But the simple act of going back to the past changes the past. I mean, you weren’t around in 1820, right? So it changed.
No. Let’s say that next year I’m going to travel back to 1820.
If it’s true that I will do that then it’s true that I was there.
Stephen
And that you got there from a time machine. But if you got there from a time machine, you weren’t there before using the time machine. See what I mean?
Imagine Jesus was a time traveler from the future who got there in a time machine.
But the simple act of going back to the past changes the past. I mean, you weren’t around in 1820, right? So it changed.
No. Let’s say that next year I’m going to travel back to 1820.
If it’s true that I will do that then it’s true that I was there.
Stephen
And that you got there from a time machine. But if you got there from a time machine, you weren’t there before using the time machine. See what I mean?
Imagine Jesus was a time traveler from the future who got there in a time machine.
If so he was there before using the time machine.
Stephen
Ok, now I am confused. Jesus (why pick him?) got to the past by using a time machine. But you said that he couldn’t have gotten to the past unless he had been in that past - so why need a time machine?
EDIT TO ADD: Wait, I see what you mean. But I also see that this version of time travel is sort of spooky in the sense that you would never be able to remember that you got back to this time via a machine.
Ok, I also saw what you meant after posting.
I get in the time machine in 2012 and go back to 1820. This takes three minute. so from my point of view time passes normally and so I can remember it. 1820 follows on from 2012 from my time traveling point of view.
Because he wasn’t born until the year 2,000. His mother has a copy of the bible with the stories of what her 11 year old son did 2,000 years ago. He is leaving for the past in 2029.
The birth stories were works of fiction, he just appeared in Nazareth age 29 and was crucified 4 years later.
Ok, now I am confused. Jesus (why pick him?) got to the past by using a time machine. But you said that he couldn’t have gotten to the past unless he had been in that past - so why need a time machine?
He got to the past and he was in the past. Just like we’ll get to the future and will be in the future.
Dunno why I picked Jesus.
Stephen
OK, when you say he got to the past and he was in the past… was he in the past even if he did not go back to the past? I was in the past, even though I won’t go back to the past. BUT, if I do go back to the past, then my knowledge of going back to the past, changes that past. This is what I meant when I said that going back to the past changes the past.
OK, when you say he got to the past and he was in the past… was he in the past even if he did not go back to the past?
He was born in 2,000. In 2029 he was in the past going back to his birth in 2,000.
If he did not go back to the past that’s it.
But if he went back to the past he also was in the past 2,000 ago age 29 to 33. And the historical evidence for that exists now. edit: Before he set off for the past.
I was in the past, even though I won’t go back to the past.
Yes.
BUT, if I do go back to the past, then my knowledge of going back to the past, changes that past.
I hope you guys are enjoying your philosophical circle jerk.
psikeyhackr - 02 November 2011 09:24 AM
The past does not exist to go back to. Time is just our conceptualization of the changes in reality.
NOW is the position and vector of every atomic particle. Some “time” in the past consists of all of the positions and vectors of all of those particles then. But there is no point in the past to go back to because all of those particles are where they are now. Every atom in your body is millions of years old. They existed 1000 years ago. So if all of the atoms in your body went back to where they were 200 years ago then you would cease to exist.
psik
You cannot go back in time. The atoms in your body existed in the past. Those atoms cannot be in two positions at the same time. End of discussion.
The past does not exist to go back to. Time is just our conceptualization of the changes in reality.
NOW is the position and vector of every atomic particle. Some “time” in the past consists of all of the positions and vectors of all of those particles then. But there is no point in the past to go back to because all of those particles are where they are now. Every atom in your body is millions of years old. They existed 1000 years ago. So if all of the atoms in your body went back to where they were 200 years ago then you would cease to exist.
psik
You cannot go back in time. The atoms in your body existed in the past. Those atoms cannot be in two positions at the same time. End of discussion.
There is nothing that ties these two sets of atoms together other than their history, so there’s no logical reason they couldn’t exist at the same time (assuming we found a way to time travel, of course).
To an observer we must look like one of those mechanical horseracing tracks. Each horse moves in little spurts relative to the other horses, gaining and losing time relative to each in the process, with an eventual winner who crosses the finish line slightly younger than all the other contestants, but also younger than the observer himself.
I hope you guys are enjoying your philosophical circle jerk.
That’s a bit crude from you, Darron. But yeah, isn’t that essentially what all philosophical discussions boil down to?
You cannot go back in time. The atoms in your body existed in the past. Those atoms cannot be in two positions at the same time. End of discussion.
Well, that’s what I believe too, but I like to follow how other people think. I think very differently from Stephen but I like to understand his position.
Hey, I’m a time traveler. I’ve traveled 81 years into the future since I was born 81 years ago.
Occam
I dare say that, if you have had occasion to actually travel a lot, you are either younger or you have traveled more than 81 years into the future relative to someone who has led a more sedentary life…
Yeah, it’s a bit crude traveler, but I get exasperated with people hijacking what should be a scientific discussion into philosophical solipsism. This thread should have ended with psikey’s post. Try as you might, you cannot get the same atoms to exist at different physical locations at the same time. The philosophical musings in this thread are wasted bandwidth, nothing more. Take it to the philosophy forum and I will happily ignore the discussion.
OK, when you say he got to the past and he was in the past… was he in the past even if he did not go back to the past? I was in the past, even though I won’t go back to the past. BUT, if I do go back to the past, then my knowledge of going back to the past, changes that past. This is what I meant when I said that going back to the past changes the past.
