Jump to content

Paradoxes (for Lee)


Guest Peter J. Attwood
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Peter J. Attwood

Hi Lee.

 

You keep talking about paradoxes. Have you ever heard of the 'Cosmic Censor?' It is one of Stephen Hawkins' ideas. It states that if you did enter a time travel scenario that was restricted by paradoxes, there would be a censor to make sure none were created. This would entail that a PARADOX WAS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE. It would simply not be able to occur.

 

There are NO PARAOXES POSSIBLE meaning that there might as well be no sense of any paradox that was able to occur, as it's impossible.

 

This would still, however, differentiate your actions and surroundings because of the cosmic censor at work, instead of there being no paradox possible in the first place.

 

For example if you decided to go back and shoot your mother, the gun would misfire, brake, etc. Indeed, if this scenario of time travel is true (I strongly don't think it is), then even meeting your mother when you traveled back would be a paradox...a paradox to disable your actual existence and actions...even being here in the first place.

 

If you managed to kill your mother without any problems, maybe then the cosmic censor would simply prevent you getting back to the exact universe you came from (As it would contradict your experienced universe.

 

Remember, when putting forward theories of 'paradoxes', the only paradox is to contradict what you are doing...to contradict and make impossible YOUR actions...to contradict THE WORLD YOU CAME FORM...to contradict YOUR EXPERIENCES AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNIVERSE. Paradoxes contradict events that AFFECTED YOU up to your POINT OF TIME TRAVEL, if you like.

 

Travelling back and killing your mother may be completely possible. For all you know, you may have been adopted and no one had told you.

 

The universe may even change to account for your time travelling actions. Just like it does if you walk down the street kicking a ball up - gravity pulls it down - the universe has changed. Maybe the universe will change if you alter and travel in time. Maybe it's as simple as that.

 

On a dimensional scale, I walk to college and back, is there a paradox? NO! Why should there be one if I travel in the time dimension?

 

Paradoxes are not worth thinking of as they never happen (universe is changed and catered for), or simply prevent time travel in the first place.

 

Here are some Time Travel scenarios:

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Frank Tipler's Rotating Cylinder/Ultra-Density Theory.

 

Exotic/photonic Propulsion Theory.

 

Chrononic Hyperbole Theory.

 

Temporal Displacement Theory.

 

Natural Acceptance/Unnoticed Theory.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You have probably come across most of them. If you want to know more about any of them, then just post in or e-mail me.

 

Thanks

 

pja

 

Chronovisor Sources

 

iframe{width: 1px;min-width: 100%; border:none}

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Peter. Thanks for the reply.

 

Yes I've read Hawking's Censor idea where he has his own eloquent way of describing the mechanics of that which is only common sense to the average man like myself. The first I heard of this idea of "no paradoxes possible" was in Robert Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love" but he never goes into the details of explaining HOW they are not possible like Hawking is able to do. Larry Niven took a shot at it in "A World Out of Time" between follow-ups to his original "Ringworld".

 

I think Hawking is actually pulling our leg a little here as he is known to do in that he is postulating a remedy for something I don't think he really believes in, in the first place. Namely, the kind of "classic" Time Travel defined within a single reality or timeline continuim. But then Hawking can give us a theory that negates the necessity of God to go along with his theory that requires one. That's what I love about him.

 

That pragmatist in me that has read some (but not all) of the theories you referred to above, (and thank you for the reference) has been caught up for years in the problems with conventional or standard quantum theory. This whole Heidelberg Uncertainty Principle has for years been abhorrant to me. Not because it correctly points out certain inabilities we have in correlating position/momentum problems with regard to simultaneity, but its implication that we will NEVER BE ABLE to resolve this. I also have some serious problems with standard quantum theory (SQT) regarding the alledged cause/effect reversals we "seem" to see. I use the terms "seem" and "allege" because to me, they are just that. Allegations and nothing more. Even Einstein had problems with this and had a running debate with Neils Bohr right up to his death over some of the implications. He (Einstein) called the problems with quantum theory to be akin to "some silly force from afar" or something similar to that, particularly regarding the cause/effect problems. Einstein and some other of his collegues set up several thought experiments that SQT can't account for.

 

Recently, (1996) Dr. Lewis Little has come forth with his Theory of Elementary Waves. (Hawking has also gotten into something similar to this lately also.) It is setting SQT on its ear and ruffling a few feathers to say the least. It exposes the "uncertainty principle" and the cause/effect reversal to be what I've believed for some time. That they are illusions of intellectual surrender. Postulations based on what were flawed assumptions in the first place. Little's TEW reconciles with relativity perfectly and explains the folly of wave-particle/particle-wave anti-consensus. I would invite anyone to review an outline of this work at:

 

http://compbio.caltech.edu/~sjs/tew.html

 

on the Cal-Tech web site.

 

It will explain why I do not believe Time Travel will ever be possible, (since I don't believe "Time" as we describe it really exists), and why I believe Multiversity is NOT Time Travel, although for me the jury is still out on the validity of Multiversity itself.

 

I'm NOT saying Little says this, just that his conclusions reinforce why _I_ believe this.

 

I agree with YOU that paradoxes are NOT possible and CANNOT occur. For me that fact is one of the reasons I hypothesize the impossibility of Time Travel in any classic sense. There is no scenario one can describe that does NOT lead to the possibility of one. Ergo, my Ocamm's Razor says the universe is simply not complicated enough to provide the opportunity for the possibility thru the frivolity of Time Travel. (Smile). Anything that leads to that which can't happen, cannot itself exist. But I'm always ready to hoist a glass to the idea.

 

I will check out the theory references you gave that I have not looked into, and again, I thank you for your time in our interesting discourse.

 

Regards,

 

Lee

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...