The effects of paradoxical problems within the universe

[magpies]

Suppose time itself is a paradox. Would the fact that time moves forward in one direction be the result of a universe that is entangled within the grasp of reason. Could the unknown of tomorrow with the stable present caused by the creation of matter and energy from a sorce unknown be the cause of causality? Example... When you look into the mirror you know what your reflection will look like so it does not shock you. Suppose you had a mirror that showed you what you will look like tomorrow. Now upon gazing into this mirror you would at first be shocked by how different you look but you would eventualy come to terms with it and be able to look and realize what you had on. After viewing what you had worn in the day before tho you would then at the time of that day when dressing have the option to wear something else. But... Would you? And if so would the mirror represent that choice in its orginal reflection? Could you ever change what you were going to wear?

 

Now lets suppose time acts in a simliar way. Suppose all things are known to time/universe it would know what was going to happen tomorrow the day after and the day after that. How would that knowledge effect it or would it even be able to?

 

So I guess my main question is if all things are known basicaly because action from cause that is spelled out by the laws of the universe??? How can this very same thing be true?

[Daecon]

This seems to basically be an issue of "free will in a deterministic Universe".

 

What you're forgetting to take into account is the effect of quantum uncertainty which introduces randomness into the Universe.

[magpies]

Ok well im fairly sure casuality doesn't work in this universe the way its suppost to. Let me explain... If an cause leads to an event clearly any cause follows a prior cause slash event. But this is a paradox because you can not have a cause before a cause forever eventualy you must get to one cause that was the first and non before it. So by simple logic for our universe to be cause then event based once an event happens it would have an unlimited number of causes trying to come before it. It would be like trying to predict the way your going to move and then moving the opposite but also trying to predict that move and so on forever. So it seems fairly clear that we do not exist in a cause then event universe.

 

One possiblity is that the universe is event then cause based. Once an event happens it would create a cause that creates an event and so on. So possibly this could get interesting with stuff like the big bang ideas. If you had an event like something coming into existance from nothing it would then create a causes and possibly an event right?

 

So I guess my question is do you think the universe is cause then event based or event then cause based? Im assuming most people will go with the norm but just wondering if anyone else has had this thought. And would it even make a difference to anyone besides possibly making it easyer or harder to understand as a concept?

[the tree]

you can not have a cause before a cause forever eventualy you must get to one cause that was the first and [none?] before it.

Presumputious intuition: not as useful as it seems at first.

 

[something about preditictions] So it seems fairly clear that we do not exist in a cause then event universe.

I think you mean that we don't live in a deterministic universe: which is well known.

 

One possiblity is that the universe is event then cause based.

That would be the same thing, just from a different point of reference - not a meaningful on either.

[Edtharan]

Hi all.

 

Suppose you had a mirror that showed you what you will look like tomorrow.

First of all, I would love a mirror like that . I would do some kind of calculation (say for the value of PI) and hold up a piece of paper (or an optical data transfer system) to the mirror with the results of that day's calculation (the previous day's calculation from the perspective of the me in the mirror). Then, based on those results I would continue the calculation and show the results in the mirror.

 

In effect I would have an infinite processing capacity.

 

But all that is beside the point (but would ve very cool)

 

Suppose you had a mirror that showed you what you will look like tomorrow. Now upon gazing into this mirror you would at first be shocked by how different you look but you would eventualy come to terms with it and be able to look and realize what you had on.

Thinking about his, I see no difference from such an system than would exist with light.

 

Light can interact with itself constructively or destructively. If you arrange it so that light interferes constructively, then you will get a bright patch at that point. If you make it interfere destructively, then you get a dark patch where no photons occur.

 

For instance, if you were to loop a beam of laser light around (through fibre optics, or mirrors) so that it passed along, in the same direction as the initial beam, then you could, by changing the loop path so that it interfered constructively or destructively.

 

This is the same as it is with your "Time Mirror". Light from the future is allowed to "loop back" and interfere with the universe. Which would end up causing that looped light, so it effectively interferes with itself (as it is a quantum wave we are dealing with). Rather than just light waves we are also dealing with matter waves here as well, but they are both described by a quantum wave function and this is the wave function that is really interfering in this experiment.

 

The iridescence in butterflies wings is caused by light being reflected in such a way that some frequencies are constructively interfered and other are destructively interfered. As such we get brilliant colours of light seemingly reflected off the wings (but it is more complex than simple reflection).

 

In a way this can also be an analogy for time travel (or time loops if you will). If a loop constructively interferes with itself (or other loops), then this loop will potentially exist. However, if a loop destructively interferes with itself, then that loop will never exist. And, like the butterfly's wing, multiple possibilities can exist.

 

Actually, the only real prohibition is that a loop can not destructively interfere with itself as it would cancel itself out. What this means is that the only prohibition to time travel is that it can't prevent the time travel occuring, and anything else in between that doesn't stop the time travel occuring will be allowed.

 

This would also include complex loops where the loop seems to destructively interfere with itself, but if the loops area followed through it eventually reinforces the loop.

 

As an example using your time mirror:

 

Janet goes to the mirror one morning getting ready to wear her favourite red dress, sees herself in the mirror showing that her favourite red dress is torn. Assuming that she will tear it that day, she instead wears her least favourite dress (and perhaps tears it).

 

But, as her mirror will no longer show a torn red dress, then she can not show that she has torn her favourite red dress.

 

So in the net loop around, as she does not see that she tore her favourite red dress, she wears it anyway and it gets torn. To prevent this (as she has no knowledge about the previous loop) she shows it in the mirror so that her previous self can see that it is torn and thereby avoid getting the red dress torn.

 

In the end, even though you have to follow the loop around twice to see it, this is still a constructively interfering loop as there is nothing in it that prevents the time travel occuring.