namespace

It depends on what level of conscious mind you are talking about. If you state that there is enough knowledge / information in the entire world that travels very fast from one point to another (the definition of the internet) then you may be right. It is true that you can access anything you want and learn about pretty much everything that exists, but for this knowledge (information) to exist as a standalone form, then you need another variable in the equation.

Take cleverbot as example (very simple example of AI).

Also, it is kinda harsh to think that there will be an entity that stores all the information available and models it as a conscious mind, it will be very metallic, just a bunch of data. What is the purpose of human then? When I say conscious mind I say brain and when I say brain I say modelling that data in an unique form, based upon my experience.

Try to be more precise with your question.

You didn't travel back in time. It isn't as simple as that.

Also, try to formulate the question / statement more clearly. It is very ambiguous.

It can't be an illusion. Although some universal aspects are abstract and an illusion is an abstract feel, the universe does exist, in its vast, infinite shape, it's true, but it is there.

Use the Argumentum ad absurdum principle: If the universe wouldn't be real, then you wouldn't be real either, because you are part of this infinite set, more exactly, the subset of living forms. But you think, you are governed by ration and you use your senses to explore the world, a physical world, described by scientific laws. Therefore you ARE real; but wait, this is a contradiction, which means that the hypothesis is false, thus, the universe exists.

This is the simplest form the argument can be stated. Of course that the problem is more complicated than this, because you can think more abstractly and ask questions about space and time dimensions, living forms / conditions and equations of the universe.

You don't need religion to have morals. If you cannot tell right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion.

- anonymous

I strongly agree with this statement because the society is fundamentally built upon laws, either written or unwritten (morals), and must not be categorized by its religion.

The thing is that people (from my point of view) need only a strong model of a moral code that they should follow; religion is just circle that unifies people under the same divine symbol, it shouldn't interfere with morality. Everyone can have morals, but not everyone must practice a religion.

This can be rephrased as: If you do good things because the religion tells you, then you have some serious problems.

Religion has the same principles as morality has, but adds some new concepts, as God, Heaven etc.

Yes, that representation is really accurate and very logical, also. It makes such an abstract idea very clear. The symmetry and the mathematic model behind the illustration is wonderful.

namespace - in standard mathematics division by zero is not defined. There are various other axiom systems in which you can start with different assumptions and division by zero can be meaningful - but in ordinary everyday maths the arguments such as that from Endy above, are correct

It was a little typo. I've corrected it.

Oh, yea. That was what I was missing. I felt like it was kinda incomplete, but now it's all clear. Haha, thanks!

We're talking about the constraints.

1. No, we live in a four dimensional world (3+1). It isn't "governed" by the time axis.

 

2. I don't see why. Time travel, as normally understood, means travelling to different positions on the single time axis. If you travelled in a different time dimension then you wouldn't be travelling into your past. I don't know what you would be doing: travelling sideways in a different present?

 

3. Cause and effect would appear to contradict that. For example, you wrote your post and then, in the future, I wrote mine.

 

But it is a great diagram!

1. We live in a three dimensional world, but we are also governed by the time's one way (past->present->future). This 4th dimension is abstract while the other three are more concrete.

2. By "time travel implies two temporal dimensions" I mean that if we will ever be able to travel back in time, then we can think about the time axis (time dimension) as a two-way route: left to right and right to left.

3. Of course cause and effect contradicts that example, because this principle is only available in a uni-dimensional time world. If we think with more dimensions, then this idea may become unsteady.

How can you have time coordinates/dimensions that are orthogonal?

This is exactly what I wanted to say. If you represent cause and effect in x, y, z coordinates (rather than on a single, straight, one-way line: past-present-future) there will be no actual link between two points in this system (a cause that leads to a specific effect, just some randomness and abstractness). Also, it is unpredictable and impossible to represent them, that's why the idea is kinda forced.

I was reading the spacetime article on Wikipedia and saw this amazing illustration, more like a graph:

We live in a tri-dimensional world, governed by an uni-directional time axis: past-present-future. According to this, time travel will imply two time dimensions which will lead to chaos, because it is unpredictable, as the photo says.

Now, if we think about a tri-dimensional time, this will mean that we can perceive world the same way we interpret a tri-dimensional Cartesian system (x, y, z coordinates). Thus, any point on this graph can't certainly lead to the absolute next one (just as in one-dimension time), so present doesn't interfere with future nor with past.

What do you think about this? How would you perceive the world in multi temporal dimensions?

You can't define exactly what 0/0 is. More like if you take into consideration a very very small number on the real axis, say 0₊ then, 0₊/0₊ = 1.

Again, you can't define 0/0, the same way you can't define 1/0, 1/∞ and so on.

To get a better understanding about this, think with limits. For example, lim(x->0) (x/x) = 1.