Well, it seems the mathematicians have finally, possibly, figured out a way for their `time equations' to filter actions like that out of the equations. Time travel theory avoids grandfather paradox - http://www.physorg.com/news198948917.html (my thanks to Bruce Duensing for sending me this link yesterday). And, if you go to the link - you can see the equations and hear the convoluted logic employed to justify the mathematical possibility.
But, I am here to say this - IT DOESN'T MATTER - that math provides such a scenario. And, the reason is tangled up in two of the reasons I presented two days ago: 1) we live on a planet 2) actualization provides realness as Phenomenology overrides `math potentials'. ---------- Let me explain the best I can.
First, let me say that IF we didn't live ON a planet - that I'd probably be willing to accept `math answers' to the time-traveler saga - but we do live on a planet. OUR space (body) is directly tied to this other object - our planet. But, if it didn't - if somehow we were a `freely occurring space' (maybe like we will be AFTER we are DEAD) - with NO TIES to outside phenomena (the entire motion of our galaxy in our particular location) - then, and only then, perhaps `time' wouldn't matter.
But, Phenomenology provides a basis for actualization of space - a determinism to spaces - turning our local reality for a singular observer (like a human) into a `not-able-to-not-be' AS the moment of NOW. Indeed, EVERY actualized space-moment is `not-able-to-not-be'. And that `not-able-to-not-be' is what `provides realness' to our experience; and to even the `sperm' of our grandfathers.
We simply - CAN'T GO BACK - to realness. Realness IS ONLY an attribute of the NOW; of the `not-able-to-not-be' for the observer-experiencer. The not-able-to-not-be's of the past EXISTED but DO NOT EXIST (to return to). `Closed time-like curves' - do not reverse the Earth's motion in some sort of `running the film backwards'. Earth's motion is in a `frame of reference' to `other spaces' and ONLY has NOW as it's attribute.
The `Earth', and placement of that Earth to our grandfather, is not only NOT HERE - it is NOT NOW. That here and that now - RAN OFF the structure of phenomenology as it provided `realness' to existence. And, the fact that mathematicians can use equations to show that the past has/had areas that prohibit CHANGING THE REAL is hardly surprising to a Phenomenologist as myself - as the actualized, determined, past WAS the real.
So, I will end today's post the same way I ended the post two days ago - It is good that the past can't be changed - because - IF it could - it wouldn't have been real. And, since REAL is only an attribute of NOW - the fact that mathematicians have solved the Grandfather Paradox - Doesn't Matter.
More Phenomenology here - http://whatisnotabletonotbeis.blogspot.com/
Deeper Links:
Introduction to Phenomenology
Understanding Phenomenology
A Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy)
The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, Revised Edition (Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy)
Nice to see another slant on an argument many have been hammering home for years. It disturbs me that scientists will burble and roll their eyes discussing past-time travel not only as if it were ever possible but as if it was even a realistic idea beyond a dreamy romance.
ReplyDelete"Time" is a man-made concept measuring ordered, ongoing change. Look as my house bricks crumble from structure to rubble. They didn't go anywhere. They were/are always here and now. If I pushed all the bricks back up to form my house again would that be going back in time? What if I pushed all matter in the universe backwards? Would that be the past? It would still be now, here, in the future. Just in different order. There is no past. It's a trick of the imagination distilled from observation of memory.
I see all the signs that science is the new Papacy with more than a few clever ideas rejected out of hand as they constitute a threat to orthodoxy, and more importantly, a threat to establishment who determine paid tenure. Here's one sight that was regularly slammed:
http://www.holoscience.com/
Today's xcientists love to bang on about the need for objectivity but every year their thoughts turn to pandering to the sources of their funding that feed their lifestyles and children's livelihoods.