Assuming travelling to the past is possible, wouldn’t that confirm the existence of the multiverse?

>>16667269 (OP)
lay off the weed, bro

No, it'd confirm your assumptions are wrong.

The past is an abstraction, unless some guys open up a tavern called "The Past"

>>16667269 (OP)
It is possible.
>wouldn’t that confirm the existence of the multiverse?
No.

>>16667269 (OP)
"the past" was a particular configuration of the universe. traveling back in time would be the same as traveling forward in time such that you arrive at a configuration of the universe that is identical to a previous configuration. you can't go backwards in time.

>>16667329
If the universe is comprised of an array of data tables which in specific patterns form moments of time, then you can arrange them along some indexed axis of time.
Assuming that each n index can only connect to exactly one n-1 and exactly one n+1 index on a linear axis, and that there are no other adjacent axes, you can construct a past, present, and future.
But this creates a predetermined path of time, which invalidates free will, but doesn't mean it's wrong.
It just means that time travel is futile.

>>16667303
If its just an abstraction, why is your post dated in the past, are you just an abstraction too?

How can there be a multiverse if the universe is infinite? Isn't the rest of the universe that we can't observe just the other universes?

If it's infinite (and homogenous) that means it contains infinite copies of everything, including every possible permutation of states of everything.

It should also mean that scale is irrelevant and "homogenous" is a bogus concept since the observable universe's homogeneity is infinitesimally small compared to the entire universe, and there should be observable-universe sized pockets of absolutely nothing.

>>16667269 (OP)
The past is like a blockchain. Can’t alter it.

>>16667591
>(and homogenous)
There you go, you essentially provided your own answer that is why you need a multiverse to describe all the nonhomogenous infinities since the universe only describe the parts that are generally homogeneous to your direct experience of the universe.

>>16667591
>there should be observable-universe sized pockets of absolutely nothing.
There are literally just plug your eyes and ears and you will see and hear universe sized pockets of absolutely nothing since the plugging of the senses literally blocks your direct experience of the entire universe.

>>16667600
I rather just believe the universe isn't infinite. It makes more sense that there's a finite amount of matter and energy, just... a lot

>>16667622
That would only make sense in a universe where everything wasn't perpetually decaying and being replaced ad infinitum.

>>16667269 (OP)
>assuming my grandmother had wheels, wouldn't that confirm she's a bicycle?

>>16667269 (OP)
>Assuming travelling to the past is possible
It isn't.

The alternative would be assuming that a universe forms into being, from beginning to end, the very moment you step into the past.

>>16667622
then what's there at the end of the universe
*stares in neckbeard with Morpheus glasses*

>>16667269 (OP)
Gottem

>>16667269 (OP)
If that cat had nine lives, he just used them all.

>>16670612
No he used three at most

>>16667549
Even though the date hasn't changed, it's not the same post now vs when he first posted it.
Different electrons powering it, different photons being emitted from it, and so on.

>>16667269 (OP)

Going back in time would simply alter the history of the world line you came from, changing it entirely rather than resulting in a new branch forming from the original world line at the period you manifested into. You wouldn't be erased from the world as having travelled back in time cut your bond with your original time point, but the history of who you were in that period of time you existed in before you fucked with time would be gone, only to be but a memory for you and only you. Sounds miserable.

What proves the existence of the multiverse is probability, uncertainty, and chaos itself. The multiverse isn't just our universe connected to countless others universes with their own way of existing that has something in common with each other, but it is even grander that it consists of multiple multiverses as well, each with their own unique history. Some will have a different version of yourself existing there or have existed there in each one in some fashion and there are even those where you haven't begun to exist there or that you don't even exist there at all.

How I look at it is that if a universe is a neuron, then the small scale multiverse is the brain, and the larger scale multiverse is society, with all its people and their unique worlds within those minds of theirs tethered together by objectivity of us all living together upon this planet, our very origin.

>>16667269 (OP)
I always think tbis

>>16667269 (OP)
yes

>>16672209
>Going back in time would simply alter the history of the world line you came from
No it wouldn’t. It would prevent you from even going into the past if that were the case.

You can’t save YOUR Abraham Lincoln. You can only save another’s. His death is a requirement for your lead up.

The multiverse is about branching. You are talking about looping. Can you at least think things through before you post them?

If you did somehow manage to travel to a previous point in time, then it wouldn't imply any parallel universes, it's the same fucking universe.

>>16667269 (OP)
Yyyyyyes. probably.

>>16667279
So they can get you into "insert shitty designer drug this overworked morons are using" like fentanyl

>>16679087
Maybe not. Maybe the changes to the past are the reason for the Mandela effect. It's only one branch and the changes are felt like deja vu or Mandela

>>16667269 (OP)
You either bite a cable or you don't bite a cable. It's one or the other.

I don’t understand how time travel could exist otherwise. I don’t believe it’s truly possible to truly change your lead up.

>>16679087
>The multiverse is about branching. You are talking about looping.
This is the same thing. When you go into the past you are automatically branching into a different universe. A different past-present, and thus future.
>Can you at least think things through before you post them?
Can you not claim someone's retarded before demonstrating you're retarded yourself?

>>16667269 (OP)
from contradiction everything follows.

>>16667269 (OP)
There are three options:
1) Objects in the present do not interact with objects in the past.
2) Objects in the present may interact with objects in the past, which necessarily allows for the possibility of recursive interaction (i.e. paradoxes). It follows then that these recursive interactions are either (a) stable (completing a finite number of iterations before either resolving or looping) or (b) unstable (continuing indefinitely without repetition).

Option 1 is falsifiable, testable, and consistent with our present observations.
Option 2a is falsifiable, and testable.
Option 2b is neither falsifiable nor testable.

>>16684315
Yep. If you could change your past you'd be prevented from even going into the past. At best you're changing another (You)'s past.

No! I WILL be able to date Stacy! I WILL be able to beat up Chad! It was all a mistake! It was!

>>16667549
Abstractions do exist, they're called Ideas or Forms. This is Platonism. However, you haven't challenged my point: you can't travel to an abstraction. You assumed that I was implying that abstractions don't exist, but I wasn't; you misunderstood.

>>16680916
Has not taking drugs occurred to you?

>>16667269 (OP)
weird dog

>>16689853
>dog
It’s an alpaca.

>>16667269 (OP)
cute cat

>>16667269 (OP)
lol

>>16692844
It’s a man.

>>16667269 (OP)
Yes it does. Assuming it’s possible. There are time ways that would not support the present you hail from.

>>16694752
It’s actually a woman btw

>>16667269 (OP)
I believe this too!

>>16667269 (OP)
Most certainly yes.

>>16667269 (OP)
I heard that most time travelers are pedophiles and I guess that makes sense
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K1S_BHkdmRs

The facts in this image cannot be refuted

>>16699468
Yes they can.

>>16699468
>get a 10cm cylinder of glass
>hold it in front of right eye
>light takes 200 picoseconds longer to traverse the glass than it takes to travel the same distance in air
>left and right eye see the same event 200 picoseconds apart
>time travel

>>16667269 (OP)
Travelling to the future is feasible. Travelling to the past will remain sci-fi tier for millennia to come and we'll probably never achieve it.

>>16699869
ahcktshwuallry, each eye is witnessing a different phenomenon and it is the transcendental unity of apperception that gives it a seamless appearance of an event.

>>16699890
> Travelling to the future is feasible
It’s just moving forward really.

>>16667269 (OP)
Time doesn't exist. It's just a human construct we use to organize our life. Basically all that exists is right now

>>16700032
I believe this, but, within our limited hair of time, time is still a useful measure, as we can’t exactly “go back”. Other things may be able to. Not us. Yet?

>>16667269 (OP)
RIP

>>16667269 (OP)
Assuming you (OP) are not a faggot, wouldn't that confirm that this thread is meaningful?

>>16667269 (OP)
>assuming that the impossible is possible, wouldn't that confirm that the impossible is possible?

>>16701943
OP is never not a fag

>>16667398
can't connect to exactly one n-1, though. a given energy/mass configuration unambiguously leads to the next one, but ambiguously could have been lead by many.

Thank burning a piece of paper. Your left with a mound of mostly carbon with some other stuff, and heat. A similar mound could have been produced by many things burning; a very specific thing burning, done in a specific way, other than the piece of paper, would produce the exact same mound. It's a one-way operator.


That doesn't validate free will though. Although, I think your philosophical notion of free will ought to be more sophisticated than this idea that if you can be predicted then you don't have free will; Is it not the case that someone with such strong conviction that you can always expect they follow their own rules has free will, even if they are predictable?

Free will is a spook