Time proof paradox?

[IDMclean]

Uncle AI, I am approaching from a Quantum perspective. In quantum theory, as I understand it, there is really no reason why reality should perfer time going forward, versus time going backward.

 

That is if you look at time as a thing.

 

My personal belief is that time as a thing, as a substance does not exist and is merely a convient fiction.

[paigetheoracle]

My personal belief is that time as a thing, as a substance does not exist and is merely a convient fiction.

 

Where would we be without convenient fictions? Without analogy we wouldn't believe we understand things that in reality we don't but that requires another thread in semantics and as that doesn't exist here, philosophy would have to do.:lol:

[Jay-qu]

Uncle AI, I am approaching from a Quantum perspective. In quantum theory, as I understand it, there is really no reason why reality should perfer time going forward, versus time going backward.

 

I have heard otherwise, and it is due to entropy. The arrow of time must point in a direction of increasing entropy - or the way we see the universe and understand it is only when entropy is decreasing.

[IDMclean]

Depends on how your approaching Entropy? Classical or statistical... I think that's the two. Also, one can measure emperically what happens in the passage of time from past to future. However, seeing as we do not apparently experience time in the reverse we can not measure emperically what happens in the passage from future to past.

 

Entropy, in theory, (as usual, as I understand it) would increase independent of your time direction.

 

This of course is taking time as a substance, something which can be measured emperically, independent of other agents, which no experiment that I am aware of has measured, defined or otherwise observed a substance which is cosmicly labelled "time".

 

As such, I generally think of time as motion and therefore reversable in a completely local way. No vases magically fixing themselves. No time travel in any convient (convential, Trek-worthy) way, no paradoxes, expecting those which result from relative space-time measurements (distance crossed as compared to distance crossed by different object, or as the difference of the system "before" and "after"). Then again I look at the universe differently than most, so I might be off basis.

 

[math](Space-Time)^2+Time^2 = X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2[/math]

[LaurieAG]

<<Jay-qu - Is it an illusion of our consiousness or an attribute of the universe that time seems to flow? Its like "If a tree falls in the woods and no-one hears it does it make a sound?" in this cast "If there is no-one to experience the flow of time, does time infact flow?">>

 

Hmm, some interesting cosmological implications as well I see.

 

I get it. If time only flows in our presence and doesn't flow in our absense then we could expect that time would flow much faster in places we frequent more often and flow much slower elsewhere. People we see more often should age much faster than people we see less often. If this is applied to all people equally (we) the ageing differences would not occur.

 

This principle can also be used on Einsteins equation by noting that energy costs $(User Paid) per unit of M means that C is equivalent to the square root of $(User Paid). The only unfortunate problem is that when you really square root your $(User Paid) you find that time flows much slower in places with no energy while it flows much faster in places with.

[Kriminal99]

The concept of time travel in a deterministic world doesn't seem to make sense when time is defined as a function of moving objects. And this always seems to be the case.

 

The part that doesn't make sense to me is the part where you travel back in time but you actually know you are doing it and there is another you. It would make sense to me if every thing just occured in reverse but this would require you to be where you were before. And if you were not, then everything would take place differently according to the laws of cause and effect in reverse.

[IDMclean]

Ah Kriminal, you do have an interesting set of points.

 

The only one I have the mental energy to answer at the moment, is the Cause and Effect thing.

 

Remember that we are talking about relativity here. So I would think it likely, that if Time travel were possible, that for a observer moving backwards with regard to the normal observe, moving foward in time, the cause and effect would only be reverse in regard to the normal observer. You would observe a cause then an effect, where as the normal would see the effect and then the cause. Relative to you, the normal's cause and effect would be backwards. You would percieve his effects before you obsereved his effects.

 

I'm going to write a story based on that premise, I hope it comes out well.

[Kriminal99]

Yeah I know. But its difficult to even imagine what that would be like, would there be a consiousness attached to the person for which everything about the world occurred in reverse order, if so would everything about that world make sense to such a consiousness because it was echoed in every aspect of how things worked, what would it cause to happen if you were in a different place then you were supposed to be when things started in reverse (assuming you even found some way to change your state that would not be reversed with everything else.

 

I can also see how it is possible that this reversal in time could happen without anyone ever knowing about it, since if everything was reversed, so too would or memories and awareness of our surroundings. Since we can only reckon time with respect to past events that we remember, tommorow could have occured yesterday and we would never know the difference as long as while we were asleep our memories were reset to where they should be for today.

[paigetheoracle]

<<Jay-qu - Is it an illusion of our consiousness or an attribute of the universe that time seems to flow? Its like "If a tree falls in the woods and no-one hears it does it make a sound?" in this cast "If there is no-one to experience the flow of time, does time infact flow?">>

 

Hmm, some interesting cosmological implications as well I see.

 

I get it. If time only flows in our presence and doesn't flow in our absense then we could expect that time would flow much faster in places we frequent more often and flow much slower elsewhere. People we see more often should age much faster than people we see less often. If this is applied to all people equally (we) the ageing differences would not occur.

 

How would we know if time didn't flow in our absence as we wouldn't be there to observe it? This sounds like Bishop Berkeley and his question "Would the universe continue to exist, if we were not there to witness it?" This implies that we create reality (that it has no independent existence) or that we interfere with it flow (experimenter effect).

[paigetheoracle]

Yeah I know. But its difficult to even imagine what that would be like, would there be a consiousness attached to the person for which everything about the world occurred in reverse order, if so would everything about that world make sense to such a consiousness because it was echoed in every aspect of how things worked, what would it cause to happen if you were in a different place then you were supposed to be when things started in reverse (assuming you even found some way to change your state that would not be reversed with everything else.

 

I can also see how it is possible that this reversal in time could happen without anyone ever knowing about it, since if everything was reversed, so too would or memories and awareness of our surroundings. Since we can only reckon time with respect to past events that we remember, tommorow could have occured yesterday and we would never know the difference as long as while we were asleep our memories were reset to where they should be for today.

 

Perhaps it would require a change in consciousness and maybe you should think of it like a bell being hit and slow motion film sequencing, displaying several different images of the same thing almost instantly or the cascade effect used in special effect filming, where you have a trail of 'after images'.

 

Bit late for me to be having this conversation too, so it may not come out as well as it should but the question in this situation may not be, what is happening but who are we or who do we concieve ourselves to be, in this situation? If we let go our preconceptions and let the situation itself teach us, maybe it won't appear strange because we won't have a yardstick from the past to make sense of it (our memories) i.e. beliefs about how things work or should work. Creativity and invention, require leaps of faith or consciousness that break this chain of logic (Star Trek 'The Motion Picture' or Kirk and Spock as opposing approaches to reality).

[IDMclean]

If we have person A and person B. and we say that person A is moving forward in time, and person B is moving backwards, the view of each will be no different really besides how they view one another.

 

Cause and effect will always be in the direction of time "flow" for relative to each person, it is only in cross over that it is apparent that time is flowing any otherway than it should. That is there is no reversal of time for each person. Only relative to one another does there appear to be oddities, and even that is somewhat arguable.

 

To person B, Person A will appear to be moving backwards, with regard to his own temporal flow. For person A, Person B will appear to be moving backwards with regards to his own temporal flow. Each will view their frame's cause and effects happening in proper order, they however will observe one another's causes and effects as backwards. It's time dialation. You don't notice the difference of time without refering to somthing outside your own frame of reference. Relative to yourself, time is flowing normally and distance is the same.

 

Get what I mean?

[arkain101]

Also, if you believe in time travel you have to believe that time is a version of a memory bank. Capable to contain unfathamanable amount of information and detail.

 

This also says that you are following a path that may already be written.

 

My opinion is that there is no such type of time that is capable to contain detail.

 

I assume every event in 'time' is a momentary blip that appears then dissapears. A momentary creation, that follows a few simple rules at the most basic level.

 

Like a garden hose with a selection of sprays. The water obeys the nozzel selection, and these are the laws of which they run by. The water being the passing of dropplets splattering through a screen or upon a window, representing events. The screen/windown being the NOW moment, neither here nor there, anti-space-time. But yet it is a place, just very different, connected to infinity.

[LaurieAG]

I was actually trying to show how our perceptions and reality can be two completely different things when you try to reconcile the differences.

 

Time goes on both ways forever,

despite all mortal human endeavour,

infinity will be reached, never ever.

 

While this may describe things in a symetric nutshell, actually modelling the flow of time requires a continuous series of discrete instances, each with a beginning and an end, along a continuum that flows in one direction.

[arkain101]

What do you think;

 

If one is to think of time as containing forwards and reverse events, where are you 'pulling' those events from? If you can obtain the past, then you are withdrawing it from somewhere.

 

Is time capable to store actual material! and actual events! Or should we consider time ONLY significant to that which contains a memory, Like; our minds, doing so by however it is our minds work.

 

See the big question is whether time really is a movement; A dimension that things and a person can pass through, Or is it really not anything more than a result of tallying up frequencies in a memory bank.

 

Why in the world would we be put, or locked into this particular NOW, if there were other capable nows? There is uncountable amounts of now.

 

But here is the catch Now is 0 in value. You are never a little more ahead or behind your now. The now is it and all. It has a value of 0. Infinity is value-less (0) and so is zero (nothing).

 

So with this said, in order for a particle or anything we consider to be a fundamental lasting entity, it needs to create itself. It requires energy to exist. If we believe time is a dimension and connected intimatly with material like things that I just mentioned, then it is to say that TIME somehow contains these particles in every plank second of detail at all times, and at any time, and this is to say all 'TIME' is already designed.

 

Time can only be connected to material if it a) contains all information there could and ever will be and 'plays it through the now', and :confused: If we consider it responsible for the forcing of forwarding time.

 

I dare to propose with the data measured in our science today that there is no such thing as past or future in a material form, related to this material universe. I think that everything is created all the time at all times.

 

For example, when we measure the speed of light it is the same speed to any observer related to any velocity they travel. I believe all the Electromagnetic radiation (light) that an observer can observer is 'created'. Each blip that occurs must somehow come from within the atoms themselves. Each blip creates a sort of freeze frame or lockdown that creates a sudden NOW moment for an observer. They happen at what we consider a very fast frequency. However this frequency is completely relative. I think our minds or brains work on this frequency and only make a single blip out of say 10^8 of other blips, creating a slower harmonics, thus making us percieve time as we do, but time itself is relative and unfixed, so no moment is absolute in anyway, and time itself becomes irrellavent. What replaces it as somthing relavant now moments comparing to other now moments (memory) to measure these effects and create the result of time.

 

What creates this entire reality I am not sure. But I do think that this entire experience is a constant creation inside infinity and somehow, through some process, the thing respsonbible for creating this is able to make a flicker in infinity (zero) that causes the ability to percieve 'moments' and 'time' inside a place that does not have such things as moments or time. In a sense, on an infinity scale, each moment of time is pausing like effect.

 

Where this can lead to simplify problems I am not sure yet. How we can begin to test and prove this idea I also do not know for sure, but If I began listing a few things I could provide alot of good evidence we currently have that looks good in backing this up.

[InfiniteNow]

Time goes on both ways forever,

despite all mortal human endeavour,

infinity will be reached, never ever.

Or perhaps we are constantly within infinity, part of the absolute, in the moment, by default... :shrug:

[LaurieAG]

Or perhaps we are constantly within infinity, part of the absolute, in the moment, by default... :eek2:

 

While we are indeed part of the 'infinite' absolute we have a system of physics and maths that must exclude the infinite before we can get any reasonable sense out of it. i.e. 1/infinity is equivalent to 1/0, calculus 'approaches' the limits of zero or infinity as density 'approaches singularity' in a 'black hole'.

 

We use discrete chunks of 'time' as the boundaries for our experiments and we don't have any real absolutes (i.e. not just approaching but actually there) that we can reach directly by physical experiment.

[paigetheoracle]

We use discrete chunks of 'time' as the boundaries for our experiments and we don't have any real absolutes (i.e. not just approaching but actually there) that we can reach directly by physical experiment.

 

Good point:)