Deductive Logic on the subject of Time Travel.

[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) With...me? (SNoP)

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 dimention 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 dimention 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 dimention 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 dimention 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 concensus, (?)

 

[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.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
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)??

Sure, lot's of it has. But for every congealed mass created in space (like stars and planets) a greater amount of heat is given off, than order is established.

[edit]"then" to "than"[/edit]

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Infomeantion
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.

You forget that the time of my postulating that I didn't exist in 1776 is before the time of my changing that. I got into a time machine, after having existed in a reality wherein I didn't exist in 1776 (as per P2). Now, if I did exist in 1776, then that's fine, but that means that I already existed there, in spite of my never having gotten in a time machine (yet).

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.

I'm after a fuller understanding. I don't expect to be right about this particular deduction, since there are so many respected people who still believe it to be possible-in-principle to travel backward in time. I'm just waiting for this deduction to be refuted, not for it to be accepted.

Not I, however...how do I know that you aren't some computer intelligence just posturing as a person?

But I am a computer intelligence...so are you.

 

[Infomeantion]

Allow me to try to rephrase how I initially read this thread's first post, which is essentially one argument nested within another. One, which I'll call 'Argument A', is the internal consistency of your reasoning with P1, P2, P3 and C. You show plainly that the argument is self-contradicty, with C contradicting P1 and P2 (although I don't think it contradicts P3 but that doesn't really matter). The second argument can be shown as follows:

Premise: Argument A is contradictory.
Proposition: Time travel's possibility relies on Argument A not
being contradictory.
Conclusion: Time travel is not only impossible, but non-sensical.

I agree with the premise that Argument A is contradictory. Your conclusion definitely contradicts your first and second propositions. But the proposition above, that time travel relies on Argument A, I believe not to be true. By including your 'limited information' in your role of Argument A, I was trying to show you that it does not mean that your conclusion is necessarily false, but rather that your premise could have been false. Either way, Argument A is contradictory, but not necessarily applicable to the possibility of time travel. Does this make more sense?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Sure, lot's of it has. But for every congealed mass created in space (like stars and planets) a greater amount of heat is given off, than order is established.

Humm, proof of that?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Infomeantion
Allow me to try to rephrase how I initially read this thread's first post, which is essentially one argument nested within another. One, which I'll call 'Argument A', is the internal consistency of your reasoning with P1, P2, P3 and C. You show plainly that the argument is self-contradicty, with C contradicting P1 and P2 (although I don't think it contradicts P3 but that doesn't really matter). The second argument can be shown as follows:

Premise: Argument A is contradictory.
Proposition: Time travel's possibility relies on Argument A not
being contradictory.
Conclusion: Time travel is not only impossible, but non-sensical.

I agree with the premise that Argument A is contradictory. Your conclusion definitely contradicts your first and second propositions. But the proposition above, that time travel relies on Argument A, I believe not to be true. By including your 'limited information' in your role of Argument A, I was trying to show you that it does not mean that your conclusion is necessarily false, but rather that your premise could have been false. Either way, Argument A is contradictory, but not necessarily applicable to the possibility of time travel. Does this make more sense?

Indeed it does. However, could you please explain to me how time travel doesn't rely on its possibility being deductively valid?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm, proof of that?

As much proof as I have that we there are planets orbiting other stars...I've been told, and I've read.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
As much proof as I have that we there are planets orbiting other stars...I've been told, and I've read.

Sorry but your first statement is a little confusing...(sp? possibly?) but to the second one, me too, but I don't believe everything that I have read, I have had many a years to both read, remember re-digest, think, and come to conclusions concerning an array of areas of knowledge.

So tell me then, what is "chaotic" about heat? how is it that the disspation of temperature is seen as a "chaotic event" overburdoning to the extent of overwhelming the very real increase in order that is going on inside stellar bodies, and then tell me how much heat a galaxy bleeds off in comparison to the Order generated within that structure...and more, when your ready...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Sorry but your first statement is a little confusing...(sp? possibly?) but to the second one, me too, but I don't believe everything that I have read, I have had many a years to both read, remember re-digest, think, and come to conclusions concerning an array of areas of knowledge.

Well, I skip the "come to conclusions" part, since I like to remain open, but I agree that this is the typical method. It's "education", and is necessary.

As to the first statement, I was just saying that I have enough proof that heat, greater than the quantity of congealed mass, is released when said mass congeals.

So tell me then, what is "chaotic" about heat? how is it that the disspation of temperature is seen as a "chaotic event" overburdoning to the extent of overwhelming the very real increase in order that is going on inside stellar bodies, and then tell me how much heat a galaxy bleeds off in comparison to the Order generated within that structure...and more, when your ready...

I don't know how much heat "bleeds off", I've just read that it's greater than the amount of mass that congeals.

You ask "what's so chaotic about heat", my response is: The heat!

"Heat", by a physicist's definition is random movement of particles.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP) "Heat", by a physicist's definition is random movement of particles. (SNoP)[/B]

Oh, so then it is NOT "Ambient Energy Pressure" you know, what a thermometer reads...cause heat is something that occurs between atoms, the release of the atoms energy/EMR, and causes them to increase/decrease in motion relatively, cause and effect, just 'looks' "random" but follows all the rules like it is supposed to.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP) As to the first statement, I was just saying that I have enough proof that heat, greater than the quantity of congealed mass, is released when said mass congeals. (SNoP)

Humm, let's see, debating tactics, distract your opponents attention by diverting from subject matter in an innocent looking enough manner...we had been talking (least I was) about the Fusion reactions going on inside "stellar bodies" remember that?, not congealing masses that are releasing heat, aside, have you proof of that "Heat V Order" relativity in/concerning a galaxy?