Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

Time travel theory avoids grandfather paradox

82 posts in this topic

Why does everyone wanna kill grandpa!!??

*cries*

because no one wants to kill a female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why would that matter? You got hit by a hammer in the past. If you go back to the past and remove the hammer, you did not get hit. If you go back to the past to get a cheeseburger, and incidentally happen to remove the hammer, you still did not get hit. Why you went back to the past is irrelevant to whether you got hit or not.

I see what you're trying to say, but it's kind of iffy. Basically if I DID get hit by the hammer, no matter how hard I try to go back in time and destroy the hammer/prevent it from hitting me, I'll fail. And the fact that the hammer hit me is proof of this since the present is a result of the past. There would be no point in going back in time to prevent things from happening to yourself, because you can't stop them from happening. Either they happened or they did not. To say you went back to PREVENT them would be to say that they happened, thus you didn't succeed in preventing them from happening. Once the hammer hits you, you can't later go back in time to stop it from hitting you since the fact that it hits you is proof that you didn't prevent it. Mind spin! :wacko: I don't think this is the way it'd work. There's nothing stopping you from not being able to prevent these happenings.

We'd never actually need to go back in time, since once we get to the point in which we'd decide to go back, we would have already experienced ourselves going back in time and changing things. For instance, if 5 years from now I'll decide to come back to THIS TIME and prevent myself from getting hit by a car and being seriously injured, I'd experience my future self coming and saving me now. Thus 5 years from now I wouldn't need to travel back to prevent what's already been prevented. EDIT: But if that happened, wouldn't my future self have scars/injuries from being hit by the car, even if I was saved by myself? Kind of weird, there. Thus lies a paradox I suppose. Did I get hit by the car or not?

Edited by ShaunZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got two words to explain why there is NO PARADOX...

Parallel Universes!

Thank you and goodbye (or is it?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got two words to explain why there is NO PARADOX...

Parallel Universes!

Thank you and goodbye (or is it?).

Of course, but we're trying to work time travel out if there were no parallel universes. It's an old theory that if you time travel back into the past, you essentially "create" a new reality/universe; or that everytime you make a decision there is a "split" in the time line in which one line continues as if you had made a different choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but there are so many good time travel books, who needs the real thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does this guy wanna kill his grandpa so badly.... :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the sad thing is that this ***clown is getting critical acclaim for this hilariously inapplicable perversion of science. But what do I know, I am just an engineer who has his training in actual physics, not philosophy and maths LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does this guy wanna kill his grandpa so badly.... :hmm:

yep...seems a bit anti-grandpa this paradox.

(In an ideal world I'd take my grandpa with me time-travelling? He was much more fun than my dad).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if you go back in time to kill your grandpa and he kills you instead? Isn't this a paradox as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What happens if you go back in time to kill your grandpa and he kills you instead? Isn't this a paradox as well?

Nah...it's just a bad trip...lol

Edited by Eldorado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you're trying to say, but it's kind of iffy. Basically if I DID get hit by the hammer, no matter how hard I try to go back in time and destroy the hammer/prevent it from hitting me, I'll fail. And the fact that the hammer hit me is proof of this since the present is a result of the past. There would be no point in going back in time to prevent things from happening to yourself, because you can't stop them from happening. Either they happened or they did not. To say you went back to PREVENT them would be to say that they happened, thus you didn't succeed in preventing them from happening. Once the hammer hits you, you can't later go back in time to stop it from hitting you since the fact that it hits you is proof that you didn't prevent it. Mind spin! :wacko: I don't think this is the way it'd work. There's nothing stopping you from not being able to prevent these happenings.

Why would there be?

See, I'm not doing what a lot of people here are doing. I'm not saying "This is how time works, and why this is or isn't a paradox". What I'm doing is pointing out that everyone who does that is following a basic assumption that time must at some point or another return to a linear mode, just as we see it. There is no reason to make this assumption. The only reason that people do is because that is the only way that we are able to conceive of time as existing. Anything other than linear time is something that we can only tolerate as specific, one-shot events. It's part and parcel of living in the 3rd dimension.

Let's look at this a different way: Right now, we are 3rd dimensional creatures trying to wrap our minds around the 4th dimension. Let's take it down a notch and try to imagine a 2nd dimensional creature trying to figure out the 3rd dimension.

In the 2nd dimension, there is no up or down. Let's say we have a piece of paper and a magic pencil. On that paper, our 2D man is walking along, happily humming to himself. Now, we draw a circle on the paper, and within that circle, we draw a star. Our subject arrives at the circle and, after walking along it's perimeter, determines that it is indeed a circle, and not just a wall.

Now, to our 2d subject, there is no possible way to determine if there is anything within the circle. It is, in every way, shape, and form, impossible, despite what some of the other 2d people say about mysterious abilities and psychic gifts that allow them to view beyond. The only way that our subject could possibly determine what was inside the circle would be for us to cut a hole in the wall with out magic eraser and give him a way in. Indeed, if someone told him there was a star in the circle, and then we gave him the ability to see the star, he would find it utterly astounding, and either believe it to be a hoax or a miracle.

But if our 2d subject was of a philosophical bent, or had studied 2dimensional physics, he might ponder what he would be able to do if traveled to the 3rd dimension. What if he could step beyond his 2dimensional existence, and move to a 3rd dimension, where he would actually be able to see things beyond walls, by looking at them in a manner no one else could? Well, it would be an interesting intellectual experiment, sure, but there would be a paradox. After all, if he was able to know what was inside the circle, he would have no need to look in the circle, and thus his reason for going to the 3rd dimension would be negated. Similarly, how could he look inside the circle if the circle never existed, because circles only exist in the 2nd dimension, not the 3rd?

To our subject, living in a 2nd dimensional world, trying to wrap his head around a 3rd dimension would be almost impossible, and he would be tempted at every turn to fall back into his 2 dimensional experience. The idea that there is another entire universe full of people who have absolutely no problem living in the 3rd dimension, and for whom the impossible ability to look within a closed circle is not even a second thought, is quite difficult to grasp.

We think it is a paradox that we can affect the past without affecting the present. Our subject believes that it is a paradox to be able to see within something that is unseeable. We keep falling back into the idea that, once the trip is over, the time stream will return to a linear flow, and we will have to deal with the consequences. Our subject believes that once he returns to his dimension, the inside of the circle will once again be unknowable. It is, ultimately, a matter of perspective. Trying to figure out the logic of another dimension is rather a matter of futility. What we view as a paradox of time is likely no more difficult to those who exist in the 4th dimension as looking within a circle is to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aquatus going back in time could just be part of linear time. more than likely if you go back in time and kill your grandfather he probable wasnt your grandfather.

then there is the movie where the guy goes back in time only to find out that he was his grandfather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aquatus going back in time could just be part of linear time. more than likely if you go back in time and kill your grandfather he probable wasnt your grandfather.

then there is the movie where the guy goes back in time only to find out that he was his grandfather.

Do you see the point that I am trying to make, about the eternal struggle to see the 4rth dimension in terms of the 3rd dimension? How people always try to get back to linear time, with really no reason that it should have to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you see the point that I am trying to make, about the eternal struggle to see the 4rth dimension in terms of the 3rd dimension? How people always try to get back to linear time, with really no reason that it should have to do so?

thats what we are. if we were god time wouldnt even be a factor. at least our concept of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is what we are, but that does not mean that Time has to conform to us, just as the 3rd dimension does not have to conform to the 2 dimensional example I gave before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is what we are, but that does not mean that Time has to conform to us, just as the 3rd dimension does not have to conform to the 2 dimensional example I gave before.

i agree but we humans for all of our intelligence usually think 1d.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a bit much for my brain to take in today I'm afraid. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would there be?

See, I'm not doing what a lot of people here are doing. I'm not saying "This is how time works, and why this is or isn't a paradox". What I'm doing is pointing out that everyone who does that is following a basic assumption that time must at some point or another return to a linear mode, just as we see it. There is no reason to make this assumption. The only reason that people do is because that is the only way that we are able to conceive of time as existing. Anything other than linear time is something that we can only tolerate as specific, one-shot events. It's part and parcel of living in the 3rd dimension.

Let's look at this a different way: Right now, we are 3rd dimensional creatures trying to wrap our minds around the 4th dimension. Let's take it down a notch and try to imagine a 2nd dimensional creature trying to figure out the 3rd dimension.

In the 2nd dimension, there is no up or down. Let's say we have a piece of paper and a magic pencil. On that paper, our 2D man is walking along, happily humming to himself. Now, we draw a circle on the paper, and within that circle, we draw a star. Our subject arrives at the circle and, after walking along it's perimeter, determines that it is indeed a circle, and not just a wall.

Now, to our 2d subject, there is no possible way to determine if there is anything within the circle. It is, in every way, shape, and form, impossible, despite what some of the other 2d people say about mysterious abilities and psychic gifts that allow them to view beyond. The only way that our subject could possibly determine what was inside the circle would be for us to cut a hole in the wall with out magic eraser and give him a way in. Indeed, if someone told him there was a star in the circle, and then we gave him the ability to see the star, he would find it utterly astounding, and either believe it to be a hoax or a miracle.

But if our 2d subject was of a philosophical bent, or had studied 2dimensional physics, he might ponder what he would be able to do if traveled to the 3rd dimension. What if he could step beyond his 2dimensional existence, and move to a 3rd dimension, where he would actually be able to see things beyond walls, by looking at them in a manner no one else could? Well, it would be an interesting intellectual experiment, sure, but there would be a paradox. After all, if he was able to know what was inside the circle, he would have no need to look in the circle, and thus his reason for going to the 3rd dimension would be negated. Similarly, how could he look inside the circle if the circle never existed, because circles only exist in the 2nd dimension, not the 3rd?

To our subject, living in a 2nd dimensional world, trying to wrap his head around a 3rd dimension would be almost impossible, and he would be tempted at every turn to fall back into his 2 dimensional experience. The idea that there is another entire universe full of people who have absolutely no problem living in the 3rd dimension, and for whom the impossible ability to look within a closed circle is not even a second thought, is quite difficult to grasp.

We think it is a paradox that we can affect the past without affecting the present. Our subject believes that it is a paradox to be able to see within something that is unseeable. We keep falling back into the idea that, once the trip is over, the time stream will return to a linear flow, and we will have to deal with the consequences. Our subject believes that once he returns to his dimension, the inside of the circle will once again be unknowable. It is, ultimately, a matter of perspective. Trying to figure out the logic of another dimension is rather a matter of futility. What we view as a paradox of time is likely no more difficult to those who exist in the 4th dimension as looking within a circle is to us.

Do you think for a being living outside our understanding of cause and effect (time) it would be equally difficult to comprehend us living within its boundaries?

Just as with your 2D man I cant help falling into the trap of seeing his surroundings and situation from a 3D perspective.

I think we fall back on the linear thinking due to having difficulty in comprehending cause and effect not occurring in the way we are used to. Its very hard to imagine it any other way though I liked the film reel example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why would there be?

See, I'm not doing what a lot of people here are doing. I'm not saying "This is how time works, and why this is or isn't a paradox". What I'm doing is pointing out that everyone who does that is following a basic assumption that time must at some point or another return to a linear mode, just as we see it. There is no reason to make this assumption. The only reason that people do is because that is the only way that we are able to conceive of time as existing. Anything other than linear time is something that we can only tolerate as specific, one-shot events. It's part and parcel of living in the 3rd dimension.

Let's look at this a different way: Right now, we are 3rd dimensional creatures trying to wrap our minds around the 4th dimension. Let's take it down a notch and try to imagine a 2nd dimensional creature trying to figure out the 3rd dimension.

In the 2nd dimension, there is no up or down. Let's say we have a piece of paper and a magic pencil. On that paper, our 2D man is walking along, happily humming to himself. Now, we draw a circle on the paper, and within that circle, we draw a star. Our subject arrives at the circle and, after walking along it's perimeter, determines that it is indeed a circle, and not just a wall.

Now, to our 2d subject, there is no possible way to determine if there is anything within the circle. It is, in every way, shape, and form, impossible, despite what some of the other 2d people say about mysterious abilities and psychic gifts that allow them to view beyond. The only way that our subject could possibly determine what was inside the circle would be for us to cut a hole in the wall with out magic eraser and give him a way in. Indeed, if someone told him there was a star in the circle, and then we gave him the ability to see the star, he would find it utterly astounding, and either believe it to be a hoax or a miracle.

But if our 2d subject was of a philosophical bent, or had studied 2dimensional physics, he might ponder what he would be able to do if traveled to the 3rd dimension. What if he could step beyond his 2dimensional existence, and move to a 3rd dimension, where he would actually be able to see things beyond walls, by looking at them in a manner no one else could? Well, it would be an interesting intellectual experiment, sure, but there would be a paradox. After all, if he was able to know what was inside the circle, he would have no need to look in the circle, and thus his reason for going to the 3rd dimension would be negated. Similarly, how could he look inside the circle if the circle never existed, because circles only exist in the 2nd dimension, not the 3rd?

To our subject, living in a 2nd dimensional world, trying to wrap his head around a 3rd dimension would be almost impossible, and he would be tempted at every turn to fall back into his 2 dimensional experience. The idea that there is another entire universe full of people who have absolutely no problem living in the 3rd dimension, and for whom the impossible ability to look within a closed circle is not even a second thought, is quite difficult to grasp.

We think it is a paradox that we can affect the past without affecting the present. Our subject believes that it is a paradox to be able to see within something that is unseeable. We keep falling back into the idea that, once the trip is over, the time stream will return to a linear flow, and we will have to deal with the consequences. Our subject believes that once he returns to his dimension, the inside of the circle will once again be unknowable. It is, ultimately, a matter of perspective. Trying to figure out the logic of another dimension is rather a matter of futility. What we view as a paradox of time is likely no more difficult to those who exist in the 4th dimension as looking within a circle is to us.

You're right in that we probably can't fully understand how time works and how things would unfold if we were to time travel, but we can only go off of what we know and can understand using the extent of logic we can comprehend. There's really no point in saying "Well, what if somehow someway".

Edited by ShaunZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the point you are trying to make.

However, we really don't know whether or not linear time would no longer apply to time travel.

How could it? If it did, it would be a paradox. Ergo, it likely does not.

This is equivalent to the multiple universe idea.

If you existed in 1950, then went back and killed your grandfather in 1910 (or whatever was postulated,) eventually it would be 1950 again and you would not be there.

IOW, we have two 1950's now, one with you in it and one without you in it ergo two seperate universes/realities.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is equivalent to the multiple universe idea.

If you existed in 1950, then went back and killed your grandfather in 1910 (or whatever was postulated,) eventually it would be 1950 again and you would not be there.

IOW, we have two 1950's now, one with you in it and one without you in it ergo two seperate universes/realities.

Harte

Well, no, that's just it. The multiple universe idea is just another idea that is grounded in our innate desire to return to a linear timeline. What I'm talking about is the third option of "We won't be able to logic it out."

What I am saying is that there may well be a paradox for us, because we are unlikely to be able to understand existence in the 4th dimension, whereas to someone in the 4th dimension, there is no more paradox to this than there is to us seeing the star within the circle.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no, that's just it. The multiple universe idea is just another idea that is grounded in our innate desire to return to a linear timeline. What I'm talking about is the third option of "We won't be able to logic it out."

What I am saying is that there may well be a paradox for us, because we are unlikely to be able to understand existence in the 4th dimension, whereas to someone in the 4th dimension, there is no more paradox to this than there is to us seeing the star within the circle.

Whether time is linear or not isn't the problem. The number of dimensions isn't the problem either. The problem is: ``can an object's trajectory through space-time ever return to the same space-time coordinates?''

This is what most people are implicitly talking about when they refer to ``time travel''. It doesn't matter how many space-like dimensions we have, how many space-time-like dimensions we have, or even how many time-like dimensions we have.

After all, if I can travel 100 years backwards in time (and only time), there is no chance of me begin able to kill my own grandfather, since 10 years ago the spot where I am standing now was probably the void of space, and I will very quickly die.

If I can travel back to the spot (in full space-time) where I was 10 years ago, then I can shoot my teen-age self in the head.

This is the paradox: if I died 10 years ago, how is it possible for the 10-year older version of me to go back in time? If I didn't die 10 years ago, then (assuming time travel is possible) I am still able to go back and kill my younger self.

There are even more problems with energy conservation, entropy increase, and relativistic reference frames.

Whether time is linear or not isn't the problem. The number of dimensions isn't the problem either. The problem is: ``can an object's trajectory through space-time ever return to the same space-time coordinates?''

This is what most people are implicitly talking about when they refer to ``time travel''. It doesn't matter how many space-like dimensions we have, how many space-time-like dimensions we have, or even how many time-like dimensions we have.

After all, if I can travel 100 years backwards in time (and only time), there is no chance of me begin able to kill my own grandfather, since 100 years ago the spot where I am standing now was probably the void of space, and I will very quickly die.

If I can travel back to the spot (in full space-time) where I was 10 years ago, then I can shoot my teen-age self in the head.

This is the paradox: if I died 10 years ago, how is it possible for the 10-year older version of me to go back in time? If I didn't die 10 years ago, then (assuming time travel is possible) I am still able to go back and kill my younger self.

There are even more problems with energy conservation, entropy increase, and relativistic reference frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you could go back in time and change an individual history.

i do not think you can go back in time and stop major events.

this means you could go back in time and kill hitler as a child, but the holocaust would take place anyways. maybe at a later time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now I am switching sides in this debate: I just realized that in my previous post I (somehow) quoted myself in that very same post.

Obviously that has something to do with time travel. Perhaps my future self is out to get me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just realized that in my previous post I (somehow) quoted myself in that very same post.

That's great! :) I think what happened is your future time-traveler self, who is now in an alternate universe, was typing the same as you here were, and somehow, because of the psychic connection between your two selves, this mysterious self-quote incident occured via these elusive self-referential multi-universe time-stream convergence correlations, which are self-replicating throughout the whole mega-psychic, mega-universal synchronic boundary transformations which undergo continuous deformations that permiate all sequential events simultaneously across the iterative, synoptic Cosmic Timescape.

If time travel were possible, one could not separate one's spatial dimensions from the time dimension, so the space one occupies now would also have to be projected back in time as well. Because of the conservation of energy law, one would have to remain seperate from past spacetime, and would only be an observer of past events, therefore negating the possibility of the grandfather paradox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.