"Time Travel Theory"

Donnie : Where did you come from?
Frank : Do you believe in time travel?

(Frank is the <spoiler>time-travelling ghost rabbit</spoiler> from Donnie Darko.)

So, do you believe in time travel? Of course, everyone time travels--as you're reading this, the seconds are passing by and you're travelling forward in time. But obviously, that's not the kind of time travel I'm talking about here.

The possibility of visiting the future, and/or changing the past has always fascinated humankind. Time travel is a popular recurring theme in books, TV shows, movies and even games. Great philosophers such as Cher and Lene Nystrøm have wondered aloud what they would do if they could "turn back time".

Is time travel really possible? The answer (of course) is "it depends". :)

For a possible explanation of how time travel might work, one has to go deep into the nature of "time", and that of the universe itself. While an in-depth discussion is beyond the scope of this post, a brief description follows.

We all know the three dimensions--length, breadth and depth, but it is hypothesized that there are at least 10 dimensions (some say 11, some say 26...). It is tough to explain this because the concept is almost impossible to visualize with the capacity and capability of the human brain.

Now think of time as just another dimension. “Time travel” thus just becomes a linear journey along a single dimension. Imagine you are climbing a ladder or walking along a road. As you climb higher (or walk further) you can see things that you couldn't see before. If you climb down the ladder (or walk back), you can again see the things you were seeing before. Now suddenly, time travel doesn't look all that far fetched--you move forward in time and see things that are going to happen; you move backward in time and see things that have already happened. (Of course, this is an overly simplistic view and ignores a lot of variables, but I think is sufficient to get the point across.) This linear movement in the 'time' dimension can be called a 'timeline'.

So far so good. Now, let's complicate this further. Suppose, at every instant in time (here an ‘instant’ is unfathomably small), the "main" timeline splits into infinite other timelines, where each timeline varies from the other by the tiniest amount possible. Every single event that can occur at an instant, and all combinations of other events that can occur simultaneously, are covered by one unique timeline. Now we designate one of these simultaneous timelines as the "primary timeline".

Thus at every instant there exists one primary timeline, and infinite “tangential timelines”, which are nothing but timelines where the infinite other possibilities (which didn't happen in the primary timeline) happen.

Still with me? Great! To understand the next part, one must first know an important characteristic of a hologram -- every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole. So, if you split a hologram, you will end up not with two halves, but in fact with the equivalent of two (but smaller) wholes.

So now, how about we view the “universe” as one gigantic n-dimensional, extremely detailed, super-hologram, where all possible timelines exist simultaneously? This would mean that every smallest ‘part’ of the universe contains ALL the information in the universe. What does this imply? For one, you and I are part of the universe and hence we would contain within ourselves all the information in the universe--past, present, and future!.

Clearly, then, you already know everything that has happened, and everything that will happen. You just don't know which one is going to be the 'primary' timeline at a given instant of time.

(This of course leads to a lot more questions, the answers to which are beyond the scope of this discussion. For example, what determines which timeline becomes the primary? Is there a single primary timeline for the whole universe or does each entity in the universe have its own primary timeline from its point of view?)

The primary timeline at any instant is what is perceived to be the "present". However, under certain circumstances it is possible to access information in other timelines (these timelines may or may not be at the same 'instant' in time) and this inter-timeline information exchange is what leads to phenomena like 'premonitions' and 'deja vu'.

Once "the present" is defined so, "time travel", including changing the past and peering into the future, becomes a matter of simply(?) choosing the right timeline!

See how simple that was? And if I'm right, you knew this all along!

(P.S: Does some of the content of this post sound familiar? Then you also know why!)

"Elephant in the Room"

Shit happens. Just because you wish it didn't happen doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Just because you pretend it never happened doesn't mean it'll go away if you don't bring it up.

Just like an elephant in a living room. It's large, it's gray, and it's just standing in the middle of the room. Everyone just pretends it doesn't exist, and just walks around it. No one talks about it. No one acknowledges its presence.

But that doesn't make the elephant un-exist. It is very much there. It is real.

Shit happens. Admit it. Accept it. Face it. Deal with it.

As the great philosopher Russell Peters always says, "be a man*!"

* or woman, as the case may be.

"Software Engineering: Definition"

Software Engineering (sôft'wâr' ěn'jə-nîr'ĭng) noun

1. A systematic approach to the analysis, design, implementation and maintenance of software.

2. See: "It Depends".

"Choosing Your Friends"

The following was written on the back of one of my notebooks:

Obviously, I felt I could come up with something better:

"Choose your friends like you choose your socks -- make sure they match, and don't stink."

Update/P.S: This friendship-themed post having happened to have been posted on Friendship Day was purely a coincidence! Really!

"Learning a Language"

hexium's 4-Step process for learning a new language:

Step 1: Learn to say "I don't understand <language>"
Step 2: Learn various swear words.
Step 3: Learn to say "I love you".
Step 4: Learn the rest.

Unfortunately, this method doesn't work for computer languages. (Apparently I have to learn Java now. I always used to think it was a kind of coffee.)

"Lies"

The hardest thing to do in the world is to frame a perfect, internally consistent lie*.

On the surface it looks to be harmless enough to tell someone a small "white lie". But if (or more likely, 'when') questioned about it, you have to make up another lie to cover up your original lie. One lie will lead to another and eventually you'll be lying buried in a pit of your own lies.

Now the truth, by definition, is internally consistent. You may forget the truth, but you don't have to make it up or remember different truths for the same event. That's another problem with lying -- you don't remember whom you've told what version of your lie. (Maybe I should invent a version control system for lies -- I could call it ClierCase**!). With a lie, it becomes tougher and tougher to maintain internal consistency the longer it goes on.

Therefore, the challenge is to create a lie that is completely and totally consistent and will stand up to any amount of scrutiny (and is not 'cake').

Protip: It helps if you convince yourself of the truthiness of the lie.


* Of course, the whole theory is bound by the HUTD, so YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).

** This counts as prior art for any future patent applications from person(s) (other than me) for any form of version tracking or controlling system for lies.

"It Depends"

Good news, everyone!

I would like to take this momentous occasion to announce to the world my theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything. I like to call it "heXiuM's Universal Theory of Dependence."

It can be simply stated as: "It Depends."

Think about it. It really does answer everything.

It is so unquestionably true that I consider it an insult to the reader's intelligence to offer any proof for it. I will, however, illustrate with an example.

A: "Why is the sky blue?"
B: "Well, it depends."
A: "Depends on what?"
B: "Well that also depends."
A: "That also depends on what?"
B: "Well that also depends."
...
This could continue forever.

The questions asked by A could be replaced by any other questions, and yet the answers given by B would remain completely valid.

For instance,
A: "Is this a random question or what?"
B: "Well, it depends."
A: "What do you mean by that?"
B: "Well that also depends."
A: "That also depends on what?"
B: "Well that also depends."
...


See? You just witnessed the HUTD in action.

The first answer given by B is in the First Normal form of the heXiuM's Universal Theory of Dependence Equation (HUTDEq - pronounced /ˈhɛdˌeɪk/.) The second and subsequent answers given by B are in the First Derivative form of the HUTDEq. These directly lead us to the mathematical statement of the HUTD.


1st Normal form of HUTDEq:
In the first Normal form, the HUTDEq is expressed as "It depends."

1st Derivative form of HUTDEq:
The first Derivative form of the HUTDEq is expressed as "It also depends."

Mathematical Statement of heXiuM's Universal Theory of Dependence:
"The answer to any question leads to a HUTDEq. Any question can be answered by the First Normal form of the HUTDEq. Any subsequent questions can be answered by the First Derivative form of the HUTD, ad infinitum."

Disclaimer: This theory was originally told to me by a friend, so it's not exactly correct for me to call it "heXiuM's" theory. But then, it depends, doesn't it? ;)