Printable View
Ok, so basically, a paradox can not be solved, or so it is said.
There's all sorts of crazy theories about what happens if a paradox is solved. The one I like best, is that the world will implode on itself.
Where that theory originally came from, I have no idea.
So, I was just wondering if anyone else wanted to share their thoughts on paradox theories, what happens when we solve them, anything to do with a paradox.
Whats a paradox? :D
Theoretical paradox:
A mad scientist somehow creates a wormhole, that travels back in time 5minutes, to a spot right behind where he's standing now. He loads a pistol, and steps through the wormhole. Upon exiting the wormhole, he sees himself loading the gun, 5minutes in the past. He shoots and kills his past self.
That Kemal, is a paradox.
Everyone knows that the earth will transform itself in a giant pie, that chickens will give Chocolate instead of eggs, and that it will rain hot girls when a paradox is solved.
That is why so many scientists are trying to solve one.
Chickens laying chocolate?
*picks a paradox and tries to solve it*
Besides, I don't think the world would implode. It simply wouldn't exist at all! :P
Yeah, but implosions sound better :P
Now, to have a more tangible debate, we'd probably want a point of reference. Which kind of paradox are we talking about? the infamous grandfather paradox? (including time travel and all it's wonders like eric0095's example), or maybe a philisophical paradox? Moral? :dizzy:
I wasn't thinking any paradox in particular, I just meant paradoxes in general.
Moral? You mean like the 'If someone was a murderer (or accused of murdering someone), and their death could (but not totally proven) mean saving lives, and you saw the attempt being made on their life, would you stop it or not?' scenario?Quote:
Originally Posted by AbstractAngel
Erm, I SAY we all go watch Doctor Who quickly and then come back and answer :D.
how about , what came first chicken or the egg? :D
BMS
The Doctor knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by BadManStor
He always does.
Anyway a paradox was sustained in season 3 or 4 when The Master brought back humans from the future to kill the present day humans. He cannibalized the TARDIS and turned it into a Paradox Machine.
But in my opinion if a paradox is solved there's a error in the world and the universe turns into the BSOD and shuts down. Oh and no memory dump :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric0095
That is entirely possible theoretically. Once you go back in time you create a new reality or universe. Your actions there cannot affect your timeline as you are outside of the original timeline.
This is all just a rambling of a Poli Sci major, mind you.
Oh ok, guess we should just ignore it then xdQuote:
Originally Posted by Skirata
Paradoxes are arguably paradoxes. If they can be solved, they aren't really true paradoxes, and if they can't be solved, they effectively don't exist therefore can't be true paradoxes.
Paradoxical, isn't it?
Depends on whether you believe in a Static Line of Time or Dynamic Line of Time, or whatever their correct terminologies are.Quote:
That is entirely possible theoretically. Once you go back in time you create a new reality or universe. Your actions there cannot affect your timeline as you are outside of the original timeline.
This is all just a rambling of a Poli Sci major, mind you.
For a DLoT, what you say is true, or is for at least one of its theories (the other is that the universe can spontaneously explode from a paradox being created, I believe, but the more rational argument is that alterniverses are created instead).
For a SLoT, all points of time are already accounted for and predetermined, and set in stone (AKA, cannot be changed or altered in any way). If I recall, SLoT argues that all points of time are occurring simultaneously and there is no true "present" as all points of time are essentially "present", and "past" and "future" are entirely personal perspectives rather than any universal points in time, but I forget. Anyhow, SLoT dictates that what will happen in the future is already accounted for in the past. What happens in a certain point of time, always happened, always will happen, and never did not happen. In other words, if you created a time machine and traveled 3000 years in the past, you would not be changing the past, as you have always appeared in 1000 BC, and have never not been there.
According to SLoT, the grandfather paradox is impossible, because the past can't be changed, thus if there was ever an attempt to destroy humanity in the past, there was always an attempt to destroy humanity in the past, and our being here today is evidence that it did not succeed and never will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric0095
Entirely IMpossible regardless of SLoT or DLoT, since in order to have travelled back in time holding a loaded gun, he must have created a wormhole, loaded a gun, and then stepped into said wormhole.... thus the unsolvable paradoxQuote:
Originally Posted by Skirata
Both Static and Dynamic Lines of Time would require the actions leading up to the event to occur, in order to create the situation causing the paradox.
For a colloquial example, refer the movie "The Time Machine" starring Guy Pearce. Inventor creates a time machine in order to go back in time to save his fiance. However, since the death of his fiance was the reason he thought of, and thus created, the time machine, it becomes an unchangeable event. If he saves his fiance, he wouldn't have the idea to create the time machine he is using in order to change the past.
Alternatively, there's Ben Elton's theory that it doesn't matter if you become your grandfather anyway, since the universe will sort it all out later. :cheer: :D
how bout a boating paradox? ...Quote:
Originally Posted by AbstractAngel
http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/a...-two-docks.jpg
uh ... er ... sorry that is a pair of docks, not what the discussion is about. -.-
okay a scenario ... right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallbreeze
Now I know this is very contraversial but I just want to give a scenario
"a doctor, who has taken the hypocratic oath, goes and offs viable life, does it on a regular basis, so to end that doctors life would save many lives, but to end that doctor's life is murder, and yet some argue that what he is doing is murder, so would I stop it him being murdered if I knew all the facts and had the opportunity to do so? No
there is a quantum material loop involved in the grandfather paradox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alusair
Take for instance this example:
Say going back in time only involved an intense meditation, subsequentially controlling static [or linear] time, converting it into dynamic [or flexable] time. A man goes to an antique store and buys an antique watch, later on that same day, that same man learns how to travel back in time using his mind's powers, just he and what he is wearing is affected. He uses his mind to manipulate the aethers of time and space and therefore he successfully appears as a stranger back in time, a time right after the antique watch was made. He meets a woman, whom he falls madly in love with, and having no money to take her on a decent date, and no money to present to her a fine gift, goes to a pawn shop, sells the watch, recieves the money, buys standish duds, dressed to the nines, flowers, champagne, and a tennis bracelette [sp]
seeks the attention of this woman, takes her out to dinner, candles and all, good eats, then takes her on a stroll by the lake shore, they both fall in romantic love, but as soon as he kisses her, his mental discipline is disturbed, and his hold on the current time and space falters, and he whiskfully disappears right before her eyes in a swirl of glittering fields of bogatons.
Now the question is:
Are there two watches?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalee
there is a song called "I'm my own grandpa"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw
and then there is the parodox of the snake which consumes its own tail ...
http://acidcow.com/pics/20100611/wtf...the_day_11.jpg
Well, arguably that part of the example is impossible- if time can be changed from static to dynamic, that means it was never static and always dynamic.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Alboin
But dismissing that finicky comment on my part, in regard to your example, I've heard similar paradoxes- such as your grandpa teaching you a life wisdom, and then you travel back in time and teach his younger self that same wisdom. Which creates the question: if you learned it from him, and he learned it from you, where exactly did it come from?
They are fun to think about, I feel.
Time in and of itself is a paradox, for though it exist as a reference point, and can be measured, it dont exist in proven reality. It cant be proven time exist at all, just be measured to a certain reference point. Like with the speed of something, {it is here "." now it is here -------> "." }Quote:
Originally Posted by Alusair
and like you say, and I agree, it is real fun to think about.
the static time line has to always exist, however the dynamic because of its definition can exist or not exist. consider the quantum loop of the watch. it was made at one point in time, therefore it exist "."
"1a" = watch brand new
now through out most of its existance, it travelled along the static time line to the present time ... pt
"1a" ------------------------------> ("1a") pt
now lover boy ~lb~ goes back in time with the watch in his pocket ~lb~+ ("1a")pt, and arrives after the watch was made
"1a" ---- ~lb~+ ("1a") <---------------[*]
so lover boy leaves the watch there in that time point, now at that time point does not two watches, which are the same watch exist?
hence static has turned briefly into a dynamic loop, within the framwork of static.
Now I can see where the static line would have a bubble of dynamic and return back to static, for to get back to the past, loverboy would need to step out of the static line into a region not governed by the rules of static, yet can be controlled by the rules of dynamic, then loverboy steps into static line, yet back in the past, and then leaves the past static line point goes back into the swirlyness of the dynamic realm, then back into the static line, yet further on down the line then from hence he left.
but would he find two watches? in the present? that is my question?
Hm, I still argue that SLoT and DLoT are not interchangable. SLoT says all points of time and every action made from the dawn of existence to its end, is already predetermined and set in stone. You cannot change it because your decision and actions were already predicted and accounted for.
DLoT pretty much says nothing is set in stone, the future is unknown, and the past can be altered as a consequence of future actions.
SLoT is not a line of time that has not been changed, it is a line of time that can't be changed, in any way, ever. DLoT is a line of time that can be changed, whether it has been changed already or not.
So, it is determined by the possibility of change, not whether or not there has been a change. Both can't exist at once or trade back and forth; Only one is true to the universe, while the other is true only to the imagination. Mankind has yet to know which is which.
Regardless, I would say there is only one watch. Assuming that the watch bought by loverboy is Watch #1, and that the watch found in the past is Watch #2, we can say, by evidence provided in the sample, Watch #2 will eventually be purchased by loverboy in the modern time and then brought back to the past, giving it the identity of Watch #1. Thus, Watch #1 and Watch #2 are none other than the very same watch, with overlapping PLoTs (Personal Line of Time).
At least, this is according to a SLoT, in which events will and always have repeated themselves endlessly because they cannot be altered, and thus the watch has always existed twice in that point of time, and has never not done so, thus nothing has been disturbed from how it has always been.
In a DLoT, this might be the first time the watch existed twice in the same point of time, and perhaps this changes events- such as a different customer deciding to buy the watches as a pair, whereas in the original passage of time, he was not interested in buying just a standalone watch. This would create a paradox, because then loverboy would have never found and purchased the original watch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alusair
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alusair
Are you making these up as you go along? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Alusair
It seems to me I often make threads that end up being turned into big discussions, where I barely understand anything being said.
Nah, I'm nicking them from someone else that probably did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hehe
EDIT:
Here, I believe, is the official "SLoT":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov...ency_principle
EDIT 2:
Actually I don't think it's quite the same, but fairly similar in this regard:
Quote:
The principle states that the timeline is totally fixed, and any actions taken by a time traveler were part of history all along, so it is impossible for the time traveler to "change" history in any way.
the inevitablility of predeterminations can not be held up to be so, if random quarks can be applied to the Slot.
It is an illusion that matter looks solid to us. Yet matter acts quirky the smaller one digresses into its base parts.
If the universe were a contained universe, and has no adjoining universes, linked on the fringes of space, then perhaps Slot makes perfect sense, I agree.
Yet trons and even gravity on the quantum level acts as if there is more than just this universe that we know and have grown fond of. Other universes with a complete different set of laws, governing their matter or what have you on a variable slide of differentiality.
Time is an illusion, just like matter is. So I would tend then towards Dlot instead of Slot, though I am not so sure that the rules of Slot can be written in stone, then I would suggest that time travel is possible, with out the concurrent haphazardness of changin the future line from which one has come from, then that would mean that the time traveler can not actually go back to their original future, but to a slightly off parallel line that was created the moment they went back into the past.
So in theory, Loveboy's Plot is altered, from his original Plot, angling off just so slightly, almost seemingly parallel, but not. Yet whoah to that idea, for now instead of having 6 billion lives +/- existing in all of existance, there are now 12 billion lives +/- existing in all of existance, and so on exponentially.
a fractal gone amuck, visually that is.
In restrospect Alusair, take the watch again.
If as stated Loveboy went back in time, using his mind, instead of some invented time machine, linking himself with the past..
as stated in the original, he went back in the past to a point that was after the time the watch was made. So the two watches exist, at the same time, in the same universe, the moment he stepped in.
assuming that the original watch he bought was the original watch that was made, when he stepped back in time, there is then W1 and W1, the same. you can study the double slit experiment ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
for reasonings as to see how it is possible for a an electron to split its essence equally, thereby theoretically confirming that there could be two watches that are the same exact watch.
call it the "pair of clocks" theorum, I suppose if you want to give it a name
now you state then that at that moment, this is in fact a paradox, but no implosions, well maybe not, but maybe so, can not really find out till it is actually done. urrrgh
and all that aside, just to follow the two W1's
W1 the one still on its original Plot, goes through its time, and ends up at the antique store.
somewhere along its path on its Plot, it shows up again, yet it is more aged than itself because it has been down its Plot a lot longer than than the one that is on its original Plot path.
the older looking one gets sold to a pawnbroker, so now it is now on its own Plot path.
There are now, two watches, on the same time line, be it Dlot or Slot or DKot.
lets assume the younger watch ends up at the antique store, and is the one purchased by Loverboy, but see, some where in this universe is the older watch singing along just nicely along its second path.
So at the time that Loverboy originally purchased W1 the younger, W1 the elder exist, prolly in the back in the vault of the antique dealers office.
Now should Loverboy had bought W1 the elder, then a never ending loop begins, always going to repeat itself, even though we travell onward through the line of time, that darn watch will be stuck in a quantum loop of "here we go again" yet one of the watches still would have to continue its personal time line, because both watches would exist at time of purchase not matter which watch was bought. :dizzy:
The idea is called the "bootstrap paradox"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrap_paradox
and I got the idea from the movie "somewhere in time" with jane seymore and christopher reeves, but I apply a twist, as to the known origin of the watch, separate from the loop discribed in the "bootstrap paraclendium" {yeah made up word, but it fits}
to support your premise Alusair there is this russian dude who says that if something would change the past it would be impossible so the chances of changing the past are zero. k I dont 'splain it well but here is the link that does ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle
Well, if I can pull this off with ASCII art, here is how I envision our clock's PLoT on the ULoT (universal line of time! ;))
IMO it looks really horrendous, and I tried to color code it to make it more eligible, but if it's still confusing, I understand.Code:ULoT 1 4 2 6
|-------------------|-----------------|--------/
|-------------------|==================|--------/
PLoT | 5 |
| |
| |
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
3
1. Span of time which only 1 Watch exists in timeline.
2. Point in time which Loverboy buys Watch.
3. Watch traveling back in time with Loverboy.
4. Point in time which Loverboy arrives in the past and sells Watch.
5. Span of time in which Watch exists twice at once.
6. Arbitrary point in time which only one Watch exists in the ULoT again.
Anyhow, that attempt of an explanation is how I see the watch existing twice at once, yet being the very same watch, and not two different watches. One point of evidence could be, assuming dynamic paradoxes could be done in this example, should the younger watch be, say, destroyed, the second watch would cease to exist as well.
Also, along the indication that the older watch would obviously be more aged than its younger equivalent, here is an excerpt that may be interesting to read:
Although it doesn't directly pertain to this scenario as Loverboy is not buying the same watch he sold to the pawn shop years before, but rather buying a younger version of it and sending that one back in time.Quote:
The philosopher Kelley L. Ross argues in "Time Travel Paradoxes" that in an ontological paradox scenario involving a physical object, there can be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Ross uses Somewhere in Time as an example where Jane Seymour's character gives Christopher Reeve's character a watch she has owned for many years, and when he travels back in time he gives the same watch to Jane Seymour's character 60 years in the past. As Ross states
"The watch is an impossible object. It violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy. If time travel makes that watch possible, then time travel itself is impossible. The watch, indeed, must be absolutely identical to itself in the 19th and 20th centuries, since Reeve carries it with him from the future instantaneously into the past and bestows it on Seymour. The watch, however, cannot be identical to itself, since all the years in which it is in the possession of Seymour and then Reeve it will wear in the normal manner. It's [sic] entropy will increase. The watch carried back by Reeve will be more worn that [sic] the watch that would have been acquired by Seymour."
On the other hand, the second law of thermodynamics is understood by modern physicists to be a statistical law rather than an absolute one, so spontaneous reversals of entropy or failure to increase in entropy are not impossible, just improbable (see for example the fluctuation theorem). In addition, the second law of thermodynamics only states that entropy should increase in systems which are isolated from interactions with the external world, so Igor Novikov (creator of the Novikov self-consistency principle) has argued that in the case of macroscopic objects like the watch whose worldlines form closed loops, the outside world can expend energy to repair wear/entropy that the object acquires over the course of its history, so that it will be back in its original condition when it closes the loop.
I like your ASCII art graph, very hard work and deserves an applause, for I see quite clearly the synopsis of the time frames involved.
Entropy would indeed affect the watch, from the moment it left the watch maker's stobb, to the point in time it was sold to Loverboy. There would be an x factor of delayed entropy between the older and younger watch, so I can see where though they are the same watch, they are not exactly the same watch at all, cuz one is older therefore different than the other. STol rules, I believe, would apply then in this case. To add subsequent thought, no paradox would exist to implode existance, seeing that the exact same objects because of entropy, are not existing at the same time.
therefore other timelines will not be needed to be created to keep the balance of time spacial indifferentials. The sequence though seemingly random, is actually refined, organized and well ordered.
For take your excellent ASCII graph. Its kindof like a roller coster, essentially one continued line with a grand loop in the middle. The older watch in the vault of the antique dealer, went on a grand ride, no doubt, but on a continuous line, looping somewhere on its PLoT, for there is just one PLot for the watch. Maybe that is why the antique dealer she keeps it in her vault and does not sell it. Maybe she knows its secret? 0.o
So now the PLoT thickens. What if she was the one who was the pawnbroker way back when, and bought the elder watch, BUT, she had earlier accepted the younger watch from its previous owner, so now she has both watches in her possesion, and like all good pawnbrokers, examines her ware, cleans it up, to get ready for sale. Well now, she discovers that both watches have the same serial # and maker's mark. Roh Roh shaggy, what does she do? or even think? first off she may think its a forgery, but nah, the marks are consistant, and for what purpose would one forge a watch? So she gets to thinking that maybe the young gentleman who sold it to her could very well be a time traveller. Now I know a side story must be inserted, sooo hmmm, lets just say that in her youth she knew a young einstein, who was working at this patent office who used to talk of these things, and ever since then she keeps in touch through letters.
Soooo, she has this idea and therefore must keep the watch she just bought from Loverboy in safe keeping, and does so by always keeping it in the wall vault in her office. for later down the line, as she has collected gobbs of rarities, she eventually turns her pawnshoppe into an antique shoppe.
Now consider this, if you will. What if, she had taken out the elder watch to clean it up a bit, for to take photos of it, and she laid it down on the counter, and her nephew sold the elder watch instead of the younger watch to Loveboy?
I dont know yet, so I will have to think of what would be the result of this boo boo.
....I only know Religious hostile paradoxes...
Which is a subject that can not be discussedQuote:
Originally Posted by LaoOmologo
Though since pm'ing is still allowed, there I can entertain you on such a paradox as this.
http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/a...mg-paradox.jpg
The next sentence is true.
The previous sentence is a lie.
The "Progress Paradox": How life gets better while people feel worse.
It's actually a book. I find it is a very dry read, so I have moved onto other things.
Basically, life is getting "better" because of technology such as the Internet, computers, better healthcare, better schooling, better and safer workplaces, yet as a society we are on a progressive downhill trend when it comes to happiness. People are feeling more stressed out and depressed, despite the fact that life has gotten better.
Why is that so?
Different type of paradox than what you guys are discussing at the moment, but all the same.
An interesting point Arathorn, in the book "Jurassic Park", (I don't believe the quote made it to the movie), Ian Malcolm made a comment about how, even with all our advancements, it still takes a woman (his word used, I'll sub "person") about the same amount of time to do the "housework".
We have all these gizmos and gadgets, and we still haven't actually improved much about our daily lives, all we've done is to improve our understanding of how much better it might be "if...."
Alusair, if I may borrow your quote..... "If time travel makes that watch possible, then time travel itself is impossible", this is the point I was alluding to earlier in the paradox theory about a scientist shooting himself in the past. In order to shoot himself, he must first have created the ability to timetravel and loaded a gun, then stepped through. An attempt to stop him from any of these actions would result in impossibility. He must make the preparations in order to shoot himself, therefore he cannot shoot himself.
*crazy eyes*