The grandfather paradox is a paradox of time travel, supposedly first conceived by the science fiction writer René Barjavel in his book "Future times three" ("Le voyageur imprudent", 1943). Suppose you travelled back in time and killed your biological grandfather before he met your grandmother. Then you would never have been conceived, so you could not have travelled back in time after all. In that case, your grandfather would still be alive and you would have been conceived, allowing you to travel back in time and kill your grandfather, and so on.
The above is quoted from wikipedia.
Is this possible? When "X" kills his grandfather "X" causes a baby version of "X" never to be born. If "X" is able to do the act of killing his grandfather it seems it would not be able to be undone because it is a past event. It seems that "X" would be a added part to that timeline and not related to it in anyway and not affected by anything directly that takes place there as long as it does not affect "X" directly. Such as the grandfather shoots "X" in the leg before he dies then "X" will always have a limp no matter where "X" is. The grandfather will die and "X" would be left on that planet to continue on with life.
Now that timeline that the grandfather was shot on will not have a version of "X" called "Y" to come back in a time machine and kill the grandfather in another timeline. Is it possible that such a occurance is a cycle? By that "Y" never existing because "X" killed his grandfather it seems that the timeline where "Y" would have come back to to kill his grandfather would remain just as the original one that "X" came from. I see how the idea that the grandfather paradox presents is possible just not on the same timeline. It seems it would work well on just 2 timelines that cycled.
While it may be possible that there is a infinite amount of timelines that are identical or nearly identical that can be returned to and influenced because they are actually happening at the same time as the original timeline just behind it. I beleive it to be a question if you are actually going back in time or are traveling to a different timeline that is just behind yours. If you were to travel back in time would not those actions already have happened and you would just be actually watching them take place unable to make contact with anything.
The problem with the Grandfather Paradox theory is that when a event takes place it is history. It can't be affected by anything because it has happened before the repercussions take place. While "X" may just evaparote under some reasoning that I can't see, that grandfather is surely dead in that timeline. If by killing the grandfather "X" was to no longer exist what would happen to that time that "X" was on. Would it stop to exist also. Would time be restarted from the begining to give the grandfather back his life because his son was not actually able to come back and do the deed. It seems imposible because it is already based on the idea that the son was able to come back and pull the trigger and kill the grandfather. It seems to suggest that multiple timelines must exist for any of these things to be possible.
If there is just 1 timeline that everything exist on does it exist from start to end or from start to infinite. During the life of "X" the only time that "X" could ever hope to go to and not find 2 of him, either as a child or a old man would be the exact time that he left. Not a thousandth of a second behind or forward or there would be another. It seems that exact time is his timeline and everyother time is anothers.
These are just some of the ideas I had on the Grandfather Paradox, it just does not seem to stand up to logic to me. Perhaps I am looking at it the wrong way. When I read it I surely believe it talks about 1 timeline. How else could it directly effect "X" if it's not 1 timeline and that one of course being "X"s. How can "X" kill his grandfather and not kill his grandfather because he does not exist, he never would have been able to do it the first time. At some time he existed and he killed his grandfather, for him to then unexist and his grandfather to return to life time would have to move backwards to before the time that the grandfather was shot. It would then either continue on until the time a time machine was invented and the son came back, or the son would come back in a time machine and once again kill the grandfather,(unless freewill is such that choices are made and can differ even if all the leading events are 100% the same, which one assumes effects the decision at a 100% accuracy, at least I do). Either way time gets stuck in repeat. Is the world just a video tape God left in the VCR and it is playing through and stoping and rewinding and playing through again?
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Sorry for all the it seems, I don't like saying anything as if it was a certainty for I am sure I am wrong and that at the least someone will be able to point out many ideas that at least cause for multiple possiblities. For if not then this would be no longer a theory and we would not be talking about philosophy but science and I don't do science, j/k.
I am not submitting this for any reason other then to hear people thoughts on the subject and often when I read things that don't add up to me I would like to talk about them. But unfortunatly talking about things such as this with the average person is not possible for one even though these things are not indepth at all it seems to go over their head or over their interest.
The above is quoted from wikipedia.
Is this possible? When "X" kills his grandfather "X" causes a baby version of "X" never to be born. If "X" is able to do the act of killing his grandfather it seems it would not be able to be undone because it is a past event. It seems that "X" would be a added part to that timeline and not related to it in anyway and not affected by anything directly that takes place there as long as it does not affect "X" directly. Such as the grandfather shoots "X" in the leg before he dies then "X" will always have a limp no matter where "X" is. The grandfather will die and "X" would be left on that planet to continue on with life.
Now that timeline that the grandfather was shot on will not have a version of "X" called "Y" to come back in a time machine and kill the grandfather in another timeline. Is it possible that such a occurance is a cycle? By that "Y" never existing because "X" killed his grandfather it seems that the timeline where "Y" would have come back to to kill his grandfather would remain just as the original one that "X" came from. I see how the idea that the grandfather paradox presents is possible just not on the same timeline. It seems it would work well on just 2 timelines that cycled.
While it may be possible that there is a infinite amount of timelines that are identical or nearly identical that can be returned to and influenced because they are actually happening at the same time as the original timeline just behind it. I beleive it to be a question if you are actually going back in time or are traveling to a different timeline that is just behind yours. If you were to travel back in time would not those actions already have happened and you would just be actually watching them take place unable to make contact with anything.
The problem with the Grandfather Paradox theory is that when a event takes place it is history. It can't be affected by anything because it has happened before the repercussions take place. While "X" may just evaparote under some reasoning that I can't see, that grandfather is surely dead in that timeline. If by killing the grandfather "X" was to no longer exist what would happen to that time that "X" was on. Would it stop to exist also. Would time be restarted from the begining to give the grandfather back his life because his son was not actually able to come back and do the deed. It seems imposible because it is already based on the idea that the son was able to come back and pull the trigger and kill the grandfather. It seems to suggest that multiple timelines must exist for any of these things to be possible.
If there is just 1 timeline that everything exist on does it exist from start to end or from start to infinite. During the life of "X" the only time that "X" could ever hope to go to and not find 2 of him, either as a child or a old man would be the exact time that he left. Not a thousandth of a second behind or forward or there would be another. It seems that exact time is his timeline and everyother time is anothers.
These are just some of the ideas I had on the Grandfather Paradox, it just does not seem to stand up to logic to me. Perhaps I am looking at it the wrong way. When I read it I surely believe it talks about 1 timeline. How else could it directly effect "X" if it's not 1 timeline and that one of course being "X"s. How can "X" kill his grandfather and not kill his grandfather because he does not exist, he never would have been able to do it the first time. At some time he existed and he killed his grandfather, for him to then unexist and his grandfather to return to life time would have to move backwards to before the time that the grandfather was shot. It would then either continue on until the time a time machine was invented and the son came back, or the son would come back in a time machine and once again kill the grandfather,(unless freewill is such that choices are made and can differ even if all the leading events are 100% the same, which one assumes effects the decision at a 100% accuracy, at least I do). Either way time gets stuck in repeat. Is the world just a video tape God left in the VCR and it is playing through and stoping and rewinding and playing through again?
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Sorry for all the it seems, I don't like saying anything as if it was a certainty for I am sure I am wrong and that at the least someone will be able to point out many ideas that at least cause for multiple possiblities. For if not then this would be no longer a theory and we would not be talking about philosophy but science and I don't do science, j/k.
I am not submitting this for any reason other then to hear people thoughts on the subject and often when I read things that don't add up to me I would like to talk about them. But unfortunatly talking about things such as this with the average person is not possible for one even though these things are not indepth at all it seems to go over their head or over their interest.