Do you believe time travel is possible?

.....I can't see how either the Law Of Identity or retrocausality would affect any of these types, like.

Maybe you could explain?
I was stating that the Law of Identity applies more to logic than philosophy. I'm not sure about retro causality except I was responding to your timestamp statement although I don't understand how a particle could be timestamped.
 
Then again at the same scale everything we look at is dependent on the speed of light so we are forever observing the past even in our everyday life.
But do you know that it takes your brain half a second to process all the sensory input it receives, and so has to predict the future by that much in order to give you an up-to-date picture of the world?
i don't think it's quite the case of "time not existing" but more that it doesn't necessarily work in a linear fashion. I could be wrong though.
Timey-wimey?
 
Last edited:

fyl2u

Striker
I was stating that the Law of Identity applies more to logic than philosophy. I'm not sure about retro causality except I was responding to your timestamp statement although I don't understand how a particle could be timestamped.
The time stamp thing was an analogy to try to show that any particle taken back in time using a time machine wouldn't be "the same" as the particle in that same time period that would eventually become the particle that goes back in time.

A1 =/= A2 in effect
 

MrOompapa

Striker
A few years ago the late Stephen hawking made a point about time travel by hosting a party where he declared "time travellers are welcome". Nobody turned up.
 
But do you know that it takes your brain half a second to process all the sensory input it receives, and so has to predict the future by that much in order to give you an up-to-date picture of the world?
Timey-wimey?
I didn't know that to be honest. Half a second is a huge amount of time compared to the speed of light and a Planck unit of time.
 
The time stamp thing was an analogy to try to show that any particle taken back in time using a time machine wouldn't be "the same" as the particle in that same time period that would eventually become the particle that goes back in time.

A1 =/= A2 in effect
For the past universe to continue to be something objective then we must live in a recursive universe.

 
There is no such thing as time, time is something we invented to label events and seasons. All we have is now and what has happened
Time is a constant succession of the 'Now'. The 'Now' is always changing, time is matter changing. If we could reverse the change of matter and make it rewind backwards, would this be time travel?
 

Toronado

Central Defender
Some top scientists would disagree with that marra.
its par for the course in science to a degree to say something is possible to then spend lods of time and mkney trying to prove itto then realise that its not !

Sensibly i dont think its ever gonna be possible to time travel or teleport or any of those kind of dar fetched fantasies !

too much time travel and multi verse whoo haa on Tv and the internet and people are trting to bring towards the realm of reality rather than fantasy
 
But do you know that it takes your brain half a second to process all the sensory input it receives, and so has to predict the future by that much in order to give you an up-to-date picture of the world?
Timey-wimey?
Not only that but the sensory input also takes time to travel to the brain. This input could also be subjective. For example, between the colorblind and non colorblind. This can bring into question the true reality of that sensory input. Is an observed object really blue or grey?
 
Moving on from your time frame analogy and considering reality may simply be our observation of the quantum universe, then for the past not to simply disappear into the quantum vacuum, some memory must be retained by the universe. Otherwise there would be no past to travel to. Therefore the universe/reality must reproduce itself each moment within the previous version of itself in a recursive process. An never ending image within an image of itself. Only in that way would it be possible to travel back through frames.

I suppose it could be argued that reversing time would take us back but the entire universe would need to be reversed in time to correspond to an earlier frame. Reversing time is not the same as time travel anyway.
Of course each frame would be slightly different due to the passage of time but at the speed of light and that of a Planck unit of time, such change would be infinitesimal and each frame infinitesimally different.
 
Last edited:

fyl2u

Striker
Moving on from your time frame analogy and considering reality may simply be our observation of the quantum universe, then for the past not to simply disappear into the quantum vacuum, some memory must be retained by the universe. Otherwise there would be no past to travel to. Therefore the universe/reality must reproduce itself each moment within the previous version of itself in a recursive process. An never ending image within an image of itself. Only in that way would it be possible to travel back through frames.
Interesting.

I assume that when you say "quantum universe" you're talking about there being many possibilities for each moment, held in a kind of waveform, and only by observing it does the waveform collapse, creating a single timeline from the beginning of time up until this moment? Therefore for time travel to be possible at all, the universe would have to "remember" how it was at an earlier point in time?

If the "collapsed" waveform of each moment becomes the building blocks of history, then you're left with a "solid" past right up until this moment. Sort of like watching a tapestry being woven on a loom, where you have the complete part of the tapestry all the way up to this moment, and then beyond that all you have are the different spools of wool/thread/whatever, ready to "collapse" into the next line of the tapestry. I suppose it could be said that the completed tapestry up until this moment could be considered the tapestry's "memory" of the past, but does that make it "recursive" as such? I don't think the tapestry could be considered recursive unless each line of the tapestry was instructions of how to make the entire tapestry up until that point.

I don't know, I'm tying my mind in knots thinking about it and I'm still recovering from a pretty nasty cold/flu thing I've had for the past couple of weeks. :lol:

I'll just say "yes, OK, you've convinced me it's logically (but not necessarily scientifically) possible for the universe to be recursive in the manner you describe it, but I don't think it's necessary for time travel. I just can't explain why I think that right now because my head's spinning". :lol:
 

Jack Blue

Winger
If you could travel quicker than the speed of light, yes.

At the moment I have a documentary on about the FA Cup in the 70's. If, say, a planet 40 light years away had powerful enough technology to take 'live pictures, but then I travelled to that planet on the final whistle.

As far as that planet is concerned, they're watching it live, but I would be searching for a betting shop to put money on Arsenal beating Man Utd 3-2 and Alan Sunderland to score the winning goal.
Mate, can you pad this out and submit some supporting mathematical equations? You’re totally onto something. I’ll gladly publish your theorem. We could call it the Blue-Hesford theorem on time relativity or something (sadly I’d have to insist my name goes first).
 
Interesting.

I assume that when you say "quantum universe" you're talking about there being many possibilities for each moment, held in a kind of waveform, and only by observing it does the waveform collapse, creating a single timeline from the beginning of time up until this moment? Therefore for time travel to be possible at all, the universe would have to "remember" how it was at an earlier point in time?

If the "collapsed" waveform of each moment becomes the building blocks of history, then you're left with a "solid" past right up until this moment. Sort of like watching a tapestry being woven on a loom, where you have the complete part of the tapestry all the way up to this moment, and then beyond that all you have are the different spools of wool/thread/whatever, ready to "collapse" into the next line of the tapestry. I suppose it could be said that the completed tapestry up until this moment could be considered the tapestry's "memory" of the past, but does that make it "recursive" as such? I don't think the tapestry could be considered recursive unless each line of the tapestry was instructions of how to make the entire tapestry up until that point.

I don't know, I'm tying my mind in knots thinking about it and I'm still recovering from a pretty nasty cold/flu thing I've had for the past couple of weeks. :lol:

I'll just say "yes, OK, you've convinced me it's logically (but not necessarily scientifically) possible for the universe to be recursive in the manner you describe it, but I don't think it's necessary for time travel. I just can't explain why I think that right now because my head's spinning". :lol:
Actually, I think that is a pretty good analogy. I suppose the instructions for each line of the tapestry are the laws of physics that emerged when the timeline began. You could work back through those laws of physics and reverse them but that would not be time travel
Time is a constant succession of the 'Now'. The 'Now' is always changing, time is matter changing. If we could reverse the change of matter and make it rewind backwards, would this be time travel?
As I've posted above, I don't think it would. For example if you could do that as an adult you would just end up as a baby again. Time travel implies some kind of jump. I think we need to understand the nature of the universe to determine if time travel is even logically possible in a realistic way. Unfortunately, there is no accepted standard model of the universe. There is no unified field theory that combines relativity and quantum physics. There have been attempts with different physicists coming up with ideas and for me there is one (probably more) combination that explains the possibilities.

There was a quantum vacuum with an infinite number of potentialities. This quantum vacuum was unbounded and from that structure emerged that defined the laws of physics. Perhaps there was telic feedback between cause and effect but the universe self actualised and all of those infinite potentialities collapsed except for the one we call reality that has structure. The spacetime continuum had begun and the universe continued through time due to recursion in which an image of itself was created within itself in each moment or unit of Planck time determined by the speed of light.

I suppose if the universe is recursive then we need to understand the relationship between time and space because time travel as such may not be an issue of time but of space in a recursive universe. As fyl2u said, the tapestry has been woven and each moment the loose ends have infinite potentialities in the quantum vacuum yet those infinite potentialities will collapse and the universe will continue along the spacetime continuum with the one that facilitates its recursive nature.

If when the laws of physics first emerged there was telic feedback between cause and effect, perhaps that telic nature continues with each moment and the universe is telic recursive.
Thus the universe would continue to self actualise superimposed as reality on the quantum vacuum
This possibility certainly raises more questions.
 
Last edited:

Chalks

Central Defender
Time is a constant succession of the 'Now'. The 'Now' is always changing, time is matter changing. If we could reverse the change of matter and make it rewind backwards, would this be time travel?
no, as you said it’s a change of “state” age is not getting old (time) it’s just a chnage of cells state.
 

Top