a solution to the time travel paradox

[Absol]

Wow, going Sci-fi now.
I revive this thread with a theory i've long made: Absol's law of Chronometry (http://fav.me/d4if376)!

For those who don't want to link outside, i'll give summaries here.

Law #1: Time passes subjectively
Law #2: Time will only pass forward
Law #3: Every person will be treated as a separate entity
Law #4: Every single entity live in its own time, and in its own world
Law #0: No one can prove the Laws of Chronometry. Not even the creator of the laws.
Law #-1: There will exist AT LEAST one world where these laws doesn't work

Science fiction has always depict time traveling as something grand, something impossible. And with it, comes the time paradox: grandfather paradox, information paradox, and such. Like they did in Back to the Future: "don't meet yourself". As such, I'm here to set the laws for my own verse's time travel (if there's any).

Law #1: Time passes subjectively
Time will keep moving forward at constant rate according to YOUR perspective. This means that not everyone experienced the same time passed as you. For example, you will never figure out whether your neighbor has lived for almost 200 years, because YOUR time only passes for around 20 years. Only you will experience what your time feels like.

Law #2: Time will only pass forward
In your perspective, time will always pass forward. Even if you go back to the past, it will still count as YOUR future (not anyone else's, hence #1). This makes it possible to, say, invent a time machine to go back to your past and kill your younger self. See, because you kill your younger self NOT in the past, but in the future (which shaped like the past).

To simplify, it's like this:
past --------------------------------------------------------> future
         ^build time machine   ^go to past   ^kill younger self

and NOT like this:
past --------------------------------------------------------> future
          ^kill younger self  ^build time machine   ^go to past
                    ^<----------------------------------------------V

Time moves forward subjectively, so rather than actually go to past, you will go to future, which will looked like your past. You murder your younger self in the future, not in the past. Thus, your current self is not affected.

This also explains why you don't get younger when you go back in time. Because your time still moves forward, even if it looks like going backward.

Confused? This is the hardest part, so you should be. Just try to understand it.

Law #3: Every person will be treated as a separate entity
There is no single you. There are current!you, and past!you. They are 2 different entity, irrelevant to each other. It's like you move to other world and find someone who looked like you. You're not him, and he's not you. So current!you killing past!you in the future won't bring any disaster to current!you (except for murder charge, but that's another story)

In the same notion, killing past!father will NOT prevent current!you from being created. Nor can you kill current!father BEFORE you're born, because current!you did not exist back then. Consequently, future!you may come and kill current!you, and bring no harm to future!you. Destroying your time machine will NOT prevent this, because current!your time machine and future!your time machine is a DIFFERENT entity.

Which bring us to our last law.

Law #4: Every single entity live in its own time, and in its own world
When i said "we are the god of our own world", i mean it LITERALLY. You can kill Bob, but you can only do it in YOUR world, and in YOUR time. In Bob's time, however, he will live. He will survive the murder. He may even get his revenge (and succeeded). This explains our last question, "how can we still live if we're killed in our younger self?". Because when current!you kill past!you, you only kill it in current!you's time and world. Past!you will still live in his time and world (in this case, past!you is yourself, just another name used to denounce it). Think of the concept of parallel universe. This law is just like that.

And those are the 4 main laws. But we still have 2 special laws

Law #0: No one can prove the Laws of Chronometry. Not even the creator of the laws.
Why? Because this is a speculative work, and people have yet to invent time travel.
"If this law can't be proven, how do we know it's true?" By observing the stability of time around us. Admit it, time is stable, and moving at constant rate. Which will never happen if not for this law. The mere existence of time proves the laws to be true.

Law #-1: There will exist AT LEAST one world where these laws doesn't work
Parallel universe theory says that there are infinite universes out there, each with their unique rules and entities. For every rule given, there will always be at least an exception. If this is true, then for these laws, there will be at least an exception too, because laws are rules. Which explains the law #-1.

These rules are SPECULATIVE WORK, based on my own imagination and thinking. Credit me if you wish to use these laws.
If i found you using this without permission, I'll make sure to find your current self and kill you to remove you from MY world. Because we are the god of our own world.

[zhangvict]

Law #4: Every single entity live in its own time, and in its own world
When i said "we are the god of our own world", i mean it LITERALLY. You can kill Bob, but you can only do it in YOUR world, and in YOUR time. In Bob's time, however, he will live. He will survive the murder. He may even get his revenge (and succeeded). This explains our last question, "how can we still live if we're killed in our younger self?". Because when current!you kill past!you, you only kill it in current!you's time and world. Past!you will still live in his time and world (in this case, past!you is yourself, just another name used to denounce it). Think of the concept of parallel universe. This law is just like that.

This is a rather dangerous law to assume. If the real Bob lives in his world and survives the murder etc, then who is the other Bob you killed in your own world? Is he a "real" person? Because if he really was a real person, he would live in his own time and own world.

Hence imagine the ethical implications. Law no.4 essentially declares that you are the only entity that matters in your world; you can kill, mutilate, cheat, steal etc and won't have to feel guilty about anything because the other "victims" are mere shadowy zombies without their own world. Stabbing someone would essentially have the same moral gravity as frying pancakes, since everyone is an "object" and not a real entity.

[Absol]

As i say, hypothetical. But i'll try to address your issue.
He is a real person, all right (in his own world, of course. His view.). If i killed Bob in my world, i may succeeded. He might live in his own world, like i explained.

Yes, i am the only person that matters in my world. If i died, it ends. That's why i have to stay alive. But of course, even in my world, there are rules. Rules on which i must obey.
Ever heard of Quantum Immortality? Bob lives in the parallel universe, in his world, but he died in my world. Because i killed Bob in my world, i have to face the punishment. But not in his world (maybe). Stabbing someone has always been perceived universally as "morally wrong", so you do have the capability to do it. However, you also must abide by the rules. You kill someone, you go to jail. You can, of course, escape, but again, abide the rule of escaping.

Rule #4 may sound selfish in theory, because it's from my own point of view. However, considering the potential of the multiverses overlapping at certain point, and the universal rules that apply, it's fair to say that you're free to do anything as long as you follow the rules. (and again, because i speak from the point of science, ethical view may contradict with it. Then again, so does they in many cases.)

[zhangvict]

I am actually less concerned with the actions and whether you need to follow the rules or not. That is a side issue to the bigger problem imo.

My main question is: is the Bob in YOUR world an actual "person" deserving of the same existential dignity as you?

Or is only Bob in Bob's world a "person", and that the Bob in your world is a mere expendable object, like a rag doll or a rock to be played with and squished whenever you want?

Its not just the action and following of rules that matters, its the thought and perception. If rule 4 was true, would other people not really be "people" at all?

[Zso_Zso]

Even if backward time travel somehow could be managed (e.g. based on the imaginary mass idea m^2=-1),  you still forgot a very simple fact: If you go back in time, you get younger. So you can never go back to the time before you were born, because at that time you cease to exist. So the whole "back to the future" idea is broken, you can't have and older and a younger version of yourself at the same time. This way the paradox is avoided, cannot happen.

[Absol]

I am actually less concerned with the actions and whether you need to follow the rules or not. That is a side issue to the bigger problem imo.

My main question is: is the Bob in YOUR world an actual "person" deserving of the same existential dignity as you?

Or is only Bob in Bob's world a "person", and that the Bob in your world is a mere expendable object, like a rag doll or a rock to be played with and squished whenever you want?

Its not just the action and following of rules that matters, its the thought and perception. If rule 4 was true, would other people not really be "people" at all?

Honestly and bluntly speaking, no. Bob is only an entity called "Bob" in one world. The other Bobs are pseudo-entity. I myself is the only entity in my world (and only in my world, as in YOUR world i'm merely "NPC" so to speak)
I was actually pointing at that as an analogue of your younger self in time travel, so this discussion is heading towards parallel universe theory.

Speaking philosophically, you are the only person you can fully verify as 100% human. Who knows whether this person above me is God in disguise or not? I can't verify it, neither can you. Only he can. Regarding existensial dignity, as long as he exists in my world, he deserve the same dignity as me. I am not a sociopath, so even if i can play with Bob, i choose not to. (that's what i mean by saying i'm the God of my own world, i choose what my life would be)

But speaking scientifically, yes. Yes you are expendable. Yes i am expendable in your world. That's why it's possible to me to go travel back in time, and kill my younger self. See, because my younger self is an entity separated from myself. It's like a copy of me in different form. And because my time always move forward, i did not actually killing my younger self. Just an entity shaped like my younger self.

Even if backward time travel somehow could be managed (e.g. based on the imaginary mass idea m^2=-1),  you still forgot a very simple fact: If you go back in time, you get younger. So you can never go back to the time before you were born, because at that time you cease to exist. So the whole "back to the future" idea is broken, you can't have and older and a younger version of yourself at the same time. This way the paradox is avoided, cannot happen.

Eh, that's why i made law #1 and law #2. You experience time subjectively, which means you are not time travelling at all. Time travelling is just an illusion created by a complex machine that "brought you back in time". Your time still always move forward, but your surroundings change as if the time moves backward. You are fighting the flow of illusion of time, so to speak (in that your time always move forward while your surroundings APPEARS to move backward).

[KiLLjoY]

There's been some neutrinos that have gone slightly faster than light...

Does that help?

not necessarily, this may have been due to a significant figures error, scientists are still trying to figure this one out.

just a short update:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html)

[RavingRabbid]

We are erroneously assuming time exists, and it's not just a concept.


We can say an instant is a particular disposition of atoms. Travelling back in time would mean reverting atoms to their former state.
But, nothing is created and nothing is destroyed (unless you take fusion things in account, but at that point you wouldn't have a reason to travel in time.) so you couldn't aggregate your atoms in the past to form the you from NOW, because your atoms are forming you SOME TIME AGO (yes, I know atoms are unstable, and you are not made by the same atoms ever, but you got my reasoning). For this reason, time travel in the past is unnecessary. Time travel in the future would just be slowing yourself. But it isn't a time warp.

In this right moment, I'm time travelling according to what time travel is generally defined as.

[semibalanus]

What if time is a circle and not a long line.   then if we could simply jump out of time we could re-enter at an early or later date depending on which way the circle was spinning?

[Nepycros]

What if time is a circle and not a long line.   then if we could simply jump out of time we could re-enter at an early or later date depending on which way the circle was spinning?

Give logic behind this.

[dreadwoe]

my theory is that it is impossible to travel to an instance in time that has occured, but it may be possible to travel to say, an identical dimension thats time is offset by the time you intend to travel back, causing any changes to only alter the current thread of time.  A paradox would not occur, instead an alternate reality would be created.  For instance, to return to your birth and kill yourself would cause you to not create a time machine in the said time, but your reality would remain unscathed.
                        time travel
birth------------------V--------------->
                          birth-----------------X------->

V is the point at which you travel "back in time"
X is the point in which you would have traveled to an alternate reality, but did not because the you of that reality died, but you lived on.

[OldTrees]

@dreadwoe
Travel in time is usually meant to communicate a temporal displacement. Your examples retains the same temporal position resulting in a temporal displacement of 0. Aka not time travel despite the appearance to the traveler.