What Do I Not Understand About Time Travel

>>19552342
Personally I believe time travel is only possible via an AI travelling through the Internet

File: Screenshot_20170906-165726.png (403KB, 617x617px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 617x617px

>>19552342
Time travel is real, though it's only been observed at the quantum level. Look up delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.

>>19552687
>Look up delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.
I'm not going to insult you or argue, but I BEG you to please research the subject properly before making such statements in public. You are misinterpreting the fundamental aspect of Quantum Mechanics to a point where you are drawing the wrong conclusions.

It's a spooky experiment, but for totally different reasons than what you think.

>>19552703
well what should I look up then?

>>19552738
Actually, I take it back.

It's not that you're wrong per se, but you're not right either. We haven't conclusively proved anything. It MAY infact violate causality, it may not. We simply don't know enough at this point in time to be making definitive statements like you have above. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of theories as to why the experiment unfolds the way it does. Just hold off on making definitive statements, that's all I advise. It'll land you in the shit.

My bad.

>>19552342

Reality folding. Overlay your current 4 co-ordinates with the 4 co-ordinates of the desired point then hop from your current co-ordinates to the desired co-ordinates. Simple =/= easy, however.

>>19552342
Human time travel is never invented as no one has met anyone from the future

File: point-a-to-b.gif (2KB, 500x279px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 500x279px

I said this yesterday but I'll say it again....

In order to understand 'time travel' you must first understand what 'time' actually is.

There is no 'timeline'. You can't jump into a machine and travel through/along some linear line to the past like in Back to the Future. That's not what time is. Time is change. A particle moves from A to B, we measure it, and create a linear model in our head. "Ok, it was at A, now it's at B". It changed states. It didn't move 'forward' through time, it just changed. Time, or our model of time, is the measurement of changes between states. The cells in your body degrade, we measure this, and say you got 'older'. You didn't travel forward through time, your body just changed.

We confuse words like 'past' and 'future' by thinking they're actual places which we can travel to, but that's wrong. It's a human error related to language and how our brains function.

Time travel backwards is theoretically possible if you return every particle in the Universe to a previous state. If you move the particle from B to A, essentially, it's traveled 'backwards' in time. Obviously though, our use of the word 'backwards' is wrong.

Time Travel 'forwards' is just time dilation. The closer you are to a heavy mass like our planet, the slower things change relative to something far away. To the far away observer it would appear that you're moving slower than they are. So, if you circled the planet for 100 years and then returned to the observer you'd have aged less than they have. You didn't 'time travel forwards', you just changed at a different rate than what they did.

That's the best I can explain it without using math. Hope this helped. Feel free to ask questions if you have any, or just call me a retard if you must.

captcha: fermata udibert

What I don't get about time travel is why we would travel with our entire body? Most people depict it as that but I don't think that's quite possible because in order to do the time traveling you would need to dematerialize yourself and rematerialize yourself at a further or earlier point of life.

Wouldn't it make more sense to send your brain or mind through time? I mean you would just erase the mind from earlier or later with your current mind. Or maybe you would add your current mind to the mind of past you or future you.

What do you guys think is the more logical way of time traveling?

I this is dubs, Cthulhu is real

>>19553095
I just told ya bro >>19552970

Forget about going backwards, you can't. Going forwards is easy. Just fly away, find a black hole, circle it for a few years, then return home. Everyone will be old and wrinkly but you'll still be young and juicy.

time isn't necessarily linear, we just perceive it that way. one theory is that spacetime is a solid, fixed structure. it's hard to imagine, most thought examples compare it to the difference between a 2d plane and a 3d object.

i think that the idea is there's no past or future, just different points in a structure. and if spacetime is a structure, rather than some sort of moving stream, it would be theoretically possible to alter time.

it sounds cliche, but its possible time has been altered at some point, but because we as living beings are completely a part of spacetime, we wouldn't notice anything different. our memories would automatically be changed to reflect the new shape of time, because we are part of it.

imagine trying to cut a hole in a blanket without making any of the individual threads any shorter. its not possible; changing the structure means changing all of it, even our memories of it.

not saying that it has happened, just that it could have.

also please correct me if you understand this theory better than i do.

>>19552825
>>19552970
wow non-retard responses I'm shocked, I still don't really understand this shit but that sounds closer to correct from what I've read.

>>19553095
So perhaps instead of having the energy to move every particle in the universe in some other parallel universe you only store memories outside of the current rate of time of the other universe and only drop the little particlets that pertain to the memory part of someones mind
that would take less energy than fucking with the entire other universe
either way if you're messing with someones memories inside the current universe by say implanting future memories into someones mind
or if you're just fucking with the entire universe you're probably not having good intentions considering the ramifications of changing even small parts of the timeline of that universe

>>19553095
so you're talking "peggy sue got married" or "13 going on 30" rules, as opposed to "back to the future" rules.

of course that only works if you want to travel within your own lifespan, go too far either way and you're either dead or not born.

>>19553149
if you really had some badass parallel universe inside a multiverse of infinite universes and you hopped around then back to the future rules would work right?
though funny thing if it's not really people doing the time travel but giving them the ability in a certain universe to evolve to time travel to then see what they do in other universes
lemme smoke some more kush NOMASAYNE?!?!?!

>>19553145
It'd be easier to construct a 'simulation' of the past.

>>19553166
... also, in the future, it's entirely possible for someone to 'simulate' you. The simulated you would be you, not some copy, but actually you.

Bit of a mindfuck I know.

>>19553166
I disagree a true sim would need real particles and therefore in the same universe you could not just create extras, you need another universe to use

>>19552342
There was a Coast to Coast episode on time travel.

>>19553187
I am sure you are gonna love my next trick remember no resetting.

>>19553149
>>19553160
lol yeah i think i see what you're saying, that would mean like layers and layers of universes, some that can be accessed and altered by time travel, and some that are outside those just to observe. so from your main universe you fuck with the smaller multiverses with time travel to see what would happen?

although now that we're thinking about movies, "hot tub time machine" had both of those types of time travel, right? like three of the guys go into their younger bodies, but the young guy that isn't born yet is just in his current body, but back in time.

has anyone seen "primer"? took me longer to read an explanation for what happens in that movie than it did to watch it.

>>19553187
A true sim would only need to 'appear' to have particles.

Diving off the deep end here.... Particles (in this universe) only exist as a probability distribution until you actually measure one, right. A simulation could easily replicate this. Also, seeing as there are only 7.5 billion people on the planet, it would only have to simulate particles for 7.5 billion people. It wouldn't have to simulate an entire Universe of particles.

>>19553202
The funny thing is all you would have to have to do is have one of them have a convo about it right? The coincidences are interesting I guess you expect me to crack? I'm too strong I've crawled back to life multiple times I'm ready for the shit don't you worry...
righteous visions don't lie

>>19553095
Steins;Gate seemed logical to me for the same reasons.

>>19553238
Well then I guess you're going more for the Altered Carbon approach where you basically have the stacks for everyone stored but everyone is on the same server as it were where the simulation is being played out. Either way then that opens up the question which simulation is actual reality because there's nothing stopping a simulation of the stacks on servers world where they think they are in the real world however they are also a sim
it's sort of solipsism in a way but saying that other people are also here experiencing the sim
really though then for all intents you're not alive in the original world
you are dead and this is the afterlife

>>19553238
Not if I follow you to that shitty time frame I think you missed the point of pandoras box the trick was to keep it closed after the first opening. Not wonder if something was still their like autistic cunts and open it.

Time travelling into the past is confirmed to be logically impossible, according to our current understanding

>>19553281
Yup, we dove off the deep end.

It's all just conjecture really. Hopefully in 100 or 1000 years humans have a much better understanding of what reality actually is. At the moment, we're akin to dogs looking up at the moon.

>>19553316
That's called lowlives hunny say it with me now lowlives.

>>19553316
>>19553330

this isn't /sci/ knobheads

>>19553406
time travel is /sci/. this is a time travel thread.

yer fucken nonce.

>>19553187
multiverse makes this applicable, in theory if time is spatial, every event occuring in a seperate 'dimension' of space, (as opposed to rythmatical) then technically time travel is possible by moving through those dimensions, as they would be physical spaces so to speak. To nullify time paradox, the resulting 'time line' would in fact be another, seperate dimension in perhaps a different 'universe' as we know it.

>>19553215
basically spot on, this is what i'm tryina explain here, glad people are catching on. reincarnation is probably the system we live and die by, btw.

>>19553281
solipsism is a dirty word.

Still working on it.

>>19553483
I think he means this topic belongs in /sci/ not /x/

>>19554645
It's cool, I was just fucking with him and he knows it.

File: owo.png (35KB, 1223x585px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1223x585px

>>19552342

>>19552970
time is the measurment of change,
therefore, you have a timeline of change, or as some would fucking say....a timeline.
wouldnt of even responded if you werent such a damn pretentious fedora.

>>19556370
>therefore, you have a timeline of change, or as some would fucking say....a timeline.
No, WE create a MODEL which represents a 'timeline'. The timeline doesn't ACTUALLY exist in reality. (I'm writing in caps here to emphasise the point because you're obviously a bit dim).

Don't confuse our MODELS of reality with ACTUAL reality. They're not the same thing.

>>19556469
...eg, A Calender. The day 'Monday' doesn't actually exist in reality. It's an arbitrary name WE assign to a state. A Calender is a MODEL.

You can't travel forward to Monday. It doesn't exist.

Time travel makes you gay.

Easy, just create a simulation of the past.

>>19556747
I agree >>19553166

Glad to see there's another person here with actual braincells.

Real talk, one of three things.

1. Time Travel is not possible. At least in the conventional sense.
2.It is possible but whatever is the "present" hasn't invented it.
3. It is possible and this is the world with it.

Expansion on 2:
Since we can't know if this is THE present, whenever the actual present is, the people there have not invented it yet. It could be us, it could be future us. It could be so far in the future that we're long gone.

As for time travel in the conventional sense, there maybe naturally occurring "rifts" in time or reality(whatever that is) where people "travel" across time/reality, but if I had to guess "reality" already has that factored in/computed for how things are supposed to happen.

For example, you are sitting here reading this, but maybe the whole reason you exist is because some random person stumbled into a rift and effected things in the past causing your ancestors to meet, fuck, and have your great great great whatever. In this scenario time travel is already built into existence and reality won't allow it to be created artificially by anyone because it would break reality.

That is so convoluted and hard to read I know, but if you've put any thought into time travel, you know exactly what I mean.

>>19556781
>but if you've put any thought into time travel, you know exactly what I mean.
I've put lots of thought into time travel and have no idea what you mean.

>Since we can't know if this is THE present,
Huh? Where are we, the past?

I think you need to read this >>19552970 anon and rethink your definition of what 'time' actually IS.

>>19556794
We are in OUR present. But if we went back in time to OUR past, the people in the past would be in THEIR present. Same as if someone came to OUR present from OUR future. It'd be their past, but our present.

So we might think we're in the present now, but it might not be Present Prime, or that actual present, where there is no set future beyond that point.

Understand now?

>>19552970
I agree 100% .
I've always said that time is not something that gets permanently recorded as it goes by , and you cant choose the part of that line you want to Go.
But sadly that is the conception most of the people have.

File: 1496516922018.jpg (61KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1366x768px

>>19556475
Nice example dude

>>19556909
A clock is another example. The hands go around because of the force exerted on the cogs beneath. It's not going 'forward' through time. It's just changing states. The numbers on the face just represent

>>19556820
>Understand now?
Sorry anon but you have the entirely wrong concept of what 'time' actually is. You're deriving your concept from Back to the Future type pop sci.
>But if we went back in time to OUR past
This makes absolutely no sense. You obviously didn't read this >>19552970

Sorry, I'm not trying to flame you here. But if you want to have a discussion on time travel then you need to understand what time actually is.

>just read through this thread
What the fuck is the point of anything

>>19552970
I actually thought, after theorizing how time as space instead of as measurement of rythm so to speak, could account for time travel in some form, but after reading this i find your theory or hypothesis very interesting conceptually. I myself believe in multiple dimensions, and reincarnation as a model does require some way to account for timelines to merge in a time travel sort of fashion (but a more fluid reality more closely related to quantum mechanics in function)

I think we're both onto something, in a sense. It is easy to conclude that life after death is a given, since before we were alive, we were not alive, therefore we are alive after death by virtue of birth, and science dictates any action is reproducable in the correct circumstances, therefore being born is an event that certainly will occur multiple times in an infinite timespan and universe.

It is also easy to conclude that it must be possible to live again as a human being in the next life, it is also heavily implied that we will also come back as animals, even though such experiences are not known to us directly.

The hard part is figuring out the system and/or mechanics of how these lives are interacting, with eachother, on this stage we call 'now'

>>19556978
Data storage and data recollection. The universe is your hard drive, your consciousness is the universes' RAM memory. (and your brain, one of it's many, many, many CPUs)

I hope this has clarified ''What the fuck is the point of anything'' for you.

>>19552703
>It's a spooky experiment, but for totally different reasons than what you think.
Can you explain?

dude, this has a simple logical answer. if time travel existed, we'd see time travelers.

>>19553098
thank fuck

>>19562150

this tbqh

Determinism would suggest there is only one time line.

if time travel is possible it would be the only way to generate alternate time lines.

Assuming time travel has occurred, it would shard reality/time as we perceive it.

every instant being its own shard.

everything takes the path of least resistance, so this would be the same for reality. with some instances occurring the same being the same shard.

with all these, basically infinite, shards existing and presumably overlapping (by out perception, anyway), this would explain a lot of paranormal sightings (ghosts, sky cities, etc).

all these shards occupy the same space, over lap occurs due to higher dimensional interference, natural or otherwise.

File: 1497735040204.png (140KB, 330x236px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 330x236px

>>19552703
>>19560273
This, please spoon feed sempai

>>19552342
Time travel has been done million times. Its kinda normie by now. I know stupid word. But still. If you need to really travel time. You need really believe you can do it. You need to but your brain so that you believe in anything but at the same time.

You can noy believe anything at all. Do believe everything but do not believe in anything. Also at the same kill anybody who believes that you believe in anything or nothing.

Because everybody you know is either working for the system or the some alien species in todays planet that name is Earth.

File: 13912455_1724311097820906_3194651526938025290_n.png (657KB, 775x757px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 775x757px

>>19552342
>How can we make time travel possible? If it already is possible- what technologies are being used?

I think physically traveling through time, as we see it in some movies are not the right way of approaching it. technology-wise, maybe something that can bring us up to a higher dimension momentarily. taking our bodies would probably seem entirely too complicated or just downright impossible, but taking our consciousness (or soul?) outside this current dimension? it would pull us out to see the "big picture," where time isn't linear. where everything that has happened--and will happen, is all there in front of us. like in that Carl Sagan video where he talks about dimensions and the tesseract:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0WjV6MmCyM
@ 3:30, the 3rd dimensional being swoops up the flatlander upwards and as it is floating and falling back down, it gets a glimpse from above. it sees it's world from a different perspective. Imagine us as the flatlander, progressing through time linearly, and when we are swept upwards, we will see it all from above. a glimpse from a higher dimension.

now, if we caught a glimpse from above and fell downwards to another spot the linear path, would that be time travel? theoretically speaking this is our consciousness or soul floating up at this higher dimension. perhaps it won't go back into the vessel it originally left, and instead goes into a new one when it settles back down it's "flatlander" dimension. at that point it really kind of sounds like reincarnation, doesn't it?

Unified field theory is the key to time travel. One must cut off the particles they wish to se d through time, give them zero chance of being detected by the outside universe, then you must align the fuel with the "time" in which you wish to send your particle.

bamp

>>19552970
>We confuse words like 'past' and 'future' by thinking they're actual places which we can travel to, but that's wrong. It's a human error related to language and how our brains function.
(Transhumanist detected.)

incorrect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO_Q_f1WgQI

>>19553288
>Time travelling into the past is confirmed to be logically impossible, according to our current understanding
incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

>>19562150
>dude, this has a simple logical answer. if time travel existed, we'd see time travelers.

...
>if I don't see it, it doesn't exist.

lolilol