Time Travel discovered

[Michael 345]

For the record - here in a hard science subforum - that there's no misinterpretation : The above the poster's personal opinion. It has no scientific basis.

Agreed

And I gather that your need to point out that it is my personal opinion is necessary because such a situation had never happened before

I will try, but not very hard, to indicate in my future postings different categories ie hard science, opinion, thought bubble, stupid idea

Hope it helps

For those who like details of how my non scientific opinion (✓ that is what it is) was formed read the book below

The Invention of Time and Space by
Patrice F. Dassonville

Bonus

https://futurism-com.cdn.ampproject...est-that-time-is-a-numerical-order-of-change/

Coffee time

 

[Michael 345]

More as a continuation of Post #41

Consider the following

Time does not exist
Metres do not exist

Both are arbitrary thought units

Sit down and look at a clock for 1 hour (say the hour hand moved between the two and three)
Have you observed or detected time moving?
Same set up looking at the clock
The hour hand stationery on the two
A person comes to inform you - you looked for 1 hour
Did you detect the passage of said time?
Were you able to note down and record its passage?

Another thought bubble
You throw a stick 20 metres
Someone brings the stick back and remarks the stick length is 1 metre
Did you throw a physical item (stick)? OR 1 metre? OR both?

Stick ✓ OK
Metre - what physical component of the stick was that?
Both - OK then - seperate the two

Done around 3am approx 7 hour units to wake up moment and 9 before coffee moment

 

[Yazata]

TIME does not exist (full stop)

PAST does not exist

FUTURE does not exist

NO THICKNESS NOW is the moment which contains all of the stuff in existence

That's a view that philosophers call Presentism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_presentism

While my considered position is that I don't have a clue what time is, in some of my moods I do lean towards Presentism. (In other moods I lean towards a Block Universe or a Growing Block model.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

When I'm in my Presentist mood, I'm inclined to say that what I see around me exists now, what happened yesterday existed yesterday (but no longer exists today), and what happens tomorrow will exist tomorrow (but doesn't yet exist today). Very much an A-series. The Flow of Time may or may not be implicit in that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_series_and_B_series

Sometimes I'm inclined to think that the argument between Presentism and the Block Universe view that CC's been preaching is really just a terminological dispute, about whether we want to restrict 'exist' to 'exists now', or whether we want to broaden it out to include 'existed' and 'will exist' too. (If that's all it is, then it isn't that big a deal.)

 

[TheFrogger]

Time is a potential. To, "have time" means you are still alive. It is this potential that continues for eternity. We each have the potential for eternal life. When we die we are out of time.

 

[Michael 345]

about whether we want to restrict 'exist' to 'exists now', or whether we want to broaden it out to include 'existed' and 'will exist' too. (If that's all it is, then it isn't that big a deal.)

whether we want to restrict 'exist' to 'exists now',

I think that would be sensible

I don't think I can power my motorbike on petrol in the tank yesterday but does not exist now, or petrol in the tank which might be there tomorrow if (when I fill up)

Time is a potential. To, "have time" means you are still alive. It is this potential that continues for eternity. We each have the potential for eternal life. When we die we are out of time.

You do not have TIME, you have the ability to change (AGE)

When you no ability to AGE you die

You do not have the potential for A LIFE (not life) which is eternal

The stuff of which your body was composed of will continue to exist and change and some will find its way back into a living entitie and again take part in the PROCESS of life

 

[C C]

That's a view that philosophers call Presentism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_presentism

While my considered position is that I don't have a clue what time is, in some of my moods I do lean towards Presentism. (In other moods I lean towards a Block Universe or a Growing Block model.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) [...]

Presentism can be treated as the case in the experienced version of the world. With eternalism applying to the inferred world of scientific realism and the "independent of all experience and reasoning" slash "mind-less" world celebrated in materialist or physicalist metaphysics; with the roots of both going back to the ancient Eleatic School.

A crude analogy for presentism might be the ancient Flat Earth beliefs, where the subjective appearances were likewise treated as valid or objective. (However, it's not clear that the Spherical Earth model itself really had substantive arguments and observational experiments giving birth to it and supporting it in the beginning until it had already acquired a significant following by the 3rd century B.C.)

Considering that subatomic events would need "nows" ranging down to a yoctosecond while the "nows" of human perception or conscious events are milliseconds long giants in comparison... Presentism thereby seems completely unconcerned about such conflicts or inconsistencies in regard to establishing what its global or universal "now" should be. (The latter supposedly being the extent of what exists, is real, or however that philosophical stance is trying to make the whole cosmos as ephemeral and superficial as possible before it gets annihilated by the next replacement moment).

The "now" of human cognition often seems to be what is reflexively objectified without critical examination. But even if subatomic changes (differences) are treated instead as the standard, that bloated in comparison interval of the conscious human "present" then does not "fit" into one of those bogglingly lesser durations.

The growing block-universe (which Sean Carroll alternatively calls "possibilism") seems to similarly suffer from a magical conjuring act, where that process (conducted by what?) adds another "page" to the static hypersolid block of the past via apparently extracting new "stuff" from nothing.

Again, though, the drawbacks of presentism arguably pertain to that inferred metempirical, archetypal, invisible version of the world. Whereas there is hopefully compatibility with the manifested, everyday version which the brain / nervous system and environmental energies (photons, atmospheric vibrations, molecules entering the nose, etc) receives credit and blame for, as far its own "internal explanatory story" goes. (Or at least, we seem to heavily desire that compatibility between experience and presentism.)

~

 

[Write4U]

Questions; can one visit the same space coordinate more than once from a different time coordinate along the same timeline (deconstructing time), or even via worm holes?
One would become super-imposed , no? Is that physically possible?
And if so, would one be able to affect anything at that time at all, other than possible observation?
Which we already do with astronomy.

 

[Write4U]

Fyodor Shcherbatskoy, a leading scholar of the modern era on Buddhist philosophy, has written extensively on Buddhist presentism: "Everything past is unreal, everything future is unreal, everything imagined, absent, mental... is unreal. Ultimately, real is only the present moment of physical efficiency [i.e., causation].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_presentism

or as Anil Seth calls it "controlled hallucinations";
https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality

 

[Yazata]

Presentism can be treated as the case in the experienced version of the world. With eternalism applying to the inferred world of scientific realism and the "independent of all experience and reasoning" slash "mind-less" world celebrated in materialist or physicalist metaphysics; with the roots of both going back to the ancient Eleatic School.

That's an interesting observation. Parmenides did seem to distinguish between (supposed) "reality" as experienced ('doxa', opinion) and true reality as revealed by reason (apparently some kind of unchanging divine sphere, perhaps analogous to the 'block' of block time). Plato seems to have accepted the basic idea, but theorized an unchanging world of universal Forms with his reason. And off the history of Western thought went.

Considering that subatomic events would need "nows" ranging down to a yoctosecond while the "nows" of human perception or conscious events are milliseconds long giants in comparison...

Except that 'subatomic events' aren't part of the world of experience. They are constructs, based on particular experiences of a particular sort (experiments) plus lots of theoretical assumptions.

So... the underlying issue seems to me to be whether we are going to weight experience more highly or theory more highly. Weight experience and we seem to get past-present-future (the A series) and the flow of time. Weight theory more, and we get a 4-dimensional block space-time.

I kind of waver back and forth on that one. But while I most emphatically don't understand the true nature of time, I do tend to weight the epistemic value of our human experience far more heavily than the theorists do. Our experience provides us with the material that it's science's job to explain (whatever 'explanations' are). It shouldn't be science's job to dismiss experienced reality in favor of some ideal reality spun up out of their imaginations. Parmenides and his divine Sphere.

The growing block-universe (which Sean Carroll alternatively calls "possibilism") seems to similarly suffer from a magical conjuring act, where that process (conducted by what?) adds another "page" to the static hypersolid block of the past via apparently extracting new "stuff" from nothing.

The attraction of the Growing Block is our intuition that the past is fixed (what happened happened), while the future seemingly consists of all sorts of superimposed possibilities. It's basically a Block-universe for those of us who aren't physical determinists. Hence "possibilism".

The transition between the superimposed possibilities future and the frozen-in-amber past would seem to be the present. The similarity to the 'collapse of the wave function' speculations should be obvious, which makes me speculate that there's a quantum mechanical aspect to time that relativity theory simply ignores. (Of course that's all just speculation.)

 

[C C]

Except that 'subatomic events' aren't part of the world of experience. They are constructs, based on particular experiences of a particular sort (experiments) plus lots of theoretical assumptions.

My aforementioned prescription to consign "presentism" to the phenomenal or experienced version of the world is surely not mainstream, though, or something its most devoted adherents are familiar with or would entertain. It's just what some of us with philosophical flexibility might choose so as to preserve it.

I'd be very much surprised if ardent advocates could be content with anything less than extending presentism to the assorted, inferred versions of the world, as well. Surely many members in this forum are realists about particles and so forth, so they would already either be venturing into "inferred world" territory or expanding the turf of objects which count as phenomenal, as opposed to abstract description. Which then drags items like what the duration of a "now" is for the decay of a Higgs boson (or whatever selection) into battle with what "now" is for a millisecond interval of human awareness. There's "Planck time" as the ultimate temporal unit, but yoctoseconds seem to be the usual limit for handling the most ephemeral events (changes, differences).

~

 

[DaveC426913]

Questions; can one visit the same space coordinate more than once from a different time coordinate along the same timeline (deconstructing time), or even via worm holes?

Yes, you can visit the same space coordinates at a different time.
[ EDIT ]

Oh - you meant can you visit the same spacetime coordinate, coming from two different times.

 

[Write4U]

Yes, you can visit the same space coordinates at a different time.
[ EDIT ]
Oh - you meant can you visit the same spacetime coordinate, coming from two different times.

Sorry, yes, that is what I meant. Therein lies the crux, can we get back to the same spacetime coordinate from a different time? This seems unlikely, regardless of how we get back there after time has passed.
And if we could would we not be in superposition at that spacetime coordinate, even if it still existed at all?

 

[C C]

Questions; can one visit the same space coordinate more than once from a different time coordinate along the same timeline (deconstructing time), or even via worm holes?
One would become super-imposed , no? Is that physically possible?
And if so, would one be able to affect anything at that time at all, other than possible observation?
Which we already do with astronomy.

Seth Lloyd's "quantum teleportation" simulations of time-travel circa 8 or more years ago might indicate that multiple trips to the same coordinates would probably be prevented somehow, just as its own experiment of figuratively sending a photon on a mission to "kill itself" never succeeded in multiple attempts.

In David Deutsch's quantum or Everett Interpretation solution to potential paradoxes of CTCs, which was published in Scientific American back in March, 1994 ... Each trip to the same past event would instead pertain to the history of a very similar but different parallel continuum each time, where the traveler actually contributes to making the expected future in each possible. Rather than introducing changes or the conflict of multiple time-traveling selves at the same where / when. A half-decade or so ago it was likewise simulated using photons.

~

 

[Write4U]

Seth Lloyd's "quantum teleportation" simulations of time-travel circa 8 or more years ago might indicate that multiple trips to the same coordinates would probably be prevented somehow, just as its own experiment of figuratively sending a photon on a mission to "kill itself" never succeeded in multiple attempts.

In David Deutsch's quantum or Everett Interpretation solution to potential paradoxes of CTCs, which was published in Scientific American back in March, 1994 ... Each trip to the same past event would instead pertain to the history of a very similar but different parallel continuum each time, where the traveler actually contributes to making the expected future in each possible. Rather than introducing changes or the conflict of multiple time-traveling selves at the same where / when. A half-decade or so ago it was likewise simulated using photons.
~

So, if we actually create a new individual timeline, what happens to our original self which actually made the trip back in time? Do we poof out of existence in our own time-line?

How would we go back to our own time line and coordinate?

 

[C C]

So, if we actually create a new individual timeline, what happens to our original self which actually made the trip back in time? Do we poof out of existence in our own time-line?

How would we go back to our own time line and coordinate?

Since it's time-travel by CTC, the applicable person (or particle slash whatever) is returning to the starting date/place, anyway. If _X_ retains knowledge of the past and is both intent and capable of changing events which happened before, then it's actually a parallel universe _X_ has "returned" to or causes to splinter off. And so forth if mischievous _X_ was allowed to keep navigating a closed timelike curve repeatedly.

However, that is again just Deutsch's approach. Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov simply formulated a principle asserting that it would be impossible to create paradoxes. Which "seems" roughly what the experiment Seth Lloyd was affiliated with demonstrated, that only photons which avoided a paradox (didn't succeed in killing themselves) successfully made the journey: Time travel experiment demonstrates how to avoid the grandfather paradox. (It should be remembered that this was just simulated time-travel, though.)

Searching briefly on the web, here's a blog piece that fleshes out Deutsch's construct, while also proposing a problem for it:
https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2015/09/02/a-problem-with-david-deutschs-model-of-time-travel/

~

 

[Write4U]

If _X_ retains knowledge of the past and is both intent and capable of changing events which happened before, then it's actually a parallel universe _X_ has "returned" to or causes to splinter off.

This is what I don't understand.

I am a result of a single timeline. If I go back to a specific time where I believe I should have made a different decision than what I did in that past, it is still me, not my future double me who is the a priori actor.

Thus the double's future will no longer exist, due to the fact that the a priori me cannot make a different decision as it did once as that would affect the original timeline and I would create a new future where I might not even time-travel (create an original time point of "departure").

I believe many people overlook that fact that if a person travels in time, he no longer travels in his own time frame even when occupies the same coordinates where he would be if he had not traveled back in time. His timeline stopped the moment he began his time-travel backward along his own time-line in the present and no longer generated a continued time-line from the present into the future.

Can one have a future past? Can one exist both in one's past and one's future in one's present, all at the same time? Or even in a loop? Superposition?

There is always only one timeline and that makes the paradox inevitable, you cannot change your own timeline or create a new timeline without breaking (ending) the original timeline, IMO.

 

[Write4U]

If you go far enough into the future the past will occur again.

I disagree, never exactly. IMO, this is fundamental to the uncertainty effect in Quantum.
Do you believe that waves and wave interferences in "fields"(chaos) can yield an exact copy of a quantum wave field collapse?
In a million years your cup will magically appear on the exact same space coordinate as it is now?

 

[Write4U]

NO THICKNESS NOW is the moment which contains all of the stuff in existence

Which brings an interesting question;
If quantum is the fundamental dynamical information sharing function, then each moment of duration consists of only half expression in reality, and two moments are required to completely manifest reality. Two consequtive 1/2 ON - 1/2 OFF (dually reciprocal) quantum fields. A mathematical duality which allows for positive dynamical action.

IMHO, the concept and proof of quantum suggests a mathematical (fractal) chronology (not necessarily a smooth continuity) at the fundamental physical level.
And that's the reality we live in.....then here (wence), then there (hence).............

 

[Michael 345]

half expression in reality, and two moments are required to completely manifest reality. Two consequtive 1/2 ON - 1/2 OFF

Personally I cannot see reality acting in such a fashion

Sounds to much like a flickering ON/OFF reality, even if extremely fast

While such a fast flickering would not be detectable by human, relatively crude, senses I am sure it would be detectable in various instruments used in various experiments, even those not looking for such a effect

If detected it would have been noted as anomaly and followed up

You might just be able to argue for reality being half on and half off OR reality as a wave which ripples through matter but not being detectable due to it being below, and swamped out by, gross matter movements

 

[Write4U]

If detected it would have been noted as anomaly and followed up

Is that not what happens during a quantum event?
We either know the position or the speed of a particle but not both at the same time.
IOW, we need two measurements to establish a particle's position and speed at any given time.
Am I reading that wrong?

It occurred to me that perhaps it is not the same particle at all which experiences quantum change but more of an exchange, where the original particle ceases to exist and a second particle is created to continue the chronology.

A two part step with an infinitely small gap between events where the original particle disappears in the field and a new particle is created by the field.

Would such a function create a quantum duality or a quantum continuity of a particle?

Just musing......