Time Travel... the fly in the ointment

[untermensche]

The paper is more than it's atoms. It is a specific arrangement of those atoms. Again, the past is not just past time, it is past arrangements in space.

Once the structure is disrupted the paper no longer exists even though the atoms that made it up still do.

If you claim the paper still exists even after it is burnt you are proposing a duplication of matter, the atoms that made up the paper and the exact same atoms that no longer make up the paper.

You misunderstand; I am not claiming that the paper still exists even after it is burnt; I am claiming that the paper still exists BEFORE it is burnt.

You seem to have trouble grasping any concept involving time at all. You respond to statements about time as though they were about space. As a result it is unsurprising that you are confused.

Your inability to explain something is not my trouble grasping it. As I said the past is more than past time. It is also past space and a past arrangement of things in that space. You keep trying to talk about the past as if all it is is past time.

The paper no longer exists. It was burnt.

You are claiming it is possible to somehow go back in time and pick up the paper. You don't have any evidence to support this claim.

And if it is possible to go back and pick up the paper that means the paper has permanent existence. But also the remains of the burnt paper has permanent existence.

This is clearly a duplication of matter.

Your position is absurd.

 

[bilby]

You misunderstand; I am not claiming that the paper still exists even after it is burnt; I am claiming that the paper still exists BEFORE it is burnt.

You seem to have trouble grasping any concept involving time at all. You respond to statements about time as though they were about space. As a result it is unsurprising that you are confused.

Your inability to explain something is not my trouble grasping it. As I said the past is more than past time. It is also past space and a past arrangement of things in that space. You keep trying to talk about the past as if all it is is past time.

The paper no longer exists. It was burnt.

You are claiming it is possible to somehow go back in time and pick up the paper. You don't have any evidence to support this claim.

And if it is possible to go back and pick up the paper that means the paper has permanent existence. But also the remains of the burnt paper has permanent existence.

This is clearly a duplication of matter.

Your position is absurd.

No, you just don't understand it.

Time is a dimension. Like the other three.

There is no duplication of matter, any more than a skyscraper with many floors represents a duplication of floors. If someone is asleep on the 5th floor, that doesn't require someone to be asleep on the 8th floor as well. Your objection is exactly as stupid as suggesting that it should.

 

[untermensche]

Your inability to explain something is not my trouble grasping it. As I said the past is more than past time. It is also past space and a past arrangement of things in that space. You keep trying to talk about the past as if all it is is past time.

The paper no longer exists. It was burnt.

You are claiming it is possible to somehow go back in time and pick up the paper. You don't have any evidence to support this claim.

And if it is possible to go back and pick up the paper that means the paper has permanent existence. But also the remains of the burnt paper has permanent existence.

This is clearly a duplication of matter.

Your position is absurd.

No, you just don't understand it.

Time is a dimension. Like the other three.

There is no duplication of matter, any more than a skyscraper with many floors represents a duplication of floors. If someone is asleep on the 5th floor, that doesn't require someone to be asleep on the 8th floor as well. Your objection is exactly as stupid as suggesting that it should.

You are claiming the past can be returned to.

That means it has existence. Permanent existence.

You have no real argument or evidence to support this incredible claim.

And arguments about floors on skyscrapers we can see are not in any way convincing of anything.

 

[bilby]

No, you just don't understand it.

Time is a dimension. Like the other three.

There is no duplication of matter, any more than a skyscraper with many floors represents a duplication of floors. If someone is asleep on the 5th floor, that doesn't require someone to be asleep on the 8th floor as well. Your objection is exactly as stupid as suggesting that it should.

You are claiming the past can be returned to.

Actually, I am not making any such claim. I am hypothesising that the past exists, and that time is a dimension orthogonal to the three dimensions of space.

That means it has existence. Permanent existence.

The word 'permanent' doesn't really apply; But I am hypothesising that the past exists.

You have no real argument or evidence to support this incredible claim.

It's an hypothesis. All you need to do is show that it is not possible. But you can't, so it remains a possibility. Your incredulity is not evidence of anything.

And arguments about floors on skyscrapers we can see are not in any way convincing of anything.

Who are 'we'? Is there more than one of you?

I am trying to draw an analogy between the time dimension and the third (height) dimension in a two dimensional space. If you are not able to grasp such an analogy, it is unsurprising that you are confused. But your failure to understand doesn't constitute evidence of anything either.

 

[untermensche]

.... I am hypothesising that the past exists.

It is an empty claim supported by no evidence or argument.

And it is also undefined. What does it mean to "exist" in your use of the word?

It's an hypothesis. All you need to do is show that it is not possible.

Since when? This is something any believer in gods could say.

"All you need to do is show that god is not possible."

It is up to you to show how this hypothesis is not a completely empty hypothesis and worthy of one second of consideration.

I am trying to draw an analogy between the time dimension and the third (height) dimension in a two dimensional space. If you are not able to grasp such an analogy, it is unsurprising that you are confused. But your failure to understand doesn't constitute evidence of anything either.

It isn't any kind of support to the idea that the past has an existence such that it can be returned to.

It is more just a story to pretend you see something you don't.

 

[bilby]

It is an empty claim supported by no evidence or argument.

Not at all. I have set out my argument above. If you are going to ignore what I write, that's sad; If you are going to claim I didn't write anything, that's just silly.

And it is also undefined. What does it mean to "exist" in your use of the word?

For something to exist in another time means exactly the same thing it means for something to exist in a different location. You appear to be of the belief that anything you can't see ceases to exist. I believe that London continues to exist when I am in Brisbane; and that in EXACTLY the same way, yesterday exists when I am in today.

It's an hypothesis. All you need to do is show that it is not possible.

Since when? This is something any believer in gods could say.

"All you need to do is show that god is not possible."

It is up to you to show how this hypothesis is not a completely empty hypothesis and worthy of one second of consideration.

Not at all; I couldn't care less whether or not anyone else considers this hypothesis; I am just objecting to your considering it and then writing it off as impossible without any justification for doing so. You said "This is clearly a duplication of matter. Your position is absurd.", but I made it very clear that there is no duplication of matter in my hypothesis, and you have shown no absurdity. If you just don't like my hypothesis, that's fine; but if you want to claim that it is absurd, you need to show a reason for your claim.

I am trying to draw an analogy between the time dimension and the third (height) dimension in a two dimensional space. If you are not able to grasp such an analogy, it is unsurprising that you are confused. But your failure to understand doesn't constitute evidence of anything either.

It isn't any kind of support to the idea that the past has an existence such that it can be returned to.

Whether it can be returned to is an open question; My hypothesis is open to either possibility - a single block time past couldn't be returned to, although it could be observed; a 'many worlds' interpretation would allow for the possibility of action in the past, which would influence (or generate) a different future from the one the time traveller left.

It is more just a story to pretend you see something you don't.

It is one of many descriptions of what time might be like. Nobody has a better supported description.

 

[Derec]

You seem to have trouble grasping any concept involving time at all. You respond to statements about time as though they were about space. As a result it is unsurprising that you are confused.

Had to be done.

 

[untermensche]

Not at all. I have set out my argument above.

Your argument amounts to some belief in invisible things you can't provide evidence to support.

It is an empty speculation not worthy of any consideration.

 

[skepticalbip]

Not at all. I have set out my argument above.

Your argument amounts to some belief in invisible things you can't provide evidence to support.

It is an empty speculation not worthy of any consideration.

Not quite. Bilby's assumptions are based on Einstein's 20th century view of a universe of spacetime. Your assumptions are based on Newton's 17th century view of a universe of space. You are arguing about two different universes, at least one of which we now know is wrong.

 

[untermensche]

Your argument amounts to some belief in invisible things you can't provide evidence to support.

It is an empty speculation not worthy of any consideration.

Not quite. Bilby's assumptions are based on Einstein's 20th century view of a universe of spacetime. Your assumptions are based on Newton's 17th century view of a universe of space. You are arguing about two different universes, at least one of which we now know is wrong.

They are based on a fanciful interpretation.

Relativity says that time can be "bent". It doesn't say the past has some kind of permanent existence.

 

[skepticalbip]

Not quite. Bilby's assumptions are based on Einstein's 20th century view of a universe of spacetime. Your assumptions are based on Newton's 17th century view of a universe of space. You are arguing about two different universes, at least one of which we now know is wrong.

They are based on a fanciful interpretation.

Relativity says that time can be "bent". It doesn't say the past has some kind of permanent existence.

Really?

How about describing your understanding of spacetime.

 

[untermensche]

They are based on a fanciful interpretation.

Relativity says that time can be "bent". It doesn't say the past has some kind of permanent existence.

Really?

How about describing your understanding of spacetime.

It's not mine. It's Einsteins.

And according to his interpretation the experience of time to an observer will change if the velocity of that observer changes.

But there is no speed which will make an observer go backwards in time. All observers are moving forward in time.

And the past is not some unchanging residue. It is a prior configuration of the universe, forever lost, not out there, somewhere, waiting so that somebody can could return to it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Really?

How about describing your understanding of spacetime.

It's not mine. It's Einsteins.

And according to his interpretation the experience of time to an observer will change if the velocity of that observer changes.

But there is no speed which will make an observer go backwards in time. All observers are moving forward in time.

And the past is not some unchanging residue. It is a prior configuration of the universe, forever lost, not out there, somewhere, waiting so that somebody can could return to it.

??? That isn't even an attempt to describe spacetime. It is a kinda jumbled acceptance of time dilation.

So you are not even going to try to describe spacetime but are going to just continue making absurd proclamations? Or is it that you don't have a clue what it is? I'll give you a hint... it has to do with pretty simple geometry. So give it another try. If you don't understand what spacetime is then you don't have a clue what the 20th century view of the universe is and you will be stuck with your 17th century understanding of a 3D universe.

Figure out what spacetime is and you will understand when/where Bilby's piece of paper could be.

 

[untermensche]

It's not mine. It's Einsteins.

And according to his interpretation the experience of time to an observer will change if the velocity of that observer changes.

But there is no speed which will make an observer go backwards in time. All observers are moving forward in time.

And the past is not some unchanging residue. It is a prior configuration of the universe, forever lost, not out there, somewhere, waiting so that somebody can could return to it.

??? That isn't even an attempt to describe spacetime. It is a kinda jumbled acceptance of time dilation.

So you are not even going to try to describe spacetime but are going to just continue making absurd proclamations? Or is it that you don't have a clue what it is? I'll give you a hint... it has to do with pretty simple geometry. So give it another try. If you don't understand what spacetime is then you don't have a clue what the 20th century view of the universe is and you will be stuck with your 17th century understanding of a 3D universe.

Figure out what spacetime is and you will understand when/where Bilby's piece of paper could be.

Thanks for the input. Your word on the matter doesn't convince me.

So are you in the camp that claims that every moment in time has permanent existence?

If so, what is your evidence? Not your model, your evidence?

 

[skepticalbip]

??? That isn't even an attempt to describe spacetime. It is a kinda jumbled acceptance of time dilation.

So you are not even going to try to describe spacetime but are going to just continue making absurd proclamations? Or is it that you don't have a clue what it is? I'll give you a hint... it has to do with pretty simple geometry. So give it another try. If you don't understand what spacetime is then you don't have a clue what the 20th century view of the universe is and you will be stuck with your 17th century understanding of a 3D universe.

Figure out what spacetime is and you will understand when/where Bilby's piece of paper could be.

Thanks for the input. Your word on the matter doesn't convince me.

I didn't expect it to. It was just pointing out your ignorance but I know that you don't think you are ignorent on any subject.

So are you in the camp that claims that every moment in time has permanent existence?

I made no such claim, just open to possibilities in areas where science is still fuzzy and offers several interpretations. I am a firm believer in the old science adage that the universe in not only stranger than you imagine... it is stranger than you can imagine. Enough surprises have been discovered to make this obvious.

If so, what is your evidence? Not your model, your evidence?

Evidence you could understand and accept with your 17th century view of the universe? There isn't any of that kind of evidence.

By the way, I did notice that you have given up on trying to tell me what you think spacetime is. Is it that you don't believe such a thing could exist since you don't already understand and accept it?
.

 

[untermensche]

So are you in the camp that claims that every moment in time has permanent existence?

I made no such claim, just open to possibilities in areas where science is still fuzzy and offers several interpretations. I am a firm believer in the old science adage that the universe in not only stranger than you imagine... it is stranger than you can imagine. Enough surprises have been discovered to make this obvious.

I see. You are not in that camp. Or are so wishy washy about it your opinions and ideas are undeveloped.

Then I have nothing to say to you.

I have a problem with the idea that time has some kind of permanent existence and it is possible to go back to any past moment in time because it is still out there somewhere and when, and would welcome reasons from anybody who thinks they can support the claim.

Simply saying that space and time are linked means nothing. I can no more go back to the space that existed in the past as the time.

 

[skepticalbip]

I made no such claim, just open to possibilities in areas where science is still fuzzy and offers several interpretations. I am a firm believer in the old science adage that the universe in not only stranger than you imagine... it is stranger than you can imagine. Enough surprises have been discovered to make this obvious.

I see. You are not in that camp. Or are so wishy washy about it your opinions and ideas are undeveloped.

Then I have nothing to say to you.

I have a problem with the idea that time has some kind of permanent existence and it is possible to go back to any past moment in time because it is still out there somewhere and when, and would welcome reasons from anybody who thinks they can support the claim.

Simply saying that space and time are linked means nothing. I can no more go back to the space that existed in the past as the time.

The problem is your absolute certainty based on absolutely nothing but your sketchy (and often incorrect) understanding of a universal model that has been proven to be incorrect and your blind faith in it. Add to that your off-handed rejection of a model that you have no understanding of at all.

 

[bilby]

I made no such claim, just open to possibilities in areas where science is still fuzzy and offers several interpretations. I am a firm believer in the old science adage that the universe in not only stranger than you imagine... it is stranger than you can imagine. Enough surprises have been discovered to make this obvious.

I see. You are not in that camp. Or are so wishy washy about it your opinions and ideas are undeveloped.

Then I have nothing to say to you.

I have a problem with the idea that time has some kind of permanent existence and it is possible to go back to any past moment in time because it is still out there somewhere and when, and would welcome reasons from anybody who thinks they can support the claim.

Simply saying that space and time are linked means nothing. I can no more go back to the space that existed in the past as the time.

OK, I will take one more punt at this.

There are no preferred reference frames; so any point in space time is an equally valid choice for the origin of a co-ordinate system. You can define any point only by reference to (at least) four dimensions - any fewer than this is not sufficient.

For example, I can say that I will meet you [in two hours]_T, [40.7484^oN]_Y of the equator, and [73.9857^oW]_X of the Greenwich meridian, and [14.3m]_Z above Mean Sea Level. The location of our meeting must be specified in all four dimensions, T, X, Y and Z; any way to specify the meeting with fewer than four dimensions is insufficient to ensure that we meet. If you turn up an hour late; or a degree too far North; or 373m too high above sea-level; or a degree too far East, you will miss me. Note that all of the dimensions are identical in this respect; there is nothing 'special' about the T dimension.

All of spacetime can be specified in this way; and ANY of the dimensions is subject to variation. There is no reason to give the T dimension any special status not accorded to the X, Y and Z dimensions; if you change any of them, then you change your place in spacetime.

Your location in spacetime varies; If no force acts upon a body, it continues to move in all four dimensions at a constant rate. In deep space, where gravity and electromagnetic forces are negligible, you cannot alter your motion in any of the dimensions at all; However with a handy planet to push against, and a gravitational well to accelerate you towards said planet, motion in the X and Y dimensions, and to a lesser degree in the Z dimension, becomes easy. As yet, we haven't found anything to use to alter the T dimension element of our velocity.

An event has a location in spacetime. If you go to meet me in twenty-two hours, 40.7484^oN of the equator, 73.9857^oW of the Greenwich meridian, and 14.3m above Mean Sea Level, you will not see me standing in the lobby of the Empire State building, because you will be in the wrong place in spacetime - you only got three of the four coordinates correct - I am twenty hours earlier than you.

If you go to meet me in in two hours, at a point 40.7484^oN of the equator, and 14.3m above Mean Sea Level, but at 0^oE/W of Greenwich, you will not see me standing in the lobby of the Empire State Building either, because you will be buried 730m down in the bedrock under a farmer's field somewhere near the township of Peñarroya de Tastavins in the Aragon region of Eastern Spain. Again, with three of the four coordinates correct, you are in a different spacetime location, so you will not see what you would see if you were in the 'right spot' in each of the four dimensions.

The spacetime coordinates, X, Y, Z and T define an event; Change one, and you are no longer at that event. This doesn't mean that the points in spacetime you do not currently occupy don't exist. It is no more reasonable to say that the Empire State Building lobby yesterday no longer exists, than it is to stand in the lobby of the Empire State Building and say that the rock strata beneath the farmer's field in Aragon, Spain don't exist right now. You are in neither place; but both still exist.

We think of 'down' as being fundamental, and of our motion forward in time as being fundamental, but these are illusions caused by our local conditions. There is no such thing as 'down' except by reference to a gravitational well; and there is no such thing as 'now' except by reference to a conscious brain.

The assumption that local conditions are universal is understandable, but it is wrong. People used to think that all motion required a force to sustain it - but that is actually only true under certain rare conditions. It is just that those rare conditions are necessary for our kind of life, so we have evolved to assume that they are universal, because they ARE universal in the tiny part of the universe we personally experience.

People used to think that time was fundamentally different from space. But it's not. Or at least, we have yet to find any way in which it is.

 

[untermensche]

The spacetime coordinates, X, Y, Z and T define an event; Change one, and you are no longer at that event. This doesn't mean that the points in spacetime you do not currently occupy don't exist. It is no more reasonable to say that the Empire State Building lobby yesterday no longer exists, than it is to stand in the lobby of the Empire State Building and say that the rock strata beneath the farmer's field in Aragon, Spain don't exist right now. You are in neither place; but both still exist.

Your argument is based on the faulty assumption that it is no different to travel in space as in time. You do not support this assumption with facts or evidence.

It is absurd. You even point out that we have no control over our movement through time.

Simply because we can within certain limits move through space that in no way implies we can also move through time.

We cannot return to the space that existed in the past.

Space is effected by gravity. It is warped and bent by gravity.

The specific "arrangement" of gravity is determined by the specific arrangement of things like matter.

In the past, the arrangement of matter was different therefore the "arrangement" of gravity was different and therefore space was different.

We can not return to the space that existed in the past even though we can move around in the current space that exists. That prior space is gone. Gone forever.

To go back to the past you would have to somehow recreate it whole.

 

[bilby]

The spacetime coordinates, X, Y, Z and T define an event; Change one, and you are no longer at that event. This doesn't mean that the points in spacetime you do not currently occupy don't exist. It is no more reasonable to say that the Empire State Building lobby yesterday no longer exists, than it is to stand in the lobby of the Empire State Building and say that the rock strata beneath the farmer's field in Aragon, Spain don't exist right now. You are in neither place; but both still exist.

Your argument is based on the faulty assumption that it is no different to travel in space as in time.

In what way is this faulty?

You do not support this assumption with facts or evidence.

It is not an assumption; it is an hypothesis.

It is absurd.

So you keep saying. But declaring a thing 'absurd' is not an argument; it is simply an admission of incredulity.

You even point out that we have no control over our movement through time.

Yes; do you think we do have such control?

Simply because we can within certain limits move through space that in no way implies we can also move through time.

Another empty assertion

We cannot return to the space that existed in the past.

This seems to be the basis of your confusion. The space that exists in the past is like the North that exists in the East. It is nonsense; your ability to discuss such nonsense is clear evidence of your failure to grasp the concept being presented.

Space is effected by gravity. It is warped and bent by gravity.

So is time. Space and time are not fundamentally different.

The specific "arrangement" of gravity is determined by the specific arrangement of things like matter.

Yes.

In the past, the arrangement of matter was different therefore the "arrangement" of gravity was different and therefore space was different.

Yes.

We can not return to the space that existed in the past even though we can move around in the current space that exists. That prior space is gone. Gone forever.

Again this is nonsense. Space that exists in the past is like America that exists in Europe - it is a meaningless mixing of unrelated concepts. We cannot travel to the West that exists in the South either. This does not render objects in the West nonexistent.

To go back to the past you would have to somehow recreate it whole.

To travel to Europe from America you would have to somehow create it whole.

Oh, no you wouldn't. Such a suggestion would be crazy.

Perhaps your suggestion is equally crazy.