"Time Travel"

[devonin]

Re: "Time Travel"

Okay, if I assume that your constant insistance on the complete and utter inevitability of any and all use of time travel by anybody for any purpose resulting in paradox, then my only reasonable conclusion given the current existance of the universe, is to conclude that time travel is either impossible, or is never developed by us.

I don't agree with your claims with regards to paradox, but since I'm clearly getting nowhere at all trying to explain myself because you won't back down from your presuppositions about time travel, if I grant you correctness for the sake of argument, the argument stops because my claims run contrary to your basic premises.

[Afrobean]

Re: "Time Travel"

Okay, if I assume that your constant insistance on the complete and utter inevitability of any and all use of time travel by anybody for any purpose resulting in paradox, then my only reasonable conclusion given the current existance of the universe, is to conclude that time travel is either impossible, or is never developed by us.

I don't agree with your claims with regards to paradox, but since I'm clearly getting nowhere at all trying to explain myself because you won't back down from your presuppositions about time travel, if I grant you correctness for the sake of argument, the argument stops because my claims run contrary to your basic premises.

aww you're no fun

let's argue in circles some more please done take ur toys and go home

Also: you didn't answer my question about traveling to alternate time lines despite your disbelief of the possibility of altering the "actual" time line.

[devonin]

Re: "Time Travel"

While I'm perfectly willing to -also- entertain the thought and have a discussion about the possibility of alternate parallel universes as a possible consequence of quantum theory (In fact, one of my favourite lines of argument to run past people is that the many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics destroys free will, but that's another thread entirely) and am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that alternate universes are the means by which time travel avoids paradox, I still feel that the theory I put forward in this thread passes the test of Occam better than additional worlds being created.

[Afrobean]

Re: "Time Travel"

I still feel that the theory I put forward in this thread passes the test of Occam better than additional worlds being created.

I guess the reason I disagree is just because time travel aside, I'd still be down with the concept of higher dimensions. For me, it's not a matter of "oh time travel creates alternate time lines", it's that these alternate time lines already exist independently of the path time takes for us.

[footbull3196]

Re: "Time Travel"

I think that it is impossible to time travel to a point in time where you existed because that would create the paradox where you are in two places at once.

To avoid that, I think that while time traveling, you would have to "jump" a time period, probably before you were born, in order to avoid creating a paradox.

I still don't understand what would happen if, let's say, you travelled to a period in time 2 minutes before you were born. Would you disappear as soon as you were born, or would the person being born disappear?

[Afrobean]

Re: "Time Travel"

I think that it is impossible to time travel to a point in time where you existed because that would create the paradox where you are in two places at once.

That's not what a paradox is, however, I will admit that your past self seeing you could be grounds for a paradox. They touch on this in Back to the Future when Doc fears that Jennifer's interaction in the future could cause a time paradox because her future self wouldn't have remembered making the trip in the past.

Incidentally, that whole part of Back to the Future Part II is impossible, because if they jumped from 1985 to 2015, then Marty and Jennifer both disappeared in 1985 and were never seen again (because their return trip hadn't yet "happened").

To avoid that, I think that while time traveling, you would have to "jump" a time period, probably before you were born, in order to avoid creating a paradox.

But even if you hadn't yet been born, the atoms and molecules that make up what you are now would still be present in the past in one form.

I still don't understand what would happen if, let's say, you travelled to a period in time 2 minutes before you were born. Would you disappear as soon as you were born, or would the person being born disappear?

Neither, because that's not what a paradox is. A paradox would be if you go back in time and kill your past self. If your self died in the past, then you could have never lived long enough into the future to make the trip to the past where you killed yourself.

A paradox is something that contradicts itself.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

Then read this, because it actually relates to the idea of time paradoxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox

edit: found another article more directly relating to the discussion of time paradoxes in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox

[slipstrike0159]

Re: "Time Travel"

Listen Afrobean and Devonin, you are both misunderstanding each other because you are comparing two different theories.

Devonin is suggesting that NO MATTER HOW what has been done in the past our present represents what DID happen. Its entertaining the thought that either A: Someone DID go in the past to do something, the results of which being what IS currently or B: It didnt happen, or else it failed, the results of which being what IS currently. The results are the same. *As a side note, this would draw parallel to afrobean's theory of the scientists doing experiments such as pushing back our technological progression to an earlier date. How would you know that future scientists havent already pushed back the technological progression date?
Afrobean is suggesting that the intervention of our past would represent a change from our current dimension string of events to another dimension string of events. So in essence the "Change" would change from track A to track B in such a situation where both track A and track B exist in regards to multiple universes of course.

Everything aside, i believe that whether or not we shift our dimension OR whether or not the results of a travel produce this present, our perception would not be altered (or rather we would not witness our perception being altered.) To explain, if an event was changed where a different string of events are set into play, MY CURRENT PERCEPTION is how i think in regards to my past. If, in essence, 5 minutes ago i was thinking "wow, my best friend matt is pretty cool" and in those 5 minutes (in my time) someone went back to stop his birth and succeded, now my perception would lead to me thinking right now "i dont know anyone named matt". Me 5 minutes ago and me right now now would not see a change because for all intents and purposes, my perception would be BASED off of how things are CURRENTLY. Thus, to think about the meddlings in the past would be irrelevant because whether they happened or not, whether our universe was derailed in a paradox or not, my perception of things is what it is in regards to the current situation of myself and others (aka the present). "I am here now and i am thinking what i am thinking. Regardless of what my past is, this is my present"

That being said, i would return to my idea about a man FAR in the future (relating to our current time) going to a time NEAR in the future (still OUR future but HIS past) because this is a situation in where you can determine "what will happen when we get to that 'near' future point?" NOW you can ask yourself if, first of all, a paradox is capable of happening. Now my belief on the subject of a time paradox is that as long as we progress through -time-, a paradox of any sort would not be a paradox, but rather a problem that exists in a current period of time which would be solved DURING that period having results that produce further progression through time. Thats not necessarily to say that the universe would "work it out" but as soon as we arrive at the problem (paradox) it would be solved in some way shape or form that would produce a result. This result would be our progression from 'our' present and 'our' future. We already know that actions produce results, action reaction. Then the only question worth considering is, could our actions be based on improper ideas about the consequences to the point where someone from the future would have a hindsight thought and say "that was a stupid idea" to the point where they would want to change it? The answer is yes, as is evident in you currently looking back and saying "someone should have done something about hitler earlier than they did". From there we can conclude that we should carefully consider the reaction or "consequences" of our actions such that later a future person would have need to go back. And THAT is the real world application of the time travel theory (among many others of course).

Alternate and multiple universes are a different topic, one that could have correlation but not necessarily causation to the time travel theories.

Now, the time travel theory also produces the inherent question of free will which, in of itself, is yet another topic but also could draw a more objective way of looking at this question. Do we have the free will to do what we want and produce a result based on the free will choice, or was that choice -supposed- to happen in which canceling out the 'free' part of it? As has been said, either we have free will or we have a very vivid illusion of free will. You should then move on to the question of what is your determination as to the idea of "supposed to happen"? Its how we find meaning in things that is the question. Was i "supposed" to meet my friend so he could save my life, did it happen by chance, or do i leave divine intervention and chance out of it only to think of basic "cause and effect" rules? My answer to this is, does it matter? It happened, I met him regardless of HOW or WHY it happened the fact remains that it did. The practical question is 'does -who- (God, chance, free will) i give the credit to affect my later decisions?' If so, then does it affect those decisions in the way you believe you want them affected (free will)? Just remember that there is no reason why free will, divine intervention, and chance cant all play a part in it.