It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is with the obsession of Paradox in Time Travel?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
As many other ATS'ers, I was watching Hawking's specials on one of the educational channels (Discovery I think), and he was talking about time travel.

I couldn't get over how concerned he was about Paradox, and in essence, said that because of it, time travel into the past is impossible. If this were really the concern, what about the Paradox of the same being (information/data/matter, etc.) existing twice in the same time? (for example, he gave a scenario about a student creating the portal, going back one minute, and then shooting himself through the portal... Wouldn't him being in two places at once be such a paradox?

He gave a similar idea about why something couldn't go faster than light. What if we simply haven't observed something that does so? Doesn't mean it isn't out there. Some feel gravity may even do so...

My personal thoughts are that the Universe does not have some kind of built in "regulator" that prevents the "impossible". Such an idea actually seems kind of ludicrous, which is really strange, as I respect Mr. Hawking and his work and ideas...nor do I feel I'm in his class intellectually... But, I can't help but feel that maybe he and others have "over-thought" the Paradox thing.

Information is information. Does the Universe really "care" one way or the other? I guess a lot depends on really defining what it means to go back in time. My thoughts are this.

SCENARIO: Lets say you have the energy, the means, and the computing power, etc. to calculate all four coordinates in the Universe, to a specific arrival destination of a specific event in the past. For an example, a place and time where you know Hitler will be driving by, in a lone car.

So, you power it up, and open up a wormhole to the exact spot Earth was in the Universe, calculate for rotation, position in the solar system, galaxy, Universe, etc. and to the exact time involved. You walk through and POOF!, you're there.

You take aim with an RPG, fire it, and blow up the car, killing Hitler. Hawking's supposition was that SOMETHING would happen to prevent this. (indeed, the show LOST seems to use this premise). But, would it really? I doubt it. I think he'd be dead.

So, now, I calculate the way back, open my wormhole, and POOF! I'm home. Nothing has changed. Why? Simple, I returned to the same place/time that I left, no Paradox, because THAT location (by the 4 dimensions) is not "magically" affected by alteration of the past. Granted, one has to wonder what happened to the past world that I left, I mean, did it create some kind of alternate Universe just by one act? That seems a bit drastic. Theoretically, I could create an alternate Universe just by deciding not to wear socks tomorrow...??? Not buying it. Perhaps it's just like relativity itself...it only changes for the observer, not the actual people in the past? It's a lot to ponder, and tricky, but does Paradox automatically mean its impossible? I can't see how.




posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
So you can go back in time...and see who killed JFK...duhhh



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
The paradox I see in traveling back is the placements of atoms.

All the atoms that built the cells in your body would go back to their original place, and since you replace quite a lot a cells a day you would disintegrate while traveling back.

It might be possible to go to the future though if U don't stay too long you could even go back.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Grey Magic]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Hawking's thinking seems limited to me now..

...I believe its possible to go into the past and make these paradoxes happen but the main question is what would happen if they did occur?

Some sort of magic perhaps?

The answer is most likely in quantum physics though..



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I agree that the paradox problem is something people made up and then decided they couldn't get over. Paradoxes are really just situations which are repulsive to our intuition and sense of reason. It seems absurd, to me, to suggest that there is something imbedded in the fundamental structure of reality to prevent them. There is no reason that processes which are very far removed from our eveyday experience should make sense to us. Our brains and our sense of reason and our intuition and our entire cognition is evolved very specifically to make sense of the kind of world we live in. Things like time travel, wave/particle dualty, and the begining of the universe are so far removed from our day to day activities that it should come as no surprise that we struggle to wrap our brains around them. After all, our brains weren't made to be wrapped around those things, they were made to wrapped around how we're going to eat and find mates(obviously this is a drastic oversimplification).

Aren't there enough counter-intuitive, "paradoxical" states of affairs which we know to be true? For example Zeno's paradoxes, wave/particle duality is quantum physics, and the problem of infinite regression is cosmology. In fact, here is a list of paradoxes. Aren't these paradoxes and their corresponding undeniable realities enough proof that calling something a "paradox" isn't a strong argument for dismissing the possibility of it happening?

I agree that paradoxes don't make sense, they contradict reason and logic, and they are abhorrent to intuition. These qualities of them make it very easy to argue that they cannot exist. I disagree, however, that the sense of reason which is wired into a human brain is the be-all-end-all mechanism for determining what is possible and what is not. Quantum physics is proof in itself that physical reality isn't how we might expect it to be, and indeed that situations which seem intuitively "impossible" are actually realized all the time.

Granted, human cognition is the only tool we have to try to understand the world. So, if something doesn't seem possible according to reason I think we are justified when we don't expect that thing to happen. Your time travel example, for instance, raises some questions. In order for you to travel into the past, there has to be a past "out there," existing right now, for you to travel into. Is the idea that every instant is preserved somewhere, as an actual place(and time) that you can go to? And if you do kill Hitler, how could that not effect the present? If that event really took place in the past, how could it not be incorporated into the chain of causes and effects that make up the history leading to the present day? If it didn't have any effect on reality, you would have gained nothing from killing him. But, if it did have an effect on reality and Hitler died before he could do anything bad, you would have never had any reason to go back and kill him in the first place. Plus, why didn't he get killed by the future "you" when history played through the first time? If we escape these problems with the creation of alternate universes, your travelling would have to have been something much different than just time travel in order to get there(because it's not your past, it's the past of an alternate reality).



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


I think the real problem with the paradox issue in time travel is the fact that you cannot build or use a time travel machine for a sole purpose, such as in killing Hitler.

The reasoning behind you using such time travel would be negated the instant that you killed him. Therefore, your future (now) self would not get into said time machine and go back to kill him as your future (now) self would have no reason to, since you already went back and killed him. This could go on and on... hence the paradox.

I don't see time travel a real issue just for purely observational purposes, with no intent in mind to do anything.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
it isnt outside the realm of theoretical possibility that a time traveler was the one who shot Kennedy in the first place.

I subscribe to the Daniel Faraday (from Lost
) line of thinking with the mantra, "Whatever happened, happened."

it could be hard wired into reality that what happens effects everything, but nothing all at once. I have a striking suspension that we have NO CHOICE about ANYTHING - EVER. it harkens unto the Christian belief that god knows what your going to do before you do it.

There is no way to test the grandfather paradox without physically trying it, but as we have seen from futurama when Fry had to mate with his grandmother to make sure his dad would be born, the universe didnt really care, and fry was the only one effected, but he was already pretty messed up, so its possible that was meant to have happened.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Really good points. I thought the shows were interesting, and plan to keep watching. I don't think he has diverged substantially from any of his previous positions but this series is well done.

As for paradoxes, traveling backwards in time would be a sufficient paradox in and of itself. As far as we know now only subatomic particles display this feature. Stephen Hawking presented a paper in 1992 in which he discusses a mechanism by which paradoxes would be resolved before they are allowed to happen, much in the way described in the show. The theory is referred to as the Chronology Protection Conjecture:

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not so skeptical. I think the many worlds interpretation opens the door for time travel to a similar but not identical past which resolves the paradox issue--it was already different. So yes, you would not be traveling back to your past.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
There are plenty of paradoxes that exist and do not work.

Why is it that i have never committed suicide, with my life absolutely destroyed. Isn't that a paradox, why do humans like me never commit suicide?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


The paradox with your killing Hitler scenario is exactly that. If you travelled back in time to kill Hitler, once you did so your reason for travelling back would cease to be, meaning you wouldn't travel back to do it.

Or, a better analogy is killing your dad before you're born. If you did so, you wouldn't exist so therefore you wouldn't travel back to kill him, meaning you would exist. Something must happen to stop it happening.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
OR....

The act creates a divergent timeline, and since I already know the way back to MY timeline, I could go back and kill him as much as I want to...(with no effect on MY timeline)...

But, this all of course assumes that a CHANGE in history would have ANY effect, either of itself, or to my history.


The paradox I see in traveling back is the placements of atoms.

All the atoms that built the cells in your body would go back to their original place, and since you replace quite a lot a cells a day you would disintegrate while traveling back.

It might be possible to go to the future though if U don't stay too long you could even go back.


But isn't this paradox the same? This assumption is like a "Conservation of Matter" idea... If the additional cells would cause a problem in the past, they would in the future also...

But, why would they "go back to the same place"? That's the crux of my argument...matter is matter, info is info... The idea of paradox seems to "require" some kind of divine sense of "correctness" on the part of the Universe.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   


That's the crux of my argument...matter is matter, info is info... The idea of paradox seems to "require" some kind of divine sense of "correctness" on the part of the Universe.
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Super Mods have super bad ideas...

I can think of several things that are not plausible in all possible worlds:



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok


So, now, I calculate the way back, open my wormhole, and POOF! I'm home. Nothing has changed. Why? Simple, I returned to the same place/time that I left, no Paradox, because THAT location (by the 4 dimensions) is not "magically" affected by alteration of the past. Granted, one has to wonder what happened to the past world that I left, I mean, did it create some kind of alternate Universe just by one act? That seems a bit drastic. Theoretically, I could create an alternate Universe just by deciding not to wear socks tomorrow...??? Not buying it. Perhaps it's just like relativity itself...it only changes for the observer, not the actual people in the past? It's a lot to ponder, and tricky, but does Paradox automatically mean its impossible? I can't see how.


This is exactly what would "supposedly" happen according to some theorists. You would effect someone's past, but not your own. So the only reason for such an action would be to see how a "possible" action "might" have played out. That is if you could open a window to watch what happened in that alternate universe based on your action(s). If you liked the future you created in the alternate universe you could go back to that universe, convince someone to come to your universe and repeat that action. The only question then would be whether or not you could go back to your universe and enjoy the consequences or if it would create another alternate universe which you would not have access to.

Good thread - makes you think!



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Super Mods have super bad ideas...

I can think of several things that are not plausible in all possible worlds:


It's great to disagree...but why not say WHY the idea is "super bad", vs. just making an unsubstantiated statement...

What is your definition of "not plausible"? Just because it violates "causality"? What about Schrodinger's Cat or particles that are observed to be in two places at the same time, or theorized tachyons, etc.?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I kinda repeat myself in here and sound like Doc, but bear with me:

I think with the grandfather paradox, if you went back in time and killed your grandfather, once you returned back to where you came from, you would no longer have a background.

You would be some type of anomaly time traveler without a past.

And you may have also disrupted any events due to your grandfathers existence, because he was no longer able to exist because you killed him, and neither were you.

So in turn, if you had no way to get back to the future, you would be stuck in the past.

Because your whole time travel experiment would have never happened! Because you never existed to build it! Now you are stuck in the past with no way of getting back! Oopps!

Killing your grandfather might not be the best idea. Unless you had a device to return you to the future, all your work would be gone. Because "you" would not have existed to build it because you killed your grandfather. You would become some anomaly time traveler without a past.



Only if after you killed your grandfather, and had some way of returning to the future...

At that point if you had a partner in your time experiment work, and he had time travel equipment, you could explain to him what had happen. Next you would have to go back in time and prevent your past time traveling self from killing your grandfather. Makes sense?

If you successfully went back in time and killed your grandfather and returned to the future....you would be returning to a new reality. A reality without your previous existence.

So maybe with something like the JFK assassination, a time line could have existed with JFK alive, and someone from the future went back in time to kill him, maybe to benefit their own personal agenda.

I think it is common agreement that time travel will one day be available. That means we have already witnessed time travel. Are there any indicators of time travel? How would we know? We weren't privy to that previous time line...once someone went back and changed the course of events.

Maybe insane amounts of time lines have existed and all of history has been rewritten.

You have to consider that time travel would be in the hands of black ops.

I think after several experiments you would start to understand how traveling to the past can change the future, and eventually you would become an expert in it. Thus you would know how to travel to the past to benefit your own agenda.

Therefore you can consider if such a scenario currently or futuristically exists, then all the time travel trips have already happened, and are in the history books as actual events.

How many serious global events are unexplained, and one far fetched conclusion is maybe someone traveled back in time?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Ok im going to refer to this hilter situation.

I think this paradox idea does not exist. Here is what i think about it.

You travel back to kill hitler, you kill him, and as you do your creating a alternate reality and yes you can travel back to where you came from.

When you kill him you create another reality in which that reality relives from that moment you just changed, and you can travel back to your own because you have the technology with you and you know how to use it, and because your specifying a certain time and date at which to return to you do return to where you came from thus no paradox (but you in your own reality dont see the changes that you just caused, because the universe just bends and splits around the changes.)

Anyone agree with that?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Ibex08
 


Well then you are just traveling to a parallel universe. Maybe the ones in control of time travel, don't want to go back in time and kill Hitler? Are there economic benefits, or power control, with the outcome of the war?

Isn't there a conspiracy theory that the US used time travel, to gain intelligence on Germany, and know the German's next move, and that is how the US won the war? I'm pretty sure I've read this on ATS. Anybody know what I'm referring to?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


You would kill Hitler and create a new timeline.

It would have no affect at all on our past, present or future.

In essence you would create a completely different past present and future beyond our own.

You would exist in both, and not know the other existed.

There is your paradox.




posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
ok I don't have the answer to this thesis but eey who am I? I'm just a dumbass


And go on slap me, i'm my source, so no links sorry.

If it is possible or not to travel in time id on't know. the whole paradox theme is based on a linear time scheme, go back and forward on the same line. with the statement, when i go back and i change something I create a new time line, when I put on my socks (I sure liked that one, butterfly effect) I create a new time line. What if they are allready there? and you only have to choose.

And another thing is a bit complicated. We as humans need to perceive "time" from past to present. But isn't it possible that time in general is at the same "time" and we are on a line just slicing trough it. And because of the whole paradox thing we can't go back on our line we can only go to another line. So you could have killed your father when you we're young but can visited him last week on another line



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
If you eliminate time travel into the past, it removes the grandfather contradiction, (going back in time to kill your grandfather, thereby eliminating yourself and the event of murder, thereby negating the action).

The past is history, it is DEAD. The present is the left over from the dead past. This past continues to erode in what we erroneously call the "future" but really the decomposition of all things.

LIFE is the only thing that has true existence, which exists throughout the past, present, and future until it finally dissipates and is removed from existence. This indicates it is mortal, but things are mortal, Nature is Immortal.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by filosophia]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join