You speak of an "observer ... simultaneously ...

jbml thln 77/78


ENCOUNTER[ING]"
the same object as it moves forward and backward in time.

But how could the observer be in only one time (presumably, the time moving forward) and "encounter" (be, that is, in some way co-present with) something moving backward in time as well? Put another way: HOW can you be in two times at once (when you're not any time at all)? From the observer's perspective ("interpreting chronology according to the laboratory clock"knipoog the "two stages" seem independent objects!

But here it seems, you are once again in the habit of speaking independently of the observer and the ball, rather than the process that relates them. Since we at e in the habit of imagining our thinking, discursive "selves" in the place of this observer, it is especially hard to shake that habit in a scenario such as this one. So a difficult question might be, what is the relation between the observer and the ball in its two stages?

In the rest of page 42, you do indeed "anthoropomorphiz[e quite] a bit."

Isn't the real problem with time travel (dependent, as it is, on the position of a traveller who somehow remains sufficiently coherent to remain identifiable at both time initial time y and (logical-ly posterior,
but chronologically either anterior or posterior) time x)
its reliance
on a fantastically problematical reification of ego -
not the unidirectionality of time but the linearity (or better,
the evolutionary nature)
of selfhood?
12 mrt 2013 - bewerkt op 15 mrt 2013 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 80 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende