Micah Hanks and "The UFO Singularity"

[marduk]

But the divergent possibilities could not interact or intersect with each other, right?

stonehart said: ↑

I think an interesting question would be... if you could cause divergent timelines, i.e. go back in time to right some perceived wrong in the past to create a better future, then it wouldn't be your future.
So what would the motivation be? Altruism?

Consider as a situation:
It's the year 2300 and I'm part of a secret government program that develops time travel, and the consequent realization that changing the past causes divergent timelines. Let's call this timeline 'A'.
For some reason, I expend what must be a large amount of energy to go back in time to prevent Cortez from conquering the Aztecs by flying around the Aztec capital city in the year 1500 with my fancy flying machines. Maybe I 'abduct' a few key members of the Aztec government and warn them about the evil Cortez. As a consequence, Cortez' forces are wiped off the face of the earth when they land and the Aztecs remain a viable and prosperous culture throughout the industrialization period.
Let's call this timeline 'B'.

If I then go back to the year 2300 in timeline 'A' then there is no net benefit to my expenditure of energy because all alterations would not have been to my timeline.
If I go back to the year 2300 in timeline 'B' then I may not exist -- having changed my own past, and then there is no net benefit to my expenditure of energy (because I'd be dead).

If the violation of causality causes alternate timelines then I can't change my own timeline. If the violation of causality causes a paradox then it probably isn't possible. In either case, there is little motivation to do except as a r&d project that would by it's very nature be low-key and non-interventionist or a new resource base to be exploited. The former doesn't seem to be what we are witnessing given the sometimes massive and theatrical arial performances that are witnessed. And it doesn't jive with the "we are peaceful space brothers trying to save you from yourselves" kind of enviro-apocalyptical messages sometimes given to abductees.

Given the logical constraints, if I developed time travel technology, I would view the ability to create alternate timelines as a resource to be exploited, not as something to be bettered. There would be no inherint self interest that I see otherwise.

T-Rex steaks, anyone?

/just some thoughts.

 

[Randall]

If you could cause divergent timelines, what would the motivation be? Altruism?

That is a really interesting question. Your view that "timelines would be resources to be exploited" makes a lot of sense. It also throws up some ethical flags. But since when has that stopped anyone from doing something that makes them fabulously wealthy? It reminds me of the "Future's End" episode of Star Trek Voyager. Of course the consequences are dependent on knowing how the universe is setup. Assuming this kind of time travel is even possible, divergent timelines are one option. But so is deletion of the timeline back to wherever the temporal splice between the past and the time traveler from the future takes place. In this latter case everything that had previously existed prior to that point would simply cease to exist. I tend to think that divergent timelines could cause some serious stress on the system that generates our reality ( or realities ), analogous to having too many programs running all at the same time. Therefore I tend to think that there would be some built in protection that would limit the allowed number of timelines. The deletion and rewrite option would require far fewer resources.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Thanks Chris ... The 50 would typically not be the power but the lens diameter. The power is the first number. So for example a pair of 10 X 50s makes an object appear 10 times closer through a 50mm lens. Can you please provide both numbers and the field of view? The field of view is the most important and may be in one or all of three forms as indicated on the housing next to the eyepiece(s) e.g. 36ft/1000yards | 122m/1000m | 4.4º

I'll dig them out of storage. They are fairly large Naval lookout binocs... very powerful

...Or did you mean a C-130 ( below )

Yeah, it was a C-130... I get them mixed up... it had four-engines

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris - a thought - can mirages appear at that height or are they always just over the horizon kind of deals?

Nope, it was real. The engine noise was consistent w/ a real plane and I had binocs on it.

 

[stonehart]

stonehart said: ↑

I think an interesting question would be... if you could cause divergent timelines, i.e. go back in time to right some perceived wrong in the past to create a better future, then it wouldn't be your future.
So what would the motivation be? Altruism?

Consider as a situation:
It's the year 2300 and I'm part of a secret government program that develops time travel, and the consequent realization that changing the past causes divergent timelines. Let's call this timeline 'A'.
For some reason, I expend what must be a large amount of energy to go back in time to prevent Cortez from conquering the Aztecs by flying around the Aztec capital city in the year 1500 with my fancy flying machines. Maybe I 'abduct' a few key members of the Aztec government and warn them about the evil Cortez. As a consequence, Cortez' forces are wiped off the face of the earth when they land and the Aztecs remain a viable and prosperous culture throughout the industrialization period.
Let's call this timeline 'B'.

If I then go back to the year 2300 in timeline 'A' then there is no net benefit to my expenditure of energy because all alterations would not have been to my timeline.
If I go back to the year 2300 in timeline 'B' then I may not exist -- having changed my own past, and then there is no net benefit to my expenditure of energy (because I'd be dead).

If the violation of causality causes alternate timelines then I can't change my own timeline. If the violation of causality causes a paradox then it probably isn't possible. In either case, there is little motivation to do except as a r&d project that would by it's very nature be low-key and non-interventionist or a new resource base to be exploited. The former doesn't seem to be what we are witnessing given the sometimes massive and theatrical arial performances that are witnessed. And it doesn't jive with the "we are peaceful space brothers trying to save you from yourselves" kind of enviro-apocalyptical messages sometimes given to abductees.

Given the logical constraints, if I developed time travel technology, I would view the ability to create alternate timelines as a resource to be exploited, not as something to be bettered. There would be no inherint self interest that I see otherwise.

T-Rex steaks, anyone?

/just some thoughts.

Very nice thinking.
Now from a personal point of view in regard to UFO's as nuts and bolts machines if the propulsion system acts as a sort of warp in time I perceive that all it is capable of is cutting down the distance between two points in space time and not time travel per-say if you get my drift. You know the old idea that the fastest way to get between point A and point B is not a straight line but to fold the paper up and put the pen through the two points

In essence this is time travel, but only in regards to the great distances in space for basically the light from the point you left may not reach where you have arrived at for millions of years, and as such you have traveled back in time. Yes I know this is simply Warp Theory, but the theory of warp is a form of time travel or better put I guess time compression.

If this is the case, then no laws of causality have been broken or time paradox created, for as you can see no divergent reality's have been crated since you are still in the overall same time line of the universe (just a different part of it). It is this that I feel is a plausible theory in regards to UFO's, but then again I am no physicist and have never been on any UFO so who the hell knows for sure, but I do feel that messing with time really holds no benefits as such.

 

[mike]

Great show right up my alley, more or less the same conclusions ive been drawing in the

Substrate-independent minds | The Paracast Community Forums

Thread, that is extrapolating current technological trends can go a long way to providing a technological mechanism that can explain lots of the questions we see in this enigma.

Synthetic telepathy for example


Scientists Use Brain Waves To Eavesdrop On What We Hear | Singularity Hub

Scientists from the University of Southern California were able to produce artificial memory system that allows the transfer of thought, memory and learned behavior from one brain to another.

Transfer of thought with chip ~ The Science News

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

Great show right up my alley, more or less the same conclusions ive been drawing in the

Substrate-independent minds | The Paracast Community Forums

Thread, that is extrapolating current technological trends can go a long way to providing a technological mechanism that can explain lots of the questions we see in this enigma.

Synthetic telepathy for example


Scientists Use Brain Waves To Eavesdrop On What We Hear | Singularity Hub


Transfer of thought with chip ~ The Science News

Could we then transfer memories, real or imagined?

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

I tend to think that divergent timelines could cause some serious stress on the system that generates our reality ( or realities ), analogous to having too many programs running all at the same time. Therefore I tend to think that there would be some built in protection that would limit the allowed number of timelines. The deletion and rewrite option would require far fewer resources.

That makes me think of the number of sightings and reports with elements that simply don't add up, such as sasquatch sightings where the footprints stop at a certain point, visuals that only some of the people present see, and so forth. A lot of it seems like bad editing.

 

[Randall]

That makes me think of the number of sightings and reports with elements that simply don't add up, such as sasquatch sightings where the footprints stop at a certain point, visuals that only some of the people present see, and so forth. A lot of it seems like bad editing.

The computational model has the potential to explain a lot of things. But the danger is that it can be invoked to explain anything in the same way as primitive cultures invoked God. We have to be careful to draw lines where the possibilities of technology within the construct ( our reality ) ends and the technology ( or whatever runs the construct ) begins.