Time Travel is Impossible

[Galant]

To help you conceptualize this, think about what happens when you save a game and load it later. Let's say that (God forbid) you lose terribly after you load the game. Not wanting to start over, you instead reload the original game save. As far as the game is concerned, the events that occur after you reload the game (and this can be done any number of times) happened one way, and only one way. Reloading the game won't give you extra lives, or populate the world with ghosts of every enemy that you killed in the previous save.

Time, then, does not extend beyond the reality of the game. As far as time is concerned the events only happened once even though you may change something about the event from a meta-temporal standpoint.

However, you are outside the game. For a person playing a game there is not only 'game time' but also real time. So with someone who travelled back. That person would have re-entered the time stream from the outside.

My own personal stance is that if time travel is possible it is only possible forwards as described beautifully by Kura Ookami (be a speeding up of time - or slowing down - not by jumping - the future does not already exist), and you would not be able to return back.

[cbwing0]

However, you are outside the game. For a person playing a game there is not only 'game time' but also real time. So with someone who travelled back. That person would have re-entered the time stream from the outside.

That is exactly what I have been saying. In time traveling you would be leaving the time stream, then reentering it from the outside. That is why the conceptual problems raised earlier are illusory.

I realize that there is an important difference in the analogy, that being that the representation of your character within the game cannot leave the "game world." To this I would respond that we (and our universe) are more complex than any game character, and we can do many thing that game characters cannot. In addition, the fact remains that one is still able to act and influence events in the game world even if they are not, strictly speaking, a part of that world (as one would not be if they were moving outside of time).

The question then becomes whether humans can engineer a way in which to break free from the time stream. If the answer is yes, then time travel is certainly possible.

[Linksquest]

I can't figure out why you continue to assert this particualar point (or why you chose not to respond to anything in my post ]transcend[/i] time, standing over time in its entirety and then choosing to act within the series at a specific moment, which would not necessarily have to be the moment that was defined as "the present" for them at the moment when they transcended the normal order of events.

There is nothing logically or spritually impossible about this. The only limit is whether or not it is physically possible for one to develop and use time travel technology.

haha i didnt reply to yours cause i didnt get that far! haha. Yes i must admit my knowledge of rivers is quite lacking, and i do admit that it was weak in the areas that you pointed out.


Another major flaw with time travel is that if someone would have traveled in time, it would have already changed things in time. For example, if someone had already experienced the same time that i am experiencing then i would have met them already.

[cbwing0]

Another major flaw with time travel is that if someone would have traveled in time, it would have already changed things in time. For example, if someone had already experienced the same time that i am experiencing then i would have met them already.

I fail to see how that is a problem with time travel as much as it is simply part of the nature of the endeavor. How would this create problems, exactly?

And I understand about not getting to my post. No problem there .

[Nate]

It appears that there are many people here who simply do not understand what is involved in time travel, or what is involved in the relation of events in time to one another (hence the persistence of the claim that going back in time would necessitate bringing dead people back to life).

I don't understand why people continue to make that claim either. Right now is my present. I have a soul in my body currently. If someone from 1,000 years in the future came to visit me today, my soul would be in my body. It wouldn't have to be "called back" because it hasn't gone anywhere at this point in time.

That's why I'm really confused about that part of the theory, because it makes no sense to me. cbwing's analogy of a video game is quite apt...it most certainly would suck to beat a boss, save the game, die a little ways further, and then have to fight the boss all over again because its soul was put back in its body. XD

[Linksquest]

But for people to come back from the future it would have to be their present in the future. It would have to be a solidified future. The problem with the future and things coming to OUR time from it is the fact that it is such an ever changing thing. Every little small decision you make changes the future in vast ways from what it would have been if you had made different decisions.

If it indeed was THEIR present in the future, then we would be their past. That would make sense with the soul issue.

[Nate]

But for people to come back from the future it would have to be their present in the future. It would have to be a solidified future. The problem with the future and things coming to OUR time from it is the fact that it is such an ever changing thing. Every little small decision you make changes the future in vast ways from what it would have been if you had made different decisions.

If it indeed was THEIR present in the future, then we would be their past. That would make sense with the soul issue.

No, not really...you're confusing the crap out of me, dude.

What in the HECK does it mean "it would have to be their present in the future." No, this point in time, the present, is their past. If you're going to assume time is a river, which as many have pointed out, isn't provable, then at least stick with your analogy. Two points in time cannot occur concurrently, any more than I can stand in two places at the same time in a river.

So them coming back would NOT necessitate the putting back of souls in bodies, because the souls are ALREADY THERE at the point in time they go to. Did you not read cbwing's video game analogy?

And actually, the future IS set in stone, because God is omniscient. All knowing. He knows what the future is going to be, and the only way He can do that is if the future is already determined.

Yes, I went there.

At any rate, you're not making any sense, Linksquest. I still don't see where you're getting the "calling back" of souls thing from.

[cbwing0]

And actually, the future IS set in stone, because God is omniscient. All knowing. He knows what the future is going to be, and the only way He can do that is if the future is already determined.

Although the rest of your post is good, I have to disagree with you here. To avoid getting the thread locked, I won't say any more than that I disagree on this point.

The problem with the future and things coming to OUR time from it is the fact that it is such an ever changing thing.

You answered your own problem with the previous sentence. Since it is the present for those in the future, it is already fixed for them. You are correct that it is ever-changing, but so is the the present. Every moment involves great change, because we live in a dynamic universe.

[Galant]

That is exactly what I have been saying. In time traveling you would be leaving the time stream, then reentering it from the outside. That is why the conceptual problems raised earlier are illusory.

Actually, whilst you would be entering a new timestream, you would not be leaving the previous time stream. That is, your body would continue to age at the same rate and time would be continuing. Your trip to the past would merely by another event in your life time. Just as real-time does not cease but in fact continues whether you're playing a game or not, so too a trip to the past would not pull you out of the stream of time. Your past would be the same.

May main problem with travelling to the past however, is that time does not flow in that direction. Whilst you might be able to travel forward - speeding up or slowing down time (whichever way you look at it), you cannot reverse the flow of time.

[cbwing0]

Actually, whilst you would be entering a new timestream, you would not be leaving the previous time stream.

Granted, it is difficult to imagine being outside of time]May main problem with travelling to the past however, is that time does not flow in that direction.[/quote]This is not terribly problematic. If we imagine time travel as moving outside of time, then you would not be reversing (or accelerating) the flow of time. Instead, you would merely be entering the flow at a different point, where it would then proceed in the normal direction.

[uc pseudonym]

As there are no responses to my post and the current discussion does not need my involvement, this post is merely administrative.

Although the rest of your post is good, I have to disagree with you here. To avoid getting the thread locked, I won't say any more than that I disagree on this point.

While you are wise to avoid that theological subject, I will say that all of you have more freedom than that. Provided that we remain focused on the subject of time (which, as Christians, we obviously believe involves God), such topics can enter the discussion.

[Linksquest]

As there are no responses to my post and the current discussion does not need my involvement, this post is merely administrative.



While you are wise to avoid that theological subject, I will say that all of you have more freedom than that. Provided that we remain focused on the subject of time (which, as Christians, we obviously believe involves God), such topics can enter the discussion.

AMEN! God really does ordain the times and places of our lives.

[cbwing0]

*watches thread morph from discussing time travel to questions of free will and divine foreknowledge*

Since it is sanctioned, I will say why I disagree with divine determinism (or fatalism, depending on your perspective).

1.The problem of sin-If our actions are determined, if God "really does ordain the times and places of our lives," then explaining the origin and persistence of evil in the world becomes very difficult. Even if you say that God only determines events for those that believe in Him, the problem of sin remains (after all, even Christians sin occasionally). If God ordains our thoughts and actions (or even just one of the two), then it would seem that God is the author of evil; for men often do evil actions. Obviously this is incompatible with the belief that God is all-loving and all-good. Therefore, human free will is necessary. Claiming that God ordains all events eliminates one of the best answers to the classic problem of evil, so another one must be provided if one wishes to dismiss free will. A lack of free will would also create problems for attributing real guilt for the commission of human sin. If we are not free to choose the good, how can we be held responsible if we sin? Does the concept of sin even make sense if there is no free will?

2.The problem of experience-We often experience the act of making decisions, or really deliberating and deciding between alternatives that we could freely and actually choose. If God created our minds, then it would appear that this makes God a deceiver, which is unacceptable. Perhaps you will say, "But man is fallen, so our notion of free will could be a product of the fall." Then one must still explain original sin, whether it was a free choice by Adam and Eve or ordained by God. How can we explain the widespread belief in and experience of free will if it is illusory?

3.The problem of love-Returning to the problem of evil, we commonly believe that love requires the ability to make the choice to love. If we cannot choose to love (either God or men), whence then is love? Given the inestimable value that we all place on the capacity ot love, lack of free will has serious problems for our view of the world.

I will say that I do believe that God ordains many things for good in our lives, but to say that he ordains everything in our lives has serious problems and consequences that must be answered.

Edit: Uhhhh...yeah. I should probably explain how all of that relates to time travel .

Free will does add another level of complexity to the possibility of time travel. The interaction of decisions and actions becomes rather difficult (but not impossible) to untangle.

Of course if our actions are ordained and someone manages to time travel, I guess that would prove that it has the divine stamp of approval .

[Photosoph]

My head, my head!

Well, suffice to say that I love the idea of time travel, no matter how it would/wouldn't work. The only thing I can actually think of as being possible for time travel would be for it just to be something to be viewed -somehow you end up going back to but are there just like a 'ghost'; you can't affect anything at all, but you can hear, see etc.
Of course, the 'how' of this -how you could actually get there and be in this state, is a whole other question.
Then again... does the past exist as a place, more than a time? Or is just that everyone is always in a present which is ever-changing?

[Bobtheduck]

Ok, so lets say your father died yesterday from a gunshot when he went to work. You want to travel back in time to yesterday to warn him not to go to work, so that he won't get shot, and will still be alive. But right now he is dead. What you essentially want to happen is for your father to be alive again. For him to be alive again his spirit will have to be REPLACED in his body.

Time traveling to the past to say, the 1700s works the same way, but on a grand scale. All the people who were living in that era are now DEAD. For them to be alive again, all of their spirits would have to be called from heaven and hell and placed into their bodies once more.

I never said you could change anything, and even if you could, that would be up to God. Physically speaking, based on my understanding, you can't. So, based on the view that says nothing can be changed, time travel is still possible. You wouldn't be able to stop your dad from dying or help the Brittish win the American revolutionary war or assassinate Hitler before he came into power. You wouldn't be able to do anything that changed history. Therefore, this whole "souls being replaced" thing just doesn't hold up. That would require me to go on your view that there is no past or future. I disagree with that. I think there is a past and future. It's allready happened but it was still our choices that shaped it (and that is an entirely different topic)

I disagree with the very bases of your arguments, so they won't do any good in convincing me that time travel is impossible... I believe that there is a Past and Future; I don't believe to visit someone in the past who is now dead would be "returning their souls to their bodies" because I believe they were alive in the past, which does exist. Therefore, your two primary arguments for saying why time travel is impossible are not going to convince me of anything.

As for time travel as an observer strictly, this would be entirely a spiritual thing which there are rituals that people do to achieve... I don't know of anything God would do along those lines except perhaps in dreams, so most of these cases are likely of a... questionable spiritual origin.

[Photosoph]

As for time travel as an observer strictly, this would be entirely a spiritual thing which there are rituals that people do to achieve... I don't know of anything God would do along those lines except perhaps in dreams, so most of these cases are likely of a... questionable spiritual origin.

That is a very interesting point. o_O I think you'd be right. ^_^

[Kura Ookami]

Timetravel is a spiritual thing. If you traveled into the past (assuming you could at all) you'd just be a spirit, like a ghost and not being able to do anything while perhaps you just watched everything go by like a film. Traveling into the future, however may be possible as i previously described.

Think about it. If you could change the future by going into the past and doing things you'd have power over everything. Creation, life, death. Everything. You'd have all the powers of God Himself. And if the terrorists of today got that kind of power well you can just imagine what they'd do. Now that is a scary thought.

If we made a time travel machine and it worked and it fell into terrorist hands they'd be able to use that machine and change the past to ruin everything. Overwise they wouldnt have free will. They could essentially stop Christ from even comming down to earth if they chose to. Think about that.Of course all this is based on the theory that time travel is possible and that we have free will. Would the terrorists of today do such a thing. I believe they would if they could.

I see where you're coming from though cbwing. It's imposible for us to understand time.

[mitsuki lover]

Even if one could travel in time and interact with historical people it doesn't mean we could necessarily change anything.There is still the question of wheter time and
thus history is fluid or non-fluid.I.e.if you COULD travel back COULD you really
change the outcome of events so that they WOULD be different?

[uc pseudonym]

*watches thread morph from discussing time travel to questions of free will and divine foreknowledge*

I should also point out that a tangent that strays too far would not be sanctioned.

If we made a time travel machine and it worked and it fell into terrorist hands they'd be able to use that machine and change the past to ruin everything. Overwise they wouldnt have free will. They could essentially stop Christ from even comming down to earth if they chose to. Think about that.Of course all this is based on the theory that time travel is possible and that we have free will. Would the terrorists of today do such a thing. I believe they would if they could.

Of course, one must consider that presumably God (being outside of time) would not allow any drastic changes to be made. That is actually an entirely different plane of this discussion: even were time travel physically possible, would God allow it? [However, I presume that He could just as easily make it impossible in the first place.]

That aside, I have a question: if terrorists had already done so to make the world what it is now, how would you know?

[Linksquest]

That aside, I have a question: if terrorists had already done so to make the world what it is now, how would you know?

Wait... i don't get it. Make it what it is... What is the world now? Im confuzzled. If you mean if they changed time or something, i don't know what they would have changed... <.<

[Kura Ookami]

That aside, I have a question: if terrorists had already done so to make the world what it is now, how would you know?

I think it would be immpossible to know honestly, though the terroristds themselves are always trying to get onto the media. I suspect that they might have told us themselves if they had gone back into the past and changed stuff. They havent exactly made it a secret what they're aiming to achieve.

[uc pseudonym]

It was partially a joke, of sorts. What I mean is that if terrorists changed time, it would always have been that way (under most concepts of time, anyway). Therefore, it would be basically impossible for you to know that anything had taken place. Therefore, terrorists could already have gone back in time and changed things, including covering up for themselves. That casts interesting light on Kura Ookami's post, or at least I believed so when I posted it.

[Photosoph]

This enlightening piece of information has just given me instant paranoia. o_O