What would happen if you went back in time and killed your grandfather?

[mitsuki lover]

We could all go back in time and kill whoever started the thread so the thread would never be started in the first place.

[Pent]

But then we would have had no reason to go back in time and kill them in the first place.

Killing for something they haven't done yet, is that ethical? lol.

[Nate]

That's like the movie Minority Report, where that computer thingy predicted murders and people began being arrested for crimes they had not committed yet. I think the movie was lame, but the premise is pretty interesting.

[SnoringFrog]

We could all go back in time and kill whoever started the thread so the thread would never be started in the first place.

NO! Don't do that, please. I don't want to die a couple months ago.

Anyways, I said I'd get this posted. Even thought it's not really about time travel, it's (kinda) about the multi-verse theory, which we discussed in this thread.


God, eternity, and everything in accordance with and in relation to multi-(uni)verse theory:

There are two primary ways I would like to discuss in which the multi-verse theory deals with Christianity and God. (1) If God is supreme ruled over all of he universes, or (2) God Himself is just a part of these multi-verses, and there is God for every universe, or possibly some universes without Him at all, but before I get into either of these topics, I will first explain the multi-verse theory.


Multi-verse theory:

Often used in discussing the possibilities of time travel and is results, the multi-verse theory says that for every possible outcome or decision anyone could have made, there is a universe that reflects that. For example, let's say that you are standing at a two-way split in a road. If you were to take the right road, another universe in which you took the left road would simultaneously appear (diagram B). Now, let's say there are two people standing on different sides of the world, both facing similar two-way divisions in their routes of travel. If both take the right road, a universe in which you both go left, you go right and they go left, and you go left and they go right, would all be created instantly (diagram C), and this process would continue for every decision made in each universe(diagram D). This is only a very basic depiction of this theory]tenere[/i], Latin for "to hold" + (uni)verse) seeing as how it holds a group of multi-verses.

I will refer to this theory as merely the tenera-universe theory for the majority of the rest of this, but if I add in the (polymulti-) it is because I what I am saying requires that both the polymulti-verse theory and the tenera-universe theory be considered together, and not just the tenera-universe theory. Otherwise, what I am saying can probably be considered with both theories or just the tenera-universe theory in mind.


Multi-verse theory, polymulti-verse theory, and tenera-universe theory regarding God and eternity and everything 1:

God could be the supreme ruler over the entire multi-verse; meaning all of the countless universes within it would be subject to His power and rule. As for Heaven and Hell, there could be only one that is all-inclusive to everybody in all of the multi-verse, or there could be a separate Heaven and Hell for each individual universe. The latter seems more logical to me,
considering that the former would result in near-infinite versions of yourself located in both places for eternity, while the latter would have simply one of you total for both Heaven and Hell. Also, the former could result in myriads of people arriving in both Heaven and Hell well past the rapture, unless every universe in the multi-verse had its rapture at the same time.

This theory is the one that seems to go along with Christianity the best, because it does not seem to, in any way, diminish God's omnipotence.

Bringing the polymulti-verse theory into this requires even more consideration. Assuming that the polymulti-verse theory is correct, and that the above statement that God is the ruler over the entire multi-verse is correct, more questions arise. If God is ruler over the entire multi-verse, but there are numerous multi-verses, is He ruler over all of the multi-verses, or just the one in which He is located, and there would then be other "versions" of Him ruling over the other multi-verses? I believe the idea that He is ruler over all of the multi-verses is easier to comprehend, but I still believe the other is plausible, despite being harder to grasp.

And then, to take it a step further, brining in the tenera-(polymulti)universe theory makes it even more addling. Let us say that God is ruler over all of the multi-verses. Is He then ruler over the tenerverse as well? or is He contained within the tenerverse? And, if there were more than one tenerverse, the same thoughts I discussed just prior to this would need to be considered as well.



http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f160/SnoringFrog/Halfamomentinamultiverse.jpg

The link is diagram E is was too big to upload.

[SnoringFrog]

Multi-verse theory, polymulti-verse theory, and tenera-universe theory regarding God and eternity and everything 2:

For each individual universe contained within the multi-verse, there is a God, and His decisions create new universes just as ours do. Meaning that He is, as we are, a part of this multi-verse, although not in the same way we are. This would create the possibility that, in alternate universes, the fact that God cannot sin may have changed, we may still be in the Garden of Eden, or myriad other occurrences may have been different or completely missed. Perhaps, in one of these universes, God does not exist, perhaps in some there never was a Tower of Babel, or even a Flood. In this instance, there would be a separate Heaven and Hell for each universe, and in some, there may be neither, or there may not be a way for man to enter Heaven. This may, at first, seem to be sacrilegious in the fact that it limits God's power and says that He is not omnipotent, but if you consider it carefully, you will see that it does not. Going by what I have said so far, God is omnipotent, but He is only omnipotent in the universe by which He is located, (I say 'by' because He does not seem to actually be 'in' our universe, but He is there) and the other 'versions' of Him in the alternate universes would be omnipotent in their respective universes (Or they may not be. For all we know, one of these universes could have a different "version" of God that was not omnipotent).

However, there is one question that this assumption leaves: if each God is only omnipotent in His universe, then how did all this get here (here simply meaning existence)?

The answer is, it did not exactly "get here", it always was here. The tenerverse that encompasses our universe and the rest of the universes contained within the multi-verse has always been.

Assuming that what was just stated is correct, another question arises: If the tenerverse has always been, then when did the universes contained within it come into being? Were they always there, or were they created? It seems logical to me to believe that they always were, although at that time they may have been no more than our universe was before God spoke everything into existence, just God, who always was. To reduce the risk of confusion from here on, I will refer to this universe of just God as the antechronos (ante: “before" + chrono: "time") and our universe we know now as merely the universe. With this explanation, God (referring to the God of our universe) could have always been in the antechronos before He chose to create the universe, and everything written in the Bible about creation would still hold true.

Another to consider when contemplating the tenerverse is this: just how many multi-verses are there (polymulti-verse theory)? and could there be more than just one tenerverse (a polytenerverse theory, of sorts)? If so, are they connected? and what would contain the tenerverses? If there really is more than one multi-verse, then the alternate multi-verses could contain universes that are (or were) nowhere near what ours is. This would help explain how (and in a sense, why) numerous multi-verses would exist. As I state in my polymulti-verse theory, what would separate one multi-verse from another would be the origin point: the point at which the multi-verse started multiplying to reflect every outcome that could have occurred. Some multi-verses may be quite similar, with only minor differences (say, the absence of a certain star of planet, or even a certain landmass), and others may be vastly different.

There might be a multi-verse out there in which there are no such things as humans, animals, or plants, and everything would fall under a classification completely new to us. Some multi-verses may consist solely of inanimate objects and substances, and others may exist where everything is alive. Even multi-verses in which planets, stars, and all of the other astral bodies we know in our universe do not exist and life is just in space, or just is in seemingly nowhere. In other multi-verses, the universes contained within could have laws that would completely befuddle us Earthlings and turn the concepts of physics on their heads.

This theory seems quite plausible to me, however difficult it would be to prove, and, as far as I know, is in complete compliance with Christianity (or at least my set of beliefs). I do not believe there is anything in the Bible to contradict anything that I have said; but seeing as I have yet to completely read the entire Bible, and the fact that even if I had I probably would not be able to readily recall all of it, I may be wrong, in which case I will have to reconsider my theories and modify it accordingly or dispose of it altogether.



Multi-verse theory, polymulti-verse theory, and tenera-universe theory regarding God and eternity and everything 3:

So far, we have covered two possibilities more in-depth, and lightly touched on a third, which could be considered as a part of the second possibility. These possibilities are, in brief, as follows: (1) God rules over everything that is, whether it is multi-verses, a tenerverse, just a universe, or something else, (2a) there are a separate God for each universe, and (2b) for some universes there are separate Gods, but in others or in other multi-verses, there could be no God and there be other gods instead, no God or gods whatsoever, or God and other gods as well. Now, I believe this next idea is the most confusing of all I have said thus far.

(3a)
This assumes that 2a is correct, but it adds to the equation Gods that rule over the Gods that rule over each individual universe. This would say that there is a God for every universe within every multi-verse, and that there is a God over each multi-verse, as well as a God over the tenerverse, and so on for anything larger than the tenerverse.

(3b)
This is largely the same as 3a, but this possibility more so requires that 2b be correct (it could work with 2a as well, but if 2a was correct, it would be more logical for 3a to be correct). The primary difference is that, as with 2b, there is not only God, but gods as well. So, there is a God, god(s), or lack of either, or possibly even a different type of ruling existence, or a combination of any of the above, for each universe (This strikes me as a type of division for different multi-verses, the way they are ruled could be the divider), and again, one of the possibilities listed in that list for each multi-verse, and then for the tenerverse and anything larger as well.

I find this third possibility the hardest to say is in compliance with Christianity, for it forces God to either be ruled over by another (even though it is merely another Him), or to co-rule all existence perhaps within His multi-verse, with gods. Even more so with 3b, seeing as how it creates the possibility that not only is God sharing His rule with gods, but that He is possibly being ruled over by them.


Multi-verse theory, polymulti-verse theory, and tenera-universe theory regarding God and eternity and everything 4:

This possibility goes somewhat along the lines of possibility 1, 2b, and 3 together. In this, I say that there is one God that rules over everything (but this time assuming that 'everything' has to be at least a tenerverse, if not even more), but that below Him, ruling over multi-verses, universes, antechronoses, or even smaller divisions with universes such as galaxies or merely planets, are gods. These gods would not be omnipotent, their power would be decided and limited by God's will. This could spawn an entire discussion on what their powers were concerning prayer, salvation, and other such things, but I will not be getting into that. In addition, along with the possibility of there being gods ruling over whatever God deems they can, there is the chance that He chooses to leave some places unruled.

Personally, I do not find this idea to seem very accurate or believable, but I included it nonetheless. This one is more of something to unite the religions, yet keep Christianity at the top. It leaves room for some the gods of pagan religions to be real (I would say all, but seeing as how I am unaware of what the limits of each of their powers is said to be, I'm not sure if some would still be ruled out by this), but yet keeps God's omnipotence intact. The only discrepancy I can see with this (besides people being unwilling to have God at the top and wanting their god as supreme ruler of the tenerverse) would be between atheists and those who believe in gods, debating over whether we are unruled or ruled by these lesser 'gods'. But, as I do not want to spark any arguments, I do not want to discuss this any farther here. If you want to discuss this, let me know and I will provide you with a link to another place I have posted this, or we can discuss it through email or PM.


Closing:

The theories that I have presented result in an even more incomprehensible infinite (if infinity could ever be called at all comprehensible) amount of possibilities than merely the multi-verse theory on its own. However, there is no way of knowing for certain whether or not these theories are accurate, unless some type of device was designed that allowed for travel between the universes in our multi-verse, or maybe even between multi-verses in the tenerverse, but anything even close to this seems to be eons away, considering the fact that we cannot even send a person to the outer edges of out solar system and have them return home safely.

[Dante]

In terms of what has been tested so far, the predictions of QM have found to be correct to an exquisite level of prediction.

I wasn't reffering to its accuracy, if it weren't accurate it would have to be changed, I was reffering to the fact it never predicts the exact location of a particle (except in certain situations) only to the probobility of finding the particle, it is the switch from certainty (the particle will be here at time t because it is described by equation f(x,y,v_x,v_y)) to (the particle has A% probability of being found within this region... but we never know... it could end up on the moon...)

[Pent]

Theres one thing that always gets me with QM: Why does our act of measuring a particle make it have a definite value. I mean besides our knowledge of the value nothing has changed in the experiment.

Possible explanation: The universe, in some way, acts out of normal to prevent paradoxes. I mean, if you really think about it, it seems like someone is just trying to cover up the impossible every time you measure the particle. It just doesn't seem to make any sense. We didn't tamper with the particle in any way, we just wanted to know what it was exactly, but because of that it suddenly changes from a state of limbo and choices one of many possibilties. How are we making it do that?!

[Dante]

Theres one thing that always gets me with QM: Why does our act of measuring a particle make it have a definite value. I mean besides our knowledge of the value nothing has changed in the experiment.

Mainly, because your measurement makes the particle take a stand as to "where" it is, before that it doesn't take such a stand, there is merely a probability of finding the particle. This falls directly out of the Schrodinger Wave Equation (Time Dependent and not the Time Independent), however immidiatly after the wavefunction collapses to a delta function it begins to spread out again, once again stating that the particle only has a proability of being found at certain locations. However, an interesting effect occurs from observation as well, if we collapse the wave function (we know where the particle is) then we can look at that point imidiatly afterwards and make an observation and we find that it is garunteed to still be at that point... as a result if we continuously observe the particle at that location... it will never move. But once we stop observing it... all bets are off.

Possible explanation: The universe, in some way, acts out of normal to prevent paradoxes. I mean, if you really think about it, it seems like someone is just trying to cover up the impossible every time you measure the particle. It just doesn't seem to make any sense. We didn't tamper with the particle in any way, we just wanted to know what it was exactly, but because of that it suddenly changes from a state of limbo and choices one of many possibilties. How are we making it do that?!

Quite simple, we are tampering with it... we are observing it, and that is really something special. And of course to observe a particle generally means we have to physically interact with it as well... But in the end, there is something very special about observing something in the universe, Einstein believed that this was silly and consider QM to be incomplete and missing a "hidden variable" of sorts, however experiments have proven his philosophy on QM ill and the copenhagen interpetation to be correct... It isn't a universe that makes "sense" to you or I, but why should it have to comply with our logic? We are living beings designed and adapted to live in a macroscopic world which is fixed and finite... In our day to day experiences we will never come accross either GR or QM, as a result why should either of these theories make sense to us when we were never designed to live and breath out an existance in them within our day to day lives?

[mitsuki lover]

One of the more interesting questions related to this whole idea of time travel is what if one could go back to Eden and squash the serpent before he could tempt Eve?

[Supersith]

Yes, Satan would return another way, another time, if he could tempt Eve after fellowship with God, even if we squashed the serpent and warned her she would still do it.

[QtheQreater]

Good lord! Not this again!

*has since became a firm believer in linear time, and a single universe*

[Puritan]

*looks left* *looks right* Good, Pascal's not here. Secretly, Q, so do I, parallel universe theory is simply too strange for my blood, and changing the past in truth only creates insane paradoxes if done wrong...thus I suspect the only type of time travel is that forward in time due to relativity....care to help me build a ship that travels fast enough that we can travel to the year 5000?

[mitsuki lover]

Ah!The Return of the Dead Thread again.
All of this of course depends on wheter or not you accept a totally linear concept of time and a single universe or more of the possibility that time is fluid in nature and as a result there is not just a single universe but a complex mulitverse of universes.

[Supersith]

Yup, it's back, I'm really bored and feel like discussing theoretical physics <_<>_><_<.

But the idea of time travel is supported by physics. You could in theory give space-time a negative curvature and use a wormhole to travel back in time, the only difficult thing would be attempting to keep the wormhole open long enough.

[QtheQreater]

*looks left* *looks right* Good, Pascal's not here. Secretly, Q, so do I, parallel universe theory is simply too strange for my blood, and changing the past in truth only creates insane paradoxes if done wrong...thus I suspect the only type of time travel is that forward in time due to relativity....care to help me build a ship that travels fast enough that we can travel to the year 5000?

You do know that we'd both die of culture shock when we got there, right? Other than that, I wouldn't mind leaving this particular time...*begins to formulate plans for the ship, but is too ADD to stay on task...goes to find burritos*

[QtheQreater]

Yup, it's back, I'm really bored and feel like discussing theoretical physics <_<>_><_<.

But the idea of time travel is supported by physics. You could in theory give space-time a negative curvature and use a wormhole to travel back in time, the only difficult thing would be attempting to keep the wormhole open long enough.

Mathematics provides a possible model for behavior, not an absolute reality. In theory, a lot of impossible things are possible. But reality doesn't reflect them. The terms "black hole" and "wormhole" are mere labels for something that still isn't truly observable, and as such, we have no true basis for any of those speculations. You also assume that time is something other than linear. There is no proof to support that, as far as I'm aware of...

[Nate]

You also assume that time is something other than linear. There is no proof to support that, as far as I'm aware of...

Actually, there was an experiment that did prove that perhaps (not definitive) time is not linear. It involved shining a light source through a pattern of slits on a piece of paper. I read about it in the book "The Dilbert Future," and I wish I knew where my copy of the book was, because I'd go get it and copy it down for you.

[mitsuki lover]

Even if time travel is a possibility it is more likely to be limited to within the life time of the time traveler,as per Quantum Leap or even further limited within the recent past,as per 7 Days.

[Supersith]

Mathematics provides a possible model for behavior, not an absolute reality. In theory, a lot of impossible things are possible. But reality doesn't reflect them. The terms "black hole" and "wormhole" are mere labels for something that still isn't truly observable, and as such, we have no true basis for any of those speculations. You also assume that time is something other than linear. There is no proof to support that, as far as I'm aware of...

Black Holes can be observed, well, not them, they can't be seen because they don't reflect light, however wormholes have not yet been observed to my knowledge.

[mitsuki lover]

Theoritically Black Holes actually distort time and gravity.So there is no way of knowing what actually happens in them.