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.

[bluethread]

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.

Some, mystical non-theists do the same thing. As I have investigated in another thread, there are things that even scientific humanists believe in without empirical evidence, i.e consciousness, value and meaning. Time, being a construct, is similar. One can calculate relationships between certain empirical things and designate that as time. However, the actual nature of time is not empirical, hence philosophical discussions such as this one.

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.

I did not mean to commit sacrilege by making a statement regarding the order of the scientific process. I was merely pointing out that hypothesis is an integral part of that process.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 19 by benchwarmer]


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

Move forward to the present age.
Robert Monroe died only few years ago and he went forward to year 3000.
No visible cities, nor cars, everything green, they lived under water equally well as above.

I don't have problem believing it as I have read all his three books
and witnessed his development from a modern age businessman
to travelling to other realities (OBE) and into the future.

[Derrrpp]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]
I found this article by Marshall Barnes, who doesnt have any degrees but appears to have the credentials necessary to discuss the topic.
https://futurism.media/time-travel-to-t ... lmost-here

I quote:
"The idea of walking along and then suddenly you’re back in the past — without having to do space travel, is consistent with the way that time travel would manifest. Furthermore, both incidents would involve copies of those times and thus not require the Earth to be in some previous location in space. In other words, you're on Earth, now. You enter a time slip or invoke a time travel operation. Without moving in space, you are instantaneously translated from the Earth, now, to the Earth, then."

If information contained by our environment is derived from the past configurations(built upon) I think he is implying that it is localized. Im very curious if a version of his time travel supports a way to interact and respond to those previous informational slices. Think about it.... If i see a ghost (holographic image of the partial past) then I react but what is really present (pun intended) to measure physically about that ghost???. It's informational imprint has been there all along in the states of the electrons and atoms of that locale. but what is the change of force or entropy or mass Yes??? Should I even measure anything unnatural - that doesnt exist at every other point in my environment? If something is wrong with my speculation - please advise....

[SkyChief]

My fascination with Time Travel is exactly proportional to my fascination with a Flat Earth.

Many believe in it, but most of us accept that neither is true. Science and physics tell us that neither is possible.

Yet so many are eager to embrace both. This is what really fascinates me!

[TSGracchus]

Time is the minimum relative distance between points. t = d / c, where t = time, d = distance and c = 1 lt (ly/yr, ls/sec, etc.) Since distance is always positive then time is always positive. And you can't travel in time without moving in space.
Time travel is science fiction. The resulting paradoxes are proof, by reductio ad absurdum, that time travel is disproved as a premise.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 25 by TSGracchus]

Says the guy that won't be born for another 212 years...

[rikuoamero]

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.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling in terms of time travel in the real world, at least in my opinion, is the problem of the conservation of matter.
As we all know, matter cannot be created or destroyed (at least in most cases). A typical sci-fi time travel story has the person disappearing from their starting position, and then reappearing some-when else. So basically, the matter that makes up Tommy is deleted from June 1st and then blinks back into existence on June 20th. This implies that the universe between June 1st and June 20th had less matter in it, and that come June 20th, matter was added back to it, popping in from essentially nowhere.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 11 by 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.

True, in my arguments in the past with a certain someone. This person, whom I will not name here, said that philosophical arguments such as Kalam or Modal Ontological, were his evidence for the existence of God.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by Derrrpp]

I quote:
"The idea of walking along and then suddenly you’re back in the past — without having to do space travel, is consistent with the way that time travel would manifest. Furthermore, both incidents would involve copies of those times and thus not require the Earth to be in some previous location in space. In other words, you're on Earth, now. You enter a time slip or invoke a time travel operation. Without moving in space, you are instantaneously translated from the Earth, now, to the Earth, then."

This thinking completely ignores the fact that the Earth travels through space. So let's hypothetically say I have a machine that when it zaps me, has me go backwards in time ten days but that I don't move through space.
Great. Now I'm floating in outer space because the planet Earth from ten days ago has not reached the point in space where it is when I turned on the machine.

[Tcg]

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

It doesn't to me. Given that what we refer to as "the future" doesn't exist, at least not yet, it is an impossibility to travel there.