I agree.
The fact its a sequence is not important or relevant to time travel.
Time travel would require precise positioning to be effective.
The sequence of state change is an insignificant factor because to time travel to a different time requires transportation to the exact state at your target date. Once new matter is introduced at that state, the sequence of state changes will differ from the previous sequence.

This is because mass affects gravity and gravity affects state change placement. Introduction of any mass to a state changes the state. Even a small amount of mass changing a small amount of gravity will create bigger and bigger changes as time moves forward.

An asteroid passes by Jupiter and its trajectory changes a bit. It then passes closer to another asteroid and that one's trajectory changes a little bit. As the billiard action progresses eventually an asteroid which had a safe passing distance to the Earth, is now tracking to collide with the Earth.

Its mass/gravity which changes trajectories/velocity of other mass/gravity causing differences in states. Mass/gravity is relative to size and as the size gets smaller the changes in state are minuscule but they are still changes. The differences which occur increase as time progresses.

This is why time travel would create a new sequence of state changes. Changes which would increase the difference depending on how far back and how much mass is transported. Depending on the random action of change, humans may have never developed or the Earth might have been destroyed long before the time travel device was used. This creates a paradox...or a new reality.

Additionally, the sudden loss of mass at the source of the time travel would also cause state changes which would not have occurred, creating a new reality from that point forward. Adding mass to the past or future changes the sequence of events which would have happened. Removing mass from the present would also change the sequence of events in the present and collectively, in the future.

That is understandable -and why I really don't believe time travel is possible.

If I consider only myself at two different points in time -let's say an hour apart -I am at least mostly the same stuff as I was. Our stuff gets replaced over time, but not actually with new stuff -just stuff which was once not part of us.

My past self does not exist to be visited.
The same is true on an all-inclusive level.
The past, as a whole, simply does not exist to be visited/traveled to.
It became the present.

That is not to say it is impossible for interactions to be slowed or sped up in relation to each other within the whole. Time can be thought of as a sequence of events -but also an attribute of the whole which may not remain constant throughout the whole. One part may be caused to LAG behind somewhat, as it were, but can never be LEFT behind in the way the "movie version" of time travel would require.

Some say that time -spacetime, whatever -began with the big bang. "Universe" time certainly did. Some believe the universe may also collapse.
If it did, things would essentially return to a pre-universe state.
The attribute of time/spacetime within it would no longer apply.
Though it may return to a previous state, the fact that it once existed -that there was indeed a sequence of events -could never be negated -it would just no longer apply.

so heart touching, where are you located?

However... if we can continue to be our "selves" even though all of our components change over time, then we are not actually those things, but a sort of "emergent pattern" residing upon those things.

If anything "else" existed to be visited in any way, the problem of transporting all of our "stuff" could be solved by simply arranging whatever existed there into "us". We don't need the exact same atoms -any of the same atoms will do. So on/so forth at subatomic levels.
That's not a new idea -it's pretty much how the Star Trek transporters and replicators work ....and I think they actually could.

Actually, it would also allow for the patterns of our minds to be augmented and coupled with bodies of any design or composition -and so of any capability.

As for parallel universes.... It may be that other universes do exist within the same overall reality, but it would require that there be more stuff than constitutes ours -and I see no reason for them to be of all possible variations. If the singularity and big bang were like one of many flowers on a vine, then paths to other universes would theoretically be possible -whether back through the vine -or hopping from one to another somehow.

That said, I am considering the idea that the basis of all reality can be infinitely subdivided -that there is truly no limit to the amount of stuff possible -even though there is always only one overall thing.
Such would not change our perspective -as we are of the same stuff as our environment -and are still composed of the same finite amount of possible infinite subdivisions.

Will try to explain a bit more later.

What if the basis of reality is in some way similar to the way seemingly-impossible things are possible in the imagination? Perhaps not to the same degree, but inasmuch as imagination allows us to literally see one thing... divide into two things, four things... with no end -or every existing thing self-replicating/doubling -even though we may believe that, at some point, the smallest possible component can not be divided, so there must be a finite amount of stuff as we know it.

Instead of searching for the smallest POSSIBLE component, we should be considering the largest which has been divided.

I'unno. Just started thinking along these lines.

Scale is relative to the passage of time by observation.

Imagine being stuck in the center of a galactic void. In the void there is nothing for hundreds or thousands of light years. To the observer in such a location, time might appear to almost stand still.

Imagine being at the collision point inside a particle accelerator. To the observer at such a scale at that location there would be a multitude of particles moving around you at incredible speeds. Time might appear to nbe happening very fast.

For both observations and scales, time is the same but the relativity of how it is sensed is different.

The Universe as a whole (if its even possible to imagine the Universe as a whole-we lack the information), exists at its on definition of time. This definition of time might be said to be the baseline time.
Within this Universe, at the different scales, speeds and observations, time moves at different rates according to those scales within.

It can be a difficult concept to fathom but our science proves it by the measurements we make.
For instance, we observe other stars similar to ours and understand star formation and lifecycles. We understand that Sol is in main sequence. We realize for it to be in main sequence it is about half-way thru its normal lifecycle. Roughly 4.5 billion years with an expected lifecycle of roughly 12 billion years. The Earth is about 4.3 billion years old according to our measurements and observations.
There are red giants twice the age of the Sun. There are blue giants half the age of the Sun. If the Sun is the observer, its relative time rate would be one and our relative time rate would be lightning fast. However compared to the Universe, the Sun's relative time rate may be fast. Ours might be a flash in the pan. But its all the same time rate.

Simply put, we measure time from a scale which we can understand. Time which occurs beyond our ability to fathom can't be measured. To us, it can't be measured so it can't exist.

Scientists Have Measured The Smallest Fragment of Time Ever
http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-measure-the-smallest-fragment-of-time-ever-witness-an-electron-escaping-an-atom


Zeptoseconds is proof we don't have an complete way to measure time.
All human measurements of time is based on seconds or years.
This is because seconds and years are measurements within our scale of understanding.



Farthest Known Galaxy in the Universe Discovered
http://www.space.com/18502-farthest-galaxy-discovery-hubble-photos.html


A measurement of distance based on how far light travels during one year.
One year Earth time.
If the same measurement were made using another planet, say Neptune, the distance would be different.
If seasons were the measurement we used for determining a year, the distance measurement would be different still.

Our reference of time passage is based on our relative observational scale.
Using a different observational scales change the reference but the time is the same. Time itself doesn't speed up or slow down, our observational measurements only make it appear to do so.


Yes and no.
In the sense that your past self existed at one time, the reality happened and therefore existed. People who believe time travel could be possible believe that existence in reality is registered in a great series of snapshots. They believe to transport someone to that snapshot is how time travel must work. Logically, it does make sense, if ya tilt your head just so.
What they don't understand is the reality in which your past self existed no longer exists because time is the change of static states. Static states too complex and encompassing to duplicate. A feat which would require remaking the entire Universe to a previous static state, precisely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_time#List


If you imagine time as a series of photographs taken at intervals of a yottaplex fraction of plank time shutter speed of the entire Universe you might pick out one photograph as a destination. The photos on either side will appear to be the same but they are not.
If you could duplicate the entire Universe to that of a single photo, you could theoretically travel in time. If you had a way to do it.
But...as soon as you arrive at that moment, all photos past the destination would evaporate because you would be inserting new data into an old photo.
The old photo would no longer exist and all subsequent photos would reflect the change creating a different reality.

Time travel is nothing more than a fantasy of science. Like all fiction it is entertaining but not accurate.

The movie Tenet plays with the idea of time in a different dimension. In the movie they tried to demonstrate a dimension where time runs backwards. Scientifically, it fails but it is entertaining to watch them try.
The gateway/doorway they use to switch dimensions would cause the occupant to never be able to leave the gate. They would be stuck between the two dimensions, forever. This is because within that gate, the reality of the two time dimensions would center on the null. The occupant would be directly influenced by both at the same time equally.
It also stands to reason, if time runs backwards in a different dimension, time still exists.

The movie Parallels attempts to play with the idea of parallel dimensions. Its obvious their display was extremely limited to the concept but it does touch base in some entertaining ways. They failed to account for changes in local physics. It would seriously end the film if they traveled thru the portal to a reality in which the Earth never formed or the Earth exploded long ago. So many possible variations a movie couldn't possibly explore but the idea of multiple instances is entertainingly portrayed. Plus, they were never experiencing a parallel dimension at all. A parallel dimension is an exact duplicate (parallel) which runs beside its duplicate. Think parallel lines "=". The moment they suggested a change between the realities those dimensions became alternate, not parallel.

Ah, but you forget the cause and effect.
If you rearrage atoms you change the makeup of something into something else.
That previous something interacts with other somethings in unique ways directly realated to that something. The new construct would also react with other somethings in different unique ways, changing the cause and effect of an established patter of interaction which we call the past.
Doing so, would again, destroy/evaporate the timeline in favor of a new timeline.

I've given a lot of thought to reality and imagination. Probably a bit too much...lol.

Here's what I've come up with.

Everything exists within this Universe. All matter and energy we can measure.
Existing within this Universe, it is part of this Universe.
Technically, you and I and everyone else is part of this Universe. Not outside it, part of the whole.

Perhaps it was Dr Sagan in Cosmos or one of the other books I've read which he wrote..."We are the Universe trying to figure itself out".
Using that idea, consider this:

If we are the Universe (we are because we are within it), everything we think, feel, dream, imagine, are the Universe thinking, feeling, dreaming and imagining.
If we imagine werewolves exist, the Universe is imagining werewolves exist.
When we imagine a place beyond the Universe the Universe imagines that place.
That imaginary place becomes part of the Universe and it grows to fill it.
That place may never exist materially but it exists in the Universe because it exists in us and we are part of the Universe.

In the Universe there exists matter but also energy wave forms and forces which are affected by that matter. We are matter but we also have energy. Thoughts have a recordable signature from the physical(chemical) interactions in the brain. Thoughts are real. They are part of the Universe.

If the Universe is able to generate thought in us, it is able to generate thought where ever and when ever those interactions can occur. Since thought is a condition in the Universe, the Universe thinks.

Now, consider all the life on Earth. In much the way we can't detect the thoughts of other life on this planet, all that life is part of the Universe too. Your hand doesn't communicate with your liver but your brain communicates with both your hand and your liver.
We are but a component part of the whole Universe and there are likely a whole Universe full of other parts which do not communicate with each other.
Yet the sum of those component parts make up the whole.

So I am the Universe trying to figure the Universe out. I don't communicate with the rest of the component parts so I have an incomplete view of the Universe. The atoms in my right hand have no idea there are atoms in my left hand, they don't even know my left hand exists. They only know what they have the capacity to know. They react to direct stimuli locally.

Does my thumbnail dream? I can make an assumption it does not but I don't actually know because I am not my thumbnail. There is no direct communication.
Does a plant dream? I can make an assumption it does not because there is no direct communication.
Does a planet dream? Again, no communication so I can't possibly know.
Yet all these exist within the same Universe. A Universe which can communicate with its constituent parts because it communicates with us and we with it.

If the communication barrier were lifted, it would be possible to know everything about everything every-when, everywhere.

Of all the religious concepts, the one I feel is closest to reality is Buddhism. In such that, we are one with the Universe. We are all connected.
It is, however, our unique makeup which prevents communication.

But it has been proven (limited to our current understanding) that the Universe is expanding. The Universe is not finite.

One theory of spontaneous matter generation has to do with the by-product of matter-antimatter annihilation.

Antimatter exists in this Universe. We can make it in a lab. Its extremely expensive, difficult and dangerous but we have done it. Antimatter is a particle with an opposite charge to matter. The spin is backwards and the force carriers are reversed. Positive charge becomes negative and negative charge becomes positive. (I could be wrong, I didn't research it enough to be sure but it makes sense to me)

Matter-antimatter collisions create energy (explodes in annihilation). All matter is made up of energy (the basis for an atomic bomb).

The simplest way I can explain what I think happens is like a cloud of gas condensing into a droplet. The gas being energy and the droplet being an elementary particle of matter (or antimatter).

Its this natural universal condition which makes the Universe not finite in mass.
Granted, new elements created in supernovas and hypernovas are merely a rearranging of existing particles and characteristics inherent to those particles but the novas also produce significant amounts of energy which is released into the Universe. Energy which coalesces into matter, eventually.

Going along with the idea that the Universe is one with everything within it. I see energy having a value of one as well.

All the energy in the Universe is the same energy.
We try to separate it much like we try to separate everything else.
Yet all measurements of energy are a fractional value of a whole.
Since matter is made up of energy (atomic bomb again), even matter itself is part of the energy whole.

Thus, the Universe is not made of matter, it is made of energy.
Electricity is only one 'view' of energy.
Many peoplew think electricity when they imagine energy but there is such a thing known as 'stored energy' which is energy that is not electrical yet energy all the same. There is also reactive energy and chemical energy.
All the different 'types' of energy we have defined are still the same energy of the Universe. We just 'see' them as different.

think I blew a circuit.....

LOL, Mine short-circuited years ago!

I like the quote about being the universe figuring itself out, but all humans combined are a very small part of the universe.

I believe it was necessary for that which preceded the singularity/big bang to have already figured itself out -wrapped its head around itself following initial self-awareness.

I find it illogical to think that many of the relatively simple things humans do absolutely require a mind to accomplish, but things much greater -and, more importantly, extremely more purposefully-complex things -did not require a mind.

I believe pure evolution would be more true of "God" than ourselves -due to the fact we are essentially mass-produced, have had zero conscious input in our development until extremely capable -developed within a complex system, and are far removed from initial simplicity.

From a human perspective I can see that.

Plus, there is the chaos of cause and effect.

There are a few things i try to keep in mind.

- Chaos is merely a lack of understanding. To us, the Universe is full of chaos because we don't know everything there is to know. But, if we did, there would be no such thing as chaos because we would know the patterns which dictate reality.

- Human intelligence/reasoning is but one perspective of understanding this Universe we are part of. It can't be the only perspective or understanding because our source pool is limited to our immediate abilities.

- Every mundane action affects a wide range of things resulting in what is seemingly unrelated effects. Simplest explanation of this is the Butterfly Effect. Its difficult to imagine the Butterfly Effect applied to the entire Universe from the quantum to the macro.


All humans combined is a very small part of the life on planet Earth.

The big bang was not the start of the Universe. Something set the conditions for the big bang in motion. Since we can't detect anything before the big bang, we can never know for sure what that was. I figure it was a sudden change from the static of absolute zero to some type of movement. Still, something initiated that change. Call it God, the Force or Magic or whatever.

Its entirely possible the resultant big bang and the following Universe may be separate from the initializing agent. That the Universe had no consciousness or will or intelligence until the random cause and effect of the chaos caused life to develop. Then thru that life it learned and realized it was alive.

The Sun is a second generation star. This means, the Sun formed from pieces of matter which were previously a star. Life on Earth is merely a few billion years old. If life on one planet of a second generation star can develop to our level of awareness and intellect, imagine how long and how much life has existed and does exist in the entire Universe.

If the Universe is aware of itself, it is aware of all life within it. It may know from its powers of observation and deduction the exact lifecycle of a star or an atom. It may recognize the cause and effect patterns if you drop a pencil. Its impossible to fathom how detailed and exact its perceptions might be because we have nothing in our experience to make a comparison.

When thinking about multiverses, its possible there could have been another Universe in which the cause and effect which lead to the big bang never occurred and that universe evaporated before it could form.
Or another where the big bang happened but it slowly refroze instead of expanding.

This Universe is still occurring. We are within the big bang right now. The big bang isn't the past, its the present. The evidence of this is the fact the Universe is still expanding. Stars still supernova and dust still builds to create new ones. The movement and the momentum have not ceased.

Movement will continue as matter is condensed onto larger and larger black holes and then black holes will condense onto larger and larger black holes until only one massive black hole exists.
This Universe will continue to exist until that last super-massive black hole freezes to absolute zero.

Then its possible that same condition will occur again starting the entire process over. There's no way to tell if this has happened before. We will never know if the previous Universe retained its knowledge and initiated the change in state which created this Universe. We will never have any idea if this is the natural lifecycle of the Universe, to 'end' and 'become' over and over again.

Only the Universe knows its nature...or doesn't.

Right... and randomness is not inherent unpredictability ...it is just that we can't presently perceive or crunch that much data.

It is said that "In the beginning, there was simplicity." That idea was put forth as an alternative to "In the beginning, God...." because of the notion that God always existed as a complex creator in some sort of environment (as some "man in t he sky) -and did not develop.

If we remove our present ideas about God and ask only if our universe required creativity -memory, forethought, modeling, purposeful intent, etc., it is much easier to consider the question scientifically.

When humans seek to determine if something in the present universe was purposefully created, they use "nature" as a reference/baseline -to determine whether or not nature would have produced it. However, we can not simply assume present nature was not created -or that its course is not affected by decision at any time. The present laws of nature once did not exist as such -and were essentially built upon that which existed before ...more-basic laws ...most-basic laws.

First -if anything happened, we can know that things are inherently dynamic.
Second -if anything is in any way complex, it is composed of more simple components.


When considering whether or not the universe was created, we ought to reference pre-nature nature -or the most simple states possible of that which is dynamic.

What MUST have happened between that and the initiation of our universe? (or multiple universes)

As that which exists as the universe must have previously existed as the pre-universe, we have the necessary evidence all around us. We also have the tools of math and logic -the languages of reality -with which to reverse engineer reality to simplicity.
We may also have discovered what must be the most basic nature of reality by discovering the most basic components of those languages. If 1 and 0 are the most basic possible representations of that which can become more complex, the truth could not be far off -and cyberspace might allow us to model what must have happened from simplicity onward.

It is fact -and would be so at any point -that the development of self-awareness and creativity make things possible which otherwise were impossible. It is a NECESSARY INTERMEDIATE STAGE between one and the other -and is also a perfectly logical and natural occurrence.

It is assumed that nature followed its course in the absence of creative influence until man, but does the universe have any characteristics which would indicate or prove otherwise?

A created thing not possible by "nature" alone would have certain inherent characteristics. Such would indicate the necessity for the existence of creativity by their own existence.

Have to continue later....

Right... and randomness is not inherent unpredictability ...it is just that we can't presently perceive or crunch that much data.

It is said that "In the beginning, there was simplicity." That idea was put forth as an alternative to "In the beginning, God...." because of the notion that God always existed as a complex creator in some sort of environment (as some "man in t he sky) -and did not develop.

If we remove our present ideas about God and ask only if our universe required creativity -memory, forethought, modeling, purposeful intent, etc., it is much easier to consider the question scientifically.

When humans seek to determine if something in the present universe was purposefully created, they use "nature" as a reference/baseline -to determine whether or not nature would have produced it. However, we can not simply assume present nature was not created -or that its course is not affected by decision at any time. The present laws of nature once did not exist as such -and were essentially built upon that which existed before ...more-basic laws ...most-basic laws.

First -if anything happened, we can know that things are inherently dynamic.
Second -if anything is in any way complex, it is composed of more simple components.


When considering whether or not the universe was created, we ought to reference pre-nature nature -or the most simple states possible of that which is dynamic.

What MUST have happened between that and the initiation of our universe? (or multiple universes)

As that which exists as the universe must have previously existed as the pre-universe, we have the necessary evidence all around us. We also have the tools of math and logic -the languages of reality -with which to reverse engineer reality to simplicity.
We may also have discovered what must be the most basic nature of reality by discovering the most basic components of those languages. If 1 and 0 are the most basic possible representations of that which can become more complex, the truth could not be far off -and cyberspace might allow us to model what must have happened from simplicity onward.

We would need to determine the point at which nature could be mirrored by itself, modeled -and its otherwise-inevitable course altered by decision -which would mean those things must have developed first.
Nothing could have been otherwise prior to true conscious decision -even though decision can only choose from available options at any point.

(Nothing can be made from "0" or multiple "0"s -but if there is just one other thing which is somehow different, more states are possible (not just 0&0, but also 1&1, 1&0, 0&1), but, more importantly, patterns of increasingly complexity become possible if there are many of the two basic things.

Just as in cyberspace, everything which exist or may perceive that which exists may be -perhaps must be -composed of various arrangements of those two most basic things)

It is fact -and would be so at any point -that the development of self-awareness and creativity make things possible which otherwise were impossible. It is a NECESSARY INTERMEDIATE STAGE between one and the other -and is also a perfectly logical and natural occurrence.

It is assumed that nature followed its course in the absence of creative influence until man, but does the universe have any characteristics which would indicate or prove otherwise?

A created thing not possible by "nature" alone would have certain inherent characteristics. Such would indicate the necessity for the existence of creativity by their own existence -not simply by comparison.

Have to continue later....

Some believe no God as creator is necessary -or logical if considering a God that just always existed as such then decided to create everything -and that step by step development leading to evolution is responsible for the present state.

While that is generally what nature at any level does, it does not answer the question of the specific and extremely purposefully complex nature of the universe.

On our level, we see nature in its present state, on its present course, and can determine that something like a 1973 Ford F100 custom pickup with a V8 could never simply develop without creativity.

Compared to initial simplicity, the universe, Earth, atoms, DNA-based life, etc., have far more of what makes the truck an impossibility without humans.

That does not negate development and evolution -but it does indicate creativity, intent, forethought, purpose, etc. -which are natural developments.

The initiation of the universe differs from initial simplicity in that it was not simple at all -not a step-by step development, shows no deviations from a specific course (which would indicate happenstance), but required that equal and opposite forces along with massive amounts of information were already organized and configured to produce something very specific. An extremely great potential was caused -then executed.

Religious people might have a problem with the idea of a developing God, but they should not.

That which exists is eternal -but does not remain in the same configuration.
Also, many scriptures support the idea of a developing God.

An eternal God of any description could not have initiated its own existence -or the existence of the material from which such a God would create. Such a God would simply "be" that.

A description of the universe -what it would inevitably become after initiation -which it now is (there really isn't a difference -it just took time to happen) -and the order in which things happened -are quite revealing if we allow ourselves to consider the matter.

Though seemingly off topic, my recent posts were to illustrate that parallel universes are not necessary to answer the problem of specificity/fine tuning.

The idea of universes of every possible variation is not actually supported by science. It does build on certain scientific observations by adding fantasy to the mix, but itself is in no way indicated by those observations.

I have been considering the periodic table of elements.....

They once did not exist. Now they do.

They are essentially building blocks. They are all made of the same components with minor differences which give them different properties-which interact with each other to produce more different properties.

They also happen to lend themselves to the production of life, self-replicating of DNA, etc., and produce life forms able to experience, understand and creatively manipulate those same properties.

Furthermore, they happened to become assembled into innumerable worlds -potential habitats for life -as well as beings which can dream of colonizing them.

There is nothing accidental or random about any of it. Even though things are inevitable until true decision exists, much more non-specific things are to be expected before it does. Things would happen more eventually, rather than extremely specifically or immediately.

The order in which things happened even indicates forethought. The elements and forces first produced environments suitable for the life which would also be produced -which would then increase in mastery of environment -of the properties of the elements which are so specifically suited to be experienced.

I have been considering the periodic table of elements.....

They once did not exist. Now they do.

They are essentially building blocks. They are all made of the same components with minor differences which give them different properties-which interact with each other to produce more different properties.

They also happen to lend themselves to the production of life, self-replicating of DNA, etc., and produce life forms able to experience, understand and creatively manipulate those same properties.

Furthermore, they happened to become assembled into innumerable worlds -potential habitats for life -as well as beings which can dream of colonizing them.

There is nothing accidental or random about any of it. Even though things are inevitable until true decision exists, much more non-specific things are to be expected before it does. Things would happen more eventually, rather than extremely specifically or immediately.

The order in which things happened even indicates forethought. The elements and forces first produced environments suitable for the life which would also be produced -which would then increase in mastery of environment -of the properties of the elements which are so specifically suited to be experienced. They were made for us just as our minds and hands were made to create with them -and it was all already contained in the singularity which became this.