http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125710.900-whats-done-is-done...
What's done is done...or is it?
28 September 2006
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition.
Patrick Barry

How to change the past

Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd like to take back an unfortunate voicemail message, or
rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make
yourself the winner.

Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible - what's done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the
mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you might change the circumstances by which your parents met,
derailing the key event that led to your birth.

Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange
as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in
the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the
door remains wide open for a demonstration.

"Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:i5crh2h94mclhka6pbp0fopqk9gev00noc@4ax.com...

"Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:i5crh2h94mclhka6pbp0fopqk9gev00noc@4ax.com...

Brian Fletcher wrote:

Brian:
Your use of "going back in time" is figurative, right?? A mental
exercise to revisit that, which has already occurred, in your mind.

Sir Frederick always seems to find this interesting, yet controversial
subject matter, to post. I "literally" find a logical paradox that
can't (IMHO) be overcome to the H.G Wells version of time travel;
i.e. actual travel to a time past (or scarier, a future event). It
wasn't what you meant, was it??

kevirwin wrote:

Thats an oxymoron, if its logical then there's no paradox.

Paradox is the name given to a illogical state of mind, a name given to
a conclusion based on a faulty premise is illogical, paradox do not
exist in reality, they exist in the minds of fools, you're a fool.

Persuade me dont force me.

Michael Gordge

mikegordge@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Consider it a syntactical error, jerk-off . Remove the "logical",
if you can't read it figuratively.

kevirwin wrote:

The point is HOW do you know that? The reason I ask is because you used
the phrase *logical paradox* when there are no such things in logic and
because of your unanswered stance on that agnostic god crap, clearly
shows you arrive at most of your conclusions via accidents and not via
reason.

Michael Gordge

mikegor...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Ahhh, the vestiges of an actual thought!!!! (of course you needed to
add an insult at the end).

kevirwin wrote:

Insults are self inflicted, glad I could provide you with the material.

For the zillionth time, via non-contradictory identification and
integration of the material / matter / information of my senses eyes
ears nose feel touch.

The ability to identify contradictions especially in ideas is something
I specialize in.

Unless any and all ideas can be reduced right back down to an
irreducable and sensory level of perception, then that idea is born in
or of the mind and man trusts any and all such ideas at his peril, e.g.
the god nonsense and your greater good socialist crap.

Sir Frederick wrote: