Time Travel / The infinatly repeating reality

[Fi$hy]

Ok first off, I am if anything a bit of an Athiest, however I do study RS at AS level (more out of interest than anything) and I do like to belive there's something else, more as a comforting thought than anything more.

Right my vision if you will was brought on by watching Harry Potter #3?? (the one with the warewolf) and Terminator one.

Now in both films time travel is possible, and using Harry Potter as my example, when Harry is about to be killed by the dementours, he is saved by a spell cast from across the lake.

Later on we find out that he travels back in time and it is him that saves him (if you get what I mean) so he saves himself in effect.

But my question is therefore, how did he survive the first time before travelling back (the second time, he was there to save himself) so therefore that suggests that, that action could occur repeatedly ad infiniatum right?

But how did he survive the first time, if he hadn't already survived to travel back?

Does this suggest that in the Harry Potter universe at least, everything has already been decided, and he in effect living a re-run of everything, where what will happen has already been decided?


What conitations does this have? and could it be applied to the real-world (i.e has it already been decided that I would post this, and you would reply??)

Lol, enjoy that mind-boggerler, courtacy of Harry Potter

 

[Nanor]

lol, it was just a movie

 

[Fi$hy]

Yeah, but what if you apply that train of thought to the real-world?
Does it just tie us in knots?

 

[Blammo!]

Your look on time travel is to linear.

The only way I can explain this is. What if you travel back in time to meet yourself. When your going back in time you should already have a memory of that meeting happening. Because it already happened. There is no first you, second you or last you. The "first" you should have that memory. And because everything your going to do back in time already happened, you can't change it. Because "the you before you" also has that knowledge from the meeting and will also try to do things differently. But he cant because you will always react the same in the same situation.

If you believe that you have free will, then you might argue, well I know this so I'll do something radical different. But I don't believe in free will. I believe that humans will always react exactly the same with the same input and state of mind.

About the Harry Potter. The first Harry was also saved by Harry himself. Who says that he was the first anyway . Well you could argue that there has to be a first. But that doesn't make much sence to me. Also remember when the ?pegasus? was supposed to be killed, and Harry threw some stones at himself. The first stones where also thrown by Harry.

This is one of the few things I have very much difficulty expressing my opinion in. Because its more like a point of view than a set of arguments.

[edit]
Oh ye about traveling back. If you would change the past your memory of the past should alter as well. Heck maybe you would never travel back in time because of the change. This doesn't make sence unless the timetraveler is not affected by time while he is in the past.

 

[DocBot]

time travel is a paradox in itself, methinks. It only works while you suspend your disbelief...

 

[Blammo!]

Well the only way to make timetravel a non-paradox is when you are not able to change anything in the past. And whatever the future dude does in the past has already happened in the future dudes past (confuzzling huh ) so he doesn't actually change anything.

 

[KillCrazy]

What if, blammo, when you travel back in time your going into a new reality that you are then changing from what actually happened. For example, you leave your reality in the present, go back in time and then do something to change your present. Your present would then be different should you go back to it from the past.
In which case, you may say that such differences you create may prevent you from traveling back in time when the point of your going to the past becomes the present again (if that is confusing, take the example of using a time machine to go to the past to prevent the construction of the time machine, and saying how could you have gone back in time if you just prevented the technology being invented).
What if you looked at it in the way that when you go back in time your part of a different reality that you can change, and therefor it wouldn't be neccessary for you to have to have go back in time again when the present is met again.

God I HATE this stuff.

 

[Gopha]

Fishy by any chance were you watching Life on Mars lol, well ive actually become a kinda christian weird i know but i thought i should see what it is like but u know it isnt bad, and its a good way to lead your life, im not gonna preach so dont worry, and this doesnt mean i wnt spank ur asses at bf2 nemore tho

 

[Fi$hy]

No no, it's not weird, nor should anyone tell you it is.
In fact, I'm studying for a qualification in why people are religeous, if anything, I'm the weird one

 

[Gopha]

lol, im not religious dnt worry, my church doenst believe in religion and im like WAT but they believe in the principal NOT the policy

 

[Blammo!]

What if, blammo, when you travel back in time your going into a new reality that you are then changing from what actually happened. For example, you leave your reality in the present, go back in time and then do something to change your present. Your present would then be different should you go back to it from the past.
In which case, you may say that such differences you create may prevent you from traveling back in time when the point of your going to the past becomes the present again (if that is confusing, take the example of using a time machine to go to the past to prevent the construction of the time machine, and saying how could you have gone back in time if you just prevented the technology being invented).
What if you looked at it in the way that when you go back in time your part of a different reality that you can change, and therefor it wouldn't be neccessary for you to have to have go back in time again when the present is met again.

God I HATE this stuff.

Nah I don't like that. That means some stupid time machine could create an entire universe, just like that. And if all the possible universes already exist that would mean in 1 second after the big bang there would already be an infinite amount of universes.

Meh too much.

 

[Gopha]

i second that, too much space!

 

[KillCrazy]

In can't be a matter of what you like or dislike. These are all theories that are either possibly correct or possibly wrong. Or who knows....maybe they are all correct at once

 

[Ronin Storm]

I am if anything a bit of an Athiest

(With the caveat that I mean you the greatest of respect with my post below, understanding that religion is one of the three topics that is sure to cause riots in the street...)

If you're a bit of an Atheist, doesn't that make you an Agnostic? After all, an Athiest firmly believes (knows?) there is no God or gods, where an Agnostic leaves room for the possibility that there may be a God or gods, perhaps, but it's not really clear one way or another.

(repeat caveat... just genuinely wondering if it is a case of "wrong word" or "softly softly")

 

[KillCrazy]

It may be about education on the words.
With the same respect as you mentioned ronin storm on religion, I have to say that I would have called myself an athiest. Upon further review on the definition of athiest, and then on the defintion of agnostic, I would have to say I am more an agnostic. I leave room for possibility as you say

 

[Ronin Storm]

A couple of dictionary definitions, courtesy of Dictionary.com:

Atheist

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic

• One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
• One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I'm in the second camp of Agnostic, though I'm familiar with the epistemological principles that could lead me to the first if I chose.

With what you're saying, KC, I'd agree with your assessment.

 

[DeZmond]

Ahem. Your attention please.

The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy states that:

Time is an illusion caused by the passage of history.
NOTE: History is an illusion caused by the passage of time.

Hope this clears things up.

Actually, if you agree with Steven Hawking's current theories, there are multiple (well, infinite) dimensions that account for the infinite possibilities generated by the universe. Perhaps you'd travel back into one of those???

Meh, what do I know? I'm not a big metaphysist.

 

[KillCrazy]

Perhaps these infinite universes are created by people traveling back in time and creating alternate realities

 

[DeZmond]

Argh! My mind, my beautiful-but-bizarrely-twisted-or-entirely-broken mind! It hurts....

Ooh. Chocolate. Yummm.

 

[MoTo^]

i think there comes a point where we must accept we will never know the answer to some things, simply because our brains are not able to comprehend some matters.
for example is there an edge to the universe? what exactly does this mean? so if you stand at that edge and put your hand out will it go through? if it does then surely that edge is non-existent which kind of makes the idea pointless. if you cant go through what is stopping you? i dont think we will ever know...

as with time travel, personally i think travelling BACK in time is impossible as it logically makes no sense. but travelling to the future? maybe...

oh and speaking of paradoxes heres one:
image two points, A and B. in order to travel from A to B you must first travel half the distance between A and B, and then half the distance between that point and B, and so on, if you keep going in halves. now theoretically this series will never end as clearly you can keep dividing that distance in half to infinity, but never quite get there, so does this mean its impossible to ever reach B? weird huh?