Locutus, pal, there are many ways to prove that time does exist, but I'm sure that your way is wrong. I hope you're kidding. What you're saying is no more than how time is measured and the influence of earth's rotation on how we set our clocks.

thats a pretty poor explaination. time travel may NOT exist, but i hightly doubt it has anything to do with traveling at the speed of light or traveling against the spin of the earth..i mean thats just rediculous.

i mean if you were to leave NY, at the speed of light, come back to NY and the journey took 2 minutes (or probably 2 seconds) and you went BACK across the IDL, the people you meet wont be a day old, they will be EXACTLY the same age as you

and if you think about it, time is just a human concept given to measure what we have done before now, and what we plan to do soon
theres absolutely no proof that theres some hard copy (for want of a better word) of things we have done. its entirely plausable that once things have happened they cease to exist. IF all history was available to us to explore, then there must be an infinite expanse where history is stored, and infinities are something i have a problem with. if you had a time machine, you could go back in time FOREVER..which i just think is rediculous

-arcon
------

Yeah Locutus, your theory doesn't hold water I'm afraid. That is simply our perception of time, not time itself. To the universe the IDB doesn't exist at all.
If we measured time in it's truer sense then the time would be the same all over the world. At say "Hour 1" it would be light in New York and dark in say Japan. But it would be a truer sense of time than what we use, but more complicated to use on a practical basis.
Oh, as an aside, did you know there aren't 24 hours in one true day? There's about 23 hours 59 minutes and about 30 seconds. Odd, hence February 29th. strange but true.

Edited by - Lutz on 22-07-2003 15:05:26

As I already said ( as confusing as I could )

---

In order to travel back trough time, you would have to create a completely new multiverse, and trigger the exact same events as the ones in your current universe (replicate it) up until the time coordinate that you wish to reach, and then transfer yourself to that multiverse, in the given point in time, in the universe you replicated inside the multiverse.

---

Translation: If you want to travel back in time, you must make an exact replica of your universe up to the point in time that you want to reach, and then transfer yourself to that replica. If you can do this, then I wish to become your bestest friend in the whole wide world...

Chetnik, that's virtually what I think to, just worded differently.

Okay... Boom goes that theory!

what Chetnik says sounds a bit better.
but there is something else.

I think a rift in space time here on earth could create that parallel multiverse
and thus allows you to travel into "time"

@ arcon

infinities have 2 sides i think, they do and they don't exist
infinity is a word us humans () use to explain a ridiculously large number
(the number 1.10^99^99 for instance) so it doesn't exist but if that number were to annihilate and procreate itself (presumably happenings in history in an "X" number of history's-) then you WOULD have infinities

yeah, but the human concept of time is flawed because its explained as being infinite, meaning there will never be an end. it also means that there was never a start...now how the hell does that work?

-arcon
------

Time is irrelevant to energy, but it is a prime attribute of matter. So when there is no matter ( "pre-big bang state", where you have a point of energy changing one of it's parameter's value, thus expanding and becoming matter ) there is no time. When matter is created from energy, time starts to exist for that matter. when all matter is "annihilated" (turned back into pure energy), time "disappears". It is later on "re-started", but it doesn't really start over, it's coordinates repeat, but it's value is added to previous ones, not replaced. By coordinates I mean current value, and by value I mean absolute value. If you try and travel back trough time in the current universe, you'll become energy, and that's why I consider it impossible.


Careful what you wish... You might just get it.

Option 1: Assuming a hard linear time-line, you would be unsuccessful in your attempts to kill your grandfather. When I say "hard linear time" I am referring to nature protecting in ANY way the time line. Thus, if you were aiming a high powered rifle loaded with hollow points at your grandfather with the intent to kill, the rifle may fail or the bullet may not expand or any other possible contingency that would cause your grandfather to survive (however, this "any possible contingency" would also include your death because it is not necessary for you to survive...only your grandfather). In this case, it is no longer a question of can you kill your father (because it is not even possible to kill your grandfather). Basically, at best, your attempts to kill your grandfather can be broadcast on America's Funniest Videos as complete hilarity, or, at worst, will be short-lived because nature will eliminate the threat to the time-line.

Option 2: Assuming multiple time-lines, you could kill your grandfather and nothing would change. This is because you would belong to an alternate time-line but are displaced in time so you are no longer subject to the results of any alteration in your native time. However, in this event, because you have altered the past of your (native) time line, and, because of the "cause and effect" nature of the world, you will have effectively negated the existence of a world (I am using the word "world" to refer to the entire state of being...i.e. you, me, the guy next to you, the air, water, planet, solar system, stars, universe). Let's look at this way: every event has a cause and every event is a cause (you with me so far...this could get bumpy). If your existence is an event in response to a cause (your conception), then by eradicating that event you eradicate the cause. Unfortunately, because of the cascading effect of the whole "cause-and-effect"-thingie you will have unravelled every cause all the way back to the birth of the universe.

Option 2a: Same as above except you don't negate all existence...just negate all existence after the death of your grandfather.

Option 3: Assuming the existence of God (for some this could be a big assumption), and the divine attribute that God can never be proven wrong (combined with the attribute that God knows all true propositions--omniscience), it is simply impossible for a mere mortal to kill their own grandfather...unless God wanted that individual to kill their own grandfather.

Attack of Option 3: If God knows all true propositions then the proposition that grandfather A (gA) exists at time T and gA does not exist at T is a contradiction. And it is universally accepted that a contradiction cannot be true. Thus God cannot have a person kill their own grandfather in such a way that it would mean that gA exists at T and not exists at T.

Option 3a: Since God cannot be proven wrong and that God knows all true propositions, it is simply impossible for humans to affect changes to the time line. In fact, since God knows all true propositions (the word "all" being an all inclusive term) that would mean that God knows all true propositions past, present, and future. Therefore, humans cannot act any differently than what is destined to be because God already knows what we are about to do.

Final refutation of Option 3: God does not exist (this is a highly contestible claim...and should not be debated here...because people who believe in free will may find that this is simply too big of a bullet to bite. However, if you are a devout theist and adhere to divine omniscience and that God cannot be proven wrong, then this final refutation should have no bearing on Option 3). --EDIT: In which case, option 3 is an argument for predeterministic behavior and makes the argument about changing history moot./EDIT--

--PLEASE DO NOT ENGAGE IN A THEISTIC DEBATE!!! I DO NOT WANT TO SPARK ONE, NOR DO I SEEK TO DO SO! THAT'S WHY YOU GO TO PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION CLASSES OR CHURCH. Cheers all.

------------Disclaimer----------
I got my BA in philosophy, but I do not consider myself an expert on this topic. The options that I have given are simply my own personal musings. If I were to write a paper using the various options that I have illustrated in this forum I would at best get a C or quite possibly a B- (depending on professor). Happy musings.

Edited by - Ein-7919 on 23-07-2003 02:17:21

---

infinities have 2 sides i think, they do and they don't exist
infinity is a word us humans () use to explain a ridiculously large number
(the number 1.10^99^99 for instance) so it doesn't exist but if that number were to annihilate and procreate itself (presumably happenings in history in an "X" number of history's-) then you WOULD have infinities

---

Locutus, infinity cannot both exist and not exist. That is a contradiction. If you say infinity, then that is an all inclusive term. It basically refers to no specific number, but more of an expression in the form of (where 'x' refers to any number) infinity = x + 1 (thus, no matter what number you put in for x, there will always be something greater than x). Remember, even if a number is ridiculously high, that does not mean that it is an infinite value. In any case, if you base your conclusion on anything that involves something simultaneously existing and not existing, you will always be wrong. Any argument where the conclusion follows from a contradiction cannot be sound nor can it even be a valid argument. Just a little helpful tip. Cheers.

@chet: time is not dependent on matter, it is in respect to say something being there to measure it against but if you could leave an empty universe for an hour, and came back, it wouldnt be the same spot.

could you all please stop using super-duper clever words and the like, the last science lesson i had was about 4 years ago and i have no clue about the meaning of alot of stuff and i think neiter do alot of the other laymen who are reading this thread, so could you dumb it down a bit

-arcon
------

---

could you all please stop using super-duper clever words and the like

---

Now, I'm not picking on you Arcon, but I just want to know the words that you (or anybody else) do not understand. I cannot simplify my post because I do not know which parts need simplifying. Just a general list would be very helpful. And trust me, I have the time to try to make my arguments simpler (I'm currently on an oil field on the North Slope of Alaska and I'm dying of boredom...I hate my job, I hate my job, I hate my job...)

A stab at what might be confusing about my post:

contradiction: any statement or claim that has the form x and not-x. Example: I exist and I do not exist. One is true. But they both cannot be true.

validity (when talking about arguments): any argument where the premises or supporting claims lead to a conclusion. Example: Al Gore is president...all presidents are spotted owls...Therefore, Al Gore is a spotted Owl

Sound (when talking about arguments): a case where the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises or supporting claims. Example: the above argument is valid because the premises lead to the conclusion...however, it is not a sound argument because the premises are false. Since this is the case, the conclusion that Al Gore is a spotted is not sound and just plain silly.

Premise: A statement used in arguments to set up a conclusion. Example: Al Gore is a spotted owl. Premises do not need to be true for an argument to be valid (see above), but they are necessary for an argument to be sound (see above also).

Proposition: A statement that can be either true or false. Example: I am sitting down.

Contingent/Contingency: What may or may not actually occur. Example: I will stand up in 5 minutes. This is a contingent proposition because I could be still sitting here typing, or I could have wrapped up this post and have stood up.

Divine attribute: A list of 7 common properties that people, cultures, or religions (that is to say, Western people, cultures, or religions) consider God to have. This list includes (but is not a complete list, because I have forgotten them): loves all persons equally, knows all true propositions, can bring about any non-contradictory possible proposition, and is eternal (eternal can be replaced with timeless, but I just dislike the word timeless and its implications).

Possible: any action or worldly state that can come into being. Generally used when talking about alternate worlds and/or realities. Example: It is possible that I can stop typing in 5 minutes. However, it is not possible that I do not exist (this last claim is a contested one...but I am not here to argue for or against it).

World (when talking about possible or actual worlds): the sum of all propositions is what I mean when I talk about a world. Example: there is a sun and earth and a universe and they all have to follow the laws of nature. (This is a simplistic example, but I think you get the point)

Well, that's about all that I can figure out. If you could point out a few words that I may have missed, that would be helpful.

--Edit: Sorry. Spelled your name wrong. The issue has been corrected.

Edited by - Ein-7919 on 23-07-2003 04:06:00

I didn't say that time is directly dependant on matter, it's only that matter exists for only so long and changes only so fast that time is important. When there is no matter, there is "no need" for time -- it still exists, but it doesn't make any difference. Oh, and sorry about them "super-duper science words"... I was under the impression that most people understood them just fine.
Concerning God: (not religious, but scientific-philosophic point of view)
I never pictured God as (just) a person, I always thought that God is the essence of everything, an entity made combined energy of all the universe that we're in. I do believe in Jesus, but I think he was a man that had access to the superconsciousness (collective consciousness that people posses, subconciousness is brain activity that we're not aware of, and it's single-person only). If you could connect your subconsciousness and your consciousness to people's superconsciousness, then you'd be aware of (almost) everything they know, need, or want... Sounds familiar?

Chetnik: Wasn't that "The Prize" in Highlander?