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

[QtheQreater]

The thing is, those rules you speak of have little requirement to conform to our common-sense notions.

Please explain. I'm all ears.

Quantum mechanics for example, has very little to do with the kinds of ideas that are normally useful in our macroscopic universe.

I'd like an explanation for that one, too. Seriously. I'm not out for an fight or anything, you've just piqued my curiousity. Bigtime.

[mitsuki lover]

A more interesting concept would be going back in time and killing a younger version of yourself.Would you still exist if you did that and if you did could you be charged with murder or suicide?

[QtheQreater]

PARADOXES!!! CONTRADICTIONS!!!

Older self kills youger self. younger self dies. does not become older self. older self cannot exist now. can't exist to kill younger self. younger self does not die. becomes older self. NOTHING HAPPENS THAT EVER MATTERS!!! By the way, why does everyone think time would have an endless loop because of this? Time would continue to pass for everyone else. The time event would have no impact on the rest of things. But would the person doing the traveling just...cease to exist? or only exist in the loop? Same with the things he took with him. Headache...

I'd call it cyclical suicide.

Like I've said before, though, I don't believe in time travel. Backwards especially.

[SnoringFrog]

I'd like an explanation for that one, too. Seriously. I'm not out for an fight or anything, you've just piqued my curiousity. Bigtime.

Now, I don't knwo too much about Quantum mechanics, so I may be wrong, but I'll try to explain it with what little i do know.

SInce quantum mechanics deals with very minute things, alot of the ideas involved don't have much to do with what we normally see; they only pertain to things on much smsaller scales, at least with a great enough effect that we would readily notice.

A more interesting concept would be going back in time and killing a younger version of yourself.Would you still exist if you did that and if you did could you be charged with murder or suicide?

That would be very interesting. It'd be odd enough metting your future self, but when you found out he was going to kill you, that'd be really weird.

But would the person doing the traveling just...cease to exist? or only exist in the loop? Same with the things he took with him. Headache...

Yeah, if I remember right that's alot of what we were discussing earlier in the thread.

[QtheQreater]

[quote="SnoringFrog"]Now, I don't knwo too much about Quantum mechanics, so I may be wrong, but I'll try to explain it with what little i do know.

SInce quantum mechanics deals with very minute things, alot of the ideas involved don't have much to do with what we normally see]

So...what does that have to do with their ignoring or defying the laws of logic?

I mean, those minute things don't exist and non-exist at the same time, right?

[Nate]

So...what does that have to do with their ignoring or defying the laws of logic?

Everything. When dealing with subatomic particles, everything you think you know, everything that makes sense to you, you have to throw out the window. I haven't personally studied any quantum subjects yet, though I have grazed over it, and I know that there are completely different rules. Hence why it is a completely different subject.

I'm sure I'll have to study it in the near future (I'm getting a degree in nuclear engineering after all), but it seems Technomancer has studied it, so I'll let him handle it. XD;;

[Linksquest]

Everything. When dealing with subatomic particles, everything you think you know, everything that makes sense to you, you have to throw out the window. I haven't personally studied any quantum subjects yet, though I have grazed over it, and I know that there are completely different rules. Hence why it is a completely different subject.

Well even if it is different... that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be logical.

[Bobtheduck]

All that bothering to gravedig, and my addition gets washed over for a rehashing of the old question... There's a lesson in there, somewhere...

[mitsuki lover]

In Einstein's Relativistic Universe(as I understand it)time travel may in fact be possible.For instance black holes may lead to both alternate universes and other times.

[QtheQreater]

Well, I have one question pertaining to backward time travel. Can a finite thing exist without first coming into existence? If not(which is how I understand it), then one cannot exist in a time where one has not yet come into existence. Also, events that shape your attempt at time travel will not have come to pass if you travel back in time. How can you have gone if you haven't made the attempt yet? The issue becomes rather convoluted with time travel to the past.

I am starting to think that forwards is possible though. Certain experiments involving atomic clocks have supposedly proved that travel into the future is possible. I don't know how accurate these experiments were, and I'm not sure anyone understands enough about time to make the correct conclusion from them, but they seem to support the theory that by going fast enough, one can slow down ones own travel through time in relation to the time stream in which everything else exists. Then, when you rejoin the timeline, you will have accumulated fewer seconds(or something like that) than the part of the physical universe in that timeline.

[Technomancer]

So...what does that have to do with their ignoring or defying the laws of logic?

I mean, those minute things don't exist and non-exist at the same time, right?

I'm sorry I haven't got back to on this before, I've been fairly busy. These two articles should help indicate what I was getting at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_cat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds

In my original (and admittedly poorly explained point), the nature of QM was only peripheral. It was only meant as an example of the nature of the physical universe is not required to conform to our regular notions of logic and intuitiveness. A more specific example might have been the concept of wave-particle duality which has no counterpart in our macroscopic world.

Certain experiments involving atomic clocks have supposedly proved that travel into the future is possible. I don't know how accurate these experiments were, and I'm not sure anyone understands enough about time to make the correct conclusion from them, but they seem to support the theory that by going fast enough, one can slow down ones own travel through time in relation to the time stream in which everything else exists.

This idea is more or less correct, and is consequence of Einstein's special theory of relative. The experiments themselves are indeed very accurate, and in fact have practical applications when dealing with systems like GPS, where correct timing information is crucial.

In logic, a contradiction is an impossibility, as in, a thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time. We live in a logical universe(it operates without exception to logical rules). As a logical universe, things here cannot be true and untrue at the same time.

Aside from the potentially strange behaviour of matter at the quantum level, we should also consider that the binary true/false system of logic is not the only rigorously defined mathematically consistent form of logic there is. In so-called "fuzzy" logic for example, it is possible to define the degree to which a statement is true, or the degree to which an element belongs to a given set.

[QtheQreater]

Thanks for the reading material, technomancer, I now have a REAL headache.

About the cat thing...

Quote form wiki article: It is interesting to note that even before observation was noted to be fundamentally distinct from consciousness through experimentation, the experiment always contained at least two "observers" - the physicist and the cat. Even had the physicist been unaware of the cat's state in the hypothetical experiment, one would have had to posit that the cat, at least, would have been quite sure of its status (at least, as long as the gas had not yet ended its ability to "observe"). However, since "observation" has been shown by experiment to have nothing to do with consciousness - or at the very least, any traditional definition of consciousness - most conjecture along these lines probably falls under the "interesting but physically irrelevant" category.

That's what I think about it.
Why has this moved into a philosophical argument? Are scientific observations interpretted by the observers own personal philosophy? From reading about the theories of spontaneous generation, couldn't we just be looking at it wrong like they were? Of course, once we start talking interpretation we do get into philosophy. I guess there is no such thing as impartial observation...

As to my knowledge of QM, from reading the article it seems to be a "fudge factor" for something we haven't figured out yet. We can only guess things because we haven't developed the appropriate equation yet. Why must this be interpretted as something that doesn't conform to normal logic? Of course, I think I'll hold my peace about it for now because neither my viewpoint nor yours seems to be credibly discountable at the moment. Perhaps logic is not defied, or perhaps it is. I'm definently not qualified to answer that question. I hold to my opinion of it, though.

About the multiverse...

Quote from wiki: Many worlds reconciles how we can perceive non-deterministic events (such as the random decay of a radioactive atom) with the deterministic equations of quantum physics; history, which prior to many worlds had been viewed as a single "world-line", is rather a many-branched tree where every possible branch of history is realised.

Question: Do you think that somewhere in this "multiverse", way back at the beginning, Adam and Eve, in a seperate turn of events, did not sin?

[mitsuki lover]

A multiverse posits that every possibility exists in some form in some alternate reality somewhere.So the answer is Yes,there may be a universe somewhere where the Fall did not take place.

[QtheQreater]

so...there's an infinite number of "me's" out there, each eating cheez-its in a different way? And there's a "me" out there that doesn't even like cheez-it's?
Strange...I don't know about that...

[Technomancer]

Thanks for the reading material, technomancer, I now have a REAL headache.

No problem, unfortunately, the articles themselves are a little vague and perhaps assume too much prior knowledge. My personal recommendation would be to read Heinz R. Pagel's book "The Cosmic Code", which offers much clearer explanations (and avoids too much emphasis on either quasi-mystical interpretations, or undue emphasis on "quantum weirdness")

As to my knowledge of QM, from reading the article it seems to be a "fudge factor" for something we haven't figured out yet.

This idea has been bandied about for a while, and while it is attactive, does not seem to have received a lot of support. This is mainly because QM works as a theory, and the observations themselves do not seem to leave any room for hidden variables.

Are scientific observations interpretted by the observers own personal philosophy? From reading about the theories of spontaneous generation, couldn't we just be looking at it wrong like they were? Of course, once we start talking interpretation we do get into philosophy. I guess there is no such thing as impartial observation

Yes and no. We do tend to view observations through the lens of our personal biases and beliefs. However, this does not mean that any interpretation of the data is acceptable. Clearly we should favour explanations that are consistent with known physical laws (and other observations), and moreover those explanations should also be the most parsimonius in their details. We also have to realize that science is as much of a communal activity as it is an individual one. Individual scientists will have many widely varied personal, ideological, and religious biases. In the give and take of scientific discourse however, the effect of those biases on the interpretation of the data is burned away, leaving theories that are able to withstand truly rigorous examination.

[SnoringFrog]

I would like to state that the theories I have read are actually very fun. I didn't know that there were so many people who thought about 'time' like this. but in answer to your question...[B]If you went back in time and killed your grandfather it wouldn't change much. Because if he died than he was meant to die. Although, than you would be stuck in that world/timeline because some of the components needed to build your 'time machine' wouldn't be around. Time travel isn't possible,but if it were than going backwards/forwards in time would just be pre-ordained. That's what should have happened in the first place...

I'm pretty sure I get what you're saying. Thinking of time as a straight line, you're saying that time travel wouldn't cause any abnormal fluctuations in this line but would be traveled normally becasue it was supposed to occur, correct?

Well, I have one question pertaining to backward time travel. Can a finite thing exist without first coming into existence? If not(which is how I understand it), then one cannot exist in a time where one has not yet come into existence. Also, events that shape your attempt at time travel will not have come to pass if you travel back in time. How can you have gone if you haven't made the attempt yet? The issue becomes rather convoluted with time travel to the past.

This is assuming that time is a straight line, and that time travel merely "teleports" you from point to point on that line. However, the way I see it, the timeline (or at least your life's timeline) does not have to be straight. When you time travel backwards, it would turn around, forming a sort of circular shape, ending up back at the location in the past you chose to go to.

About the multiverse...

so...there's an infinite number of "me's" out there, each eating cheez-its in a different way? And there's a "me" out there that doesn't even like cheez-it's?

There's also my idea wich I'm still working on (I think it's mine, I hadn't heard of it until I thought it up, at least I don't think I did) that there could be more than one multi-verse, which raises the question of inter-multi-verse travel. I'm still working on a term for whatever contains these multi-verses, and whether there would be only one or more than one of said thing. If anyone's interested, I can post some of my idea here, I think. I have to reread it and make sure it won't cause any controversy, becasue I know I do cover what this would mean when it comes to the subject of God, and some of my theories coudl offend some people, even though I do try to present numerous ways, seeing as how I myself am not sure which I think is most accurate or probable.

[QtheQreater]

There's also my idea wich I'm still working on (I think it's mine, I hadn't heard of it until I thought it up, at least I don't think I did) that there could be more than one multi-verse, which raises the question of inter-multi-verse travel. I'm still working on a term for whatever contains these multi-verses, and whether there would be only one or more than one of said thing. If anyone's interested, I can post some of my idea here, I think. I have to reread it and make sure it won't cause any controversy, becasue I know I do cover what this would mean when it comes to the subject of God, and some of my theories coudl offend some people, even though I do try to present numerous ways, seeing as how I myself am not sure which I think is most accurate or probable.

I'm all ears, and I promise not to be offended. Hope nobody else is bothered...

[SnoringFrog]

All right, I'll get it posted as soon as I get it re-typed. I have the papers, but I lost the computer file, unfortunately.

[mitsuki lover]

One of the theories I read was that the time traveler in fact does not travel within his own reality but that of a seperate one and so that makes it entirely possible for him to murder his own grandfather without paradox since the person he murders is not in reality his grandfather but the counterpart of his grandfather.

[shojoiscool2]

That would be possible if your father/mother was born yet. If so you could still be born.

[QtheQreater]

One of the theories I read was that the time traveler in fact does not travel within his own reality but that of a seperate one and so that makes it entirely possible for him to murder his own grandfather without paradox since the person he murders is not in reality his grandfather but the counterpart of his grandfather.

Odd, but fitting with the multi-verse thing. I cannot fathom why somebody would bother, though, if this was the case.

[Seppuku]

asuming you do indeed kill your grandfather in this time,

you would not poof out of exsistance, if you continued living in the time that you killed your grandfather merry and have children, you may become your own grandfather.

either that or your future self wont be born, however the you that killed your grandfather is still very much alive, the killing of your grandfather just eliminates multiple yous for each point in time besides your present you from exsisting.

so it might destroy ur past up until the murder of your grandfather, perhaps completely wipeing your memory up to that point and thats where we go back to the becomming your own grandpa thing.

[Seppuku]

Odd, but fitting with the multi-verse thing. I cannot fathom why somebody would bother, though, if this was the case.

yea thats probably the most accurate theory, i suppose u might do it to test the theory

[mitsuki lover]

I couldn't kill my paternal grandfather since he died before I was born.

[Bobtheduck]

Why has this moved into a philosophical argument? Are scientific observations interpretted by the observers own personal philosophy?

Not all of them, but those dealing with origins or time or certain things like that do touch on philosophy... The predominant philosophy in the scientific community is one of naturalism, meaning that everything that happens has a natural explanation for it... So all of the laws and evidence can only arrive at their conculsion (in matters of origins) if that base assumption (naturalism) is true... From a scientific standpoint, ignoring anything supernatural (because naturalistic scientific dogma is diametrically opposed to the dogma of supernaturalism) there are 3 possibilities as far as time travel is considered, but those don't take any implications into consideration that are raised by supernaturalism, deism, or an established religion like Christianity...

Discussing time travel with Christians brings up more philisophical arguments because of the implications... Conflicts can arise with warring doctrines, which I won't really get into, and questions will be asked that can't really be answered...

Even the issues of time travel scientifically involve philosophy because they fall out of the range of naturalistic observation and simply rely on mathematics or hypothesis, which may be missing something... So far, no one has been able to change their direction through time in that way, and if they did, what would that look like, anyhow? There is no practical way of accomplishing it, and some things about it just plain don't make sense logically... It just works mathematically... Maybe someone's math was wrong... maybe everyone's math was wrong... Maybe there is an explanation for it that no one has seen yet...

O

[Pent]

*groans* Not this discussion again!

lol. No I enjoy it actaully.

Well this can come down to a very important question: "Do we have free will?" As Christians I'm sure most of the people here will argue that we do. Or is it perhaps this: "We have free will, but our choices are set in stone." Seems to be contradictory, but is it?

God knows what we are going to do, does this mean we don't have free will?

The simple explanation for this question: You can't kill your grandfather, you can go back, but you will not kill your grandfather. Also, you where always back in time, it's not like you were not back in time before you decided to go back in time. You where allready in the past before you decided to be in the past.

So what is to stop you from killing your grandfather? Good question. I don't know. I think you could actaully. But I'm not quite sure what would happen.

One thing I'm quite certian of: even if your body disapeared, your soul would still be around. Because your soul is timeless, you can't destroy a soul, or make it so it never was made in the first place. I think God has power over that, not the laws of physics.

I think scientist checked the math enough, and I think they are right, you could travel through time at different rates and directions then the norm. It's been proven "mathmaticly". lol. But I'm fine with it.

Time travel is possible, we do it all the time. XD

[Nate]

Because your soul is timeless, you can't destroy a soul, or make it so it never was made in the first place.

I think it's safer to say once a soul exists, it never ceases to exist. I highly doubt there is a "bank of souls" in Heaven and whenever a person is born, they make a withdrawal. As to when exactly a child receives a soul, whether at conception or otherwise, we don't know (and never will on this side of existence). But it can't be "timeless" because it has a beginning. Just not an end.

I think God has power over that, not the laws of physics.

Considering physics has no application to abstract concepts like the soul, that's a given.

[Dante]

asuming you do indeed kill your grandfather in this time,

you would not poof out of exsistance, if you continued living in the time that you killed your grandfather merry and have children, you may become your own grandfather.

There are disturbing consequences to this statement... A) you would be married to your grandmother... gross. And B) Because all of your genetic material would have to exist within you when you were born... your father or (your mother?) would have to have the same genetic makeup as you to pass the genes down to a future you...

either that or your future self wont be born, however the you that killed your grandfather is still very much alive, the killing of your grandfather just eliminates multiple yous for each point in time besides your present you from exsisting.

so it might destroy ur past up until the murder of your grandfather, perhaps completely wipeing your memory up to that point and thats where we go back to the becomming your own grandpa thing.

I can infer from your lack of concern over the murderers attraction to his own grandmother that you find this a natural consequence... Thus, it begs the question... do you find YOUR grandmother attractive? (Shivers)

EDIT:

I think God has power over that, not the laws of physics.

Considering physics has no application to abstract concepts like the soul, that's a given.

I love when people refer to the laws of physics as if they were some form of set rules that define the universe... They are not, they equations and theories which are valid within all sets of data that we can observe, if any theory contradicts experimental evidence, it is false and is then revised to create the proper results... this is the scientific principle in general... so with an infinite number of retries its bound to win... end story, it will eventually find some way of incoperating every possibility within its grasp and refine them down. In the case of Maxwell's Equations, this is rather well refined, but in the case of Quantum Mechanics it is rather nebulous. I suppose that if one day we were capable of making measurements on a human soul... then data and information would be taken on the various strange new variables that described them until a theory could be reached that was valid for all data taken... which I imagine would have to be quite large... now you might argue that it is impossible to MEASURE anything within a human soul (within the grasp of human beings) but that simply means that it cannot be determined, not that Physics couldn't find out patterns within those measurements if we were to have them.

This zaniness is bought to you by,
Pascal

[Technomancer]

I love when people refer to the laws of physics as if they were some form of set rules that define the universe... They are not, they equations and theories which are valid within all sets of data that we can observe...

I beg to differ. What you say is true of our approximations to physical law. However, underlying all science is the belief that such laws exist whether we are aware of them or not.

In the case of Maxwell's Equations, this is rather well refined, but in the case of Quantum Mechanics it is rather nebulous.

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

Considering physics has no application to abstract concepts like the soul, that's a given.

But how do you define the soul? If you do so in terms that relate to virtually any aspect of human thought and memory (how we perceive, think, and reason), then the laws of physics, chemistry and so forth become vitally important. Our ability to think, desire something, and feel emotion are directly the result of billions of neurons working together.

[Shinja]

theres way too much thinking going on here