Unbalanced Views
Winger
alas, I couldn't be arsedIf you'd read the first 6 posts, you'd see that yes, this has been pointed out.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
alas, I couldn't be arsedIf you'd read the first 6 posts, you'd see that yes, this has been pointed out.
.....I can't see how either the Law Of Identity or retrocausality would affect any of these types, like.
Maybe you could explain?
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?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.
Timey-wimey?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.
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.
Not yetA 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.
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?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
Some top scientists would disagree with that marra.
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?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?
Explain?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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?