Lets see if we have any "nerds" here... Time travel question.

[Michael_Calgary]

BTW, I am a nerd... and it's not meant to be a derogatory statement.



Ok. So let me see if I can translate my thoughts to something resembling coherent English..

My time travel topic will have a medical element in it as well.

So lets assume two things. First, time travel is possible. Second, in the future, medical science has found a way to cure everything. As well, the ability to live forever, or at the very least eons.

Here goes... So a man has traveled far into the future in a time machine to be "cured" by the medical establishment of that time.. After his procedure, he then travels back to his original time. Then he just lives his life and eventually "catches up" to the day he originally arrived to be cured.

Lets call the man who originally took the time ship "version 1" and then we'll call him "version 2" after he returns home from his medical procedure.

I am wondering. If after version 2 catches up to the point in time when version 1 arrived and was there to watch version 1 stepped out of the time ship, what would he see? Would he see his earlier self step out? Would there be two copies of the same human being? We'll assume yes is the answer for my next thought. (Also how could that be?)

Secondly, and this is what is hurting my brain most. How could version 2 be there to see version 1 step out of the time ship, if version 1 has not yet completed his medical procedure and returned home yet?

Thoughts?

 

[davidabcd]

BTW, I am a nerd... and it's not meant to be a derogatory statement.



Ok. So let me see if I can translate my thoughts to something resembling coherent English..

My time travel topic will have a medical element in it as well.

So lets assume two things. First, time travel is possible. Second, in the future, medical science has found a way to cure everything. As well, the ability to live forever, or at the very least eons.

Here goes... So a man has traveled far into the future in a time machine to be "cured" by the medical establishment of that time.. After his procedure, he then travels back to his original time. Then he just lives his life and eventually "catches up" to the day he originally arrived to be cured.

Lets call the man who originally took the time ship "version 1" and then we'll call him "version 2" after he returns home from his medical procedure.

I am wondering. If after version version 2 catches up to the point in time when version 1 arrived and was there to watch version 1 stepped out of the time ship, what would he see? Would he see his earlier self step out? Would there be two copies of the same human being? We'll assume yes is the answer for my next thought. (Also how could that be?)

Secondly, and this is what is hurting my brain most. How could version 2 be there to see version 1 setup out of the time ship, if version 1 has not yet completed his medical procedure and returned home yet?

Thoughts?

The 10th Doctor from Doctor Who: "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a nonlinear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey...stuff."

 

[MaxStout]

Version 1 meets Version 2, they shake hands, the universe divides by zero, and this happens.

 

[Br3w4u]

According to Schrödinger’s cat theory I would say yes he could see himself but my thought is that he never would have originally lived long enough to see himself in the future so he would be the only version of himself at that time but could maybe see his own grave. Maybe not though because he altered his own future to where he would not die.

 

[Michael_Calgary]

Version 1 meets Version 2, they shake hands, the universe divides by zero, and this happens.

lol yup!

 

[MaxStout]

Your hypothetical is the classic time travel paradox. If I go back in time and accidentally kill my grandfather when he is young, how can I exist in order to go back in time and kill my grandfather?

I think Version 1 should stay way the hell away from Version 2 when he arrives at that point in time. There's not enough room in this town for the both of them.

 

[FloppyKnockers]

Version 2 can see version one in the future, for sure. If version 2 intervenes with version 1 in any way, version 2 would be altered up to the point of non-existence. It's the butterfly effect.

 

[Br3w4u]

Go watch some Rick and Morty and you won’t have any more questions haha.

 

[Michael_Calgary]

Go watch some Rick and Morty and you won’t have any more questions haha.

Hehe. that is a good show.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

The future that version two would arrive in would be a different future due to his presence in that time line, so he would probably not meet version 1 depending on how far distant the initial travel. But that doesn’t mean that version 1 never did what he did, so version 2 would continue to exist. If they did meet, it wouldn’t be a big deal, just something like taking your eyeballs out of the sockets and then pointing the pupils at each other.

 

[Br3w4u]

The future that version two would arrive in would be a different future due to his presence in that time line, so he would probably not meet version 1 depending on how far distant the initial travel. But that doesn’t mean that version 1 never did what he did, so version 2 would continue to exist. If they did meet, it wouldn’t be a big deal, just something like taking your eyeballs out of the sockets and then pointing the pupils at each other.

Taking your eyeballs out of your head is a pretty big deal man. I wouldn’t suggest trying that.

 

[ba-brewer]

I was told the true spelling of nerd is knurd. It was the people/kids that did not get drunk.

If you were wear sunglasses you might not even recognize yourself.

 

[RPh_Guy]

Your questions are based on the [faulty?] assumption that time "progresses".

Try working through your scenario instead assuming all points in time exist simultaneously (and not how they try to portray events in sci-fi movies & shows).

 

[FloppyKnockers]

I think this guy ^^^ just out nerded this topic.

 

[Michael_Calgary]

Your questions are based on the [faulty?] assumption that time "progresses".

Try working through your scenario instead assuming all points in time exist simultaneously (and not how they try to portray events in sci-fi movies & shows).

Actually your thought process is interesting... So basically what we could say is that I exist every point in time and space. So there would not be any issues at all?

 

[RPh_Guy]

Well, no, since you are not omnipresent. If I'm understanding your question correctly.

Let's say you already simultaneously exist at every time point in your existence, in the location where you are at that moment.

Like a flip book, all the pages simultaneously exist. If you process them in order it makes sense, telling a story. The pages aren't changed by flipping through them.

 

[zeptrey]

I think I've seen this Doctor Who episode before.

 

[Br3w4u]

I think that if he has left his current time space then he no longer exists until he reaches his future time space and therefore would not meet a second version or future self because he is his future self.

 

[cloudybrewer]

Your questions are based on the [faulty?] assumption that time "progresses".

Try working through your scenario instead assuming all points in time exist simultaneously (and not how they try to portray events in sci-fi movies & shows).

This is the Back to the Future scenario.

If I go back in time and accidentally kill my grandfather when he is young, how can I exist in order to go back in time and kill my grandfather?

Because ...

Like a flip book, all the pages simultaneously exist.

The instant you kill your grandfather, every page in the flip book after that page simultaneously change due to your grandfathers death. You still exist in the moments leading up to his death (since you traveled back in time and INSERTED yourself into them) because THOSE pages remain unaltered.

 

[hezagenius]

Assuming that Version 2 came back to a point in time that is in the same timeline that Version 1's future arrival lies in, then they would both exist in the same future and could interact. I never understood where all this business about not touching your future self came from. It was cool in Timecop when the bad guy turned inside out but I never understood the logic behind it.

What would possibly be more likely, though, is that Version 2 would end up doing something(s) to create a different timeline for himself and never see Version 1 arrive in the future.

 

[Br3w4u]

This is the Back to the Future scenario.


Because ...

The instant you kill your grandfather, every page in the flip book after that page simultaneously change due to your grandfathers death. You still exist in the moments leading up to his death (since you traveled back in time and INSERTED yourself into them) because THOSE pages remain unaltered.

Agreed.

 

[Br3w4u]

Who says the future version is even there anyway? If he can time travel he could be anywhere in time right?

 

[Br3w4u]

So if he takes his significant other to the future with him and has a 3some with the future version of his significant other it wouldn’t be cheating right?

 

[RPh_Guy]

The instant you kill your grandfather, every page in the flip book after that page simultaneously change

I would argue you cannot (or rather, do not) kill your grandfather. The pages do not change.

Assuming all moments of time already exist simultaneously, there's no version of fixed time where events can be altered that create multiple timelines.
Time would need to "progress" in order to create a paradox, which I'm saying is faulty.

In the OP's example the younger person would be able to meet his older self the first time he travels to the future. The older person simply does not kill his younger self. There is no version of space-time where that is possible.

 

[zeptrey]

Assuming that Version 2 came back to a point in time that is in the same timeline that Version 1's future arrival lies in, then they would both exist in the same future and could interact. I never understood where all this business about not touching your future self came from. It was cool in Timecop when the bad guy turned inside out but I never understood the logic behind it.

What would possibly be more likely, though, is that Version 2 would end up doing something(s) to create a different timeline for himself and never see Version 1 arrive in the future.

Timecop... classic...was that Jean Claude with a mullett? Apparently one bad guy in time cop was made of antimatter.

 

[cloudybrewer]

I would argue you cannot (or rather, do not) kill your grandfather. The pages do not change.

What I the act of killing your grandfather wasn't a "time altering event," but rather a page in the flip book that has always existed? So you aren't changing the natural course of events, but merely following them.

 

[BobBailey]

BTW, I am a nerd... and it's not meant to be a derogatory statement.



Ok. So let me see if I can translate my thoughts to something resembling coherent English..

My time travel topic will have a medical element in it as well.

So lets assume two things. First, time travel is possible. Second, in the future, medical science has found a way to cure everything. As well, the ability to live forever, or at the very least eons.

Here goes... So a man has traveled far into the future in a time machine to be "cured" by the medical establishment of that time.. After his procedure, he then travels back to his original time. Then he just lives his life and eventually "catches up" to the day he originally arrived to be cured.

Lets call the man who originally took the time ship "version 1" and then we'll call him "version 2" after he returns home from his medical procedure.

I am wondering. If after version 2 catches up to the point in time when version 1 arrived and was there to watch version 1 stepped out of the time ship, what would he see? Would he see his earlier self step out? Would there be two copies of the same human being? We'll assume yes is the answer for my next thought. (Also how could that be?)

Secondly, and this is what is hurting my brain most. How could version 2 be there to see version 1 step out of the time ship, if version 1 has not yet completed his medical procedure and returned home yet?

Thoughts?

Why waste your time even thinking about such an absurd fantasy? Why assume that your premises are true? $hit, I'm retired and don't have time to waste. Maybe you need to find a hobby

 

[RPh_Guy]

What I the act of killing your grandfather wasn't a "time altering event," but rather a page in the flip book that has always existed? So you aren't changing the natural course of events, but merely following them.

You exist and thus you simply do not prevent your own existence.

There is no chain of events where that could occur, hence the term "paradox".

Why waste your time even thinking about such an absurd fantasy? Why assume that your premises are true? $hit, I'm retired and don't have time to waste. Maybe you need to find a hobby

I'm guessing you only watch and/or read non-fiction

 

[mongoose33]

Let me explain why I believe effective time travel is impossible.

If you were to go forward or backwards in time, to what spatial reference would you travel.? In other words, if you go back in time from this position of the earth in space, where was the earth at that time? In the middle of space someplace, right? So you go back to the time/place where the earth was--which means you're dead, dead, dead.

At any moment we're flying through space, the sum total of a lot of velocity vectors--the earth is spinning, it's revolving around the sun, the sun is moving around the galaxy, the galaxy is moving in relation to other bodies.

So to plausibly move in time, you'd have to account for not only place but also time and velocity vectors. And since there is no absolute location to serve as a reference for any of that....

In other words, you'd have to travel in time AND space if you wanted to go back or forward to any particular location on the earth or anywhere else. In fact, if you could do that, you'd have effectively a Star-Trek transporter. And that is why I don't believe effective time travel will ever be possible, even if time travel becomes so.

That's me getting my nerd on.

 

[RPh_Guy]

So to plausibly move in time, you'd have to account for not only place but also time and velocity vectors. And since there is no absolute

I imagine that if a device could transport you directly to a specified moment in time, then it could transport you through space to a particular location as well and make the necessary calculations to do so. If I'm not mistaken, the universe does have a center, which could be used an absolute reference. I'd think relative location could be used as well.
In Travelers they specifically reference using a T.E.L.L. and presumably some calculation as to the location and orientation of the Earth.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

Let me explain why I believe effective time travel is impossible.

If you were to go forward or backwards in time, to what spatial reference would you travel.? In other words, if you go back in time from this position of the earth in space, where was the earth at that time? In the middle of space someplace, right? So you go back to the time/place where the earth was--which means you're dead, dead, dead.

At any moment we're flying through space, the sum total of a lot of velocity vectors--the earth is spinning, it's revolving around the sun, the sun is moving around the galaxy, the galaxy is moving in relation to other bodies.

So to plausibly move in time, you'd have to account for not only place but also time and velocity vectors. And since there is no absolute location to serve as a reference for any of that....

In other words, you'd have to travel in time AND space if you wanted to go back or forward to any particular location on the earth or anywhere else. In fact, if you could do that, you'd have effectively a Star-Trek transporter. And that is why I don't believe effective time travel will ever be possible, even if time travel becomes so.

That's me getting my nerd on.

“Effective” time travel at least into the future is super simple and probably requires the least futuristic technology through suspended animation like Buck Rodgers. Going back in time however would be more difficult although consider suspending our galaxy right when a colony ship leaves to another galaxy, then they could come back and visit earth thousands of years in the past. One issue for any type of suspended animation is that as things go on around what is in statsis preservation is key to have the time travel work.

 

[BobBailey]

You exist and thus you simply do not prevent your own existence.

There is no chain of events where that could occur, hence the term "paradox".


I'm guessing you only watch and/or read non-fiction

You would be correct about my reading. As for watching, I do very little TV and even fewer movies. I'm 70 years old and have seen so many things that were considered science fiction become reality. Most of them were feasible, so not too surprising. At this point in time, I really have no need to ponder things unless they are grounded in reality. If time travel were possible, I feel secure that it would have happened by now.

To each their own. I have no problem with anyone entertaining themselves in whatever manner they choose. After all, that's what I'm doing right now Gotcha!!

 

[grampamark]

The answer is 42.

 

[Pkrd]

Have you seen Looper?

Go see Looper.

 

[Michael_Calgary]

Why waste your time even thinking about such an absurd fantasy? Why assume that your premises are true? $hit, I'm retired and don't have time to waste. Maybe you need to find a hobby

lol! Well I have "one" hobby that leads to the next. I brew beer... I drink it. Then I think about stupid stuff like time travel. hehe. Actually I was watching a science show (Nova) and it had a bit about time travel. The scenario they played out made me think of the topic of this post. I figure, If I'm thinking about it, somebody else surely is too!

 

[dmtaylor]

Time travel is possible, but only in the forward direction, never backward. Hence, the OP's scenario requires zero logical consideration.

Best way to travel forward in time is to accelerate in a spaceship close to the speed of light for several months or years, then turn around and come home. When you finally get back, everyone and everything you knew will be much older or dead.

Relativity. Cheers.

 

[mongoose33]

I imagine that if a device could transport you directly to a specified moment in time, then it could transport you through space to a particular location as well and make the necessary calculations to do so. If I'm not mistaken, the universe does have a center, which could be used an absolute reference. I'd think relative location could be used as well.
In Travelers they specifically reference using a T.E.L.L. and presumably some calculation as to the location and orientation of the Earth.

Well, we can imagine anything, I suppose. And maybe the universe does have a center, but I'll bet you'd have trouble nailing that down to inside a few light years...which means, there we are. No way to do it.

 

[mongoose33]

“Effective” time travel at least into the future is super simple and probably requires the least futuristic technology through suspended animation like Buck Rodgers. Going back in time however would be more difficult although consider suspending our galaxy right when a colony ship leaves to another galaxy, then they could come back and visit earth thousands of years in the past. One issue for any type of suspended animation is that as things go on around what is in statsis preservation is key to have the time travel work.

Suspended animation is time travel? I don't think so. It's sleeping.

Do I travel through time during the interval from when I drop off to sleep to when I awake? No. I sleep.

Now, I suppose you could call that "time travel" if you want. But IMO, it's not.

 

[mcgimpkins]

Didn't Jean Claude Van Dam already solve this?

 

[divrack]

If time is relative why don't I ever get presents from it for my birthday?
Maybe because time makes fools of us all.
Of course assuming a possible time machine is the easy part. Much harder is defining what the I is and how consciousness is manifested. In this scenario we would have to assume that self is a manifestation of the brain processinng change and so I don't think there's any real problem. Any time travel would necessitate the splitting of the person, but also the splitting of the universe, although probably only really feasible in an infinitely branching infinity of universes.. but I don't think that is an outrageous proposition. I think infinite infinity is easier to countenance than a limited and specific universe.