punchies. . as tnmmas" t) manna AFTER as 111.: HAIL, A may Puts in THE Fiat! taisetsu, t trg, wanna? FLEE-. I guess you could say his time has come.
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - irepostcomments (07/04/2014) [-]
He looks pretty horrified about it. Wouldn't that cause him to change his mind and not do it?!
User avatar #2 to #1 - Norway ONLINE (07/04/2014) [-]
Its a paradox. If he changed his mind he would have never of done it which wouldnt terrify him into changing his mind so he would have done it which would terrify him into changing his mind and so on and so forth
User avatar #3 to #2 - zshadowz (07/04/2014) [-]
It's called the grandfather's paradox

User avatar #4 to #3 - icameheretotroll (07/04/2014) [-]
Why does everyone think that time is something that only happens once
maybe when you travel back in time you leave your own universe forever but go into another one which is exactly the same but its in the past, so killing your grandma/granpa wouldn't kill you
User avatar #5 to #4 - zshadowz (07/04/2014) [-]
This paradox considers that there is only one universe.

I prefer your theory too. In the anime Steins;Gate 9/10 , they pretty much follow your theory theory.
User avatar #7 to #5 - iamstitch (07/05/2014) [-]
Also in Dragon Ball Z
#6 to #1 - Fgner (07/04/2014) [-]
My solution to the grandfather paradox that doesn't involve multiple universes:

Think of time as a procedurally generated infinite film reel. When you back in time, you cut yourself from your frame, and paste it in the past frames and rewind the reel to that point. You are no longer a future object, you are no longer tied to the future. You are in the past, you will be in the past until you time travel again, and the future doesn't exist anymore. It never has (wrap your head around that **** , yo). You do whatever you do, and the future changes. But, again, you are not a part of the future, you aren't somehow magically tied to the events that haven't happened, there is no magical universe remote detonator to blow you up. So nothing happens to you.

How does this work? The universe is 4D. X, Y, Z, and T; where T is time. If I'm in an airplane, turn around and shoot my previous location, nothing happens to me. I'm not there anymore. If I go destroy my aircraft carrier - I'm not there, I'm not hurt just because that was my origin. I have left that X, Y, and Z coordinate. Time behaves the same way, it's just more abstract and rigid for whatever reason. I destroy my origin, I destroy my previous location, but nothing happens to me. I'm not there anymore. I'm in the past.

And to those who say "but then it never happened in the first place!" Time is just a plane the time itself is never destroyed, things can happen and then change. All the planes are mutable like this. Moving an object on any of the other planes just means the object moved. That's really all there is to it.

Time isn't magical juice anymore than the rest of the planes, we need to stop treating it like magical juice. The worst thing you can do when you have a problem you don't understand is create a solution based on no proof and accept it. We have rejected mathematically sound sciences on the foundation of breaking the "law" of causality - which is based on our lack of understanding and not science!
#9 to #6 - Rascal (07/05/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #26 to #9 - popnotes (07/05/2014) [-]
Thank god for gif resizing
#23 to #6 - granodd (07/05/2014) [-]
I think I understand what you're saying...albeit not really. From what I'm getting, you're saying that we can clip ourselves from the future and then alter the past, yet remain ourselves, but the future changes/is destroyed, at least what we knew of it.

As interesting of a hypothesis as it is, I still have the urge to question it a bit. If time is just an infinitely generating movie reel, that means that it travels in a linear line, more or less (I'm probably horribly wrong because I'm no scientist, just some ****** with a keyboard), that means that the stretch of film that you existed on in the present before traveling back in time to the past exists on the same reel of film as the past.

You cut yourself from the future piece of the reel and then place it upon a piece of the reel that existed long before the future piece of reel came to be; so far everything is fine. Now, because you're on the same piece of linear film, and because you said that it is 'procedurally' generated, that means there must be some process that generates additional film based upon the actions of the present that lead to the future, so any action performed leads to generating more film for the reel. The piece of reel containing the information leading up to your conception, as well as your acquiring of such a time traveling device still has not been procedurally created yet.

Now let's say you interfered with the past reel of film in some way that significantly affected the information upon the reel that would eventually lead to the creation of the piece of film that you're from, due to it being procedurally created. Therefore, the piece of reel you were from was never procedurally created, and you never actually went back in time.

But then again I'm probably wrong, but hey, a little discussion didn't hurt anyone.

I also think that this might in some way affect the 'Conservation of Matter' thing, removing matter from the future and putting it in the past when it's still in another form .
User avatar #41 to #23 - Fgner (07/05/2014) [-]
Okay first, Conservation of Matter: Since no method of time travel is around, I'm making assumptions we'll be using a tachyonic method. Move faster than light. As well, our conservation of energy would be preserved by the same methods... Which to be honest is where my armchair physics get a bit rusty. If you want to learn how they don't violate laws, feel free! And tell me what you find so I can learn a bit as well!

The film reel example was just a laymans way of putting it. Time isn't a film reel, it's ******* insane - just like our other coordinate planes. They all twist and convulse, stretch and compress, all over the place, constantly moving. And all coordinates on the plane exist at all times. So the beginnings and ends of space and time are always existant. They aways have been since the creation of the universe. But the contents inside change.

So when I said "procedurally" generated film, I was referring to the nature by which going back in time and changing something, will cause a chain reaction that shifts all the related **** in the future. Just like moving a chair will cause a chain reaction of air coming in and filling it up, and blah blah blah.

When you go back in time and kill your grandfather - the chain reaction alters all the atoms in time related to the changes made. You are instantly never born. Technically - you were never born the moment you went back in time (since the atomic state of everything in the universe was already set and all your decisions are just a collection of chemical reactions - the fate of all of time was decided at the moment you stopped time travelling). But you don't need to be born, you already exist!

TImey - Wimey stuff, man. Timey - Wimey stuff.
#28 to #23 - gisuar (07/05/2014) [-]
i don't know if this helps you as a being travel back and you exist already you are not bound to your creation or starting point you are free to travel back and go on in a different way at least that's what i think he was trying to say
User avatar #42 to #28 - Fgner (07/05/2014) [-]
Kinda. The first line isn't destroyed, it's just being overwritten. But as long as it's understood that the first one doesn't create a new "timeline" then yes - this is 100% accurate.
User avatar #36 to #28 - granodd (07/05/2014) [-]
That model helps, although I can't help but think that that would conflict with the original idea behind the hypothesis in the first place, that being a model of time travel that doesn't rely upon multiple universes.

If you were to go back in time to edit the reel so that the procedurally generated film goes in another "direction", then that means that the line of film that you came from never existed, although doesn't affect you; although because that piece of film never existed in the current line of film that you ultimately helped create by going back in time, you would for all intensive purposes be from another dimension, one that never came to be due to your actions, although could have been if you had not went back to alter the past due to the "Many Worlds" theory.
User avatar #33 to #6 - thenightmarechild (07/05/2014) [-]
I had a theory that was the opposite of this. Essentially if you cause a pardox by going back in time (IE. Killing your own grandfather.) Excess energy is created every time you go back in time. When you open up the time portal, a few extra quantums of energy are created, when you kill your grandfather, time is reset.

You disappear then come back, when you go back a second time, the portal now has twice the excess quantums (from the first time you opened the portal, plus the energy now.) Eventually the act of trying to walk through the portal would cook you alive, as the radiation kills you. Or the portal would blow up in your face, or, the particles would cause you to age (as well as your time machine) turning you both into dust before you step out.

Still though, I like your idea, and had a similar one a while ago, but dismissed it because I don't like the thought of time travelers suffering no consequences.
User avatar #29 to #6 - mikeroofer (07/05/2014) [-]
I want magic juice
#39 to #29 - Fgner (07/05/2014) [-]
All I have is magic cream.
All I have is magic cream.
User avatar #24 to #6 - ryuggu (07/05/2014) [-]
I didn't really read this, but it looks like you tried to explain this in some good way, so have a thumb.
#22 to #6 - thesappho (07/05/2014) [-]
Scientist and Universe is 4D? thats just wrong.
#15 to #6 - deliciousdee ONLINE (07/05/2014) [-]
That's some quantum 			****
That's some quantum ****
#14 to #6 - niggledafiggle has deleted their comment [-]
#11 to #6 - Rascal (07/05/2014) [-]
Whilst there is no preferred direction of time, your universe does not exist in a plane of time, but on a line (arrow of time). The thing about multiple universes is that a single arrow (or line) of time may exist infinitely on the many dimensions that time may have. Ergo a different timeline would be a different universe. Multiple universes.

Nice thinking though, but it's really the same thing.
User avatar #12 to #11 - Fgner (07/05/2014) [-]
The multiverse theory doesn't say the same thing - it postulates that there are literally infinite separate universes, existing simultaneously. They are similar concepts, yes. But in mine, there is one universe, time behaves like all other known dimensions, and it doesn't create more paradoxes. In the multiverse theory, there are infinite universes which is conveniently unprovable, time behaves like some magical constant thing that can never change, which is conveniently inconsistent, and it creates even more paradoxes/problems (one universe has infinite Santas going to all other universes, while another has no Santas coming in, and what determines the invention of a new universe - human chices aren't magic, and chemical reactions will always be exactly the same every time, etc? There will be no variation in universes, making each one kind of pointless other than to explain a paradox we don't even know is a real problem. And more.).

Anywhom - I still love you.
User avatar #19 to #12 - zshadowz (07/05/2014) [-]
According to your theory, is it possible to travel back to the future after travelling to the past?
User avatar #35 to #19 - Fgner (07/05/2014) [-]
Yup. We already know a way to manipulate time. As you approach the speed of light, you experience time slower and slower. And as you slow down, faster and faster. At the speed of light, you experience time so slow it stops completely (theoretically). It's called tiem dilation, spooky **** . Going faster than light (again theoretically) would make you go backwards. So you want to go in the future, almost touch the speed of light for a little bit. If you want to go in the past, break the speed of light (and you actually have to break it like a tachyon - not using tricks like Alcubierre drives).

In the going future one, the rest of the universe experiences time exactly as they normally would.
User avatar #40 to #35 - zshadowz (07/05/2014) [-]
My mind is going to blow and is begging me to stop thinking
User avatar #18 to #12 - cormy (07/05/2014) [-]
Dude, you're the one who said it. Movement through time does not magically destroy the universes that have come into existence. Going back in time does not destroy the previous future while leaving you untouched, the other future still exists as it is just as independent of your decisions as you are. You can't have one without the other and this is where the timelines branch apart giving birth to the multiple timelines.
Actually, none of this even touches on the multiverse theory, which trancends timelines and goes further to postulate that there are other universes where the laws are no longer the same. Not only did time progress differently in these universes, but the basic laws are difference. In another universe, matter might naturally exude something like anti-gravity instead of having gravity.
Anyway, if you believe that a being travelling through time should be unaffected by his influence on his past or future selves then the same must be said for the timelines, there's no reason the timeline should be destroyed just because you go back, it will simply continue existing as if you had disappeared from the universe while you continue living in the timeline you branched off into.
User avatar #37 to #18 - Fgner (07/05/2014) [-]
You misunderstood. The time is not destroyed by going back. However the events are changed. The chair example was supposed to say that while I moved the chair across the X axis, the X coordinates it moved from didn't die - they just changed their contents. Those coordinates will always exist, and their contents are able to change. Just like in time - all time always exists, the film reel is never destroyed, but if something changes it has new contents.
User avatar #43 to #37 - cormy (07/05/2014) [-]
What do you mean by changed their contents?
If you change something along a branch with many different destinations and lead it towards one, the other destinations don't disappear, they're still there.
"you cut yourself from your frame, and paste it in the past frames and rewind the reel to that point. You are no longer a future object, you are no longer tied to the future. You are in the past, you will be in the past until you time travel again, and the future doesn't exist anymore."
This is where my problem is, old futures don't stop existing, they're still there with or without you. You were never tied to them as you said, but with that same logic there is no reason to rewind the wheel or say that the future that was on that reel is gone, you've simply moved to another reel.
User avatar #44 to #43 - Fgner (07/05/2014) [-]
You assume multiple destinations. There aren't. There is a single destination. There are no "choices" - everything that happens has been set since the birth of the universe. When you go back in time, you just change the atomic state of the universe. You don't destroy anything, you modify the single destination. Just like if I move, I'm modifying the contents of the X, Y, and Z positions I used to be at and am going to. It's not that hard to explain.

You're thinking of time like it's a choice while at the same time saying it's impossible to change. The contents of a temporal coordinate can change, just like the content of any other coordinate.

When I said the future doesn't exist anymore, I simply meant the future doesn't influence you - to you, the future is dead. All time exists at once, the past and present and future, just like all X, Y, and Z coordinates exist at once. The film reel is never destroyed, the frames merely change.

You still haven't addressed the fact that the multiverse theory is conveniently impossible to prove or disapprove - even if we make time travel, creates more paradoxes than it solves, and has no scientific or even common sensical basis.
User avatar #45 to #44 - cormy (07/06/2014) [-]
We don't even need to address the multiverse theory... It has nothing to do with this. Multiverse goes above and beyond mere time paradoxes and before we're able to prove it to be either true or false, we're gonna need time travel first. I don't know why you even care that it can't be proven, that really doesn't matter, it's just a theory. It's like believing in a god. Whether it's true or not doesn't change anything.

I assume multiple timelines and destinations because I believe our choices have an impact on the way things play out.
If you modify ANYTHING you are destroying what it was before. You keep using movement as an analogy to your time travel however simple movement through space causes ripples. When you move from one place to another you create a void where you were previously thereby possibly getting in the way of something or moving out of the way of something else. It's this thinking of normal causality that gives rise to temporal causality. You keep trying to separate them while at the same time saying it's the same as spacial coordinates and rules, which your vision doesn't allow room for. Everything in space influences each other.
Now in your vision, there aren't separate timelines and no action influences either the future or the past, it's all already there. Which means before you went back in time, your other self that had gone back in time must be existing at the same time as you are, otherwise you must be changing the past, which you say doesn't happen because everything is pre-destined.
I don't really have a problem with your vision per say I just found some of your comparisons to be... Weird.
#10 to #6 - prozack (07/05/2014) [-]
#8 to #6 - Rascal (07/05/2014) [-]
this explains all
this explains all

#21 - adrenalinegiraffe (07/05/2014) [-]
Tfw it was just a coincidence.
Tfw it was just a coincidence.
User avatar #25 to #21 - albertjester (07/05/2014) [-]
oh god how did i forget about this. Daler Mehndi - Tunak Tunak Tun Video
#13 - grimmwaters ONLINE (07/05/2014) [-]
I guess you could say his time has come.
#31 - moarpotatos (07/05/2014) [-]
It seems like everyone named Melissa is fat
It seems like everyone named Melissa is fat
User avatar #34 to #31 - zerotzallander (07/05/2014) [-]
Whhere do you see the fat?
#30 - mytwocents has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #20 - seras (07/05/2014) [-]
"If you're so smart, explain this, Melissa."
I know it's Clarissa, don't hate me.
 Friends (0)