Is Time Travel Possible or Just a Paradox?

  • Thread starter GladScientist
  • Start date
In summary: However, I only experience it as starting 17 years ago. So why should my perception of time be limited to this one "starting point"? It seems more logical to think that we experience each moment an infinite number of times.
  • #1
GladScientist
44
0
So lately, I have been thinking a lot about the concept of (a lack of) absolute time. And it has made me ask the question: are we all really immortal?

Now, here's the idea. Time is simply a dimension, with no point being absolute. Is it not then a bit silly to assume that the point marking the time "now" is somehow special? What makes "right now" any more special than the moment a small fraction of a nanosecond ago? Or the one before that?

To assume that "now" will only happen once does not make sense to me. Every moment in the universe is really eternal, just like the "one foot" mark on a meter stick doesn't disappear once you count to two feet. So why should we only experience each moment once?

The universe, even though it had a general finite beginning, has essentially existed forever because time does not exist outside of it, meaning that all possible futures and pasts have also existed forever.

So, I perceive my life as having started 17 years ago. But the moment of "now" is eternal and has really existed forever, so why am I only experiencing it during this single moment? Was the universe (which includes every Planck of time) created 17 years ago? Obviously not, since there is no time outside of the universe! This means that each moment in time always has, currently is, and always will exist. So why should we only experience it once? Shouldn't we experience it an infinite amount of times?

Therefore, I find it reasonable to believe that in some way, people live forever. Does this mean that we are really living every moment of our life at the same time and for all of eternity, but only perceive them happening spread out? Or perhaps we live our lives from birth to death, then it starts over again? While this may sound comforting, keep in mind that starving children in third world countries would have to experience being born, deserted, and left to die - over and over again for all of eternity.

So what sounds the most reasonable to you? Do you think that lives are only lived once? If so, what is your justification for following such logic?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Your logic, while it seems semi-reasonable, doesn't really make any sense.

We are obviously not immortal, for the obvious reason that people die.

Your question is not a physical one, but rather philosophical. Your point brings up many more questions, such as what is consciousness, what is the "self."

Points in time only happen once. While the length between the time intervals may not be absolute, what is absolute is the passage of time. Unless one is able to defy the current understandings in physics, it is impossible to stop time.

I figure that the moment of "now" only exists in our mind. However, time would pass even without a human, or another life form, to experience it, which is obviously apparent from the fact that the universe is approximately 13-14 billion years old.
 
  • #3
GladScientist said:
To assume that "now" will only happen once does not make sense to me. Every moment in the universe is really eternal, just like the "one foot" mark on a meter stick doesn't disappear once you count to two feet. So why should we only experience each moment once?
That is because even though that moment will leave its mark till eternity, our experiencing it will occur only once because of the fundamental principle because we cannot go back in time (at least till now).

GladScientist said:
Therefore, I find it reasonable to believe that in some way, people live forever.

I however don't see any reason for "people living forever" from your previous statements. However since I'm not very well versed with metaphysics I am not able to gather the logic.

PS: I would suggest you refrain from posting such questions as this might displease the PF Mentors. This leads me to another suggestion to the makers of PF; can't we have a section devoted to metaphysics? I mean if we can have one for History and Social Sciences then we can surely have one for this too right?
 
  • #4
I don't see how this premise:

GladScientist said:
So lately, I have been thinking a lot about the concept of (a lack of) absolute time. And it has made me ask the question: are we all really immortal?

Now, here's the idea. Time is simply a dimension, with no point being absolute. Is it not then a bit silly to assume that the point marking the time "now" is somehow special? What makes "right now" any more special than the moment a small fraction of a nanosecond ago? Or the one before that?

To assume that "now" will only happen once does not make sense to me. Every moment in the universe is really eternal, just like the "one foot" mark on a meter stick doesn't disappear once you count to two feet. So why should we only experience each moment once?

The universe, even though it had a general finite beginning, has essentially existed forever because time does not exist outside of it, meaning that all possible futures and pasts have also existed forever.

So, I perceive my life as having started 17 years ago. But the moment of "now" is eternal and has really existed forever, so why am I only experiencing it during this single moment? Was the universe (which includes every Planck of time) created 17 years ago? Obviously not, since there is no time outside of the universe!

Leads to this conclusion:
GladScientist said:
Therefore, I find it reasonable to believe that in some way, people live forever.


BTW, this belongs in the Philosophy Forum. two doors down.
 
  • #5
mishrashubham said:
That is because even though that moment will leave its mark till eternity, our experiencing it will occur only once because of the fundamental principle because we cannot go back in time (at least till now).
Think about how we only perceive it once, though. If the universe has existed forever, then that means that in some sense, my life began an infinite amount of time ago. If so, then why am I only experiencing this moment just now? I think it makes more sense that we would perceive our life taking place over and over again, with everything ending the exact same way every time.
I however don't see any reason for "people living forever" from your previous statements. However since I'm not very well versed with metaphysics I am not able to gather the logic.

PS: I would suggest you refrain from posting such questions as this might displease the PF Mentors. This leads me to another suggestion to the makers of PF; can't we have a section devoted to metaphysics? I mean if we can have one for History and Social Sciences then we can surely have one for this too right?

The reason I think that this can lead to some sort of immortality is because it would mean that we experience each moment an infinite amount of times, and therefore will always be alive, even if we perceive our life as having a beginning and an ending. Looking back at my original post, I suppose I made this very unclear.

Sorry if this kind of thread isn't allowed - it seemed appropriate to me.
 
  • #6
GladScientist said:
If the universe has existed forever, then that means that in some sense, my life began an infinite amount of time ago.
How does that follow?




GladScientist said:
...we experience each moment an infinite amount of times ...
How so?
 
  • #7
GladScientist said:
Think about how we only perceive it once, though. If the universe has existed forever, then that means that in some sense, my life began an infinite amount of time ago.
Alas I am not able to comprehend the "sense" which you are talking above.

GladScientist said:
The reason I think that this can lead to some sort of immortality is because it would mean that we experience each moment an infinite amount of times, and therefore will always be alive, even if we perceive our life as having a beginning and an ending. Looking back at my original post, I suppose I made this very unclear.
I think I am missing the "it" over here. please elaborate on what you mean by the "it" when you say "... is because it would mean that we experience..."

GladScientist said:
Sorry if this kind of thread isn't allowed - it seemed appropriate to me.

This kind of thread is allowed; just that it is not supposed to be in this section. Its nice that people like you actually think about such things (I have great faith in the power of the human mind; however don't think that I do not like the scientific method) .
And Dave, thanks for mentioning about the philosophy section (I didn't know that before, the word philosophy was written in such a small font under general discussion and I never ventured that far down)
 
  • #8
mishrashubham said:
This kind of thread is allowed...

Actually, if the OP doesn't take some time to clarify his thoughts and claims, the thread may well be locked for failing to meet minimum requirements for a discussion.
 
  • #9
DaveC426913 said:
How does that follow?How so?

Well, my life began when the universe came into existence. I don't mean when it formed at the big bang - I mean when the universe, in its entirety, came into existence. It came from something outside of itself (or possibly from nothing), but either way, whatever created it exists in a realm without time (if nothing created the universe, then still there would be no time). So the universe in its entirety (as in, the beginning, the end, and everything in between - it's entire time line) has, as far as we can understand, always existed.

This means that any given point in time has always existed, meaning that this very moment has always existed. So why are you experiencing it only now? You should have experienced this moment [your age] years after the universe (again, I mean the entire universe's timeline, not the big bang) came into existence. But it's always been in existence.

Imagine the timeline of the universe, a static, unchanging long bar from the literal beginning (big bang) of the universe, to the end, whatever that may be. Somewhere along that line would be your life. But why is it that your birth, at one point, is suddenly "triggered," by your perception, if it's been on the timeline forever? At what point do you suddenly begin perceiving your life taking place, if the actual events in your life have been around forever?

This would almost imply that there are extra timelines for every being capable of being aware of itself, and each of these, unlike the timeline of the universe, would suddenly and randomly begin moving forward, in our perception, from birth to death.

But I just don't think that this works out. I find it much more logical to believe that our lives are just a part of the universe's natural timeline, with each moment of our lives being just as frozen and solid as any other moment.

I know my arguments probably don't make as much sense, but I'm having a really hard time converting the ideas in my head into words for other people to read... This is a difficult concept for me to communicate.
 
  • #10
DaveC426913 said:
Actually, if the OP doesn't take some time to clarify his thoughts and claims, the thread may well be locked for failing to meet minimum requirements for a discussion.

Precisely. I suggest the OP looks at this. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47294
Lay special emphasis on these points
* providing logical or empirical support for such premises or assumptions;
* making subtle logical steps more explicit;
* summarizing previous arguments made on the topic and explaining how they are relevant to your argument;
 
  • #11
GladScientist said:
Well, my life began when the universe came into existence.
How so? Your life began a couple of decades ago.

GladScientist said:
This means that any given point in time has always existed,
How so?

GladScientist said:
I know my arguments probably don't make as much sense, but I'm having a really hard time converting the ideas in my head into words for other people to read... This is a difficult concept for me to communicate.
Take it slower. Each conclusion must follow directly from its premises. So far, you are taking too broad steps. This is why I keep asking how so?
 
  • #12
DaveC426913 said:
How so? Your life began a couple of decades ago.How so?Take it slower. Each conclusion must follow directly from its premises. So far, you are taking too broad steps. This is why I keep asking how so?

The reason I say that my life began when the universe began is because the past, present, and future are all a part of the same time line. Even though the literal event of the big bang took place billions of years before my birth, the time line as a whole, has always existed, hasn't it?

Look at what Einstein once said: “The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion”

I believe that there is truth to this, as no moment has really come before or after another. They're just different points on a ruler, if you will.

Perhaps I am going too fast with this. But this is a concept I've been thinking about for weeks, it's all laid out very well in my head... But when I read my own paragraphs, I can tell that it isn't really communicating my thoughts very well. Perhaps better words or ways of explaining it will come to me later.
 
  • #13
OK so for all practical purposes we take the beginning of the universe to be the Big Bang. However let's assume the Universe doesn't have any beginning or end just like a line which doesn't have starting or an end point and extends indefinitely in both directions, like you say. I thinks that is what you mean. So the timeline of the universe is infinite and somewhere along that line is your life. Another assumption is that all the events in your life are predetermined and recorded in that timeline (a concept not very well endorsed by physics but let us continue). Now the question is, if the events are already determined why are they perceived only during one's lifetime? Am I right?

If yes, then the only answer I can give is that it is random. I don't know why it is that precise moment and why not a moment later or earlier. That would be just like asking why do you see from your window, a tree which stands beside a line of railway tracks only when you pass by that tree sitting inside the train which is running on those tracks? If the tree existed why do you see it only then (actually you can still see the tree from a distance quite far away because you know, light travels very fast but let us assume you can recognize it as a tree only when get near it).
 
  • #14
GladScientist said:
Perhaps I am going too fast with this. But this is a concept I've been thinking about for weeks, it's all laid out very well in my head... But when I read my own paragraphs, I can tell that it isn't really communicating my thoughts very well. Perhaps better words or ways of explaining it will come to me later.

I understand. I suggest that you sit down calmly, pen down your thoughts and revise it again and again making improvements to the description every now and then and make sure that it conveys clearly what you have in mind.
 
  • #15
GladScientist said:
I believe that there is truth to this, as no moment has really come before or after another. They're just different points on a ruler, if you will.

Ah yes. The idea that there is a sort of "supra-time" against which "regular time" plays out.

This has been thought of before, and rejected.

GladScientist said:
But this is a concept I've been thinking about for weeks, it's all laid out very well in my head... But when I read my own paragraphs, I can tell that it isn't really communicating my thoughts very well. Perhaps better words or ways of explaining it will come to me later.
I can tell you why this is. It is because your thoughts are entirely insular - like a man talking to himself alone in a room. He can convince himself of anything, because there is no one there to challenge him.

What you need to do is to read. Become familair with research on the subject that has gone before you, and get acquainted with the concepts and terminology. Then you will be able to speak the same language as others you wish to discuss it with. Also, in the process, you will realize where your own ideas are flawed.
 
  • #16
Even time in present theory is not immortal, our counting of time began 13.7 billion years ago. :redface:
 
  • #17
mishrashubham said:
OK so for all practical purposes we take the beginning of the universe to be the Big Bang. However let's assume the Universe doesn't have any beginning or end just like a line which doesn't have starting or an end point and extends indefinitely in both directions, like you say. I thinks that is what you mean. So the timeline of the universe is infinite and somewhere along that line is your life. Another assumption is that all the events in your life are predetermined and recorded in that timeline (a concept not very well endorsed by physics but let us continue). Now the question is, if the events are already determined why are they perceived only during one's lifetime? Am I right?

If yes, then the only answer I can give is that it is random. I don't know why it is that precise moment and why not a moment later or earlier. That would be just like asking why do you see from your window, a tree which stands beside a line of railway tracks only when you pass by that tree sitting inside the train which is running on those tracks? If the tree existed why do you see it only then (actually you can still see the tree from a distance quite far away because you know, light travels very fast but let us assume you can recognize it as a tree only when get near it).

Well... No, that's not really what I meant.

I'm not saying that the universe began infinite time ago, and that it will end in infinite time.

What I meant by the universe being eternal was that the timeline of it is eternal. I believe the big bang happened, and eventually the universe will end, either by time caving in due to a full-universe singularity (big crunch), or the more likely possibility of the universe to continue expanding (technically it would never "end," in this case, but IMO the universe can be considered dead once everything is so far apart that nothing can really interact.)

Nor do I really believe in determinism... I think that there are several possibilities in which each event can end in. But still, "the universe" includes all the positions, under all of the times, under all of the different possibilities. But all of them are held within it for eternity. So, if this thing has existed for eternity, why did I only start living 17 years ago? Shouldn't this moment be existing forever, instead of coming and passing once?
 
  • #18
I think you need to properly explain what you mean by the word "eternal". Only then can I understand your question.

GladScientist said:
What I meant by the universe being eternal was that the timeline of it is eternal.

There you are again referring to the time outside of time concept.
 
  • #19
GladScientist said:
people live forever.

That is not true. People do not live forever, the matter they are made of, the energy contained within them remains, is re-used and tranformed by a series of chemical interactions and physics laws. But it does not "live on", for the obvious reason that the body has vital functions. The body is much like an ecosystem, or should I say, a sub-ecosystem of our known reality.
 
  • #20
You guys can stop talking about this now. I posted in the thread and clarified everything. I have no idea why you can't see the post yet, but I made it. The post is here and always will be. Just go do something else until your timeline allows you to see it.
 
  • #21
Maybe you mean something similar to this quote from Wittgenstein: "If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present."
 
  • #22
GladScientist said:
Do you think that lives are only lived once?
Yes.

GladScientist said:
If so, what is your justification for following such logic?
The universe is expanding, and continually changing and evolving. This is an observationally based fact. How and why things evolve as they do is what basic physical science is about. It asks:

Are there discoverable fundamental physical dynamics that determine emergent phenomena such as we humans and our observably finite lives -- fundamental dynamics that determine 'organizing principles' and behavior wrt all scales?

The criterion used to evaluate various statements about the world is our verifiable experience of it. So, what might it mean to refer to that as illusory?
 
  • #23
ThomasT said:
The criterion used to evaluate various statements about the world is our verifiable experience of it. So, what might it mean to refer to that as illusory?


That the apparent flow of time is not a property of the outside world?
 
  • #24
Living requires certain parameters and mechanical functions to take place. When people say "living forever" they sometimes mean actually having a heart beat and breathing on their own forever. This has been proven impossible throughout the ages although there are stories about (Akenaten) Moses living for 800 years and other sages doing similar stints on the Earth plane.

But... if you think about it... forever is a long time and would surpass the confines of the time allotted for this universes "life". So, when the universe has petered out where are you going to live?

Besides all this I know you're probably talking about the potential of living each moment as though it were lasting forever. And this is a noble endeavour. However, try not showing up at work because you're "living forever in the same moment as that one in which you woke up" and you won't have a job forever or for the foreseeable future. Its a complicated state of affairs.

Its like me saying I can't get from one step to the second step because there are an infinite number of increments between each step and therefore I can't get into work today... or like saying... there are no absolutes as long as there are the graduations between each one.
 
  • #25
DaveC426913 said:
Ah yes. The idea that there is a sort of "supra-time" against which "regular time" plays out.

This has been thought of before, and rejected.


I can tell you why this is. It is because your thoughts are entirely insular - like a man talking to himself alone in a room. He can convince himself of anything, because there is no one there to challenge him.

What you need to do is to read. Become familair with research on the subject that has gone before you, and get acquainted with the concepts and terminology. Then you will be able to speak the same language as others you wish to discuss it with. Also, in the process, you will realize where your own ideas are flawed.

'supra time' rejected is it? (is this not similar to the (allowed by physicists) 'block universe hypothosis'?)

Whilst I agee with your points relating to a flawed argument somewhat...doesn't 'multiverse theory' potentially uphold the idea of immortality when 'for every split second one of us dies -an infinite nunber of (identical) copies of ourselves remain alive?

(as well as (sadly) 'everything and every idea' each one of us will have - will be (has been) plagurism somewhat! lol)
 
  • #26
GladScientist have you ever read the Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler?

By the sounds if you haven't read it, you may want to. Its about a Professor discussing relationships and perspectives between modern physics and immortality. Might be up your alley given your perspective.

Also if I were you I wouldn't start a non-scientific argument with scientists: it just won't work ;) I myself hold the viewpoint that science is currently way to primitive for us to understand even a fraction of the world around us, but its all we've got. At least if you are going to argue anyway, try and state in the most simplistic manner why you think what you think.
 
  • #27
Jarle said:
Maybe you mean something similar to this quote from Wittgenstein:

"If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present."

Exactamondo.:tongue2:

When we are able to simultaneously experience the past with the future in the present, and experience the sequential nature of time as one event, then we're able to be or feel eternal. However, it's life that supports this kind of observation and life can become death and this neuronal fabrication of an "eternity" becomes an actual component of the primeval cycles of dust.
 
  • #28
Jarle said:
Maybe you mean something similar to this quote from Wittgenstein: "If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present."

Quite right! Zero mass (to me) IS Immortality.
(I've always had this feeling that my physical body was limiting me somewhat)

The 'Alpha' and the (eventually dissipated) 'Omega' state of the universe suggests that this is so. (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)

Alex Vilenkin ('Many Worlds in One') has shown that 'Quantum Tunelling' allows 'nothing' to be the very 'creation event' itself!

Here though we have a paradox.
Either Mathematics is 'Atemporal' (Eternal/Platonistic) which reveals 'self creation' - or the universe IS mathematical (Max Tegmark) and 'we are all inescapably along for the ride'. (Deterministic)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon" [Broken]/Universe is now thought to be non-deterministc - but what if Einstein was right all along, and there happens to be an underlying (sub) 'Quantum Realm'?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
GladScientist said:
So lately, I have been thinking a lot about the concept of (a lack of) absolute time. And it has made me ask the question: are we all really immortal?

Well, I plan to live forever. So far so good.
 
  • #30
"Time is simply a dimension, with no point being absolute."

What does this mean? Where does the justification come from? What is a dimension? How can a relative time-scale which does not have an absolute existence, continually exist through eternity? Wouldn't this suggest some type of "absolute" nature that was independant of interaciton and measurement?

"just like the "one foot" mark on a meter stick doesn't disappear once you count to two feet"

It doesn't dissappear on the meter stick, but what is a meter? Does "a meter" exist "absolutley" "in nature"? What is your reasoning for confusing a unit of measurement with an actuality? What is an actuality? How is time constructed through social process and language? What is the relationship between social-consciousness, time-conscioussness and the measurements made on environment?
 
  • #31
JDStupi said:
"Time is simply a dimension, with no point being absolute."

What does this mean? Where does the justification come from? What is a dimension? How can a relative time-scale which does not have an absolute existence, continually exist through eternity? Wouldn't this suggest some type of "absolute" nature that was independant of interaciton and measurement?

"just like the "one foot" mark on a meter stick doesn't disappear once you count to two feet"

It doesn't dissappear on the meter stick, but what is a meter? Does "a meter" exist "absolutley" "in nature"? What is your reasoning for confusing a unit of measurement with an actuality? What is an actuality? How is time constructed through social process and language? What is the relationship between social-consciousness, time-conscioussness and the measurements made on environment?

A dimension is an independent parameter that is required to define something. A point is zero dimensional because it has no variation whatsoever and requires no input to describe it.

Extending that a line is one dimensional no matter what its transformation. You always need one degree of freedom to define the line.

A surface is a two dimensional as is a plane or a half plane or a constrained plane and so on.

Typically when we define something like a standard physical constant of nature we try and do it so that it is uniform in any physical context. As we currently understand, the speed of light is something that is uniform in this regard so its easy to define a metre in terms of light.

One way of measuring time is by the number of excitations in a cesium atom. I'm not a chemist or physicist but I assume that it is (hopefully for the most part) independent of physical conditions or at least guaranteed to be perfectly replicable in a common domain of physical conditions.

As for time, it is usually measured based on some kind of change in a system. You should look up the different definitions of time in physics like the thermodynamic and cosmological arrows of time.
 
  • #32
chiro said:
A dimension is an independent parameter that is required to define something. A point is zero dimensional because it has no variation whatsoever and requires no input to describe it.

Extending that a line is one dimensional no matter what its transformation. You always need one degree of freedom to define the line.

A surface is a two dimensional as is a plane or a half plane or a constrained plane and so on.

Typically when we define something like a standard physical constant of nature we try and do it so that it is uniform in any physical context. As we currently understand, the speed of light is something that is uniform in this regard so its easy to define a metre in terms of light.

One way of measuring time is by the number of excitations in a cesium atom. I'm not a chemist or physicist but I assume that it is (hopefully for the most part) independent of physical conditions or at least guaranteed to be perfectly replicable in a common domain of physical conditions.

As for time, it is usually measured based on some kind of change in a system. You should look up the different definitions of time in physics like the thermodynamic and cosmological arrows of time.

Ah, so, without change comes immortality. As I said earlier, when an observer is able to experience all change as one event, no sequence and no past or future one is in the realm of eternity.

Yet the question concerns immortality and here is its definition:

immortal |i(m)ˈmôrtl|
adjective
living forever; never dying or decaying : our mortal bodies are inhabited by immortal souls.
• deserving to be remembered forever : the immortal children's classic, “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.”
noun
an immortal being, esp. a god of ancient Greece or Rome.
• a person of enduring fame : he will always be one of the immortals of hockey.
• ( Immortals) historical the royal bodyguard of ancient Persia.
• ( Immortal) a member of the French Academy.
DERIVATIVES
immortality |ˌi(m)ˌmôrˈtalitē| noun
immortally adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin immortalis, from in- ‘not’ + mortalis (see mortal ).

Thesaurus:
immortality
noun
1 the immortality of the gods eternal life, everlasting life, deathlessness; indestructibility, imperishability.
2 the book has achieved immortality timelessness, legendary status, lasting fame/renown.

(Oxford English Dictionary)

The word immortal appears most often as a descriptor or metaphor that shows the importance of a person, item or work. If we look a little deeper we'll find that the "importance" denoted by the word "immortal" is entirely dependent upon our existence and that without it there is nothing so "important" or memorable as to be considered immortal. This exposes the anthropocentricity of the concept and how it is dependent on its polar opposite "mortality" to be "immortality".
 
  • #33
I'm sorry to be the one to introduce a time-travel paradox into this thread, but I think that the Bootstrap Paradox ties in well with this discussion; "relating to the existence of information and objects not created at any specific instant of time but instead traveling in a time loop." These are examples of objects, and possibly people, experiencing the same moments forever.

But I think that what the OP is trying to get at here, is something like this:
Perhaps, twelve seconds ago, you were experiencing the moment in which you were reading the start of this post. Are you still experiencing it, right now, but twelve seconds ago? This moment has existed because it has been the "now". But will it continue to exist even after it has been the "now"? Will it always be the "now", but to be relived over and over again in the past?
 
  • #34
Pretty Pony said:
I'm sorry to be the one to introduce a time-travel paradox into this thread, but I think that the Bootstrap Paradox ties in well with this discussion; "relating to the existence of information and objects not created at any specific instant of time but instead traveling in a time loop." These are examples of objects, and possibly people, experiencing the same moments forever.

But I think that what the OP is trying to get at here, is something like this:
Perhaps, twelve seconds ago, you were experiencing the moment in which you were reading the start of this post. Are you still experiencing it, right now, but twelve seconds ago? This moment has existed because it has been the "now". But will it continue to exist even after it has been the "now"? Will it always be the "now", but to be relived over and over again in the past?

Interesting...

The trouble with this 'Boostrap Paradox' as I see it (I suppose this is why it's called a paradox) is that it incorporates 'unknown information origin' (...This not only creates a loop, but a situation where these items have no discernible origin...) used in conjunction with 'Wormhole Physics' (..This theory, however, only makes sense if you're dealing with a wormhole or some other form of time travel where you end up in the same universe as you started) that now is mostly discredited by Scientists.

Funny that I rarely see it mentioned - that traveling back in time requires 2 time dimensions (not even allowed by String Theory - as yet) ONE to age forward, and the other NOT to age in reverse. (otherwise one would never be 'self aware' of the 'events')

As for traveling forward - well - our ability to teleport (at last) one single photon just shows how difficult (and complex) it is to 'mess around' with just 3 base units (particles a, b, and c)
Until we are able to understand how to 'reduce' (computationally store) 'complexity' (ie: for starters 'the total number of atoms in a banana') we will never be able to tame TIME.

(Many Worlds/Multiverse Theory/Parallel Universes of course allows a true 'loophole' for traveling either way)
 

1. What is time travel and how does it work?

Time travel refers to the concept of traveling through time to either the past or the future. The concept is based on the idea that time is not a fixed and linear progression, but rather a dimension that can be manipulated. The most commonly proposed method of time travel is through the use of a hypothetical device called a "time machine", which would allow a person or object to move through time.

2. Is time travel possible according to current scientific understanding?

At this point in time, time travel is not considered possible according to our current understanding of physics. The laws of physics, particularly the theory of relativity, suggest that time travel would require the manipulation of massive amounts of energy and the creation of a stable wormhole, both of which are currently beyond our technological capabilities.

3. What are the potential paradoxes associated with time travel?

One of the most well-known paradoxes associated with time travel is the "grandfather paradox", which suggests that if a person were to travel back in time and prevent their own birth, it would create a paradox because then they would not exist to go back in time in the first place. Other potential paradoxes include the "bootstrap paradox" and the "predestination paradox".

4. Are there any proposed theories or experiments that could potentially make time travel possible?

Some theoretical physicists have proposed ideas such as the "Alcubierre drive" or the "wormhole theory" that could potentially make time travel possible. However, these theories are still highly speculative and have not been proven or tested through experiments. Additionally, the energy and technology required for these methods are currently beyond our capabilities.

5. Can time travel ever be ethically and morally justified?

This is a highly debated topic and there is no clear answer. Some argue that time travel could be used for good, such as preventing tragedies or correcting past mistakes. However, others argue that the consequences of altering the past could be unpredictable and potentially harmful. Ultimately, the ethical and moral implications of time travel would need to be carefully considered before any advancements in technology are made.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
627
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
721
Replies
2
Views
696
Replies
10
Views
990
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
766
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top