind of movie.  I thoroughly enjoyed it.  However, this is not about the movie, it is about the DVD.

I viewed this movie through an online video borrowing service.  I received the DVD in the mail, and watched it (rather than online streaming.)  I enjoyed the movie so much, that I would consider purchasing it to view whenever I choose.  However, I will not be doing that.

You see, when I put in the movie it started in on ads.  (Some folks call them trailers.)  That is fine and dandy.  I have no problem with them including advertising for other movies that this company has produced.  What I do have a problem with is not being able to skip them.  This DVD had perhaps 6 or so trailers that you could not skip.  The "DVD Menu" button was disabled.  The "Next" button was disabled.  The only thing a person viewing this movie could do was fast forward through these previews.  And there was at least 6 of them.

So, imagine that you have your favorite movie on DVD.  But, before you can watch it, you have to sit through 10 minutes of trailers BEFORE you could even watch this movie.  No choice!  A DVD you own forcing you to watch several trailers of movies you do not even care about.  You purchased this movie!

There have been plenty of movies that I have enjoyed that I said to myself, "I wonder what other films this company has to offer?"  After the movie I intentionally viewed the advertisements provided.  This movie, I fast forwarded through the ads, so I do not even know what they were about.  I just sat there stewing as I fast forwarded through them.  I do not even know how many there were or what they were about.  And I enjoyed this movie so much, that I would have sought them out.

So, stupid movie executives.  Not only did you lose a DVD sale because of this practice, but you also prevented me from possibly checking out additional films by you.  Further, I will remember, and I will keep track to see if this becomes a standard practice for all of your DVDs.  I will be avoiding them as well.  Trailers are my choice -- no yours!