/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16120350]

is time travel possible?

[Anonymous No.16120351]

>>16120350
no

[Anonymous No.16120355]

>>16120350
>>16120351
In a very short and not explaining laws of physics and remember you can't violate them otherwise you run paradox.

[Anonymous No.16120391]

>>16120350
No, because neither the past nor the future exists

[Anonymous No.16120395]

>>16120391
/thread
We are not even getting in to the logistics of building a real one in real life.

[Anonymous No.16120396]

>>16120391
the past is encoded in the present state, and the future is being calculated at a certain rate, by applying the laws of this universe. rate which we call "realtime" in our frame of reference.

[Anonymous No.16120414]

>>16120350
It is impossible to not travel through time.

[Anonymous No.16120419]

>>16120414
at a constant rate for you. and only forward

[Anonymous No.16120423]

>>16120419
to the past and at a other rate no?.

[Anonymous No.16120428]

>>16120423
you have to "manually" intervene on each particle in the universe and put it in the position it was at the time you want to go back to. it would be a sort of recreation. if you can extract each particle's position from the present state, and act upon it to set it to where it was when you want to travel, sure. but seems kinda weird, in energy requirement. unless there's some freaky mechanism we didn't yet discover.
or this is a simulation, and you have the influence to ask for a replay of certain moments, but I think you'd have other things to worry about if you get certainty of being in a simulation.

[Anonymous No.16120430]

>>16120419
>at a constant rate for you
No, the rate depends on your mass, speed, and elevation, none of which are constant individually nor are they constant as a product or some other collection.

[Anonymous No.16120436]

[Anonymous No.16120437]

>>16120430
you get old at the same rate no matter what speed you at, from your own frame of reference. 30 years will feel like 30 years here.

[Anonymous No.16120443]

>>16120396
>the past is encoded in the present state
Then there is no difference between the past and the present, thus the past doesn't exist
>the future is being calculated
Reality doesn't have to calculate anything, the reactions are inherent qualitative properties and instantaneous in their nature, plus this wouldn't work with your previous idea, for if the past is encoded in the present so is the future, making all time a single continuous instance, which it is, because the past and the future don't exist, it's always the same moment

[Anonymous No.16120446]

>>16120437
No it won't, time flies when you are having fun, plenty of 30 year olds don't feel 30 years olds and definitely don't act like 30 year olds.

[Anonymous No.16120467]

>>16120443
>Reality doesn't have to calculate anything
it has no choice it always calculates everything. you can calculate how much it would hurt if you bang your head on the wall. you can do it perfectly by actually banging your head on the wall. the universe will do all math for you and give you a very precise result when you do it. up to you to capture all data it gives you.

[Anonymous No.16120476]

>>16120467
>it has no choice it always calculates everything.
1. Reality doesn't operate on quantities, but qualities
2. There is no need to calculate anything when you already know everything

[Anonymous No.16120480]

>>16120476
the future doesn't seem set because of random radioactive decay. when it does math (constantly) it has unknowns. but what will happen is something that can happen, for sure. looks that way.
if you go home and your TV is missing, someone stole it anon. the past actions of that someone stealing your TV are encoded in your present by your TV fucking missing anon. that tells you what happened in a previous present. and is encoded that way, no more TV at your place.

[Anonymous No.16120483]

>>16120476
1. Quantity is a specific type of quality.
2. You don't know everything, and you can't possibly observe anything that does.

[Anonymous No.16120489]

Yes. You're traveling forward in time right now.

[Anonymous No.16120511]

>>16120489
Relative to what?

[Anonymous No.16120512]

>>16120511
Relative to you.

[Anonymous No.16120526]

>>16120512
Me - Me = 0, I am not traveling through anything if I am just taken relative to me.

[Anonymous No.16120539]

>>16120480
>when it does math
What math? Quantititative analysis is a human invention.
>it has unknowns
It doesn't, every reaction to every action that is occuring accross the entirety of reality at any given moment is instantly known, because reality doesn't have to "calculate" what happens, the result is already known
>if you go home and your TV is missing, someone stole it anon. the past actions of that someone stealing your TV are encoded in your present by your TV fucking missing anon. that tells you what happened in a previous present
But the TV still exists and its, atoms will continue to exist even after its destruction, contituents will continue to exist until eternity, after they have decayed into constituents and reformed into composites countless of times, but guess what doesn't change, their age, because they don't have one, there is only one singular moment wherein things change state, you are taking the quality of state change and applying a made up quantity to it, in order to linguistically convey temporal differences between events, but there is no temporal difference, reality is one singular, continuous event with no distinct boundaries, beginnings or endings, everything right now will be in the exact same moment and the exact same age billion years in the "future"
>>16120483
Quantities are derived from qualities, not vice versa, all quantities have a qualitative analogue, not all qualities have a quantitative one, because quantities describe an extremely small sliver of qualitative properties, they don't answer the how, why or what, they just define states of a system (or "events" as you want to call it) as numbers and then say when X and Y happens together then the resulting event is Z, but it has no descriptive power of reality itself, because it is incommunicable in any form of language or arithmetic system you come up with, it is a purely qualitative sytem.

[Anonymous No.16120575]

>>16120539
No, it has to occur (which is the calculation), therefore you are just substituting calculation with occurrence even though it is effectively the same thing.

>Quantities are derived from qualities,
I accept your concession, reality operates both on quantities and qualities because quantity is qualitative.

>not all qualities have a quantitative one,
What is an example of a quality that can not possibly be quantized?

> they don't answer the how, why or what,
Sure they do.
Sure they do, the quantities involved in the gravitational formula describe the quality of movement and how the object's trajectory can play out. The quantity of the particular wavelengths of light is used to describe the color quality and why rainbows are the way they are and why the color wheel has the spectrum that it does.

[Anonymous No.16120618]

>>16120575
>No, it has to occur (which is the calculation)
No, existence is an inherent property of reality, there is no calculation behind it
>because quantity is qualitative.
lol, quantity forms only 1/inf of qualities, it's is a limited system of arithmetic conceived by a still primitive lifeform
>What is an example of a quality that can not possibly be quantized?
Colour, taste, sensation, reality itself, you can't mathematically describe what red looks like, you can't use quantities to describe what fish tastes like, you can't use numbers to describe what reality is, all you can do with them is map out specific quantifiable properties, you can linguistically (aka qualitatively) attempt to express these properties, but all the words you can come up with will eventually fall short, because the only way to understand experience is through experience itself.
>The quantity of the particular wavelengths of light is used to describe the color quality
Electromagnetic radiation does not have colour, it is a propagation of energy through a field, the transfer of a specific wavelength and amplitude of this energy through the specific cells in your eyes and the specific excitation of your brain is what gives it the arbitrary property of colour, wavelength and amplitude are quantitative properties, but colour is not. What is this colour made of, where does it manifest, onto what this image imposed and what does it consist of, what is this electromagnetic wave made of, through what medium does it propagate, what is this medium made of, onto what is this medium manifested on, quantities fail to explain the most fundamental properties of reality because they are used for a very specific purpose for which they were conceived in the first place - quantities, as the name aptly says.

[Anonymous No.16120631]

>>16120618
>quantity forms only 1/inf of qualities
Lol at using an infinite quantity to define the necessity quality over quantity, I just can't take you serious anymore, troll.

[Anonymous No.16120632]

>>16120631
I'm glad you concede

[Anonymous No.16120640]

>>16120632
Yes I conceded that you completely contradict yourself by quantifying qualities and your claims about quantities and qualities are nonsense as a result.

[Anonymous No.16120641]

>>16120640
No, I defined the amount of qualities as indeterminate or infinite, because all qualities can not be quantified

[Anonymous No.16120696]

>>16120641
Infinite is a quantity, specifically the total quantity of numbers.
If quality is indeterminate on the basis there are infinity quantities of them, quantities also fall into that category and quantification is more inherent to your argument since you are specifically depending on quantities to defined the value of qualification.

[Anonymous No.16120699]

>>16120350
>is time travel possible?

Yes, I usually travel 8 hours into the future every time I go to sleep at night.

[Anonymous No.16120924]

>>16120696
>If quality is indeterminate on the basis there are infinity quantities of them, quantities also fall into that category
Wrong, because quantities are one singular specific subset of qualities

[Anonymous No.16121012]

>>16120350
Physical time travel into the past? No.
There is a simple thermodynamic argument to this. If it was possible to travel backward in time, the universe would have been mined out of energy resources by the first intelligent species that discovers backward time travel.
We see know evidence of this, hence no time travel.

[Anonymous No.16121103]

>>16120350
Yes but also no.

You cannot save YOUR Abraham Lincoln—since your existence required him to die in the timeline that lead up to you.

Any Abraham Lincoln you saved belongs to a completely different past->future.

Even going back in time one millisecond sends you to a completely different past->future.

You cannot change YOUR past, only another YOU. You CANNOT erase yourself. That’s retarded.

[Anonymous No.16121131]

>>16120699
if you were disassembled and reassembled a year later it would feel the same, like you were sleeping. as long as you are not active reality fastforwards instantly.
it is still not traveling to your future, you are out of the environment which fast-forwards just like you'd be on a spaceship traveling close to speed of light.
you cannot affect the flow of time in your frame. how would that even look for you? do you see everything fast-forwarding? are you also fast-forwarding? if so then you wouldn't notice the fast-forward. I can very well say you are now fast-forwarding you're just not noticing it.
as long as we're trapped in a body manifesting us we're running in realtime with no control over it, well..not more than kys ofc.

[Anonymous No.16121136]

>>16120350
Even the most optimistic conceptions of time travel (which are themselves impossible) don't involve changing *your* past and certainly not benefiting from it.

[Anonymous No.16121832]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16122312]

>>16120350
Yeas it's possible.
If I tell you how it's possible I will get killed, but sending information to the past is possible.

[Anonymous No.16122582]

When I was a child, I used to think if you went back in time there wouldn't be any people there because all the people were in the present, you'd just be in an empty world full of buildings and stuff.

[Anonymous No.16123602]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16123644]

>>16120924
There are infinite potential quantities.

[Anonymous No.16123646]

>>16121012
By that logic, the first intelligent species to discover oil should have already exhausted the supply.

[Anonymous No.16123647]

>>16121136
Futurama's version of time travel was exactly about fry changing his own past and benefiting from it.

[Anonymous No.16123649]

>>16122582
You were right, but the world doesn't stay empty for long since the langoliers will come to clean it up eventually.

[Anonymous No.16123742]

>>16120350
Yes. It will be invented in the year 4255 by an AI powered by multiple stars. You can go back to any time and there is only one timeline. You can change things but it is avoided because of the butterfly effect, the amount of unforeseen consequences is insane. In general its not used much, requires too much power and is basically giant hazard with every travel.

[Anonymous No.16123772]

>>16120350
what was he thinking about? in picrel