So I've decided to allocate a certain amount of time a day, from half an hour to 2 hours, depending on how much spare time I have (which is not much lately) to learning something. By that I mean I read a book, or check out wikipedia, or ask a question or whatever, as long as I'm discovering something I hadn't known before.
I've kept a number of links (a very high number) in my favorites folders for several years, most of which I figured I'd get around to looking at at some point. Well, I figured this was an opportune time to look at some web sites I had added to my "Philosophy/Thinking" folder and I came across a wikipedia page entitled "The Bootstrap Paradox." It's a paradox related to time travel (I'm turning into a bit of a sci fi nerd; Lost is probably partially to blame for this).
The idea is that, according to sci fi "science", sometimes an object can appear in the past or present even though it was not created at that point. I'm pretty sure this paradox applies not only to objects but to people or even events as well, but I didn't manage to read the entire page because I wanted to start writing, so I'm not sure whether it does or not, nor whether it applies in the same way or not. In any case, an example might be someone travelling into the future and reading about some sort of technology or discovery and then either deliberately or inadvertently bringing it back into the past with him. Now what we learned from watching Back to the Future was that this would basically blow up the world or suck it up into a black hole or some other such disastrous scenario would happen, but according to the bootstrap paradox, time has a natural inclination to "right" itself, and so although the point in time in which the time traveller brought back and introduce this new phenomenon has "altered" (and I put altered in quotes because, in fact, nothing has actually altered, according to this paradox), the universe would essentially set into motion a series of events that make this introduction of new phenomenon right itself with the already-established timeline and thus prohibit any changes to the future.
For instance, let's say a scientist travels to the future and reads an scientific article telling him that we have already discovered the origin of life and he decides to bring it back with him. Never mind the fact that using the past tense to talk about the future is bizarre in and of itself, shouldn't this distort everything that already happened in the future? According to this paradox, something would happen in order to ensure that that article still winds up in that paper written by someone else at the same point in time. Maybe he talks to a student about it, who is inspired to research it and eventually writes the paper. Maybe someone steals it from him, figures it out and then writes it himself. In any case, that particular future event will not have changed, although the origins of it are a bit confounding, as they must follow this time travelling loop in order for them to have actually happened.
But here's the thing that blew my mind: If, according to this paradox, time finds a way to realign itself no matter what time travellers may do to screw things up, then doesn't that mean that a) everything is pre-determined, thus rendering the concept of "free will" invalid and b) all time therefore must be existing simultaneously somewhere in the space time continuum? In other words, every past, present and future moment must already be there, unaltered and unperturbed, and all we can really do is "visit" it? There is essentially no "tomorrow" or "yesterday", because that would imply that there are moments that do not yet exist. Or rather, they would take on different meanings - tomorrow is to today as my house is to my next door neighbor's house; both existing simultaneously, just in different "locations."
But another thing occurred to me: How can this be? Unless my analogy is flawed, it doesn't make sense. Let's say I'm a tourist and I decide to visit Vienna. Then let's say I do something drastic or crazy, like steal an art piece from the Lourve. Doesn't this affect or alter things? Wouldn't a certain number of people partake in different activities than they would have had I not visited Vienna? In other words, haven't I sent a ripple effect that is causing permanent change in that location? Put simply, how could I NOT affect the environment that I have chosen to occupy, even if just for a moment? Certainly, you could argue that the environment will EVENTUALLY reach a status quo, but I would respond to that with two things: 1. But that doesn't change the fact that, even if on a small scale, I did CHANGE things. 2. Haven't I also PERMANENTLY affected the history of that enviornment? There will probably be news stories that would not have existed had I not stolen something from the Louvre. Isn't there a physical law or such about how even the mere act of OBSERVING something causes a change?
Let's say I'm a time traveller now and I decide to visit a point in the past. Then let's say I do something drastic, like steal something. Would I not be affecting a change that would likewise cause a ripple effect? If so, what happens to the timeline that I previously existed in? Does it disappear? Does it exist simultaneously with this new one I've created? If so, where?
Confusing.
I've kept a number of links (a very high number) in my favorites folders for several years, most of which I figured I'd get around to looking at at some point. Well, I figured this was an opportune time to look at some web sites I had added to my "Philosophy/Thinking" folder and I came across a wikipedia page entitled "The Bootstrap Paradox." It's a paradox related to time travel (I'm turning into a bit of a sci fi nerd; Lost is probably partially to blame for this).
The idea is that, according to sci fi "science", sometimes an object can appear in the past or present even though it was not created at that point. I'm pretty sure this paradox applies not only to objects but to people or even events as well, but I didn't manage to read the entire page because I wanted to start writing, so I'm not sure whether it does or not, nor whether it applies in the same way or not. In any case, an example might be someone travelling into the future and reading about some sort of technology or discovery and then either deliberately or inadvertently bringing it back into the past with him. Now what we learned from watching Back to the Future was that this would basically blow up the world or suck it up into a black hole or some other such disastrous scenario would happen, but according to the bootstrap paradox, time has a natural inclination to "right" itself, and so although the point in time in which the time traveller brought back and introduce this new phenomenon has "altered" (and I put altered in quotes because, in fact, nothing has actually altered, according to this paradox), the universe would essentially set into motion a series of events that make this introduction of new phenomenon right itself with the already-established timeline and thus prohibit any changes to the future.
For instance, let's say a scientist travels to the future and reads an scientific article telling him that we have already discovered the origin of life and he decides to bring it back with him. Never mind the fact that using the past tense to talk about the future is bizarre in and of itself, shouldn't this distort everything that already happened in the future? According to this paradox, something would happen in order to ensure that that article still winds up in that paper written by someone else at the same point in time. Maybe he talks to a student about it, who is inspired to research it and eventually writes the paper. Maybe someone steals it from him, figures it out and then writes it himself. In any case, that particular future event will not have changed, although the origins of it are a bit confounding, as they must follow this time travelling loop in order for them to have actually happened.
But here's the thing that blew my mind: If, according to this paradox, time finds a way to realign itself no matter what time travellers may do to screw things up, then doesn't that mean that a) everything is pre-determined, thus rendering the concept of "free will" invalid and b) all time therefore must be existing simultaneously somewhere in the space time continuum? In other words, every past, present and future moment must already be there, unaltered and unperturbed, and all we can really do is "visit" it? There is essentially no "tomorrow" or "yesterday", because that would imply that there are moments that do not yet exist. Or rather, they would take on different meanings - tomorrow is to today as my house is to my next door neighbor's house; both existing simultaneously, just in different "locations."
But another thing occurred to me: How can this be? Unless my analogy is flawed, it doesn't make sense. Let's say I'm a tourist and I decide to visit Vienna. Then let's say I do something drastic or crazy, like steal an art piece from the Lourve. Doesn't this affect or alter things? Wouldn't a certain number of people partake in different activities than they would have had I not visited Vienna? In other words, haven't I sent a ripple effect that is causing permanent change in that location? Put simply, how could I NOT affect the environment that I have chosen to occupy, even if just for a moment? Certainly, you could argue that the environment will EVENTUALLY reach a status quo, but I would respond to that with two things: 1. But that doesn't change the fact that, even if on a small scale, I did CHANGE things. 2. Haven't I also PERMANENTLY affected the history of that enviornment? There will probably be news stories that would not have existed had I not stolen something from the Louvre. Isn't there a physical law or such about how even the mere act of OBSERVING something causes a change?
Let's say I'm a time traveller now and I decide to visit a point in the past. Then let's say I do something drastic, like steal something. Would I not be affecting a change that would likewise cause a ripple effect? If so, what happens to the timeline that I previously existed in? Does it disappear? Does it exist simultaneously with this new one I've created? If so, where?
Confusing.
No comments:
Post a Comment