Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe
- From: david20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 04:45:42 +0000 (UTC)
In article <8660a3a10807021602v6b4880b7o8d6793c7430fd4b3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "William Webb" <william.w.webb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
------=_Part_5263_19863835.1215039747321I'm my own grandpaw - for lyrics and explanation see
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:21 AM, <david20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <4869bdfc$0$30363$c3e8da3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, JF Mezei <And the Heinlein story was the first place I ever heard of that song. It
jfmezei.spamnot@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.You are presupposing a deterministic universe so that the result would be
Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.
Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.
The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
one and the same.
When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).
the
person who travelled back in time. If you don't make that supposition then
if
he has sex with his mother and got her pregnant then the genes from the
mother
need not necessarily be the same since he only gets half of her genes.
Sure this would create a paradox since the birth of a different child when
he
was due to be born would mean he had in effect killed himself which meant
he
couldn't then have traveled back to have sex with his mother etc etc
ie A variant of the Grandfather paradox.
This is a rather old SCI-FI staple. The best version of which is probably
Robert Heinlein's - All You Zombies
http://ieng9.ucsd.edu/~mfedder/zombies.html<http://ieng9.ucsd.edu/%7Emfedder/zombies.html>
where a hermaphrodite is seduced by way of a time machine by himself and
gives
birth to herself and then recruits himself into a time agency which gives
him
access to the time machine ...
This overcomes the problem of only having half the mother's genes.
(Note. Again this is a deterministic universe ie no free will since if the
hermaphrodite doesn't travel back and seduce herself she/he won't exist).
Perfectly logical if the hermaphrodite exists but how did the loop get
started
to produce the hermaphrodite to travel back in time ...
A Universe in which the time travelling hermaphrodite doesn't exist is less
complicated.
There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup duringbirth.
fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.
This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
come from his mother, producing an exact replica.
Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting
somewhere:
Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on
the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same
person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father
etc etc. Infinite loop.
At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
(so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
genetic makeup and create an offspring.
However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have
never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time
(the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more
than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a
different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his
bang.
So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin
air, or just merely exist.
Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big
bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years
and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big
If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
loop where it creates itself over and over again.
As mentioned above that doesn't really explain why such a loop should exist
rather than nothing existing.
And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.
This also sounds like the cyclic universe idea ie
Big Bang occurs
Universe expands
Universe eventually slows
Universe collapses
Universe contracts to a point
Point explodes in Big Bang
Anyway as you say this is extremely of topic.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
was in a sci-fi anthology, the title of which eludes me, although I remember
that the hardcover was red.
http://gean.wwco.com/grandpa/index.html
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
.
WWWebb
- References:
- Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe
- From: david20
- Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe
- Prev by Date: Re[2]: OT: ATM PIN code theft
- Next by Date: Re: Tru64 file system source code now open source
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
