reply to post by AlchemistSwami
Your first
assumption is that Time exists.
I would
seriously reconsider
that premise.
Consider this:
If Time
actually existed, it would be, like
All things that exist, an
independently, discreetly quantifiable entity: it would
posses inherently discernable bounderies, defining what is, from what is not a part of itself: the way we can, for example, determine what is, and
what is not, an apple, when compared to an orange.
Or even when compared to
Another apple; since even the two apples are
discreet entities in and of, themselves.
One cannot do this with Time.
Yes, we can
arbitrarily divide what we "perceive" as Time into discreet units (days, weeks, hours, seconds, etc.), but these divisions are
perceptual convienences at best: they do not
actually effect Time itself in any signficant way, as would, say slicing an apple into pieces
would fundamentally change the structure of the subject apple.
If Time existed as an actual, quantifiable entity, we
should be able to divvy up Time into actual, discreet portions (hours, seconds,
milliseconds, etc.). But
what, then, would exist Between the portion we've "extracted" and the Next portion?
If Time exists, as you seem to argue, like "beads on a string", then what lies between the beads, where there is no "Time": where the discreet
essence of one "moment of Time" ends and another begins?
And if there exists a quantifiable "gap" between the end of one "moment" and the start of another, this "gap" must be, by nature of the
definition of Time,
b]NotTime.
But, if each "particle of Time" is preceded and followed by a period of "No Time", thus defining the individual "moments" of Time, Do you see
that there can then be no "passage of Time"; no Past, Present, or Future, since this would require that Time would be able to "flow through" these
periods of "No Time", thus extinguishing them.
Thus, we must conclude that Time cannot exist, as we are wont to preceive it at least, as a "series of moments", or "points (of Time) on a line";
at best, we can say that Time appears to be a "line", unbroken and indivisable.
Or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say, counter-intuitively and much to our confoundment, that Time only, truly, exists as a figment of our
limited preceptional abilities.
Thus:
Your second assumption is that since Time exists, we cannot travel
backwards to a certain
point in Time.
I would then argue that, since it is apparant that Time, at least as you have presented the concept, does
Not exist, it therefore
may be
possible to "travel" in any direction of "Time" one desires.