Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote:With time travel, you go back to kill your mother which prevents your birth so you can't go back to kill your mother in our universe, but in a multiverse with different laws (including different logic), you can do this (how? is another question).

I can't say whether a multiverse exists, but I can't deny it either. Nowadays the physics community seem more open-minded to a multiverse so if a multiverse does exist, how much more likely does a paradox exist?

PhilX

I think physicists concur that laws at their most fundamental apply equally to all universes in a supposed multiverse. Nothing is more fundamental than time which if not itself independent would function as a derivative of that which is integral; it's a state in which directionality in terms of process cannot be contradicted. Though debatable and thoroughly unknown, if this were not the case then any process can undo itself by going backwards.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:With time travel, you go back to kill your mother which prevents your birth so you can't go back to kill your mother in our universe, but in a multiverse with different laws (including different logic), you can do this (how? is another question).

I can't say whether a multiverse exists, but I can't deny it either. Nowadays the physics community seem more open-minded to a multiverse so if a multiverse does exist, how much more likely does a paradox exist?

PhilX

There is NO such thing as time travel to the past.
Time is simply the occurrence of events and man has made a pretty good attempt by observing events to sync a thing that we now call 'TIME'.

If there is not an electron spinning, a photon emitting, then where is time - there is NO time. Time IS the occurrence of an event.

By traveling close to the speed of light you could in essence travel to the future and remain at an age where all others have long since met their death thanks to the ageing process, simply because your local time was far slower than theirs on account of your movement near to the speed of light.

In regards to your first paragraph, it's possible to have a different universe where time travel to the past can occur.

Bullshit.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Can you prove that this universe can't exist?

Can you or ANY qualified physicist prove that it can - NO so stop watching Star Trek and get real.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:To clarify your third paragraph, you actually mean the faster you travel, the further into the future you would go (alive)

Correct, and by virtue of your ageing process would be slower than those milling around on planet Earth.

Attofishpi said (regarding a hypothetical universe where one can go backwards in time):

"Can you or ANY qualified physicist prove that it can - NO so stop watching Star Trek and get real."

Can you or ANY qualified physicist prove that it can't? The science community in the majority are leaning towards a multiverse which I can back up with plenty of articles and names of physicists. And the current word is the multiverse is a testable hypothesis. Before you go on, let me ask you what your credentials are in science? Also want to mention there's nothing wrong with being a Trekker (btw was reading about a tractor beam which really exists).

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Attofishpi said (regarding a hypothetical universe where one can go backwards in time):

"Can you or ANY qualified physicist prove that it can - NO so stop watching Star Trek and get real."

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Can you or ANY qualified physicist prove that it can't? The science community in the majority are leaning towards a multiverse which I can back up with plenty of articles and names of physicists. And the current word is the multiverse is a testable hypothesis.

I have little doubt and there is very likely a multiverse, for me it is an explanation of the many things i have witnessed courtesy of God\'God'. My argument with you was that there is NO method to go into a 'past' point in time.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Before you go on, let me ask you what your credentials are in science? Also want to mention there's nothing wrong with being a Trekker (btw was reading about a tractor beam which really exists).

My credentials are that in my last physics exam before i immigrated to Oz i came second in the class - i know - the first of the losers right..i am a laymen that does like to keep abreast of scientific theories and discoveries.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with retrocausality, we have this Wikipedia article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

PhilX

Retardcausality, I like it. What are the implications of that? I mean, what causes that, and what are the consequences. Anyway, let me tell you a retrojoke. Start laughing.