1

Many philosophers argue that time travel is possible without causally affecting the past?

Is it even possible to time travel without causally affecting the past.

The grandfather paradox is an extreme case which limits a time traveller from killing their grandfather to ensure their own existence. However, the mere existence of a time traveller and very minimal interference with the grandfather (or anyone for that matter) would cause another version of the past; thereby violated the consistency principle? Is it possible without causally affecting the past at all since even the existence of a time traveller adds additional matter to our universe compared to the past without the time traveller?

  • Not if the past has always been that way - there is no reason to assume travelling back in time changes anything. I cannot relate this to any philosophical writings, however. – Joachim Dec 7 '18 at 16:49
  • Also a possible duplicate of this. Does that thread answer your question? – Joachim Dec 7 '18 at 16:52
  • Thanks. How has the past always been that way. Let's say John was born in 1950. It's now 2018. Currently, the past does not have a history which includes John. If now, he finds a time machine, and goes back to 1950. History now includes John. Hence, his existence has causally changed past. – PhysicsEnthu Dec 7 '18 at 16:54
  • The earlier thread isn't a direct answer to the question asked, thank you nevertheless. – PhysicsEnthu Dec 7 '18 at 16:56
  • How many philosophers have argued that time travel is possible? That looks to me more of a physics question, and I have seen arguments for stable closed timelike curves (time travel without changing the past) in physics contexts. – David Thornley Dec 7 '18 at 18:21
0

Well I wanted to share my point of view of time travel I like physics so this is how I look at it:

All of this is from my original thougths, so just my opinion.

Is time traveling possible? Yes, but not in the way most people think.

What do I mean by that? When you travel in time the only reality that exists is what the traveler experiences as present, Imagine like a youtube video in which you can go forwards or backwards, but when you go backwards you destroy everything that is the future for your current "present" what i say is that in reality you destroy everything that hasn't happened, What i also mean is that time traveling (to the past) is actually destroying(modifying in the correct way) the current state of a system.

And you can only go to the future by building it.

0

In order to consider the issues of time travel, it is important do make the distinction between the phenomena (what we perceive) and the noumena (what actually happens in nature, but we don't have access to). In general, time travel implies several logical flaws, which few people seem to take care of, and most conclusions are essentially affected by such flaws.

Things, interactions and causality are facts at a phenomenal level. We perceive them, but that doesn't mean that they are physical facts. Causality is the mental-rational relationship between two events, created only by our understanding. Causality and time generate a chain of events in our understanding, and we create relations between them. For example, a queue of dominoes that fall down in order. If the cause is the Domino-1 fall down, the consequence is the domino-2 fall down, and so on.

When we speak of time travel, at the phenomena level, we are idealizing a change in the causal chain. For example, killing my grandparent in the past is equivalent to the assumption that domino-9 (me) falls down without domino-1 (my grandparent) falling down ever. Is that possible? Not within the rules of causality of this universe, as we've learned them. Remember that the rules of causality govern science (Newton's laws, relativity or Darwin's natural selection are examples).

In consequence, time travel, at the level of our understanding, is just a fallacious idea, and any further conclusion (what happens with causality if I kill my grandparent in the past) is impregnated with such fallacy. In order for time travel to be possible at this level, causality should prove wrong. At this level, time traveling is a nice popular fantasy, equivalent to religious beliefs.

At the noumenal level, causality, things and relationships don't exist as we experience them in our daily lives. Wheeler's experiment proves that the past can be changed. But we don't have the capability to understand the observations of reality at this level. Quantum Mechanics, QM, show that our understanding (that we receive through our senses as phenomenal features) of reality (noumena) is essentially flawed, and the universe behaves in strange ways, which cannot be grasped by our understanding (yes, we have complex formulas, but that doesn't mean that they have a rational meaning). QM is so complex to understand, that we've been forced to assume the possibility of an infinite number of universes (which is not a scientific fact!) to solve the issues of our understanding.

So, it is also a fallacy to conclude that time travel would be possible by amplifying small QM facts, and granting them properties of the macroscopic world (e.g. the whole body of a person would be transported to 1918, with its clothes, memories, the air of his lungs, and the atoms that surround his belly in a radius of 2m).

Then, since time traveling is a fallacious consideration, it is pointless to discuss the consequences of such event.

An equivalent question would be: if Zeus made a miracle in the past, can he undo it without changing my present?

0

If one were to accept time as a record book of the occurrences in reality, and if reality is determined as operating within the confines of mathematics/logic, then affecting a past event in the already established timeline would have some effect in the future.

Thought experiment: hitting a cue ball in pool, or throwing a ball of paper to some area of a room; if one were to go back into the past and somehow influence the trajectory of said cue ball or ball of paper, the objects will be placed in a different position prior them being affected. And to state that the objects will still land in predestined positions, regardless of going back in time to try influencing the course action, would pronounce fate. But I seem to understand fate as being unreasonable as it violates logical causes to empirical observations of our world.

The question is how much change of the past do you consider as changing the past?

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.