New spin on an old paradox

[BackAgain]

Let’s say you’re suicidal. If you could go back in time to kill baby you upon birth or even while you were inside the womb, could you do it?

At the very instant you took the life of baby you, of course, you would retroactively cease to exist so that it wouldn’t be possible for you to go back in time to kill baby you at all.

So, it appears that if you could do it, therefore you couldn’t do it.

Yep. Perfectly sober.

 

[White 6]

Let’s say you’re suicidal. If you could go back in time to kill baby you upon birth or even while you were inside the womb, could you do it?

At the very instant you took the life of baby you, of course, you would retroactively cease to exist so that it wouldn’t be possible for you to go back in time to kill baby you at all.

So, it appears that if you could do it, therefore you couldn’t do it.

Yep. Perfectly sober.

I am a science fiction reader. I would say you are the time travelor and do it, you on an alternate timeline from the moment you go back, you, yourself insulated from the act. Upon return, nobody would know who you were, but you would still exist.

 

[BackAgain]

I am a science fiction reader. I would say you are the time travelor and do it, you on an alternate timeline from the moment you go back, you, yourself insulated from the act. Upon return, nobody would know who you were, but you would still exist.

But if the baby me is dead, then it doesn’t grow up. If it doesn’t grow up, then at no time will I ever be me to become the aspiring murderer or belated suicide.

I don’t think you can get around the paradox that easily.

But hey. What the eff do I know? I am not planning my own demise and I am also not planning to become a time traveler (except forward which is what we all do all the time).

 

[fncceo]

Let’s say you’re suicidal. If you could go back in time to kill baby you upon birth or even while you were inside the womb, could you do it?

That's not a paradox, that's a moral conundrum.

 

[Batcat]

Let’s say you’re suicidal. If you could go back in time to kill baby you upon birth or even while you were inside the womb, could you do it?

At the very instant you took the life of baby you, of course, you would retroactively cease to exist so that it wouldn’t be possible for you to go back in time to kill baby you at all.

So, it appears that if you could do it, therefore you couldn’t do it.

Yep. Perfectly sober.

Depends on if there are parallel universes.

From Einstein to Doctor Who: A scientist talks time travel with a literature professor

Since HG Wells imagined humans traveling in time with technology, literature has inspired science. Will time travel be possible one day?

www.newsweek.com

***snip***

From the conventional point of view, there's rather a lot wrong with the idea of looping back in time. But modern interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that the world may actually consist of many parallel futures, constantly splitting off from one another. All of these futures exist simultaneously, but we are only conscious of one of them. From this viewpoint, there isn't so much to fear from time travel. The looped world line simply creates another layer of possible futures.

 

[BackAgain]

That's not a paradox, that's a moral conundrum.

It is that too. But it is also a paradox. If you wished to do it and could time travel and you did it, you wouldn’t exist and never would have existed and so you couldn’t do it at all. It’s a paradox because the doing of it makes it impossible to do. If it’s impossible, then you didn’t do it.

 

[fncceo]

It is that too. But it is also a paradox. If you wished to do it and could time travel and you did it, you wouldn’t exist and never would have existed and so you couldn’t do it at all. It’s a paradox because the doing of it makes it impossible to do. If it’s impossible, then you didn’t do it.

If you're asking if the very act of going back in time to kill yourself as a baby/fetus is possible, then the correct question should be "Can you do it?" versus "Could you do it". Can refers to something with a strong (im)possibility. Could implies a weak (im)possibility.

The question, "Could you do it?" suggests you are presented with a choice.

 

[White 6]

But if the baby me is dead, then it doesn’t grow up. If it doesn’t grow up, then at no time will I ever be me to become the aspiring murderer or belated suicide.

I don’t think you can get around the paradox that easily.

But hey. What the eff do I know? I am not planning my own demise and I am also not planning to become a time traveler (except forward which is what we all do all the time).

Try the movie Deja Vu

 

[BackAgain]

If you're asking if the very act of going back in time to kill yourself as a baby/fetus is possible, then the correct question should be "Can you do it?" versus "Could you do it". Can refers to something with a strong (im)possibility. Could implies a weak (im)possibility.

The question, "Could you do it?" suggests you are presented with a choice.

So does can.

Besides which, you’re missing the additional play on words. “Could” you or “can “you? Either way, the question is whether you are capable of doing something you’ve done which automatically negates the possibility of you doing it at all.

 

[Gregory A]

Let’s say you’re suicidal. If you could go back in time to kill baby you upon birth or even while you were inside the womb, could you do it?

At the very instant you took the life of baby you, of course, you would retroactively cease to exist so that it wouldn’t be possible for you to go back in time to kill baby you at all.

So, it appears that if you could do it, therefore you couldn’t do it.

Yep. Perfectly sober.

If something exists now then it would have been impossible to eliminate it in the past. Likewise, if something exists or an event takes place in the future it will be impossible to stop whatever that is, now. We don't know the future but can measure the resistance to change of something that presently exists, giving a measure of the likelihood of it being a part of a future event. For example, if London Bridge is still standing in one hundred years time it is impossible for it to fall down tomorrow or for that matter at any time in that preceding period. So if you go back to prevent your own birth something needs to go wrong with your attempts. You could try it but it would always fail and that would include you not getting access to a time machine in the first place as someone with malicious intent. The next transit of Venus is set to take place in 95 years time, try and change that.

 

[BackAgain]

If something exists now then it would have been impossible to eliminate it in the past.

Why’s that? Start with this moment. Next moment; working time machine. Next moment (for you) is in your own past! Next moment: you kill prior you.

As you commit murder, your own past (up to your own present) disappears. Did you kill yourself if you prevented the “you” that committed the murder?

Likewise, if something exists or an event takes place in the future it will be impossible to stop whatever that is, now.

Why’s that?

At noon, tomorrow, I walk across my dead-end very lightly traveled street. At that moment, dang the luck, a UPS truck has a mechanical problem and the thing hits me. I die.

But I only know this because that time machine also permits going to the future. But, now, I KNOW. So, survival mechanism kicks I. I tell myself, “well fuck that. I ain’t going.”

And at noon (still tomorrow) I remain inside and the UPS accident takes place killing nobody and causing no injuries.

Because I knew the future in advance, I choose to evade that very moment by being elsewhere.

We don't know the future but can measure the resistance to change of something that presently exists, giving a measure of the likelihood of it being a part of a future event. For example, if London Bridge is still standing in one hundred years time it is impossible for it to fall down tomorrow or for that matter at any time in that preceding period. So if you go back to prevent your own birth something needs to go wrong with your attempts. You could try it but it would always fail and that would include you not getting access to a time machine in the first place as someone with malicious intent. The next transit of Venus is set to take place in 95 years time, try and change that.

 

[Gregory A]

Why’s that? Start with this moment. Next moment; working time machine. Next moment (for you) is in your own past! Next moment: you kill prior you.

The possibility of you preventing your own existence would be one of many, but as it evokes a paradox it would not be there as a viable option. And if for whatever reason your mother or your father to be, killed you first, then there would be no paradox as you would be a John Doe back then and an explainable dispearence now.

As you commit murder, your own past (up to your own present) disappears. Did you kill yourself if you prevented the “you” that committed the murder?

The loop would never complete itself losing out to more viable alternative options. Those things that mess up our best-laid plans.

Why’s that?
At noon, tomorrow, I walk across my dead-end very lightly traveled street. At that moment, dang the luck, a UPS truck has a mechanical problem and the thing hits me. I die.
But I only know this because that time machine also permits going to the future. But, now, I KNOW. So, survival mechanism kicks I. I tell myself, “well fuck that. I ain’t going.”

And at noon (still tomorrow) I remain inside and the UPS accident takes place killing nobody and causing no injuries.

Because I knew the future in advance, I choose to evade that very moment by being elsewhere.

We know something of the past. But it is absolutely impossible to know the future as it is something that does not exist and so can not be accessible to a time machine. And as it is not physical momentum that drags you into the future you would have no real way of predicting your ongoing existence there.

 

[BackAgain]

The possibility of you preventing your own existence would be one of many, but as it evokes a paradox it would not be there as a viable option.

Why not? And according to what scientific law? What if is a matter involving different dimensions or parallel universes?

And if for whatever reason your mother or your father to be, killed you first, then there would be no paradox as you would be a John Doe back then and an explainable dispearence now.

Depends on which me they killed back then.

The loop would never complete itself losing out to more viable alternative options. Those things that mess up our best-laid plans.

What loop? Who says it has to get closed?

We know something of the past. But it is absolutely impossible to know the future as it is something that does not exist and so can not be accessible to a time machine.

Who says we have to know what the future holds for time travel into the future to be accessible? We find out what will be when we get there.

And as it is not physical momentum that drags you into the future you would have no real way of predicting your ongoing existence there.

Who says it has to be predicted?

 

[Gregory A]

Why not? And according to what scientific law? What if is a matter involving different dimensions or parallel universes?

You need to show these things are possible first. So, first up prove that Time exists.

Depends on which me they killed back then.

Many worlds theory unproven and unnecessary anyhow.

What loop? Who says it has to get closed?

The grandfather paradox does involves a loop. If you were to kill your unborn self it would a loop,
an obvious one.

Who says we have to know what the future holds for time travel into the future to be accessible? We find out what will be when we get there.

The future does not exist (the past or the present either).

It gets worse because I don't know much about physics, but I can figure these simple things out.

Who says it has to be predicted?

 

[BackAgain]

You need to show these things are possible first. So, first up prove that Time exists.

Wrong. I’m asking questions. I’m not making claims. And we all understand what we mean by “time.” So, I don’t have to prove that time exists anymore than I have to prove that matter can be converted into energy.

Many worlds theory unproven and unnecessary anyhow.

Again. I didn’t say it was proved. And I also didn’t say it was necessary. It may be that we live in one universe of an infinite number of universes.

The grandfather paradox does involves a loop. If you were to kill your unborn self it would a loop,
an obvious one.

Nope. It would be more of an erasure.

The future does not exist (the past or the present either).

Of course they all do.

It gets worse because I don't know much about physics, but I can figure these simple things out.

I’m not a physicist, either. But you’re providing only answers which seem correct to you. But, there’s no evidence that your conjectures are correct.

 

[Gregory A]

Wrong. I’m asking questions. I’m not making claims. And we all understand what we mean by “time.” So, I don’t have to prove that time exists anymore than I have to prove that matter can be converted into energy.

Again. I didn’t say it was proved. And I also didn’t say it was necessary. It may be that we live in one universe of an infinite number of universes.

There's nothing wrong with speculating and I like to believe time is real too. And as it is I'm here because of frustrations that appear to relate to the future being something real and consequently deciding what we do now. The determinism thing

Nope. It would be more of an erasure.

Of course they all do.

If you were siting on a chair in one room and got up and walked into a second room, then returned and noticed that your trip had taken 20 seconds on a clock, then how do you explain the fact you have returned to the exact same position. What really has elasped? Does not the clock measure motion the same motion you take when you are walking, yet in this instance that motion not showing any direction whatsoever either. No before or after as nothing has changed apart from the hands of the clock which too will 'return' to that same positon in another 12 hours.

I’m not a physicist, either. But you’re providing only answers which seem correct to you. But, there’s no evidence that your conjectures are correct.

Conjecture? I think sci-fi has got the better of you.