81–90 of 215 posts
The time-travel paradox arises only if you presuppose the existence of free will: if we don't, and just consider human beings as physical objects acting deterministically, then there can be no paradox: the time traveler will simply do what was already had been done in his past.
Sounds like they're describing the Novikov self-consistency principle [1] in a roundabout way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_princ...
Are they, though? I thought the Novikov conjecture postulated that time-travel would change nothing at all: if you travelled back to the past, you had "always" travelled back to the past, and anything you did there was already part of history before you started on your journey (aargh, time-travel tenses are hard). Michael Moorcock's Behold the Man [0] would be a good fictional example. This, on the other hand, sugges…
The time-travel paradox arises only if you presuppose the existence of free will: if we don't, and just consider human beings as physical objects acting deterministically, then there can be no paradox: the time traveler will simply do what was already had been done in his past.
Time travel violates the law of conservation of energy. By travelling back in time, you yourself are injecting more mass/energy into a system. So it's great as a science fiction trope, but if you're going to talk physics, that needs to be addressed.
I don’t have the details but I’m pretty sure passage of time is due to a tendency for entropy to increase, and that if I go back in time a second by, say, walking backwards, it is no more a violation of the cons of energy as if I walk forward.
The time-travel paradox arises only if you presuppose the existence of free will: if we don't, and just consider human beings as physical objects acting deterministically, then there can be no paradox: the time traveler will simply do what was already had been done in his past.
Third law of the thermodynamics has to be false for that to be possible. It is still a paradox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think what they're getting at is that it won't happen that way. Gun will jam, you die of a brain aneurysm. We don't exist in a universe where impossible things happen, so we can't bring them about. But yes, the article doesn't really sink its teeth into it.
The thing about this "self-correction" is that nobody, but nobody has a mechanism to explain this force. Not how it works or worse yet, how it will know how to self-correct. What particular force decides that the friction on some surface will briefly rise and cause the gun to jam? How does it know to do that? In all of the paradox-forbidding time travel scenarios, nobody has ever mentioned anything deeper than "Well,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think what they're getting at is that it won't happen that way. Gun will jam, you die of a brain aneurysm. We don't exist in a universe where impossible things happen, so we can't bring them about. But yes, the article doesn't really sink its teeth into it.
The thing about this "self-correction" is that nobody, but nobody has a mechanism to explain this force. Not how it works or worse yet, how it will know how to self-correct. What particular force decides that the friction on some surface will briefly rise and cause the gun to jam? How does it know to do that? In all of the paradox-forbidding time travel scenarios, nobody has ever mentioned anything deeper than "Well,…
You might expect some similarities on a macro scale regardless: perhaps if you kill baby Hitler, Germany can still be expected to end up with a different right wing leader who invades Poland, perhaps even assisted by people who were prominent Nazis in our time, and maybe even loses to the same allies for the same reasons. But on a micro level the differences are huge: the dates will be different, people dying will be different, and the rest of the twentieth century will be different. A century of different atoms bumping into different atoms, different sperm are getting to the front of different queues, and different people being influenced into different decisions results in a different world. Our would-be time traveller isn't even born, never mind motivated to look for Ms Schiklgruber's illegitimate child.
Does anyone know of any great sci-fi stories centered around the lengths the universe goes to to prevent a curious time traveler from testing the grandfather paradox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think what they're getting at is that it won't happen that way. Gun will jam, you die of a brain aneurysm. We don't exist in a universe where impossible things happen, so we can't bring them about. But yes, the article doesn't really sink its teeth into it.
I could see how a universe with such rules could exist. But is it our universe? In the universe you describe, wouldn't we already have seen time travellers from the future? The only explanation I can think of for why we haven't seen any, if we live in such a universe, is that we need to build an "arrivals hall" first, and that as soon we manage to do that, people from all over start popping in for a visit.
My solution to "where are all the time travelers" is that we are unable to correct for motion, we send people in the past but they end up million of kilometers away in space.
So the past is perfectly accessible, but we can't get to any useful spacetime coordinate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iirc there is no requirement for mass/energy to be conserved, and some models of expansion require conservation to be violated.
Depends if the system is open or closed and if mass is converting to energy or visa versa. Also conditions near big bang are not representative.