Talk:Philosophy of time

Removed text:

''The Reverse Time Theory is derived from Amazon Resident Dr. Neil Grant. Do not bother validating this article, for whoever writes anything about this will die within seven days (i dont wanna die!!) and their publication gets deleted by a mystical force!!!

''Actual Theory

''Here is the actual theory: ''What if fate exists, but time has reversed itself and is flowing backwards? What we perceive is not necessarily accurate, yet in backwards time motion, that means what we perceive is actually the opposite of what is occuring. I shall now leave you to ponder this...

''- The only, the infamous Soilguy

and replaced by minimal stub. Andrewa 04:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Lest anyone think I'm being too hard on Dr. Grant and his followers, let me take you on a little thought experiment. I do have a little academic standing in Philosophy, only at a first degree major level I admit.

Imagine that we represent time by a strip of film running through a movie projector. Now is represented by the particular frame that is in the gate of the projector of course.

Now let's think of it from the point of view of a being in the scene we are projecting. We don't really need the projector for this. We can just have a strip of film and a light, and whichever frame is illuminated is now. The guy in the film doesn't know the difference, because all he can see at any time is the frame he's in.

Now let's run the film backwards. Again, the guy in the film doesn't notice any change, because as time runs backwards so does he. I think that might be what Dr Grant has discovered.

Let's go further. Let's turn the light on in all the frames at once. Again, the guy in the film doesn't notice any difference at all. Time still flows for him as it always has.

And one step further. The film is no longer going through a projector, so let's put a branch in it. Why not? The guy in the film doesn't see it as a branch, because he's in the film. He just sees whatever frame he's in. After a branch, there are two of him, one in each frame, each seeing a different result and with no way of ever knowing whether or not the other guy (the other him) is there at all in the other frame or what he sees there. If we consistently put in branches at some sort of decision, his physics will now contain uncertainty with respect to those decisions, exactly as ours does.

Food for thought? That's not very original or very earthshaking, all of these ideas were pretty standard undergrad stuff when I studied Philosophy. Andrewa 06:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)