h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Hellmans' Anachronism: an hypothesis about historical proof of future time travel - A753806
Author: a girl called Ben - U148580

This has been in once, and got picked, and then in what I *think* was an unprecedented move (corrections please?) got "unpicked", and then removed from PR by the author, and who can blame her.

Anyway, I like it, so *I* am putting it in PR again.

I've checked the writing guidelines and here's how this one shapes up.

1. Write about reality. Well, mayonnaise exists, time travel *might* exist according to current physics, causeless-effect paradoxes may therefore be possible and mayonnaise is sufficiently weird and counterintuitive that it could represent one of those. And even if it doesn't it gives this entry an excuse to talk about cooking, physics and philosophy, all of which are interesting...

2. Be original. Well, I've certainly never heard this idea anywhere else.

3. Fill in the gaps. Well, since it's completely original, it does that.

4. Be instructive, informative and factual. Well, I now know more than I did before about how to make mayonnaise, and this also introduces the casual reader to causeless-effect paradoxes. Check, check, check.

5. Don't try too hard to be funny. Obviously a judgement call, I think this works.

6. Write in your own style. Check.

7. Write about what you know. Check.

8. Research your entry thoroughly. The previous PR thread established that as much research as is sensible has been done.

9. Try to be well balanced. Not really applicable, I think. It's hardly a hot political topic.

10. Plan your entry. Check.

11. Grammar, spelling, etc. Check.

12. Do not copy from other sources. Or, put another way, rule 2 again. Check.

13. Write in the third person. Check.

So, this has been picked once. Let's see if it gets picked again...

H.

It's hard to see what could be gained by putting this back here. It's already had a good run in PR, lots of comment and discussion, a lot of people liked it, and the Editors have rejected it as unsuitable for the Edited Guide. For all I know it may also be considered unsuitable for publication in 'Lacemaking Monthly', the Piano Tuners' and Repairers' Year Book, and many other publications. So what?

It's a great entry, and I'm sorry it didn't get through, but there you go.

Nobody is going to think any the less of Ben or her entry, and there is no reason to think any the less of the Edited Guide either.

Now that the scouts know the ruling on this, it's very unlikely that a scout will pick it. And even if someone does, there'd be no reason for the Editors to reverse their decision.

So this is a complete waste of everyone's time, and not a very sensible use of Peer Review procedure. I think the entry should be removed from Peer Review.

This seems to fit the case - from the Contribute page:
"Alternative Guide: If you've written a great Guide Entry, but one which doesn't fit the editorial guidelines, why not check it into the Alternative Writing Workshop? And if you already spend a fair amount of time there, why not chat to the team at AGG/GAG and help to select and promote the very best non-Edited Guide Entries for the Alternative Galactic Guide?"

Bels

I liked it as well. The italics *have* been known to change their minds - see the reversal on non-English language postings. I thought it was a shame that the editors rejected it.

A lot of people liked it. This is irrelevant. There's nothing to be gained by a lot of people posting here saying 'me too'.

If you disagree with the Editors' decision on this, I would have thought that the way forward would be to take the specific reasons that the editors took the trouble to spell out, and say why you disagree, and argue your corner.

That should be done at F90488?thread=184893

Has this thread been abandoned?

No.

I think you killed it though.

B

What? Little me, single-handed against thousands? I don't think so.

Why didn't you post here yourself, Ben? You can't expect a PR entry to get very far if the author doesn't respond.

I was the only one to make a constructive suggestion to move this forward, but nobody took it up. Nobody.

And nobody came up with any better ideas either.

What does that tell you?

*ducks to avoid tasty egg/oil emulsified salad dressing flying towards the fan*

Mmmmm.

I have just deleted a finely honed but rather sharp response, because I value your contributions to this and other threads too much to just shoot from the hip.

You weren't to know that this was incredibly badly timed. As my name has indicated over the past few weeks: I have been a tad busy. And, as my name has also indicated rather more recently: I am a tad tired now. Oh. And I am British. I do do understatement.

For the record: I took this entry out of PR within 15 minutes of reading the Italics answer (which I think is ill-thought out, and which I disagree with, but there you are). Hoovooloo put it back. I am not going to play a game of bouncing entries. And I simply have not had the time to give this the attention it would require.

I am not the one with the problem about it being at the bottom of PR. Of course it was. No-one was saying anything, particularly after you had said: 'There's nothing to be gained by a lot of people posting here saying 'me too'.'

There are 327 reasons why I have not posted an animated defence of the piece since the last post in this thread. Those being the number of hours I have spent either working or travelling since Hoovooloo put it in here 4 weeks ago. Which makes a mockery of the concept of a 35 hour week, rather.

However, your point that I have not responded is well made. I will post here when I get back in about 10 days time.

Thanks for reviving the thread.

Ben

Dear Ben

Would you believe me when I say how nice it is to hear from you? We haven't been in touch for a few weeks now, and I really enjoyed our earlier collaboration with the will-writing entry and other things.

Would you also believe that I'm really sorry to hear you've been having what sounds like a very rough time? I haven't been following your name changes and I had no idea.

It's also very kind of you to mention that you value my contributions. I really appreciate that. Especially from someone who's obviously feeling pretty sore right now. That was a very nice thing to say.

Reading between the lines (a habit I find hard to shake off!), it seems to me that you are referring to Scout activities, and I'd like to clarify any misunderstanding that people following this thread (if anyone is) might have. I did join the Scouts a couple of months ago, but after a few weeks decided to leave. So when I posted just recently, it was as a non-Scout, an ordinary Peer Reviewer. And I did so for two reasons: 1) It seemed a pity to leave the thread hanging unresolved until eventually the Scouts would presumably come along and request removal from PR; and 2) I was really mystified at the continued silence and I would really like to know what other members of the community think. Nobody has said they agree with me, and it's quite possible that many disagree. You might not think so at the moment, bless you, but it's a real possbility.

As to the charge of threadicide, if I really wanted to kill it off I would have kept quiet, let sleeping dogs lie, and just let things take their course, wouldn't I? Maybe you'd prefer that? I did notice when you took it out of PR first time round, but although you didn't put it back in this time you haven't taken it out either, so I don't know.

It can be difficult to know what to do when someone other than the author submits an entry but doesn't say whether or not it's with the author's knowledge or consent.

Bels

Hi Bels

Thanks for replying to my rather snappy reply so gracefully. Do we do the hug-thing?

I will sit down later in the week and put forward my reply to the Italics reasoning behind its rejection. As I said, I actually do think it is acceptable for the edited guide; or more accurately, I do not think that the reasons that they gave for NOT including it are particularly well thought out or persuasive.

The reason I did not actively post in this thread was because I wanted to find out what the mood of the meeting was. And it seems that it is for me to put my reasoning as cogently as I can.

I doubt very much that it was re-read following the changes I made to it, and it is definitely if subtly nearer to hypothesis and further from speculative fiction than it was before.

And once again - thanks for reviving the thread.

Ben

Hello, I'd just like to say that I liked this the first time around, and it's still good. If "Run lak fekh" and "the joy of socks" can get into the edited guide, so can this.

Spiff (I laughed at the time, but didn't say so)

Thank you il viaggitore, and thank you Bels.

There will be more - probably not before Wednesday though. In the meantime, any other comments pro or con are welcome. Truly.

atb

B

Okie dokie - hold tight, I am afraid this is gonna be a lo-o-o-o-ong ride...





WHY DIDN'T I WRITE A MORE 'FACTUAL' ENTRY?


First of all, my little chickadees, let me remind you of the concept of the parable. Likewise the metaphor and the simile, not to mention subtext and supertext.

There are two ways to put an idea in someone's mind.

1 - One is to tell them the idea.
2 - What might the other one be?

Yep, that is right. The other way is to get them to think of it for themselves. The debate surrounding this entry when it first went into PR demonstrates that this entry is a remarkably good example of the second method.

All of which is a way of pointing out that there is more than one way to say something.

By using metaphor and parable I have reached a wider audience than I would have done if I had limited myself to a straight scientific description. How so? Metaphor and parable engage both left brain and right brain. In addition, narrative adds layers of nuance and association which are simply not available in more 'scientific' styles. The final communication (1) reaches a wider audience and (2) reaches them at a more effective level. And those are my objectives in this particular instance. If they weren't I would have written something much more like my entries on Viscose or the Minox Camera.

Someone once asked Pavlova what emotions she was conveying in a particular ballet. She replied 'I could put it into words I wouldn't put myself through the daily agony of dancing'? Quite.

So - watch my lips - this entry communicates effectively even though it does so subtly. In fact, I would go further, and say that this entry communicates effectively BECAUSE it does so subtly.





SUITABLE GUIDE MATERIAL?

Ok, motive and means having been established, let strip out the metaphor and the parable and ask whether or not what is left is acceptable to the Edited Guide.

Briefly - here are the topics touched on in the entry:

1) Circular Paradoxes - what would happen if you killed your own grandfather
2) The concept of the Causeless Effect
3) A bifurcating Multiverse - sometimes called 'the trouser legs' of time
4) Current theory in physics - it may be possible to move forward but not back in time
5) The ethics of historical tourism
6) The risks of historical field-trips
7) The difficulty of interpreting facts and its challenge for historical methodology - where the same set of facts can be interpreted in a variety of ways
8) Temporal Gordian Knots - the idea that some locations in the space-time continuum are too complex to meddle with impunity
9) The question of Historical Mutability - is it possible to actually change the past, or are any time travellers actually part of the fabric of an unchangeable past
10) The issue of what constitutes a primary or a secondary time continuum

And there are a few other things thrown in for free:

11) The Antikythera mechanism - most people do not know that the Ancient Greeks had geared clockwork about 1500 years before it was re-invented in the west http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rrice/apagadgt.html and http://www.giant.net.au/users/rupert/kythera/kythera3.htm
12) One of the established hypotheses about the Mary Celeste: A462007
13) The concept of a paradigm shift - which is actually pretty hard to define deftly, and which can be surprisingly difficult to illustrate
14) And of course there are instructions for making mayonnaise
and
13) A note of where and when mayonnaise was first made

I actually surprised myself when I realised just how tightly packed this entry is. And it is perfectly clear to me that all of the above information IS suitable for the Edited Guide.





IS YOUR TIME-COP REALLY NECESSARY?

Now it is time to ask whether or not the above subjects would be better-served or worse-served without the suggestion that mayonnaise is a causeless effect and without the whimsy of the time-cop.

I think the first question is easy to answer. Describing a causeless effect is substantially easier if you can illustrate it. Mayonnaise is as good an illustration as any other and it is better than most because it is the only illustration that I, as the author of the entry, can think of. There is a strong argument for keeping the mayo.

Now what happens if we remove the time cop? Well, we lose a joke. .

But we also lose the concept of Temporal Gordian Knots, and we lose an illustration of Historical Mutability and the question of Primary and Secondary Continua. Personally I think he is worth keeping for the sake of those three concepts alone.





I am now going to bore the pants off y'all by taking the questions, objections and answers from the previous PR thread and dealing with them individually.





SPECULATIVE FICTION, OR SPECULATIVE SCIENCE?


F90488?thread=184893&skip=20&show=20#p2098087

Jimster said: 'But if it's a genuine theory about time travel, then it really wouldn't be appropriate for the Guide as the logic behind it is, to be fair, veering too close to fiction.'

Ben: Actually the logic is just logic. It was the original presentation which appeared to be too fictional.

The entry has been changed since then. Hypothesised if you like. Let me give a few examples: '*We can imagine* physicists and historians...' 'The ultimate slip in time will *almost certainly* be .... It will *probably* ....'

I am amenable - if you want more I can put it in.

As Hoovooloo said in the next post: 'It's NOT a theory about the way time travel could be *achieved* - and even if it was, this could be taken to be speculative physics rather than fiction... ANY genuine theory about time travel would be "veering close to fiction" with current science and technology.

And HVL again in: F90488?thread=184893&skip=20&show=20#p2106572: 'Slight correction: there ARE theories in physics for time travel. There's no unambiguous experimental evidence to back it up, and no technology to achieve it. At the moment it's just one of a set of possible solutions to difficult sums.

Ben: (Thanks Hoo, the fiver's in the mail).

Mind you, this point was cleared up in: F90488?thread=184893&skip=20&show=20#p2105662 Jimster again: 'There's absolutely no problem with hypothetical entries per se'

Ben: Great!





A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME...


F90488?thread=184893&skip=20&show=20#p2105662

Jimster: The title is a little misleading... Could I suggest something a little more generic, like 'Mayonnaise - an Alternative View'? Or 'Time Travel and the Mayonnaise Paradox' (seeing as the name Hellman's is a brand name...)

Ben: Well, I have changed the name: it now reads: 'Hellmans' Anachronism: an hypothesis about historical proof of future time travel' - note the explicit use of the word 'hypothesis'.

At a pinch I would accept 'Time Travel and the Mayonnaise Paradox'. But there was a reason for the format Hellman's Anachronism. It corresponds with 'Boyles' Law' etc. It is quicker to let the reader remind themselves that some scientific ideas are hypotheses, others are theories and others are scientific laws, than to point out explicitly that what we have here is at the earliest stage down that particular path.


F90488?thread=184893&skip=40&show=20#p2108573

Spiff said: I like the suggestion that you make the title more 'serious-looking'... It's the mayo/time cop thing being presented as fact that really strikes me as the real problem here.

Ben:
Title - check!
Time cop no longer presented as fact - check!





I AM HYPOTHESISING, YOU HAVE AN IDEA, HE IS DELUDED...


F90488?thread=184893&skip=40&show=20#p2108482

Woodpigeon said: I think there is room for hypothesis, IF the hypothesis is a relatively well known hypothesis that is or was at one time the subject of broad discussion... I think its different if you come up with a hypothesis yourself though... The issue, I think, is that personal hypotheses are too close to opinion, rather than fact.

Ben: I am not entirely sure how to respond to this. I acknowledge that there are individuals who know more than I do on every single subject, since there is no subject on which I am a world expert. But surely what is important about any hypothesis is how well it stands up, not who puts it forward? And I would point you to the two edited entries arguing for creationism: A739947 and A675858

Interestingly no-one has yet said 'alchemists were playing with emulsions in the 17th century, therefore the Duc de Richeliu's chef could have applied that knowledge to cooking'. I have no idea when or in what circumstances emulsions were first used. If someone can show the guy could have known about emulsifying eggs and oil I will write the boring expository entry which says 'this is the definition of a Temporal Gordian Knot' and 'this is the definition of a causeless effect' and bore the readers into narcolepsy. (As this post demonstrates, I am good at that too).

So far as I am concerned the hypothesis that mayonnaise may be an example of a causeless effect still stands up as an hypothesis. And the rest follows on from there. (Hey, it's not a religion, I am not asking you to *believe* anything or to call my 800 number with your credit card details...!)

In fact this had already been touched on by Hoovooloo's comments in: F90488?thread=184893&skip=20&show=20#p2106572.

HVL: It IS an argument from incredulity - but unlike the creationist stuff it's NOT pushing a particular agenda, and crucially it's NOT arguing for something physics says is impossible, it's just saying "Look - this is actually, possibly, proof that this thing goes on; but we'll never know for sure... until we do."'

Ben: (Do I make that a tenner, Hoo?)





DERIVITIVE? WHATEVER GAVE YOU THAT IDEA?

Jimster in F90488?thread=184893&skip=20&show=20#p2098087: 'the Time Police thing might appear to some to be a reference to Hitchhikers or some other source, which then distracts from the real point of the entry'

Ben: The late, great DNA did not have the sole franchise on Time Police - Heinlein was doing it in the 50s, Jasper Fford is doing it now.

And as has already been shown, the Time Cop raises three specific questions: Temporal Gordian Knots, Historical Mutability, and Primary and Secondary Continua.





JUST HOW UNLIKE OTHER ENTRIES IS IT?


Jimster in the same post: 'For it to become Edited Guide material, it would almost certainly have to be changed from its current form to sit comfortably with the other Edited Entries.'

Ben: Done!

And in addition let's compare it with the following Edited Entries: A739947 and A675858 both put forward highly personal and widely disputed Creationist theories.

And then there are: The Ultimate Martial Art: aka 'Run-Lak Fekh' - A649749 (Just what IS that entry? Metaphor? Fiction? A joke? - Like mine it has a serious point). And Joy of Socks: A583300, which is a masterly Jeu d'esprit with even less point or moral to it than the Ultimate Martial Art or Hellman's Anachronism.

I am not entirely sure which if these four mine sits most closely with, though. Strange bedfellows!




DOES IT MATCH THE GUIDELINES FOR EDITED ENTRIES?
CHECK!

Finally I want to put in a link to Hoovooloo's masterly exposition in post 1 of this thread of how this matches the guidelines for Edited Guide entries. Do read it. I was surprised that the entry passes *every single one* of the guidelines. I thought we would have to bend at least two to justify getting it it. (Oh, hell, Hoovooloo, why not just take an option on my unborn children and be done with it?)

F48874?thread=192514&latest=1#p2152775





SO TO SUMMARISE:

1) The entry took the format which it did because metaphor and parable are more effective ways of communicating complex concepts than dry descriptions.

2) The effectiveness of this methodology is amply illustrated by the number of questions about causeless effect, circular paradoxes, historical mutability and other issues we currently have with time travel. This entry works.

3) It is no further 'out there' than the following Edited Entries:
A649749 - The Ultimate Martial Art: aka 'Run-Lak Fekh'
A583300 - Joy of Socks
A675858 and A739947 - Discrepancies in the theory of Evolution - Parts 1 and 2

4) It is more explicitly hypothetical than it was when it first appeared in PR.

5) It checks all of the guidelines for edited entries.





And now some light relief, and because I am very bored of the sound of my own voice. Before I go let me quote the following from 'The Joy of Socks':

"Just as the sock learns contentment with its lot, just as it has recovered from the shock of discovering that a human foot is not a thing of beauty at all.. the sock is torn from the foot and cast aside. It is only the most elegant owner that peels and rolls the sock down a pointed foot in the proper mannered and thoughtful way. With luck - a great deal of luck - the discarded sock may find itself close by its mate, similarly crumpled and used. If not, it must face the heartless torment of the next few days alone."





And I suggest you read this out loud from 'The Ultimate Martial Art':

"However, there exists an art, devastating in its simplicity, which, if practised correctly, can guarantee that the practitioner will never, ever, be injured in a physical confrontation...This is an introduction to the ancient art of Run-Lak Fekh, developed by the original legendary Sensei, Go Tugo-nao."





Bels - are you sure you really wanted me to unleash this onto an innocent thread?

B

Um... Bels?

You don't need me to agree with you again, but I'm doing it anyway.
Oops... I just moved this to the top of the list again.

"If "Run lak fekh" and "the joy of socks" can get into the edited guide, so can this."

Still waiting for even one place where this entry breaks the WritingGuidelines. If it complies with all the guidelines (and I went through them in painful detail in post 1 of this thread, and it hits every one squarely), how can it NOT be suitable?

People like it, demonstrably. It fits the writing guidelines, demonstrably. It's been picked, and unpicked. What's happening?

Is this a new policy? Has the way the site works changed? Is it a coincidence that on the new skin of h2g2, the Peer Review banner is gone? Because people still using goo or alabaster are still seeing the dangerously inclusive suggestion that "On h2g2, YOU decide what goes in the Guide".

Presumably those words will soon be changed to "on h2g2, WE, the Italics, decide what goes in the Guide, never mind anything to do with the written guidelines, and if you lot don't like it you're quite welcome to f**k off because once we've made up our minds we're not changing them." Not sure that's going fit on the Peer Review banner and still be legible...

H.

The one writing guideline I'd worry about, as long as this is presented as a *hypothesis*, is the "well-balanced" one. It has to contain arguments against the hypothesis, too. (I suppose someone could do a Uni project on time-travel, and then this would be included along with entries saying why Hellman's Anachronism is a load of emulsified egg-whites, but that's getting a bit ahead of ourselves, isn't it?)

Now I'm off to give it a really thorough read, and post more comments. I tend to lean in the direction of factual entries, so I'll be ruthless.

Right. I read over the entry, carefully. I made notes. I read the first PR thread. I was hungry, so I went and made myself a sandwich, with mayonaise. It was delicious. I made another one. As I munch on it, I'm typing this reply.

I think this is delightful, and that it *should* go into the Guide. As it stands, it's... iffy. I'm conservative about these things. I've subbed entries that I don't think ever should have been picked. Manufactured Bands and How to Avoid Them (A581122) is much more opinionated that this.

Here are some suggestions, which take or leave. They're worth exactly what you paid for them, I'm sure:

1. In the first section, define anachronism more clearly. Make sure that argument against future time travel is very clearly presented.

An anachronism is an object that appears at the wrong time in history, for example, a Model T Ford in Caesar's Rome. The existence of anachronisms would be proof of time travel, anachronisms would seem inevitable if time travel exists, there are no anachronisms, therefore time travel doesn't exist.

Y'know, something to that effect.

(finishes sandwich, pours soda)

2. In 'Breadcrumbs' section, can links be dragged up for some of the presented anachronisms (Leonardo, Clockwork Greeks, etc)? There's definitely a Guide Entry on the Great Pyramid that includes a section on bizarre theories - A623611. (Thank you Gnomon, and... my! That's well subbed. See how the light reflects off it? Beauty!)

3. A couple of other links: A581096 - Paradox; A398955 - Time Travel. (Come to think of it, the second of those ought to link to the first one. I'll mention that in Editorial Feedback, in a minute.) The argument you're making is that of 'irreducible complexity', described in Discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution, Part II (A739947). Say so, link to it, and explain why it's a stronger argument in this case than it is in the case of the human eye. (To wit: the eye could have evolved through intermediate forms; mayonaise could not.)

Hmmm.

4. Maybe explain "emulsion"? It's not the most familiar of terms.

5. There are some spurious apostrophes, but they'll give a sub something to do. We love that kind of work, really we do.

6. There is no suggestion 6.

7. Let me get this straight - the time cop unwittingly causes the anachronism he's supposed to correct? Brilliant! He could have left his sandwich (brought from the future, right) lying around the Duc de Richelieu's kitchen while looking for this 'anomaly' he's supposed to sort out. The stressed out chef sees it there, absent-mindedly takes a bite, and inspiration strikes - "that tastes like... an emulsion of egg... of course, that's brilliant... but oil would just... maybe if I add it slowly enough... where's my whisk?" The time-cop never figures out what it was he was supposed to be looking for, fudges the paperwork, and dies of coronary heart failure in Dynastic Egypt while trying to open one of those damned tetrahedral cardboard milk containers with his teeth, leaving another anachronism whose shape provides the inspiration for the Pharoh's tomb!

Am I getting carried away? Yes, I know the pyramids aren't tetrahedral!

This isn't a suggestion either. I'm just having fun. Don't mind me at all.

8. Why not present Hellman's Anomaly. Present, not just in a footnote, but formally, arguments against it (here's what was known about emulsions, Occam's Razor, whatever), and then point out that it comes down to a point of credulity. Which is more improbable, that the Duc de Richelieu's chef would think to make mayonaise, or that careless time travellers and sandwich snacking time cops will someday exist?

To summarize that last point - now you're just presenting the argument for H's Anachronism. Instead, you could present the argument, then step back and take a critical look at it, recognizing it as an argument from indcredulity (a term which could be defined, too).


I get the impression that this has changed quite a bit from its previous form, and that it therefore deserves fresh consideration by Scouts for the Edited Guide.



GTB

Aren't there any other unproven 'theories' already accepted and edited? Like these for example.

A739947 Discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution - Part II Edited 49%
A730522 Evolution and Creation - an Introduction and Glossary Edited 49%
A737985 The Theory of Evolution - Part II Edited 48%
A673319 The Theory of Evolution - Part I Edited 48%
A675858 Discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution - Part I Edited 48%
A732368 The 'Evolution' of Creationism Edited 48%
A196346 Evolution Edited 47%
A730531 Human Evolution - the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis

The precedent is set. The gates are opened to theories on anything, however cranky they may seem.

Regards,

Dr Montague Trout