Deductive Logic on the subject of Time Travel.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Sticking to the one universe we know exists, try a simple exercise, prove to me (using logic) that we are traveling forward in time, at this very moment.

P1: If I were going backward in time, I would not being responding to this post, since reading precedes responding.
P2: I am responding to this post, after having read it.
C: Therefore, I am not going backward in time.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
P1: If I were going backward in time, I would not being responding to this post, since reading precedes responding.
P2: I am responding to this post, after having read it.
C: Therefore, I am not going backward in time.

It has the arbitrary nature of "up and down", (when we know it is away from the Earth and towards) as the simple reality is that you only see your life as it has passed you.

Intuitively you could construe that as you traveling backwards through time, as if while traveling through this, "you only look backwards", as you can only see the parts of your life as they have passed, you travel with your back towards the futur, you are traveling backwards?

Backwards and forward in time is arbitrary in nature, impossible in reality...there is no time, just an ideological (ergo Very useful) perception of (a BIG hint) Movement/Motion!

Otherwise, you are fooling yourself, and this can be proven(?)!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
It has the arbitrary nature of "up and down", (when we know it is away from the Earth and towards) as the simple reality is that you only see your life as it has passed you.

Intuitively you could construe that as you traveling backwards through time, as if while traveling through this, "you only look backwards", as you can only see the parts of your life as they have passed, you travel with your back towards the futur, you are traveling backwards?

Backwards and forward in time is arbitrary in nature, impossible in reality...there is no time, just an ideological (ergo Very useful) perception of (a BIG hint) Movement/Motion!

Otherwise, you are fooling yourself, and this can be proven(?)!

Was this designed to confuse me? Seriously, if you are looking "backward" at the future, that you are coming from, then the future is the past, and the past is your future, and 1776 would have to be in the "future", since I'm moving farther and farther away from it, right?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Was this designed to confuse me? No, but it obviously did.[/color] Seriously, if you are looking "backward" at the future, that you are coming from, then the future is the past, and the past is your future, and 1776 would have to Have[/color] been[/color] in the "future", since I'm moving farther and farther away from it, right?

As I tried to help you to realize, they are arbitrarily interchangable words, "forwards in time" and "backwards in time" nothing establishes which "direction" truly is the one we "move" in, other then human convention.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As I tried to help you to realize, they are arbitrarily interchangable words, "forwards in time" and "backwards in time" nothing establishes which "direction" truly is the one we "move" in, other then human convention.

I understood this part of it, but I don't understand how it changes anything, since I am moving away from 1776, regardless of whether it happened in my "future" or "past", right?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
I understood this part of it, but I don't understand how it changes anything, since I am moving away from 1776, regardless of whether it happened in my "future" or "past", right?

Yes, but it also tells you that the universe cannot exist in the same state twice, ergo it is a singularity of sorts inasmuch as the state of the universe at any given time is the only point in any time that it will exist that way, hence if you are existent NOW, then the past is NOT available to you as time travel is impossible, as you cannot travel through that which doesn't actually exist. (You cannot travel through an "Idea"...'cept in your mind hee-hEE!)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yes, but it also tells you that the universe cannot exist in the same state twice, ergo it is a singularity of sorts inasmuch as the state of the universe at any given time is the only point in any time that it will exist that way, hence if you are existent NOW, then the past is NOT available to you as time travel is impossible, as you cannot travel through that which doesn't actually exist. (You cannot travel through an "Idea"...'cept in your mind hee-hEE!)

Sooooo...you're agreeing that we can't travel through time, right?

 

[phoenixthoth]

i think i know what you mean by "the past doesn't exist" but i may not. either way, how do you know that?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Sooooo...you're agreeing that we can't travel through time, right?

Agreeing?? with whom??

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Agreeing?? with whom??

With...me?

 

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by Mentat
When I say "Time Travel" in the title, I'm referring to traveling into the past. I just wanted to see if I could establish deductive validity for my assumption that it is not just impossible, but non-sensical, to travel backward in time.

("P" stands for "Proposition" and "C" stands for "Conclusion")

Here we go:
P1: I did not exist in 1776.
P2: I exist now in a reality that includes P1 as being true.
P3: I go back in time (using whatever means) to 1776.
C: I did exist in 1776! ...

But, then, I have invalidated P1 and P2, and even (by extension) P3, so my conclusion violates all the propositions...is this logically sound?

When you say you are referring time travel into the past your argument could fail right then before you even propose the P1 standard. All you would have to say is:

(i) "Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future."

Counterresponse (1) - However, time travel is quite strange to begin with, and it does not appear to be a terribly strong additional argument against time travel that it has strange consequences.

(ii) But in order for time travel to occur the event has to take place. Thus the strange consequences of structure imposes constraints on states on space-like surfaces. However, space-time and matter interact. Suppose that one is in a space-time with closed time-like lines, such that certain counterfactual distributions of matter on some neighborhood of a point p are ruled out if one holds that space-time structure fixed.

Either way you come back to that "Time present and time past
are both perhaps present in time future" statement continuum of Time Travel.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Jeebus
When you say you are referring time travel into the past your argument could fail right then before you even propose the P1 standard. All you would have to say is:

(i) "Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future."

Counterresponse (1) - However, time travel is quite strange to begin with, and it does not appear to be a terribly strong additional argument against time travel that it has strange consequences.

(ii) But in order for time travel to occur the event has to take place. Thus the strange consequences of structure imposes constraints on states on space-like surfaces. However, space-time and matter interact. Suppose that one is in a space-time with closed time-like lines, such that certain counterfactual distributions of matter on some neighborhood of a point p are ruled out if one holds that space-time structure fixed.

Either way you come back to that "Time present and time past
are both perhaps present in time future" statement continuum of Time Travel.

I don't understand what "time present and time past are both time present in the future" means...that's just completely losing me. Please explain further.

 

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't understand what "time present and time past are both time present in the future" means...that's just completely losing me. Please explain further.

Alright, let me see here.

"The time present and time past are both time present in the future" basically means that even if you are in the past, which you concluded in your example, you technically never left the present or the future. Since you inevitably are in the past - you can still hop in between the present and the future because your origin started from the present.

 

[Sniper__1]

all time past present and future coexist right now but the only way to travel through time is through quantum teleportation which would have you stuck in different realities forever no matter how small the difference or how big the difference. (like if you went to 1950 the nazis might have won the war in the reality you would then exist in and the world would be different) and you however would still exist in the time you started because you didnt really leave you created another of your self and he left to a time and reality where you didnt already exist thus quantum mechanics explains that time travel is possible and impossible in one single bound



confusing huh

 

[Iacchus32]

If time travel were ever possible, then we are already living in the past, because it would already have occurred.

Or, would we then be living in the future, as a future event, of whoever traveled backwards in the past?

So, has anyone yet to hear of such things? Remember, if it were possible, it would have already happened, and continue to happen, even as we speak.

Or, could this be a possible means by which to account for some of our alien and UFO sightings?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP)[/color] With...me? (SNoP)[/color]

Are you sure you don't mean the British Scientist who was promoting that Idea, back in the early ninties, he was called 'Radical' for it apparently, although I suspect he won greater acceptance, if to only the question of it, "time" that is, the question of the "existence" (or Non-existence) of time

 

[Sniper__1]

but Iacchus as i explained when you traveled you would be in a different reality so chances are we wouldn't hear about until they found a way to control which reality they went to which i believe would be impossible. oh and yes we are the past present and future all in one right now.

And mr robin parsons i think time does not exist as again i have stated before.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Jeebus
Alright, let me see here.

"The time present and time past are both time present in the future" basically means that even if you are in the past, which you concluded in your example, you technically never left the present or the future. Since you inevitably are in the past - you can still hop in between the present and the future because your origin started from the present.

Still don't got it...sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

We can travel throughout the past, because it's all "the past" to "the future"?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Sniper__1
all time past present and future coexist right now but the only way to travel through time is through quantum teleportation which would have you stuck in different realities forever no matter how small the difference or how big the difference. (like if you went to 1950 the nazis might have won the war in the reality you would then exist in and the world would be different) and you however would still exist in the time you started because you didnt really leave you created another of your self and he left to a time and reality where you didnt already exist thus quantum mechanics explains that time travel is possible and impossible in one single bound



confusing huh

Sniper, your very first sentence contained a huge semantic error, and I think that error is corrupting your later ideas. You said that past, present, and future are coexisting right now. The term "now" refers only to the present. I'm not both here and there at the same time, otherwise the purpose of the terms "here" and "there" would lose their meaning. In like manner, I'm not both "then" and "now" otherwise this distinction would be completely meaningless, and everything would be happening in the present (the sinking of the Titanic, both World Wars, even the Big Bang itself).

 

[Royce]

Mentat, remember way back in March when I first joined PF, you and I got in a discussion about time being a dimension, a real dimension?
I said that there is only one time and one time dimension that exists. The past, present and furture all exist along this dimension; but, as we are only 3 dimensional beings we cannot see or experience other than now; and we are compeled to travel along that dimension at whatever speed it is we are traveling and at whatever direction we are traveling.
Einstein showed that time is relative to the observer and interestingly time showed up negative in his relativity equations. If this has any significance or not I don't know; but, everybody including Einstein himself just ignored that fact.
In order for time travel to be possible in one universe then there must be one time in one (the 4th) dimension and all of time must exist at all times along that dimension. Time travel would then be traveling along that dimension; or, jumping out or off of our time line and jumping back in or on at another location. If this were possible then it would already be in our historic past whether known or not, or if would already be in our future history. Another facet of this one time idea is that to me it would make the universe determinate as our future already exists and we would be compelled to live it as it happens; but, others who believe this say that it doesn't, that we have, can and do exercise free will. This is illogical to me unless the future already includes our choices but then are we really choosing freely?
In one very real way we are all time travelers, traveling along our time line from our past to our future but always experiencing it as our present.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Mentat, remember way back in March when I first joined PF, you and I got in a discussion about time being a dimension, a real dimension?
I said that there is only one time and one time dimension that exists. The past, present and furture all exist along this dimension; but, as we are only 3 dimensional beings we cannot see or experience other than now; and we are compeled to travel along that dimension at whatever speed it is we are traveling and at whatever direction we are traveling.
Einstein showed that time is relative to the observer and interestingly time showed up negative in his relativity equations. If this has any significance or not I don't know; but, everybody including Einstein himself just ignored that fact.
In order for time travel to be possible in one universe then there must be one time in one (the 4th) dimension and all of time must exist at all times along that dimension. Time travel would then be traveling along that dimension; or, jumping out or off of our time line and jumping back in or on at another location. If this were possible then it would already be in our historic past whether known or not, or if would already be in our future history. Another facet of this one time idea is that to me it would make the universe determinate as our future already exists and we would be compelled to live it as it happens; but, others who believe this say that it doesn't, that we have, can and do exercise free will. This is illogical to me unless the future already includes our choices but then are we really choosing freely?
In one very real way we are all time travelers, traveling along our time line from our past to our future but always experiencing it as our present.

I disagree with only one point, Royce, and it's mainly to do with wording. Yes all events that happened in the past exist on the time line, but they do not exist "now", since now is the present. So, if I were to leave the time line (though I don't really see how you could, since it would take a certain amount of "time" to go in and out of the "line" wouldn't it?), I would not see infinite frames of the Universe at different points in time, but would see that the entire Universe (except, perhaps, tachyons and the like) are moving in one direction along this axis, at one speed or another. Therefore, our futures cannot be set, and our pasts are only set in that they are the past, and changing something is in the future tense (meaning that the idea of "changing" something, is the idea of taking something that exists now, and making it different; whereas the past has existed, and does not exist anymore, and can thus not be changed).

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Sniper__1
And mr robin parsons i think time does not exist as again i have stated before.

Humm since in your profile it says you were born in 1989, and there was a British Scientist promoting this idea in the Early 90's (while you were still learning...) I would expect (false?/wrong?)your statement is simply one of your offer(ing) of 'your voice' (too) to the growing consensus, (?)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Sniper__1
And mr robin parsons i think time does not exist as again i have stated before.

Are you sure you stated it "before", Sniper? If you stated it before the time of stating this post, then there is time. If there is no time, OTOH, there is a perfectly logical reason for Mr. Parsons to not have gotten your point to your satisfaction, you haven't said it yet, are still saying it, and have said it...all at the same time. I think I like the first scenario better .

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Oh yes, BTW the past, the present and the future are all here/now as all of the atoms that were there in 1776 are still here and in use, just slightly altered, as are all of the other past particulate participants, and all of the Future ones too, right here, right now, just awaiting their chance to present themselves according to there "time"...atoms (and molecules) all.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, some of the uranium atoms have decayed into lighter atoms, and so forth, some of the hydrogen atoms have become helium too.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Well, some of the uranium atoms have decayed into lighter atoms, and so forth, some of the hydrogen atoms have become helium too.

O.K. but tell me something (perhaps) more important, has the total amount of energy in the entirety of the Universe changed, if so, how?, if not, why?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Oh yes, BTW the past, the present and the future are all here/now as all of the atoms that were there in 1776 are still here and in use, just slightly altered, as are all of the other past particulate participants, and all of the Future ones too, right here, right now, just awaiting their chance to present themselves according to there "time"...atoms (and molecules) all.

Fine, but if they are "slightly altered", then there is a distinct difference between future, past, and present...future is when particles are "slightly altered" relative to past.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
O.K. but tell me something (perhaps) more important, has the total amount of energy in the entirety of the Universe changed, if so, how?, if not, why?

The total amount of energy in the Universe should have a greater percentage that has been distributed as "random movement" (="heat"), as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics...right?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
The total amount of energy in the Universe should have a greater percentage that has been distributed as "random movement" (="heat"), as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics...right?

Why? hasn't lots of it become, well, you, me, the rest of all of the Fusioned productions of atoms that have gone on for how many billions of years now, in the Star's core(s)??

 

[Infomeantion]

--------------------------------------------------------
Here we go:
P1: I did not exist in 1776.
P2: I exist now in a reality that includes P1 as being true.
P3: I go back in time (using whatever means) to 1776.
C: I did exist in 1776! ...
---------------------------------------------------------

Are you trying to prove that time travel is nonsensical or if your reasoning is? You have two contradictory statements. If those statements are the only information to go by, then both of them are meaningless. If you add more information to your speculation, you can come up with reasoning to support that it is sensical or nonsensical, either way. But in the limited context of those four statements, it's just contradictory.

What I tend to think of though, in addition to this, is that you might rephrase it the following (unless you are omniscient, which as I heartell from the crazy information theory people is possible because there is a finite amount of information in the universe):

One universe, possible:
1: I didn't know I existed in 1776.
2: I know I exist in the reality I'm in right now.
3: Then I went back in time to 1776.
4: Now, I know if I were to transport myself back to that old reality that I mentioned in 2, that I existed in 1776.

The point is that you as a person have less than total information about the universe. If you don't contradict that (which I'd be surprised if you wholeheartedly did), then the first statement as you state it would not have the full meaning of absolute truth, although I'm sure that you could probably get a lot of people to agree with you if that is the thing you are after. Not I, however...how do I know that you aren't some computer intelligence just posturing as a person? I'm not saying that I think any of these is likely to me (I am not running to the newspapers about a time-traveling machine intelligence), but I cannot wholeheartedly assert my absolute knowledge of anything. Maybe you can, and maybe you are omniscient too.