User talk:Hypnosifl

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:
 * some General guidance.
 * Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! --Alf melmac 12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

moving alternia.com to top of list in violation of #5 at Spam
Please stop. If you continue spamming you will be blocked from editing. Hypnosifl 08:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

ok, sorry i forgot to read your 600,000 rules! i think sites should be classed by importance. my suggestion of course, but won't be followed i guess.--Petrovic-Njegos 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, alternatehistory.com clearly has more members than alternia.com anyway. Also, even if you wanted to move alternia.com to the top, that was no reason to delete Alison Bridge's site from the list. Hypnosifl 01:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well anyways AH.com can be first, be Alternia is second. we're the second most powerful board not by number of members but by the constant activity. as for alison bridge id really like to know how many members they even have. and i doubt alison bridge can be considered alternate history even.--Petrovic-Njegos 14:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

process physics
Good edits to process physics today, thanks. Feel free to summon me on my talk page if someone disputes these or other helpful edits of yours and I'll be happy to assist (provided you are on the side of NPOV of course). &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Post scarcity
Hello. If you remove external links (which I have restored), please at least give an explanation. MadMaxDog 06:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a different poster who removed that link, not me--see your talk page for more discussion. Hypnosifl 07:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Section headings
Thank you Hypnosifl, I wasn't aware of the policy of capitalizing. I will use this in the future.

Negaduck
You know what? I don't have any definitive sources. Those Net reports are all I have. It must have stuck in my brain and lodged there as something more confirmable. *shakes my head* Feel free to alter it to something like "According to Internet reports, there were plans..." or whatever. Thanos6 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternate history fiction
I don't know if you noticed, but we're considering changing the article title back to "Alternate history (fiction)" -- if you want to argue against this change, please post your thoughts at Talk:Alternate history fiction Hypnosifl 15:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, I'll respond there : ) - jc37 20:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hedonistic Imperative
Wow, your kickin' Mnemopis's butt in the deletion debate. Way to make your case. Brentt 05:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Time Travel
Yeah, I did a blanket revert, and I was unsure whether or not to revert the presentist stuff. I'm somewhat unfamiliar with especially the recent developments in Presentism, but because there was some removal of content that I thought was good, and it was an anon ip, I decided to revert. I do like your resolution better though :D Thanks for your edit. McKay 06:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You deleted my contribution as 'original research' however it is not research, just points out a fairly obvious logical flaw in the original argument that shows the whole thing as absurd. -- 74.98.142.235 01:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This, however presumes only humans could have built one (ie: there is no such thing of extraterrestrial origin).


 * I disagree that your argument shows there is a "logical flaw" in using the fact that a time machine couldn't take you back further than the date it was created as a possible answer to the question of why we see no time travelers--as long as it's reasonably plausible that there might not be any intelligent alien civilizations in our past light cone, then that is enough to establish it as a possible explanation. Do you think we can say with a high level of confidence that there must be intelligent alien civilizations with advanced levels of technology in our past light cone? What about the Fermi paradox?


 * Also, please look at Wikipedia's policy on original research--"original research" covers any original arguments not found in published sources, not just "research" in the usual sense of the word. Even an editor's own synthesis of arguments published in different sources is excluded under the policy. Hypnosifl 09:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: the fermi paradox, who are the witnesses in this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsLj2ScRkFo&NR -- 74.98.142.235 04:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, if any UFO ever turns out to be an alien spacecraft, then it is no longer plausible that there are no alien civilizations in our past light cone. Further, if time travel into the past can exist, then the arecibo message, which will arrive at Messier 13 in 25,000 years, could already have been acted upon by an advanced civilization there, assuming they can send a message far enough into their past, say on the order or 50,000..100,000 years, to notify their ancestors to come out here and check on us. If this stuff seems too absurd to consider, then what we need is low-cost equipment to perform observations of purported UFO sightings, such as a moving gravitational wave anomaly, to test claims made by Bob Lazar and friends. I favour turning pseudo-science into real science through education and accessibility -- 74.98.142.235 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you removed:

"Within fiction the possibility of time travel has been conceived without violating the view of presentism. For example, an instance of time travel occurred inside a "presentist" framework in the 1999 film Galaxy Quest, wherein a device called the "Omega 13", which was thought to be an explosive weapon having enough power to annihilate the universe, in fact only rearranged every molecule in the universe to their position thirteen seconds prior (except seemingly for the individual activating it). Thus keeping future and past both within the arrangement of the condition of the present, and so never actually transversing "through" time."

You say "this section is for real philosophy" Two points on that, anything posited is "real philosophy, is it not? Real philosophy can be science fiction, it is anywhere to the level of 'real science' anywhere in this article, second point; then why does the article mention things like "Doctor Who"? You also say "--I doubt there are any philosophers (or scientists) who would say that rearranging the universe even qualifies as "time travel"" isn't doubting what scientists would or wouldn't think the definition of non-NPOV article editing? Putting everything the way it was previously is "altering time". The case is, the fiction work presented considered it time-travel, and it would fall within the scheme of presentist view-points about the limitations of the universe and space time. Thanks. 67.5.156.130 18:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * By "real philosophy" I meant philosophical ideas discussed by professional academic scholars, and by "this section" I meant only the section on presentism, I wouldn't have a problem if you added something about Galaxy Quest to sections after 6.2, which discuss time travel in fiction as well as physics/philosophy (I'll change the section heading to make that more clear). Doubting whether any published academic sources on time travel (whether in philosophy or physics) would consider rearranging all the matter in the universe to be a valid form of time travel isn't a violation of NPOV, because the burden of proof is on the editor who adds some information to verify that there are reliable sources for the edit (of course I am not challenging your description of what happened in the movie, I'm just saying that in order to fit in that section, there should be some evidence that professional philosophers or physicists would consider this a form of time travel). I disagree that rearranging all the matter in the universe is "altering time", it's just moving matter around in a way that does not violate causality in the physics sense, nor does it match the ideas of presentists who consider the possibility of time travel. Hypnosifl 18:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea if this is the proper place for this, because I find the rules and structure of Wikipedia impossibly complex and incomprehensible. However, no doubt you will correct me if it's wrong. You reverted an edit I made to the Time Travel article, about the clock paradox. Your explanation is, I believe, fallacious and suggests to me that you have an incomplete understanding of relativity. My corrections to the article are drawn from the basic tenets of Special Relativity - in particular the equivalence of all inertial frames. Could you please explain what right you have to remove my corrections to this article? You have cited no evidence to support your contentions.

Ed Addis (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Ed Addis

The Dead Live
I have no idea. When I created the page I only moved the list over from where it was previously at Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. I didn't add anything new to it.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Remote viewing
Instead of blowing ALL my stuff away, how about helping me by using your creativity to edit my materials in some way that makes you happy, and still gets the message across about where civilian remote viewing ended-up. How would you do it? Show me the correct way.Kazuba 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks. I'll reorganize, collect more data, and soon give it another shot. If you don't like it how about helping me.Kazuba 23:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy your talk page... New to editing.. Not sure how I'm actually supposed to do this but just wanted to say that :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbylleeich (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Kardashev Scale
Hi, recently the Kardashev scale entry has gone through some major reverts, I'd like to talk about the reinstatement of the material. I've looked around and have seen that you've made some major contributions to the article and are interested in it's progress. I feel we need to talk about the reverts and reinstatement and talk about whether either are justified. Talk:Kardashev scale If you could help or add your two cents I'd really appreciate it. Thanks--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Retro-futurism
Please add the references to the article, not in your edit summary. Thank you. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding those references, and for the other good work you have done on this article. I apologize if I got testy, I suppose it is the price for being overly-vigilant.  I know now that you had no ill intent.  If I can every be of assistance, please just ask. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Providence meetup
There is now a planning page to arrange a meetup in Providence. Please sign up if you are interested. --mikeu (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The first two meetups in Providence are now scheduled. --mikeu talk 13:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Kim experiment, etc.
Hi,

Any further thoughts about the "retrocausal" double-slit experiments?

I found at some point that the discussion of "a photon" going this way or that way was messing my thought patterns up. What is important are total number of places where a photon (and its entangled counterpart) can show up and whether or not self-interference can occur at each. At first it seems that one could make something patterned on a truth table as used in formal logic. One could say, e.g., "The signal photons all show up at detector 0. The idler photons show up at detector 1, detector 2, detector 3, or detector 4." Then one would tabulate whether the photon that gets detected at d-0 shows up as part of an interference pattern, or whether it shows up as part of a non-interference "spot." But it isn't as simple as that if the experimental apparatus also does something different to the photons that show up at d-1 or d-2. In the Kim experiment, the physical apparatus results in a phase difference between the two sets of photons (i.e., any that end up at d-1 vs. any that end up at d-2).

It all sounds sort of intuitively o.k. to me until I try to deal with the time differences. We could put a camera with a timed shutter that would open and shut for the signal photon, and the spot would be made on some photographic film before anything showed up at any of the detectors for the idler photon. As far as I know, nobody is saying that the photographic emulsion that had been exposed at one time could get unexposed and then re-exposed to match the results given by the idler photon. So it seems as though it's a question of possible outcomes "outside of time." Weird.

I wonder why nobody has done that experiment and added an extra mirror that would put the two idler photons going into d-1 and d-2 in phase with each other. P0M (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply
With regard to that your comment, I did not mean to blame you of WP:STALK, but it is generally a good idea to be mutually forthcoming. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Signs
I will defer to your opinion on the matter. My main point is that, unlike "War Of The Worlds" or "Independence Day," "Signs" does not show an alien invasion. At most, there are mysterious indications, and then---perhaps---one alien. It simply does not seem the same. But, do what you like. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  17:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. You convinced me.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

apoc/post-apoc list
While your correct that none of the items on the list are cited (except for one) the majority of them already have articles on Wikipedia, or at least the author does. I apoligize though if its Wiki policy to allow a more liberal take on nobility on the lists. My problem is that a red link or simply unsourced text gives no one the chance to see whether this item is notable or not. For example someone who self-publishes a post-apoc novel that only is sold in a handful of book stores might try to get some free advertisement on Wikipedia by listing on said article, even though is novel wouldn't stand up to WP:BK. Also citing items on list isn't unheard of on some articles (see List of banned books, List of unrecognized countries, and List of zombie films). Still I'm willing to allow the revert though I still feel sourcing items that do not have Wiki articles would imporve the lists. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also just to point out the guideline you cited to requires inline citations and not hidden text. I'm going to check those hidden sources and properly cite them when I get the chance.  Those cites that aren't credible though will get a citation needed. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Novelty theory to Timewave zero
As a significant contributor to this article, you may wish to comment here. Cardamon (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Time travel
BruceGrubb has re-introduced his/her changes in the time travel article, despite lack of agreement by anyone else involved. --antiXt (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Vol/issue/number
Thanks for the note, I will attempt to resolve this. Rich Farmbrough, 03:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

White hole
I see you have been adding some good quality material to the white hole article. The current text a lot better informed that the tripe that was there in the past. It would be awesome if you could also reference some of those additions. This should help the article for becoming eroded by well-intended edits by users having watched too many SF movies.

I also noticed that you added some inline external links. For various reasons as explained at WP:EL, external links should not appear in the body of the text. It would be better to use ref tags to place them with the references. The template can also be useful in that context to provide addition meta data about the link.

Thanks. TimothyRias (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"Unwillingness to discuss"
It comes from the fact that the author has heretofore not responded to my posting on his talk page. MSJapan (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, but the issue should really be discussed on the talk page for the article itself if you feel strongly that the lists should be removed, so that any editor can contribute to the discussion and hopefully some consensus can be reached. By the way, note that Manual_of_Style doesn't say there's anything wrong in general with bulleted lists, and offers guidelines for their use. Hypnosifl (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Late reply
I answered your question on my talk page. Sorry to take so long, I don't get on WP very often. linas (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

sockpuppet editing
There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed. Yonmei (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalize Era?
Please join us at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology where I mentioned one of your reverts. Dicklyon (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 08:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

The Eternalism article
Hi. We seem to have a common interest in the philosophy of time. My interest dates to childhood when I first encountered the works of John William Dunne and later Parmedies and Zeno. I was wondering if when you might have a few minutes if you would be able to answer a question I posed on the talk page of the Wiki Eternalism article. It’s the recent addition entitled “Eternalism and idealism.” Thanks much and I appreciated your comments there regarding Quentin Smith and presentism.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to the Oxford paper by Michael Rea. I read it last evening and found it very interesting.  However, I think you are misunderstanding what he is writing about eternalism and the A-series of time.  I clarified the point beneath your comment regarding Quentin Smith on the Eternalism Talk page. Thanks again.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Your recent editing history at Eternalism (philosophy of time) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Machine Elf 1735  21:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how what I am doing constitutes edit warring, all but one of my edits have introduced changes beyond simple reversion, and I've responded to your comments in the edit notes, giving rationales. I would be happy to have a more detailed discussion on the talk page. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you invariably insist on removing material in order to accommodate your newest additions. Your new additions aren't the problem, it's the cited material you insist on removing. Your edit summaries are misleading in regard to Carroll, whom you, yourself, originally added in support of the statement that eternalism ‘is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory’. Realizing that this implies it's not always referred to as such, you then claim your cite was "not good" because "it" merely referred to a "general idea of a lack of flow". "It" refers to a Kurt Vonnegut example, and Carroll does go on to specify eternalism.—Machine Elf 1735  22:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the full quote which indicates both that "Opinions differ, of course." and that "this lofty timeless Tralfamadorian perch" or "block universe" viewpoint he's been describing is known as "eternalism" ("which holds that past, present, and future are all equally real"):

—Machine Elf 1735  23:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Please don't give misleading edit summaries, you, yourself, have added two cites that specify Minkowski: —Machine Elf 1735  01:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Hypnosifl

Peterson and Silberstein flirt with anachronism. One might suspect it's intentional and tongue-in-cheek: Karl Popper having gone so far as to call Einstein "Parmenides", and there being no question that ancient Greek geometry stopped short at 3D solids. To whatever extent a treatment of Heraclitus and Parmenides is well–characterized as a presentist-eternalist debate, "block time" would seem, rather, to emphasize the 20th century novelties that have reinvigorated such debate. That doesn't require Heraclitus and Parmenides to accept or reject Minkowski and Einstein...

—Machine Elf 1735  09:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edit summaries are misleading in regard to Carroll, whom you, yourself, originally added in support of the statement that eternalism ‘is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory’.


 * No, I added the Carroll reference simply because it was one of the few I could find that mentioned both the terms "block time" and the term "block universe" (most authors use one or the other, and it seems as if most professional philosophers use "block universe", so that term should probably appear first), and since he used the phrase "block time or block universe", I figured that was a good enough demonstration that those two terms are interchangeable (I have since found a cite in which the author defines "block time" to mean only the temporal dimension of the block universe, so I plan to edit the paragraph a bit to indicate that some authors use them interchangeably while some use block time in this more specific way).


 * Realizing that this implies it's not always referred to as such, you then claim your cite was "not good" because "it" merely referred to a "general idea of a lack of flow". "It" refers to a Kurt Vonnegut example, and Carroll does go on to specify eternalism.


 * No, I don't "realize" that. What he did was detail the idea of viewing all times as equally real without initially giving it a name (that's what I mean by "the general idea of a lack of flow"--in other words, I was just saying that he was giving a description of the idea rather than a particular term), and then he said that this view is "sometimes called the 'block time' or 'block universe'" perspective. I guess he uses the phrase "sometimes" precisely because the selfsame belief is also "sometimes" called eternalism! Of course I can't be sure that he uses "sometimes" for that reason, but the point is that there is nothing in Carroll's quote that clearly contradicts the idea that "eternalism" and "block universe" are understood by philosophers to refer to the selfsame philosophical theory, what he does not say is that "eternalism is sometimes known as block time". If your reason for being insistent on the "It [eternalism] is sometimes known as block time" edit has to do with your beliefs that at least some professional philosophers would assign the terms somewhat different meanings, you need to find a reference that clearly supports this belief--Carroll's does not, it is consistent with my interpretation.


 * Thank you for providing the quote showing Carroll does use the word "eternalism", which is what I was asking for in my edit note when I said Carroll does not use term "eternalism" in section quoted, if he does elsewhere please include in cite. (I had not read the entire section of the book you quote, I was just referring to the fact that the word "eternalism" did not appear in the quote provided in the footnote). But the context in which he uses it again does not clearly indicate that he thinks the term has even a potentially different meaning from "block time"--he says The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism,". If he thought there was any potential difference in meaning between "eternalism" and "block time", why would he straightforwardly say "the viewpoint we've been describing"--which he previously referred to as "the block time or block universe perspective"--just is eternalism? Again I can't be sure that my interpretation of his meaning is correct, but nothing in this quote is a good cite for the idea that it is only sometimes correct to refer to eternalism as the "block universe" perspective, if that is what you are trying to suggest.


 * Thanks for finding a cite that mentions Minkowski diagrams as an inspiration for the name "block universe"--it's true that it appears in a cite I had added, but I hadn't remembered that they mentioned Minkowski diagrams specifically (I was just googling for sources that equate eternalism with the block universe, that's really the only aspect of the sources I paid attention to). I think that this is distinct from saying the idea behind eternalism or the block universe was inspired by relativity, though--I provided a source, the Peterson/Silberstein paper, saying that Minkowski's mathematical treatment of relativity (along with the relativity of simultaneity) inspires many modern eternalists. (The mathematical treatment is distinct from his diagrams, which are just visualization aids and have no additional physical or mathematical content--it is Minkowski's mathematical treatment, detailed in a 1908 paper, which is being referred to in the Peterson/Silberstein paper when they say "This new stance, eternalism, was translated into the language of relativity by Herman Minkowski in 1908 to suggest that time and space should be united in a single, four-dimensional manifold.") Given this name vs. idea distinction, I think it would be best to first have the sentence mentioning the mathematical treatment and the relativity of simultaneity as a source of inspiration for modern eternalists, then add the idea of the name "block universe" being inspired by Minkowski diagrams in a parenthetical after then name "block universe" is introduced in the paragraph.


 * If you don't object, I would like to copy and paste this discussion over to the talk page for eternalism, as I think it would be good to put it where more other editors of the article are likely to see it and perhaps weigh in themselves. If you prefer, you can copy and paste your part of the discussion to the talk page so it appears under your name in the edit log, then I can add my response...I'm going away this weekend but if you haven't done that by Monday, and haven't objected to moving the discussion to the talk page, I'll move the whole discussion over there when I get back. Hypnosifl (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want to consider making finer distinctions between block time and block universe in the article body. The lede should introduce and summarize what's in the body. Carroll is a good cite, even if you selected it simply because it containd your search terms.
 * I pointed that out, curious that you wouldn't realize it, and still won't... He introduced the concept with a popular example from fiction. He most certainly did name "this lofty timeless Tralfamadorian perch", sometimes called "block time" or "block universe", and in due course, he went on to say that he had been speaking about eternalism. It's WP:TENDENTIOUS to claim there's nothing in Carroll 'that clearly contradicts the idea that "eternalism" and "block universe" are understood by [ALL] philosophers to refer to the selfsame philosophical theory'. But if 'sometimes' didn't make it clear enough, he belabors the point: 'Opinions differ, of course. The struggle to understand time is a puzzle of long standing, and what is "real" and what is "useful" have been very much up for debate.' Yes, he does say that eternalism is sometimes called "block time" or "block universe"... as opposed to Augustine's presentism: "The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism," which holds that past, present, and future are all equally real."
 * The so-called '"It [eternalism] is sometimes known as block time" edit' was preexisting text and your bold subsequent edit has been challenged, see WP:BRD. It's a real pity you can't hold a discussion without making up some nonsense and claiming that's what I believe. I've asked you many times to stop putting words in my mouth. It's perfectly obvious that no philosopher who claims Parmenides for eternalism would seriously claim him for modern "block time" or "block universe". Again, it's merely WP:TENDENTIOUS to repeat ad nauseum that you don't need a cite.
 * Yes, Carroll would support the statement that "block time" or "block universe" is the modern evolution of classic eternalism. Both are eternalism, but obviously, only the modern version is based on Minkowski and Einstein. What a surprise you WP:TENDENTIOUSLY arrive back at "nothing in this quote is a good cite for the idea that it is only sometimes correct"... You agree he's talking about eternalism, yet you deny ‘this is sometimes called the "block time" or "block universe" perspective’.
 * Minkowski appears in two cites you added, and it's apparent you need to pay more attention to your sources. Peterson/Silberstein don't say "the idea behind eternalism or the block universe was inspired by relativity", and they don't say "that Minkowski's mathematical treatment of relativity (along with the relativity of simultaneity) inspires many modern eternalists". They say the idea goes back to Parmenides and that Minkowski suggests "time and space should be united in a single, four-dimensional manifold". That's consistent with Dowden: "The name derives from the fact that a Minkowski diagram would represent events as points in a block..." Not surprisingly, you prefer your own WP:OR, while arguing that the sources, to whom you admittedly pay little attention, somehow support what you are saying.
 * I can't stop you from posting it to yet a fourth venue... thanks for shopping.—Machine Elf 1735  19:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've moved this discussion to Talk:Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time), and added some additional comments at the end, as well as some introductory comments at the start. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Eternalism (philosophy of time) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Machine Elf 1735  00:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you think I am doing that constitutes edit warring now? My most recent edit did not restore the changes I made to sections unrelated to our dispute, I said in the edit note I would temporarily accept your erasing them until others commented on the issue of whether it's OK for us to make edits to sections besides the lede as long as they don't involve the eternalism/block universe dispute. And I thought you had agreed to my temporary compromise of restoring the lede to a version immediately before the dispute, which is all I did in that most recent edit. Hypnosifl (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't see how 3 reverts in less than 6 hours based solely on your unilateral "temporary solution" constitutes edit warring? You don't see how your edit summary is misleading? I provided justification 1) in both of my edit summaries, 2) on the article talk page, 3) on the dispute resolution page, and 4) on the request for page protection. You may not think it's sufficient justification, but it's misleading to revert a third time claiming "no justification" as if I haven't said a word. Very simply, I asked you not to "make changes while the dispute resolution has been put on hold", and you've repeatedly refused to comply.—Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  11:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism". Thank you. --<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not "editing" the RfC that you're attempting to erase. I'm simply attempting to restore it without altering the meaning in any way... If you don't want it struck out, fine, but stop trying to erase it completely despite my repeated objections.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  16:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Editing" includes striking out someone else's words. In REDACT they describe various recommended ways of changing one's own comments, including striking out, and then say "Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission." (I haven't, and don't, give you permission to put a strike through my words) Do you disagree that "any such changes" includes the change of putting a strike through some text, which they had discussed immediately above that sentence? In addition, do you deny that the section above says it's acceptable to replace one's own words with a bracketed "placeholder" giving a quick synopsis of what was said? Hypnosifl (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:REDACT is not talking about removing an RfC in it's entirety despite the objections of another user, (as nominator, you should have removed the tag only, per WP:RfC). Clearly, WP:REDACT is talking about striking out the extant comments of another user.
 * User:RFC bot
 * User:RFC bot


 * —<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  17:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to reinstate the RfC with the same summary statement that'd be totally fine with me, as I said I only removed it because you were objecting that I was misrepresenting your basic position in the argument, so I wanted to get that cleared up in case you would see my RfC summary as similarly misrepresenting your position. There is nothing in the rules suggesting that taking back a newly-created RfC should be treated any differently than taking back any other newly-created comment that no one else has responded to, and while the rules do say "it is best" not to remove comments, this is followed by a comment suggesting the reason it is normally best not to do this is that others may have already responded, which hadn't happened in this case; further, it is then followed by various accepted ways of "taking back" a comment, and this includes my method of putting a placeholder in brackets. Do you disagree that 1) the rules indicate it is OK to replace a comment with a bracketed placeholder, and say nothing about newly-created RfC that no one has responded to being an exception to this, and 2) when they say ""Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission", that is intended to include putting a strike through someone else's comments? Please tell me clearly if you agree or disagree with 1) and 2). (edit: never mind 2), I see you have just replaced the comment without the strike. However, I don't think you have any particular basis for "objecting" to my replacing the comment with a placeholder, since the rules say that this is generally OK, and since you hadn't responded to the comment so it's not as if this will cause any of your own comments to appear confused) Hypnosifl (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:RfC—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  17:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What section of that link do you think is relevant? There is nothing there that says the person who added an RfC isn't free to change their mind and remove it a short time later if there have not yet been any responses, in fact they say manual removal is OK: "Manually added RfCs must be manually closed. This is accomplished by deleting the text that you added from the RfC page." Again, I would be happy to reinstate the RfC if you want that and are willing to approve the summary, but I see no point in leaving up the full summary when the actual RfC has been removed. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  17:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  18:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied at DRN
Hey, Hypnosifl, I've responded to your thread at DRN. An answer to the question I ask there, or any comments or observations about my grasp of the situation, would be welcome. Just wanted to make sure you don't miss it; thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, it may help to keep what you say at DRN. Large posts can be difficult to understand for some volunteers. Is it possible you can try shortening it down so it's easier to understand? Thanks! Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 12:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Trim = remove. Sorry to be a pain :-) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 13:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Removal is fine with me, but on the Eternalism talk page Machine Elf had been objecting to my removing my own comments, even if no one had responded, accusing me of violating WP:REDACT, so that's why I used strike instead. Hypnosifl (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed the long block, left a very brief line struck-out because otherwise my "edit: sorry, ..." comment following would be unclear. My comment is still a bit long because of the quotes--I can remove those too if you request, but the fact that they're just quotes and not discussion means they shouldn't make my comment any harder to follow, IMO. Hypnosifl (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Your recent editing history at Eternalism (philosophy of time) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  22:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You reverted my changes and I restored them once, not even close to violating the three-revert rule (if my restoring an edit once is "edit warring", why isn't your reversion of my edit also edit warring?) I also provided reasonably detailed reasons in my edit notes; if you disagree, for example, with my point that Help:Footnotes clearly allows footnotes that offer additional explanation along with multiple sources, rendering your argument for reverting my footnote invalid, please raise this on the talk page rather than immediately rushing to throw yet another accusation of rule violations at me. Likewise, if you think there is some wikipedia guideline saying the cite for an explanation of a view cannot be from someone who is summarizing a view they disagree with, point it out, otherwise your comment "the author is ridiculing them" does not seem to be a valid justification for deleting my cite for the summary of the neo-Lorentzian justification for presentism (and replacing it with a cite that is not talking about the neo-Lorentzian view at all, or about a way that any philosophers have tried to show that relativity is compatible with presentism). Hypnosifl (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Walking with Dinosaurs
Hello! Regarding Walking with Dinosaurs (film), the passage you added was already included in the "Use of voiceovers" section. I am anticipating for that section to expand with further detail. Reviews so far have disparaged the voiceovers, and I expect that the filmmakers will try to respond to that. This is a kind of a "Controvery" section that can encapsulate the debate. What do you think? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, I had just looked for something about voices in the Production section alongside things like animation and music, didn't notice there was a separate section later. I do think it's a better idea to give the subject its own section, since as you say there will probably be more discussion on this (especially with all the bad reviews that specifically target the voiceovers). Hypnosifl (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, do you think we should mention voiceovers in "Production" at least in passing? We could do that and then provide an anchor link to the stand-alone section. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If there's a good place to mention it, it might be worth adding a sentence with an internal link to the "Use of voiceovers" section, but picking a place seems a little tricky--the first paragraph of the "Production" section discusses developments in production chronologically (while the second is exclusively about budget/financing), and we don't yet know at what stage the decision to add voiceovers was made (one of the quotes in the "Use of voiceovers" suggests the decision probably goes back to before the animation when they were still in the character design phase). We could also just hold off and wait until more information on the production history comes out. Hypnosifl (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

You're invited!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Delayed choice quantum eraser
Hi, regarding this (very old) edit, I'm wondering if you can provide a source or at least some more details... it seems as though it should be entirely possible to separate out the subsets with a reasonable degree of accuracy, since that kind of thing happens with signal analysis all the time. Given any individual photon hit, it seems that one should be able to assign a meaningful probability that it is a member of one or the other set, and that probability would be better than 50-50 given the distinct patterns of each set. There is no a priori statistical reason (that I can see) that would rule this out. So why the claim that it cannot be done? Thanks, --Outdowands (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Mind uploading in fiction for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mind uploading in fiction, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Mind uploading in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)