The single time machine

By -
I have pointed out in the past that if time machines are ever going to be invented, we should have already seen them, since presumably people would be traveling back to our time. (But maybe there is some pact on the part of their possessors to keep there existence secret.)

But there is one time machine. It is called the physical universe, and it continually transports us forward in time.

Comments

  1. Anonymous3:04 AM

    "if time machines are ever going to be invented, we should have already seen them, since presumably people would be traveling back to our time."

    This presumes that time machines have sufficient range to travel to our time.

    According to the theories of Ron Mallet, the time machine would only be able to take people back to the point in time when it became operational.

    The time machine in the film 'PRIMER' works along these lines. I believe the time machine in the film 'Time Crimes' could only take you one hour into the past. It's a fun movie that explores the paradoxes of time travel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:32 AM

      "According to the theories of Ron Mallet, the time machine would only be able to take people back to the point in time when it became operational."

      That seems a little ad hoc. But then I don't know the theories of Ron Mallet.

      Delete
    2. Ken B7:49 PM

      Post hoc ergo imprompter hoc?

      Delete
  2. Lord Keynes7:48 AM

    There is an interesting further philosophical point here: the very notion that time travel is even possible depends on some version of the Eternalist view of time (that is, the past, present and future are all equally real: the whole present, past, and future of the universe already exists in a massive “block”).

    But Eternalism is not proven, it remains a kind of lazy assumption from general relativity and is deeply incompatible with the way we consciously experience a dynamic moving present.

    And actually some highly respected physicists now argue that Eternalism is wrong and they argue that Presentism (i.e., only the present really exists) is right.

    I discussed this issue here for what it is worth:

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-nature-of-time-science-and-economics.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:33 AM

      Good points.

      Delete
    2. Ken B7:47 PM

      this goes back to the "the map is not the terrain". The manifold in GR is indeed an object that is just there. But it's the map, isn't it?

      Anyway Gene I find your proof compelling but you might not know about Feynman's notion of one particle going back and forth in time, weaving the universe. Worth hunting down if you don't.

      Delete
    3. gcallah3:46 PM

      Ken, I know about Feynman. This I think supports my contention: we have already seen that particle, right?

      Delete
  3. Ken B4:42 PM

    Indeed! Good point.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more