Why Theists shouldn't believe in Time Travel

[Abram]

Soy think about it. If you went back in time 1 second, there would be the soul in you the timetraveller, but also the soul in you the non-timetraveller. Two souls existing at the same time.

Yes and no? We don't even have a clear understanding where our soul is? These bodies could just be a figment of our imagination. Quantum physics show that there is more air mass and energy than real matter. The atom is made up off 99% air or vacuum. So even a billion atoms stuck together to form what ever is still 99% air. Therefore life is a digital simulation controlled by someone out something outside of time?

I see the idea that there would be two of you and that it does make a problem. So what version of the person do you experince the meeting from. Does it become a memory or a event?

 

[Mike182]

I'm not totally sure what you're talking about Mike. I'm not talking about anyone dying, i'm talking about a living person going back in time with their soul inside them, and having a chat with their past self who also has a soul inside them - the exact same soul.

oh sorry, i missunderstood the OP

i shall recant! - i agree with you

 

[SoyLeche]

That's one way of looking at it. However, once you travel back in time and talk to your younger self, you immediately create a third timeline in which both of you exist together.

Prove it. Like I said, the fact that you haven't currently talked to yourself in the past may be evidence that you won't visit it in the future. Have you seen "12 Monkeys"? If not, it's a really dumb show, so don't feel like you have to. Interesting premiss though.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Soy, if you went back in time there would be two of you, each would then start to think and act individually - the younger you would be able to talk to the older you. How can one being exist in two bodies?

If you travel in time the now event goes with you, there can not be more than one of you. If you see another you, it can not share your now event, though it may be observed.

Terry___________________
Blessed are the gentle, they shall inherit the land

 

[Halcyon]

I see the idea that there would be two of you and that it does make a problem. So what version of the person do you experince the meeting from...

Yes, exactly!

Have you seen "12 Monkeys"? If not, it's a really dumb show, so don't feel like you have to. Interesting premiss though.

I have seen it, the one with Bruce Willis right? It was a while ago though, i don't really remember it.

Prove it. Like I said, the fact that you haven't currently talked to yourself in the past may be evidence that you won't visit it in the future.

I'm sorry Soy, i'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you try wording it another way for me, please?

 

[Halcyon]

If you travel in time the now event goes with you, there can not be more than one of you. If you see another you, it can not share your now event, though it may be observed.

Strange Terry. Surely if you travel in time, the past becomes your present.

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm sorry Soy, i'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you try wording it another way for me, please?

Sorry. What I meant was that if in the future you were able to go back in time and visit yourself, then that event would have already happened, so you should remember it. The fact that you don't remember talking to yourself must mean that you didn't visit... in the future...

Anyway, the basic point of 12 Monkeys was Bruce Willis going back in time to stop a disease from spreading. But, in the end you see that the only reason the disease spread in the first place was that Bruce Willis was there trying to stop it. It's a very strange movie.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Someone may have already mentioned this, since I haven't read all through the thread yet, but some people believe that time is circular, or at least not without a begining or end, I should say. For some that believe in reincarnation, this means that you can be born with memories of a life that you've lived... but it's a life that you will have lived, because it hasn't happened yet, or will have been going to happen. (Fun with tenses!) For example, one can carry memories of something that has happened in the future because they've already been incarnated then. (This assumes that the incarnation follows a path, too, as well as time.)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Strange Terry. Surely if you travel in time, the past becomes your present.

I am not convinced that would be the case, I think you may be in the position of an observer, not a partaker,or it would lead to too many complications.
What if you killed your self.

Terry___________________
Blessed are the gentle, they shall inherit the land

 

[Halcyon]

Sorry. What I meant was that if in the future you were able to go back in time and visit yourself, then that event would have already happened, so you should remember it. The fact that you don't remember talking to yourself must mean that you didn't visit... in the future...

Oh i see what you mean now. But i think your point operates on the premise that the timeline can't be changed. If you went back in time you'd be changing the timeline - there wouldn't be a future you to remember anything because you'd be back in the past, which would then be your present.

Anyway, the basic point of 12 Monkeys was Bruce Willis going back in time to stop a disease from spreading. But, in the end you see that the only reason the disease spread in the first place was that Bruce Willis was there trying to stop it. It's a very strange movie.

Oh yeah i remember now, vaguely. I remember being confused for the majority of the film.

 

[SoyLeche]

Oh i see what you mean now. But i think your point operates on the premise that the timeline can't be changed. If you went back in time you'd be changing the timeline - there wouldn't be a future you to remember anything because you'd be back in the past, which would then be your present.

Oh yeah i remember now, vaguely. I remember being confused for the majority of the film.

OK, so more of a Back to the Future thing. But remember, Marty couldn't let his "younger" (by a couple of days) self see his older self or bad things would happen. I'm thinking along the lines of a universal implosion.

 

[Halcyon]

I am not convinced that would be the case, I think you may be in the position of an observer, not a partaker,or it would lead to too many complications.
What if you killed your self.

Terry___________________
Blessed are the gentle, they shall inherit the land

Lol, Terry! This is exactly what i'm saying, the complication would be that there would be two of you and two of you're supposedly unique soul.

Someone may have already mentioned this, since I haven't read all through the thread yet, but some people believe that time is circular, or at least not without a begining or end, I should say. For some that believe in reincarnation, this means that you can be born with memories of a life that you've lived... but it's a life that you will have lived, because it hasn't happened yet, or will have been going to happen. (Fun with tenses!) For example, one can carry memories of something that has happened in the future because they've already been incarnated then. (This assumes that the incarnation follows a path, too, as well as time.)

Yes, this may be true. However it still doesn't stop the paradox of a person travelling back in time only a few seconds and interacting with their younger self, which is the same incarnation of the soul.

 

[Halcyon]

OK, so more of a Back to the Future thing. But remember, Marty couldn't let his "younger" (by a couple of days) self see his older self or bad things would happen. I'm thinking along the lines of a universal implosion.

I'm thinking more along the lines of recognising that he (Marty) could not exist as two separate beings and still have a unique immortal soul. He'd reach forced and instantaneous enlightenment - he'd realise that the mind is different from moment to moment and that, therefore, there is technically no 'him' - no self - in the first place. This sudden realisation would be such a shock to his mind that it would simply collapse, killing the body.

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm thinking more along the lines of recognising that he (Marty) could not exist as two separate beings and still have a unique immortal soul. He'd reach forced and instantaneous enlightenment - he'd realise that the mind is different from moment to moment and that, therefore, there is technically no 'him' - no self - in the first place. This sudden realisation would be such a shock to his mind that it would simply collapse, killing the body.

So... you're saying that the universe wouldn't implode?

 

[Halcyon]

So... you're saying that the universe wouldn't implode?

It might do, i've never tested my theory.

 

[SoyLeche]

It might do, i've never tested my theory.

Well, when you get the chance, just make sure that you don't go back to before this coming March. I want to meet my firstborn before the whole implosion thing happens.

 

[Dentonz]

Or anyone who believes in any form of afterlife, so it includes reincarnation too.

Specifically they shouldn't believe people can go back in time. Why?

Because if you believe that you have a soul, a unique spiritual essence given to you alone and then you went back in time just 1 second - there would be two of you. The only difference would be a 1 second difference in memory. If there is only one soul, which of the you's would possess it?
If both you's were killed moments later, which would go to heaven/be reincarnated?

Either the soul has been replicated, there is no soul - or time travel isn't possible.

Well I believe that God is outside of time. That he encompasses all time at once. So our entire lifeline is laid out in front of him. So to him there could be no replication, because we exist entirely in one moment.

 

[ch'ang]

Isn't that the type of story line that many a Sci Fi book has been based on? From what we can tell so far, time travel isn't possible anyway.

There is strong case that says time travel is possible but we just haven't figured it out yet. It all relies on the idea of subatomic particles being time symmetric, meaning that the theoretical statements that describe them remain true if the direction of time is reversed. Also if we were able to make a worm whole (way beyond us in all respects) and put one end in a particle accelerator for a good long time we could make use of time dilation so time would pass slower for the moving end of the wormhole so when you went into one of the wormhole you would come out near the same spot but depending on how long you put the wormhole in the accelerator you would come out in a different time, so in theory if we had enough energy, money and time we could just use that method.