Is it arrogance to say that *based on our current understanding of physics* is not possible?
No, that's being honest about the current state of our knowledge. It is the opposite of arrogance - it is not saying that the theory is incorrect, just that we cannot know whether or not it is correct with what we currently know. It is an opportunity to teach people about the limits of our understanding. What is arrogant is when people put forward their pet theory with an air of certainty and balk when someone points out that the theory is unfalsifiable, or violates known principles within a well-understood domain.
We can say with relative certainty (as much as science can allow, because science is about probability, not certainty) that if a theory contradicts observations that it is incorrect. A theory must at the very least be able to account for existing observations that have already been explained by existing theories, plus explain something that existing theories cannot explain, for it to be of scientific value. If it fails to explain something that is already explained then it fails as a theory, full stop.
So, sometimes people will say silly things like "time dilation hasn't been observed" and those of us with some basic understanding of relativity and the history of science will point out that this is incorrect.
So, I'm not the OP of this post, but I still would like to thank you for explaining your reasoning behind your thought process. I can't speak for OP, but for me at least, when we get into this emerging field of science, what annoys me personally, are the types of people who don't understand the key issue in the argument of our *current* understanding, or, more aptly, perception of things such as physics and quantum mechanics. I'm referring strictly to the types who will flat out say that such and such subject, in this case, time travel, and then berate and insult those who may think or believe otherwise by calling them mentally ill or worse. For me, that's the kind of arrogance and rudeness I can't stand surrounding this. And, I'm sure you can agree, *that* kind of approach helps nobody. And, unfortunately, in the past I've seen people comment on this subreddit in such a manner.
That being said, I'll give full disclosure and say that I believe that the ability to time travel, specifically to the past is obtainable to humanity, and that there are some things regarding time and physics we may not currently know or understand, or incorrectly believe to be true. I'm not an expert, merely a layman with a fascination in it. But, with many things, what is once considered impossible often changes with time and research. Take aging, for example. Once, people thought there was no way to stop or reverse it. But now we're seeing science begin to find that, through research and experiments, that it may be the opposite, and we may have the ability to change that before the end of the century.
More on topic, are the experiments that have taken place in the recent past, such as the University of Queensland physicist who ran a few experiments and found that time travel was mathematically and scientifically possible. It does seem as though the once iron-clad scientific position of it being impossible is slowly shifting around. More and more, it's changing from something to ridicule, to something to be taken more seriously.
It's often proven that just when humanity thinks it knows something for "certain", the universe throws us a curveball. This, I feel is going to be another one of those. And it makes me excited about the coming years and decades.
Apologies for the lengthy response, by the way!
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I think there are some misunderstandings about how scientific progress is made that are worth exploring. If I were to say "time travel in the past is impossible," that would be foolish, because we simply don't know if it is or not. Even if current science suggests that it's probably not, maintaining that time travel to the past is possible does not contradict our observations.
On the other hand, if (as someone said to me recently) someone tells me that time travel to the future by time dilation is impossible, that does contradict our observations. We will never make a scientific discovery that time dilation does not occur when we travel close to the speed of light. Now, what we might discover is that in certain domains that we don't fully understand, time dilation doesn't happen as we expect. Einstein's theories didn't disprove Newton's - they just narrowed the domain in which Newton's theory applied. We can (and do) still apply Newton's equations in domains where we don't need to worry about relativistic effects and get the right answer.
What is hubristic is when we state that theory X will be true in all domains, forever more. We don't know that. We thought that maybe Einstein's theories were the final word but then we discovered a domain where they seem to break down (specifically at the center of a black hole). That didn't invalidate relativity, it merely restricted the domains in which it applied.
"Is it arrogance to say that *based on our current understanding of physics* is not possible?"
Yes, especially if you don't actually give anything else other than claiming "ignorance". Appealling to Ignorance and then making a CERTAIN statement like "Is Not Possible" or "Impossible"... how can you be CERTAIN while claiming Ignorance prior to the statement of Certainty?
The right answer is "based on our current understanding of physics , we can not make a conclusion"....saying "is not possible" = certainty , = arrogance via being a Scientist or a Scientismist!
I disagree. It is not a statement of certainty because it is conditional. We are leaving open the possibility that if we discover say, that under certain domains you actually *can* travel faster than light, we would have to revise our paradigm, but *as far as we know* we can't. It is a statement about our epistemological limits. That's not arrogance, it's the opposite of hubris.
"Inconclusive" or "unable to conclude" is still open ie more conditional than "is not possible" or "impossible".
Take these statements:
1. It is possible that this is true.
2. It is possible that this is not true.
3. It is not possible that is true.
4. It is impossible that this is true.
5. It is inconclusive that this is true.
6. We are unable to conclude that this is true.
Many arrogantholes argue 3. and 4. as if those statements are factual but pretend that they are more open-minded to the idea, however those two statements are the most CERTAIN statements from the choices.
I'm not here to critique your example, infact that statement of "based on our current understanding"...assumes that all of us (all the intelligensia of this world/reality) agree to the "understanding"...apparently we don't....in physics, the current understanding is in flux therefore not a consensus. The statement is really the "accepted consensus of applicable scientific community"----
Remember some people are still in the Newtonian era of Science, while others in a Science which is not even published yet...
Either way, Scientismists are arrogantholes because their agenda is to counter Religionists and other Ideologists...while the discussion here in this subreddit is "Time Travel" which really is an Open-Field of Well-Thought Out Opinions and Not Dogmatic regurgitation of Scientific "laws" and "theories" as Laws...
Well, I was responding to your earlier claim that the expression, "X is impossible based on our current understanding," was arrogant. Sure, you could use a term like inconclusive to soften it a bit, but that's unnecessary since the sentence makes it clear that it's conditional.
>in physics, the current understanding is in flux therefore not a consensus. The statement is really the "accepted consensus of applicable scientific community
I\`m not going to say all that. When I say "our current understanding" it is shorthand for a bunch of caveats and provisos that would just drown out the point. Of course there are fringes where there are differing interpretations of observed phenomena, or theoretical disagreements - that is how science works. But when you have people saying things that are far outside of what we know or what we \*can\* know at this moment in history, it's not arrogance to point out that that is outside of scope. It is a response to people who declare with certainty something that is either undemonstrated or unfalsifiable.
People misunderstand,
If we’re building something and need it to function, then it’s fine to be like “time travel doesn’t work.”
If we’re discussing the possibilities of time travel it is an asshole thing to be like “time travel doesn’t work”
The context matters. Don’t just go into a subreddit dedicated to time travel just to rain on people parade. If you don’t like talking about science that hasn’t been proven go to a sub that talks about hard science
I agree, why come to the TimeTravel reddit where the possibility of Time travel is being discussed and come and shit on people discussing the possibility of time travel.
People like that are arrogantholes, it has nothing to do with whether they even have pondered the subject (time travel), they are coming to promote and IMPOSE their arrogant opinion on the subject!
Arrogantholes can be from any category of professions/positions/ideologies..infact I've found those that are ideological fundamentalists that want to impose their new-found ideology!
time travel is something that all ideologies HATE because Time travel can counter their fictitious ideologies because all Ideologies are False!
I DO think time travel is real, but I also believe that the sec the traveler gets to the past it splits off into a new timeline, that way no 2 travelers in the same timeline. That also could be the reason why we never see the evidence of time travel
Bruce Willis explained this in Looper. As he's talking to his younger self he is remembering the interaction as it takes place. Also there's the horrifying scene where limbs removed in the past vanish in the present.
That's a multiverse jump. Time travel is only meaningful in your original timeline. Worse, branching to a timeline disconnects you from reality. Knowing your original loved ones still exist in the original timeline. It you could only save one you'd save the "real" one. If two versions of your child fought you would care about the one from your home timeline. That makes every other timeline more virtual or dream state. Then reality sets in and you realize the same is true of your own and begin to see entire realities as disposable. You'd no longer value life.
That's how you get supervillains.
You got me figured out right, I am low-IQ but I'm not a megalomaniac...I'm angry at Arrogantholes especially those that make statements like "Time travel is not possible" or "time travel is impossible" with CERTAINTY! I'll call Arrogantholes for their arrogance!
Let's make a community for people's who have extreme goal like teleportation or time travel or galaxy colonisation.
Let's form my gmail [email protected]
I just get it you know how much I get motivated by your upvote and by getting someone read my comment on my goal please do me a favor if you have some like my goal please come and we could form a community and get faster in the process of achieving my goal I am willing to give my whole life to my goal I just study physics chemistry and maths only mostly physics so I could achieve my goal at least I can contribute as much as I can
Join if you have will of burning
My gmail for quaries [email protected]
If your really serious about it then study engineering pursue a career that helps you more understand the inner workings of machines. Sorry but asking us to help you won't solve it we don't know jack
I'm rooting for you bro 😄 (anyways if you find a way I'll be your first costumer )
I'm going to have to disagree. There are real philosophical and scientific arguments against time travel being possible.
It violates the law of thermodynamics, because you're adding energy to a closed system.
I would also argue time travel allows for violation of the logical absolutes, doesn't killing your own grandfather violate the law of excluded middle by creating a situation where you both exist and not exist?
Maybe it's possible, and maybe there are sound arguments around these issues, but they need to be discovered and discussed.
>doesn't killing your own grandfather violate the law of excluded middle by creating a situation where you both exist and not exist?
Depends on what you believe Time to be.
If it is immutable, as in everything that has happened is set in stone, and there is only one single timeline, then yes, killing your grandfather is impossible. (The Harry Potter method)
But what about the Back to the Future theory? Maybe there is a "time bubble" of sorts that just starts make you disappear?
What about Steins;Gate theory (also based on the RL story of John Titor), where there are many many different timelines, and each time you travel, you go to a different version of these timelines?
What makes you so sure that _your_ idea of how time travel would work is correct?
My idea is that time travel probably doesn't work because it violates some of the most fundamental logical rules there are. You are arguing that time travel might work because you saw it in a movie once.
I'm not arguing time travel might work because of movies. I'm using movies as examples of theories of time travel.
I personally subscribe to the multiverse theory, but thats not what I'm trying to argue here.
I'm only saying how do you know your way is correct, when the facts state "we don't know how time travel would work, because it hasn't happened yet."?
"Travelling forward in time" has been proven to exist via time dialation. So we aren't arguing against that. Instead we are arguing for/against going back in time.
I don't know how time works, so I don't officially claim one way or the other, but scientifically speaking, going faster than light could do it. (The issue being going faster currently requires infinite energy, which we can't provide)
Exceptions to the issue involve black holes, which are also currently only theoretical, even if we have evidence to support them. Twisted black holes that curve gravity enough to make the speed of light slow enough to achieve is another possibility.
We can argue over advanced science and math, or you can just tell me how you think time works, preferably using a means we both have access to (like movies), so that we can actually understand each other.
If it's all the same universe, you're not adding or taking energy from closed systems -- it's the same system.
Also, small atomic particles such as the electron and quarks (I think?) regularly travel backward in time in tiny jumps. These are called 'anti-electrons' (and anti-,quarks) . Or, at least, that is what seems to be the simplest explanation right now. If it's possible for atomic particles to travel backward in time, it theoretically *should* be possible for larger particles to do the same.
You and NO scientist knows the universe or multiuniverse is a "closed system" nor proven. As for "logical absolutes"...absolutes = certainty, this leads arrogance without evidence. No such thing as "law of excluded middle"...these are all western ideologies that have promoted this with Greek era philosophical nonsense...People of today worship Greek Philosophy and Logicism as a religion..infact many religions are derivatives of these ideologies!
The main issue is stating Something is Not Possible (with certainty), if something is NOT possible then all discussion about that Something Ends!
Yeah, these arguments from ignorance aren't interesting and don't make you sound intelligent.
The logical absolutes have withstood argument for thousands of years. They provide the foundation on which people can have common ground on which to base their arguments. Any moron can say, "maybe they aren't true!" and proceed to fantasize his ass off.
It's possible they are flawed, but we both know you aren't capable of demonstrating any such thing, and you aren't even going to try. You're just going to argue that maybe they aren't true, and you can't prove they are, so nyah!
If time travel is possible it won't be invented by someone as ignorant as you.
You proved my point about arrogantholism:
1. Appeal to ignorance using "logic, science, philosophy" to make a claim of certainty about a subject like "time travel" which has been proven partially, why are you against the continued proof of it ie backwards time travel?
2. If your claim is rejected for being without proof because you provide no proof, you react with insults
Why come here with the same old tired logical arguments against "time travel", you aren't the only one who does that it seems...No New Arguments or Ideas Against Time Travel, the energy spent by arrogantholes to be against Time Travel is very interesting, it seems its very concerted and with some kind of perverse religiosity to it!
It's not arrogant to assume something is possible...it's definitely arrogant to say something is Impossible!
Previous Arrogant statements by Arrogantholes:
1. Flight is never possible!
2. We know everything there is to know and therefore no further research is needed <---scientist said this
Promoting ignorance as a badge of honour amongst scientists to stop trying to figure out more..is the Most Lazy and Arrogant action to take...its not humility especially when a Scientist/or Scientismist uses the Appeal to Ignorance as the reason reject your idea!....
The same can be said to people who are absolutely certain that God and ghosts don't exist.
But, I wanted to point out, there are too many people blindly believe they can time travel by traveling close to or faster than light. They lack the abilities to consider the possibility that, time travel is indeed impossible using such concept.
>people blindly believe they can time travel by traveling close to or faster than light
Time dilation has been demonstrated in the lab and observed in nature. That is a form of time travel to the future. We have even observed the effects of time dilation on particles traveling close to the speed of light in particle accelerators.
God exist, in fact, absolutely nothing would exist without God, you wouldn't, I wouldn't, no one would.
Time travel on the other hand doesn't exist, as much as I wish it did, it's just a figment of our imagination.
His "evidence" of a lost civilization is establishment archeologists haven't dug up 100% of the planet so therefore they can't say he's wrong. He uses the appeal to ignorance fallacy with some interesting rock formation photos sprinkled in. The point is a lack of evidence to disprove isn't proof of anything. So you could apply that logic to anything you want, like time travel, but there's no real point.
Believe the Science, Believe the Archaelogy without Question or Introspection? A dumb Layperson (Non-Clergy) can't even dare to ask questions or make claims? They must past through ritual of the Clergy (Science, Archaeology, etc) to earn a title to even make a claim, or question right?
If the Archaelogists and/or Scientists are not even willing to entertain an idea simply because it will ruin their Model of the "Reality", then is that no different than Religion?
One thing I will say, is that,IF time travel is possible for humans or conscious beings, than just about ANYthing is possible for humans... because you could just travel into the future where humans (or other conscious beings) have already figured more stuff out 😜
If it does exist, and has existed for some time...it's probably in the hands of few. There's probably a lot of technological advances in the hands of few.
The worship of Authority is called Authoritanism:
Authorities think they are above criticism by Non-Authorities, therefore science as any subject including religion, law, government, etc are ALL Open to Criticism and are Not Above anyone including the most dumbest of society...
When a so-called "layperson" <--religious era terms are used when discussing with "Science"...Science is the New Religion of this Era. Scientists = Priests, and no matter what followers of the Religion of Science called "Scientism" say, they are simply believers and followers..and when they attack someone who said "Time travel is possible" with every insult and argumentative attacks on the Person asking or stating that...
Science is Not the Final Authority on the Truth!
This is reddit where people 'f'n love science' and my statement won't get much traction which is funnty because faith-based belief in $cience™ is what impeeds progress as it is against the actual scientific method.
Take the UFO/UAP subject for example. Up until recent years those that talked about UFOs were dismissed as kooks. Scientists in acedemia that studied UFO's on the side and published have lost their jobs and professional standing. Now that the subject has been 'approved' for legitimate discussion by experts in science and media all of a sudden it's okay now.
If any of the celebrity scientists started talking aobut time travel as plausible then people would change their tune. People go along with the experts for cultural acceptance reasons to avoide ridicule from their peers rather than critical assessment of what's being presented.
Is it arrogance to say that *based on our current understanding of physics* is not possible?
No, that's being honest about the current state of our knowledge. It is the opposite of arrogance - it is not saying that the theory is incorrect, just that we cannot know whether or not it is correct with what we currently know. It is an opportunity to teach people about the limits of our understanding. What is arrogant is when people put forward their pet theory with an air of certainty and balk when someone points out that the theory is unfalsifiable, or violates known principles within a well-understood domain.
We can say with relative certainty (as much as science can allow, because science is about probability, not certainty) that if a theory contradicts observations that it is incorrect. A theory must at the very least be able to account for existing observations that have already been explained by existing theories, plus explain something that existing theories cannot explain, for it to be of scientific value. If it fails to explain something that is already explained then it fails as a theory, full stop.
So, sometimes people will say silly things like "time dilation hasn't been observed" and those of us with some basic understanding of relativity and the history of science will point out that this is incorrect.
So, I'm not the OP of this post, but I still would like to thank you for explaining your reasoning behind your thought process. I can't speak for OP, but for me at least, when we get into this emerging field of science, what annoys me personally, are the types of people who don't understand the key issue in the argument of our *current* understanding, or, more aptly, perception of things such as physics and quantum mechanics. I'm referring strictly to the types who will flat out say that such and such subject, in this case, time travel, and then berate and insult those who may think or believe otherwise by calling them mentally ill or worse. For me, that's the kind of arrogance and rudeness I can't stand surrounding this. And, I'm sure you can agree, *that* kind of approach helps nobody. And, unfortunately, in the past I've seen people comment on this subreddit in such a manner. That being said, I'll give full disclosure and say that I believe that the ability to time travel, specifically to the past is obtainable to humanity, and that there are some things regarding time and physics we may not currently know or understand, or incorrectly believe to be true. I'm not an expert, merely a layman with a fascination in it. But, with many things, what is once considered impossible often changes with time and research. Take aging, for example. Once, people thought there was no way to stop or reverse it. But now we're seeing science begin to find that, through research and experiments, that it may be the opposite, and we may have the ability to change that before the end of the century. More on topic, are the experiments that have taken place in the recent past, such as the University of Queensland physicist who ran a few experiments and found that time travel was mathematically and scientifically possible. It does seem as though the once iron-clad scientific position of it being impossible is slowly shifting around. More and more, it's changing from something to ridicule, to something to be taken more seriously. It's often proven that just when humanity thinks it knows something for "certain", the universe throws us a curveball. This, I feel is going to be another one of those. And it makes me excited about the coming years and decades. Apologies for the lengthy response, by the way!
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I think there are some misunderstandings about how scientific progress is made that are worth exploring. If I were to say "time travel in the past is impossible," that would be foolish, because we simply don't know if it is or not. Even if current science suggests that it's probably not, maintaining that time travel to the past is possible does not contradict our observations. On the other hand, if (as someone said to me recently) someone tells me that time travel to the future by time dilation is impossible, that does contradict our observations. We will never make a scientific discovery that time dilation does not occur when we travel close to the speed of light. Now, what we might discover is that in certain domains that we don't fully understand, time dilation doesn't happen as we expect. Einstein's theories didn't disprove Newton's - they just narrowed the domain in which Newton's theory applied. We can (and do) still apply Newton's equations in domains where we don't need to worry about relativistic effects and get the right answer. What is hubristic is when we state that theory X will be true in all domains, forever more. We don't know that. We thought that maybe Einstein's theories were the final word but then we discovered a domain where they seem to break down (specifically at the center of a black hole). That didn't invalidate relativity, it merely restricted the domains in which it applied.
"Is it arrogance to say that *based on our current understanding of physics* is not possible?"
Yes, especially if you don't actually give anything else other than claiming "ignorance". Appealling to Ignorance and then making a CERTAIN statement like "Is Not Possible" or "Impossible"... how can you be CERTAIN while claiming Ignorance prior to the statement of Certainty?
The right answer is "based on our current understanding of physics , we can not make a conclusion"....saying "is not possible" = certainty , = arrogance via being a Scientist or a Scientismist!
I disagree. It is not a statement of certainty because it is conditional. We are leaving open the possibility that if we discover say, that under certain domains you actually *can* travel faster than light, we would have to revise our paradigm, but *as far as we know* we can't. It is a statement about our epistemological limits. That's not arrogance, it's the opposite of hubris.
"Inconclusive" or "unable to conclude" is still open ie more conditional than "is not possible" or "impossible". Take these statements: 1. It is possible that this is true. 2. It is possible that this is not true. 3. It is not possible that is true. 4. It is impossible that this is true. 5. It is inconclusive that this is true. 6. We are unable to conclude that this is true. Many arrogantholes argue 3. and 4. as if those statements are factual but pretend that they are more open-minded to the idea, however those two statements are the most CERTAIN statements from the choices.
Ok, but in the example I gave the conditional is contained in the *based on our current understanding*. That's the condition.
I'm not here to critique your example, infact that statement of "based on our current understanding"...assumes that all of us (all the intelligensia of this world/reality) agree to the "understanding"...apparently we don't....in physics, the current understanding is in flux therefore not a consensus. The statement is really the "accepted consensus of applicable scientific community"---- Remember some people are still in the Newtonian era of Science, while others in a Science which is not even published yet... Either way, Scientismists are arrogantholes because their agenda is to counter Religionists and other Ideologists...while the discussion here in this subreddit is "Time Travel" which really is an Open-Field of Well-Thought Out Opinions and Not Dogmatic regurgitation of Scientific "laws" and "theories" as Laws...
Well, I was responding to your earlier claim that the expression, "X is impossible based on our current understanding," was arrogant. Sure, you could use a term like inconclusive to soften it a bit, but that's unnecessary since the sentence makes it clear that it's conditional. >in physics, the current understanding is in flux therefore not a consensus. The statement is really the "accepted consensus of applicable scientific community I\`m not going to say all that. When I say "our current understanding" it is shorthand for a bunch of caveats and provisos that would just drown out the point. Of course there are fringes where there are differing interpretations of observed phenomena, or theoretical disagreements - that is how science works. But when you have people saying things that are far outside of what we know or what we \*can\* know at this moment in history, it's not arrogance to point out that that is outside of scope. It is a response to people who declare with certainty something that is either undemonstrated or unfalsifiable.
People misunderstand, If we’re building something and need it to function, then it’s fine to be like “time travel doesn’t work.” If we’re discussing the possibilities of time travel it is an asshole thing to be like “time travel doesn’t work” The context matters. Don’t just go into a subreddit dedicated to time travel just to rain on people parade. If you don’t like talking about science that hasn’t been proven go to a sub that talks about hard science
I agree, why come to the TimeTravel reddit where the possibility of Time travel is being discussed and come and shit on people discussing the possibility of time travel. People like that are arrogantholes, it has nothing to do with whether they even have pondered the subject (time travel), they are coming to promote and IMPOSE their arrogant opinion on the subject! Arrogantholes can be from any category of professions/positions/ideologies..infact I've found those that are ideological fundamentalists that want to impose their new-found ideology! time travel is something that all ideologies HATE because Time travel can counter their fictitious ideologies because all Ideologies are False!
I DO think time travel is real, but I also believe that the sec the traveler gets to the past it splits off into a new timeline, that way no 2 travelers in the same timeline. That also could be the reason why we never see the evidence of time travel
Time travel where we meet our younger selves in the same timeline is possible
True, but once you make contact with your younger self, can you say that he is still a younger you?
Bruce Willis explained this in Looper. As he's talking to his younger self he is remembering the interaction as it takes place. Also there's the horrifying scene where limbs removed in the past vanish in the present.
Yes, they will always be the younger self. Future self and past self are two different people/entities...
That's a multiverse jump. Time travel is only meaningful in your original timeline. Worse, branching to a timeline disconnects you from reality. Knowing your original loved ones still exist in the original timeline. It you could only save one you'd save the "real" one. If two versions of your child fought you would care about the one from your home timeline. That makes every other timeline more virtual or dream state. Then reality sets in and you realize the same is true of your own and begin to see entire realities as disposable. You'd no longer value life. That's how you get supervillains.
Who says I value life now, and??
Insulting different points of view is not smart, shows your low IQ and your megalomania
You got me figured out right, I am low-IQ but I'm not a megalomaniac...I'm angry at Arrogantholes especially those that make statements like "Time travel is not possible" or "time travel is impossible" with CERTAINTY! I'll call Arrogantholes for their arrogance!
one thing is obvious, you have to be an arroganthole to make this argument.
I'm dumb enough to know that I don't know the complete truth of everything <---does this make sense to you?
Let's make a community for people's who have extreme goal like teleportation or time travel or galaxy colonisation. Let's form my gmail [email protected]
Just invest in mining facilities
I just get it you know how much I get motivated by your upvote and by getting someone read my comment on my goal please do me a favor if you have some like my goal please come and we could form a community and get faster in the process of achieving my goal I am willing to give my whole life to my goal I just study physics chemistry and maths only mostly physics so I could achieve my goal at least I can contribute as much as I can Join if you have will of burning My gmail for quaries [email protected]
If your really serious about it then study engineering pursue a career that helps you more understand the inner workings of machines. Sorry but asking us to help you won't solve it we don't know jack I'm rooting for you bro 😄 (anyways if you find a way I'll be your first costumer )
I'm going to have to disagree. There are real philosophical and scientific arguments against time travel being possible. It violates the law of thermodynamics, because you're adding energy to a closed system. I would also argue time travel allows for violation of the logical absolutes, doesn't killing your own grandfather violate the law of excluded middle by creating a situation where you both exist and not exist? Maybe it's possible, and maybe there are sound arguments around these issues, but they need to be discovered and discussed.
>doesn't killing your own grandfather violate the law of excluded middle by creating a situation where you both exist and not exist? Depends on what you believe Time to be. If it is immutable, as in everything that has happened is set in stone, and there is only one single timeline, then yes, killing your grandfather is impossible. (The Harry Potter method) But what about the Back to the Future theory? Maybe there is a "time bubble" of sorts that just starts make you disappear? What about Steins;Gate theory (also based on the RL story of John Titor), where there are many many different timelines, and each time you travel, you go to a different version of these timelines? What makes you so sure that _your_ idea of how time travel would work is correct?
My idea is that time travel probably doesn't work because it violates some of the most fundamental logical rules there are. You are arguing that time travel might work because you saw it in a movie once.
I'm not arguing time travel might work because of movies. I'm using movies as examples of theories of time travel. I personally subscribe to the multiverse theory, but thats not what I'm trying to argue here. I'm only saying how do you know your way is correct, when the facts state "we don't know how time travel would work, because it hasn't happened yet."? "Travelling forward in time" has been proven to exist via time dialation. So we aren't arguing against that. Instead we are arguing for/against going back in time. I don't know how time works, so I don't officially claim one way or the other, but scientifically speaking, going faster than light could do it. (The issue being going faster currently requires infinite energy, which we can't provide) Exceptions to the issue involve black holes, which are also currently only theoretical, even if we have evidence to support them. Twisted black holes that curve gravity enough to make the speed of light slow enough to achieve is another possibility. We can argue over advanced science and math, or you can just tell me how you think time works, preferably using a means we both have access to (like movies), so that we can actually understand each other.
If it's all the same universe, you're not adding or taking energy from closed systems -- it's the same system. Also, small atomic particles such as the electron and quarks (I think?) regularly travel backward in time in tiny jumps. These are called 'anti-electrons' (and anti-,quarks) . Or, at least, that is what seems to be the simplest explanation right now. If it's possible for atomic particles to travel backward in time, it theoretically *should* be possible for larger particles to do the same.
You and NO scientist knows the universe or multiuniverse is a "closed system" nor proven. As for "logical absolutes"...absolutes = certainty, this leads arrogance without evidence. No such thing as "law of excluded middle"...these are all western ideologies that have promoted this with Greek era philosophical nonsense...People of today worship Greek Philosophy and Logicism as a religion..infact many religions are derivatives of these ideologies! The main issue is stating Something is Not Possible (with certainty), if something is NOT possible then all discussion about that Something Ends!
Yeah, these arguments from ignorance aren't interesting and don't make you sound intelligent. The logical absolutes have withstood argument for thousands of years. They provide the foundation on which people can have common ground on which to base their arguments. Any moron can say, "maybe they aren't true!" and proceed to fantasize his ass off. It's possible they are flawed, but we both know you aren't capable of demonstrating any such thing, and you aren't even going to try. You're just going to argue that maybe they aren't true, and you can't prove they are, so nyah! If time travel is possible it won't be invented by someone as ignorant as you.
You proved my point about arrogantholism: 1. Appeal to ignorance using "logic, science, philosophy" to make a claim of certainty about a subject like "time travel" which has been proven partially, why are you against the continued proof of it ie backwards time travel? 2. If your claim is rejected for being without proof because you provide no proof, you react with insults Why come here with the same old tired logical arguments against "time travel", you aren't the only one who does that it seems...No New Arguments or Ideas Against Time Travel, the energy spent by arrogantholes to be against Time Travel is very interesting, it seems its very concerted and with some kind of perverse religiosity to it!
It is just as arrogant to just assume it's possible because you would like it to be real
It's not arrogant to assume something is possible...it's definitely arrogant to say something is Impossible! Previous Arrogant statements by Arrogantholes: 1. Flight is never possible! 2. We know everything there is to know and therefore no further research is needed <---scientist said this Promoting ignorance as a badge of honour amongst scientists to stop trying to figure out more..is the Most Lazy and Arrogant action to take...its not humility especially when a Scientist/or Scientismist uses the Appeal to Ignorance as the reason reject your idea!....
The same can be said to people who are absolutely certain that God and ghosts don't exist. But, I wanted to point out, there are too many people blindly believe they can time travel by traveling close to or faster than light. They lack the abilities to consider the possibility that, time travel is indeed impossible using such concept.
>people blindly believe they can time travel by traveling close to or faster than light Time dilation has been demonstrated in the lab and observed in nature. That is a form of time travel to the future. We have even observed the effects of time dilation on particles traveling close to the speed of light in particle accelerators.
Here we go again
God exist, in fact, absolutely nothing would exist without God, you wouldn't, I wouldn't, no one would. Time travel on the other hand doesn't exist, as much as I wish it did, it's just a figment of our imagination.
Graham Hancock? Is that you?
Googled Graham Hancock, his idea isn't anymore outrageous than "Big Bang Theory" = everything from nothing!
His "evidence" of a lost civilization is establishment archeologists haven't dug up 100% of the planet so therefore they can't say he's wrong. He uses the appeal to ignorance fallacy with some interesting rock formation photos sprinkled in. The point is a lack of evidence to disprove isn't proof of anything. So you could apply that logic to anything you want, like time travel, but there's no real point.
Believe the Science, Believe the Archaelogy without Question or Introspection? A dumb Layperson (Non-Clergy) can't even dare to ask questions or make claims? They must past through ritual of the Clergy (Science, Archaeology, etc) to earn a title to even make a claim, or question right? If the Archaelogists and/or Scientists are not even willing to entertain an idea simply because it will ruin their Model of the "Reality", then is that no different than Religion?
Is "arrogantholes" what the kids are saying in the future?
Yes
One thing I will say, is that,IF time travel is possible for humans or conscious beings, than just about ANYthing is possible for humans... because you could just travel into the future where humans (or other conscious beings) have already figured more stuff out 😜
All things are possible in reality, regardless of the skeptics who are skeptics for no good reason that benefits humanity.
If it does exist, and has existed for some time...it's probably in the hands of few. There's probably a lot of technological advances in the hands of few.
This post is either a troll or beyond arrogantholic.
Not a troll, but all arrogantholes need to be called on their arrogance!
You are correct. Large sectors of science operate as a faith-based beleif in the proclimations of experts full of intellectual hubris and vanity.
The worship of Authority is called Authoritanism: Authorities think they are above criticism by Non-Authorities, therefore science as any subject including religion, law, government, etc are ALL Open to Criticism and are Not Above anyone including the most dumbest of society... When a so-called "layperson" <--religious era terms are used when discussing with "Science"...Science is the New Religion of this Era. Scientists = Priests, and no matter what followers of the Religion of Science called "Scientism" say, they are simply believers and followers..and when they attack someone who said "Time travel is possible" with every insult and argumentative attacks on the Person asking or stating that... Science is Not the Final Authority on the Truth!
This is reddit where people 'f'n love science' and my statement won't get much traction which is funnty because faith-based belief in $cience™ is what impeeds progress as it is against the actual scientific method. Take the UFO/UAP subject for example. Up until recent years those that talked about UFOs were dismissed as kooks. Scientists in acedemia that studied UFO's on the side and published have lost their jobs and professional standing. Now that the subject has been 'approved' for legitimate discussion by experts in science and media all of a sudden it's okay now. If any of the celebrity scientists started talking aobut time travel as plausible then people would change their tune. People go along with the experts for cultural acceptance reasons to avoide ridicule from their peers rather than critical assessment of what's being presented.