Time Paradox!

[LaurieAG]

Creation(procreation?) has been a bit diifficult, lately, as balls from one position in time jump back to interfere with themselves.

 

Talking about things interfering with themselves in a time paradox.

 

If you haven't watched the UK series 'Red Dwarf' you should. It's about Lister, the last man in the universe who travelled into a parallel universe and mated with his female parallel, became pregnant and had to go back in time to put his baby (himself) into the orphanage where he grew up. (but how did his parallel self come into being ?)

 

Another episode is where the Red Dwarf crew convince JFK that the world would be a much worse place if he survived his assassination so, the man on the grassy knoll was actually JFK himself.

 

BTW, One new theory that rejects all non causal elements is Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) Causal dynamical triangulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I don't particularly agree with all of the theory, it is better than most.

[Guest Lambus]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Farsight]

(Redirected from Time Travel and Paradox Click the link to read the full article.

 

I was so shocked by this concept and keep thinking why the people in the future still cant travel to the past...

 

You were shocked by the concept of a time paradox? Wait until you read this:

 

TIME EXPLAINED

 

It's why there aren't any time paradoxes. And the truth of it is far more shocking than a time paradox.

[EStein]

It's why there aren't any time paradoxes. And the truth of it is far more shocking than a time paradox.

 

Nice link. It explains "time" very well. Time appears to be a contrivance of our brains. It's as if all "time" "in the moment." What would be shocking to me would be to find out what this thing is that we feel when we are "in the moment"--reality, for lack of a better word. What if we(I) find out that everything we(I) see, feel, smell, and taste, is just a mental(spiritual) cinema with imaginary actors. A show put on for our(my) benefit! :)

[arkain101]

Nice link. It explains "time" very well. Time appears to be a contrivance of our brains. It's as if all "time" "in the moment." What would be shocking to me would be to find out what this thing is that we feel when we are "in the moment"--reality, for lack of a better word. What if we(I) find out that everything we(I) see, feel, smell, and taste, is just a mental(spiritual) cinema with imaginary actors. A show put on for our(my) benefit!

 

 

This feeling that all things are a figment of your imagination is as true as it is not.

 

You can experience this perspective and so it can become a relative truth. Although it is a lonely truth.. and also not a healthy perspective.

 

However, what this can cause one to realise is that there is supportive evidence for the fact spiritual (non tanginblility) is as much a part of the materialistic realm.

 

The usefulness of the spiritualistic realm is that it has a sense of sacredness to it which developes a strong sense and purpose behind compassion and person to person interaction to help and assist for the general conditions of life.

 

The materialistic view can allow one to be logical in the times it is needed for specific situations.

 

The underlying theory is that there is a time for everything.

 

A time for life, death, caring, not caring, loving, harming, compassion, logic, protecting, giving, taking...

 

In the socialistic structure of today 'times'.

 

But there is a truth that is contained in all times, in all moments, and as you said Estein, it is this "in the moment". There is no other time or moment that we have or that is given to us, other than the moment we currently have.

 

It is a valuless experience, and faith in something valuless is an opening of the door towards the faithfulness in something all encompassing and infinite as a valueless source behind all resourceful things that we find in this limitation universe and experience.

 

A spiritual cininma, is a thought looking beyond the current conditions. If we accept spiritual as the dominance, we exclude the reality of our needs and limitations. Such as food, and drink.

 

If time is considered to exist within the system of a 'time line'. THen it has an origin, and an end. This is because a line is an object that consists of two ends, or two points. What do you call line that does not have two ends? How then is it a line? and especially a time line. Two ends equals non infinite.. right?

 

All concepts such as time, and objects, and color, taste and all things, when we devle into the investigation of these things we find a lonely answer, a seperation from the infinite source we eminate from. Exactly the situation Estein faced when he delved deep into one mental perspective.

 

Devling into any concept can do two things, lead you in a wrong destination, or lead you in a direction that supports the truth at the center way of living.

 

Knolwedge supports the fact that a typical day of living, has proof and evidence of a soveriegn father source of all. An entity that is interactable.

 

Scientific avenues disregard the interacability of a spiritual sense, of those things found such as particles and strings and dimensions.

 

One situation I find is, that if you were stuck in a hole about to die, how many theories would you give up in order to convince someone that the most fundamental thing in existence is "I....WANT....LIFE"

 

Would you sell all theories and ideas in order to say Yes, it is I the living entity that exists beyond all other theories that is the central theme before any avenue.. It is I that requires life.

 

The word want is connected to many other words.. Some of which require Faith, Love, and Truth.

 

There is no fundamental theory for reality.. and there is surely not an avenue of limitation knowledge in which to basse your foundations of reality and existence upon that ecompasses all needs and requirements for a peaceful time of living amongst mankind in general.

 

The only basis of which we can build our unified truth upon is the unified valuless source of infinite, interactible, ever existing, spiritualistic, imortal, self sustaining, everlasting, unfathamable, and undescribable entity of which we contemplate when we contemplate the only moment of the here an now.

 

In this we can base all needs and requirements of life upon. We can find unity in awe. Equalism among all manking, for all is less than that of which arises our existence.

 

I realise I am scattering some ideas in a bit of a disorganized way but you can see that what I am connecting here is that..

 

No mans limited view of wisdom is anything more than a foolish deception of understanding reality, for in an instant, you will sell ALL thoughts and ideas and things in order to save your life, if I ask you to tell me why I should save you when you are in circumstance of which you can not help yourself...there is no theory that explains your here and now moment of purpose, love, faith and truth, of wanting to live.

 

 

 

All religions describe the singular god as undescribable, and or, unfathamable. Which is to say, no one is able to be more correct in naming the soverign god....Which is why all theories lead to a situation of which becomes unlogical, and unanswerable, without including the unlimited wisdom. ie, the big bang, without describing where it came from. dimensions without a designer, laws without a purpose or intention. Quantum weirdness.

 

The comman question is that, who made this god then? But the beautty in this is that it was not made, it is the reason for all things, that were, that are, and that will ever be. It is the eternal mystery that we may venture into learning about in various conditions of life. It is in the awe, that life will remain. It is the holyness and glory in being cared by and connected to this entity of which ALL possibilities are contained.

 

You see when we try to ask, what made something, we are digging for that absolute, and that limited answer. All quests of this sort will find no answer, but they will always lead to a confusion and a final question.

 

The diffrence is, are you willing to accept that this such reality is born out of an interactible entity or is it a machine that you honestly think you can understand...?

 

Do you want an eternal quest of learning about the source?

 

Or do you want a temporary satisfied mechanism?

[Farsight]

Nice link. It explains "time" very well. Time appears to be a contrivance of our brains. It's as if all "time" "in the moment." What would be shocking to me would be to find out what this thing is that we feel when we are "in the moment"--reality, for lack of a better word. What if we(I) find out that everything we(I) see, feel, smell, and taste, is just a mental(spiritual) cinema with imaginary actors. A show put on for our(my) benefit! :beer:

 

Thanks Estein.

 

It's not like all time is in the moment, it's more like the only time is now, and always is. The things you see hear and smell are all based on motion, and time is a "derived effect of motion". Heat is also a derived effect of motion, and it's real enough. So time's real enough too. But you should expect to travel through it, just as you don't expect to "travel" to a higher temperature. Looking at it this way is just seeing it for what it is, it's throwing out the illusion, getting real. It's the opposite sort of thing to your virtual reality cinema show.

[arkain101]

I agree with you popular that when viewing through that perspective you put forward time is derived effect of motion.

 

However, motion is affected by the effect of time that is derived by motion is it not?

 

In human life perspective time is very real. This is I think because we have purpose orientated existence. We need to race against the clock to beat the train while cross the tracks. Take away our macroscopic mental creation, and there is what? Many various relative perspectives of observation frames. Mystery matter, obeying, or possibly creating the series of incrimental laws in our universe.

 

So I mean to say, in one perspective time is a derivitive, when we speak about simple relative motion. In another perspective time is a very real thing, when we speak about humans striving for goals with purpose. In another persective mass is a derivitive of time, which is a derivitive of motion, which is a derivitive of dynamic compound positions, which are formed by matter, which is what...

 

My point being, it depends what relative perspective and context you are defining the term.

 

I am almost prepared to write up a thread on a unique kind of theory, that relates to this. It is to define the universe logially, with reason, and with mental design. In this theory what things are made of doesnt matter, instead we work with a framework of thought and relative reasoning. As such the universe thus requires a designers mind, a very real spiritual source. Triality Reality. A very profound reasoning I derived from this is that without a trinity things can not be mentally reasonable.

 

I mention this because it will help with out discussion here on time and how we reason in general, the very thing physics attempts to do, reason with the currently unreasonable.

[EStein]

It's not like all time is in the moment, it's more like the only time is now, and always is.

 

Our time line can viewed from our consciousness, as left to right, down to up, etc. A person walking left to right may appear to be traveling a "time line" from history to future. That same line when viewed from, say, another dimension might only be visible when viewed front to back. Thereby, seeing all time happening at once. In other words, seeing all past and all future. Or, prehaps only all past to the present. :) That may sound strange to us but a 3D universe viewed from a 2D world would also appear weird. And, let's face it, whatever "time" is, it behaves rather strangely.

[Farsight]

I think time is real arkain, like heat is real. It's just that it isn't what people think it is, and it isn't fundamental. Yes, you can define things from some relative perspective, but I strive to understand the world and get to the bottom of things. I look for ontological explanations, where I try to see what's there. That means I've got to try and see how my perspective colours my thinking and shapes my concepts, and see if those concepts are wrong. I look at the world, looking for some fundamental dimension called time. And I just can't see it. Because it's just not there. Instead motion is there. I can see it. I can't see time.

 

Our time line can viewed from our consciousness, as left to right, down to up, etc. A person walking left to right may appear to be traveling a "time line" from history to future. That same line when viewed from, say, another dimension might only be visible when viewed front to back. Thereby, seeing all time happening at once. In other words, seeing all past and all future. Or, prehaps only all past to the present. :) That may sound strange to us but a 3D universe viewed from a 2D world would also appear weird. And, let's face it, whatever "time" is, it behaves rather strangely.

But there just isn't any time line out there in the real world, Estein. The person walks left to right in space. That's there. You can walk up to it, view the places in the space, measure it, walk it yourself. You just can't do that with time. When you talk about a time line it's just a concept. It's only in your head. You can't actually view it. You can't show it to me like you can show me the space. When you talk about "viewing" it from another dimension you've made a giant mental leap that simply isn't justified. You can't actually view it from this dimension, never mind any other.

 

There is no fundamental time out there in the world, just motion through space. Like Einstein said, "spacetime is a space". And to see "all time happening at once" you'd really have to see all motion happening at once. Time is only weird because people have this strange unfounded idea that it's got length, and you can travel through it. They just can't see that it's just a measure of motion compared to other motion, and you just can't move through a measure of motion.

 

It's really hard to "get it", because we are steeped in the current concept of time. More than we know. But once you do get it, it is just so ridiculously simple. You will wonder how you could have ever thought the way you did.

[arkain101]

You will wonder how you could have ever thought the way you did.

 

I get that entirely, but I wouldnt accept that I thought in a strange way. When we are talking about the physics of things, you are right, time isnt tangible, nor is it traversable.

 

Here is a great analogy that entered my mind. In accordance to cosmology, Time is the platfrom that carries the universe upwards through change. However, when we look down at our feet on this platform, it is at rest relative to us, and thus it is now, and invisible all the time, in any spacial direction. I just invision it going upwards, as to suggest a change state of things.

 

However, even though this is quite understandable and logical what you say popular, it does not imply that it must apply to how we view our way of living. This is one mistake I think science tends to make alot of the time. You can not base a philosophy of life upon a theoretical of an area of mechanics.

 

For example; in the past, there was a strong view that we are like machines, made of elegant parts who come and go, and are driven by instinct and nothing else, mindless automatons, evolved from bacteria, and some of these views still stand today.

 

However, these views although may appear as accurate explainations from specific points of perspective, there is no reason to assume these theories are required to make their way into how one views oneself in their philosphy of life.

 

So, time is very real in life. It is a direction in the sense that, it is much easier to access the past 'times' than it is to access the future 'times', and the present 'times' measure and weigh back and forth between past and future.

 

If I have only 5 mins to save a child from being harmed, I will be in a major race against the motion of time. The future is coming, and I need to beat one possibility that I am capable to predict by comparing things that I know in the past. Such as, this child floating down a river towards falls.

 

This is life, plain and simple. Now, you can explain this in many ways when you are not inside the situation, but when your facing that reality, you can't explain it any other way, other than, I have to spend major energy to get to this child somehow, BEFORE, something bad happens, because I can see it coming, and there is a limitation in which I am able to act in order to prevent that possibility.

 

I am almost certain now that when you look for the bottom of things, as you say, or the fundamental of things, you won't find your singular answer. We see this in many forms. What you will find is that reason itself, that is logical requires a trinity of logic. That is, it requires 3 thigns in order to form one steady and reasonable system of logic, such as a universe.

 

If you dig for the fundamental one thing in the universe, you will end up disecting this trinity and find things that make no sense, because it is no longer a trinity.

 

A good thought experiment to do this is, design your own universe.

 

Frame one- call it light. It has no speed, no space, it is ONE frame, all one, which is like infinity, or nothing.

 

frame two- something that exists inside this unified frame as a pairity. This frame requires two frames to be intwined so that they may logically hold a posistion.

 

frame three- something that exists that can create an image and logic outisde of these two frames, and develope a certainty in this system. Such as a mind.

 

So there is 3 kinds of materials here, light, matter, and consciousnes. They are all there, and none of them can be excluded, you need them to have a macroscopic universe.

 

It appears we agree entirely on your point that if we are speaking of the mechanics of cosmoolgy, time is not a traversable dimension, it is a mental bi-product when we take our typical life thinking and apply it to fundamental logic and reasoning of a mechanical and relativity system.

 

Yet, it doesnt end here, we don't live in a physics equation, so there is a time and place for things. It is fine to know time is real, but, like you say, it isnt something we can physically traverse forward and back in. We can only do this mentally, because it is a mental bi-product of logic.

[Farsight]

Interesting, arkain. I have some ideas on consciousness and reality, but I don't have the time to go into them. Perhaps I will once I've finished the next couple of essays, and got to the bottom of "something and nothing" space. But for now: our consciousness is entirely in our head. It weighs nothing, and you can't see it or smell it. In a way it's an illusion, but it connects us with reality, and is the only real thing that we really know.

[EStein]

.. But there just isn't any time line out there in the real world, Estein. The person walks left to right in space. That's there. You can walk up to it, view the places in the space, measure it, walk it yourself. You just can't do that with time. When you talk about a time line it's just a concept. It's only in your head. You can't actually view it. You can't show it to me like you can show me the space. When you talk about "viewing" it from another dimension you've made a giant mental leap that simply isn't justified. You can't actually view it from this dimension, never mind any other.

 

That's why I was careful to say "as viewed from the consience." The "left/right" timeline thing was a mental construct--much the same as Flatland. In our universe, time and location are not absolute. To different observers traveling at relativistic speeds to one another, events may appear to happen in reverse order to the other's perspective. Neither is right because there is no absolute time. In the same spirit, when viewed from another dimension, not only may the events appear in a different order--if visible at all, but appear to have happened and be happening simultaneously. Do you get my drift? There is a teeny weeny bit of fantasy thrown in here, just to arouse your hackles. :hihi:

[Farsight]

That's why I was careful to say "as viewed from the conscience." The "left/right" timeline thing was a mental construct--much the same as Flatland. In our universe, time and location are not absolute. To different observers traveling at relativistic speeds to one another, events may appear to happen in reverse order to the other's perspective. Neither is right because there is no absolute time. In the same spirit, when viewed from another dimension, not only may the events appear in a different order--if visible at all, but appear to have happened and be happening simultaneously. Do you get my drift? There is a teeny weeny bit of fantasy thrown in here, just to arouse your hackles. :hihi:

 

Hackles? Moi? Nah. That timeline, that "mental construct", that's the fantasy. You can't actually see it out there in the world. You can see a location, and two observers can collide at that location, which makes it pretty absolute. Bang, no doubt about it. But each of them can have a different "local time", at the same location. Because this local time along with their timeline is the fantasy. Your other dimension is fantasy too, like the "passage of time".

 

I guess what I'm saying is that time is not absolute and that the re-ordering of events says as much. (See TIME EXPLAINED essay and the Einstein quote re A and :hihi:. But space is absolute. If an observer travels fast through the Universe, it doesn't actually suffer length contraction. Because three observers travelling in orthogonal directions won't agree that the Universe is now contracted to a dot. And whilst the Universe is "what we observe", if those guys don't agree, they have to infer why not, and work out what's actually there. And the answer is: absolute space.

[EStein]

And whilst the Universe is "what we observe", if those guys don't agree, they have to infer why not, and work out what's actually there. And the answer is: absolute space.

You really didn't understand a thing I said, did you? Your statement about those guys having to infer "why not and work out what's actually there" shows you haven't a clue. With three observers traveling at relativistic speeds to one another, each would get different measurements about the other's absolute location, speed, and time. There is no single reference point in the universe that can be said to be stationary. Between the three of them, they would be hard pressed to agree on any measurment as absolute.

As far as other dimensions being a fantasy, I would think almost all cosmologists would disagree.

[Farsight]

Oh I understood everything. More than you know. And since you've now become abusive: end of discussion.

[Jay-qu]

Oh come on Popular, as soon as someone comes up with a good counterpoint you abandon your position, dont let him win because you didnt like the way he talked to you - why dont you explain to us (without sending us to one of your essays) what you mean by and why you think there is 'absolute space'

[arkain101]

Then there is me, I see a discussion going on where I can throw in my 2 cents of theoretical possibilities.. :hihi:

 

Consider this.

 

Space-time is a mental construct formed by light. What this means is, when I look out at the moon and to the stars on a clear, crisp night I see the universe as a Big place, and it is also a pretty stable (relatively the same) view.

 

Typically, I have only been taught to know the universe is big. Why is this conclusion made? The only reason is because light informs us this is so.

 

Throughout history we discovered our relative velocity to other positions is quite slow in comparison to the speed of light.

 

Then as we discovered the nature of light and its overall constant characteristics, we had further evidence that the universe is as light tells you it is.

 

Assume we were on a rouge planet that got slung around some very high gravity sources untill it was shooting through space at a very high velocity.

 

Children are born, and they grow up and when they look up at the sky they see this kind of strange distortion looking universe (If our planet is going near the speed of light, which we allow in this thought experiment).

 

We try to explain to the children, this is NOT how the universe really is, because we as adults remember how it was when we were orbiting our sun in our solar system.

 

But the children try to comprehend a universe that looks static and over all evenly spaced with stars, but they argue with us in a typical childs way of stating what is obvious or observed, and they say "No, look at it, the universe is not like you describe, its like a tube, and has lots of streaks.. and so on and so forth, the things which one would observe if they were traveling at that relative velcity.

 

So, overall, my point is this.

 

We declare the universe as is by how light tells us it is. Therefore space itself, is light. It is information formed in ones mind by the macroscopic relative velocity amongst positions.

 

Our macroscopic world is entirely seperate from the source world. For example, if we shrunk ourselves and saddled up and hopped on an electron, what exactly would space and time look like? (this is just to say, imagine moving around really fast all the time). There would be no stars, or objects, it would just be chaos, and any information we try to work with would be substantially different to what we have in our typically at rest macroscopic reality at current.

 

So if this is reasonable, that light forms information, which is likewise a reality, such as distance/space, then could we attempt to say what is absolute is the relative mental construct.

 

According to reality without a mind it is to enter the world of quantum to some degree where reason itself as we know it must be cast out.

 

In this,

 

Light creates space and it is space (singular frame, no restriction of reason or logic, unlogical)

 

Matter creates time which is mass just the same, and it is time (position).(logical but uncertain [intwined parity, units of time]

 

Mind, the macroscopic 'god' so to speak, that by varied senses, makes a comprehension of the light and matter, and forms a provisional absolute certainty, and makes a truthful declaration of reality, in accordance to what light informs.