If you could visit any decade in the 20th Century
- Thread starter What's his face
- Start date
Meeting one's self from the future causes no paradox, since it just creates an (or arguably, follows a pre-existing) alternate branch of probability.
Trust me on this. I speak from experience. Several occasions worth, involving my future self from different branches.
No. I'm not kidding.
I am, however, willing to accept the possibility that, like my memories of reincarnation, this may be another side-effect of my having been hit in the head too hard.
But the logic still makes sense. Either time travel is impossible, free will doesn't really exist (and thus time travel may be possible, but who gives a rip?), or it works the way I'm describing.
And there is slightly more evidence (still mostly circumstantial) that this may not be the result of brain damage than with my memories of past lives. Like a cassette tape with the exact same contents and exact same label, that apparently now concurrently exists despite originating from two different time frames. And my friends can confirm that I have been describing the 2017 Corvette Calloway to them since 1992 - consistently, and with features that didn't exist then, but seem to be increasingly accurate as time goes on.
Trust me. If you think it sounds freaky to you just reading this, you should try living it.
Trust me on this. I speak from experience. Several occasions worth, involving my future self from different branches.
No. I'm not kidding.
I am, however, willing to accept the possibility that, like my memories of reincarnation, this may be another side-effect of my having been hit in the head too hard.
But the logic still makes sense. Either time travel is impossible, free will doesn't really exist (and thus time travel may be possible, but who gives a rip?), or it works the way I'm describing.
And there is slightly more evidence (still mostly circumstantial) that this may not be the result of brain damage than with my memories of past lives. Like a cassette tape with the exact same contents and exact same label, that apparently now concurrently exists despite originating from two different time frames. And my friends can confirm that I have been describing the 2017 Corvette Calloway to them since 1992 - consistently, and with features that didn't exist then, but seem to be increasingly accurate as time goes on.
Trust me. If you think it sounds freaky to you just reading this, you should try living it.
Hmph. Thread went silent.
It's okay - you won't offend me, unless you're trying to.
I know I'm a little like this ->
It's okay - you won't offend me, unless you're trying to.
I know I'm a little like this ->
Do you mean bring friends or family back from the past or to the past?
If you bring them back from the past you violate rule number 1
Also don't some of the things you mention violate rule #1?
Denies some else from seeing the movie on opening night.
Possibly create a whole new and worse craze, like making The New Kids on the Block the hottest band ever.
This again could prevent someone from getting the game.
Anyway, despite any problems I could cause, I would like to observe the 1950's and 1960's. I'd love to test drive a 56 Chevy Bel Air, or a 64 Ford Mustang. Go to Dallas and see if there really was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy; that would be interesting, as would watching the moon landing.
The 1940's would be interesting too I could test driving a Tucker Torpedo. Watching the start of the Cold War, Truman beating Dewey. The reaction to Pearl Harbor, the impact of WWII on the general US population and the reaction to dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
Last I would like to see the 1910's (is that right?). Or more accurately 04/15/1912, and be on Titanic and see what happened to her. My time machine would fly so I could see how she went down. Did the ship brake in two on the surface? And if it did, could I push DiCaprio onto the bow so he goes down right away. I know Dicaprio wasn't on the ship, but God I really hate the love story in that movie.
I think I just jumped the shark.
The 20th Century was really full of innovation, great heights and despair. I really envy those who lived through most of it, like my grandmother who altogether missed only 19 years of the 20th century.
Consider yourself lucky. You missed gasoline shortages, Vietnam, hideous fashions and even worse television. The one thing you missed of note was seeing Star Wars first run in the theater. I had just turned 12 years old in May of 1977. I was the perfect age. Never experienced anything like it on screen. It was rather nice to grow up without the internet, though. In many ways, we were much more fortunate not to have had it. The desire for instant fame has propelled some pretty horrific actions. Horrific beatings of teenage girls on youtube, anyone? We had no internet and if mom and dad didn't know where we were, they couldn't track us down with our cell phones while we were making out in the back seat with the cutest guy in the world out on make out road.
Ahhhh, the good old days. That being said, I can't narrow it down to one decade. I must have two. The 1940s so I could really experience what WWII and post war boom America was like--and I'd want to visit the aughts--1900 to 1910. See a new century come in. See what happened in Galveston after that horrific hurricane. Listen to Theodore Roosevelt speak. Now that would be outstanding. It would be worth having to wear long sleeved dressed in the summer.
Temporal mechanics give me a headache too.
Oh I remember now...
if it were matter that was in the loop, then it would be passing through the loop an infinite number of times, making it infinitely old, meaning it would have already decayed and be nothing. => Meaning matter cannot exist in the loop.
So if for example, you had a watch, and you took it back in time with you, and handed it to your younger self, and your younger self treasured that for so many years until they became the older you... then the watch is infinitely old and would have already decayed and would not exist.
Extension: What about repairing the watch while you own it so that it is in perfect original condition when you give it away?
Suppose the watch is gold plated, then some of those gold atoms will undergo radioactive decay. These you will have to replace one by one. Each time it goes through the time loop some more gold atoms will decay and since it passes through the time loop an infinite number of times, it will ultimately require and infinite amount of gold to maintain it. The universe doesn't provide enough gold to maintain the watch, so it will have already decayed and be nothing.
Extension: But information is different. You can copy it on new media.
It's just a two stage loop. Media passes through -- media is duplicated - new media passes through.
Since the information loop is infinite, the duplication happens and infinite number of times, and an infinite amount of energy is used in the duplication process. Fail.
Last edited:
Not necessarily. I'm sure there was at least one available seat on June 4, 1982. If you sit there, problem solved.
The Ballard mission proved that the ship did indeed break into two pieces. If you can find a copy of the book, A Night to Remember, read it. It is a masterful compilation of firsthand accounts woven together to reconstruct the events of the Titanic's voyage. The movie, Titanic, was actually written around that book.
Incidentally, the ship's baker, seen in the movie, described the decent of the bow as "riding in an elevator".
I would go back to 11:40am Wednesday April 8th 2009 and prevent myself from GOING BLIND!!
I'd go back to the 1900s, just happen to be standing on the beach at Kitty Hawk, NC. in 1903, then visit the St. Louis World's Fair in 1904. After that, I'm done with the aughts, so I'd move to the 50s so I could watch first-run all those cheesy scifi B-movies I used to see on TV.
You know, that actually does make sense - Kirk's glasses won't indeed be his birthday present from Dr. McCoy again, that's the beauty of it.Temporal mechanics give me a headache too.
Oh I remember now...
if it were matter that was in the loop, then it would be passing through the loop an infinite number of times, making it infinitely old, meaning it would have already decayed and be nothing. => Meaning matter cannot exist in the loop.
So if for example, you had a watch, and you took it back in time with you, and handed it to your younger self, and your younger self treasured that for so many years until they became the older you... then the watch is infinitely old and would have already decayed and would not exist.
Extension: What about repairing the watch while you own it so that it is in perfect original condition when you give it away?
Suppose the watch is gold plated, then some of those gold atoms will undergo radioactive decay. These you will have to replace one by one. Each time it goes through the time loop some more gold atoms will decay and since it passes through the time loop an infinite number of times, it will ultimately require and infinite amount of gold to maintain it. The universe doesn't provide enough gold to maintain the watch, so it will have already decayed and be nothing.
Extension: But information is different. You can copy it on new media.
It's just a two stage loop. Media passes through -- media is duplicated - new media passes through.
Since the information loop is infinite, the duplication happens and infinite number of times, and an infinite amount of energy is used in the duplication process. Fail.
But what if the matter was never intended to stay in a loop? Matter enters the system naturally, loops back through time travel, then remains stuck in the past (long before its natural entry into the system) and becomes part of the past, with no part of it returning to the future to be looped back again into the past, even though its influences are clearly felt later and farther distant, even to the extent that it might influence its own creation in the nearer future (which would in other simpler terms be deemed a paradox). Wouldn't its appearance in the past merely be interpreted as another addition of matter to the flow of time without disrupting the flow of energy too much? Thus, it becomes the actual history of the object in question...
Oh, I don't know what I'm talking about anymore.
This topic deserves its own thread. Again. I think I know what you mean.
Object is made in 1955. Time machine built in 1985. Object taken back to 1885. And that's supposed to be ok?
The natural flow of time carries the object back into the future. It'll just take 50 years. How can things be stuck in the past unless they are frozen in time?
I find a lot when people talk about time paradoxes, they think strongly in human terms, such as the grandfather paradox, and think that the critical effects we have on the past are limited to human interactions, while 'walking in the shadows' is perfectly safe. Well it's not -- any affect made upon the past is critically important and potentially paradoxical.
When we're consider things effecting the past, there really isn't any distinction between what should or shouldn't be in the past. The timeline can't be likened to grumbling digestive tract that sorts itself out by flushing out the toxins If we accept that the time line is singular and consistent, then when we do these time travel thought experiments, then we need to think of the requirements to make these additions entirely consistent.
In the example above, starting with a nice normal time line, consider adding in a time travel phenomenon and thinking how to make it consistent.
So we're adding an object to 1885, and saying that it was made in 1955, and met the time machine in 1985. Go from there.
Object is made in 1955. Time machine built in 1985. Object taken back to 1885. And that's supposed to be ok?
The natural flow of time carries the object back into the future. It'll just take 50 years. How can things be stuck in the past unless they are frozen in time?
I find a lot when people talk about time paradoxes, they think strongly in human terms, such as the grandfather paradox, and think that the critical effects we have on the past are limited to human interactions, while 'walking in the shadows' is perfectly safe. Well it's not -- any affect made upon the past is critically important and potentially paradoxical.
When we're consider things effecting the past, there really isn't any distinction between what should or shouldn't be in the past. The timeline can't be likened to grumbling digestive tract that sorts itself out by flushing out the toxins
If we accept that the time line is singular and consistent, then when we do these time travel thought experiments, then we need to think of the requirements to make these additions entirely consistent. In the example above, starting with a nice normal time line, consider adding in a time travel phenomenon and thinking how to make it consistent.
So we're adding an object to 1885, and saying that it was made in 1955, and met the time machine in 1985. Go from there.
Unless the object was destroyed in the past? In this scenario, from the object's own point of view, there is no loop - the story ends in the past. Of course, it could still influence the timeline in ways we don't understand a la chaos theory, and the whole sort of generalised mishmash sorts itself out in the end. I'm beginning to understand your digestive tract analogy in that case (you're starting to talk my language now! ) - a sort of gastroenterological course-correction of sorts. Just like my digestive tract when it gets food poisoning...
You know, I think this really is giving me a headache now! (A bellyache, indeed...) I think Douglas Adams was right when he said that time travel, by its very nature, was invented at every single point in time and space simultaneously.
) - a sort of gastroenterological course-correction of sorts. Just like my digestive tract when it gets food poisoning... You know, I think this really is giving me a headache now! (A bellyache, indeed...
) I think Douglas Adams was right when he said that time travel, by its very nature, was invented at every single point in time and space simultaneously. 
I'd go back to the 1990s - Britpop was going strong, we all felt that things could only get better (yeah, right) and to me it was a generally enjoyable time.
If given the opportunity however, I'd be afraid of violating canon by the changes I'd make...
If given the opportunity however, I'd be afraid of violating canon by the changes I'd make...
Similar threads
