(August 26, 2017 at 8:08 am)Cyberman Wrote: A somewhat more compelling disproof of time travel might be the party Stephen Hawking threw for time travellers back in 2012, and nobody showed up.

There weren't strippers or prostitues there.

Stephen Hawking was there, though. Not saying he'd have done a turn on the pole or anything - I've not seen his act. But what time traveller wouldn't want to get a selfie with him?

(August 25, 2017 at 7:23 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(August 25, 2017 at 6:54 pm)Hammy Wrote: You can alter your perception and say that you're time travelling... if you wish. But hallucinating dinosaurs is not the same thing as visiting the dinosaur time... nor is hallucinating Star Trek ships the same as actually visiting something that hasn't happened yet by definition

How do you know it is impossible for you to visit dinosaurs in reality?

Because they don't exist anymore?

(August 26, 2017 at 12:19 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(August 25, 2017 at 7:23 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: How do you know it is impossible for you to visit dinosaurs in reality?

Because they don't exist anymore?

Circular reasoning.  You assume time travel is impossible, deduce, without proof, from that it is impossible to visit live dinosaurs from the past, then use that unproven deduction that one can never visit dinosaurs from the past to support time travel being impossible.

Obviously, perception of backward time travel is not an frequent  occurrence readily discernible in everyday lives.  But that doesn't prove it is directly or indirectly prohibited by the underlying laws governing how the universe behave.   As relativity and quantum mechanics have shown, how energy, space and time work at a fundamental level if far different from how it might appear through casual observation in mundane environment.

I believe all but one known laws of physics works exactly as well with time going either forwards or backwards.  Only law of increasing entropy seems to specify a preferred direction in time.  But I believe entropy increase is only descriptive of statistical correlation between system behavior and passage of time.   It doesn't fundamentally address the nature of time, and why time in one frame seem to move at different rates From another frame.   I think it also doesn't really prohibit the apparence of decreasing in entropy in one frame from the perspective of time of another frame.

Now Alex will tell me where I am right or wrong.

(August 26, 2017 at 1:12 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(August 26, 2017 at 12:19 pm)Hammy Wrote: Because they don't exist anymore?

Circular reasoning.

Ummm. No. No reasoning required. The premise is that the past doesn't exist anymore by definition. We can't visit something that doesn't exist.

I don't "assume" time travel is impossible. I UNDERSTAND that actual time travel is impossible. Someone could move through space and say space and time are one, and then say they are "travelling through time" but to suggest they are time travelling as in actually visiting a time that is by definition no longer existent would just be utter bullshit and an equivocation.

And the whole point is science can't touch this because science only deals with how we experience the world, it deals with phenomena as opposed to noumena. Science never does and never has dealt with objective reality because it can't even prove objective reality. And unlike what many say, science doesn't even have to assume objective reality. Science merely has to assume that we experience a shared world and it collects evidence of our shared experiences. Science by definition can never know "whatever is out there outside of our experience" because science only tests what we experience. All the theory and mathematics is based on empirical observations, and the tools we use require our own senses to operate. And all the calculations are calculations regarding our experience of the world and not the world itself.

(August 26, 2017 at 2:15 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(August 26, 2017 at 1:12 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Circular reasoning.

Ummm. No. No reasoning required. The premise is that the past doesn't exist anymore by definition. We can't visit something that doesn't exist.

I don't "assume" time travel is impossible. I UNDERSTAND that actual time travel is impossible. Someone could move through space and say space and time are one, and then say they are "travelling through time" but to suggest they are time travelling as in actually visiting a time that is by definition no longer existent would just be utter bullshit and an equivocation.

And the whole point is science can't touch this because science only deals with how we experience the world, it deals with phenomena as opposed to noumena. Science never does and never has dealt with objective reality because it can't even prove objective reality. And unlike what many say, science doesn't even have to assume objective reality. Science merely has to assume that we experience a shared world and it collects evidence of our shared experiences. Science by definition can never know "whatever is out there outside of our experience" because science only tests what we experience. All the theory and mathematics is based on empirical observations, and the tools we use require our own senses to operate. And all the calculations are calculations regarding our experience of the world and not the world itself.

You understand? How cute.

Yes, in our present our past no longer exist,  but so what?  During the past, our present doesn't exist either.  Yet tomehow that past evolved into our present.  That is what we call progress of time.  Laws of physics described what is possible in the present from the perspective of the past. But these same laws that allow the evolution in one direction also allow the process to be retraced backwards at any point.  Thus they say the past is possible from the present just as the present had been possible from the past.  So laws of physics seem to permit our present to evolve once against into our past, so our past would once against exist, while present no longer exist.  This would be traveling backwards in time.

Quote:An 80-year-old painting has taken the internet by storm by appearing to show a Native American man using an iPhone.
The painting, 'Mr Pynchon and the Settling of Springfield', was committed to canvas in 1937 by Italian painter Umberto Romano. It depicts two Native American tribes and British settlers meeting for the first time in Massachusetts around the year 1630.
Neither then, nor in the 1930s, were smartphones around - but that's exactly what one of the several men depicted in the artwork seems to be gazing at.
Another man, tied to a pole, appears to be leaning over to try and get a look at the Native American's latest Snapchats.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/smar...spartandhp

What do you think? Time travel?

More importantly, what's he doing on his phone?
Checking twitter? snapchatting? menulogging? reading emails from the Prince on Nigeria? Posting a reply to one of Min's early posts? hehehe

(August 27, 2017 at 3:25 am)ignoramus Wrote:

Quote:An 80-year-old painting has taken the internet by storm by appearing to show a Native American man using an iPhone.
The painting, 'Mr Pynchon and the Settling of Springfield', was committed to canvas in 1937 by Italian painter Umberto Romano. It depicts two Native American tribes and British settlers meeting for the first time in Massachusetts around the year 1630.
Neither then, nor in the 1930s, were smartphones around - but that's exactly what one of the several men depicted in the artwork seems to be gazing at.
Another man, tied to a pole, appears to be leaning over to try and get a look at the Native American's latest Snapchats.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/smar...spartandhp

What do you think? Time travel?

More importantly, what's he doing on his phone?
Checking twitter? snapchatting? menulogging? reading emails from the Prince on Nigeria? Posting a reply to one of Min's early posts?   hehehe

Guess theres a number of things it could be, just looks like some sort of stone tablet? humans are a pattern seeking species, we easily let our imagination run riot, faces on Mars, clouds that look like jesus, burnt toast that looks like jesus... WUT!!

(August 26, 2017 at 3:35 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(August 26, 2017 at 2:15 pm)Hammy Wrote: Ummm. No. No reasoning required. The premise is that the past doesn't exist anymore by definition. We can't visit something that doesn't exist.

I don't "assume" time travel is impossible. I UNDERSTAND that actual time travel is impossible. Someone could move through space and say space and time are one, and then say they are "travelling through time" but to suggest they are time travelling as in actually visiting a time that is by definition no longer existent would just be utter bullshit and an equivocation.

And the whole point is science can't touch this because science only deals with how we experience the world, it deals with phenomena as opposed to noumena. Science never does and never has dealt with objective reality because it can't even prove objective reality. And unlike what many say, science doesn't even have to assume objective reality. Science merely has to assume that we experience a shared world and it collects evidence of our shared experiences. Science by definition can never know "whatever is out there outside of our experience" because science only tests what we experience. All the theory and mathematics is based on empirical observations, and the tools we use require our own senses to operate. And all the calculations are calculations regarding our experience of the world and not the world itself.

You understand?   How cute.

You say that... and yet you don't.

Quote:Yes, in our present our past no longer exist,  but so what?  During the past, our present doesn't exist either.

Wrong. There is no "during" the past. When the so-called past was present it was the present. The past doesn't exist. It DID exist when it was present, but it doesn't anymore and it never will, same with the future (when it comes it won't be the future), that's the point.

Quote:  Yet somehow that past evolved into our present.

That "somehow" is very simple. It didn't "evolve" into our present. It was the present at the time and when it became the past (which was instantly) it didn't exist anymore  

Quote:That is what we call progress of time.

Time doesn't really "progress". We just experience reality as normal and we measure where we think we've been and what we think has happened and we call that the "past" and we predict what we think will happen and call that the "future".

Time never began.

Quote:  Laws of physics described what is possible in the present from the perspective of the past.

No it doesn't, you say I understand and that it's "cute" but you clearly don't understand what I said. All physics and the rest of science describes is how we experience what we call "time". It doesn't actually describe time. All science is based on perception.

Quote: But these same laws that allow the evolution in one direction also allow the process to be retraced backwards at any point.  Thus they say the past is possible from the present just as the present had been possible from the past.  So laws of physics seem to permit our present to evolve once against into our past, so our past would once against exist, while present no longer exist.  This would be traveling backwards in time.

You're not talking about "time" as most people mean "time", that's the whole point. What the scientists are talking about isn't "time" how we normally understand it... therefore if we ever "travel through time" there won't exactly be any real "time travel" about it.

Talking about time travelling backwards is just nonsense if we're talking about time in the normal sense. What is the past is by definition what happened before, it's defined as working in that direction so if you're going to go the other direction you may as well just swap the words "past" and "future" around.

Don't care what the physicists say when philosophy is involved. Look at when Lawrence Krauss says the universe came from "nothing" and then he describes something.

I am through with you.