Hello, Lee. Thanks for the reply.
Right..Firstly, I agree totally with the problems/holes that you have highlighted. They are big hiccups in the concept and I am not able to theorise around them any more easily than yourself..however..
I may start to go even further out on a limb than I have done previously from this point, but I hope that you won’t think that I’m ‘cheating’ the debate. I believe that my following supposition takes some of the theories that I have voiced further and continues in the spirit of the dialogue that we have set up here..
Right here I go..
As I have said, The problems that you have outlined are indeed very difficult obstacles to overcome. For the first time, I will go as far as saying that perhaps they are impossible for us to overcome..
I am very aware that you don’t believe in the possibilty of time travel, because we can’t conceive of a theory that doesn’t contain some Fundamental ‘stumbling block’ that throws significant doubt on the premise. Ie..That ‘paradoxes’ actually disallow the possibilities that are being theorised.
I’m actually beginning to share your problem with the ‘theoretical difficulties’ concerning this matter, but I feel that I may have come up with a train of thought that backs up your thoughts without also disallowing the possibilty of time travel. This must sound nonsensical and effectively ‘paradoxical’ in itself, but I’m certain that you’ll hear me out..
I must ask you a question..“Do you believe ‘time’ to be a physical, quantifiable property of the universe, or a property of our perception of the universe?” In other words, does it really exist in ‘universal’ terms?
Obviously, no Human Being knows the answer to that, but nevertheless, as I have stated before, I am quite attracted to the notion that ‘time’ is just a matter of our perception and effectively in terms of the universe itself, an illusion.
With this in mind, when we talk about time travel, what are we actually proposing?
We are proposing some method of ‘leaping’ outside, or beyond etc the normal ‘linear’ flow of ‘time’(our perception) and ‘leaping’ back in at a different ‘historical point’.
So by definition, the very nature of a ‘time incursion’ is an ‘extra linear’ undertaking. This is why it is so difficult to conceive ways in which such an ‘incursion’ could be possible. We are attempting to formulate a method of achieving this ‘extra linear’ state with a line of thinking that is obviouly firmly rooted in ‘linear’ terms alone (our perception). No wonder our ‘current’ understanding of the universe only ever seems to fall short of ‘time travelling’ possibilities.
This may be diverging from the original debate concerning temporal mechanics, but what if there is a similar problem associated with our understanding of that side of the equation.
Say if ‘time’ is just our perception of the universe, is it not entirely possible that there are consequenquently processes of the universe that we are unable to perceive with ‘time’. Is there not more to the universe than our perception of it??
As I have theorised before, if time is not ‘real’ in the universal sense, then there is no such thing as ‘when’. Every single cause and effect ‘ever’ would exist simultaeniously if not governed by ‘time’.
If we could ‘access’ this ‘true’ state of the universe, could we not re-emerge into our normal ‘linear perspective’ at any point in ‘time’ that we wished?
What if, through our normal perspective -‘time’ we simply cannot percieve the full implications of temporal mechanics? If the universe actually exists ‘outside’ of time, then so too do these ‘true’ implications that contribute to the overall nature of the universe.
What if…the inherent seemingly impossible situations/paradoxes etc that appear to scupper all current time travel theories, are simply the effect of our inability to percieve the universe on it’s own terms. To percieve beyond ‘time’ and ‘see’ the full implications.
We see part of the puzzle, but what if the key pieces that form the overall picture are beyond our perception?
What if we see parts that seem to add up to a whole, but when we start to scrutinise the picture, we notice that something doesn’t seem quite right?
Some parts don’t quite fit properly, or seem to lead to something else that you can’t see. It would appear paradoxical, because you thought that you had the whole picture - all the pieces, but somehow, illogically you can’t have. Maybe infrared or ultraviolet would reveal a new layer of pieces that join on to all the lose ends and form a much ‘truer’ picture…you just need to go beyond your natural perception..
I am much more convinced (relatively) by this kind of beautifully simple idea of the universe, and our place in it (whether time travel will ever be possible or not), than one which contains infinate multiple realities, for much the same reasons that you have previously stated.
I mean, an infinate number of multiple realities - why would the universe go to so much trouble to allow beings like us to bugger about in time unnecessarily?? I somehow doubt that the universe exists purely for the amusement of whatever advanced beings may develop within it.
…But then again, maybe it does, who knows??
This is my real standpoint on time travel..I believe that we exist in a universe that we don’t ‘truly’ understand. (How could we claim that we do?) Therefore I am open to the possibilties of time travel etc being parts of physics or whatever, that we maybe can’t naturally perceive or understand, but which may be ‘reality’ in universal terms nevertheless.
For example..
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how the speed of light is constant, no matter at what speed or in which direction the source is travelling.
Anyway, thanks for reading, I look forward to reading your reply..