CHRISCUNNINGHAM Posted March 23, 2003 Posted March 23, 2003 The typical take on time travel usual is as follows... |____________________| _A_B_C_D*_A'_B'_C' D*' _3_4_5_6__7__8__9_10 *= time jump All variables= equal an event n=the progression of event In this classical view of time travel, event A Prime proceeds event C and the traveler is competely aware of the jump. To him, he is "viewing" what had happened at the time period he has traveled back to, rather than actually experiencing it for the first time. Equally, because of this jump into another time frame (while still following ones own, seemingly, natural progression where A' is the seventh event) two of the same people can exist at the same time, Casualty laws are defied, and the reality contradictions such as the Grandfather Paradox are possible. HOWEVER this is the wrong idea of what TRUE time travel is. Notice.... |_________|__________| _A_B_C_D*_A'_B'_C' D*' _3_4_5_6__3__4__5_6 THIS is TRUE time travel. In this model, the progression of events stay in sync with what should be happening. A' does NOT follow D, relative to the observer. And when one travels back in time to point A, then ALL of the factors true during the time of point A correspond with point A Prime. Thus, no paradoxes and Casuality violations are possible. One cannot kill his grandfather, and one has NO knowledge whatsoever that anything has changed. What is "Now" for A still is percieved as "Now" for A', the ONLY events that have been observed to have preceded A' are {(n-1), (n-2), (n-3), (n-k)}, and any knowledge from the future is lost. Sheds a bit more light on why it could be possible....
KHinfcube22 Posted April 17, 2003 Posted April 17, 2003 I agree that if one travels back in time, they would not "know" that they did. The problem is, do you know why? I have a theory, but I want to hear yours first,(or look for it on another thread).
Radical Edward Posted April 17, 2003 Posted April 17, 2003 your argument doesn't really do anything for the debate though. what if I left myself a note?
CHRISCUNNINGHAM Posted May 5, 2003 Author Posted May 5, 2003 I agree that if one travels back in time, they would not "know" that they did. The problem is, do you know why? I have a theory, but I want to hear yours first,(or look for it on another thread). I explained why. If one TRULY goes back in time then he cannot be aware of anything that happened after the time period he traveled to, for it hasn't happened yet, and his memories can only consist of what has happened up until that point in time, not what will happen after that point. your argument doesn't really do anything for the debate though. what if I left myself a note? How would you leave yourself a note? There is no way an event from a future time frame can affect anything but that which follows the event. So if you are thinking one can leave a note that says "Don't travel back in time for you will be caught in a time loop" is incorrect.
Radical Edward Posted May 5, 2003 Posted May 5, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ He's using a linear model, that's why. basically saying everything that has already happened has already happened and you can't change it.... perhaps so, but that doesn't stop different causality violations, such as sourceless information.
CHRISCUNNINGHAM Posted May 7, 2003 Author Posted May 7, 2003 but that doesn't stop different causality violations, such as sourceless information. ?? Yes it does.... He's using a linear model, that's why. Well I guess so if that's what makes sense.... What is fallacious about using a linear model? I'd much rather you tell me what is incorrect, than just simply saying that I am wrong. Equally... your argument makes no sense. Please add some type of corroboration rather than just making arbitrary conclusions... A summation of what I am saying is as follows: If one can travel back in time and be aware that he is in another time frame, then his mind and existetence are somehow immune to temproal displacement. If this IS so then this will equally make it immpossible for him to affect an earlier time frame, such as killing his grandfather. Though this speration of existence and time is unlikely, it still differs from the typical, and quite inane "hop into a time machine and kill your grandfather, along with partaking in hundreds of other paradoxical actions." If there is any possibility that Causualty Violations can be made, then the idea is completely erroneous. This view of time travel eliminates those possibilties.
RED FIRE COW Posted May 7, 2003 Posted May 7, 2003 I dont know if this may sound a little far fetched but what if it is possible that our thoughts may travel through time at some points. For instance people are able to have preminitions or dream of actual things o come. I think we may not be able to physically travel through time but if we could I think our thoughts would have a much easier time doing so.
Radical Edward Posted May 7, 2003 Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM If one can travel back in time and be aware that he is in another time frame, then his mind and existetence are somehow immune to temproal displacement. If this IS so then this will equally make it immpossible for him to affect an earlier time frame, such as killing his grandfather. Though this speration of existence and time is unlikely, it still differs from the typical, and quite inane "hop into a time machine and kill your grandfather, along with partaking in hundreds of other paradoxical actions." If there is any possibility that Causualty Violations can be made, then the idea is completely erroneous. This view of time travel eliminates those possibilties. your whole argument relies on arbitrary, unidentified mechanisms. were I to build a time machine, what would actuallly stop me from leaving a piece of paper after I use the time machine and travel back in time, which tells me how to build a time machine? The whole causality argument would sugest to me a far more simple conclusion: that it is impossible to travel in time.
CHRISCUNNINGHAM Posted May 8, 2003 Author Posted May 8, 2003 your whole argument relies on arbitrary, unidentified mechanisms. were I to build a time machine, what would actuallly stop me from leaving a piece of paper after I use the time machine and travel back in time, which tells me how to build a time machine? The whole causality argument would sugest to me a far more simple conclusion: that it is impossible to travel in time. My whole argument relies on the idea that if one is able to travel back in time, everything that was true for that time will still be true for that time and one cannot take anything with you because if it didn't exist at the "first" time it won't exist when you returned to this time period. The idea that you could take something with you is quite inane, for the mere fact that one can ask "Why wasn't it there the "first" time if Time is an open system that can be altered??" Now this isn't what is paradoxical about time travel this is what is incorrect about the conventional model of time travel. And truly doesn't make sense that anyone would believe this as an the expected Effect at all. For it is the hypothesis that is completely illogical, not time travel itself. I dont know if this may sound a little far fetched but what if it is possible that our thoughts may travel through time at some points. For instance people are able to have preminitions or dream of actual things o come. I think we may not be able to physically travel through time but if we could I think our thoughts would have a much easier time doing so. Maybe. I'm still not sure about this, however, the main reaosn for my interests in time travel is due to the fact that I have deja vu on a monthly basis. Very strange indeed...
KHinfcube22 Posted May 8, 2003 Posted May 8, 2003 The way your explaining time travel as can be simplified. What your basically saying is that time is like a movie, and when a movie is rewound for any reason, do any of the charcters know it has? No, everything that has happened, has happened, and the is no way to change that. I don't necessarily like this theory, I like to believe in the Multi Universal Theory for time travel, that way I can go back in time and kill myself, then kill me before I kill myself, then...
Radical Edward Posted May 8, 2003 Posted May 8, 2003 Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM My whole argument relies on the idea that if one is able to travel back in time, everything that was true for that time will still be true for that time and one cannot take anything with you because if it didn't exist at the "first" time it won't exist when you returned to this time period. and my argument is still that you are relying on arbitrary undefined mechanisms to stop me from doing anything. all the conclusion of your argument eventually suggests, is that it is not possible to travel in time, since, were there a time machine and I left a piece of paper with instructions as to how to build a time machine, it would actually be there for me "the first time round" or I would never build a time machine in order to leave myself a piece of paper telling me how to build a time machine. but then where did the information come from? an infinitely simpler and more likely conclusion is that time travel cannot occur. Even the multi universal idea is not really time travel - it is simply travelling to a different universe in which different things happen (see Red Dwarf - Ace Rimmer)
KHinfcube22 Posted May 9, 2003 Posted May 9, 2003 Time travel is possible, just to complicated for the human mind to concieve the only possible way. How does that sound?
CHRISCUNNINGHAM Posted May 10, 2003 Author Posted May 10, 2003 The way your explaining time travel as can be simplified. What your basically saying is that time is like a movie, and when a movie is rewound for any reason, do any of the charcters know it has? No, everything that has happened, has happened, and the is no way to change that. I don't necessarily like this theory, I like to believe in the Multi Universal Theory for time travel, that way I can go back in time and kill myself, then kill me before I kill myself, then... I agree that this too may be possible, for there are an infinite number of possibilties for an infinite number of periods in time, hence there is an infinite number of universe that exist simulatneously, and one simply progresses through which ever one he perceives himself as existing in. But that is not Time Travel, it is Trans-dimensional Travel and is a seprate subject. and my argument is still that you are relying on arbitrary undefined mechanisms to stop me from doing anything. all the conclusion of your argument eventually suggests, is that it is not possible to travel in time, since, were there a time machine and I left a piece of paper with instructions as to how to build a time machine, it would actually be there for me "the first time round" or I would never build a time machine in order to leave myself a piece of paper telling me how to build a time machine. but then where did the information come from? What are you talking about. I have already explained more than once that you would travel back to time as it orginally was. Forget the machines, think about the idea here. Say I have figured out the schematics of a machine that will teleport me to whatever time period I wish to return to. Now imagine that this time period was May 7, 2003 at which ever time I was viewing this forum. When I would travel back to this time, the only thing that would be happening is EXACTLY what was happening at the time period I returned to. Meaning I would be viewing this forum as if it were the "first" time. I would not be aware that I traveled back in time, nor would I have anything in my possesion from the future, no letters, no notes, not a thing that is nonexistent at this point. WHY don't I have anything? Because I have TIME TRAVELED, meaning relative to me the point on my existence line is not what it would be realtive to someone else, say a spectator watching the teleportation. This teleportation would be one STRICTLY of the mind and its perception, not matter, nor body. This would be true, because relativity is true. And relativity concludes, though my body may be perceived a certain way to someone in proximity to me(i.e ten feet), someone looking at me from a light year away could only perceive what I looked like a year ago, and realtive to them that is how I look "now". Hence, to a Time Traveler, being only aware of the assigned "now" will not know anything but what is accessible at the assigned point "now". I'm still working on this, but I am almost sure that it is possible and most likely true. Because it isn't paradoxical.
Sayonara Posted May 10, 2003 Posted May 10, 2003 Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM Well I guess so if that's what makes sense.... What is fallacious about using a linear model? I'd much rather you tell me what is incorrect, than just simply saying that I am wrong. I didn't say you were wrong, I said that the use of a linear model explained why your argument did not make sense. It does not make sense in the same way that a movie would not make sense if it were viewed in the order in which the scenes were shot, not in the sense that it is 'incorrect'. Thinking of time travel as movement along an axis is too primitive an analogy to give an accurate idea of what is happening, which is why humans come up with these hilarious notions such as physical paradoxes and impossible causality arrangements. I would not accuse you of being 'wrong' as I have as much evidence of this as you do that you are 'right'.
JaKiri Posted May 10, 2003 Posted May 10, 2003 So what you're saying is TIME TRAVEL HAS NO EFFECT, THEREFORE ISN'T PARADOXICAL! And what's this about Relativity?
KHinfcube22 Posted May 10, 2003 Posted May 10, 2003 Time is somthing perseaved, pardon my spelling, and to reverse it, you would reverse the flow of your mind, therefore you would not know that time has thus went backwards, and you would think the exact same thing you thought at the time in which you are in.
JaKiri Posted May 10, 2003 Posted May 10, 2003 Well, I know that time is merely an arbitrary direction based on thermodynamics, but WHAT?
MajinVegeta Posted May 10, 2003 Posted May 10, 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM My whole argument relies on the idea that if one is able to travel back in time, everything that was true for that time will still be true for that time and one cannot take anything with you because if it didn't exist at the "first" time it won't exist when you returned to this time period. I think I get your argument. But the discrepency lies in the fact that you seem to have forgotten the parallel universe theory.
CHRISCUNNINGHAM Posted May 10, 2003 Author Posted May 10, 2003 So what you're saying is TIME TRAVEL HAS NO EFFECT, THEREFORE ISN'T PARADOXICAL! Pretty much.... What, are you implying that time travel SHOULD have an effect and therefore SHOULD be paradoxical??? Don't forget time is completely relative to the observer, as is EVERYTHING, motion, experience, logic, etc.. I think I get your argument. But the discrepency lies in the fact that you seem to have forgotten the parallel universe theory. No I haven't, but as I have said this is Trans-dimensional travel, not Time Travel. And even with parallel universes, going to another universe to kill your grandfather is not altering that universe, for that universe already exist as your "Native" Universe already exists. And in fact would be a part of your "native" universe. Moreover what I have concluded is that the parallel universe hypthesis and the realm of Possibility itself, completely refute the idea of free will. But this is a different topic. Time is somthing perseaved, pardon my spelling, and to reverse it, you would reverse the flow of your mind, therefore you would not know that time has thus went backwards, and you would think the exact same thing you thought at the time in which you are in. This is true also. One of my main points is that if you time travel, your thought and memories will also time travel. Why people believe this isn't so, is one of the main reasons Time Travel is looked upon as paradoxical, for everyone thinks that one's mind will still be in May 10 2003, even though they may have traveled to 1800. In this hypothesis, Time travel is basically hopping into a machine, then going about your day as if you have not traveled back in time. In actuality, this idea shows that time has overlapped itself and has traveled to YOU. As in my original explanantion..... The typical take on time travel usual is as follows... |____________________| _A_B_C_D*_A'_B'_C' D*' _3_4_5_6__7__8__9_10 *= time jump All variables= equal an event n=the progression of event In this classical view of time travel, event A Prime proceeds event C and the traveler is competely aware of the jump. To him, he is "viewing" what had happened at the time period he has traveled back to, rather than actually experiencing it for the first time. Equally, because of this jump into another time frame (while still following ones own, seemingly, natural progression where A' is the seventh event) two of the same people can exist at the same time, Casualty laws are defied, and the reality contradictions such as the Grandfather Paradox are possible You have "traveled back in time" where EVERYTHING is the same as it was at that time period, contrastingly, your mind is still aware of that this is your "past", you know everything you knew after this point, and your mind has not traveled in time..... And this corroborates my MAIN point. The conventional reasoning behind what time travel would be is completely erroneous, and truly makes no sense to begin with. The conventional logic assumes that the mind is completely separated from the body, and the traveler himself is unaffected by temporal displacement, whereas everything around him has changed. YET, the traveler is still capabale of altering the "future" even though what would be considered "future" compared to the point in time he has traveled to, is actually the "past" to the traveler. Now I ask, what is this assumption that the mind and body would be unaffected by temporal displacement while still being able to affect the "future" based on??? The mind is the propogator of relativity, the mind is the cause of relativity, and the mind defines existence. If if one were to travel back in time it would be a closed system that is strictly relative to the observer no paradoxes, information from the future, or anything else that would imply that a time traveler is exclusive of temporal displacement. That is completely contradictory and is NOT TIME Travel. It is two seperate ideas put together, and if anything is truly Trans-dimensional Travel. To ever believe this would be TIME travel is inane and completely nonsensical.
Radical Edward Posted May 10, 2003 Posted May 10, 2003 Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM This teleportation would be one STRICTLY of the mind and its perception, not matter, nor body. now you are making unjustified statements about the mind and perception. what is so special about them that they can be teleported back in time, but not matter. Furthermore, your experiment doesn't appear to have any detectable results rfom what I can see. incidentally MrL hasn't even commented on the viability and possible paradoxes of time.
BPHgravity Posted May 10, 2003 Posted May 10, 2003 Where does the FLUX CAPACITOR fit into all this?? :lame:
KHinfcube22 Posted May 11, 2003 Posted May 11, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward now you are making unjustified statements about the mind and perception. what is so special about them that they can be teleported back in time, but not matter. Furthermore, your experiment doesn't appear to have any detectable results rfom what I can see. incidentally MrL hasn't even commented on the viability and possible paradoxes of time. If you have read one of my other threads, on how time for one is controlled by ones "mind", then you would know why matter doesn't necessarily go back in time. Well ,actualy it does. All is connected, when one thing goes back in reverse, it ALL goes in reverse. I pretty sure some big scientist has said that once before, does anyone know who it was?
superchump Posted May 12, 2003 Posted May 12, 2003 Originally posted by KHinfcube22 If you have read one of my other threads, on how time for one is controlled by ones "mind", then you would know why matter doesn't necessarily go back in time. Well ,actualy it does. All is connected, when one thing goes back in reverse, it ALL goes in reverse. I pretty sure some big scientist has said that once before, does anyone know who it was? Time is not controlled by one's mind. The mind just perceives time differently in some cases. The events around us flow as they normally would. If I were somehow able to start perceiving my environment much quicker, as if watching a slow-motion movie, I don't slow the event down. I just see it differently then others. The event still happens along the natural flow of time.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now