I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.
Grandfather paradox - suppose a man traveled back in time and killed his biological grandfather before the latter met the traveler’s grandmother. As a result, one of the traveler’s parents (and by extension the traveler himself) would never have been conceived. This would imply that he could not have traveled back in time after all, which means the grandfather would still be alive, and the traveler would have been conceived allowing him to travel back in time and kill his grandfather. Thus each possibility seems to imply its own negation, a type of logical paradox.
Or the time travel paradox of a man who goes back in time and kills his earlier self. So how does he come to be in the future? Who really killed him?
The problem with this being a paradox exists only in the thinking it is a paradox. To resolve the flawed theory requires unthinking what is time travel. Time travel needs to be viewed as multidimensional and not flat and linear. Forward and back are flat and linear terms and concepts.
Parallel universes might provide a way out of paradoxes.
Since all possibilities exist, any paradoxes can be explained by having the paradoxical events happening in a different universe.
When you time travel, you are now taken out of the space time continuum of one reality, thus your new reality forward and back are not yours, but those that are in space and time in that reality that you end in. Time travel needs to be looked at as parallel universal time shifts of realities. You don’t time travel, you reality jump.
We all exist in multiple universes at the same time in different realities. Some with you not in them and others with you making a slight change in your past, present and future. Understanding this clears up the notion of time paradoxes. What is being done is not being done to the observer (doer), but to the one in the reality the subject.
If time is, only linear then time travel back is not possible because as the paradox goes a man who goes back in time and kills his earlier self would not be able to be alive to kill himself and the two (same) people should not exist in the same place.
Time travel forward – A man goes forward to see himself die and decides to change it and does. Now the future is different so did he really go forward in time or did he see a different reality? Is that really forward time travel?
If time is not linear, but a jump into another reality then anything is possible. Forward and back would still seem like it is happening, but that is the illusion of the observer and how he is perceiving things.
I would theorize that the time shift of realities generally would move you into a reality very similar to your own (as the path of least resistance and less energy would be closer to as things are the same) that the perception was time travel, but in reality to reality a jump from one to another.
If a man named Tom(1) time travels and kills Tom(2) himself, Tom(1) doesn’t die, Tom(2) does. Back to the future got it wrong. The cause and effect still applies and it isn’t the effect before the cause since it is happening out of the subject’s normal reality. The show “Sliders” was very much like this, but I don’t think once you pull yourself out of our reality, you can ever be put back in the one you came from.
You can return to something that is similar, Tom(1) moves into a reality where Tom(x) time traveled and was pulled out of that reality but there will be a slight change, which might be unnoticed. Opening up the butterfly effect. Still cause and effect are constant, you moving into the new reality is the cause with an effect which might not change anything or might change many things.
The TV show Dr. Who points out that some things are fixed events and some things are flexible and are in flux. This poises a bigger problem that things are predestined to happen or not happen no mater what forces are applied.
Having this fixed and flex events and predestined are the hard concepts to take.
My writing this only happen because of a bug that moved some sand millions of years ago means all things matter and there couldn’t be flexible events unless there are multiple realities. The fixed points of events is in err minus the one event and constant that grounds all things to, God. With multiple realities all things are flexible and in play. Not just on Earth or in person, but for all things everywhere at any time.
You don’t time travel, you reality jump.
The very notion of God shows us that he couldn’t possibly exist in a linear time, but outside the time and space. This notion tells us that our thinking of linear time and space is wrong.
The concept of beginning and end are linear as well. What if things just are and there was no beginning, just time after the beginning. Most of us miss or don’t remember the difference between lines and segments. Lines go on forever in both directions, whereas segments have end points. Beginning and end depends on your viewpoint and how you choose to read it. Left to right or right to left. When we say sign on the line below, it is really a segment.
Could there be a universe and reality where God doesn’t exist? I do not think so and find that is the only fixed thing. God exists in all universes and realities.
We all get glimpses of a possibility of a future that may or may not happen. The may or may not happening depends on which reality you exist in.
Events that are changed no body but the observer would know as the change would be seamless.
Is the soul of Tom(1) and Tom(2) the same? I would think not.
Kalam argument of matter has a beginning, it has an end, but the creator must exist outside time and matter.
The kalam cosmological argument, by showing that the universe began to exist, demonstrates that the world is not a necessary being and, therefore, not self-explanatory with respect to its existence. Two philosophical arguments and two scientific confirmations are presented in support of the beginning of the universe. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe.
Source: "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe." Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991): 85-96.