Is time travel Impossible Because time Doesn't Exist?

[budsa11]

You understand?   How cute.

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

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.

 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  

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.

 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.

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.

Yes ^^ exactly what i was trying to say i'm my original post, especially this >> "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."

[Anomalocaris]

Rather idiotic sememtic bickering regarding during.

Prove all the presents of the pasts that existed, but do not exist in the present of now, could not be indistinguishable some present yet to come.

Making a assertion by definition is pointless.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am so bored. Continue to spout nonsense if you so wish, such as the past still existing now or time travel working backwards after already saying that I "understand" when I speak of how science only deals with observations of phenomena (our mere perceptions of things as opposed to things in themselves), but despite the fact that there is unfortunately no prize for my understanding, I do understand, as you said, and yet you certainly do not.

Telling me to prove my premise when it's my premise makes no sense. The premise is the starting point, and everyone must have one. What's your premise? Oh wait it's unstated because you're constantly switching back and forth and contradicting yourself (you said I understood and then you went on to contradict it).

Either you have a definition and a premise to start with or you don't, and you clearly don't.

---

Prove all the presents of the pasts that existed, but do not exist in the present of now, could not be indistinguishable some present yet to come.  

That's irrelevant. If something happens in the future that is identical to how it happened in the past, that's not the same thing as travelling to the past. Can you not even do better than that?!

If you meet my identical twin, that isn't meeting me now is it? If you travel to an exact replica of Mars, you haven't travelled to Mars now have you?
This is the whole point. When it comes to something true by definition, like squares NOT being circular or the future being what is YET to arrived and HASN'T arrived yet, or the past being what HAS passed.... the only way you can attempt to argue against this is by changing the definitions. But you're not giving any clear definitions, only I am, hence why you're committing the fallacy of equivocation. And even if you do that, you state your definitions, you can't actually argue against my definitions because when you redefine things you change the subject. Science is NOT talking about the normal sense of time and hence isn't talking about the normal sense of time travel. Science is NOT talking about indivisible atoms as per the original definition. Lawrence Krauss isn't (or shouldn't) be talking about actually "nothing" when he says the universe came from "Nothing."


Your questions and logic are very subpar and the only reason your premises and definitions aren't similarly as poorly explicated is because you haven't even bothered to state them, you just attack mine. Although it's not really much of an "attack" if all you're doing is the equivalent of asking me to prove that there are no square circles.

And the other really pathetic thing about what you said here is:

Prove all the presents of the pasts that existed, but do not exist in the present of now, could not be indistinguishable some present yet to come.  

Regarding the part I bolded.

So now you're saying the past doesn't exist. Make your mind up! If that's your premise then you agree with me that the past existed but no longer exists. What is your premise? You're not going to state it are you? You are too confused to even know what you're talking about, you're interested in arguing with me but you have to start by actually having an argument. Go play in the sandpit with the rest of the kiddies.