Non-causality violating sci-fi scenario….. you come up with a Title, OK?

Consider as a thought experiment two scenarios involving time-travel.

In the first it is possible to communicate with the future but not to travel faster than the speed of light.

In the second, communication is only possible with the past as starships travel back in time if they travel faster than light.

The first scenario: Stars A and B are twenty light years apart and each contain an advanced, space-faring society.

They can communicate by tachyons, particles which travel faster than light and backwards in time (depending on perspective) and by radio or laser signals which travel at the speed of light.

A has a small but deadly fleet of warships that can accelerate to 0.05c

(note: it can be shown that a starship can be accelerated to 0.42c by the use of a powerful orbital laser, which then decelerates to maneuvering velocities using a multiple-propulsion system, utilizing fusion and small amounts of anti-matter. Theoretically, a starship could accelerate almost to the speed of light using Zero Point (or Vacuum) Energy with enough propellant).

A can communicate instantaneously with B, as far as either of them is concerned, by sending a radio signal to B. B then sends a reply by sending a reply back via tachyons traveling back in time at a rate of one year per year. A would receive this reply 20 years before B sent it but the only noticeable delay in a conversation would be in the time it takes B to think what to say!

B’s solar system is invaded-they send a distress signal to A via tachyon. These tachyons ‘travel’ back at a rate of twenty years per year. They reach A four thousand years in B’s past: giving A enough time to send a rescue fleet in time to repel the invaders-assuming A has had both a war fleet and the capacity to receive and interpret signals transmitted via tachyon for this long.

In this particular scenario, A’s fleet cannot return to their own time. However, a wormhole connection could be made (assuming they have the capacity to create exotic matter?), linking B with A four thousand years previously.

If A also sends a signal (of any kind) to B, it would obviously be received centuries before the arrival of the invasion fleet. This wouldn’t necessarily violate causality, but it would give B time to prepare its defenses.

If we then consider a scenario whereby ships can travel back in time, even if tachyons were used, instantaneous communication is impossible. Also, there is the very real possibility of causality violation, as a returning starship is just as likely to return to its past as to its future; removing the possibility of wormholes for this instance, a starship’s crew can never return to their own time after a mission.

A less confusing scenario would just involve tachyons traveling back in time at a rate of one year per year, while starships utilize ZPE drives, enabling them to almost reach the speed of light. Communication can be instantaneous and delays in trade are only as long as acceleration time plus deceleration time. Obviously, contact could be made with a civilization before it’s even begun to industrialize but by the time a ship has been sent to prevent said industrialization, they’ve already sent the signal!

The State could exist without Corporations,
but could Corporations exist without the State?

Certainly, the State could exist without Private Property
but Private Property could not exist without the State.

It is difficult to support an institution that protects
Corporations and Private Property for the following
example: Say you are part of a protest against
a Corporation's appalling environmental record,
and the protest is outside one of its sites.

The Police turn up when a few protesters brake
into the company offices and cause some damage.
They either beat up or arrest everyone and anyone
remotely concerned with the demo and keep those
in custody for a whole day.

You return home, only to find that your house has been
broken into. It could be argued that if the demo hadn't
gone ahead then there would have been enough Police
on the streets to prevent this from happening, except
for large demos they would bring officers from other
regions.

The argument which does follow, is that its easier
to protect a large target than to protect lots of small,
equally potential targets. It would also be cheaper,
not least because of the small chance the burglar
would be convicted, to put more money into job
creation and, most importantly, drug rehabilitaton
schemes.

3.2.2006

Try at least to smile

even if the world will not smile

with you

3.3.2006

The distances between us are like the

Distances between the galaxies

The distances in me are like the

Distances between the stars

I am a galaxy of emotions

Anxieties swirling around a

Black Hole

That is bright

Past or Future?

Swallowed up by depression and past

Experiences or

Blinded by the infinity of possibilities

Laid out before me

We are galaxies of emotions

Sometimes colliding with each other

Yet often moving apart

Is this our destiny?

Or can we always look beyond the

Horizons

3.2.2006

What would a UFO look like?

Does God have a Wookie’s beard?

What does it matter?

For that matter, did you know that you

Are mostly empty space?

Vacuum

Has Mr Dyson ever thought about that?

Whatever

I remain safe in the knowledge that his

Fist could never really connect with

My jaw

We never truly touch each other

Except through our thoughts

Which are all we can ever really have

The following is proof, if any is needed, that Collectivism (hate to use the term National Collectivism) is very much a Right-wing ideology, or more accurately, the promotion of a fictional community where everybody is somehow the same despite said "community" being too large for everyone to possibly know each other:

https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385936.html
UK Indymedia - neo nazi terrorists shhh
Colin Gibbs, prosecuting, told the court: "We say he has a terrorist agenda, but to a right-wing part of the spectrum." What does it bloody matter? It matters 'cos non-right wing terrism means, in their book Islamism or Animal Rights.

On myth of this fictional community is that its members do not hold extreme views.

It should also be noted that a form of Individualism is very much prevalent in Leftist
movements. Leftists have an individualised view of the world, the consequence being the disagreements they have with each other about aspects of their campaigns/policies/party line.

The importance of this Individualism is that it breeds respect for difference and autonomy
(something the Right can't seem to wrap its tiny brain around), but has a danger
expressed in the quote above when Leftists are portrayed as single-issue campaigners because this removes all sense of Universality in our ideologies.

It should also be pointed out that, in the Enlightenment period "Leftists" were in favour
of Equalty and small, cheap government,
while the Right were in favour of Inequality and expensive Armies and court lackies.

A Short Sort-of Explanation of the Mechanics of Hyperspace-capable Craft in the "Culture" Fictional Universe

In the Culture novels all the advanced civilisations mentioned utilise faster-than-light technology for interstellar travel. It can also be assumed from the descriptions of the different types of ships that they are all based on the same principles. These are, as yet, undescribed, but the maximum hyperspace speeds attained by such vessels seems to be dependent on the proportion of the total volume of each vessel consumed by the hyperspace engines,which, for a General Systems Vehicle at least, mostly consist of hyperdense material.

Put bluntly, small ships with space devoted to crew/passengers tend to be fairly slow, taking days or weeks to arrive at a destinaton (or centuries to traverse the galaxy), while much larger vessels, like some warships, can afford to devote more space to engine capacity and are much faster. A GSV with a third of its actual volume being engines can achieve a velocity of around 240 thousand times light speed.

A reason for this may involve a multiverse explanation for gravity (being that gravity is so weak and has no corresponding counter-gravity (or anti-gravity) that it must 'leak' in from a higher dimension or the 'real' multiverse) corresponding with a possible consequence of super-luminal travel:negative mass. It may be therefore possible to artificially cause more gravity to leak in or to create anti-gravity for levitation relative to a large mass (like the anti-gravity harnesses used by the crew of the Clear Air Turbulence in Consider Phlebas), so a ship containing a dense mass can have artificial gravity by basically creating a field around said mass that increases the gravitational constant.

Assume that a body, such as a starship, suddenly appears to the outside universe to have negative mass then it will also travel faster than the speed of light apparent to the outside universe then this could be achieved by leaking anti-gravity in the volume occupied by the engines at such a rate that they appear to have negative mass relative to the outside universe. This way, it would require less energy for a large ship to enter and increase speed in hyperspace than a smaller vessel.

The hyperdense material described likely consists of a mix of stable high atomic-number elements in the form of a stable degenerate matter similar to that of a White Dwarf star. It is not unreasonable to assume that the engines of a GSV would actually be dense enough to provide a very reasonable amount of surface gravity (if we think of a GSV as being about the size of Wales, the habitable areas being twenty miles high and the engines basically being the continental crust) without the need for rotating sections. The hyperdense material would also provide another purpose: facilitating deuterium fusion. Besides solar, this would be an abundant source of energy for the artificial worldlets called "Orbitals" as the base material for their constructon is also descrbed as being "hyperdense" (this would also provide protection, lacking by an Orbital's thin atmosphere, from Cosmic Radiation).

Privacy, Work and Prison from a reduced-libertarian perspective

Is prison a deterrent? It depends, especially if we consider the type of imprisonment and the type/background of the prisoner. If privacy and personal space are desired then 23 hours a day solitary confinement is not significantly worse than having to work 12 hours or more a day simply to stay fed and keep a roof over one’s head. While one has to work, almost all of one’s time is scientifically regulated while, although one cannot leave one’s cell, an individual in solitary is certainly free to think what he or she likes and is able to devote as much or as little time to whatever is in the cell or their heads. They may have access to books to aid in their rehabilitation or at least a television. The person working may be able to afford these things, but has much less time available to use them and much less privacy inside and often outside of work.

More importantly, imprisonment may offer an individual a great deal of freedom from the temptations and vices of the outside world (or, conversely you can do everything you want to inside prison as outside bar driving a car or interfering with a member of the opposite sex), or the threat of precarious accommodation or malnutrition. Once in the care of the state the state has to take care of you: once outside, you’re on your own.

If we subscribe to the dictionary definition of “libertarian” which emphases privacy in one’s home (what you do is your business so long as no-one else’s privacy etc is affected) then 1. To allow privacy, we have to allow everyone to have a home or some form of shelter and 2. Although this does not strictly follow, it is unjustifiable to force people, and especially prisoners in this case, to work. If privacy is valued, then the amount of privacy must surely also be valued. It then follows that we cannot justify a long working day with low wages: to justify working for another (being an individual or a corporate body) purely to feed oneself one has to enjoy more “privacy” or free time than the prisoner. This argument cannot justify, for example, the torture or starvation of prisoners. If you are in the care of another, they have to look after your needs or allow you the means to do so yourself, as to violate this is effectively a declaration of war invoking a state of nature: the prisoner cannot be expected not to defend or avenge themselves.

Will mebbe comment more on this, but suffice to say
Broon's plans to raise the skool leaving age to 18
are basically bollocks. By withdrawing financial incentives
(like allowing under 18s to work, paid or voluntary)
these proposals will force tens of thousands of young
people into abject poverty. Instead of creating a vibrant,
trained workforce, homelessness will increase and the
most likely result will be the creation of 25-50K strong
army of drug dealers.

This will happen.

School, like prison, is frankly bollocks. We need less of both
and more adult education opportunites: some young people
are not ready or mature enough for education before they are 18,
Broon's policy will be a kind of "yev ad yer chance now get a
job or go to jail"


Like Blair before him, Broon is declaring Class War on the
young and working class.

To add to yesterday's post I would improve on the last
statement and suggest that the last three are exactly
what has happened, or has been happening for a
very long time.

Some time in the past, maybe even around the end of Hobbes'
"state of nature", the big three became somewhat acceptable
(there is evidence for tribal or individualised violence
15K years ago in the form of man-traps etc, this may be before
or after the date I refer to) and rules were then established,
possibly the first unwritten laws, to regulate these activities.

This would generally involve the limitation to and later behalf
of a prince or noble.

The basic "freedom" remains to this day: the freedom to
kill, rape or to otherwise brutalise one's fellow man.
All other freedoms are non-existent or non-relevant
as they depend on the basic freedoms of what we often
refer to as civilisation.

Collectivism and Individualism:the bridge over the chasm

Start with a straightforward point: driving a car is not a bad thing in itself,
but problems arise when everyone drives a car.
So a relatively good thing becomes a very bad thing:
pollution, reliance on fossil fuels, accidents.

But does this mean that we should just ban people from driving?
We could, but we might as well just ban all modern technologies,
e.g. mobile phones are useful but they dominate modern people's lives.

Now take petty offences:stealing, vandalism, graffiti, supply of banned substances.
With a minority in society taking part in these activities,these are obviously antisocial.

However, it could be argued that if everyone stole, for example, these issues
would work themselves out, i.e. one could promise not to steal in return for
an individual, group or corporate body providing one some kind of service.

I suppose this is a criticism of Individualist Anarchism or Agorism
(its a word I just learnt it) in terms of "the only way your gonna achieve
anti-organisation is if everyone disorganises and effectively organises
at the same time by spontaneously participating in one or other agoristic
activity", because to achieve Individualism society as a whole has
to engage in history's largest Collective act.

An example of things "working themselves out" is prostitution:
it is quite feasible for all adult women to prostitute themselves,
it happens all the time. Its called marriage!

Where Collectivism doesn't work are the big three, really heinous
crimes of murder, rape and torture. If everyone did these things,
socety would simply decide who can do these things, when and
to whom.

Individualism by itself doesn't work because it can
only be realised by sacrificing some freedoms or
through employing the most collective methods
available.

The State as Organism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7075724.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7077310.stm

Especially with regard to Trident, if we consider the State as an Organism, asking it to disarm in any way is like filing down the teeth and claws of a dangerous creature. The debate on nuclear weapons can maybe only understood in these terms:castration! If reason where ever to enter into the debate, especially in a state that considers itself democratic, it would mean both that our leaders are prepared to commit mass genocide and that as voters and taxpayers we support this.

Put very simply, this isn't really about class or the oppressive nature of technology:it is about violence; being the ultimate basis of at least our civilisation, and the reason civilisations fail is the fact that they use violence to self-perpetuate. To escape this violence (and it may be stated that poverty is violence), people resort to depressants or they join in: These ones oppress minorities, they support foreign wars, and they are so addicted to the system that, subconsciously, a proposal to disarm is taken, shall we say, rather personally!

Collectivism and Individualism: Can't have one w/out the other.

Have only read some of this, but it shows very clearly the problem with "Communism":

http://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism--lifestyle-anarchism-murray-bookchin

Probably because the only consistent Communists were Jesus Christ, William Godwin and possibly Mahatma Gandhi.Of course, they were also Individualists in their own way which I think
shows that the one is dependent on the other.

It is ridiculous to have one's physical needs met without having one's emotional needs met. This is maybe why Emma Goldman campaigned for free love as well as birth control.

Communism implies a plan. I'm all, more or less, in favour of something of a planned economy but arguments such as Bookchin's (or Marx's) make you realise what's wrong with the left is often both a lack of a sense of humour and a lack of spontaneity.
This can appear to stifle individuality in favour of the "plan".

Despite the author of the following's terrorist convictions, I will mostly comment on his comments.


http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm


Kacyncski's admittedly pretty vanguardist Primitivism does reveal a consistent individualism, criticising both leftist and pro-market ideologies as being techie command economies,
but it does so on very much its own terms (just like Socialists do in their own way) substituting technology for class.


For example isn't a Shaman or Witch Doctor a kind of Technocrat?

Plus, with regards to small-scale technologies
a)Bookchin and others have made this argument quite convincingly
without having to abandon agriculture and more simply
b) can't washing machines DVD players etc be made self-reparable or easier to recycle?

Where 'Ted' and 'the Dean' are right is that the system as it stands will result in the extinction of our species if the state is not overthrown. What they don't consider is the colonisation of space and other planets
(Mars could be doable in a couple of centuries and many not-so-green technologies such as hi-cap batteries or nuclear fission are much more viable in a vacuum)

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34409.html

Still, a class-only attitude and analysis doesn't entirely counter certain arguments

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman33.html

regarding planned societies, and eugenics may be a direct synthesis of technology and planning besides the cult of the state.

Still, surely some technologies (we hope) would be eliminated in an anarchist society, like GM research (who needs a five-arsed monkey?), without abolishing technology entirely,
and I can see no real reason for human beings to be so armed to the teeth:
Get rid of fucking guns for Christ's sake.

In a free society, who would bother to keep weapons and ammunition factories running?
Surely this can be achieved without sacrificing the ability to survive serious illness or injury?

The whole argument against technology could be used against Men: they rape, glorify violence etc, why not enslave, drug, castrate, keep frozen and thaw when needed , dumped on an island or the next hemisphere etc.

Short return to Individualism: working with/for some drugged up/ thicko/ Nazi for 8 hours a day, in other words having a significant portion of your day dictated to by someone who could be outwitted by a pocket calculator isn't very Individualistic,
but we all rely on the labour of others(unless we lived in the wilderness or stole) in some way.

Co-operation is the only way and most of our daily needs could be met by non-hierarchical collectives of low enough number that everyone knows each other. People could be members of a variety of different collectives say 12, each numbering say 120.
This would connect one individual with 1439 others, approaching the numbers of a Phalanstere (Fourier).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanst%C3%A8re

Easily done in an urban area!

I suppose you could ask why someone who was admitted to Harvard at 16 and has an IQ past 150 would blow people up? But why are so many terrorists of all ideologies both very educated and very middle class? Probably because they are wedded to the system (they've done very well out of it) which is so dependent on violence for its existence that its only logical that they would try and emulate it!