Quote: Original post by Trinka
Because i don't need to. :-) In v=s/t all the variables are human creation.

simple question, the variables are human, but the values describe the truth. And thats the point. we created those variables to understand something WE didnt created

this is a double post i edited, for the real post, look under this one

Quote: Original post by red_sodium
It is impossible for God to exist infinitely in the past and suddenly at one point stop and decide to create things.

yup, and thats the point. we humans dont "believe" in infinitely. something cant be here forever. it MUST be created at some point, and thats the problem. we always seek a why and how. if why and how doesnt excist, we just cant understand anymore, cause its diretly against our nature. we want to explain, and if thats impossible, we dont believe that

Quote: Original post by Trinka
Well, under "my" idea (which is more of a theory than idea) time traveling is impossible, because time doesn't exist at all. ;-)

yes, but dont forget there are way more theorys. the "light speed look back" is almost certain to be true, and most scientists agree with it. BUT its only half time travel. its looking in the past, like a history book. real time travel with time manupilation will be possible some day i guess, just like the airplane and other things, but i doubt that 2, cause of the paradox problem. time will tell, time will tell.......

Quote: Original post by Red Falcon
simple question, the variables are human, but the values describe the truth. And thats the point. we created those variables to understand something WE didnt created

The values do not describe the truth, they describe observation. It's a simple formula for a movement, but the only truth or real things here are the space and the moving object. The rest is something we create to understand and describe what we see.

Quote: Original post by Trinka
The values do not describe the truth, they describe observation. It's a simple formula for a movement, but the only truth or real things here are the space and the moving object. The rest is something we create to understand and describe what we see.

true, on that one i cant comment. its only our perception, and the values are what we think that is true. but on 1 i comment, how can you know the space and the moving object are real? that was also stated a page(or 2)ago. he said that nothing excist if it has not been proven. and the proof is human 2.....
oh btw, this is a very nice discussion :-D

Quote: Original post by red_sodium
-If time existed linearly as we think it does, the universe (in some form or other) would have to exist infinitely in the past

What do you base this assumtion on? Current cosmological models can describe the universe very close to its beginning (about one Planck time ~ 10-43s).

Quote:
-If the universe existed infinitely in the past, it could never be created at a specific time. The same goes for us.

Basic assumption: time 'started' when the universe first changed its state, e.g. came to existence.

When thinking of phenomena like time, you need to think big. We are not trained to think about infinities, but we need to in order to describe these things. We also must be able to accept that your understanding of the universe is based on models, not facts since we are per definitum not able to perceive 'the big picture' directly. We have to trust in our perception and reasoning, both of which are limited (ever tried to explain the color red to a blind person?).

So if a model, or concept such as time perfectly fits our perception and our reasoning fails to put it into a purely fictional context (such as travelling through time backwards) this does not automatically imply the model is wrong or incomplete. The same goes for infinities and singularities. We cannot tell what's inside a black hole because it's not part of our universe anymore. Just because we fail to image what or if there was something before the beginning of time (there is no 'before' in that context), doesn't mean time cannot exist. It's just not relevant for any physical description of our reality and thus subject to metaphysical meditation sessions rather than mathematics and empirical science (I refer to 'zero time' at the beginning of the universe).

What does that mean for games that allow free time travel?
The designer has the choice of playing with paradox situations, leaving the player thinking about them (this would be good for a meta-physical story). The other possibility would be, avoiding the paradox in the first place by introducing certain rules that are sound and easy to pick up for the player.

I presented such rule and I am still looking for constructive feedback on it [smile]. I thuink time is an interesting thing to play with in a game but I also think we should use our inability to explain it to make the player think or toy with it instead of confronting him/her with a dogma like time travel is impossible. We're talking about a game afterall, aren't we?

So I would simply put a philosophy into the topic: you can learn from the past (e.g. by visiting it and being part of it even if it's not your own), but you can only alter the present and future (both of which will become part of the past eventually).

How about that?

Well, i guess every theory in existence _must_ have a point where it needs to assume one thing to be able to explain everything. We can't even say that this is a real world we're living in. Maybe it's a matrix and it's being simulated. :-D I can't even be sure that i'm talking to real you, and not to my imagination.

Another intersting thought... when you have space (exists) you get a distance (doesn't exist), when you add the movement (exists) you get the speed/time (doesn't exist). :-D

How about thinking about it in a somewhat wacky, possibly irrelevent, but different way. Imagine

you were developing a game. This game's logic has a fixed timestep. Let's say it runs at 100

ticks/second while playing (ignore rendering for now).
So, you're playing along in the game and it's ticking over as usual. If you stop ticking, time stands still and nothing changes. Carry on ticking and you're back to normal.

Now, in the game, the Dr Alpha character creates an android. The androids take over the world, but

then someone programs one android to go back in time. How do you implement this?

Of course, you'd have to assume all characters are AI driver, since human players exist outside the known universe.

For going back in time, you'd just have a physics (and AI) system that can go backwards - so you can just flip the backwards bit and carry on ticking.

I can see two ways this will now continue.
1) The world state is split into two different worlds. One going forwards, and one going backwards with the time travelling android. The humans in the first state are expecting the android to stop all this happening - but it never will as the game is relentlessly ticking forwards and nothing is going to suddenly change. While in the second world state, the android completes his task, and the world continues a different future.
2) The world follows the time travelling android backwards. During this time, the future humans who programmed the android no longer exist in their future state (because we only store the current world state). The android arrives at his destination, time goes forwards again and he stops Dr Alpha creating the original android. The world will now continue ticking on, but with the addition of an android, into an undefined future.

any other options?

Quote: Original post by Trinka
Well, i guess every theory in existence _must_ have a point where it needs to assume one thing to be able to explain everything. We can't even say that this is a real world we're living in. Maybe it's a matrix and it's being simulated. :-D I can't even be sure that i'm talking to real you, and not to my imagination.

Brain- in-a-vat actually is a rather popular idea in philosophy.

Quote:
Another intersting thought... when you have space (exists) you get a distance (doesn't exist), when you add the movement (exists) you get the speed/time (doesn't exist). :-D

I give up.