Time paradoxes

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

Why don't you believe that the universe's fate is already decided? The reason you're assuming this isn't the case is that we have "free will," which is a myth. Your "choices" are dependent upon a set of exact factors (i.e. cerebral chemicals influenced mainly by genetics and past experiences) that interpret possible choices and consequences and choose the option that will yield the best predicted results, whether these results are based upon monetary gain, intellectual stimulation, or simply drive-reduction.

Good ol' determinism. I agree with this concerning the vast majority of everyday issues, but I do think that free will does show its face in moral actions.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

It's my solid opinion that if there were ever such thing as time traveling to the past, there would have always existed a method known to human kind. Well actually, it might still be possible, but if human's have EVER found it, we would have always known it.

No one can say that over the expanse of unlimited time thereafter the discovery of time travel, not one person in all of existence decided it was for the best that they introduce time travel to earlier inhabitants of Earth.

As for traveling the speed of light, I don't know a single thing that I could use to back up the plausibility or lack there of.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

I beg to differ. Because your argument was presented without justification, I'll rebut it similarly.

I wasn't presenting my argument yet, because I wasn't even sure you were interested in a debate.
My argument goes something like this: Every human being is born with a certain basic moral tendency or recognition of morality - a universal code of human beings. When someone commits an immoral act, it is not the act itself that contains the free will, but the fact that they chose to act against the natural moral inclination. In that I believe there is a great degree of choice and free will.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

The fact that there's an innate moral code in humans doesn't mean that they'll never set it aside in favor of a (perceived) greater end.

Of course they will set it aside; you misunderstood my post. In setting it a side they are making a conscious decision, and the decision is not just neurons firing off due to incentives and deterrents.

 

Regardless, it's still not anything physical. Maybe if someone explains the concepts behind how they think time travel would work, it would give me some insight on your perspective.

Well there are 3 methods I can think of off the top of my head.
The first is Stephen Hawking's method of "travelling" to the future. He insists that time slows around a large mass, so that if you were able to orbit a black hole in a spaceship, you would age far slower than you would elsewhere. This applies to astronauts orbiting the Earth as well, they don't age as fast as they would normally on Earth. I like to think of this as "fake" time travel since you are not travelling through time, you're essentially just going slower than everyone else.

The second method is half of Stephen Hawking's second method and Einstein's method as well. The faster you go, the slower time around you goes as well (as you approach the speed of light). But, such a method would be rather inefficient considering that you need to displace yourself to have speed. What I was thinking though, is that if you were able to accelerate without actually moving, you could go near the speed of light (perhaps beyond since this is a peculiar case) and remain in the same spot, but everything around you would slow and eventually even reverse. How would this be possible? With a gratuitous amount of energy, you could effectively "grab" the fabric of spacetime that is around you and move it.

The third method is the method regarded for the possibility of "warp" speed in outer space. For an object to travel such vast distances in so little time, you would have to make the distance shorter. How do you do that? You compress spacetime from point A to point B. Say for instance a line segment is 1 light year long, but you don't want to have to take all the time to get there with regular propulsion engines. You could bring the points A and B closer together and actually travel a shorter distance. This ties in very closely with the second method (of immobile acceleration) I mentioned before since it involves heavy manipulation of the 4th dimension.

Why don't you believe that the universe's fate is already decided? The reason you're assuming this isn't the case is that we have "free will," which is a myth. Your "choices" are dependent upon a set of exact factors (i.e. cerebral chemicals influenced mainly by genetics and past experiences) that interpret possible choices and consequences and choose the option that will yield the best predicted results, whether these results are based upon monetary gain, intellectual stimulation, or simply drive-reduction.

If the universe's fate is already decided, one could actually "remember" the future as they remember the past.

 

If you were omniscient you could.

Baw that's getting into spiritual shit D:

 

[BB Services]

If Time Paradoxes are real and Stephen Hawking is correct then he is basically saying that I could go back in time, Kill him and he wouldn't exist today. This sounds like something off of Doctor Who or something..

 

[Shell]

If Time Paradoxes are real and Stephen Hawking is correct then he is basically saying that I could go back in time, Kill him and he wouldn't exist today. This sounds like something off of Doctor Who or something..

Stephan Hawking thinks that time travel is impossible.
You're also ignoring Blupig's theory.

 

[BB Services]

Supposedly, If I planted a mirror on the moon, then looked at it through a telescope I'd see like 20 seconds ago. Just a theory by some scientist in Norway.

 

[Shell]

Supposedly, If I planted a mirror on the moon, then looked at it through a telescope I'd see like 20 seconds ago. Just a theory by some scientist in Norway.

Of course. Light takes a little while to travel. It doesn't have anything to do with time travel, though.
Quasars are stars that are so far away that if we look at them, we're only seeing where they were centuries ago, instead of where they actually are. Expanding on this concept, if we had a magic super-power telescope planted somewhere far, far from Earth, we could find out what happened to Amelia Earhart.

 

[BB Services]

Of course. Light takes a little while to travel. It doesn't have anything to do with time travel, though.
Quasars are stars that are so far away that if we look at them, we're only seeing where they were centuries ago, instead of where they actually are. Expanding on this concept, if we had a magic super-power telescope planted somewhere far, far from Earth, we could find out what happened to Amelia Earhart.

Anyway, Back to the subject, I think that the Time of the universe is locked. No going back, Otherwise accidents could be undone, You could know your future, allsorts would become of it. I have reason behind my theories. Look at time.. It's.. Time. Constantly going by.. If it was possible to go back, Surely you (Not literally you but everybody who believes it) would just have challenged everything humans have ever known.