Discussion Time Travel - Page 5 - Science & Technology - HWzone Forums
adplus-dvertising
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

     
    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

Discussion Time Travel


Yoav Goldhorn

Recommended Posts

  • תגובות 147
  • Opens on
  • Last comment

^ ^ ^ Until now, this discussion seems quite physical

And by the way, I do not understand anything, let's say and I'll go back to the past (although we've already talked about the fact that it's impossible to do it) and kill Hitler, for example,

Who said it would change me retroactively so that I would not want to go back in retrospect? Why should not I just go on with my life (say before, without going back to the future) and just live the new future?

Link to content
Share on other sites

^ ^ ^ Until now, this discussion seems quite physical

And by the way, I do not understand anything, let's say and I'll go back to the past (although we've already talked about the fact that it's impossible to do it) and kill Hitler, for example,

Who said it would change me retroactively so that I would not want to go back in retrospect? Why should not I just go on with my life (say before, without going back to the future) and just live the new future?

Why not?

After all, the previous future no longer exists and you have no god to return too much.

You're also not sure how much of it will look like the previous one and how much of it will be completely different.

If you stay in the past you get what was and everything that flows away in your life.

And what if you lack things that are only in the distant future that there is no situation in your life.

You'll soon find that waiting two hours at the cellular company for every little thing is not fun.

And roads packed with slow cars are not fun.

And you'll miss flying cars or maybe a faster launch.

And the advanced technological world and the virtual space from which you came and grew, and that a large part of you would be missing if you remained in the undeveloped past.

That's why I believe that the farther you go from the future, the more you want to get back from there, or stay there.

In fact, when you think about it, the humanity that invented the time machine has no need to go back to the past.

Even if terrible things have happened in the past, they are still the cornerstones of your existence.

Perhaps they could have created a time machine in the future and immediately came to the conclusion that there was no point in building and / or using it.

And that our past is in fact the same decisions that were made in the future.

And as the past is the cornerstone of the future, so too the future is the cause and the cornerstone of the past.

Link to content
Share on other sites

^ ^ ^ Until now, this discussion seems quite physical

And by the way, I do not understand anything, let's say and I'll go back to the past (although we've already talked about the fact that it's impossible to do it) and kill Hitler, for example,

Who said it would change me retroactively so that I would not want to go back in retrospect? Why should not I just go on with my life (say before, without going back to the future) and just live the new future?

Option A: There will be a split of universes.

Option B: You will be stuck in an infinite circle of universe in which each round starts with you not killing Hitler and being born and ending by going back to kill Hitler and not born.

Option C: This is not possible.

Option D: We all die.

Option 5: Wake up and find that we live in Matrix.

Perhaps they could have created a time machine in the future and immediately came to the conclusion that there was no point in building and / or using it.

An interesting conclusion, it is quite possible that even if you can build a time machine and even exist, it will not be used at all. On the other hand, it can be argued that if technology and humanity are so advanced, it may be possible to change the past without affecting the future, and perhaps the contrary will even improve it. In such a situation it is quite possible that they will use the time machine to improve ancient humanity.

Whatever it is, the possibility of a time machine can not be ruled out only by a psychological argument of no need, as human beings do not always act logically and always have the madman who will care nothing and want to change the world or destroy the universe.

Link to content
Share on other sites

What exactly physical desire? Once it is possible there is programming that it will occur, whether intentionally or in case during an attempt to get to something else.

Time machine will not exist at all, is it physical enough for you? In the end, one of the changes will lead to that. The inventor will lose interest before the project is completed, will not acquire the necessary knowledge, will die before it is enough, will not be born at all, the whole race will be destroyed before or will not develop at all - choose the one you like best. Only then will the time be stable. As long as there is a time machine, the time is unstable and will be subject to constant changes.

So why did I start from "not wanting" or from "you can not"? Because "you will not want" is easier to demonstrate. The chain of events following the killing of Hitler that will lead the inventor of the time machine to die at age three is much more complicated to describe than the simple fact that you do not want to go back to kill Joachim von Schleiftsinger, Traveling in time caused his father never met his mother and therefore the man was not born at all. He did nothing (and could not do anything because he was not born at all) that could make you want to hurt him.

Link to content
Share on other sites

An interesting conclusion, it is quite possible that even if you can build a time machine and even exist, it will not be used at all. On the other hand, it can be argued that if technology and humanity are so advanced, it may be possible to change the past without affecting the future, and perhaps the contrary will even improve it. In such a situation it is quite possible that they will use the time machine to improve ancient humanity.

Whatever it is, the possibility of a time machine can not be ruled out only by a psychological argument of no need, as human beings do not always act logically and always have the madman who will care nothing and want to change the world or destroy the universe.

If time is linear and you can go back in time and change it, it has already happened and changed the time line.

And if the different world gave rise to another time machine and again they changed the time line, it is inevitable to conclude that it happened again and again and again until eventually they did not use it anymore.

The only alternative to this is that the future returns in time and changes itself again and again forever.

And the time line consists of layers of changes like vertebrae of a plant.

Since eternity contains endless possibilities, then it is inevitable to conclude from the fact that even though they have already changed the past many times, at some point they stopped because everything was perfect.

If this is really the case then from the moment of invention the time machine will begin a process in which everything will be perfect (relatively).

And if everything is perfect then maybe humanity will miss something big and then come back and avoid inventing the time machine.

And it does not really matter why they came back to avoid the possibility of returning in time.

This is the basis on which I believe that Asimov built his book.

In fact, according to the story, the whole story did not take place, because it happened.

So perhaps the reason there is no time machine is that it leads to prevention or prevention of its use.

Link to content
Share on other sites

^ ^ ^ Until now, this discussion seems quite physical

And by the way, I do not understand anything, let's say and I'll go back to the past (although we've already talked about the fact that it's impossible to do it) and kill Hitler, for example,

Who said it would change me retroactively so that I would not want to go back in retrospect? Why should not I just go on with my life (say before, without going back to the future) and just live the new future?

So you did not understand. You'll be stuck in the past, okay. You knew in the past that there was Hitler and how well you killed him, but you're the only one. In ninety years, when you are the youngest to build the time machine, you will not want to go back to kill Hitler because it's someone you've never heard of because you came back and killed him. And then there is really no one to go back to the past and kill Hitler, meaning that he will live and you will certainly want to kill him. Understand the paradox?

This is a slightly complex version of Grandfather's Paradox: Imagine you go back to killing your grandfather before he meets your grandmother. As a result, your mother was not born and you are not born, and then there is no one who can go back to kill your grandfather, so he stays alive, meets Grandmother, your mother is born and gives birth to you and you can go back to kill Grandpa. You were born ...

Link to content
Share on other sites

Time machine will not exist at all, is it physical enough for you? In the end, one of the changes will lead to that. The inventor will lose interest before the project is completed, will not acquire the necessary knowledge, will die before it is enough, will not be born at all, the whole race will be destroyed before or will not develop at all - choose the one you like best. Only then will the time be stable. As long as there is a time machine, the time is unstable and will be subject to constant changes.

So why did I start from "not wanting" or from "you can not"? Because "you will not want" is easier to demonstrate. The chain of events following the killing of Hitler that will lead the inventor of the time machine to die at age three is much more complicated to describe than the simple fact that you do not want to go back to kill Joachim von Schleiftsinger, Traveling in time caused his father never met his mother and therefore the man was not born at all. He did nothing (and could not do anything because he was not born at all) that could make you want to hurt him.

Even if you came back in time and the future from which you came does not exist, you exist on the same time line and your arrival occurred and took place.

The future that will not be, existed and occurred, and gave birth to a new future.

There is no paradox here.

Time is made of layers.

Link to content
Share on other sites

So you did not understand. You'll be stuck in the past, okay. You knew in the past that there was Hitler and how well you killed him, but you're the only one. In ninety years, when you are the youngest to build the time machine, you will not want to go back to kill Hitler because it's someone you've never heard of because you came back and killed him. And then there is really no one to go back to the past and kill Hitler, meaning that he will live and you will certainly want to kill him. Understand the paradox?

This is a slightly complex version of Grandfather's Paradox: Imagine you go back to killing your grandfather before he meets your grandmother. As a result, your mother was not born and you are not born, and then there is no one who can go back to kill your grandfather, so he stays alive, meets Grandmother, your mother is born and gives birth to you and you can go back to kill Grandpa. You were born ...

Well? So there is no paradox and therefore travel time may be. I must have been stuck in the past for very many reasons, but hey, probably when I was traveling in time to assassinate Hitler, I took into account that I was sacrificing myself for the human race, except that if we had already entered Asimov and philosophy there was no technological impediment to anyone going back in time Assassin and then at all There is no problem of will and all this paradox of want Do not want I have a reason I have no reason to spare you, the robot sacrifices itself (who cares), the universe splits and everything comes to rest.

Beyond that, any attempt to explain that there will be no time travel because we do not want to be motivated, for example, is futile because the discussion dealt with whether time travel is possible or not, and whether we really do something with it or want to do something. . .

In terms of physical and physical technology, I can not think of a reason to prevent the existence of time travel other than energy problems that perhaps in the very distant future we can solve (and I'm talking only about problems we are aware of right now)

Link to content
Share on other sites

My logic tells me that when you travel in time, you do not create a new line, you just go back to the same timeline, but when you passed, you actually did not exist (that is to say, you are missing), that if you traveled 20 one year ahead, Your wife "for the future, because you were not" active "in this time line for 20 ... and you had a child before, and you travel, so when you return (if he is still alive) he lives without you the same time you went.

Link to content
Share on other sites

You assume that the future has already happened.

If the future has already happened, then it is passed: s05:

Once a time machine is invented, the future will lead to the past just as the past leads to the future.

So the future is the past of everything that comes after that jump back in time.

Link to content
Share on other sites

ארכיון

This discussion has been archived and new comments can not be added.


  • Latest news

  • Buzz-Zone: Everything hot on the net

  • Popular now

×
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site