What is a time traveler?

P

PaulaJedi

Rift Surfer
What is a time traveler?

Is a time traveler simply a living being that can jump from time period to time period?

Are we all time travelers because we are moving forward through time?

Thoughts?

 
I always considered everyone alive is kind of a time traveler because we are "moving forward through time", but now I see that everyone change in every moment, your cells dies and are replaced, your memories go away and get "blurry", every time you wake up you are a diferent person, so I can't say what we really are.

 
First we need to define "what is time?", which is an unanswered question, because honestly, no one really knows. Without that answer, is useless to talk about time travelers.

 
First we need to define "what is time?", which is an unanswered question, because honestly, no one really knows. Without that answer, is useless to talk about time travelers.
Click to expand...
Interesting to consider it useless to discuss.  This whole entire site is based on the subject.   O.o    xD

 
Interesting to consider it useless to discuss.  This whole entire site is based on the subject.   O.o    xD
Click to expand...
hahahaha that's true, but my point is that everyone "knows" what time is, but as soon as you ask to anyone "what is time", they will inevitably answer you with something containing the same word you are asking for: time. Basically we know what a time traveler is, but we are unable to define what is he traveling through.

 
hahahaha that's true, but my point is that everyone "knows" what time is, but as soon as you ask to anyone "what is time", they will inevitably answer you with something containing the same word you are asking for: time. Basically we know what a time traveler is, but we are unable to define what is he traveling through.
Click to expand...
Exactly.  Can we travel "through" time? Is it a dimension or is it just a mere measurement humanity has applied to an abstract concept?

 
Time is the measure of entropy.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-thermo/
Click to expand...
I wouldn´t be so optimistic about time and entropy. If there is a way of traveling through time, whatever that is, means that it's not absolute, but entropy is. You can reduce entropy in some controlled system, but increasing it in the universal scheme. So if time moves towards higher entropy, what happens then when you move back in time? In the time of arrival is entropy lower?

 
There are some questions unanswered about entropy.  "Another question is whether the Second Law is universal? That is, does it apply to the universe as a whole, so that we can say the universe's entropy is increasing, or does it only apply to select sub-systems of the universe?  " quoting the link i left. Sorry for my bad english im not a native speaker. Read the link, its interesting.

 
hahahaha that's true, but my point is that everyone "knows" what time is, but as soon as you ask to anyone "what is time", they will inevitably answer you with something containing the same word you are asking for: time. Basically we know what a time traveler is, but we are unable to define what is he traveling through.
Click to expand...
Give me another word for time and I would gladly use it. I'm not gullible enough to believe my answer was insufficient.

 
Give me another word for time and I would gladly use it. I'm not gullible enough to believe my answer was insufficient.
Click to expand...
That's the point, it doesn´t matter what you call it, it's that you are trying to define a concept, using the same concept. Is like trying to describe a color, can you describe color blue, without saying blue? You can point things that are blue, but you are unable to describe it for what it is. Maybe you could say that is light with a certain wavelength, but we haven´t found the "wavelength" that describes time. 
In your last post you were talking about time travelers, so there is no problem with using the word "time", it is in it's definition that you shouldn´t be allowed to use it.

 
There are some questions unanswered about entropy.  "Another question is whether the Second Law is universal? That is, does it apply to the universe as a whole, so that we can say the universe's entropy is increasing, or does it only apply to select sub-systems of the universe?  " quoting the link i left. Sorry for my bad english im not a native speaker. Read the link, its interesting.
Click to expand...
That's true, I will read the link! And that's ok with, I'm not native either  :D

 
That's the point, it doesn´t matter what you call it, it's that you are trying to define a concept, using the same concept. Is like trying to describe a color, can you describe color blue, without saying blue? You can point things that are blue, but you are unable to describe it for what it is. Maybe you could say that is light with a certain wavelength, but we haven´t found the "wavelength" that describes time. In your last post you were talking about time travelers, so there is no problem with using the word "time", it is in it's definition that you shouldn´t be allowed to use it.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how someone asking what a particular color is, then pointing it out to them isn't the same as telling them what the color is. The same principles hold true to describing anything. Take this example, an individual asks you what an apple is. You tell them it is a fruit that grows from a tree and can come in a variety of colors. Now I ask you, is this not the same as telling them what an apple is, even tho you are using the same concept to describe what an apple is?
Now taking the color example, if someone asks you what a color is, and you tell them color is the shades and hues that bring to life the very world around you. Telling them that color is a variant of the wavelength of light that is only perceivable because the wavelength frequency is at a constant that allows that particular color to be perceived by our eyes. Is that not the same as pointing to objects and telling the individual "that is a color" then proceeding to name the color?

When describing anything, even time, you must use the same concept that is what you are describing. I'm not trying to debate or the like, I just find that people on this forum tend to overlook the simpler solutions in favor of something more complex. The human brain is built for success so I think I can see why some would disregard rationalism in favor of a more complex way of describing things.

 
I don't understand how someone asking what a particular color is, then pointing it out to them isn't the same as telling them what the color is. The same principles hold true to describing anything. Take this example, an individual asks you what an apple is. You tell them it is a fruit that grows from a tree and can come in a variety of colors. Now I ask you, is this not the same as telling them what an apple is, even tho you are using the same concept to describe what an apple is?Now taking the color example, if someone asks you what a color is, and you tell them color is the shades and hues that bring to life the very world around you. Telling them that color is a variant of the wavelength of light that is only perceivable because the wavelength frequency is at a constant that allows that particular color to be perceived by our eyes. Is that not the same as pointing to objects and telling the individual "that is a color" then proceeding to name the color?

When describing anything, even time, you must use the same concept that is what you are describing. I'm not trying to debate or the like, I just find that people on this forum tend to overlook the simpler solutions in favor of something more complex. The human brain is built for success so I think I can see why some would disregard rationalism in favor of a more complex way of describing things.
Click to expand...
I think this discussion is about philosophy. About the impossibility of knowing (really knowing, understanding) the object of study or the multiple phenomena that are part of our universe. We as humans measure things, those measures come in the form of data which we can translate to our understanding. Defining things through their properties is a valid way of defining i think. Philosophical definitions are complex and require more elaboration, such as new vocabulary. Languages evolved in a functional way not a philosophical one. Its easier for me to tell you how to build a house than  explaining  what i understand for time, universe, dot, color, freedom, etcetra.

 
I don't understand how someone asking what a particular color is, then pointing it out to them isn't the same as telling them what the color is. The same principles hold true to describing anything. Take this example, an individual asks you what an apple is. You tell them it is a fruit that grows from a tree and can come in a variety of colors. Now I ask you, is this not the same as telling them what an apple is, even tho you are using the same concept to describe what an apple is?Now taking the color example, if someone asks you what a color is, and you tell them color is the shades and hues that bring to life the very world around you. Telling them that color is a variant of the wavelength of light that is only perceivable because the wavelength frequency is at a constant that allows that particular color to be perceived by our eyes. Is that not the same as pointing to objects and telling the individual "that is a color" then proceeding to name the color?

When describing anything, even time, you must use the same concept that is what you are describing. I'm not trying to debate or the like, I just find that people on this forum tend to overlook the simpler solutions in favor of something more complex. The human brain is built for success so I think I can see why some would disregard rationalism in favor of a more complex way of describing things.
Click to expand...
I agree with L0B0 that this is turning to more philosophy, and also take the apple example as a satisfactory answer. But time, as abstract as it is, is not "pointable", there is no way to show someone what time is, like with the apple. Maybe a watch, but that is not time either, is just a mere cyclic machine.
There's a dead end trying to grasp the abstract, let's just use it as a "known" playground where we can put time travelers to play. :)

 
Back
Top