How to make sense of Time Travel?

[jgh7]

Time travelling forward makes perfect sense to me. One disappears for a certain amount of time, then reappears in the future.

Time travelling backwards makes no sense if it causes drastic changes to the future that would affect the time traveler's own existence or change events that would lead him to time travel to begin with. Are there any ways to reconcile this?

I guess the first thing to ask is is time travel possible (at least from a mathematical/physics based standpoint)?

If this has to be related to Religion in some way, then people can chime in on whether God can time travel or not and whether he could change the events of the past if He wanted to.

[Kenisaw]

Entropy makes time travel into the past impossible, at least as we currently understand things.

Emphasis Mine

There is the rub. Hypothetical speculation is the mother's milk of scientific discovery.

No, it's not. Facts are the mother's milk. I cannot stress this enough. This is a key misunderstanding, especially among theists at this website, that leads to statements like yours. Hypothetical speculation only comes AFTER facts are gathered. The speculation is an attempt to explain the FACTS. If the speculation does explain the facts, and every attempt to show otherwise fails, then the speculation can eventually become a scientific theory.

No one speculated that ice was less dense than water until after someone noticed that ice floats in water. Newton didn't speculate about gravity until after he noticed matter is attracted to other matter. Herschel didn't speculate that there was light energy below visible red until he felt the heat and measured the temperature of the air just outside the red light emitted from a prism. Facts first, speculation second.

There are no facts (or that matter mathematical equations and proofs) that support the claim that one can travel back into the past. So hypothetical guesses devoid of evidence are no basis for anything.

Theists, in my experience, tend to think random speculation comes first before finding any factual support, which may help explain why many theists don't see the difference between something supported with facts and something that is guessed at for philosophical reasons. It may also explain why baseless claims of creator beings and god creatures seem more plausible to them while scientific minds think otherwise.

[bluethread]

Theists, in my experience, tend to think random speculation comes first before finding any factual support, which may help explain why many theists don't see the difference between something supported with facts and something that is guessed at for philosophical reasons. It may also explain why baseless claims of creator beings and god creatures seem more plausible to them while scientific minds think otherwise.

What does theism have to do with this? Does one have to believe in deities in order to think that hypothesis comes before observation? However, I did not say that hypothesis precends observation. I said hypothetical speculation is the mother's milk of science. Yes, hypothetical speculation based on observation is more accurate. However, people observed the things you noted for ages with minimal speculation. It was not until someone propose an hypothesis that the science actually began.

[Kenisaw]

Theists, in my experience, tend to think random speculation comes first before finding any factual support, which may help explain why many theists don't see the difference between something supported with facts and something that is guessed at for philosophical reasons. It may also explain why baseless claims of creator beings and god creatures seem more plausible to them while scientific minds think otherwise.

What does theism have to do with this? Does one have to believe in deities in order to think that hypothesis comes before observation? However, I did not say that hypothesis precends observation. I said hypothetical speculation is the mother's milk of science. Yes, hypothetical speculation based on observation is more accurate. However, people observed the things you noted for ages with minimal speculation. It was not until someone propose an hypothesis that the science actually began.

Not theism. Theists. People who believe in things without empirical data or evidence. Theists accept speculation as fact, and think it's rational to do so.

As for hypothesis, that is a step in the scientific process. It is not the mothers milk however, as I already explained in some detail in my previous post. Without facts, you don't get discovery.

[Monta]

If this has to be related to Religion in some way, then people can chime in on whether God can time travel or not and whether he could change the events of the past if He wanted to.

The Divine Being we call God is infinite as to space,
and eternal as to time.

He is Almighty and could change events of the past
but His Wisdom may not see the benefit.

[Kenisaw]

If this has to be related to Religion in some way, then people can chime in on whether God can time travel or not and whether he could change the events of the past if He wanted to.

The Divine Being we call God is infinite as to space,
and eternal as to time.

He is Almighty and could change events of the past
but His Wisdom may not see the benefit.

Space and time aren't infinite, so this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me...

[Monta]

[Replying to post 15 by Kenisaw]


"Space and time aren't infinite, so this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me..."

You've got it right, needs elaboration.

He is in all space apart from space, also in all time apart from time.
He is in all things, apart from being all things, in order that they may exist.

If this were not so then we could assume that many things have their own
existence in themselves and from themselves. imo

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 15 by Kenisaw]


"Space and time aren't infinite, so this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me..."

You've got it right, needs elaboration.

He is in all space apart from space, also in all time apart from time.
He is in all things, apart from being all things, in order that they may exist.

If this were not so then we could assume that many things have their own
existence in themselves and from themselves. imo

Why not say he is a married bachelor too. And an unstoppable force and an immovable object at the same time while we are at it. That's the great thing about omni-this and omni-that claims about speculative beings - one can make up whatever characteristics they want without worrying about how nonsensical it all sounds...

[Monta]

[Replying to post 15 by Kenisaw]


"Space and time aren't infinite, so this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me..."

You've got it right, needs elaboration.

He is in all space apart from space, also in all time apart from time.
He is in all things, apart from being all things, in order that they may exist.

If this were not so then we could assume that many things have their own
existence in themselves and from themselves. imo

Why not say he is a married bachelor too. And an unstoppable force and an immovable object at the same time while we are at it. That's the great thing about omni-this and omni-that claims about speculative beings - one can make up whatever characteristics they want without worrying about how nonsensical it all sounds...

No need to make up anything as there are brilliant teachers
and theologians out-there.

From the ancient times God has been sending messengers with
messages of love, hope, truth and eternal life
Those who seek it will find it.

[benchwarmer]

From the ancient times God has been sending messengers with
messages of love,

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

4 So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

Sure, slaughtering innocents seems loving to me...

hope,

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

9 “‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.

Well, no hope for her I guess. Nowadays most of us would attempt to give her a second chance.

truth

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’

“One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’

22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.

“‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’

23 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.�

Apparently this god is not above forcing others to lie....

and eternal life

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Well, for those willing to swallow the magical stories. Everyone else burns...

Those who seek it will find it.

Oh, I found it. In general, a message of believe these tales or die, regardless of how ridiculous most of it is.

What's any of this got to do with time travel? Were god's prophets time travelling?

[Derrrpp]

Does it have to be the complete configuration of the past? Can we interact with or be influenced by a partial set of structurally related energetic elements that were here (at time x)or will be? As I understand the parallelworld view 'shadow' photons interfere with the behavior of photons passing thru the double slit experiment. We cannot interact with them but they are real (in those physicists viewpoint) and have a measurable effect on the photon vs. the observed classical result. I think if i understand correctly that Einstein and others view the slices of what we call time as being coexistent then I dont think Im going off base too far. The 'past' configurations are similar in kind to these shadow photons. Asking if we can partially interact with resonances of the motion and position of particles that were in the past or are going to be in the future is making the OP very religious- i.e the 'ghost' of someone that was in existence being viewable outside their natural lifetime. What would that require the universe to be like? scale invariant? predictable? advanced/retarded resonances? Your thoughts?....