Should time-travel be illegal?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Counter, Oct 10, 2016.

  1. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,103
    No one knows if the universe is infinite but there is some merit to the illusion of time if its relative.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,642
    So, once again you're stating something as fact and then refusing to support your position

    And - an important point - they'd be fictional.

    You made the claim that it doesn't.

    Since we actually age how is that an illusion?

    Bollocks.

    Nope.

    And back to assertions again.

    No, the consequence of it being infinite.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    299
    Hehe, I'm just answering your questions with as logical an explanation as I can. How can there be objective evidence of something that only exists as a perception or a belief? A belief in "time" as an objective context is no different than the average individual's belief in aliens, ghosts, or God. I see many posts on this forum asking to prove that God exists, or to prove that Heaven or Hell exists as they are defined by the current mainstream belief systems because the ones asking for proof are looking for hard direct physical evidence. Well I can also ask the same question about time.

    Well it was hypothetical to clarify a point. But then again, if you were to consider that Universe was truly infinite then how would you know they'd be fictional? Have you explored all of Universe? Universe being infinite would include all things. Everything. Absolutely EVERYTHING.

    Well again can you prove it? Like I've said earlier I've seen many people ask for the proof that God exists because of the lack of evidence. Where is the evidence that "time" exists?

    The experience of ageing is not an illusion. Like I said it is just a series of linear changes. The label of "time" that we place upon those changes is an illusion. "Time" does not exist as a constant, it only exists as a perception, as a belief, it is an illusion. It is just a label afterall.

    Just stating the obvious.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well again, if you were to consider Universe being infinite then all things, I mean absolutely everything would exist. All realities - all potential experiential realities - would already exist. Nothing could ever be created or destroyed because they already exist and could never not exist, therefore any so-called "travel" into a so-called "past" to alter events would again have absolutely no effect on this current reality we are experiencing now. And while it may appear from the individual's perspective who is traveling to this so-called "past", that he or she is actually "travelling" to a "past", would actually just be shifting into an alternate reality resembling almost exactly, if not exactly, as the so-called "past" the individual is intending to "travel" to, but whatever changes he or she makes to that reality would have zero impact on this one. Which is why I said earlier that the butterfly-effect is completely irrelevant and that there can be no paradox.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,103
    Basically you are saying how can one go back in time to prevent your own birth if you already exist, its a circular proposition. But your idea that all possibilities exist makes that possible but i personally dont believe that all possibilities/outcomes exist. Where do you get that the universe is infinite in all possibilities when it has a set particular laws to work with? That doesnt even make sense. Maybe another universe not only has the theoretical knowledge plus the physical properties to go back in time.

    This is what i mean by one can have knowledge or idea in the mind but physical limitations prevent it. Just as we can concieve of faster than light speed by the fact we know of motion itself but there is a speed limit in this universe because of mass so there is no way this universe is infinite in possibilities, its infinite potential working with its own laws and properties with its own type of outcomes wherever those green lights allow or not hindered for better or worse.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,642
    No, you're making specific claims which you refuse (or aren't able) to substantiate.

    This is not a rational argument since you're assuming - a priori - the conclusion.

    You didn't "ask questions" you made direct claims.

    Because they wouldn't be natural.

    False.

    YOU made the initial claim, not me. Why don't you "prove" you're right?

    And change occurs in the dimension of time.

    No.

    Unsupported assertion. Again.

    It's not obvious.

    Nope.

    Assertion again. No logic, no rationale, just claims.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,243
    We can measure the vibrations of a Krypton atom. We can observe atomic decay. We can measure the light speed delay between points. These - and a nigh-infinite number of other time-dependent events - are compelling evidence of the passage of time.

    They are independently, objectively verifiable - and universal.
    They are independent of units, langauge or biology.
    You can do your own experiments and get the same results - whether you are a fragile human in the next room, or an immortal alien in another galaxy that thinks at near the speed of light.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  10. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    299
    Hehe ok. Well as always I bid you well.
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,642
    I'm not sure if you're deranged or dishonest...
     
  12. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    299
    But again, these are just measurements of a change in vibration. These are just observations of a change in appearance. This does not show me evidence of the existence of time itself.

    I am whatever you want me to be.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2016
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,642
    I'd like you to be rational and intellectually honest.
    But that, apparently, isn't within your capabilities.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Time most certainly exists. It takes 8.25 minutes for light to reach us from the Sun.
    Our experience of time varies, depending on ones frame of reference.
    That's what we call relativity...Or is this simply another effort by another lay person "nobody" to try and drag Einstein and relativity down from the lofty heights it rightly occupies. Or perhaps another effort to create some mystique and ignorance so as to slip in the old tiresome "god of the gaps" myth.
     
  16. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,103
    He means 8.25 minutes is about distance not time in that context. That if you measure time with no change and no motion, time literally itself doesnt exist if its frozen, that without motion effected as change there is no time because its all tethered together and interdependent for time to be measured. He is questioning if time exists on its own independently or its a relative perception or by-product. B from A so does or can B even exist as we think etc line of questioning. Is time tangible in the same way or is it a shadow or appendage.

    You cant control or manipulate it in any way at all. Time is the biggest enigma. we cant stop it, reverse it, fast forward it etc and so real yet the most elusive which is why it holds total power over our lives. The past is done where you cant go back and the future is unknown. You cant take time out of context at all which is ironically why it has the most consistency yet more immune to our ability to grasp or harness it to manipulate it so percieved as almost theoretical or imaginary. Time is like that grey area that has the most impact because its untouchable. Its as if time is playing divide and conquer between past and future and we are always caught in the present. That property makes it a candidate for questioning its existence or what it is.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2016
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    No, I mean exactly what I said...it takes light 8.25 minutes to reach us from the Sun.
    Wrong: Before Hubble showed the Universe was dynamic, when previously it was deemed to be static, time certainly still existed.
    He is questioning only if time is fundamental...nothing more, nothing less.
     
  18. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    299
    As you perceive it. It's your perspective. We all have our own unique, varying perspectives. That's part of what makes this world so interesting.

    Try not to take this the wrong way, but after looking through your post history out of curiosity, it would appear from my perspective that you are not looking for rational and intellectually honest conversations. It would appear that you find an interest in looking for posts that come into conflict with your belief systems. Not that there's is anything wrong with that. I'm just making a basic observation. I just find it interesting. I actually enjoy your responses. They can be quite entertaining.

    I just saw the video. It would appear they are still trying to figure out the mechanics of this elusive time. The only thing they were really able to clarify is the experience of this perception of time - what we already experience day after day after day within this particular physical reality. But what they're really unwittingly describing is a change in reality from one reality to the next to the next to the next to the next in a sequential, linear order.

    What if I told you that the stream of light already exists from the Sun to Earth simultaneously all at once, or that when you shine a beam of light, that light already exists in all places where it will eventually be observed, and that we only experience it here in our current reality frame by frame by frame in a seemingly perfect succession. Or how about when you drop a ball from the top of a tall skyscraper. It perceivably takes "time" to reach the ground from the top of the building. What if I told you that ball already exists in every nanosecond frame, or even a billionth of a nanosecond frame from the top of the building to the ground. Not only does it not take time for the ball to reach the ground as it is already there but hasn't been observed as being there yet, but the ball isn't moving either, because as time does not exist so to does space or distance not exist. We are just witnessing a frame by frame experience of multiple realities each occurring one after another as we perceive it.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,243
    You cannot have change without time.
     
  20. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    299
    Lets say you have a picture of a circle and a triangle side by side on your computer screen in front of you. Does it take "time" to observe each image from one to the other or can you observe both images at once at that exact moment?
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,477
    That wouldn't be change, that would simply be a fixed thing with more components than either of the two things alone.
    "Change" is not the same as "having differences".
    Change is a process. A process requires time, so the argument goes.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,243
    Sure. Explain why - in the act of trying to describe your scenario - you had to invoke time?

    ".. observe both images at once at that exact moment..."

    Describing two events as occurring simultaneously requires reference to time.
     
  23. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    299
    That's right, fixed. Just like individual frames in a movie film.

    I agree. Change occurs by experiencing each very similar yet slightly different realities in successive order.

    It would appear that way, but those are only appearances. Time does not nor cannot dictate change. Change does however dictate our perception of time.

    Sure, of course. Because they are in that exact, precise moment, the moment of Now. The illusion of time is defined by our observation of many moments occurring from point A to point B to point C etc. I'm saying there is only point A. There is only Now. If you think about it, how could there possibly be any other moment than right now.

    More like existing simultaneously.
     

Share This Page