Jump to content
Curious Cosmos

Kafke

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Kafke last won the day on June 10 2015

Kafke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Kafke

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 03/11/1993
  1. I honestly don't remember. Either I thought it up myself, or I ran across it in some book, video game, TV show, movie, or paranormal forum.
  2. I'm actually kind of disappointed in you guys. This is a simple question and has a simple answer. The first thing to note is that the "future" is just another frame of time. It's not the future any more than the present or past is. Those are relative terms, not absolute. A human moving from one point to a point earlier in time is already known. In the 'past' we see his arrival. Then, once the time rolls around to the future, we see his departure. There cannot be any contradictory events if we assume a single line. Things must go according to how we saw them 'the first time'. Ultimately he can't change anything, he can't kill his grandfather. That's where Novikov's self-consistency principle comes in. It ultimately says that we can't change our own past. The "Z-diagram" you guys mentioned is actually just evoking another timeline or alternate past. There's no restrictions, and the 'altered' future can certainly cancel out the time travel. The problem is, that this new future is NOT the same future as our traveler's departure. It doesn't override it. Both must be equally real scenarios, with our traveler switching lines. These are simply two different models of time and time travel. Titor's narrative went with the many-worlds model, as you have a reason why your predictions aren't accurate :P. So... as for your questions: "Why do so many paradoxes / theories seem to assume that time travel would have to 'loop', if simply having time travel that actually changes the future whitout 'loops' would remove most paradoxes and make 'more sense' (1)? Why is the theory behind it not leaning more towards 'linear' time-travel?" Paradoxes rely on contradictory states. Which is much easier to arrive at if you assume both a static series of events along with a changing narrative. The grandfather paradox is when you both do and don't kill your grandfather. It's very easy to see the contradiction. What's more interesting is why the person posing the paradox assumes that changes propagate. There's no reason to assume that. If you assume the past effects the traveler's origin, that's a single line and must obey consistency. If you assume the past doesn't effect the traveler's origin, there's no paradox. In this sense, paradoxes are when you fail at logic. Realistically speaking, a paradox will never occur. They are only the work of fiction. As for your second question, both the models you proposed are 'linear' in nature. You're assuming the perspective of the traveler in both cases. Really, the question is whether you're dealing with one line or multiple. Multiple allows you to 'change' things without worrying about consistency.
  3. Yup. It's pretty clear it's a hoax after seeing that pathetic video.
  4. Yup. It's pretty clear it's a hoax after seeing that pathetic video.
  5. This one's fairly recent. She apparently posted on gumtree, seeking a companion. The claim is that she believes she has made a time machine and tested on mice, but isn't sure whether they went forward or backwards through time. And as such is going to test on herself and one other person. She's apparently already found someone, and is going to do the tests and post proof of it working on Friday (the 26th). See her website here. Thoughts?
  6. This one's fairly recent. She apparently posted on gumtree, seeking a companion. The claim is that she believes she has made a time machine and tested on mice, but isn't sure whether they went forward or backwards through time. And as such is going to test on herself and one other person. She's apparently already found someone, and is going to do the tests and post proof of it working on Friday (the 26th). See her website here. Thoughts?
  7. Kafke

    The Mandela Effect

    Yup, that's the other thing that keeps me from accepting "bad geography or bad memory". I've asked around, and there's clearly other people remembering the same things. If it were just me, it might be easier to accept.
  8. Kafke

    The Mandela Effect

    He has a good point though, and it's something I thought myself for a while. And almost certainly appear as a "you just have bad memory" or "you are bad at geography" to an outside perspective. And yea, if this was something like being mistaken about a country in africa or something, I'd fully 100% agree. But as I said, imagine the US or china or something being more north than what you remember. You'd almost certainly feel the same way. That's it's pretty clearly off, and not just a "bad at geography" thing. As for the game "trailers", it's not a trailer. It's a promo video. It's part of a series, the video was uploaded once in 2009, and the rest of the videos are entirely different (there's one for each class/character). I'm 100% certain there's only one version of the video. If there were indeed multiple, you'd be able to find it. This video was never displayed on TV, and only uploaded directly to youtube and posted on the official game site. I'd be aware if there were multiple. Either way, that's my experience with the mandela effect. It's really a take it or leave it deal. There's no real way to fully 'accept' the 'new' version of things (it'll always look off), and there's no way to convince someone of the alternate version of things. And as I've posted elsewhere, it sounds crazy until it happens to you.
  9. Alright then. As I mentioned in my last post, no physical traits would/should get carried over. Due to the mechanism for reincarnation being entirely subjective, rather than a literal reforming of matter. And given that I also hold that personality, memory, etc. are all physical (as determined by science), it's safe to say that 'reincarnation' as I use it is a bit different from the standard religious concept. Now, I mentioned before that I'd describe myself as 'ignostic', which in general means that I reserve judgement until a clear definition of the terms in question are supplied. This goes for 'soul', 'god', and other such unclear terms. Though for casual conversation, I'd say most of my views line up with the typical atheist fare. Except, of course, on this reincarnation bit, along with some other unrelated stuff. Most atheists would generally have a hard time accepting a reincarnation, unless it was over a long period of time, the same matter happening to form in the same way, and so on (a literal recreation of the same collection of matter). However, I disagree with this, for one big reason: it implies a metaphysical "thing" that is somehow created (and later destroyed) based on an arbitrary collection of matter that somehow not only transcends time, but is unique for every individual. I find this hard to buy. The other alternative is to reject the subjective experience in it's entirety (which I've seen people do!) Again, I fail to reject this. Primarily due to personal experience. So, now on to the rationale. Starting from the concept that more or less that identity is a metaphysical label to a collection of physical matter, we can easily accept that moving this label around, or applying it to something else would work fine. That is, the gradual replacement experiments would be a success, and the 'new' collection would have the old label. Likewise, we can see that the subjective experience works in a fundamentally similar way. it's an evoked characteristic of a variety of collections of matter. Again, this idea isn't too far off from the typical atheist tale. You have matter give rise to a subjective being, which then observes that collection of matter and related content. However, you run into a problem. With this narrative, there must be no continuity. As two different sets of matter cannot (or should not) give rise to the same entity if we are to call them unique. That is, matter X/Y/Z gives rise to subjective experience R. And matter A/B/C gives rise to subjective experience S. R and S are obviously not the same (under this narrative). However, when we account for the fact that past/future you SHOULD give the same result, we arrive at a contradiction. See, A/B/C should give rise to R, if this were to be true. That is, working of a strictly physical narrative, we arrive at the issue of transcending time (past you is the same as present you, just at a different 'time'). This means one of a few things: 1. Every subjective experience evoked is identical. 2. There's a metaphysical/non-physical explanation for the subjective experience. 3. Past/Present/Future you are completely separate and unique subjective experiences. 4. The subjective experience doesn't actually exist. 4 is rejected in our initial premises. It's something I don't think can be proven, but should be something most everyone accepts. I think therefore I am, and that sort of thing. If you accept 4, I think it's safe to say you are a "philosophical zombie" (A human that's identical to the rest, but lacks a subjective experience, and the perception of qualia). This isn't satisfying to me, as I personally am aware of the subjective experience (it's what I'd define myself as). So that's out. 3 is rejected, on the notion that there's a clear continuity of the subjective experience. We don't continually see a single "frame" forever. We have an illusion of time. Which means that the past/present/future versions of this entity must be somehow connected. More on that in a minute. 2 is rejected, based on the fact that we know pretty much everything about this subjective experience is tied to physical matter. Keep in mind from before, how sensory info, and being aware of that info are two separate things, both affected by physical matter. It's safe to say that it's all physically tied. At best we can say the subjective experience itself is metaphysical/non-physical, but is evoked via physical means. And ultimately we arrive at 1. Which is that every evocation of this subjective experience is indeed identical. That is, it's physically tied, but in every instance it's the same subjective experience. This allows the physically distinct past/present you's to be "the same person", and it also allows you to hold that everything is physically tied (as we observe in experiments). This also is consistent with the identity thought experiments, as well as the fluidity of identity itself (that the subjective experience functions the same as identity itself). But ultimately it comes with the major caveat that every instance is the same. Meaning that other people are about as 'you' as past 'you' is. To give a more accurate statement, every evocation of consciousness at every point in time is simultaneously subjectively experienced. And the linear narrative we find ourselves in is due to human memory, tying back to older versions of the same physical matter. Or rather, possible older versions of the same physical matter, and viewing various possible (and probable) outcomes. Amusingly, this view is ALSO supported by the recent wheeler's delayed choice experiments. So now what about reincarnation, you ask? That's how this whole system should appear subjectively. That is, you are born, perceive a series of events that are possible to observe from that state, play them all out until the chain 'ends' (death). And then pick yet another chain to perceive. This isn't quite the case, since it's all done simultaneously, but that should be the perspective of the viewer. Really, after death would be the same as before death. Just.... from a different viewpoint. A good way of imagining it is to pretend you are dead right now, just in the future. Since that's what it'll be like, just later. I find "reincarnation" to be the best description of this idea. This all ties in with my other views on the universe, time, and all that fun stuff. But I think I've more or less hit everything on my views on the subjective experience. The only thing I really haven't worked out is the chronological ordering and viewing of these individual evocations. That is, "why Kafke"? Why 'me'? And on that note, I actually had a pretty interesting discussion with another user (elsewhere on the internet), who proposed a sort of pattern evocation. Which certainly seems like an interesting idea, and fits with some of my other observations. And would easily fit in with what I've described above. I simply haven't accepted it because I haven't found any sure-fire way of knowing that it's the case (and deducing it independently). The thing I like about the stuff I just described is that it all fits in perfectly with the rest of my views, and was more or less easily deduced by things I already hold true about the world.
  10. It's fascinating how people can use a whole lot of words without really talking about anything. Here's my 2c on the matter. To start, in these types of matters (religious/spiritual/etc), I like to call myself "ignostic", which is a good way (in my opinion) of approaching this stuff. Most of it's been so diluted that no one really has any idea what they are talking about, and just use the word as some magical unknown 'woo'. So it's best to point out that no one has provided a clear definition for 'soul'. In that sense, as soon as a definition is provided, it's merits can be discussed. As for some tangential topics, most of those are covered via neuroscience and various parts of the brain. To start, any sort of brain activity naturally takes place in the brain. This includes memories, thoughts, sensory interpretation, personality, etc. To think any of this stuff is metaphysical is laughably wrong. From there, it's important to note that the subjective experience and the awareness of such are separate. That is, you can see without being aware you can see (or be blind and not be aware of the fact). Ultimately each of these various traits can be removed and identity can still be kept in tact (as seen in famous thought experiments, like gradual neuron replacement and the gradual boat replacement experiments). This ultimately leads to the conclusion that 'identity' is really a metaphysical label for an arbitrary collection of matter which gradually changes over time. Meaning identity itself is an illusion. Again, awareness of being aware. Now, all of that is clearly determined to originate in the brain. And we've poked at pretty much all of it. So if there's a "soul", someone's gonna have to come out and pinpoint what they are talking about. And finally, as for the 'death' thing. I hold reincarnation to be true. The reasoning as for why is a bit too complicated for this post, but if people are curious I'll go into it. But no memories, personality, etc. is preserved. This is due to the physical nature of those things.
  11. For me, it's any case of "disappearing hands", with the primary example being Back to the Future. It pretty much wrecks the trilogy for me. It's hard to even bother with the movie when the guy who supposedly invented time travel can't even get it right. The movies tried so hard to get a coherent model, and yet somehow managed to throw in every possible model you can think of, and failed spectacularly at all of them. Ultimately resulting in the 'disappearing hands' that I despise so much in time travel fiction. It's pretty much the obvious sign that the writer didn't bother to even think about the coherency of his story, and just wrote whatever he damn well pleased.
  12. More or less. It's important to keep in mind that "world lines" (and the beautiful model of time that Steins;Gate provides) aren't really effected by humans or 'free will'. Just one's observation of them. There's an infinite amount, detailing every possible "configuration" of the universe. The world line model is just there as a useful abstraction to help you get the understanding of the plot. There's not literal new lines being magically created every time someone is born.
  13. Kafke

    The Mandela Effect

    Nope. But as I've mentioned, I'm well acquainted with the country, and to me it'd be like not knowing where the US or Russia is on the map. Super Buster Bros (SNES). The game on other platforms indeed has the multiplayer mode I remember. But one of them (PS1) is too new (nor do I own that version), and I've pretty much never been to an arcade (except maybe once in my life). There's no other versions of the game. And the only version that lacks 2p mode is the SNES one. Not only is that link from 2014 (much later than the original video), but it also doesn't seem to mention the video at all. Here's the video in question (from 2009): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h42d0WHRSck. The meme spawned is now "unless it's a farm!" which is said at the end of the video, rather than the bit with the boat (when I originally watched the video, the dialogue was changed, along with the emphasis to be something like "and then he put them on a BOAT!", which as you can see has completely changed). Which is what I figured at first as well. Stuff like being mistaken about new zealand's location, or not remembering the gulf of carpentaria seem like things that are completely understandable. Some users have even brought up map projections as being a possible issue. But no map projection, nor any map in any game I've played portrays Japan in it's southern location. If you can provide a map which has it in that position (game, old, fictional, or otherwise), I'll drop the issue and fully agree. However, as of now, I cannot find a single map that shows it in that position. Just to be clear, I made my own map, to demonstrate the change. This is the world map as you can see it on any globe/map/etc as of now: http://geology.com/world/world-map.gif This is what I remember (more or less, the angle is still a bit off though): http://i.imgur.com/39TlTaD.png That's just to note the Japan change. The rest of the map is naturally still off. If you can explain how there's such a large difference, by all means go for it. Certainly. I'm a pretty natural skeptic, which is why this is bothering me so much. It's such a dramatic, yet certain, change. But to my skeptic mind, there's not really any way to explain it. Every map I see has it in the northern position. I don't really play games that feature world maps (most of the time I play fantasy games). And Japan is a country I've known about and have known the position for, for pretty much my entire life. Which is why it's so shocking to me. To give a good example of how it 'feels', imagine if the US were in the place of Canada. Or if the locations of China and Mongolia were switched. It'd be off and you'd definitely notice it.
  14. Kafke

    The Mandela Effect

    I've actually been procrastinating on this. I was originally planning on posting in the "I am a time traveler" forum, but it didn't feel right (since I don't claim to be one). The "mandela effect" is really a better term for it, but I'm not fond of it being named after a specific event that I really have no relation to. Either way, it certainly describes my experiences (things in the past 'changing', and other people noticing the same 'changes'). Well the first thing I noticed is something I can't really get any confirmation on, because it's more of an obscure thing in terms of people who are aware of this stuff. It's a particular older SNES video game, which has seemingly gone from 2 players (like the rest of the versions of the game) to only 1 player. Baffling, since I don't recall playing any other versions, but I distinctly remember the version I had being 2 players (which is why I looked it up and found out it was different in the first place). This is an intensely personal memory that was a large part of my childhood. Up until I had read about the mandela effect, I held the idea that MY copy was some sort of dev version or something (given my grandparents ran a game shop). I still haven't gotten my hands on an SNES to check my personal copy. Another video game related one, is a particular promotional video (for Team Fortress 2, if you're familiar with it) had some of the lines changed, and some of the emphasis changed. The video had quickly spawned a meme, with many people repeating it. However, from the time of the video's release, to now, as I said, it had changed to not be what I'm familiar with. This one I was willing to accept that I may had misremembered. Still worth noting the difference. One particular big one is the location of Japan. A country I'm all too familiar with. It's current location really seems off to me. From what I recall, it should be much further south. Directly east of china, with south korea being next to hokkaido. If you check it's current position, its much further north than that. This has bothered me ever since I noticed it. Australia should be a bit further south, not bunched up next to a bunch of islands. And the gulf of carpentaria wasn't there either. New Zealand was a bit further north rather than in it's current south-east position. One particular change I didn't notice until I had run into the mandela effect was the old children's books "Berenstein Bears". I remember them named exactly like that, and even made the mistake of pronouncing it "steen". However, checking it now, it's Berenstain Bears (with an 'a'). A particularly infamous feminist youtuber, Anita Sarkeesian has a series on tropes about women in gaming. However, some of the video content had changed upon my second viewing. I distinctly remember her going on about a particular scene in Metroid: Other M, which was one of my primary disagreements with the video. However, the content does not appear in any of her videos. And instead, there appears to be an added clip of her going over her own game design (which is something I had previously commented she should do if she has problems with current game development/design). Those are the main ones I'm aware of and have noticed. Many of those have other individuals also remembering the same things (though a few of them are my own personal observations). I do believe these things are indeed the past that I've personally experienced. I've always had a good memory, and many of these topics/things are particularly noteworthy for me (to not know where Japan is would be crazy). It's very clear to me that what I've described is the past. As much as any other thing in the past, like 9/11, the release of the Nintendo DS, where Russia is, and other quite common sense stuff. Which is why when I see these "changes" they stand out like a sore thumb. I can't say whether it's 'really' an alternate past, or whether there's something screwy going on, but as I've noted in my introductory post, everything I write here I hold as 100% true. These things certainly did change for me. And certainly other users can attest to these changes. Out of them all, the 2player SNES game, and the location of Japan are the two "shocking" ones for me. Since those are the ones I've known to be true my entire life and are parts of my life that I'd know better than anything else. Am I going crazy? Did the world change? Did I somehow shift timelines? I really don't know. Unfortunately there's no real way to prove any of this, and by the nature of these things, any amount of checking older references/materials, asking others (you tend to get a mix of responses), etc. isn't going to clarify anything. It sounds crazy until you actually have it happen. I can go into more specifics on any of the above, if you'd like. But I think I've written out most of it. There's a ton of other stuff that I've noticed after reading a few other users' comments on the things that changed. Some I agree with, some I disagree. Some of it I'd easily accept as a false memory (and if that's all, I'd easily just forget about it). But some of this other stuff is just too eery for me. Just can't shake it, really. World Maps just look so wrong now.
  15. AFAIK = "As far as I know", a common internet acronym. I frequent reddit, so perhaps these acronyms aren't used as often here? As for why it's logically impossible, it's due to the definition of a paradox. See google's definition: "a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory." To clarify, a paradox occurs when you have to simultaneous contradictory states. Such as having your grandfather killed by you, as well as your grandfather being alive. That's a paradox, since both events can't simultaneously be true. Instead, paradoxes need some sort of resolution in order to be held true/existent. You can either follow Novikov's self-consistency principle, where you have a single timeline, but nothing changing (you always miss when shooting your grandfather), or you can follow the many worlds interpretation, where the contradictory "changed" event is simply in another/alternate timeline (Much like John Titor's model). Both of these models will ultimately resolve any and all paradoxes that are able to occur. If something is logically able to take place in one of these two models, it's not a real paradox. As such, paradoxes can't actually occur (in real life), since they will always be resolved in one of those two ways That's one resolution. Having a self-consistent single timeline also works. Either interpretation/model may be true. Both resolve paradoxes and both may be used simultaneously. As for which is used IRL (in real life), we can't be sure until further study is done
×
×
  • Create New...