[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: Re: This and That.
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