One thing struck me upon reading;

Category 1 = likely to occur in the near future.
Time travel.

Category 3 = impossible.
Knowing the future.


If it's possible to travel through time, wouldn't it then be possible to know the future?
Am I missing something here?

[edit on 3/4/08 by Freeborn]

I take it this guy has not seen back to the future or the butterfly effect. Time travel would be dangerous, as if you mess with one little thing, it could spell disaster.

Hm. I'm gonna have to look at his book. Kaku is a smart cookie but I doubt he's talking about what we traditionally consider time travel...this concept violates causality and presumes determinism (i.e. that the future is set in stone), so few serious scientists consider it to be possible.

Originally posted by Freeborn
...
If it's possible to travel through time, wouldn't it then be possible to know the future?
Am I missing something here?

If time travel is possible in both directions (past and future), then time becomes non-linear. No past, no present, no future, only an infinite number of points in time. Past, present and future would then continuously change relative to the unique position in time of the observer.

For example, If you and I both leave this point in time simultaneously, you going forward and me going back, the "present", or the time we left, is in your past and my future. The problem is that the term "future", but it's current definition, relies on the point of reference to be linearly in front of the observer. If you can go back and forth, time is non-linear, more accurately described as a volume of existence with points scattered three dimensionally throughout the volume. You could no longer simply say "go back" or "go forward" when giving directions. At least that's my take on it.

Originally posted by Unit541

If time travel is possible in both directions (past and future), then time becomes non-linear. No past, no present, no future, only an infinite number of points in time. Past, present and future would then continuously change relative to the unique position in time of the observer.

For example, If you and I both leave this point in time simultaneously, you going forward and me going back, the "present", or the time we left, is in your past and my future. The problem is that the term "future", but it's current definition, relies on the point of reference to be linearly in front of the observer. If you can go back and forth, time is non-linear, more accurately described as a volume of existence with points scattered three dimensionally throughout the volume. You could no longer simply say "go back" or "go forward" when giving directions. At least that's my take on it.

I'm guessing the reality of the fourth dimension is much closer to your description than most people realize. I've long thought time was somehow non-linear, and that time travel and travel between "parallel" dimensions (or "alternates", if you will, based on different decisions made in different realities) are highly inter-related. What if non-linear time is a constant, like a universe unto itself where reality as we know it, including not only the past, present, and an almost limitless number of possible futures, plus the pasts, presents, and possible futures of countless alternate realities, all float and orbit like stars in our physical, three-dimensional universe? Could time, as a medium, be a constant like the dark matter of physical space? If so, and if one developed a "time machine", it would also be something of a dimensional "ship" allowing you to hop from one alternate reality to another. Also, if this were the case, there would be no such thing as paradox--changes to our past would create a different present and possible future, but the one we came from would still exist-if we could navigate back to it.

I need to write this down...

please lets stop this time travling i like excisting.

Yeah, I kind of get that, you are saying that if time travel is possible then timeisn't "linear" but just different events in space??
(Sounds like something Geordi or Data would say)

If someone travelled back in time from the future then that event would always have happened and will have no effect on the "now", but the person would have knowledge of the future.

Don't know if that makes any sense to anyone, hell even I'm struggling to understand it on re-reading.

I think I'm struggling here.

Oh, great. You know, I listened to this guy for many years as a regular guest on Coast To Coast Am with Art Bell. I've seen him recently on countless Science Channel documentaries. Every time, I get the same impression.

To clarify that impression, I call him "Mucho Kookoo".

I suggest you ignore him. His 'official' title is 'futurist'. I am assuming that means he dreams up his idea of what he'd like the future to be and gets paid for it (and apparently physics is suspended in the future ). IF time travel is possible (and it may well be), Mucho Kookoo will not be the one to design, build, or operate the first time machine. That much I can guarantee.

He might talk about it, afterwards, but I bet he gets the concept wrong.

TheRedneck

1. Time does not exist

2. It is conceivably possible to "travel" to an event that has already passed, or to travel to an unknown event that "possibly" can happen in the future.

3. Any action by a "traveller" has no affect on the previous or future "timeline" from where the traveller originated from.

4. Any event in the future has no past to affect it only has the next progression of events to unfold from that point

5. Anything that "will" happen, already has happened somewhere.

example, what would have been my grandfather died when my mother was 7 years old. It is possible that a separate timeline exists where he did not die and in fact lived an additional 30 or 40 years. This world is independently unique from the world here and now that I know to be true. If I was able to travel a point in time say 10 years after what I know to be his death to observer that world, even if I could physically be manifested into that world any alteration in the events in that world would not change the fact that here on my base timeline that he died when my mother was 7 years old.

To add to the complexity there is no loss of time while you are "gone" as you return the same instant you departed and lose all conscience recollection of the events that happened while you were in the other timeline.

This means the infinite "you" that exists in the infinite alt-timelines do not share a common conscience. But are intertwined in the sub-conscience.

Past life regression in "some" cases is a temporary disconnect in the current physically manifested timeline to that of an alt-timeline currently active.




[edit on 3-4-2008 by robertfenix]

Originally posted by Freeborn
Yeah, I kind of get that, you are saying that if time travel is possible then timeisn't "linear" but just different events in space??
(Sounds like something Geordi or Data would say)

If someone travelled back in time from the future then that event would always have happened and will have no effect on the "now", but the person would have knowledge of the future.

He would have knowledge of the present he came from, which from his new point of view in the past would be a possible future. He could affect events in his new position without affecting that possible future outcome (his original "present") because whatever changes he makes simply lead to a different possible future outcome. In this scenario time machines are also dimension-hoppers, thus he can return to his original present. Time itself, as a dimension, would be like empty space while all possible points in the past, present and future are like stars and planets.

Don't know if that makes any sense to anyone, hell even I'm struggling to understand it on re-reading.

No, I think you get it. It's a weird concept and I'm probably not expressing it well.

Originally posted by thought
Hm. I'm gonna have to look at his book. Kaku is a smart cookie but I doubt he's talking about what we traditionally consider time travel...this concept violates causality and presumes determinism (i.e. that the future is set in stone), so few serious scientists consider it to be possible.

Actually, Michio Kaku is a fan of the multiverse idea, where there are countless and infinite universes co-existing at the same time. He's probably the pre-eminent physicist of our time.

I don't see why this is so hard to believe.Look at how far science has come in the last 100 years.Aren't billions of people contacting eachother from around the world within seconds on a keyboard.After all how many of us believe in God and aliens w/reversed engineered technology and ufos.For all we know the tech could be from us coming back to the past.I personally have experienced some unexplainable things in my life time, so i'm basically open minded enough to entertain just about anything.This is after all what made us who and what we are today.Imagine if nobody dared to believe in their dreams.We'd still be in the stone age.Just my thoughts

Originally posted by robertfenix
1. Time does not exist

Maybe not in the sense we've traditionally considered, no. As an empty space-like medium, maybe. How that relates to our linear perception of time, I haven't figured out yet.

2. It is conceivably possible to "travel" to an event that has already passed, or to travel to an unknown event that "possibly" can happen in the future.

And, maybe, to past events that "could" have happened, differently from history as we know it.

3. Any action by a "traveller" has no affect on the previous or future "timeline" from where the traveller originated from.

Yes.

4. Any event in the future has no past to affect it only has the next progression of events to unfold from that point.

Perhaps. I would also posit that any future event also has a number of possible past/present events leading up to it. Basically, that "time" is linear, at least as percieved, by the inhabitants of that future, and they have a past that has led up to their present, and there is still an open future beyond. But, the actual nature of "time", imperceptible to us, is very different from our linear definition of it.

5. Anything that "will" happen, already has happened somewhere.

Yes! Absolutely!!

example, what would have been my grandfather died when my mother was 7 years old. It is possible that a separate timeline exists where he did not die and in fact lived an additional 30 or 40 years. This world is independently unique from the world here and now that I know to be true. If I was able to travel a point in time say 10 years after what I know to be his death to observer that world, even if I could physically be manifested into that world any alteration in the events in that world would not change the fact that here on my base timeline that he died when my mother was 7 years old.

Exactly! And concievably you could then travel to the same exact point in "linear time" as we percieve it, within your original reality--and compare the two at your leisure, without affecting the "futures" of either timeline.