A Physicist Has Worked Out The Math That Makes 'Paradox-Free' Time Travel Plausible

Aireoth said:
You are confusing measurement with existence, and inserting way to much human ego.

Time exists, it is intertwined with space like electricity is with magenitism. Our existence does not create these things, we only bear witness to them.
Click to expand...
What do you call time if there was never a name to identify it? That's what I'm getting at. Things are going to do what they are going to do regardless of anything there to witness them.
 
Krenum said:
What do you call time, if there was never a name to identify it? That's what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...
I call your argument the height of egotism.

Just because it isn't named does not negate its existence, just because another language calls it something different does not change it or its nature. Time exists, will continue to do so long after we are dead and gone.

The tree still makes a sound even if you didn't hear it fall.
 
EUbpb.jpg


No paradoxes huh? I'm sure Bender will find a way.
 
Krenum said:
Taking mankind out of the equation. How would time exist? Things would just be & wouldn't be.

I suppose animals would have their routines, that could be a measurement of time, but they are just running off of what has been coded into their DNA.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that a sun will not spread light for 4.5 billions year's or... ?

Not really sure measurement has to do, that like saying take mankind out of the equation, distance and volume would exist ?
 
Aireoth said:
I call your argument the height of egotism.

Just because it isn't named does not negate its existence, just because another language calls it something different does not change it or its nature. Time exists, will continue to do so long after we are dead and gone.

The tree still makes a sound even if you didn't hear it fall.
Click to expand...
Speaking of Ego, I sense some ego in your post to prove your point. Funny how that works.


I can prove that time doesn't exist, in the sense that its only a measuring tool created by mankind.
https://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/age/
 
Krenum said:
Speaking of Ego, I sense some ego in your post to prove your point. Funny how that works.


I can prove that time doesn't exist, in the sense that its only a measuring tool created by mankind.
https://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/age/
Click to expand...

Isn’t time just what we named “ the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future?”

If we were here or not it would still be happening. I mean...I’m not observing the other rooms in my house but they don’t just stop existing. Unless the Universe really does revolve around me...which if totally does!
 
Krenum said:
Speaking of Ego, I sense some ego in your post to prove your point. Funny how that works.


I can prove that time doesn't exist, in the sense that its only a measuring tool created by mankind.
https://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/age/
Click to expand...

How does that site prove time does not exist? Because measurement of it can be changed? next you can show me where time is relative to space.

Why is it people like you insist on something so egotistical to beleive that time only exists because of humans, when clearly we can see that isn't the case, things are billions of years old, they have progressed through time (I can call it something else if it pleases you) without us existing.

You are still confusing measuring with existing. Yes measurement of time will cease to exist if no intellegent life exists to measure it, but time will still flow no matter how much you want to say otherwise.
 
Aireoth said:
How does that site prove time does not exist? Because measurement of it can be changed?
Click to expand...
There you have it. Time is only a reflection of change.

To quote someone probably smarter than me;
Time is only a reflection of change. From change, our brains construct a sense of time as if it were flowing. As he puts it, all the "evidence we have for time is encoded in static configurations, which we see or experience subjectively, all of them fitting together to make time seem linear."

According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality. ... He posits that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future
 
Krenum said:
There you have it. Time is only a reflection of change.

To quote someone probably smarter than me;
Time is only a reflection of change. From change, our brains construct a sense of time as if it were flowing. As he puts it, all the "evidence we have for time is encoded in static configurations, which we see or experience subjectively, all of them fitting together to make time seem linear."
Click to expand...

How does that prove it does not exist outside of human experience?

Your side has never had a convincing argument.
 
Maybe Deja Vu has to do with time travel. Not in the normal sense of time travel though. Say you remember events from a past or future because you died and were reborn. You've been there and seen it before in your past life but can't recall it fully. Some believe they were persons from the past, like Patton, who thought he was the reincarnation of a Roman General.

Some researchers say Deja Vu is just lag between the eye and brain though.
 
Krenum said:
Well, yes and no. Yes for people who have an open mind about the subject, no to the people that are full of ego.
Click to expand...

No, its always been yes time exists, just because some decartes style inward thinking and naval gazing can wonder if no one observes how does one tell time does not negate the FACT that it is a mathmatical and physical reality that time flows throughout the universe.

There has never been a mathmatical argument that actually proves time does not exist if you remove intellegent species.
 
Aireoth said:
No, its always been yes time exists, just because some decartes style inward thinking and naval gazing can wonder if no one observes how does one tell time does not negate the FACT that it is a mathmatical and physical reality that time flows throughout the universe.

There has never been a mathmatical argument that actually proves time does not exist if you remove intellegent species.
Click to expand...
This brings up the argument. Does math exist if humans were never around to use it?
 
Go ahead and use mental gymnastics to eliminate the myriad of thought paradoxes all you want...

Discover me a real means of transporting my current self to a previous state in the universe and you have my attention.
 
Krenum said:
This brings up the argument. Does math exist if humans were never around to use it?
Click to expand...
ok, I'm done with stupid here, you people we not clever in school, let alone now.

The best part is you think those naval gazing thought experiments about time are fun, and then you miss out on the real, interesting, actual things you can do with space/time and relativity.
 
Aireoth said:
ok, I'm done with stupid here, you people we not clever in school, let alone now.

The best part is you think those naval gazing thought experiments about time are fun, and then you miss out on the real, interesting, actual things you can do with space/time and relativity.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif


You do realize that actual science came from a whole lot of "naval gazing" don't you? Osmosis does happen in nature, but to understand how it happens, there was surely naval gazing involved.
 
Last edited:
I subscribe to the block universe theory, so it's all rather moot to me.
 
Krenum said:
Does math exist if humans were never around to use it?
Click to expand...

Or better yet, do other non-human, sentient, technologically-advanced creatures in the multiverse have the same mathematical understanding as we do? Does their form of math have prime numbers? What base do they use?
 
Let's travel back in time when radios were radios and well, you know .... "Of coarse, a tube might jar loose but that's easily fixed".

 
Last edited:
Aegir said:
Exactly.

It's possible to speed time up, and even slow it down. It's dependent on perspective and "clockspeed."
But to go back? Impossible. Even if a person contrived some way of doing it, like "using energy equal to the entirety of the universe" or something, that is NOT a REAL idea. It cannot happen, so why should we consider it?

This entire paper is nonsense, written for fun. There is no accurate math that can solve time travel to its actual full root, because it is impossible to do this. You cannot reverse entropy. We can only modify the form of matter and energy by moving entropy from one place to another. Spending energy.

Computer hardware is an example of energy spent to turn something without complexity into something very complex.
But it does not truly reverse entropy. We still build it in the normal direction that time flows.
Click to expand...

Going back violates all known conservation and causality principles, but as you say the entire paper is nonsense.

I have always found delightful those sci-fi movies (without science content) where time travelers are warned not to 'interact' with the past (e.g. stepping on a butterfly) because doing so would change the history. LOL Once you are in the past you are already interacting and changing the history, because each particle in your body is interacting (electromagnetically, gravitationally, nuclearly) with the rest of particles in the Universe and so modifying the whole evolution.
 
Master_shake_ said:
You are incorrect.

As we speak you are traveling through time.

Only forwards.
Click to expand...

You confound the natural flow of time with time travel. The natural flow of time has been known since before physics was born and even a related concept of "arrow of time" was introduced thanks to the development of thermodynamics. Time travel is a concept introduced after special relativity was developed in the early XX century.

Dan_D said:
The math would seem to disagree with you. However, its probably fair to say that practical time travel may not be possible.
Click to expand...

Physics is not math. Moreover, the math doesn't disagree with what I am saying.

Jonnycat99 said:
Actually it is, but I have only done this once before.
Click to expand...

Ironically, if you do it once then you do it an infinite number of times. ;)
 
Last edited:
imsirovic5 said:
Wouldn't one of the leading quantum theories - many world interpretation (or multiverse) also reduce any paradox. Multiverse theory is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wavefunction collapse. This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe.

So in other words if you travel back in time, then theoretically a ton of other universes would branch out from your actions (in addition to the ones where you are not present). As I type this there have been near infinite amount of universe splits with countless copies of me. So one of the leading quantum theories already sees no paradox with time travel?
Click to expand...

1) The many world interpretation is not an interpretation, but a collection of conceptual nonsense combined with sloppy math pushed by 'four' people that doesn't understand quantum mechanics.
2) There is no consistent combination of quantum mechanics and relativity. In fact both theories are incompatible and you cannot use one to solve paradoxes in the other (and as mentioned above time travel doesn't exist).
 
Jonnycat99 said:
Or better yet, do other non-human, sentient, technologically-advanced creatures in the multiverse have the same mathematical understanding as we do? Does their form of math have prime numbers? What base do they use?
Click to expand...
The base matters less than the total quantity of reality.
The absolute pinnacle of math is computer creation and programming.
If this can be done, then their form of math is valid.

juanrga said:
1) The many world interpretation is not an interpretation, but a collection of conceptual nonsense combined with sloppy math pushed by 'four' people that doesn't understand quantum mechanics.
2) There is no consistent combination of quantum mechanics and relativity. In fact both theories are incompatible and you cannot use one to solve paradoxes in the other (and as mentioned above time travel doesn't exist).
Click to expand...

Yes, I wrote an article in my journal attacking the "many-worlds" hypothesis, and found plenty of reasons why it is false.
Here are a few excerpts from my essay.

"The Many-Worlds hypothesis posits that at each possible moment for multiple events to happen, all events happen, and each version of events splits off into differing realities." This is how I've defined the idea. And now, to destroy it.

"All events happen according to the path of least-resistance."
There is no place for multiple events to occur. Only the event of least resistance will occur.

Secondly, "Creating a second version of the universe would take all the energy in the first universe- and then it must be duplicated, and ordered exactly as it was in the first universe." Except for the singular change. According to common physics wisdom, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only their form may change.

Even if matter and energy COULD be created or destroyed in a way that would violate the known laws of physics, it would probably be on a very small, and spontaneous scale, rather than because the universe was duplicated for every possible action.

And my third point as to why the many worlds hypothesis MUST be dismissed was this: "Proving that a thing is true before saying a thing is true reveals useful information. To simply believe in a thing without proof is the bane of knowledge and fact. Thus, because we do not have any actual proof of even one additional universe, it should not be believed. "

Never has any person actually brought back a remnant of an additional universe. Duplicate people do not exist. Rick and Morty was a cartoon.
There is no record of traveling to another universe and bringing anything back. Not physical objects, and not even knowledge, in the sense of going to a futuristic world and learning some sort of arcane technological secret.

Even if you want to point your finger at Nvidia and accuse them of traveling to a futuristic civilization and stealing technology that they didn't understand, I assure you, that is not the case. Not Nvidia. Intel? Hmm. I'll let you decide.

So anyways, with this long post finally reaching its conclusion, I'm sure that I've fully convinced everyone here that the Many-Worlds hypothesis is impossible and null, and not a valid hypothesis. To summarize, matter and energy will take the path of least resistance, yielding only one path through time. Second, universes cannot be duplicated for each possible outcome. And finally, there is no actual proof of many-worlds actually existing, proof of which could potentially overturn my other reasonings I've displayed. But without the proof, there was not actually any reason to consider it in the first place.

It's purely for fun, just as everything on this forum is. If the internet stops being fun, it's time to stand up and go outside.
 
Last edited:
Aegir said:
So anyways, with this long post finally reaching its conclusion, I'm sure that I've fully convinced everyone here that the Many-Worlds hypothesis is impossible and null, and not a valid hypothesis.
Click to expand...
No, and for the same reason that someone telling me that it is impossible for vehicles from other worlds, light years from our own, to visit us (note: I am not saying that this is happening, it is just a point of discussion). The reason is that it is based on our current understanding of reality, science and technology, and fails to fathom that there are many things which we just do not comprehend.

Imagine going back to the mid-fifteenth century and telling people that you could circumnavigate the globe in a half a days time, and mind you, these are people who do not even realize that we live on a globe in the first place. They would present to you a laundry list of why that was not possible based on their current understing of reality, science, and technology, and remain resolute that it was just not possible.
 
Jonnycat99 said:
No, and for the same reason that someone telling me that it is impossible for vehicles from other worlds, light years from our own, to visit us (note: I am not saying that this is happening, it is just a point of discussion). The reason is that it is based on our current understanding of reality, science and technology, and fails to fathom that there are many things which we just do not comprehend.

Imagine going back to the mid-fifteenth century and telling people that you could circumnavigate the globe in a half a days time, and mind you, these are people who do not even realize that we live on a globe in the first place. They would present to you a laundry list of why that was not possible based on their current understing of reality, science, and technology, and remain resolute that it was just not possible.
Click to expand...


Do you believe that every concept or idea is true, even if they are not true, just because they could be true?
That is where your logic is leading.

I'm sorry, but your logic is incompatible with me. I am fine with shrugging and not knowing, but there is a point where I need to be realistic and begin building a consistent world-view based on the facts available to me. When new facts become available, I will reassess things.

But there have not been any vehicles from other worlds, nor have I seen evidence of extra-dimensions.
Am I supposed to ignore this, and assume that they exist, despite no evidence?

I know what you're getting at, of course. But it's just not how I work.
 
Ridiculous thread. Ferris Bueller and Cameron already proved going back in time was impossible in 1986.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top