You find yourself in the cretaceous

[DBT]

I'm not talking about universal time, just the events of each time and place as they are happening.

When you were born were all the events in your past already completed?

And did they not complete without you because you had not even been born yet?

If all the events in your past were completed without you at your birth then you are not a part of those events at birth.

If later you go back in time you must have intruded into the past and changed it because all the events that occurred before you were born had completed before you were born without you.

it's like taking a trip. You were never in Norway until one day you flew into Oslo and became a part of the events in Norway, you go about your business, just a part of the scene in Oslo, then you return home.....you don't change the past, your visit becomes the past.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not talking about universal time, just the events of each time and place as they are happening.

When you were born were all the events in your past already completed?

And did they not complete without you because you had not even been born yet?

If all the events in your past were completed without you at your birth then you are not a part of those events at birth.

If later you go back in time you must have intruded into the past and changed it because all the events that occurred before you were born had completed before you were born without you.

it's like taking a trip. You were never in Norway until one day you flew into Oslo and became a part of the events in Norway, you go about your business, just a part of the scene in Oslo, then you return home.....you don't change the past, your visit becomes the past.

You can't negate the starting conditions of all observers. They are all born.

The birth of all observers is an event within time.

All observers have events that have occurred before they were born.

Those events occurred before the observer existed. The observer cannot be a part of those events at birth. The observer did not exist when they happened.

If time travel is possible (it isn't) then all any observer could do is move back into events that happened without them.

And if they somehow intrude into those events that occurred without them in the past they will change them.

The only way time travel is possible (it isn't) is if the past can change (it can't).

 

[Jokodo]

it's like taking a trip. You were never in Norway until one day you flew into Oslo and became a part of the events in Norway, you go about your business, just a part of the scene in Oslo, then you return home.....you don't change the past, your visit becomes the past.

You can't negate the starting conditions of all observers. They are all born.

The birth of all observers is an event within time.

All observers have events that have occurred before they were born.

Those events occurred before the observer existed. The observer cannot be a part of those events at birth. The observer did not exist when they happened.

If time travel is possible (it isn't) then all any observer could do is move back into events that happened without them.

And if they somehow intrude into those events that occurred without them in the past they will change them.

The only way time travel is possible (it isn't) is if the past can change (it can't).

All of what you say makes a lot of sense if time is linear.

In much the same way in which it makes a lot of sense to say that the shortest route from Alaska to New Zealand crosses Africa if the Mercator projection is an accurate picture of the Earth's surface.

 

[untermensche]

it's like taking a trip. You were never in Norway until one day you flew into Oslo and became a part of the events in Norway, you go about your business, just a part of the scene in Oslo, then you return home.....you don't change the past, your visit becomes the past.

You can't negate the starting conditions of all observers. They are all born.

The birth of all observers is an event within time.

All observers have events that have occurred before they were born.

Those events occurred before the observer existed. The observer cannot be a part of those events at birth. The observer did not exist when they happened.

If time travel is possible (it isn't) then all any observer could do is move back into events that happened without them.

And if they somehow intrude into those events that occurred without them in the past they will change them.

The only way time travel is possible (it isn't) is if the past can change (it can't).

All of what you say makes a lot of sense if time is linear.

In much the same way in which saying that the shortest route from Alaska to New Zealand crosses Africa if the Mercator projection is an accurate picture of the Earth's surface.

Time is directional. The universe is expanding.

The events that occurred yesterday occurred before the events of today.

The parents exist before their child.

All observers are born with events in the past that have happened without them.

If they move into those events somehow they will change them.

The fact that all observers have a specific beginning within forward moving time cannot be overcome by talking about moving through space. Can you fly to New Zealand before you exist?

Time travel is only possible if the past can change.

 

[Jokodo]

All of what you say makes a lot of sense if time is linear.

In much the same way in which saying that the shortest route from Alaska to New Zealand crosses Africa if the Mercator projection is an accurate picture of the Earth's surface.

Time is directional. The universe is expanding.

The events that occurred yesterday occurred before the events of today.

The parents exist before their child.

All observers are born with events in the past that have happened without them.

That's a simplification. What's true is that all observers have been born in the culmination of a series of causal chains of events each of which precedes the next event in the chain in ar least some reference frames.

Whether they necessarily do so in all reference frames is a question we cannot currently answer. There are reasons to suspect that they do, but if they don't, it becomes a logical possibility that some of those events include as a participant a "future" (in their reference frame) version of the observer. In a deterministic system, this does not entail the possibility of changing the past.

Of course, such a model is not readily compatible with the notion of free will, but that's not really an argument one way or the other since our evidence for the existence of free will isn't much better than our evidence for the reality time travel, i.e. there isn't any that I'm aware of.

 

[untermensche]

That's a simplification. What's true is that all observers have been born in the culmination of a series of causal chains of events each of which precedes the next event in the chain in ar least some reference frames.

Events start at the Big Bang and move in one direction only.

An observer is always born at a specific time and place within the chain of events. Events that have moved in one direction only since the Big Bang.

All observers are born with events that have happened before they were born in the chain of events that occurred before them and without them.

An observer cannot be born and somehow also be part of the past at birth.

An observer can only move to the past AFTER they are born. They cannot be there already at birth. Events have one direction only.

And if they move into events that occurred without them they will change those events.

Of course, such a model is not readily compatible with the notion of free will

The belief in certain aspects of the model do that.

Like saying the future exists already.

But there is no evidence the future exists already and randomness should make two runnings of the same universe with the same starting conditions have two different outcomes.

 

[Jokodo]

That's a simplification. What's true is that all observers have been born in the culmination of a series of causal chains of events each of which precedes the next event in the chain in ar least some reference frames.

Events start at the Big Bang and move in one direction only.

An observer is always born at a specific time and place within the chain of events. Events that have moved in one direction only since the Big Bang.

All observers are born with events that have happened before they were born in the chain of events that occurred before them and without them.

An observer cannot be born and somehow also be part of the past at birth.

An observer can only move to the past AFTER they are born. They cannot be there already at birth. Events have one direction only.

And if they move into events that occurred without them they will change those events.

You're repeating yourself. Repetition does not make an unsupported claim more plausible. I understood what you're claiming the last 3645 times. You're claims are plausible (well, some of them), but I don't know them to be true, and neither do you, as evidenced by your continued failure to provide actual reasons to believe they are.

Of course, such a model is not readily compatible with the notion of free will

The belief in certain aspects of the model do that.

Like saying the future exists already.

But there is no evidence the future exists already a

True. But neither is there evidence it doesn't.

nd randomness should make two runnings of the same universe with the same starting conditions have two different outcomes.

Maybe so. If you have compelling evidence that it is so, you should apply for a physics Nobel prize.

 

[untermensche]

I repeat things that are true until people actually address them.

You have addressed nothing I have said.

You have simply said over and over an observer can somehow be part of past events that have occurred without them, at birth.

It is a wild irrational claim and does not flow from any model.

You simply ignore the starting conditions of all observers as if starting conditions don't matter.

Observers are born in the middle of the huge chain of events called the universe at a specific time within that chain of events.

They are born such that many events have already occurred before they existed.

They cannot be part of that chain of events that occurred before they were born at the moment of their birth.

You cannot be in Cincinnati until you exist.

There is no possible way.

Even if we say time travel is possible (it isn't).

 

[untermensche]

Maybe so. If you have compelling evidence that it is so, you should apply for a physics Nobel prize.

Evidence for randomness?

The Importance of Randomness in the Universe: Superdeterminism and Free Will

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10516-020-09490-y

 

[Jokodo]

I repeat things that are true until people actually address them.

You repeat you claim to be true without demonstrating that they are, or explaining why you believe they are.

You have addressed nothing I have said.

I have. I have not addressed how this is compatible with linear time or free will. I may or may not do so once you've given me reason to believe either concept is a necessary part of any accurate description of the universe. Not holding my breath though.

 

[untermensche]

I repeat things that are true until people actually address them.

You repeat you claim to be true without demonstrating that they are, or explaining why you believe they are.

I say self evident things. Like all observers are born.

Do you disagree with this?

I say things like being born means all prior events have occurred already before you were born that you did not exist in.

Do you disagree with this?

I have. I have not addressed how this is compatible with linear time or free will.

I do not know what you mean by time that is not moving in one direction only.

I claim time is directional.

Do you disagree with this?

Did all events move from the Big Bang in one direction or not?

Did humans evolve from some species that no longer exits or not?

Time travel would mean breaking free from the directional pull of time, then moving in some medium that was outside of time, then inserting yourself back into the directional pull of time at a prior moment in time.

You can't change the directional nature of time.

 

[Elixir]

You cannot be a part of those events
You can't be in the past
You can't change the directional nature of time.

You can't be the arbiter of "can't".
It's that simple. Doesn't matter how many times you say "you can't".
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS POSSIBLE

Sorry that it makes you so insecure, but that's the way it is.

 

[Jokodo]

Much of what you say sounds plausible, but that doesn't make it true. The universe was not designed by or for human minds. We have no evidence that it was designed at all, but even if it were, assuming the designer thinks like we do is pure, unadulterated hubris. It's just "in his image" by another name.

I say self evident things. Like all observers are born.

Do you disagree with this?

I say things like being born means all prior events have occurred already before you were born that you did not exist in.

We pretty much know that time is not a uniform progression of points, but a dimension of space time that can be and is distorted. There is pretty direct evidence which is hard to reconcile with the alternative (not impossible, but doing so would lead to very convoluted models of reality). Given this, the concept of "before you were born" is probably only valid within a reference frame. We know that time runs differently in different reference frames (that's true even if there is a preferred reference frame and all others are just distortions of reality). Whether, given this picture, the "you did not exist in (any of those prior events) remains a necessary condition is an open question.

Do you disagree with this?

I have. I have not addressed how this is compatible with linear time or free will.

I do not know what you mean by time that is not moving in one direction only.

We know that the timelines of different reference frames are not strictly parallel. Whether they can "loop back" relative to each other we do not know.

I claim time is directional.

Do you disagree with this?

Did all events move from the Big Bang in one direction or not?

Did humans evolve from some species that no longer exits or not?

Time travel would mean breaking free from the directional pull of time, then moving in some medium that was outside of time, then inserting yourself back into the directional pull of time at a prior moment in time.

In a limited sense, you are "breaking free from the directional pull of time" everytime you board an airplane or climb a high mountain, where gravity is lower, in the sense that your time runs differently than it does on the ground. Different observers' timelines are known not to be parallel. Whether they can cross in counterintuitive ways is not known.

 

[untermensche]

You cannot be a part of those events
You can't be in the past
You can't change the directional nature of time.

You can't be the arbiter of "can't".
It's that simple. Doesn't matter how many times you say "you can't".
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS POSSIBLE

Sorry that it makes you so insecure, but that's the way it is.

Rationality can sometimes be the arbiter of what is. It is rational to say yesterday happened before today. It is not rational to say today happened before yesterday. That is mysticism, not science.

And what is determines what can be.

Humans are temporal beings within a universe. They are not the universe. They have a beginning within that universe.

It is impossible for a human observer to be part of any events that occurred before they existed, at birth. If they go to the past they go to a time before they existed. They were never in that time before.

To say a human existed in the past before they were born is mysticism, not science.

Since a human cannot have existed in the past prior to their birth if they go to the past they must change it.

 

[untermensche]

Time travel for humans is about what it means to be a temporal entity in the universe.

It is more than just the nature of the universe.

It is about the nature of temporal entities, like humans, in the universe.

And temporal entities in the universe do not start at the Big Bang.

They have one starting point. And it is immutable.

 

[untermensche]

Much of what you say sounds plausible, but that doesn't make it true. The universe was not designed by or for human minds. We have no evidence that it was designed at all, but even if it were, assuming the designer thinks like we do is pure, unadulterated hubris. It's just "in his image" by another name.

Human minds were designed by natural selection to exist within this universe on this planet. To watch the Kardashians.

We pretty much know that time is not a uniform progression of points, but a dimension of space time that can be and is distorted.

Nothing in the universe is uniform. Why should time be uniform?

The surface of a raging river is not uniform but a raft can float near the surface on a less than uniform river and move forward.

Being pushed forward by a less than uniform time does not allow a person to exist within events that occurred before they were born.

Given this, the concept of "before you were born" is probably only valid within a reference frame.

No shit.

It would only mean something to an observer.

But that observer did not exist before they were born so all events that occurred before they could be observed do not contain them.

We know that time runs differently in different reference frames

A time traveler is a single observer with a specific beginning within the chain of events called the universe.

a preferred reference frame and all others are just distortions of reality

Saying humans can exist somehow before they are born is like saying God always existed.

Both are equally irrational.

We know that the timelines of different reference frames are not strictly parallel. Whether they can "loop back" relative to each other we do not know.

We know that timelines have a beginning and a person with a timeline cannot exist until their timeline starts.

All the events that happened before you were born could not contain you, at your birth.

So to loop back to those events will change them.

In a limited sense, you are "breaking free from the directional pull of time" everytime you board an airplane or climb a high mountain, where gravity is lower, in the sense that your time runs differently than it does on the ground.

You are not moving backwards in time by having the pace of the forward movement of the time you experience change.

You are moving forward through time the whole time.

There is no moving backward in time.

There could only be escaping time and the forward movement of time and somehow moving outside of time then re-entering at another point into the forward movement again.

 

[Jokodo]

You cannot be a part of those events
You can't be in the past
You can't change the directional nature of time.

You can't be the arbiter of "can't".
It's that simple. Doesn't matter how many times you say "you can't".
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS POSSIBLE

Sorry that it makes you so insecure, but that's the way it is.

Rationality can sometimes be the arbiter of what is. It is rational to say yesterday happened before today.

For a creature that perceives the world to be flat, it is also rational to say that east is one way and west is the opposite direction.

It is not rational to say today happened before yesterday. .

... and irrational to say if you go east long enough, you end to the west of where you started.

And what is determines what can be.

Humans are temporal beings within a universe.

Now that is mysticism.

The "I" at this point in time is a collection of elementary particles that are temporarily moving along very similar paths through spacetime, roughly defined as those particles that are currently inside the volume encompassed by my skin (though whether that includes the apple I just ate or the shit I'm going to dump within the hour, or the 100 trillion bacteria in my gut, is debatable). Most of those particles have existed since shortly after the Big Bang, many have been part of the same nuclei they are in now, and a tiny minority have been part of the "I" from 30 years ago. Physically speaking, the "I" of today, the "I" of yesterday, and the "I" of 10 years in the my future are different sets of particles at different coordinates of spacetime.

They are not the universe. They have a beginning within that universe.

In what sense? If the "I" of "now" is just a collection of particles in a particular configuration, each having arrived here through its own trajectory through spacetime (including non-parallel timelines), what is to say that what applies to possible trajectories in spacetime doesn't also apply to humans?

It is impossible for a human observer to be part of any events that occurred before they existed, at birth.

If closed time-like curves do not exist, or macroscopic entities cannot enter them, yes. But that's just another way to say "if time travel is impossible (for humans), then humans cannot travel through time." Circular reasoning doesn't cease to be circular because you employ two different formulations for the same premise.

 

[Jokodo]

The surface of a raging river is not uniform but a raft can float near the surface on a less than uniform river and move forward.

I'm pretty positive that a leaf falling into a river can end up upstream of where it entered the water if it gets drawn into an eddy. You may be able to find a video demonstrating this online.

 

[untermensche]

The surface of a raging river is not uniform but a raft can float near the surface on a less than uniform river and move forward.

I'm pretty positive that a leaf falling into a river can end up upstream of where it entered the water if it gets drawn into an eddy. You may be able to find a video demonstrating this online.

A leaf can move on the surface of the river. It can move through space with limitations.

But it cannot be in the river moving until it lands on the water.

 

[Jokodo]

The surface of a raging river is not uniform but a raft can float near the surface on a less than uniform river and move forward.

I'm pretty positive that a leaf falling into a river can end up upstream of where it entered the water if it gets drawn into an eddy. You may be able to find a video demonstrating this online.

A leaf can move on the surface of the river. It can move through space with limitations.

But it cannot be in the river moving until it lands on the water.

It was your analogy: You tried to argue that the non-uniform surface of a river nonetheless carries a raft forward, not backward - just like non-uniform flow of time still means that entities move exclusively forward in time.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/analogy