Is time travel Impossible Because time Doesn't Exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

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.