Past, Present and Future

[Jester]

I just finished the first half of that dog and don't have the intestinal fortitude to watch the second half.

Yikes. Well, then, maybe I'll give it a miss myself. I'd heard good things, but perhaps from those more interested in its properties as an idea rather than its merits as a movie.

-Jester

[Jim]

You must not hang out much in Darkshire.

Hi. :)

Thanks now I remember :P

World of Warcraft Quests involving Madame Eva:

http://www.goblinworkshop.com/creatures/madame-eva.html

[--Pete]

Hi,

Yikes. Well, then, maybe I'll give it a miss myself. I'd heard good things, but perhaps from those more interested in its properties as an idea rather than its merits as a movie.

To be fair, imbd rates it at 6.9 out of 10 and Netflix 3.2 out of 5, so maybe it just pushed all the wrong buttons for me. After I posted my opinion, I checked the Wiki entry and it seems that I quit about the time the real story started. That's not enough to make me want to see the rest, but that's just my opinion.

--Pete

[Jim]

Hi,
To be fair, imbd rates it at 6.9 out of 10 and Netflix 3.2 out of 5, so maybe it just pushed all the wrong buttons for me. After I posted my opinion, I checked the Wiki entry and it seems that I quit about the time the real story started. That's not enough to make me want to see the rest, but that's just my opinion.--Pete

Hi, :)

It was a strange movie. However my movie critic Rodger Ebert gave it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars & said "the kinds of people" you all read it. :w00t:

"Primer" is a puzzle film that will leave you wondering about paradoxes, loopholes, loose ends, events without explanation, chronologies that don't seem to fit.

The movie delights me with its cocky confidence that the audience can keep up. "Primer" is a film for nerds, geeks, brainiacs, Academic Decathlon winners, programmers, philosophers and the kinds of people who have made it this far into the review. It will surely be hated by those who "go to the movies to be entertained," and embraced and debated by others, who will find it entertains the parts the others do not reach. It is maddening, fascinating and completely successful.

Primer trailer @ Rotten Tomatoes

[--Pete]

Hi,

It was a strange movie. However my movie critic Rodger Ebert gave it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars & said "the kinds of people" you all read it. :w00t:

I've always preferred to be my own film critic, although there are a few whose opinion I trust. Ebert is not one of them. He seems to be very impressed by the outré, falling into the intellectual trap that new and different is better. Also, he assumes anything he can't or doesn't understand is profound. The end result is that he often gives great praise to obscure, off the wall crap.

Again, a fair number of people seem to like this film. Perhaps that is because they do not know or care how poorly the technical aspects have been done. Combined with its other flaws, to me at least, the film is a waste of time.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Okay. I remain open to the possibility that this man, eighty years ago, discovered a method for predicting the future. I also remain open to Russell's teapot. Doesn't mean I'm going looking for it.

His conclusion in fact was that dreams are a very poor way to predict the future, but the "extreme coincidence" of some dreams changed his rational opinion of nature of the universe. This is a far cry different than Russell's teapot.

The world *is* filled with miraculously lucky coincidences. This is the point. People win the lottery twice in one day. People are hit by lightning dozens of times in a lifetime.

Yes, I understand that an infinite number of monkey's sitting at typewriters might have a very very small chance of typing Hamlet, but for the person who does witness the one monkey that actually does perfectly type out Hamlet, you might understand why that person might have an altered perspective on the capabilities of monkeys.

But, just in case you're still holding to this, here's the question: Is this repeatable? Can this method generate solid predictions, ex ante, which can then be checked against future events? Or is it just fishing for coincidences?

Nope. Not unless someone would be able to open that channel at will to some mind state where the future is observable.

But, we are again at that fuzzy intersection again between science and philosophy (in this case metaphysics). Like I said, here is where you and I (and Pete) might be very different. I find the unobservable universe far more fascinating, than the one that is observable. This doesn't preclude that the unobservable is untestable, just that we haven't figured out a way to test some hypotheses. My opinion of what "open mindedness" entails might also be very different. I find that many questions are unanswered, and maybe currently unknowable, but perhaps they might someday be knowable, so until that time it stays to me as an interesting idea, or debatable branch of philosophy.

I'll leave you with a well referenced quotation; "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity." -Albert Einstein, Statement to William Miller, as quoted in LIFE magazine (2 May 1955)

P.S. Ok, one more thought; :D I was sitting here thinking of the Einstein quote above when I recalled a moment I had while waiting for my turn during SCUBA diving drills, (contemplating about how pure O2 at 15ft-30ft depth is lethal, and air begins to be lethal at 200ft). It suddenly dawned on me how incredibly *lucky* we were to have exactly the stable environment (air mixture, temperature, pressure, radiation, gravity, planetary orbit, nickel-iron core, right sized moon, tilted axis, etc.). Sure, we probably evolved into it so we take it for granted, but it is weird to be one of the organisms that evolved enough to have a brain capable of calculating just how damned lucky the whole circumstance was in the first place.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . but for the person who does witness the one monkey that actually does perfectly type out Hamlet, you might understand why that person might have an altered perspective on the capabilities of monkeys.

No, I don't. A person knows the odds of winning a lottery. If they play and win, they know it was a long shot. They might be surprised that they won, but they wouldn't revise their opinion on the nature of the lottery. Similarly, if the monkey's witness understood the smallness of the probability before the event, that shouldn't alter that witness' mind after the event. In the rational mind, the only thing should be extreme surprise that one is the witness, not that the event occurred.

I find the unobservable universe far more fascinating, than the one that is observable. This doesn't preclude that the unobservable is untestable, just that we haven't figured out a way to test some hypotheses.

In what sense do you mean 'unobservable'? If it is unobservable because of a limitation of our technology, or of distance, or of size, then perhaps you're right. But if you are talking about 'essentially' unobservable -- paranormal, supernatural, spiritual, etc, -- then it is, by definition, untestable. After all, a test consists of setting up a situation and observing the consequences.

My opinion of what "open mindedness" entails might also be very different. I find that many questions are unanswered, and maybe currently unknowable, but perhaps they might someday be knowable, so until that time it stays to me as an interesting idea, or debatable branch of philosophy.

How and where do you draw the line between fact and fantasy? Somewhere along the continuum of the tensile strength of steel to the appetite of a hobbit, you must have a point where you say, "Enough. Beyond this it is just imagination." Do you require evidence? And what do you consider evidence?

Consider that if everything we know is a shadow of reality, then so might everything we imagine be also. Then, in some sense, somewhere, all the mystic lands of tales and legends actual exist. There is nothing in our present science that excludes the possibility. So, RAH might have had the right of it in The Number of the Beast. But it'll take more than one or two Guinness before I'll even begin to consider the concept seriously. :whistling:

--Pete

OK, you wanna edit, I'll edit:)

Sure, we probably evolved into it so we take it for granted, but it is weird to be one of the organisms that evolved enough to have a brain capable of calculating just how damned lucky the whole circumstance was in the first place.

No luck, just the antropic principle. Basically, we are the way we are because the universe is the way it is. If it were different, we would be too, even to the extent of not existing at all.

[Jester]

His conclusion in fact was that dreams are a very poor way to predict the future, but the "extreme coincidence" of some dreams changed his rational opinion of nature of the universe.

People, even extremely smart people, have a very poor handle on the idea of "how likely would this have been, in retrospect." We vastly overestimate the improbability of *some* improbable event occurring, by focusing on one particular improbable event. But this is pointless - if precognition exists, it must mean that *ex ante* we can make predictions, not that *ex post* we can look back and confirm "predictions" fished out of dream journals. "Extreme coincidence" is a concept with no utility whatsoever when looking at past outcomes. It would be akin to a poker player folding upon seeing a straight flush, because they know a straight flush is very unlikely, so therefore, it didn't happen. It simply reflects a failure to understand probability.

This is a far cry different than Russell's teapot.

True. Russell's teapot only involves swallowing one piece of highly improbable supposition. This test of precognition appears to involve an actual fallacy - that only common things ever occur, and that highly improbable coincidences are prima facie evidence of precognition.

But, we are again at that fuzzy intersection again between science and philosophy (in this case metaphysics). Like I said, here is where you and I (and Pete) might be very different. I find the unobservable universe far more fascinating, than the one that is observable.

I don't know what I can say about unobservable things that isn't 100% bull#$%&. What can one say about something about which one literally has no information? Any statement is as plausible as any other statement. Maybe in the unobservable universe, A is not A. How can we tell? We can't observe it, definitionally.

This doesn't preclude that the unobservable is untestable, just that we haven't figured out a way to test some hypotheses.

Yes, it really does imply* that. Anything which is unobservable is untestable. Anything which is testable is not unobservable. If something *becomes* testable, then it becomes observable.

My opinion of what "open mindedness" entails might also be very different. I find that many questions are unanswered, and maybe currently unknowable, but perhaps they might someday be knowable, so until that time it stays to me as an interesting idea, or debatable branch of philosophy.

I prefer my brains not to leak out of my opened mind. I'm always willing to consider a new idea. But if it relies on my beleving things which cannot be demonstrated, then I'll very quickly shuffle it off into the category of crankery - why does anyone at all believe anything that can't be demonstrated? If tests appear later, then I'll reconsider later. But for now? No dice.

I'll leave you with a well referenced quotation; "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity." -Albert Einstein, Statement to William Miller, as quoted in LIFE magazine (2 May 1955)

I can only point out that if Albert Einstein had spent his days in curiosity about parapsychology rather than physics, we'd have almost certainly been left without a brilliant mind's output, and had only crap to show for it.

Sure, we probably evolved into it so we take it for granted, but it is weird to be one of the organisms that evolved enough to have a brain capable of calculating just how damned lucky the whole circumstance was in the first place.

I'm with Douglas Adams. A puddle marvels at its hole, how perfectly shaped it is to fit its body, right until it evaporates in the sun.

-Jester

*you can`t mean preclude here... that doesn`t make sense.

[kandrathe]

Personally, my dreams are horrible predictions of the future. If they are to be believed, I should be having a much better love life with hundreds of vivacious partners... And, I can fly! Not, with a plane, mostly like Superman. When I'm subconscious, you can bet I'm stuck deep in my reptilian brain, in more ways than one. :)

P.S. Last night I had a dream where I was running down the street, across a green lighted intersection and got tossed about 100 feet in the air. Perhaps it was someone else... I'll bet someone dies like this today!

[Jim]

Hi,
I've always preferred to be my own film critic, although there are a few whose opinion I trust. Ebert is not one of them. He seems to be very impressed by the outré, falling into the intellectual trap that new and different is better. Also, he assumes anything he can't or doesn't understand is profound. The end result is that he often gives great praise to obscure, off the wall crap.

Again, a fair number of people seem to like this film. Perhaps that is because they do not know or care how poorly the technical aspects have been done. Combined with its other flaws, to me at least, the film is a waste of time.

--Pete

Hi, :)

Ok! Who is your favorite movie critic beside yourself, surely you have at least one ?

I find that Ebert and I agree 80% of the time.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ok! Who is your favorite movie critic beside yourself, surely you have at least one ?

No real favorite -- I gave up favorites (color, food, song, actor, etc.) about the time I turned twelve.;)

I prefer to watch movies 'cold'. Back in the day that a movie cost money to go to and took a big chunk of time, there might have been a reason to consult a critic. Like many people, once I paid the price of admission, I felt compelled to sit through to the end. Then, one day in Los Alamos, I went to see Clear and Present Danger. They had done such a crappy job of capturing the essence of the book (which was quite good) that I got so irritated that I walked out sometime during the first half of the film. That was an extremely liberating experience.

Now, with Netflix, movies are effectively free. I have no trouble shutting one down ten minutes in. So, mostly I go by recommendations from people I know, or by the category and rating on Netflix. If I read a critic at all, it is after I've seen the movie.

So, at your recommendation, I watched Déjà Vu last night. Overall, it was a pretty good film and Denzel Washington gave an excellent performance (as always). A few too many demolition derby car chases, a few too long dramatic pauses to build suspense, a few too blatant attempts to manipulate the audience's emotions, but still a fair action flick. The non-time travel technology was poor - everything from Zippo cars to exploding gas containers. It was almost as if they'd watch Mythbusters and decided to use every hokey effect that was ever busted. I didn't bother double checking, but it looked like the bomb in the truck on the ferry was a collection of pipe bombs. That would be very foolish, since pipe bombs are anti-personnel and give up a fair bit of their destructive power to generate shrapnel which would be useless on a deserted car deck of a ferry. And the explanation of how the blast went around a corner, down a hatch and into the engine room (?) was pure nonsense. Again, a script from those who don't know that "it is better to remain silent and be thought ignorant than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Which leaves the time travel 'technology', the only thing that distinguishes this film from Eraser, Bad Boys, and about a brazillian other 'save the girl' action films. And the time travel is clearly one of the poorest thought out parts of this film, clearly a 'then a miracle happens' plot technique. Best as I could tell, the four and a half day time lag is never explained. Neither how it works, or why it is fixed at that interval. It is kinda, sorta, implied that somehow they have the technology to get or possibly be out ahead of the 'information' wave and then rebroadcast it back. That may be possible, but then the ability to control what you see, at what angle, etc., would somehow travel faster than light, or all the information, from *anywhere* (yes, the whole universe), would have to be sent back. And the localization of the information to somewhere near the machine shows that the writers are still living in a Ptolemaic universe -- with a fixed Earth. For if they really understood that the Earth rotates about its axis and revolves around the sun, then they would understand that where the machine is now and where the objects viewed were four days ago is separated by quite a distance.

Now, the actual time travel (as opposed to the past viewing) is even more problematic. First there's the very real question of why one should imply the other. We look into the past all the time. If we're sitting across a room from each other, then we each see the other as they were about ten nanoseconds ago. Indeed, even more interesting is that when you look at yourself in a mirror, the 'now' you sees the 'then' you of when the photons of the 'then' you left you. So, if I get two and a quarter light days out, somehow gather a bunch of information, and send it back to you, you will be looking back four and a half days. But everything is moving forward through time -- no big thing. Then, all of a sudden, the ability to send something back in time appears? How? Why? It seems to me that it is just more of the ignorant, incompetent, X-Files type writing and logic ("that's weird, this is weird, so they must be related").

If one sits back and just enjoys the film uncritically, it isn't a bad action flick. At the end of it, I didn't have that "I want my time back" feeling that a lot of 'entertainment' seems to give me nowadays. But anyone who finds any depth in Déjà Vu is either totally unfamiliar with all the good, real, well thought out science fiction about time travel or is using a very short yardstick to measure the water.

If you enjoy action flicks, and I do, then well worth one viewing. Thanks for the recommendation.

--Pete

[Jim]

Hi,
No real favorite -- I gave up favorites (color, food, song, actor, etc.) about the time I turned twelve.;)

Blue/Butter Pecan Ice cream/Moon River/Robert Redford/Camelot/1960 Cadillac conv.

I prefer to watch movies 'cold'. Back in the day that a movie cost money to go to and took a big chunk of time, there might have been a reason to consult a critic. Like many people, once I paid the price of admission, I felt compelled to sit through to the end. Then, one day in Los Alamos, I went to see Clear and Present Danger. They had done such a crappy job of capturing the essence of the book (which was quite good) that I got so irritated that I walked out sometime during the first half of the film. That was an extremely liberating experience.

True movies seldom IF ever live up to the book. A Clear and Present Danger was a 4 out 4 star movie for me. The second half rocked my boat, too bad you missed it. I too have walked out on a movie in the first 30 minutes. Sister Act two I walked out half way thru the first song, I "Hate" for the lack of a better word RAP music.

Now, with Netflix, movies are effectively free. I have no trouble shutting one down ten minutes in. So, mostly I go by recommendations from people I know, or by the category and rating on Netflix. If I read a critic at all, it is after I've seen the movie.

The category rating @ Netflix is a collection of personal opinions, that are given by people like you & me who vote the rating, WE are the critics, although I must admit the rating for most of the movies @ Nexflix do reflect my own choice of movies.

So, at your recommendation, I watched Déjà Vu last night. Overall, it was a pretty good film and Denzel Washington gave an excellent performance (as always). A few too many demolition derby car chases, a few too long dramatic pauses to build suspense, a few too blatant attempts to manipulate the audience's emotions, but still a fair action flick. The non-time travel technology was poor - everything from Zippo cars to exploding gas containers. It was almost as if they'd watch Mythbusters and decided to use every hooky effect that was ever busted. I didn't bother double checking, but it looked like the bomb in the truck on the ferry was a collection of pipe bombs. That would be very foolish, since pipe bombs are anti-personnel and give up a fair bit of their destructive power to generate shrapnel which would be useless on a deserted car deck of a ferry. And the explanation of how the blast went around a corner, down a hatch and into the engine room (?) was pure nonsense. Again, a script from those who don't know that "it is better to remain silent and be thought ignorant than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

There was only one car chase in the movie with that silly monocle hat. YES please manipulate my emotions that is the reason I'm watching a movie to get my emotions stimulated. They were exploding gas containers, plus the gas in the other cars caused a massive fireball that engulfed the lower part of the ferry, IF the door was open leading to the engine room then I would think that the Explosion pushes Out in all directions to include down a hallway or stairwell, IF not it was a great visual effect.

Which leaves the time travel 'technology', the only thing that distinguishes this film from Eraser, Bad Boys, and about a brazillian other 'save the girl' action films. And the time travel is clearly one of the poorest thought out parts of this film, clearly a 'then a miracle happens' plot technique. Best as I could tell, the four and a half day time lag is never explained. Neither how it works, or why it is fixed at that interval. It is kinda, sorta, implied that somehow they have the technology to get or possibly be out ahead of the 'information' wave and then rebroadcast it back. That may be possible, but then the ability to control what you see, at what angle, etc., would somehow travel faster than light, or all the information, from *anywhere* (yes, the whole universe), would have to be sent back. And the localization of the information to somewhere near the machine shows that the writers are still living in a Ptolemaic universe -- with a fixed Earth. For if they really understood that the Earth rotates about its axis and revolves around the sun, then they would understand that where the machine is now and where the objects viewed were four days ago is separated by quite a distance.

Save the Girl/World, Kill this/kill that, that's how a movie plot manipulates your emotions. Time travel technology I will leave to Einstein/Minkowski/Lorentz/Pete, however the geek in the movie did explained being able to travel back in time to view events by folding a sheet of Paper so that the two ends were closer together which enables them to look into the past (4 days, 6 hours, 3 minutes, 45 seconds, 14.5 nanoseconds) in detail.
utube video part 6 explains the fold the paper/space therory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6XPC4XUoIw...feature=related

Now, the actual time travel (as opposed to the past viewing) is even more problematic. First there's the very real question of why one should imply the other. We look into the past all the time. If we're sitting across a room from each other, then we each see the other as they were about ten nanoseconds ago. Indeed, even more interesting is that when you look at yourself in a mirror, the 'now' you sees the 'then' you of when the photons of the 'then' you left you. So, if I get two and a quarter light days out, somehow gather a bunch of information, and send it back to you, you will be looking back four and a half days. But everything is moving forward through time -- no big thing. Then, all of a sudden, the ability to send something back in time appears? How? Why? It seems to me that it is just more of the ignorant, incompetent, X-Files type logic ("that's weird, this is weird, so they must be related") and writing.

Time travel technology I will leave to Einstein/Minkowski/Lorentz/Pete. I had to watch the movie 3 times before I understood how they were able to go back in time.

If one sits back and just enjoys the film uncritically, it isn't a bad action flick. At the end of it, I didn't have that "I want my time back" feeling that a lot of 'entertainment' seems to give me nowadays. But anyone who finds any depth in Déjà Vu is either totally unfamiliar with all the good, real, well thought out science fiction about time travel or is using a very short yardstick to measure the water.

Pete would you prefer a time machine with a Trottle you push foward or backward to time travel or this movie's version of time travel?

If you enjoy action flicks, and I do, then well worth one viewing. Thanks for the recommendation.
--Pete

hmmmm, next recommendation [comming soon] ;)
edit: ps; no time for spell check sorry!

[--Pete]

Hi,

Blue/Butter Pecan Ice cream/Moon River/Robert Redford/Camelot/1960 Cadillac conv.

Blue is good on blonds. I prefer yellow for bikinis on brunettes. Butter Pecan Ice Cream, yum! But strawberry or blueberry, freshly made in season? And so forth. My favorite anything depends on my mood and desire at any time.

True movies seldom IF ever live up to the book.

Very true. Most good books would make movies that are many hours long. The mini-series is a much better venue. But the movie should be a Reader's Digest Condensed version or, at the very least least, a Classics Illustrated rendition of the book. If the basic premise is changed, if the character of the protagonist or antagonist is changed, if essential plot elements are removed (or, worse, added) then the movie is not a true retelling of the book. And to promote it as such is dishonest and irritating. The movie, judged as a movie, may be great, but it is false and false offends me.

Now, I'm not saying that one work should not inspire others. One of my favorite (hehe) examples of this is RAH's Starship Troopers inspiring Haldeman's The Forever War leading to Card's Ender's Game (the short story, not the novel and definitely not the series). The pro-military, anti-military, and humanistic viewpoints of those three pieces complement each other and give a thoughtful reader much to contemplate. What I do not like is the making of Starship Troopers into a third rate movie where all that is deep and interesting in the novel is thrown out.

Truly creative people are often influenced by their predecessors, but do not need to plagiarize them. If a concept sparks an idea, then follow the idea and give credit to the original. But I often suspect that truly creative people are killed on sight in the movie industry.

. . . I "Hate" for the lack of a better word RAP music.

I refuse to accept RAP as music. It is, at best, free verse accompanied with a beat. More often, it is just a subset of CRAP.

. . . although I must admit the rating for most of the movies @ Nexflix do reflect my own choice of movies.

Yeah, me too.

YES please manipulate my emotions that is the reason I'm watching a movie to get my emotions stimulated.

There is a difference between 'stimulated' and 'manipulated'. When you stimulate my emotions, you make me feel what I feel. When you manipulate my emotions, you try to make me feel what you want me to feel. Knowing the difference, feeling the difference, and resisting the difference helps to make one a better judge of movies and of used car salesmen.

They were exploding gas containers, plus the gas in the other cars caused a massive fireball that engulfed the lower part of the ferry , . .

Even worse. Gas doesn't explode, gas burns. Only if you mix the gas with a lot of air (but not too much) will you get an explosion. That's why carburetors and fuel injectors have to be so precise. Besides, I seem to remember the mention of PETN in the babble that passed for dialog. If the idea is that the PETN was used to explode the glass containers, thereby dispersing the gas and igniting it, then that works, but it would only yield a very low level detonation. It would cause a big fire on the car deck, but the pressure wave would not have caused much damage. A fuel oil-fertilizer bomb that would fit the back of that truck would work. However, it, in all probability, would have ripped the ferry in half (remember Oklahoma City). Besides, no such type bomb was mentioned, IIRC.

IF the door was open leading to the engine room then I would think that the Explosion pushes Out in all directions to include down a hallway or stairwell, . . .

Nope, doesn't work that way. Believe me, I've modeled, witnessed, and instrumented enough explosions to know. An explosion in the open (which is basically what this was) sends out a spherical shock wave. If you think of that on a molecular level, it's just the air and other material being pushed outward from the center of the explosion. Now think of it as baseballs going straight down a hall. If there's a door open into the hall, what would make a baseball curve ninety degrees and go into the door?

. . . IF not it was a great visual effect.

And that, my friend, is much of the crux of my problem. I've seen great visual effects. Rainbows and sunsets and waterfalls. A small puffy cloud from above with the Vietnamese forest as its background. Five hundred pounds of explosives taking out a bunker and a foot long steel rod penetrating four inches of cold rolled armor. OK, I didn't really 'see' those last two, they were way too fast. But I was present, and saw the results. Most movie visual effects leave me cold. Especially all the overused ones.

. . . however the geek in the movie did explained being able to travel back in time to view events by folding a sheet of Paper so that the two ends were closer together . . .

How does that 'explain' anything? There's the famous story of someone (often cited as Einstein) asked to describe how radio works to his grandmother. He replies "Well, telegraphy is like a cat. You pull its tail in New York and it meows in San Francisco. Radio is like that, but without the cat." The explanation in the movie is like that. It really explains nothing. They just used more technobable in the film. Now Stargate did it right. Inexplicable alien technology -- no attempt to BS the audience, just a little 'wink wink nudge nudge' and a mutual agreement to suspend disbelief for the duration. But just 'suspend', not 'hang, draw, and quarter.'

Pete would you prefer a time machine with a Trottle you push foward or backward to time travel or this movie's version of time travel?

I'd prefer a time machine written by someone who actually understood the concept of narration, plot, characterization. Filmed by someone who would rather entertain me with a story than amaze me with effects. Someone who would permit me to feel rather than try to force feelings on me. As to the time machine, then either make it plausible or leave it unexplained. But don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining.;)

Like I said, it's a good action flick. But if you buy into their premise, then what's the use? *All* futures happen. No one is saved in the futures where the bomb goes off, no one dies in the ones where it doesn't. It's worse than predestination -- nothing you do matters because everything *will* happen. For every 'future' where you save the girl, there's one where you don't. And if any of that is true, then just which past are you looking at and going to?

--Pete

[Jester]

Now Stargate did it right. Inexplicable alien technology -- no attempt to BS the audience, just a little 'wink wink nudge nudge' and a mutual agreement to suspend disbelief for the duration. But just 'suspend', not 'hang, draw, and quarter.'

James Spader: Action Star?

Now *that* is fatal to suspension of disbelief.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

James Spader: Action Star?

Now *that* is fatal to suspension of disbelief.

I thought he did pretty good in that film. He does play bumbling well, after all (Sex, Lies, and Videotape). And it's not like he led any cavalry charges. :whistling: As a nut case Egyptologist and linguist, I liked him. Though I must admit that I like Michael Shanks better in the role.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Déjà Vu (2006 film, time travel to the past)

I think Deja Vu was a good film, and the cast was strong. The science was adequate, but it raised more questions than provided answers. They explained away much of it by having it be an accidental and unexplored phenomena they created. For example, the inability to slide "snow white" forward or backward. You can create a time tunnel, and you can manipulate a viewing window to any location within a particular radius of the source, but you can't slide the time window around? Dr. Denny gives a hurried explanation of a theory on parallel universes, but then you'd think that to craft a device that actually did manipulate space-time you would have probably a more solid answer to that question. I didn't quite buy the premise that they can create a wormhole (time tunnel) on grid power, but when they sent an object through it suddenly required a massive amount more power. The major consumption would be to transform energy into the mass effect required to fold space-time in the first place, but once it is done and a maintainable portal has been created (which you'd think would cause a visible disruption of both sides of the portal), then it should take no additional energy to have any size mass move through the worm hole. Important Safety Tip: The forces involved in bending space-time would probably also be sufficient to rip apart the planet. Leave the creation of temporal rifts to the experts.

But, it was a good plot device and made for a great techno-babble movie sufficient to outwit the general public. Perhaps to much so, and many people probably got lost in the recursion of it all (ala. Godel-Escher-Bach).

[Jim]

Hi, Deja  Vu, REDUX :whistling:

I seem to have a fascination with this Movie that won't go away. Each quote is just a sample of the read, you can choose which one to read in full. Pete did you see "Frequency" ?

Time-travel physics seems stranger than fiction.

Cramer acknowledged that the concept of retro-causality doesn't seem to make sense, "but I don't understand why not."

Both Greene and Cramer know the science as well as the fiction side of the time-travel issue: Greene is the author of "The Elegant Universe," a best-selling book on string theory — but he also played a cameo role in "Frequency," a time-travel movie released in 2000, and served as a scientific consultant for "Deja Vu."


But most time-travel plots involve more than just slowing down or speeding up the forward pace of time. What we're talking about here is reversing time's flow, and perhaps influencing the stream of causality to follow another course: one in which, say, Hitler died in childhood, or 9/11 never happened.

If you assume that such reversals are possible, Dr. Greene said physics would allow for two possibilities:
Nature would conspire against changing causality, something Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking has called the "chronology protection conjecture": For example, if you tried to shoot your father before you were born, somehow the gun would fail to go off.

Causality can be changed, sending the universe down different forks in the road. You could go back and shoot your father, creating a universe where you were never born. But it wouldn't be the same universe you came from. You'd just be an alien visitor from a different reality, living out a scenario that's called the "many-worlds interpretation."

Without giving away the plot, Greene said that the writers of the "Deja Vu" movie "took a very creative approach. ... They said, 'This is an open issue. Let's allow both of these possibilities to have a little bit of play.'"
Reality checks are in the works.

Sometime next year, Cramer is hoping to nail down one of those possibilities — or at least find out why those possibilities are actually impossible.

The experiment he's devised to test for backward causality plays off the idea that the states of two photons can become "entangled": Even if the photons are separated by great distances, what happens to one photon is reflected by the other one.

Einstein called this behavior "spooky action at a distance," and held it up as evidence that quantum physics was wrong. However, in recent years physicists have shown that quantum entanglement is indeed an actual phenomenon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817394/

At the Movie Forum there are 43 replies for Déjà Vu, it was an interesting read.

#6) "I don't know how to make peace with it. First I was thinking that there may have been two different paths still continuing side by side of each other yet not touching. But that would be impossible since the second was yet to be made as the first was developing and once made, it should have ceased to exist. Can't have two co existing if the second one's intentions was to make the first change. Then no first but only the second. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg!!"

http://www.movieforums.com/community/sho...hp?t=13396

Production Notes: The Mystery Of Deja Vu

To get inside the surprising world of quantum physics, Bruckheimer and Scott sat down with Dr. Greene and asked him to explain some of the theories behind time travel and parallel universes to them as simply as possible. Greene, in turn, simplified the concepts on a blackboard for Bruckheimer and Scott.

Says Bruckheimer, “We wanted to do our best to really explore what the various characters do in DÉJÀ VU, including the scientists in our time-window lab. I’ve made a career of telling stories that take you inside a world you’d never be a part of, yet, we make you part of it through this movie. Balancing science fiction and science fact can be tricky and complex, but we wanted to start this dialogue in DÉJÀ VU and open our eyes to possibilities that, perhaps, are not as far-fetched as they seem.”

Scientists on the fringes of new discoveries in quantum physics have suggested that déjà vu could be the result of parallel universes that accidentally intersect when the fabric of space-time is disrupted.

It is the latter theory that plays a vital role in the development of DÉJÀ VU’s suspenseful and thought-provoking twists. In order to get a better handle on what pioneering physicists believe about how time really operates, Jerry Bruckheimer and Tony Scott went right to the source: they picked the mega-sized brains of several world-class physicists, including Dr. Brian Greene, an expert on String Theory and a professor of physics at Columbia University who has written such popular explorations of general relativity and quantum mechanics as The Fabric of the Cosmos and The Elegant Universe.

http://www.cinemareview.com/production.asp?prodid=3752

The Alternate View by John G. Cramer
EPR Communication: Signals from the Future?
Okay, now let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the no-signal theorems are wrong and that EPR signaling is possible. What are the implications?

Last March, my belief in the validity of no-signal theorems was shaken by reading (in German) the PhD thesis of Birgit Dopfer, who received her doctorate from the University of Innsbruck in 1998. She performed an EPR experiment using pairs of momentum-entangled infrared photons, both with wavelengths of 702.2 nm, produced by parametric down-conversion in a nonlinear LiIO3 crystal pumped with a 351.1 nm ultraviolet laser beam.

http://www.analogsf.com/0612/altview.shtml

[--Pete]

Hi,

Each quote is just a sample of the read, you can choose which one to read in full.

Hmmm? How about 'none'? Don't get me wrong. As far as the movie itself is concerned, Déjà Vu is a good action flick, but hardly worth much analysis or discussion. The only aspect of the movie that is at all worth contemplating at any level beyond the visceral is the time travel. We've done that. Feel free to go on, but forgive me if I don't.

Pete did you see "Frequency" ?

Not yet, but I just added it to the top of the queue -- probably watch it this weekend.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

For example, if you tried to shoot your father before you were born, somehow the gun would fail to go off.

Yeah, I don't buy that one at all. If the bullet is sound, the firing pin is sound, the action is sound, the gun will go off, and you will kill your father. The question then is; As your father dies, would you disappear? I would say no, meaning that either 1) going back into the time stream is impossible, or 2) you go back to a different time stream (parallel universe). I'm pretty strong on 1) being probably the right answer.

The experiment he's devised to test for backward causality plays off the idea that the states of two photons can become "entangled": Even if the photons are separated by great distances, what happens to one photon is reflected by the other one.

I don't understand how quantum entanglement can be used to test for the ability to reverse time. As I understand it, yes, entangled particles (I doubt they have to be photons) do synchronize across space-time even if they are in two different reference frames. This might allow for some oddities in quantum communication between reference frames, but I wouldn't call it time travel. It would be like saying that standing on a chair makes you taller. It does, but not in the sense that you might be a better basketball player.

Bruckheimer and Scott sat down with Dr. Greene

I recently dusted off an old Playstation game I had, "Parasite Eve", where the misunderstanding of mitochondrial DNA results in an interesting take on "monster" and playable video game, but hardly advances an understanding of biology. Actually, for kids, it probably confuses their understanding of biology. "OMG! Get this mitochondrial DNA out of me before I mutate into a three headed dog!"

On EPR communication, the key statement I read there was; "For this reason, a crucial test of quantum phenomena would be to re-create the Dopfer Experiment and observe the role of the coincidence requirement on what is observed in the lower arm detector. Several research groups are considering doing this, but there are no results yet." Whereas, a single experiment does not make proof, but begs to be recreated and the observable phenomena verified. Then, the author goes on to try to explain the implications, but fails to recognize that the two particles are now separated into different reference frames. In reverse, its like when we see a super nova millions of years after it happened. Not so useful. In the case of quantum communication, we can detect the flash of the super nova as it is happening (or soon after, but still FTL). Still not that useful, unless you want to send communications FTL, which is a theoretical possibility made possible by quantum entanglement. But... It's not time travel. It still happens in the "now" of both particles simultaneously.

[Jester]

Yeah, I don't buy that one at all. If the bullet is sound, the firing pin is sound, the action is sound, the gun will go off, and you will kill your father. The question then is; As your father dies, would you disappear? I would say no, meaning that either 1) going back into the time stream is impossible, or 2) you go back to a different time stream (parallel universe). I'm pretty strong on 1) being probably the right answer.

This has always bugged me as well. I've never understood why, say, killing your father so that you were never born, an event important to you or to humans, involves creating a "contradiction", whereas just moving around other particles such that they are in different locations does not. Either you can alter events, or you can't - it makes no sense to me to say you can alter them only in ways that humans don't find counter-intuitive. If nothing else, the butterfly effect should ensure that even the smallest changes will materially affect your parents' life, including the moment of your conception, which should cause "you" to not exist.

I figure the whole mess takes so much energy to pull off that any alteration of the past is less likely to be like the butterfly effect and more like a supernova. Particles may pop in and out of time, but only by very small amounts, and only because they are very, very tiny, and subject to colossal forces relative to their mass. Moving a whole human being back a hundred years would surely require enough force to blow up a galaxy.

-Jester