Religions > Atheism > Semi-OT: If classical time travel is possible, then we are already immortal.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Buck" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2005 01:29:13 PM |
| Object: |
Semi-OT: If classical time travel is possible, then we are already immortal. |
Definition of "classical time-travel": The idea that one can go back
into their history and find there exactly what is remembered to have
been there, the exact circumstances in that moment of time which led
to the exact circumstances of the moment in time from which one left.
Contention: If time-travel as classically conceived is in fact
possible, then we are already immortal.
Reasoning: If from any time we can travel to any other time and find
there what we expect to find (i.e., our own history or our own
future), then what we expect to find must technically already exist.
An entire reality doesn't just appear from nowhere simply because we
stepped into a machine. That means that the you or I sitting at the
keyboard right now will always exist. Forever. Otherwise, the
classical notion of time-travel would be impossible.
Sidenotes:
It is my belief that time-travel, as classically conceived, is
in fact impossible, that time and reality in general simply don't
exist or behave in such a conventional manner. But apparently, enough
people still seem to take classical time-travel notions seriously
enough that I felt compelled to make the above observation.
Thoughts? :-?
.
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi-OT: If classical time travel is possible, then we are already immortal. |
30 Jun 2005 01:23:15 PM |
|
|
Definition of "classical time-travel": The idea that one can go back
into their history and find there exactly what is remembered to have
been there, the exact circumstances in that moment of time which led
to the exact circumstances of the moment in time from which one left.
Contention: If time-travel as classically conceived is in fact
possible, then we are already immortal.
Reasoning: If from any time we can travel to any other time and find
there what we expect to find (i.e., our own history or our own
future), then what we expect to find must technically already exist.
An entire reality doesn't just appear from nowhere simply because we
stepped into a machine. That means that the you or I sitting at the
keyboard right now will always exist. Forever. Otherwise, the
classical notion of time-travel would be impossible.
Sidenotes:
It is my belief that time-travel, as classically conceived, is
in fact impossible, that time and reality in general simply don't
exist or behave in such a conventional manner. But apparently, enough
people still seem to take classical time-travel notions seriously
enough that I felt compelled to make the above observation.
Thoughts? :-?
Time is an illusion based on human memory and humans deducing
from evidence that there were things and activities before "now"
and that there will probably be things and activities after "now".
It is not a place nor a dimension. It's actually just a convenient
term to describe something that only seems to exist - like the
term "centrifugal force".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Zarkov" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi-OT: If classical time travel is possible, then we are alreadyimmortal. |
30 Jun 2005 02:58:04 PM |
|
|
Witziges Rätsel wrote:
Definition of "classical time-travel": The idea that one can go back
into their history and find there exactly what is remembered to have
been there, the exact circumstances in that moment of time which led
to the exact circumstances of the moment in time from which one left.
Contention: If time-travel as classically conceived is in fact
possible, then we are already immortal.
Reasoning: If from any time we can travel to any other time and find
there what we expect to find (i.e., our own history or our own
future), then what we expect to find must technically already exist.
An entire reality doesn't just appear from nowhere simply because we
stepped into a machine. That means that the you or I sitting at the
keyboard right now will always exist. Forever. Otherwise, the
classical notion of time-travel would be impossible.
Sidenotes:
It is my belief that time-travel, as classically conceived, is
in fact impossible, that time and reality in general simply don't
exist or behave in such a conventional manner. But apparently, enough
people still seem to take classical time-travel notions seriously
enough that I felt compelled to make the above observation.
Thoughts? :-?
Time is an illusion based on human memory and humans deducing
from evidence that there were things and activities before "now"
and that there will probably be things and activities after "now".
It is not a place nor a dimension. It's actually just a convenient
term to describe something that only seems to exist - like the
term "centrifugal force".
Sorry, but you are wrong about both.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi-OT: If classical time travel is possible, then we are already immortal. |
30 Jun 2005 10:46:24 AM |
|
|
It all depends on what your definition of time is.
It is certainly possible to go backwards in what
we consider to be our current time dimension,
but doing so would move us so far away from
our current spatial dimensions, that we would
not be able to affect anything we did back then,
we could not even see it.
Larry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi-OT: If classical time travel is possible, then we are already immortal. |
30 Jun 2005 03:40:19 PM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
Definition of "classical time-travel": The idea that one can go back
into their history and find there exactly what is remembered to have
been there, the exact circumstances in that moment of time which led
to the exact circumstances of the moment in time from which one left.
Contention: If time-travel as classically conceived is in fact
possible, then we are already immortal.
Reasoning: If from any time we can travel to any other time and find
there what we expect to find (i.e., our own history or our own
future), then what we expect to find must technically already exist.
No, just either has existed or will exist. Time traval has nothing to
do with the past and future exisING now.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Zarkov" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi-OT: If classical time travel is possible, then we are alreadyimmortal. |
30 Jun 2005 12:14:56 PM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
Definition of "classical time-travel": The idea that one can go back
into their history and find there exactly what is remembered to have
been there, the exact circumstances in that moment of time which led
to the exact circumstances of the moment in time from which one left.
Contention: If time-travel as classically conceived is in fact
possible, then we are already immortal.
Reasoning: If from any time we can travel to any other time and find
there what we expect to find (i.e., our own history or our own
future), then what we expect to find must technically already exist.
An entire reality doesn't just appear from nowhere simply because we
stepped into a machine. That means that the you or I sitting at the
keyboard right now will always exist. Forever. Otherwise, the
classical notion of time-travel would be impossible.
You are using a unusual definition of "immortal." Immortal means never
dying or existing forever. You've just described the "block universe"
concept of reality (which I agree with and which relativity teaches us),
i.e., that all space-time points coexist. There is no special present.
So your life and the moments of your birth and death exist, but there
is not some higher dimension of time in which they always exist. They
just exist. This is partly just a matter of semantics, but the point is
important.
Sidenotes:
It is my belief that time-travel, as classically conceived, is
in fact impossible, that time and reality in general simply don't
exist or behave in such a conventional manner. But apparently, enough
people still seem to take classical time-travel notions seriously
enough that I felt compelled to make the above observation.
Thoughts? :-?
Wheether time travel is physically possible remains to be determined.
But it is not impossible by any logical argument--either "classical" or
parallel universe types.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi-OT: If classical time travel is possible, then we are already immortal. |
30 Jun 2005 03:21:20 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:14:56 -0400, "Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@Mongo.com>
wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
Definition of "classical time-travel": The idea that one can go back
into their history and find there exactly what is remembered to have
been there, the exact circumstances in that moment of time which led
to the exact circumstances of the moment in time from which one left.
Contention: If time-travel as classically conceived is in fact
possible, then we are already immortal.
Reasoning: If from any time we can travel to any other time and find
there what we expect to find (i.e., our own history or our own
future), then what we expect to find must technically already exist.
An entire reality doesn't just appear from nowhere simply because we
stepped into a machine. That means that the you or I sitting at the
keyboard right now will always exist. Forever. Otherwise, the
classical notion of time-travel would be impossible.
You are using a unusual definition of "immortal." Immortal means never
dying or existing forever. You've just described the "block universe"
concept of reality (which I agree with and which relativity teaches us),
i.e., that all space-time points coexist. There is no special present.
So your life and the moments of your birth and death exist, but there
is not some higher dimension of time in which they always exist. They
just exist. This is partly just a matter of semantics, but the point is
important.
I don't see the objection. With or without some "higher dimension of
time", is there any moment in time in which it can be said that the
"me" or the "you" of this moment no longer exists? For instance,
using this "block universe", ten years down the road, can it be said
that the me sitting here right now no longer exists? If not, then it
always exists. Assuming a block universe as you indicate, there will
never be a point in the future at which it can be said that I am not
alive and well, even if it happens to be thousands of years in the
past. :-?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Zarkov" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi-OT: If classical time travel is possible, then we are alreadyimmortal. |
30 Jun 2005 02:54:18 PM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:14:56 -0400, "Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@Mongo.com>
wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
Definition of "classical time-travel": The idea that one can go back
into their history and find there exactly what is remembered to have
been there, the exact circumstances in that moment of time which led
to the exact circumstances of the moment in time from which one left.
Contention: If time-travel as classically conceived is in fact
possible, then we are already immortal.
Reasoning: If from any time we can travel to any other time and find
there what we expect to find (i.e., our own history or our own
future), then what we expect to find must technically already exist.
An entire reality doesn't just appear from nowhere simply because we
stepped into a machine. That means that the you or I sitting at the
keyboard right now will always exist. Forever. Otherwise, the
classical notion of time-travel would be impossible.
You are using a unusual definition of "immortal." Immortal means never
dying or existing forever. You've just described the "block universe"
concept of reality (which I agree with and which relativity teaches us),
i.e., that all space-time points coexist. There is no special present.
So your life and the moments of your birth and death exist, but there
is not some higher dimension of time in which they always exist. They
just exist. This is partly just a matter of semantics, but the point is
important.
I don't see the objection. With or without some "higher dimension of
time", is there any moment in time in which it can be said that the
"me" or the "you" of this moment no longer exists? For instance,
using this "block universe", ten years down the road, can it be said
that the me sitting here right now no longer exists? If not, then it
always exists. Assuming a block universe as you indicate, there will
never be a point in the future at which it can be said that I am not
alive and well, even if it happens to be thousands of years in the
past. :-?
"Always exists" by definition means exists at all points in time. If
you want to interpret it to apply to things that exist in the past or
future, that's OK, but it's not the way the adverb is defined. And how
would we then describe things that do "still" exist, ie, exist at the
same (local) time? Because our concepts of time were formulated before
it was realized that all space-time points coexist, we just don't have
words that accurately describe the situation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
