Why I Think Time Travel is Impossible

[foodchain]

Now first off I would like to say that I don’t know for sure that time travel is possible or impossible, I would just like to lay my thoughts out on why I Think its impossible.

 

1)I don’t know of anything in nature that we observe to travel time in the sense of simply disappearing to another time. I don’t know of any experiment or set up for such that can produce such results either.

 

2)If for instance if time travel is possible. To travel to the future or the past implies a few things. First, for the smallest amount of time, for whatever that is, each passing moment of such then is perfectly recorded, or time is perfectly contained or else you have information being lost. It would also imply that giving time travel into the future everything is determined already, or else how could you travel into a future of what? Sure this can evoke many questions in many different angles, but in the bottom line type of thinking I don’t know of anything that can actually prove this physically, time travel that is. I think it also brings up infinity in a rather diverse amount of ways.

 

3)I am not trying to pick on anyone when I say this, but maybe, and just maybe a big part of it is the language of math. Maybe math can give more then just a predictable outcome, maybe people cant view math past just that in regards to empirical results. Maybe if math was structured differently Einstein would have still gotten GR without this, who is to say.

 

4)Lastly, if things take time to occur, that’s all that is stated. If it takes a light year for light to travel x distance vs. a bullet year for a bullet to travel x distance, what is really being said. If someone 500,000 million light years away shoots a laser into space and it makes it to earth, well for the most part all I think we are seeing it 500,000 million year old information that has been traveling through space. I don’t see how what should be almost common sense aspects of GR gets turned into the T.V series Quantum Leap really.

 

Please feel free to destroy my postions:D

[iNow]

It's always right now.

[BenTheMan]

foodchain---a few things.

 

First, point one is incoherent and confusing, and things go down from there.

 

Second, you seem to be falling into the trap that many seem to fall into. We are in no position to impose our understanding on Nature. Nature acts in it's own way, and it is up to us to understand it. Just because something doesn't make sense to us is no reason to abandon that possibility. I am currently trying to make this point to a very stubborn individual. All we have is experiment---we build a model, and compare it to experiment. If that model is accurate, then we use it untill something better comes along.

 

Enter GR. GR is a fantastic success. It has been tested and accepted, until something better comes along. Now, GR admits mathematically consistent solutions which allow time travel. We are in absolutely no position to disregard these solutions just because they don't make sense. If we can find some way to disregard these solutions based on some symmetry, or deeper principle, then so be it. But otherwise we are stuck with them, like it or not.

 

I don’t know of anything in nature that we observe to travel time in the sense of simply disappearing to another time. I don’t know of any experiment or set up for such that can produce such results either.

 

This argument is ``It hasn't been done yet, so it MUST be impossible''. This reminds me of a quote I once heard...

 

http://news.com.com/5208-1008-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=14985&messageID=125657&start=-161

 

First, for the smallest amount of time, for whatever that is, each passing moment of such then is perfectly recorded, or time is perfectly contained or else you have information being lost.

 

In a sense, you are implying that the future knows about the past. Classically, one can know exact positions and momenta, and presumably understand the full past and future of the system. This works untill we include quantum effects, which destroy this knowledge. Further, for certain observers (say, one moving at the speed of light), there IS no past or future.

 

I am not trying to pick on anyone when I say this, but maybe, and just maybe a big part of it is the language of math. Maybe math can give more then just a predictable outcome, maybe people cant view math past just that in regards to empirical results. Maybe if math was structured differently Einstein would have still gotten GR without this, who is to say.

 

I don't know what kind of math you are talking about, but it is always clear what ``math gives''.

 

Lastly, if things take time to occur, that’s all that is stated.

 

???

[foodchain]

Second, you seem to be falling into the trap that many seem to fall into. We are in no position to impose our understanding on Nature. Nature acts in it's own way, and it is up to us to understand it. Just because something doesn't make sense to us is no reason to abandon that possibility. I am currently trying to make this point to a very stubborn individual. All we have is experiment---we build a model, and compare it to experiment. If that model is accurate, then we use it untill something better comes along.

 

Right but GR is not new, so where is an experiment that can make valid the concept of time travel, like back the the future time travel, or where is it occurring in nature?

 

Enter GR. GR is a fantastic success. It has been tested and accepted, until something better comes along. Now, GR admits mathematically consistent solutions which allow time travel. We are in absolutely no position to disregard these solutions just because they don't make sense. If we can find some way to disregard these solutions based on some symmetry, or deeper principle, then so be it. But otherwise we are stuck with them, like it or not.

 

I don’t disagree with GR. I have admitted to it being over my head at points. The problem I have with anything really is something being held as true on faith, where is the time travel at?

 

 

 

 

This argument is ``It hasn't been done yet, so it MUST be impossible''. This reminds me of a quote I once heard...

 

That’s not my argument.

 

 

 

In a sense, you are implying that the future knows about the past. This is not the case, because, for example, there is no past or future if you're moving at the speed of light. Either way, this is not so clear.

 

NO, I am not. If you travel to the past, the past of what, today, how would you do that if today, which will be yesterday, is not preserved physically somewhere. As for the future, well its the same deal, save this time you have determinism, unless there is infinite possible futures, in which point you have infinity.

 

 

 

I don't know what kind of math you are talking about, but it is always clear what ``math gives''.

 

The kind we had today, compared to yesterday and so on into the past, the kind that changes and or evolves and is able to give out information.

[BenTheMan]

I don’t disagree with GR. I have admitted to it being over my head at points. The problem I have with anything really is something being held as true on faith, where is the time travel at?

 

The experiment might be too hard. Or it might be impossible. Or it might only be possible if you fall into a black hole. I don't know. But I'm not willing to call it ``impossible'' based on superstision---I will wait untill it has been actually PROVED impossible, before dismissing the possibility. Which is akin to taking on faith (your words) the idea that time travel is impossible.

 

I say

This argument is ``It hasn't been done yet, so it MUST be impossible''.

 

Next, you say

That’s not my argument.

 

But here you say:

Right but GR is not new, so where is an experiment that can make valid the concept of time travel, like back the the future time travel, or where is it occurring in nature?

 

This is exactly your argument. You want experimental proof, we have none, and so you dismiss it outright. Underlying this dismissal is the assumption that we are smart enough to have done the experiments.

 

NO, I am not. If you travel to the past, the past of what, today, how would you do that if today, which will be yesterday, is not preserved physically somewhere. As for the future, well its the same deal, save this time you have determinism, unless there is infinite possible futures, in which point you have infinity.

 

I am quite confused by this. I think we may have crossed lines somewhere. The past isn't really recorded anywhere, except in the boundary conditions of the future, I guess. Quantum measurements, however, will always turn out randomly. I suppose to make your statement precise, you'd have to really understand how quantum decisions are made in our brains. Here's an example. Suppose you have a choice between chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream, two flavors which you like equally well. Suppose on Teusday you choose chocolate. Will you always choose chocolate? IF you travel back in time from Wednesday, and watch yourself choose, knowing equally well what you chose in YOUR past, will it still be chocolate?

 

I have no idea---it all comes down to whatever quantum measurement you made on whatever neurons were working at that instant in your brain. Quantum mechanically we KNOW that 50% of the time you will choose chocolate and 50% you'll choose vanilla. But your future self may watch your past self make a different decision!

 

And besides, what is so bad about determinism? Are you scared that there might not be free will? Is it bad if you choose chocolate every time?

 

None of your arguments against time travel are mathematical---they are only hand wavy. So find a mathematical argument, and we can talk. Until then, I will point to Godel's solutions to Einstein's equation as proof that time travel is possible, at least in principle.

 

The kind we had today, compared to yesterday and so on into the past, the kind that changes and or evolves and is able to give out information.

 

Are you implying that math doesn't always give the same answer?

[foodchain]

"There are a handful of scenarios that theorists have suggested for how one might travel to the past, said Brian Greene, author of the bestseller, "The Elegant Universe" and a physicist at Columbia University. "And almost all of them, if you look at them closely, brush up right at the edge of physics as we understand it. Most of us think that almost all of them can be ruled out."

 

In physics, time is described as a dimension much like length, width, and height. When you travel from your house to the grocery store, you’re traveling through a direction in space, making headway in all the spatial dimensions—length, width and height. But you’re also traveling forward in time, the fourth dimension."

 

http://www.forgetfoo.com/?blogid=7886

 

I don’t consider time dilation to be time travel either. I know that what’s real occurs, and what’s BS does not. So to me, yes, I either want experiment or proof of it occurring somewhere in the vast universe for me to take it seriously, or for the most part it is just math. As for math, people have made all kinds of things with it, and well not all of those kinds of things managed to be true. At least you do admit to just following the math as the guideline, I am comfortable with that, but for me the math does not make it true.

[iNow]

So to me, yes, I either want experiment or proof of it occurring somewhere in the vast universe for me to take it seriously, or for the most part it is just math. As for math, people have made all kinds of things with it, and well not all of those kinds of things managed to be true.

Look here:

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

 

 

Relative to the clock that stayed on the ground, the clock in the plane moved to the future. This is clearly more than "just math."

[foodchain]

Look here:

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

 

 

Relative to the clock that stayed on the ground, the clock in the plane moved to the future. This is clearly more than "just math."

 

That’s time dilation, that’s not time travel. Don’t you think that would have basically ruled the universe? I mean we would own time if we could mast time travel really right?

 

What that is again is time dilation, which is real, like relativity, and your right, its more then just math.

[someguy]

 

I am quite confused by this. I think we may have crossed lines somewhere. The past isn't really recorded anywhere, except in the boundary conditions of the future, I guess. Quantum measurements, however, will always turn out randomly. I suppose to make your statement precise, you'd have to really understand how quantum decisions are made in our brains. Here's an example. Suppose you have a choice between chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream, two flavors which you like equally well. Suppose on Teusday you choose chocolate. Will you always choose chocolate? IF you travel back in time from Wednesday, and watch yourself choose, knowing equally well what you chose in YOUR past, will it still be chocolate?

 

I have no idea---it all comes down to whatever quantum measurement you made on whatever neurons were working at that instant in your brain. Quantum mechanically we KNOW that 50% of the time you will choose chocolate and 50% you'll choose vanilla. But your future self may watch your past self make a different decision!

 

And besides, what is so bad about determinism? Are you scared that there might not be free will? Is it bad if you choose chocolate every time?

 

the kind of chocolate i choose is based on the state of brain at that time. if i relive the same life over and over i must necessarily if all other things than myself remain equal, make the same choice invariably. because as you say my choice is based on physical events in my brain, triggered by outward stimuli and by the state of my brain as it was built over my lifetime to that point. so i would say i would need to make the same choice again. but.. if i go back from the future to myself then my brain is different then it was the last time so i could choose a different type of ice cream.

 

I don't think you could say that 50% of the time one would choose chocolate over vanilla and 50% the other way. because it can depend on anything about you, the temperature that day, or what happened to you that morning, or whatever your body is low on. I don't believe anything is haphazard either, even quantum mechanically. I don't believe things can appear from nothing either. if they could then i would need to believe you can make energy out of nothing, because that's what would have happened. but i know that things can seem haphazard, and i know things can seem to appear out of nothing. the fact that some things sink and some things float was once haphazard.

 

if you go back in time either everything around went in reverse or somewhere there is an infinite set of universes for every infinite moment of existence. i feel both are unlikely. I do think however the future must be determined as all physical things must follow certain rules of physics. so you could run a program and figure out exactly what events will occur. but you can never look at the results of the program until after they have occurred since your knowing the program's conclusions changes your brain and the program did not account for that. a program cannot account for that because if you think about it, it would send the computer into an endless loop, because every time it would account for your knowing the results it would recompute, but then you read the new results so it would need to recompute for those and so on forever. if you could travel to the future and then come back to the past then you could change the future and that means that either everybody went in fast forward for a while and then in reverse afterwards or, again, there are an infinite set of multiple universes for every infinite moment of existence. and again i find those two scenarios extremely unlikely.

[BenTheMan]

the kind of chocolate i choose is based on the state of brain at that time. if i relive the same life over and over i must necessarily if all other things than myself remain equal, make the same choice invariably.

 

This is simply not true. To make it more aparent that this isn't true, consider basing an event on the measurement of a spin of an electron. Suppose you have a cat. If you measure the electron to be spin up, the cat dies. If you measure the electron to be spin down, the cat lives. You preform the experiment, then go back in time and preform it again. Do you get the same result? No, absolutely not---quantum mechanics tells us as much. In fact, if you DID consistently get the same result, we'd have a HUGE problem with our current interpretations of quantum theory.

 

i feel both are unlikely.

 

And I feel that I should be sleeping with supermodels. FEELING something doesn't make it true. Just because you think that nature should behave in one manner does not mean that nature behaves as you wish it to. Why is this such a difficult concept?

[someguy]

This is simply not true. To make it more aparent that this isn't true, consider basing an event on the measurement of a spin of an electron. Suppose you have a cat. If you measure the electron to be spin up, the cat dies. If you measure the electron to be spin down, the cat lives. You preform the experiment, then go back in time and preform it again. Do you get the same result? No, absolutely not---quantum mechanics tells us as much. In fact, if you DID consistently get the same result, we'd have a HUGE problem with our current interpretations of quantum theory.

 

 

 

And I feel that I should be sleeping with supermodels. FEELING something doesn't make it true. Just because you think that nature should behave in one manner does not mean that nature behaves as you wish it to. Why is this such a difficult concept?

 

so you think that if we pause the universe, make a duplicate of it and unpause them both they will suddenly for no reason be different?

 

i don't think we would have a huge problem. what problem would that be? the universe needs randomness? and yet, so much of it all works in constant proportions that we can find and make equations to describe it. it is lucky i guess that even though everything once seemed so random that we needed to believe gods controlled them, and it turned out that we were wrong for everything except for quantum mechanics, which we must now know must be random since we know everything about quantum mechanics.... i have noticed that you love math for science and that science is not really science unless it is mathematically explained. i would think then that this randomness would cause an issue for you since math cannot ever describe perfect randomness. therefore you cannot describe those quantum events by using math, you cannot predict the outcome with any equation, and therefore, i think you must not believe in them since this would be a requirement in your belief system by what i understand. is that not right?

 

brains in fact do work that way because that is what provides survival. if we just randomly acted we could never be shaped by evolution into animals that make the best choices for survival. I don't know, maybe you act randomly but i never do unless it is my intention for a specific thing where randomness is needed. i've never been randomly smarter before, i've never randomly craved a food when i wasn't hungry. if i'm thinking logically about something i won't just randomly pick a position, the thoughts i think will determine that. my thoughts won't be random either, they will be specifically designed for finding a suitable decision. do you just get random meaningless thoughts? i'm sure you get some that seem random, random seeming dreams, but all these thoughts come from experiences you have previously had. this is all a mixture of data your sense have previously recorded. have you ever randomly visualized a color you've never seen before? do you think you could even do it if you tried? what is it that you do that is random when you're not trying to be random? ok, picking one out of two ice creams you like the same amount, i could see for some people they may choose to be random, I for one even when faced with a random thing like this will search until i can find something to support a choice. but even if i didn't, then it would end up being something else that made the choice, the first one i saw perhaps, the closest one to me, the closest one to the vendor, whatever it may be, there would be a reason one got chosen, and in my opinion, if the universe is in exactly the same state twice the same events will unfold, human beings or not, quantum physics or not. it's too bad doing such an experiment as far as i can tell is either impossible or unethical.

 

you believe in randomness. I believe that God doesn't play dice. unfortunately for you or i guess for both of us, there is no way i can think of that you can prove randomness to me either. it is like proving a lack of something. whereas you can always point and tell me that it isn't there, i will always be able to say that it is still there it's just we can't see it. maybe you can think of a way.

 

 

i never said that me feeling so made it true. perhaps i feel so because it's true. or perhaps I know that things are never 100% certain and that even the greatest scientists of the world whom we all know by name must have known that all they can do is look at the evidence, think about their observations, and come to the most plausible conclusion supported by all the evidence. and that someday their findings will be refined or perhaps even severely changed when new technologies are discovered that can make new observations which were previously unavailable. perhaps you have too much confidence in science just because it is called science, even though those things we call science have very frequently been wrong to some degree in the past. science does not mean truth, it means the closest thing to truth that the people who do finding truth for a living have found so far.

 

if you think that having an infinite number of universes and also that actions you make to yourself can cause the universe around you to reverse then by all means go right ahead. but as you must certainly support, being a man of science, the simplest solutions are always the best.

 

do you find it more simple that one of those two options are true? or that moving backwards in time is impossible?

[ajb]

Ben is right about general relativity, it is not clear if time travel is not permitted. As Ben said there are solutions to Einstein's field equations that do permit time travel; the question is are they physical and do mechanisms exist preventing time travel?

 

I think (I may be wrong here) that so far all such solutions are non-physical as they require "exotic matter", breaking the weak energy condition etc. However, as the weak energy condition is violated quantum mechanically it may be possible to have time travel on the "quantum scale". For example, for example wormholes require exotic matter to support them. This could be provided via quantum mechanics and so micro-wormholes may exist allowing fundamental particles to time travel.

 

So time travelling particles is ok. I forget who, but it has been shown that you can get consistent dynamics of particles travelling through a time machine. However, what about people with free will?

 

Pure speculation and conjecture.

 

Why are all (for example) electrons the same? Because they are the same electron, just travelling through time...

[BenTheMan]

so you think that if we pause the universe, make a duplicate of it and unpause them both they will suddenly for no reason be different?

 

Sure, why not? Quantum Mechanics tells me as much.

 

Most of the rest of the statements in your post aren't really based on any kind of science...

 

Why are all (for example) electrons the same? Because they are the same electron, just travelling through time...

 

Hmmm. So there's only one electron in the universe? That'd be cool... Calculations would be easier, at least:)

[SkepticLance]

There is an interesting idea about time travel. And before anyone tries to shoot it down in flames, let me up front admit it is speculative and unproven.

 

In quantum physics there is a multi-universe theory which states that a photon heading towards a double slit can go either way. The multi-universe theory says it goes both ways, and creates a new universe for each choice.

 

The time travel speculation I mention suggests that time travel into the past is possible (there is nothing special about time travel into the future - we are doing it all the time). When the traveller goes into the past, he/she alters the past, and creates a new universe. When that time traveller returns to the 'present' it is all changed, because it is part of the new universe.

 

However, the old universe is still there. Just that the time traveller cannot return.

[BenTheMan]

The time travel speculation I mention suggests that time travel into the past is possible (there is nothing special about time travel into the future - we are doing it all the time). When the traveller goes into the past, he/she alters the past, and creates a new universe. When that time traveller returns to the 'present' it is all changed, because it is part of the new universe.

 

Basically this is exactly what I said earlier. You leave one universe and go to another one. There's no guarantee (i.e. 0 probability) that you return to the same universe, or that anything in that universe is the same as when you left. This is exactly because the universe is governed by laws at the quantum level, which inherintly is random.

 

Now, one could probably argue quite successfully that the universe you return to will be MOSTLY the same. Macroscopic systems don't seem to exhibit quantum behavior. But anything that depends on the result of a quantum measurement will definitely turn out differently.

[someguy]

Sure, why not? Quantum Mechanics tells me as much.

 

Most of the rest of the statements in your post aren't really based on any kind of science...

 

 

 

Hmmm. So there's only one electron in the universe? That'd be cool... Calculations would be easier, at least:)

 

what is science? philosophy is science, arguments are science, my post is full of science, there is no math, there is no experiment appart from thought experiments, which are just as good if performed properly, einstein would vouch for that. if you can't see that. what can i do about it?

 

you did not respond to how you could possibly trust that things are random since random things are certainly not science and science can certainly not prove randomness, particularly if you are so fond of math. how did science show these things are random? simply by failing to prove that there is a pattern? this is not science. show me.

 

I won't say that i don't post sentences that i don't prove. perhaps you wish there was proof since it is different from your point of view. but i'm not going to write huge essays proving everything i say. if you disagree with something specific we can talk about it.

[BenTheMan]

philosophy is science, arguments are science

 

To whom?

 

there is no experiment appart from thought experiments, which are just as good if performed properly, einstein would vouch for that

 

I certainly hope that that isn't true---if so then I wouldn't respect Einstein anymore.

[foodchain]

To whom?

 

 

I am not 100% sure as to the extent of QM in human thought. I don’t know if per say information processing in the human brain is simply a product of QM, or again really the extent of QM again. I think most of life takes place at least on the elemental level, and then in large quantities of such in terms of differentiated structures such as the famous neocortex or corpus callosum. As per how you described thought with QM as an example, I am confused if you are just applying the mathematical principles behind QM alone to human thought or what perceived physical reality such implies about the universe as a living function of human thought also. Personally I never wake up on any certain day and randomly for no reason speak some weird langauge:D I don’t know if that exactly qualifies or if QM has to be with more "trivial" things such as chosen flavors of ice cream, even then you tread into territory where QM does not put the picture together as reality would have it. I am sure QM plays role in living organisms, after all with no universe or no physics I think such linearly adds to having no life.

 

Then again ben, its kind of pointless to debate anything with you. You seem to only respect people with phds in physics, and everything else happens to be wrong if it goes against a math equation somewhere.

 

Such as in this debate, I pointed out in my opening post that I don’t know if time travel is possible or impossible, but you made the position to take my points on why I think its impossible to insinuate that I think such is truly impossible. I don’t know if you call it putting words in other peoples mouths, but as QM would have it, how do you know what I think ben besides the words you read in one of my posts? Heck giving the large degree of possibilities of anything I would think people in general should all be suffering to a large extent some form of Tourette syndrome really.

 

I don’t know if time travel is impossible or possible, the one things I do know is that such is not observed in the universe anywhere ever to my knowing, and for all intensive purposes I don’t know of any one that can even put forward a simple experiment to even probe such. GR has been around for a few decades now, and regardless of the complexities such proposes to human thought in regards to understanding, I simply think currently the reality of such speaks for itself, what will we have in another hundred years of research, heck, maybe QM might be defeated, maybe DSR will be in the spot light, and maybe somewhere a person might actually be able to test string theory somehow, you never know right?

[someguy]

To whom?

 

 

 

I certainly hope that that isn't true---if so then I wouldn't respect Einstein anymore.

 

science is a subcategory of philosophy. a philosopher knows the utility of math and experiment. they are tools of logic. the problem is logic alone is not very easily communicable to others. especially if they cannot understand it. but experiment and mathematics are more obvious and less likely to be flawed. yet still even with math and experiment there must be philosophy added to it, and this is still wrong and gets refined. the math of 4 dimensions does not tell you that the 4th dimension is time. you could toy with mathematical formulas all day graphing 4 dimensional objects you will never find a solution that tells you that the 4th axis is time. but saying that the 4th axis is time gives new meaning to the math. certainly the math can never be wrong os long as all of its rules are properly followed. but you can make mistakes when you make conclusions of reality with math. I could easily say by looking at the math that the 4th dimension is density, or something like that. but i'd be wrong, there is philosophy in there. the first step is often philosophy also, unless you just go around making random experiments forever. granted once you describe reality correctly using math the math can predict results you have never observed before. but also sometimes it can't and really after doing the experiment you would find you need to change the math to fit reality. the math is just a description of reality it can describe it wrongly, sometimes what seems to fit is just adding a constant to the equation, but then when tools get better and more precise you find that the constant was imprecise, so you need to change it. on the other hand experiment can be skewed by our senses we are inherently flawed. color does not exist, neither does sound, nor does the sensation of heat. math can describe these things without depending on human senses. but really at the end of the day the world is real and should be explainable by much more than math. if all you have is math then i don't think you have very much. if all you have is logic, then it better be pretty good. some arguments are just undeniable, some logic is undeniable. experiments are best for testing the logic after the logic is done, math is best for comparing the universe in proportions and allowing for predicting the behaviour of the universe. but you can't come up with the math first. you think newton first devise the math of gravity? or do you think he first thought that perhaps all objects attract one another in someway consistently at some constantly proportional rate. then he did the tests and then he used the results to make the math. the math came last. nowadays it's true it is sometimes done with math first. but those things personally i don't find necessarily describe reality properly and i don't give them much credit, even if you can find such books in the science section.

 

 

well it is true. fine don't respect him anymore. but still, he discovered that which you find difficult even to understand. perhaps you need to recalibrate your respecto-meter.

[SkepticLance]

foodchain said

 

I am not 100% sure as to the extent of QM in human thought. I don’t know if per say information processing in the human brain is simply a product of QM, or again really the extent of QM again.

 

That reminds me a bit of the techno-babble in the Star Trek series, where the doctor says that something is wrong in someone's brain at the subatomic level. Heeeeey.

 

Pretty cool since the brain does not work at the subatomic level. Brain function is electrochemistry. Molecules, ion movement, and chemical reactions. Quantum mechanics is probably not an issue, except as it impinges on chemistry.

[iNow]

Pretty cool since the brain does not work at the subatomic level. Brain function is electrochemistry. Molecules, ion movement, and chemical reactions. Quantum mechanics is probably not an issue, except as it impinges on chemistry.

I appreciate your point, but caution you not to discard so quickly the notion of QM's relationship to brain activity.

[BenTheMan]

I am not 100% sure as to the extent of QM in human thought.

 

Neither am I---but I am not willing to discard the possibility that it plays a significant role.

 

As per how you described thought with QM as an example, I am confused if you are just applying the mathematical principles behind QM alone to human thought or what perceived physical reality such implies about the universe as a living function of human thought also.

 

Perhaps it was a bad example---it seems to have confused many people. The point is that, if we allow for the possibility that certain decisions in the brain are made based on quantum measurements, then it trivially follows that there is no ``fate'', and you could be faced with the same decision many times, and have a range of responses, based on the particular quantum measurement made.

 

Personally I never wake up on any certain day and randomly for no reason speak some weird langauge

 

Sure, because the probability to do so is probably something like 1 over Avagadro's number, or something.

 

Then again ben, its kind of pointless to debate anything with you. You seem to only respect people with phds in physics, and everything else happens to be wrong if it goes against a math equation somewhere.

 

Debating with me about physics is only pointless if you can't admit that you are wrong, or that you don't know as much as I do. When talking about physics with others, I can assure you, I am never hesitant to admit that I am wrong, or I don't know something, if I judge that person to know more than me. I respect anyone who is willing to listen to me, and disrespect anyone who tells me I am wrong only for the sake of it.

 

If there are equations that I know, there is probably good reason for it.

 

Such as in this debate, I pointed out in my opening post that I don’t know if time travel is possible or impossible, but you made the position to take my points on why I think its impossible to insinuate that I think such is truly impossible.

 

Why are you taking this personally? I am not talking about your mother---I just pointed out to you where your reasoning was wrong, and now I'm a bad guy? I can live with theat.

 

If you don't want to be told you're wrong, then you should have posted your ideas in the ``Speculations'' category.

 

I don’t know if you call it putting words in other peoples mouths, but as QM would have it, how do you know what I think ben besides the words you read in one of my posts?

 

I can infer from your posts that you don't know what you're talking about. And from your reaction that you are easily insulted.

 

I don’t know if time travel is impossible or possible, the one things I do know is that such is not observed in the universe anywhere ever to my knowing, and for all intensive purposes I don’t know of any one that can even put forward a simple experiment to even probe such.

 

The correct statement is that the idea has not been proven OR disproven. This isn't like the justice system---false until proven true. Either it happens or it doesn't---I am in no position to say either way.

 

you never know right?

 

I couldn't have said it better myslef. The difference is that your default position is an inherintly unscientific one. If you disallow for the possibility, then of COURSE it doesn't exist.

 

=============

 

Dear someguy---

 

Please learn to use paragraphs. Thank you

 

science is a subcategory of philosophy.

 

GOD I hope not.

 

a philosopher knows the utility of math and experiment. they are tools of logic. the problem is logic alone is not very easily communicable to others. especially if they cannot understand it. but experiment and mathematics are more obvious and less likely to be flawed. yet still even with math and experiment there must be philosophy added to it, and this is still wrong and gets refined.

 

I disagree, but it is probably on a semantic level. I would categorize anything that involves an experiment, an empirical observation or a measurement to be science. Predictions are to be tested, always, both for mathematical consistency and experimental accuracy.

 

Philosophers are free to wax poetic about things that can never be tested. For example, there was an article in the New York Times about a philospher who showed that we may be living in a giant computer simulation. Anyone who groups this into the category ``Science'' (as the wise people at the NYT did) don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.

 

the math of 4 dimensions does not tell you that the 4th dimension is time.

 

Now you're out of your league. The math of four dimensions PRECISELY tells you that one direction is time---this is why the Lorentz Group is SO(3,1).... hree space directions, one time direction.

 

I could easily say by looking at the math that the 4th dimension is density, or something like that. but i'd be wrong, there is philosophy in there.

 

Absolutely not. Density has the wrong units to be a direction, first of all. There is no philosophy---only mathematical consistency, AND agreement with Nature.

 

the first step is often philosophy also, unless you just go around making random experiments forever.

 

How many scientists do you know? There is a difference between ``theory'' and ``philosophy''. The difference is that theory hopes to someday be clever enough to find a way to be tested. Philosophy knows no such ambition.

 

the math is just a description of reality it can describe it wrongly, sometimes what seems to fit is just adding a constant to the equation, but then when tools get better and more precise you find that the constant was imprecise, so you need to change it.

 

Sure the math is a description of nature, I never said otherwise. But it is a good description. And if you have two descriptions of nature, then they should be mathematically consistent with each other. This is the trouble with quantum gravity.

 

but you can't come up with the math first. you think newton first devise the math of gravity?

 

Newton? No. Einstein? Yes.

 

well it is true. fine don't respect him anymore. but still, he discovered that which you find difficult even to understand. perhaps you need to recalibrate your respecto-meter.

 

Not even Einstein could get away with theories which don't relate to the real world---this is why he was ignored once he got to Princeton. What I said was rather flippant, because I know that what you said was wrong.

 

nowadays it's true it is sometimes done with math first. but those things personally i don't find necessarily describe reality properly and i don't give them much credit, even if you can find such books in the science section.

 

You don't really know what you're talking about. What is reality except an experiment? If I predict a pion decay, then go into the lab and measure it, isn't that reality?

[iNow]

Must be somethin' 'bout Tejas... Ben, you're spot on. Teach those genuinely in search of knowledge whenever you are able, and spank those who spout nonsense as truth as hard and frequently as possible.

 

 

What Stevie Ray? It's floodin'? Agin?

[someguy]

you are misinterpreting what i mean by philosophy i think. you have a modern twisted concept of it because of how the world and science has evolved. you can't have philosophy without observations, no human could think without senses, any observation can be an experiment, so long as you properly observe. everyone saw things falling to earth, everybody did that experiment a zillion times. only one man actually observed it and knew what to do to find the properties for defining this thing. would not knowing the proper experiments to do be philosophy? sure nowadays it's slightly different some experiments don't require philosophy first, just newer technology. philosophy, is the search for knowledge by any means. nowadays it has been used mostly just to refer to people who think of things that can't be proven. but philosophy to me is the art of thinking and learning and seeking truth. the means are secondary. some may philosophize endlessly about something they could never solve but that just means they are perpetually failing at their philosophy. i'm talking about philosophy in the plato days. science is philosophy. so i think you're right it is kind of semantics. you're right i don't know those equations very well i was referring to like for example w+x+y=z, and then plotting the graph. from what i understand einstein used mind experiments to help discover his theories. i could even explain a few to you. the philosophers you are talking about are just bad philosophers. for example i don't know if you know but parmenides back in the day BC. had discovered E=mc^2, not the proportion but he discovered that the universe was all one single substance. and he did it very simply.

 

1)things either must exist or not exist.

2)there is no semi-existing state.

therefore, you can't make something out of nothing, the universe must be one solid block and change is an illusion.

 

in other words all of the universe is energy.

 

that didn't require any math or any purpose built experiments, only observations of the common world. the math and experiments only just recently figured it out.

 

philosophy does indeed test and look for experiment at least it used to. the rules of science are a philosophy, experiment and math used for seeking knowledge is a philosophy. these rules came from philosophers. philosophers have helped everyone else by giving them rules to follow if they want to try to be certain of something and discover reputable information.

 

sure you start with a theory but how do you formulate a theory without philosophy?

 

you think einstein just shuffled some equations around and that's it? many many people can easily learn how math works. and they can mix and match any equations also. what is the key, i think, would be to have insight, to know which equations to mix, to imagine scenarios and make eurekas, to wonder ask questions think of possible solutions. a monkey can do experiments and arrive at conclusions so long as you give it rules to follow. only very rare few human beings make such profound discoveries as men like Newton and Einstein and it has nothing to do with the rules of science, it has to do with the philosophical capacity of the individual. you seem to know the rules quite well and math quite well also, it is unlikely however, that you would win the nobel prize. if there is only mathematics and agreement with nature then you should be well on your way to winning a nobel prize i guess.

 

math is only as good a description of nature as human beings know about nature and designed the math. math is never wrong but at the end of the day humans can be, and we wrote the math.

 

it's funny to me, the same thing that makes you lose respect for einstein is the thing that makes me respect him most. I find the math and the experiments is the easy part.

 

yes, that would be reality. but making a bunch of equations that imply 11 dimensions and whatnot is not necessarily.

but really how real can your descriptions of these things be? perhaps you are not finished defining them yet. perhaps there are more observations to make. I would say that it's reality as much as we are capable of defining so far.

 

saying that a mathematical formula is evidence that time travel is possible is not. it's not nothing, it's something that would or should cause someone to think about time travel, but i think that if you do, the most logical solution is to conclude that it is not possible. I don't find that just trusting the math that way is scientific.

[BenTheMan]

What was this thread about, again?

 

someguy---if you use phrases like ``I think'' or ``it should work like this'', without providing at least an idea how one would justify this mathematically, then you aren't doing science. I'm sorry. Math and science are inseparable, because math is the language in which we quantify observations. The act of describing the world through quantitative (read: NOT qualitative) observations is what science is. If we cannot quantify observations, then there can be no science, plain and simple. THEN you are doing philosophy. THEN your ideas should be ``speculation'' and not ``science''.

 

iNow---

 

I am but a simple redneck of humble origins, trying to teach people that physics is more than crapping from their mouths about Einstein

 

``We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves. '' --Galileo.