the past and the future..
Thursday, September 27th, 2007So, I’m still thinking about the past and the future. There’s a few things I’ve been thinking about. I did a little research, to see what other people thought about the topic, turns out people are at least thinking about the topic.
When talking about the past, I can look at it two ways. First, the past must exist because it has an effect on the present. If someone pissed me off today, I might still be mad about right now, so it must exist still. Alternately, it is really truly only my memory that causes the past to “exist,” in which case, it doesn’t really exist at all, since a memory is not a physical thing TO exist.
This made me think about a man called Ronald Mallett, a physicist that wants to build a time machine. I learned about his research in a physics class a couple years ago. He is currently a professor at the University of Connecticut, but he’s pretty famous beyond the university. In a documentary on his work, I think it was “The World’s First Time Machine” (BBC/Discovery Channel documentary), he talked about his theories that if he were to build a time machine, he would only be able to cause particles to travel back to the time that the machine was turned on, essentially, otherwise, there would be nowhere to send the particles back to.
He also theorizes that if he were to turn the machine on, he could potentially begin to receive particles immediately, as he may be sending himself some from the future back to the point in time when he turned it on. Philosophically speaking, if there is no past and no future, then a time machine would indeed be completely worthless, it would really just be a machine that causes you to continue doing whatever you’re doing, it would essentially also not exist. This makes me think that Ronald Mallett should speak at my fake symposium.
When thinking about the future, Roger Ruddle wrote an essay that talked about God, of course. He was talking about how if God can exist everywhere, then God could exist in different places simultaneously and thusly could exist in different times simultaneously. This is a contradiction, of course, because nothing can exist in two different times at the same time (the phrase itself being the contradiction). Not sure how useful this information will be in my research, but it was still interesting to read at least.
I’m also tempted to look further into the Theory of Relativity, but I feel like this might be meddling a little bit too far into the realm of time alone, rather than existence within time, so I’m still a little undecided on that.
Well, at least I consider this bit of research a success in that I have solidified at least one guest speaker for the conference.