The Garden of Eden

Originally posted by Suzianne
But the actions that you take if/when you go back in time define the now current present. It's like that 'quantum eraser' you were talking about. There is no paradox, really. If you did go back in time and killed your grandfather and then went forward to your heretofore 'present' time, you would have never existed in that timeline. You would not ...[text shortened]... erefore the problem with reverse time travel is not a 'paradox' problem, but a mathematical one.

I didn't know Big Al (so I never got a chance to ask him) but I don't think he believed it's possible to re-live events that have already come and gone. But I do believe the paradoxes he came up with were more than just interesting scenarios when considering time travel... looking for paradoxes is a good tool for either verifying or finding fault with something that can't easily be confirmed by experimentation or observation.

Here's an example of something a few ancient mathematicians and philosophers discovered when thinking about the universe... a paradox crops up when considering an infinite number of past events (the eternally existing universe). One part of the kalam cosmological argument says the universe had a beginning. This wasn't just a guess or wishful thinking, it was believed the universe had a beginning because of paradoxes that occur when considering an infinite number of past events.

For example, if I have an infinite number of marbles and give you all of the even numbered ones (2, 4, 6, 8, and so on) then we both end up with an infinite number of marbles... 1/2 of infinite = infinite. Or if I keep 4 four of them and give you all the rest, then I have 4 and you have an infinite number... infinite minus 4 equals infinite. In both those cases you end up with an infinite number, but I end up with 4 in one of those operations and an infinite number after giving half of that infinite number to you. But if I give you all of my marbles, then you get an infinite number and I end up with zero. So with those three math operations you get the same number of marbles but I end up getting different numbers. The reason this can happen is because it's not possible to transverse the infinite... it's one of those math operations that can't be done, just like dividing by zero can't be done, so it's not allowed in math operations.

It's interesting to me personally that the big bang theory has only been the universally accepted theory for less than a hundred years, when for a few thousand years the static (or eternally existing) universe was the universally accepted idea... and aside from the Genesis account, the kalam cosmological argument was the only other exception to the belief in an eternally existing universe.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But the actions that you take if/when you go back in time define the now current present. It's like that 'quantum eraser' you were talking about. There is no paradox, really. If you did go back in time and killed your grandfather and then went forward to your heretofore 'present' time, you would have never existed in that timeline. You would not ...[text shortened]... erefore the problem with reverse time travel is not a 'paradox' problem, but a mathematical one.

Actually it would still be a paradox, because in order for me to continue to exist I would have had to exist to begin with. If I didn't begin to exist, then I couldn't continue to exist, because my continued existence is completely dependent on the beginning of my existence.

This is only my opinion, but I don't believe it's possible to form alternate timelines, because to do so would mean the creation of something new for everyone else as well. From my perspective (point of view) there is only one timeline... mine. And the same is true for everyone else. So whether my life continues along a straight line, or loops backs and retraces a period of time before I was born, my particular timeline can still be traced along one continuous line, from birth to death. But even if it was possible to go back and retrace a period of time before I began (was conceived and born), it still wouldn't work to create a whole new or additional timeline for everyone (and everything) else.

This reminds me of some debates I've had with evolutionists who insist evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Beginnings are important... it makes no sense to talk about what happens after an initial event if that initial event never happened. Something has to happen in order for what happens later to continue happening, so beginnings cannot be ignored or easily dismissed. You can't negate your own existence (as though it never happened) after you began to exist, and evolution is absolutely dependent on abiogenesis... if something is true, it either had to start somewhere or it had to have always existed.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It's interesting to me personally that the big bang theory has only been the universally accepted theory for less than a hundred years, when for a few thousand years the static (or eternally existing) universe was the universally accepted idea.

There have been great strides forward made in a whole range of fields of human endeavour in the last hundred years.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That was my take on it. If there was this quantum law that prevents you from killing your grampa, at what point in time would you have disappeared? The moment you hit the GO button on the time machine, if your MO was to specifically off gramps? Later, when Gramps actually dies?
That kind of interaction didn't seem right to me. It seemed to me like you sai ...[text shortened]... enetic scientists would be left scratching their heads trying to figure out where you came from.

That's a good one. I've never thought about it from a genetics point of view. I suppose you could tell those head scratching scientists you were from the future, and the reason your genetic make up doesn't make sense is because you killed the only genetic link leading up to you. But if you tell them that they might send you over to another (different) group of scientists... the kind who specialize in tinkering with your mind until you start saying things that don't sound quite so bizarre.

Or maybe, if you're lucky, you might be awarded a Nobel prize in cosmoquantum astrobiological multilinear zero-negative time deconstructional physics... whatever that is!

Originally posted by FMF
There have been great strides forward made in a whole range of fields of human endeavour in the last hundred years.

Could time travel a hundred years into the past be seen as making a great stride backwards?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Could time travel a hundred years into the past be seen as making a great stride backwards?

What time travel are you talking about?

Originally posted by FMF
What time travel are you talking about?

What do you mean? Who is talking about time travel?


did I miss something?

Originally posted by lemon lime
What do you mean? Who is talking about time travel?


did I miss something?

There is no "time travel a hundred years into the past".

Originally posted by FMF
There is no "time travel a hundred years into the past".

Was there wacky tobacky growing in the Garden of Eden? How will we ever know if time travel into the past is not possible?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Was there wacky tobacky growing in the Garden of Eden? How will we ever know if time travel into the past is not possible?

I'll leave those two questions to you. My point ~ in reply to your comment about the big bang theory ~ was that there have been great strides forward in the various fields of human endeavour in the last hundred years, so what people may have thought for thousands of years prior to that is up against stiff opposition in terms of the current scope of human knowledge and discovery.

Originally posted by FMF
I'll leave those two questions to you. My point ~ in reply to your comment about the big bang theory ~ was that there have been great strides forward in the various fields of human endeavour in the last hundred years, so what people may have thought for thousands of years prior to that is up against stiff opposition in terms of the current scope of human knowledge and discovery.

Other than the two exceptions I noted (the Genesis account and kalam cosmological argument) what "they" thought and believed for thousands of years was wrong. And much of what we believe today could also be wrong, especially in regard to unproven theories based on sketchy evidence.

For all we know Dark Matter/Energy could someday disappear in the "aether of space", the way aether itself suddenly disappeared when it was shown how light could propagate in a vacuum without the help of some unknown "aether". We are always making the same mistake that any previous generation has made... we want to believe in unproven theories, and the worst of those are theories designed to be stop gaps and supports for other unproven theories.

Originally posted by lemon lime
And much of what we believe today could also be wrong, especially in regard to unproven theories based on sketchy evidence.

Sure. Could be. And I am sure we will continue to make forward strides. You think "the Genesis account" might be right?

Originally posted by FMF
Sure. And I am sure we will continue to make forward strides. You think "the Genesis account" might be right?

When the big bang theory was new, most of the resistance to this brand new theory came from scientists who said it resembled the Genesis account of creation. That was basically their argument for refuting the big bang theory.

But after a few years more evidence was found (such as background microwave radiation), and at some point evidence pointing to the universe beginning from a single point became irrefutable. I wonder what happened to all of those paranoid scientists, who were convinced it was some kind of theist plot to subvert the minds of our youngsters... LOL. Apparently the subversive plot worked. Or would have, if most scientists hadn't gotten on board.... and now they pretend it never had anything to do with religion.

If it was a brand new theory today it would probably be called "creationism", and atheists might claim it's an attempt by theists to subvert science... they would claim it's not really science. That is basically what was being said about it back when the big bang was a new theory.

Originally posted by lemon lime
When the big bang theory was new, most of the resistance to this brand new theory came from scientists who said it resembled the Genesis account of creation. That was basically their argument for refuting the big bang theory.

But after a few years more evidence was found (such as background microwave radiation), and at some point evidence pointing to t ...[text shortened]... science. That is basically what was being said about it back when the big bang was a new theory.

So do you think "the Genesis account" might be "right"?

Originally posted by FMF
So do you think "the Genesis account" might be "right"?

Before the big bang theory became accepted as fact, atheists would routinely point to the first three words of Genesis and claim it was wrong, because most scientists were saying the universe had no beginning. Do you also think the Genesis account is wrong... do you believe our universe has always existed, and had no beginning?