Impossibility of time travel

[seeds]

I don't believe in the block universe because of the existence of the mind and decisions. I however think that the future is determined until the point of decision.

Well, it would appear that the first sentence in the quote above completely negates the assertion made in the second sentence regarding the future being "determined."
_______

No there is no problem. The future always is determined in the block universe whereas in our universe is determined until a decision is required.

First of all, you already stated that you don't believe in the "Block Universe" hypothesis. In which case, you have no business using it in your argument.

Secondly, if by chance you are imagining "our" universe as being deterministic based on Newtonian laws,...

...then your very assertion that determinism is only in play until a decision is made, renders your concept of determinism null and void by reason of the fact that billions of "decisions" are being made each and every passing second by billions of minds on this planet.

The point being, that if vast numbers of "decisions" are constantly being made in a never-ending stream, then when (and in what way) does the universe ever have a chance to display itself as being deterministic?

And, lastly, my whole reason for engaging you in this debate in the first place was to counter your implying that Deja vu might have something to do with accessing the future in some significant way,...



...to which I suggest that you should heed the advice of the guy who - in a moment of rational lucidity - stated the following...

"...perhaps there is another explanation for Dejavu...."

_______

[bahman]

An electron has mass, charge, size, and other physical characteristics. What physical characteristics does time have? None, because it is not a thing, not an entity, not a substance or any kind of, "stuff." It is an attribute of the phenomenon motion and sans motion does not exist at all.

Ah, yes. No color at all.

Exactly nothing, because time has no attributes of a substance.

The so-called geometry of space is a metaphorical description of the bahavior of physical entities, not a description of some kind of, "stuff." Einstein himself rejected that view.

I have no idea why it bothers you that time and space are not entities or substances but merely ways of describing the relationships between things that really are entities and substances unless you are trying to promote some supernatural view of reality.

Time passes with a specific rate that can be experienced. This passage slows down near heavy objects. Gravitational waves have been observed!

'Time' passes 'what', EXACTLY?

What?

What is the 'specific rate', EXACTLY?

The rate that you experience which is subject to change if you are close to a heavy object.

And, what is the 'specific rate' relative to, EXACTLY?

The rate that you experience it.

The so-called "passage of time" CAN NOT and DOES NOT slow down, nor speed up. But while one BELIEVES otherwise, then they are NOT able to LEARN and UNDERSTAND this Fact.

It does.

[bahman]

Well, it would appear that the first sentence in the quote above completely negates the assertion made in the second sentence regarding the future being "determined."
_______

No there is no problem. The future always is determined in the block universe whereas in our universe is determined until a decision is required.

What is the 'block universe', from your perspective?

What is 'our universe', from your perspective?

And, what is the EXACT 'distinction'?

The block universe is a universe that future and past exit. The future is determined in this universe. The future is determined in our universe until the point of decision. Whether the future exists or not in such a universe is the subject of another discussion.

[Walker]

Time travel explains this.

[bahman]

Well, it would appear that the first sentence in the quote above completely negates the assertion made in the second sentence regarding the future being "determined."
_______

No there is no problem. The future always is determined in the block universe whereas in our universe is determined until a decision is required.

First of all, you already stated that you don't believe in the "Block Universe" hypothesis. In which case, you have no business using it in your argument.

No. My argument is valid since the future is fixed until a decision is made.

Secondly, if by chance you are imagining "our" universe as being deterministic based on Newtonian laws,...

Even the Schrodinger equation is a deterministic equation.

...then your very assertion that determinism is only in play until a decision is made, renders your concept of determinism null and void by reason of the fact that billions of "decisions" are being made each and every passing second by billions of minds on this planet.

The point being, that if vast numbers of "decisions" are constantly being made in a never-ending stream, then when (and in what way) does the universe ever have a chance to display itself as being deterministic?

Yes, there are lots of decisions that are made in each second but not all the decisions have an impact on your future.

And, lastly, my whole reason for engaging you in this debate in the first place was to counter your implying that Deja vu might have something to do with accessing the future in some significant way,...



...to which I suggest that you should heed the advice of the guy who - in a moment of rational lucidity - stated the following...

"...perhaps there is another explanation for Dejavu...."

_______

Well, my argument is valid unless it is shown that it is wrong or another better argument is given!

[seeds]

And, lastly, my whole reason for engaging you in this debate in the first place was to counter your implying that Deja vu might have something to do with accessing the future in some significant way,...



...to which I suggest that you should heed the advice of the guy who - in a moment of rational lucidity - stated the following...

"...perhaps there is another explanation for Dejavu...."

_______

Well, my argument is valid unless it is shown that it is wrong or another better argument is given!

bahman, try to understand this once and for all. I am only concerned with what you seem to be implying about the phenomenon of Deja vu.

If your argument is that Deja vu implies that the future is determined, then I already provided you with what I feel is a better (quantum-based) argument as to what the cause of Deja vu might possibly be.

What more do you want?
_______

[Dubious]

Deja Vu is completely physiological, i.e., brain-centered. It has nothing to do with the universe, time or any philosophical conception of it. The brain does not always work or respond in a synchronized manner, especially in younger brains which can easily warp the perception of time.

[bahman]

And, lastly, my whole reason for engaging you in this debate in the first place was to counter your implying that Deja vu might have something to do with accessing the future in some significant way,...



...to which I suggest that you should heed the advice of the guy who - in a moment of rational lucidity - stated the following...

"...perhaps there is another explanation for Dejavu...."

_______

Well, my argument is valid unless it is shown that it is wrong or another better argument is given!

bahman, try to understand this once and for all. I am only concerned with what you seem to be implying about the phenomenon of Deja vu.

If your argument is that Deja vu implies that the future is determined, then I already provided you with what I feel is a better (quantum-based) argument as to what the cause of Deja vu might possibly be.

What more do you want?
_______

I just cannot buy nonlocality. The information cannot spread with the speed of infinity. I think I already refuted your argument.

[bahman]

Deja Vu is completely physiological, i.e., brain-centered. It has nothing to do with the universe, time or any philosophical conception of it. The brain does not always work or respond in a synchronized manner, especially in younger brains which can easily warp the perception of time.

Come on, that is not an explanation.

[Dubious]

Deja Vu is completely physiological, i.e., brain-centered. It has nothing to do with the universe, time or any philosophical conception of it. The brain does not always work or respond in a synchronized manner, especially in younger brains which can easily warp the perception of time.

Come on, that is not an explanation.

It explains where deja vu originates and that it has nothing to do with philosophy, instead being thoroughly centered in the physical brain. The details of that are hardly of interest in a philosophy forum.

[bahman]

Deja Vu is completely physiological, i.e., brain-centered. It has nothing to do with the universe, time or any philosophical conception of it. The brain does not always work or respond in a synchronized manner, especially in younger brains which can easily warp the perception of time.

Come on, that is not an explanation.

It explains where deja vu originates and that it has nothing to do with philosophy, instead being thoroughly centered in the physical brain. The details of that are hardly of interest in a philosophy forum.

I am very interested to know. Physicalism has a hard time explaining consciousness. Let's leave alone, Dejavu, dreams, spiritual experience, etc.

[Dubious]

Come on, that is not an explanation.

It explains where deja vu originates and that it has nothing to do with philosophy, instead being thoroughly centered in the physical brain. The details of that are hardly of interest in a philosophy forum.

I am very interested to know. Physicalism has a hard time explaining consciousness. Let's leave alone, Dejavu, dreams, spiritual experience, etc.

True, consciousness is very hard to explain, at least so far. But one thing's for certain you need a physical brain to be conscious. We never encountered a consciousness that escaped the physical in whatever form it presented itself.

[bahman]

It explains where deja vu originates and that it has nothing to do with philosophy, instead being thoroughly centered in the physical brain. The details of that are hardly of interest in a philosophy forum.

I am very interested to know. Physicalism has a hard time explaining consciousness. Let's leave alone, Dejavu, dreams, spiritual experience, etc.

True, consciousness is very hard to explain, at least so far. But one thing's for certain you need a physical brain to be conscious. We never encountered a consciousness that escaped the physical in whatever form it presented itself.

How do you know that your chair is not conscious? It just cannot respond in the way a human does.

[Dubious]

Because there's nothing in it that can create consciousness; there is no process, organic or not, which allows it from being or becoming conscious.

[bahman]

Because there's nothing in it that can create consciousness; there is no process, organic or not, which allows it from being or becoming conscious.

How do you know that that is the process that causes consciousness? Is the internet conscious?