Re: starship-design: Re: This and That.

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/21/97 2:11:13 AM, wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton)
wrote:

>----Apart from all this brand-new, unproved theory, I personally don't 
>believe it's possible to construct a Pure Paradox.  From first 
>principles, a pure paradox is a contradiction of itself, and (for me, 
>anyway) that in itself proves that paradoxes are impossible.  

Paradoxes generally arise in science when your missing a secoundary factor.
 For example time travel allows things like a grandfather paradox.  However
such a paradox would create a recursive ossilating pattern.  One cycle
granfather lives -> so you live.  Which leads to pattern two where you kill
grandfather before your born.  So theirs noone born to kill grandfather.
 Logicly the two paterns could recursively repeat until a stable varient
arises.  I.E. the paradoxes are possible, but intrinsicly unstable and self
correcting.

Just a thought.

Kelly

>---If there 
>can't be paradoxes, there can't be time-travel, and therefore there 
>can't be FTL.  The only possible way out (besides discounting free will) 
>is if there are an infinite number of possible universes: an idea I find 
>very disturbing.  I'm not saying FTL's impossible, but there is a 
>certain intellectual coherence of the concept of reality: the concept 
>that once something "happens", nothing can change the fact that it did, 
>in fact, happen.  FTL begins to unravel this whole concept of what 
>reality is, and my confidence in reality is why I'm very skeptical that 
>anything along those lines will ever be possible.
>
>And if it is, spacetravel will probably be the least of humanity's 
>concerns.
>
>I agree with your advice to Kyle; let's tap the ZPE and forget FTL.  At 
>least I can philosophically handle the consequences of stealing energy 
>from a vacuum.
>
>Ken