hyperion1is

I agree. Can't we resolve this with a simple strait answer? Yes, Current Electricity Theory is Wrong What the author will have to comment after that?

"Why do we hate talking to idiots?" And you mentioned frustration, yes I think is more about frustration than hate. Also I would mention that we may feel something in relation to ourselves not others. ie: you may feel frustration when talking to an idiot; but is not the idiot who cause you frustration it's your reaction to the individual that cause you frustration. In this light, you may feel frustration when talking to an idiot when realizing a tactical error on your part (as a possible explanation). The most common tactical error: to talk slow, in the idea that speaking slowly will somehow allow the other person to understand every word you say. So the frustration comes, when you realize that you are an idiot. You came with a "tactical" plan to improve communication and you realize that the communication is worse if you were to speak normally. (on a false premise). I followed your idea of the fact that "intelligence" may be a relative term; and I will circle to that. Another tactical error (all this deriving from the fact that you think that you are more intelligent then the other) is to think that you understood the question. If the layman (idiot) asks: "Why is the sky blue?". When a physicist is been asked this, he/she may already have an answer in his head: "Sunlight is a mix of all the colors of the rainbow. Light is a spectrum of light of different wavelengths, from the shorter "blue" to the longer "red" wavelengths. When sunlight enters the atmosphere, the molecules in the air are the right size to "scatter" the blue wavelengths of the sunlight, which sort of "paints" the sky blue...." or even more technical, the problem he acknowledge is to communicate this to the idiot. So you may include in your "tactical" minimum requirements that the "idiot" needs to understand in order to comprehend your answer. A simpler way: Laymen: "Why is the sky blue?" Physicist: "Because is not green." Laymen: "Why is not green? because grass and a lot of others things are green" Physicist: "If all the things were to be green, would be better?" Laymen: "No" Physicist: " Right, because there would be no more distinctions among things" And the idiot may be satisfied with this answer. Maybe this was the answer he was looking for. And you had gone to all the trouble to... Another tactical error is to consider yourself to have all the answers (All-knowing). On the premise: I'm smarter than him so the chances are that I know what he knows, but he doesn't know what I know. If you were really to explain "Why the sky is blue", completely with all the principles and all, no matter where you start you will end up in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanswered_questions_in_physics How ofter does a physicist acknowledge to a laymen that they are still a lot "un-answered" questions in physics. He will not do this out of fear: The worst thing that can happen is to be considered an idiot by an idiot (because of it's possible thinking, that if you don't know the answer to 1 question you are an idiot; like him, or worst). The assumption is that this questions will be answered one day. Well one day, doesn't make it today. If the situation presents: If you answer a question more questions will arise, then... If you were to assume or to acknowledge for a second that this questions will be never be answered (in the sense that it cannot be an answer to every question), then a physicist were to find that an idiot (a philosopher) may have more knowledge than he does; without a scientific theory to explain Reality the philosophic explanations remain more accurate. (this examples works in the measure that physicist consider philosophers idiots, regarding Reality, Universe, space time). So, it's a circle, in which one may consider more intelligent than the other because our superlative way of thinking. Also we should think about the definition. Intelligence is defined as having more knowledge? OR Intelligence: to find solutions with the least amount of information possible. So, who is the idiot? The problem was to communicate something to someone with less knowledge in a field than you. Have you found a solution? With what amount of information available? My 2 cents. PS. This post is not about physicists. I don't want to hijack your post, but if you asked. In the view of my theory, "Theory about the human psyche", Intelligence is defined as the above "to find solutions with the least amount of information possible". In this regard the Human mind component has "intelligence", and not the "I". In laymen terms you can associate the "I" with "Self-consciousness" and "Self-consciousness" with your-self; the one who wants to consider itself intelligent, the one that makes decisions... So, Intelligence is not ours, it belongs to a component in ourselves over which we have no control (in the sense to change it's MO, to make it more or less "intelligent". The most you can do is to let your mind to run free. But doesn't always happen. If the "I" wants this property (intelligence), it finds it in the Human mind component and tries to become it, which is not possible, but the result will be interference and Human mind component will run more slowly. Ironic: the more intelligent you want to be the more of an "idiot" you become. How I said, this is due our superlative way of thinking. If the I reads "Importance" (from the Self), in a superlative way: I'm more important or less important than another then will became a game of who is more important, with catastrophic consequences for every party involved, if I made a point in the above. This is my theory, if someone has another....

Maybe because you consider that people will pay more attention to his posts that your own for marooning reasons. Otherwise you just "walked" further. Just click the down arrow man and move on. How about this non-scientific explanation?

1.) What specific aspects of the human mind does your model explain I guess that we are both referring to this "human mind" as the general definition and not the Human mind component in my system. Not to be confused. OK. To reply to your question: The model does/wants to explain any/all aspects of the human psyche and not slices of it. Examples: Free will, decisions, feelings, emotions awareness and so on. With limitations to this theory (to this purpose), meaning that it's not it's role to explain Physics, Biology and related. Related to this is a question of integration. 2.) What does your model bring that others do not I don't know any other Scientific model in Psychology, except with the possibility of one: The Brain, A Decoded Enigma by Dorin Teodor Moisa. I see in your profile that you have Double Major in Biology/Psychology, maybe you can submit such a model that is scientific. In the sense to follow the scientific methods. By examples: to make predictions of data and not to the interpretation of data: "I observe the attachment of a child to it's caregivers and I predict future signs of affection as this does increase the chance of survival." Not very scientific. In the sense that is relying on interpretations of interpretations and also doesn't search for alternate explanations: like all a human does is always related to survival? If this is not the case, "the model" won't make accurate predictions". I'm also not pretending to fully any of the actuals models in Psychology, What I read was enough for me to stop. Not to hijack my own topic (what is scientific model in Psychology and what not) I only want submit the above model (for peer review) because it contributes to my work, in the sense that it's models the way data from External Reality it's processed and transformed into concepts. In my theory I only stated "All elements have access to the same information about „External reality”" and didn't explained how. Because of Dorin Teodor work, I didn't felt the need to re-invent the wheel, sorts of speak. Dorin Teodor model/Theory (from my point of view) doesn't explain Self-consciousness for instance, and this alone determined me to make a different model. Note: no affiliation between me and the author. 3.) How would you test your model There can be all sorts of tests. It doesn't encounter "invasive way of examining the human brain" problem, because is not needed (not a must). I will design applications /simulations. 4.) What tests have been done that support your model None, especially for this model. Regarding past tests: I will comment on Benjamin Libet test in the 1980s; after I will have a deeper look into it. It's seems to me that the test is not conclusive if it didn't account for the existence of 2 decisions instead of one: the decision of moving they hand and the decision to report it's awareness to the tester. So a different test that will account for the predictions of this theory can be conceived. Anyway, regarding to predictions: The model can't do any real predictions right now, because it's not complete. I still need to check for coherency, and others can help if they want. You can point out to me what is not right or what is missing. I hope I answered you questions in some manner. If further details are needed...

I don't know what to say. If you were to read the posts in that topic (this topichttp://www.scienceforums.net/topic/16750-gravity-as-an-energy-source/page-7#entry735484) you could understand my principle (see if it has any validity) and to determine if it was used in any of your model; that could have happened even incidentally, in the sense that "you saw a way" to build a model, that does "that" and you built it, even if through trial and error at first. Also you didn't answered to any of my questions. I don't know even what your models suppose to do. For instance this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx91itiFIZA&feature=c4-overview&list=UU-VYX9apWoBlI77O1YWWYwQ Will carry out motion in Real World: accounts for air friction, frictions of the materials used again one another, 45 degrees angle - I mean if the surface is to considered "straight" perpendicular with the Gravity force - no uphill, no downhill.; or will stop after a while (comes to a rest - on it's own). Regards!

Thank you swansont for your intervention. I know that here are rules, and I don't know what PureGenius did before, But this statement has some truth in it: "The point at which time reverses has not been figured out by anyone" ? I mean is scientifically proven of something? Because if so, is relevant to this topic. Because it involves "spacetime", and "distinctions" of time. If not... Thanks!

Improper use of the word. I think I stated before that English is not my native language. Romanian is, so the Terminology still gives me brief I see. "Psychic" is what the dictionary gave me instead of "Psyche" as in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(psychology) This is/wants to be, a study in Psychology, I don't know if anyone got that, and not in Supernatural. I have no intent to research the Supernatural, not today; this topic of Supernatural is of interest only if you can apply Science it, and when you do you most always find alternate explanations, so isn't supernatural anymore. Anyway. I hope that the improper misuse of the term didn't delayered someone from Psychology. Did it? If so, a moderator can help me change the title, and the first post, if it's even possible? I don't find a way. Thanks! I feel silly

Potatoes and tomatoes. I was challenging the definition of the distance and you give me the definition of the distance. A circle somehow. How the meter was defined the first time? Now, from what I understand was linked with c. So, I'm referring before that. Conventions will always equal conventions Delta1212. No dispute about that. There in that post I wasn't trying to re-enforce a meter that was conceived about someone in a "laboratory". I was speaking about measurements in this Real Universe that we live in and observe, that doesn't necessarily obeys our conventions. I was trying to read something about Special Relativity, even though I don't plan to take a Phd in physics. "universal frame of reference has been proposed before" - so proposed, not found? Or found? Because later you came with: "The speed of light is constant in all frames" This makes it an Universal frame of reference? If it were so, I don't think we would need at least 3 different theories in physics field: General relativity, Special relativity and quantum mechanics. "there is no one comparable to his level of thought alive today." then we should cease activity - and go home.

Reading this topic I see that someone proposed a new dimension and because it doesn't fit in the dimensions we know/have, spatial, deduced that is not a dimension. I got it right? You can't just fit this dimension with the other because is different in nature. I think we should the resort to the fundamental theory of "dimension". I'm no scientist but a dimension is not a theoretical "plane" for the distribution of matter? If we didn't have matter we wouldn't had dimensions. But because we do (have matter) we had to make a construct that will allow to this distribution in a nicely fashion (pattern). At first we tried with 3, later with four. (at first was hard to link time dimension to the other 3, no?). I don't know about the nature/definition of frequency. That to make it a dimension it should allow this distribution (requirements like, to be continuous and finite) and to intersect the dimensions we know. If such things are possible math needs to be worked out and after to study (eventually redefine) the spectrum, to allow us to "see" dark matter and related (dark energy also?). It seems to me more and more, that they are 2 "time". One a dimension of spacetime, so purely geometrical) and the other related to the Observer. In quantum mechanics it is said/observed that the Observer changes the experiment. This doesn't mean that "interacts" with the Universe? If interaction is involved isn't fair to assume that it has it's own time? Further is a problem on how you define time and how you measure it.

Actually I wrote 3 questions. But never mind that now. Is not about a model in question. It's about the principle, the concept. I don't know on what principle you made your model because you didn't comment on that. 1. If dynamic motion is a domain, don't expect me to know about it I don't know that what you did (through modeling) is something new, or a refinement of something old. 2. Anyway, if you followed the link you should got an idea of what I was referring to. I only hypothesized about was the possibility to apply an algorithm in such a way to a driven double pendulum, that builds up momentum. Transforming the potential energy of Gravity into kinetic one. This was about an alternative energy source: the input energy to be lower then the output. But I don't know if your models are about that. You can squeeze at least 1 kw from one of your pendulum, sorts of speak? If not, is something else To "imprint" an algorithm on a system can be done in more that one way; ie. mechanical, electrical/electronically etc.. I apologize if I just "jumped" into the subject.

Hi, Well, 1. What should we make of this? Any theory, any data, any measurements? 2. Does your models accounts for friction forces? Continues or comes to a rest after a while. 3. On what hypothesis you have build these models? What principles? Only ask because it resembles pretty much with what I wrote http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/16750-gravity-as-an-energy-source/?p=735484 A coincidence, most likely.

Revising this topic, I thought about the logic of your statements, in the above context (I hope is not offensive): "some mechanism" ? Which has an (pre-thinked) algorithm in his MO or not? And I theorized about: Also I think is a thing of Emergence? The input energy in a PC is the same as the energy used. Improper formulation. I mean that it's respects the law of conservation of mass and energy. What about the result? A human inputs an algorithm (programing), inputs data, leaves (it doesn't interact with the system anymore) and when comes back collects a new set of processed data. Work has been done for him. A monitor (let's say Lcd) follows the same laws concerning energy, but with the proper algorithm outputs an image. The specific image (not random pixels-and that is not a coincidence) being an emergent. Regarding my proposal on a driven double pendulum on which you apply an algorithm: input energy + algorithm = output energy? IE being equal with OE? I don't contradict what you said earlier only clarifying the interpretation.

After reading the posts of this topic I try to distinguish between time and time. Which of the following is true?: Note: So I don't open another topic (no need) because I think I can comment on which of the following: I.1 Spacetime is a Cartesian system in which All that can exist exists in this spacetime? I.2 Spacetime is Cartesian system with entities outside of it? Formally the spacetime being a mathematical set of equations which can constitute as a Sandbox in which you can perform some work, do some experiments? By who, if We were to be/live in Spacetime and not outside of it? II.1 Spacetime treats time as a dimension without another time? In this case Spacetime can be considered static, from an objective point of view. II. 2 Spacetime treats time as a dimension which recognizes another (discrete) time and in order to compensate is a process to add time to time (using the same time probably)? Note: Spacetime: dimensions of/for distribution of matter. One of the above is true or none of the above is true.

I see, thank you for your input. I hope you realize that I wasn't trying to be sarcastic; from here the sign. I only had problems following the usage of terms Your interest is appreciated, even if your interest is only about analytic thinking. On your: I can't comment on your "external", in the view of this theory there is nothing External, only data; and data can't validate itself. In other words, there is nothing happening externally related to the system, only internally. What is outside the system is Reality. It's not my job to analyze Reality, that's physicists job (and I can't help much with that it's seems ). For the system Reality is only data. About the the quote/the bit you refereed to, it applies what I stated about the system. The Decision process is "belongs" to the system and can't be attributed only to a single component. The decision appears to belong to the I when you try to analyze components individually. I hope this helps (or it may it been obvious).

I. This theory and elements of this theory are Intellectual property of Irofte Daniel. http://hyperion1is.blogspot.ro/ "from what I know you have rights on a intellectual propriety only from the fact that you have publish it (first)." I haven't thought things through, haven't I? Publishing under anonymity. II. sheever thank you for you feedback, even if I'm not sure how I can use it. If you wanted to test my limits of understanding you have succeeded . "all what we do i think nothing else than self validation" - not according to my theory. Is about the stability of the system. Also "validation" is not related to us, but more about "in the eyes of others"; Validation is inverse proportional with Self-esteem.

Warning: Wall of text! I.1 My head aches. J Because I’m a laymen in physics: 1. I may have a hard time grasping concepts from some fields of research (general relativity, special relativity, quantum mechanics… biology). But doesn’t mean I can’t work with Perspective; 2. Communicating with scientists without (having) the scientific language. Delta1212 is more about what Klaynos said (to me): "You need to reference times, distances and velocities to a given frame else you will not be able to work anything out." I.2 What I’m proposing here is a different perspective, which may be known to scientists and used/accounted for, or not (I don’t know). This is what I’m actually trying to determine (envision) here. I guess is a perspective about/regarding scales. We (those who talk on this post) may have or we may not have the same perspective regarding scales (probably mine being wrong, I realize that). A perspective is what separates 2 theories and advancement in science is/was done by changing perspective? Aristotle: a body comes to a rest on its own; this is its natural state. Newton: a body doesn’t come to a rest unless a force (of opposite direction) is being exercised on it. Conservation of mass and energy; inertia? Einstein: My time does not equal your time? He introduced Observer as a notion/dimension for understanding Reality. From here on, the concept of relativity; So 2 Observers (in different reference frames) observing the same phenomena will get different readings. I.3 Me: Are we (me and you) taking readings on the same phenomena on the same scale? My scale doesn’t equal your scale. Note: if you detecting arrogance on my part, please let me know. II.1 Now, it’s a problem about conveying my idea/perspective to you. In which language (terms)? Can we discuss in layman terms (somehow)? A reading let me to believe that is possible to communicate between 2 areas in which you don’t have the same definitions of terms. Here, please read this and see if you can distinguish something. http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de/LUCEAFA.HTML#eng . From “Then Evening-star went out” to “To blind oblivion.”. III.1 I stated previously this is a matter of scales actually. But I need a starting point and end point to this. Where to start? The World (better word Reality) it’s to be said that is fluid (super-fluidity), ever changing. How does it appear solid to the Observer? If this has been explained, then I’m just rambling (please follow my non-understanding of this. A way in which that this was expressed (and an effort to understand it) was (one of many): “An electron of an atom is orbiting around a neutron (it’s center) in high speed. So, it’s moving (the electron) but the atom appears to us solid. An “explanation” for this is that the electron is moving very fast and this creates solidity.” (?) A way to explain such a state (the state of Reality) I tried to explain it to myself in a section which starts with "Now: If I were to travel with the speed of light." of my second post. There I tried a transition from a state to another (with success or not). An Observer (a Human, and you can probably include animals) makes observations of the same phenomena using “detectors”. There are 5 primary (it’s hard to identify which can be considered as primary) detectors: Sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste. Note: you can split touch in two to include Energy (what we interpret as being hot or cold). It’s about 5 detectors that we call Senses (but we must be careful of our definition/interpretation of sense. Using 5 different detectors over the “same phenomena” the Observer creates a measuring unit. We will call/refer it here a detector (one single detector). The Observer “records” data (in packages) from Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell and Taste detectors (5 different kinds of data) and integrates them. How, in which manner? Hard to explain. One might postulate that the Observer is using a blank data set to integrate all the others. The amount of packages (of each 6 different type of data-including blank data) needed to create “1 package” (the smallest unit possible) is defines a quanta. This discrete measuring unit is used by the detector to observe Reality. This is what “creates” solidity. An experiment: A man eating a sandwich. ----- 1. The man sees the sandwich; the Observer is recording data from/with the Sight detector. Nothing distinguishable at this point. 2. The man is touching the sandwich; again: the (same) Observer is recording data using Touch detector. At this point we can state that the integration begins (has began/can begin). 3. The man smells the sandwich. No need to explain the process again, no? Enough to say that new data is added/recorded. After the final sense (the final recording), the Taste, (and the experiment/observation is over)the Observer is using the recorded data “captured” during this process and integrates them in a single one. Overall we can say the this event was recorded/observed using a single detector. ----- I hope that by skipping I didn’t detoured someone. There are 5 steps. Note(improper terms usage !): It will be more helpful to you if you don’t “integrate” 2 detectors into one: Smell and Taste. Saying that is recording the same type of data: chemical. Not sure; also be careful that these 5 detectors are placed in 5 different locations in Reality. As a first experience for our subject (the man), the man could conclude from, first smelling the sandwich, and later tasting the sandwich: “Hm, this (object) is giving me information from a “distance” in opposition to information that is giving me from “up close” (in my mouth). “ This experience gives us (at least) “distance” as a concept/interpretation. The relevance of this (about the detector): The detector is using a scale. Different from the scales of the detectors. Might be relevant? Also caution about the integration of data. An Observer is using a binocular to see a tree (“brings objects closer”). Firstly: the Observer is recording data using only Sight detector. The “tree” makes sense to the Observer? Probably yes, through extrapolation regarding the integration of data (each/all kind/type of data is needed in observing a phenomena – every single phenomena; with integration). Second: conversion of scales is being used. Not being big differences, the approximation is considered “accurate”. How about “looking” through a microscope? Different scales? Can we touch, smell taste the molecule? Not, when taking these measurements anyway. A simple way to express this: 1 km = 1000 meters = 100.000 cm = 1.000.000 mm. 1km equals 1 million mm? They may be circumstances in which it doesn’t?. (this is an example of a single instance). You might say to me that this has been accounted for, through non-Euclidian geometry or other). It’s been really accounted or is it more like the “accounts” in the Ptolemaic system? Tweaking your theory/interpretation to account for observations. J Conclusions: I don’t know about the proper usage of the term scales here. There is a scale for distance, a different scale for energy and so on? How about intersecting all the scales? I’m trying here a more concrete definition of the Scale. An universal measuring unit on a scale (a fifth dimension) may be a better word for this? Word salad, maybe. I will try revising this post working on the terms used, reference frames and so on. What I’m trying to conclude here about the Observer (more to the point, the nature of the Observer) and Scale has been discussed in physics (and solved)? If so where (Wikipedia if it can be used as a source ) so I can understand what I can't understand.

Thank you klaynos for your input. Easy said than done, for some

I hope I don't get many tomatoes in the head here, if this is viewed as a way, to lift this topic. I'm only concerned that this topic was overlooked (being in another topic initially): 0 views I know that here discussions are focused more on physics but this is theory after all (and in my view, I want it to be a scientific one). We don't need to have a lot of background on psychology to dwell a little into this. And how I stated above, I need your help, in following the scientific method. Constructive criticism is also allowed (welcomed). Thanks! Later edit: Sorry, it was 0 views even if I hit Refresh. Now is 51. Sorry again. No opinions on this?

I In other words the air is more heavy than "my balloon";overall. Did, I include air and other principles when I defined gravity (subjectively one might say)? Why bring other principles to dis-qualify my anti-gravity when I defined it in relation to gravity? You see where I'm driving at? The question is if my definition of gravity is the same as Newton's.

Again, I stress, I'm a layman when regarding physics. I hope is OK to post here, even so, even I don't know how my contribution will be to this forum. Perception is, or it can be, a factor in understanding the laws of physics. I think perception is included in quantum theory but I don't know how. Anyway. Perception can make separation of principles possible. Imagine a middle line delimiting an under-current and an upper-current (in opposite directions). Without perception we: 1. Will think that the 2 currents will intersect ("canceling of forces); 2. We will use an ad-hoc explanation about the principles involved in a phenomena. Using Newton laws (layman again), used locally: on Planet Earth from ground level to upper atmosphere, Gravity is defined as: All objects (with mass) will fall (are attracted) to the center of the Earth? The in the same way I can define Anti-gravity: All objects will be repelled way from the Gravity center of the Earth. Gravity and Anti-gravity are defined locally as being of the same nature and opposite vectors. (I know about Einstein theory about an anti-gravity being stronger at greater distances). Gravity and anti-gravity are separated by Perception. To tell which will "act" on object I have to find instances in which Gravity behaves as gravity and in which gravity behaves as anti-gravity (shortage of terms). A rock "released" will fall on the ground. A balloon filled with helium will be repelled away from the Earth. You can contradict me.

Lyman terms: In the early moments of big bang matter and antimatter annihilated each other? Is this a working hypothesis? The matter "won" and "populates" the present observable Universe. This is one way to view it. We can say that antimatter exists now, in the Universe all around us, in another form? It's effects can be "seen" in principles of the Universe (probably in those un-explained yet). If I say in another "form" you may say is not "matter" (anti-matter) anymore. This is just a perspective. E=mc2 . Energy can constitute as matter (procession of Mercury). If no anti-matter is present currently how can it be artificially created? It's not right to postulate that our present Universe shouldn't be able to sustain anti-matter? Obviously something I got it wrong. But what ?

The topic has changed a bit. Interested in your premise here. You try to disprove an empty statement with another? "stealing is wrong", "violence is wrong", "lying is wrong" ? Says who? From where to where? In a village of 10 people, 1 has all the resources and doesn't share (the other 9 have nothing). It's wrong for them (the other 9) to steal, or to use violence? If yes, isn't that also a crime? (9 lives) regardless of what values one puts on himself. Or killing your self is right or wrong? In a closed unbalanced system things change. The moral code/ethics may be about balance. Balance is innate I think (that is enough?). Anyway, studying human behavior at such young ages, 2-5 maybe can result in false readings (interpretations). If you report to the Human being, what is human? It does include self-consciousness? If yes, at what age is present? About the free will. I believe that free will exists, but needs to be defined. It is determined by some parameters, related to the subject (the free agent). Maslow's pyramid or needs is one dimension of human nature? If yes, if the base of the pyramid is not met you can say you have free will? About the John-Dylan Haynes experiment. The problem is interpreting the results. I see it as a delayed awareness, related to the cognitive functions involved. If it's a delay between a free choice and observable action? If I want to move my right hand now, and observe that I can do it only 3 second later? I won't fell "trapped" ? Free will is not a balloon suspended in ether. It's a "mechanism" incorporated in another mechanism, with feedback. Can be viewed as such ?

Hi, I'm glad to know that you solved your problem. I'm working on a theory now, which is down on the list, about the human physic. Is not much yet, because there are a few details to work out. Anyway, it's important to define "memory". I don't know about programing, much, so I will use my own words. If you define memory in respect to the "past", you won't get much. The past is just a construct of the mind in respect with an interrogation. With each interrogation different you get a different "past construct". The question is "With which data the construct is made?" Probably with data which describes the present state of the subject. If you define memory, without the past, presently, you have integration and relevance. What is not relevant is not stored. In this case, it shouldn't add up, the sum being the same. If you find a way to integrate your new data in the available data, relate a new value by reporting it to all other values, your program should be efficient. If you need your program to "forget" you need to establish (for it) what is relevant and what not. I hope this makes sense!

36grit I saw a documentary with Stephen talking about this "experiment" and your text seemed familiar to me as I read it. It would be fair to specify the source next time for better clarity and credits ? The problem, and the true, here doesn't lye in concepts? Time travel is not possible, because there is no future if you don't factor in decisions. My opinion. So future people wouldn't know about an event until after that event has occurred, and probably consumed, meaning until the moment for another decision. This may seem a paradox or ill advised, to factor in decision, for time-space in respect with events. But the decision to travel back in time is not a decision? So, the future back in time travelers wouldn't know about the event (the party) even if published in a newspaper. Another way to look at it, the future changes with every decision. Maybe will make more sense if I were to specify (postulate) that an intent is not a decision. If you walk 100 m to a bridge, until that moment you have intent, and in that moment (before crossing) you have a decision.

Sorry, now I have finished editing my post actually. When I said that the Observer should be included in equations I meant for it to have a value. It does? And you are right ajb. I will try that and revising my post in the same time.