Time Loops are Impossible
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- PATREON: / misteramazing
DISCORD: www.discord.me/...
SELLFY: www.sellfy.com/...
FACEBOOK: / misteramazingofficial
TWITTER: / misteramazingyt
SECOND CHANNEL: / amazingoc
EMAIL: mister.amazing.yt@gmail.com
Thanks to this guy who got me documents for this video: Pretzel#2688 on Discord
I feel like this guy just dropped his mug and really wanted to make a video about it.
😂😂
Everything said in this video seemed to be asserting cause and effect as understood in a linear time line. Then stating that that understanding is the de facto end of the discussion.
But once you step outside linear time, a cause can become its own cause. Outside linear time, there doesn't necessarily need to be a first cause or final effect. Just because some movies poorly represent these ideas doesn't mean the idea is invalid.
Indeed. People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually from a non-linear, non subjective viewpoint, it's really more like a big ball...(People seem to remember that line mostly for the words that come next - but I think it's a smarter line than the part that "sticks" would tend to suggest. It suggests a model in which time loops could occur - and that if they occur, they could iterate. If John Cole saw the Hawiian shirt and thought "this is too much like my vision, I'm causing the future and should stop" - then he'd make a different choice, something less distinctive perhaps, and the time loop might converge on a set of events that don't change themselves in the loop. It's nonsense, of course, by any grounded understanding we have in how time, space, and energy work. But as a rationalization of how time travel could work, in a setting where time travel is an accepted reality, I like it.)
Mildly pretentious.
Yes.
So how does King Crimson work again?
It just works
It's more like killer Queen Bites za dusto
King Crimson is more of diavolo seeing what will happen in the future with epitaph and then getting rid of that future making it seem like he teleports or just immediately killed someone.
(I know it's a joke comment but I'm here just to show how it works)
No lose
(ahora traducelo al español)
If Garfield never existed, we wouldn’t have Garfield Cart. Unsubbed
Or gorfield
I can't believe you dropped your poor mug for a video
Glorry Thought you meant his face for a second.
masterful as always
also alan watts yesss
RobotUnderscore I was also very excited by the video when Alan Watts came into question. Thank you again MisterAmazing, you’re doing gods work.
RobotUnderscore Alan watts is god
A wise man once said "One often meets their destiny on the path they take to avoid it".
Thank you Master Oogway.
I think Donnie Darko does a good job. It's a movie about showing a world which can't exist, and the surreality of exploring it. The timeloop implodes, ultimately making that world non-existent, and it ends up simply being a simple tragedy, where everything within the timeloop shouldn't be happening and therefore didn't. It ended up just being a surreal trip through a world that didn't exist.
I think its more plausible for people to realise that perhaps we have no idea how these things really work at this point in our existence. Maybe it will take the invention of an apparatus what can help us determine. I personally think its probably an infinite amount of things and also finite due to how things in the universe are finite and infinite at the same time.
Time loops are impossible because time travel - as we imagine it in fiction - is (most likely) impossible. If it's possible at all, that's another question.
Time travel in fiction can be anything you want it to be and there's no physics or philosophy police to stop you from doing it the way you like.
Virtual particles are technically in a time loop. The negative particle is congruent to the same positive particle moving in reverse through time, and you could therefore think of it not as the two particles appearing and canceling out, but as ONE particle moving in a circle through the x-plane and the time-plane. The quantum world is pretty loopy.
title
This guy clearly hasn't seen the Homestuck timeline, at one point it finds a way to time travel without travelling through time while creating a schrodinger's cat out of the time in between two events while at the same time actualizing the schrodinger's situation in the act a creating it, all without time travel while still functioning as time travel.
I think you're a bit confused about the modal logic there, mate.
I wonder if that's what hell is like. I imagine hell will be like living your worst memory over and over forever.
Yeetus my feetus
Anoos Eggroll pray to yeezus To YONT The YOLK
Fire Owl fetus deletus
Anoos Eggroll yeetus deletus tha feetus
Deletus thus fetus my n e g u s
and the cringe recedes
This made me think of the very first episode of Bravest Warriors where they're stuck in a time loop, but after going through it twice they just decide not to do it again and the episode ends
Long video that manages to say nothing. You base your entire argument on the premise that a time loop can't have an inherent cause, which is simply untrue. You can create something that loops infinitely with ease, but that loop in and of itself still had an origin point, one where the factors that eventually because the loop originated. This is one demonstrable through one of the most common and basic of programming errors, or even the spinning of a wheel in a vacuum. "The only thing causing the action(s) to continue, is the action(s), therefore it cannot exist". That is simply wrong. A time loop can be brought into being, or a time loop can be broken, but it will still remain a sequence of cause and effect for an indeterminate number of "loops". In fact, you can even have *overlapping* time loops. Let's take the twelve monkeys example of the hawaiin shirt, and say for the sake of the argument, that Cole refuses to wear it, in an attempt to diverge from the time loop. Events play out the same, and he dies, as the shirt was a detail of no real consequence. Except, now his younger self knows he dies wearing a black shirt, and when the event re-occurs, he again attempts to exit the time loop, and puts on the Hawaiin shirt. You now have two loops of the same sequence of events that feed into each other ad infinitum. But of course, that would likely take too much time to be worth putting into the movie. Also, your argument that "they don't NEED to do this, therefore it doesn't work" falls apart in equal measure, at least as far as individuals without knowledge of the future of the loop are concerned. Human behaviour and indeed the universe as a whole are predictable, and behave in predictable ways. If all factors leading to an event are the same, the result is the same. Simple determinism. If you roll a die and get a five, it doesn't magically become a three in the past because the outcome was truly entropic - you're throwing a cube. Physics can predict the outcome, outcome dictates environment, environment dictates information and information dictates behaviours. Simply _wanting_ rather than _needing_ is enough. As for the characters acting that way when they DO have knowledge, well... that's just bad writing.
he explained above that a lot of things were cut to make the video shorter and more easily comprehensible. Great comment though
Something you're getting close to touching on is T-symmetry, or the ability to essentially allow time to run backwards. If time is symmetric then you could say that you dropping the mug is the result of it hitting the floor. Many mathematical systems are symmetric, but it appears time is not mostly due to thermodynamics. This is super simplified, but you get the idea.
Edit: Veritasium has a good video on time symmetry.
That ending was definently the best ending to any of your videos ever.
good shit man.
And then you get Donnie Darko, where the movie thinks it gets caught in a time loop until Donnie eventually realizes "Wait, I don't have to go along with this shit."
"I'm gonna cause my foot to go up your ass if you don't clean up that damn coffee!"
-Mrs Amazing, probably.
Can’t go back in time because time is just a way that we organise our movements in Euclidean space. It’s not a physical thing. You can dilate time etc but never go back or change things that have happened
Thank you!
Rhine But if time is light and you manage to travel faster then light what would happen?
The Yvorcer Time isn't light
let us first make ftl possible before talking our asses off
The behavior of particles in QP says otherwise. There is nothing inherently problematic with "going back in time" from a physics standpoint. Sending back a person in time is a completely different story - and does seem highly improbable.
Regarding the video about how the character doesn't "need" to buy a specific shirt as he knows he will be shot wearing that shirt - if he saw himself getting shot wearing that shirt - he WILL wear that shirt on that day - what will happen and has happened cannot be undone or changed. The "extremely improbable" will be the only probability in such circumstances. Perhaps a contrived example - but lets say he deliberately picks a different shirt at the store in order to "trick time" - something will then happen at the airport that makes him wear that exact shirt he saw himself getting shot as a kid. Of course this makes it sound like we do not have free will - physics do not care.
Time travels is probably the most complicated way to carry a plot
I'd argue that what you presented was not that Time Loops are impossible, but the presented situations in these works of fiction are highly improbable. An example would be a situation in which someone at no point notices they're creating a time loop until it has already happened, one where someone would be unable to go against the flow of history because they were never aware to begin with that the actions they were taking were causing it.
I dont believe its set in stone per se, but rather a logical outcome kind of thing. That you cannot change anything that would affect YOU(the time traveller), and many of the events which gave you not only your life, but also your personal timeline that lead you to do said time travel. So in other words, its extended grandfather paradox.
If the given event you oh so badly wanted to change was already changed without you somehow closing the loose ends, it will lead to previous yourself not being bothered by said changed event, therefore not building a time machine to change it and in turn, it returns to status quo.
So in summary:
1)You cannot change things that would affect your very existence(no time traveller, no change, return to status quo)
2)You cannot change things that would affect you wating to change said things unless you somehow recognize yourself in old newspapers or something, thus ensuring the change of said thing or event.
Mister Amazing never disappoints
A good solution to the problem of free will in time travel scenarios is a quote from Dark: "We are not free in our actions, because we are not free in what we feel" Rough translation from the german but it basically says that you personally will always take the path you took before because you are the same person and lived the same life and therefore have similar desires as your past self had in this exact moment
as someone that was stuck in a loop of it for quite a long "time" I assure you that time loops can and so exist. But i did make it back out of it, against all logic and reason, because my memory helped me figure out and fix why it was looping.
I think of time travel like this:
If a Time Traveler (TT) wants to go back in time ten minutes, the TT doesn't travel back in time; instead the TT travels to a universe that is ten minutes behind their own. But because of the TT's new existence in that universe, that universe will not have the same future as the present of the TT''s own universe. But this doesn't create paradoxes because, if the TT was to meet themselves nothing would happen; as they are not the same individual.
I've never enjoyed if-then philosophy; waaaay too abstract
...
Well, I know of one work of fiction that got time loops right.
In homestuck, there are numerous time loops and shenanigans, all which is kept in a linear single timeline by timelines that get off the alpha timeline becoming doomed, everyone in them dying, and eventually collapsing into irrelevance.
Why, you might ask?
Because some skull headed, rainbow clown billiard ball themed, space hulk with green sun powers became the embodiment of time and has forced the whole of causality to bring about his own existence by destroying timelines that don't.
Makes perfect sense.
And your argument as to why people traveling back in time can change the future is...
You didn’t make one.
The whole point of a timeloop is that the future already happened. Once you travel back in time, you can’t do anything to change it. You’re not changing anything. If you could change things, you’d create a new timeline. For the timeloop theory? Sure, you travelled back in time. But, as far as the timeline is concerned, you were already there. This version of reality already has ‘current you’ in that part of time. Even before you ‘go’ there. Because you do go there. Thus you existed there already. Nothing changes. Everything you do there already happened before you ‘went’ because by ‘going’ you assured you’d be there. And everything you do from that point on? From the future’s perspective, you’ve already done it. It’s immutable. It’s locked into place. You do have ‘free will’. You enact that ‘free will’. It’s just that reality has already been locked in on the result of your choices. That’s The Point. It’s a perfectly logical statement.
Your argument against it is “That’s dumb.”
... okay... cool... make an argument?
UltimateKyuubiFox
What happens when you do something that'd create a paradox? Like, what if you went back in time and killed your younger self?
Noah
Meh, the first way would kinda require that the universe has a will of its own if it actively tries to stop you, which would require so many more forces at play, and make it overall a whole lot more convoluted than it should be. I feel like Occam's razor would probably come into effect.
As for the second way, I'm not so sure I follow. What happens to the time traveller upon the death of his younger self? If it's all the same timeline then he should immediately die? Or does he just disappear from existence? Either way, that'd require something to happen in the natural world that cause him to suddenly die, or in the case of the latter that'd mean that there's sudden matter (his body) lost from the world...what would the mechanics of that be? How would that work?
Awkward Silence
Agreed. He would die. His older self would cease to be. And instantaneously someone else that fulfills his end would take his place.
As for the first, why assume the universe is not alive? That is a massive assumption on its own. It would be like cells believing the thing that they are a part of (us) is not alive because they have never seen evidence of it.
+AwkwardSilence, he didn't say that the universe "actively" tries to stop you. It's a difficult topic to discuss because I'm not sure we have the vocab for it, but I take it to mean that the universe is arranged in such a way that when you go back things proceed exactly as they already have. This is necessarily the case, because those things have already happened.
Take the example in the video. When the kid watched his older self get killed that older self was behaving in a way that was already consistent with the knowledge of when and how he would die, so he was unable to avoid those things this time, for whatever reasons, so when he goes back the exact same sequence of events will proceed the "next" time (it's really the same time).
Alternatively the kid was mistaken. He misremembered the shirt. There was an optical illusion that made the kid think the shirt was a different colour. The kid actually saw his long lost twin identical twin brother get shot and thought it was himself. With imperfect knowledge of the past the older self is unable to avoid repeating it. Not hugely satisfying, though, as if you had access to time travel there's nothing really that would stop you from constructing a situation where you had sufficient knowledge.
I don't really like Noah's second suggestion. It'd be kind of neat from a movie perspective but it seems entirely unphysical.
There is another option to explain away the problem of trying to mix free will with time travel, which is that there isn't a time *loop* at all. You travel back in time, but the point you arrive at is that point on a *different* timeline. The two timelines share all events up to the point of your arrival and from there diverge, each down their own "trouser leg of time".
In the "original" leg you continue your life up until the point you disappear from that timeline. In the "new" leg you can take whatever actions you like. If you kill your child self the only consequence is that the new timeline will never have an adult version of that self. In the original timeline that child still grew up to become you and kill the "other" child.
If you then go back in time once more you create another timeline and so on and so forth. There could be an arbitrarily high number of timelines. This sounds very similar to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics where wavefunction collapse is replaced by timeline splitting, suggesting that for any event every possible outcome actually does occur.
Michael Ferguson
Thank you for helping to clarify. As to your dislike of my second option... Completely understandable. Although sound, it is convoluted (and I personally think the universe thives on simplicity).
I purposely left out the multiple timeline theory because (to me) it's not really time travel... It's dimension hopping. This means the time traveler is an escapist abandoning his original time for complete strangers that may have had their past changed already. But yes... That misclassification is also a possibility from a protagonist driven narrative.
One thing that you have possibly missed here is that in the time loop of 12 Monkeys, not only was Cole always dead in the past and already in every place in time that he traveled back to; he also always made every decision exactly the way that he did and could not have ever done otherwise.
We see that in the scene where he ends up in a trench of WW1 (or II can't remember which). His picture from that jump is shown in a lecture, but that lecture happens before he goes to the trench from Cole's point of view (ie it is later in the film that he goes to the trench than it is in the film that the picture is shown).
I believe that you are already on board with this idea in the video. Whereby there are no timelines, everything that happens is not an alternative timeline, but the only timeline that there ever was and you correctly conclude that everything that happens just happens.
Where you go wrong, in my view, is two fold. 1) Cause and effect are not invalidated in such a world at all as you seem to think. The mug does fall, and it does fall because you dropped it, but only because dropping it precedes the fall. A cause is just the immediate and connected action that precedes the effect. It actually doesn't matter that there can be other potential causes (other directly connected actions that could have occurred instead) because those actions did not happen. Which leads me to 2) The world of 12 Monkeys is 100% deterministic. The mug in that world was always dropped and nothing can change it to another cause regardless of whether such an alternative cause is possible. It simply did not happen, possible or not, and simply cannot be otherwise. Likewise, Cole cannot as you suggest choose not to go to the airport. He has no free will. No one does. Their choices are simply the result of their brain state at the time which is linked back in a continuous unbroken chain of previous brain states and previous environmental stimuli which exactly cause every decision he makes up until the inevitable choices that end the film.
The only thing that we can say is that Cole probably should have made a different decision based on his foreknowledge, but we cannot say that he could have a made a different decision anymore than we can say that the mug can decide not to fall knowing it will break. The mug and Cole both have no actual agency just the illusion of it. A world where the mug fell for another reason is possible, but in this world it is not actually possible for the mug to not fall or to fall for any other reason. It is determined and was determined from the very beginning of time.
"Nietzche killed the gods for us."
I'm pretty sure Nietzche literally said, "WE killed the gods, and now we're fucked if we don't do something to fix it."
Finally!
I'm not so sure about the pragmatist view - at any given time in the past where a time traveller from the future has arrived and brought an effect, the events leading up to this *haven't* occurred yet for them to originate from, so you still get that problem plus a slew of questions about the nature of time in a world where backwards time travel is even possible.
Honestly though, the philosophy of time is something I really ought to pursue and it's good to see more mention of Arabic scholars amongst discussions of philosophy in general, especially owing to the past popular neglect of philosophical canon from outside 'the west' as it were.
E
Nice delivery, narrative and meta-narrative.
Genuinely made me laugh, and now I actually want to watch '12 Monkeys'.
9/10 IGN
What happens when the characters are allowed to break the cycle, and the time loop is more of a time cyclone that eventually dies out?
What if there was a cause- like, for say the protag somehow causing the events of his own vision- but the vision wasn’t it, and he did all of the events in the film naturally? But when he sends a message into the past, it replaces the natural “cause” that took the guy on the events without the vision? Hence wiping it out from existence, and making a new one altogether.
There is a way to do loops. We are not seeing 12 monkies in its entirety. We see one cycle of the loop. The loop exists as an equilibrium, it happens because the other things in the loop cause it to happen and so on and so forth into the future forever. But, while we can assume that the loop would continue forward forever we cannot say that it has ALWAYS happened. There must have been an initial travel back in time with a Bruce that didnt see himself shot, a clean timeline. This untraumatized Bruce did something that initiated what would eventually equalize into a loop where the parts drive themselves.
still waiting for justin y.
honestly, if they found out how to broke the system good for them. that also does mean somebody else can break it though, so that'll be fun.
Dr.Dankenstein please don't attract him by commenting
That man needs a new fucking hobby.
SHHHH, DON'T SAY THAT!!!! it's "he who should not be named", don't say that word. What if he heard you?!
But in Predestination, the Fring bomber shared that he had seen a different time, to which he altered. So that not a time loop or a good example for you point.
I want to know why this channel does not have more subs, TELL ME
Time loops could work like quines. A quine is a computer program which produces itself. There are two ways to produce a quine; You either write, or you run the quine. In the same way, a time loop could have two causes, leading to the same effects, however improbable that might be. As soon as the initial effect creates the time quine, it becomes a self-contained loop, which can't happen any other way, assuming that all other variables stay the same.
The other symbol you mentioned is c => e which also doesn't work as you represented in your video. That symbol means that c and e are logically equivalent. In other words, if c is true, then e is true and if c is false, then e is false. To have c be you drop your mug and e be it fell would be be false because it's possible for the mug to fall and for you to not have dropped it (as you mention).
The problem with necessary entities is that they are a misleading use of descriptions. There is no such thing as a "two", it is a description we use to portray when there is 1+1 items in a group. What does necessary even mean? Is it when that concept exists in all universes? If so, then what of a universe that consists solely of a singularity? Is it when such a concept is conceivable? Then that begs the question, who is imagining this thing that doesnt exist, there are possible worlds with no minds to think.
To sum this up, necessary entities are an argument from ignorance, the only things that cannot be proven to not be in all possible worlds are the things that are not even things that exist.
Yes,his statement also backs no proof of numbers existing.This is a classic argument of apologetics.I don't say that he is atheist/theist,just that he has the wrong impression on how someone perceives reality.
Counting are certainly something invented(since it makes life more convenient).There can be a world were counting does not exist,even if the possibility for it being established still being there.
Also humans and generally anything organic,has limited scope on how it interacts with the world and its perception of it(blind not seeing,dogs having a better sense of smell) .In a sense,everyone,no matter how similar,can have a drastically varying interaction/perceptiom with its enviroment.General consensus is required to establish something as existing(generally organic interaction).
However it is not a requirement for a thing's existence,since the general consensus is made of imperfect perception and hence is itself imperfect.In an ideal situation,the general consensus is perfect and therefore its results without fault.
Therefore,while it can easily eliminate things out of existence(Daleks for example),it can never really prove individual existence.That's why during refinement and improving,it can always go back to disprove established claims,whether they were theorised existing or non-existing(lasers are a good example).
Johannes Fotiadis he didnt say counting though, he said numbers, not numbers that have to be percieved by any being either, just numbers that can be used to quantify things in that universe; it is inconcievable to think of a scenario where numbers themselves dont exist, so they are considered as something that is necessary for a universe to exist
Greenyoshi119, the point here is that there is no evidence that numbers actually exist. They are simply something we use to describe the amount of items in a group. The reason why it is difficult to imagine a world without numbers is because there are no numbers in our reality. Take a perfect circle for example. This is a geometric shape that we have never seen to exist anywhere. This is a mental construct that we use in math to better understand other concepts that may or may not be possible in reality.
The moment you define a number as something that can exist, we can imagine a world without it. That is what I was talking about in my previous comment. We can imagine worlds where it is physically impossible for the number two to exist, that would be the world of the singularity. Nothing there can create a second thing because everything is attached in such a way that you cannot ever measure anything without resulting in a one or a zero. In fact, this world cannot even conceive of the number two. Therefore to claim that the number two is a necessary entity (a 'thing' that any conceived world must have), is false.
Johannes Fotiadis was referring to necessary entities being rarely used outside of religious apologist arguments such as the ontological argument where they try to pass something that cannot be falsified (numbers, perfect shapes, mental constructs) as being identical to something that can be falsified (objective morality, Supreme beings, supernatural effects)
1 and 0 are still numbers. A singularity would just mean that there is 1 of something in that instance. Numbers would still exist in that scenario.
DoubleTTB22, The point of the singularity was to say that there is a world where the number two could not be applied in any way shape or form to it. The point of that was to say that you cannot simply say "the number 2 is a necessary entity". My example of the singularity was just that, an example to show why necessary entities are false. All you have done is stated that we can describe the singularity world using 1 and 0. You have done nothing to support the argument that the EXISTENCE of numbers is true for all possible worlds. If you wish to say that numbers still exist in a singularity world, you have to not only prove that [descriptions of things] are [things], but also that there is something in a singularity you can describe with the exact number 14.
I'd be interested to see what you think about world lines and how they've been popularized by movies + tv shows recently
Mister Amazing, you need to do your summer homework. We’ve entered an endless recursion of time.
Truly magnificent.
This is the only show on the internet that is so wonderfully made and precisely executed as to make me feel like I just watched a full length feature film when it’s over.
My day just got drastically better that you uploaded. You deserve way more everything.
I've always assumed that in Time Travel if you applied the many worlds theory that your choice to go back in time would in itself create a new universe where you exist in the past. This way your actions in the past would not affect what happened in your original timeline (that led to you going back in time in the first place) as you would come from a universe where you were not present in your own past. For example I could go back in time kill my past self and not cause a paradox as the act of me going back in time creates an alternate universe that my past is not dependent on. (Not that I believe that backwards time travel is possible in the first place)
How this channel went from a meme channel to a channel about this idk, but I love it
you took my interests in this channel back again even though i have just given the interest just by making a vid like this
Really glad that you've started to bring Alan Watts into your content! Brilliant video as always!
Predestination is just "'--All You Zombies--'" by Robert Heinlen
On the surface time loops make sense but if you really think about it, it doesn't make any sense
You had me, then you lost me...then you had me again...
and therefore you lost me.
this must be one of the best videos i've ever seen on this site, you're fucking awesome dude
I loved this essay of a video. Excellent work
time travel is all sorts of fucked up
What a clever ass ending. Bravo Misteramazing, your video quality never ceases to amaze me
Jesus christ the quality and editing of your videos are top tier
Noone in the fucking movies felt like they *had* to do that. Noone. They just did. Because its a movie.
We can have a predestined universe without time travel. It's the time travel that's the problem. It means that someone is moving faster than causation. As long as cause and effect follow one after the other it works fine. That's why the multiple time lines makes sense. The traveler doesn't travel to his own past, he travels to a universe that is identical to his past.
I love Alan Watts, I listen to him in the car to keep me calm
5:15 *flashbacks to PHI101*
Well, hard determinism makes time loops possible again. We could just simply live in a world where anyone who goes back in time falls into one of these neat paradox-cleanups. But writing _interesting_ fiction in a way where this type of nihilistic fatalism is properly acknowledged, could very well be near impossible.
it's 12:40am and you just fucked my mind in ways i couldn't have imagined. needless to say im not going to sleep tonight
The events do not have to be necessary for a time loop to happen, they need only happen.
trippy shit bro, nice job
Ppl always say stuff is impossible because they cant figure it out or cant explain it
Everytime I drop my mug...the grass is green...
I like how he says "Shit" Calmly.
Happy one year anniversary of this video
A good example of time loop is the time loop of the 11th doctor from Doctor Who, where he saves himself from pandora box.
I haven’t watched the video yet and I can already tell that I love this
Gotta love that ending. Hated the slurpy sound you made though. Way too loud 😅
Also, all time travel breaks the law of conservation of mass since you are sending information to the past in note creating mass out of nothing.
"There is no CAWS"
Who has seen dark? Such a good show that really expands on some of these ideas
Amazing video, as always. If there was anything better than your editing skills, it would be your storytelling.
Tell that to The Doctor.
What use is a brain when you understand the world less the more you use it?
"Ok Jeff, just so you know you are now creating 6 different timelines"
Feel like youd enjoy the Haruhi series, particularly the movie.
My theory is that Space takes up the first three dimensions, with time being the fourth dimension. Time travel and different possibilities and outcomes exist on the fifth dimension, and travel between parallel universes is sixth dimensional. The Seventh, eighth and ninth dimensions involve possible beginning points, and their relationships. This makes a single point on the Tenth dimension representative of everything that is possible. However, we can still imagine the impossible, so self sustaining causal loops, Self annihilating causal loops, and other big balls of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff must exist between ten and twelve. Realities that only exist because for some reason we can conceive of them in our minds. Beyond that, up to dimension 15, there are subversions of the system. and other ways of conceptualizing it.
I would go as far as to say that you have the absolute best content on RUclips
Steins;Gate had a good fix to the grandfather paradox.
1. The only thing you demonstrated is that time loops are not necessarily unbreakable, not that they're impossible. That the events didn't /need/ to happen as they did doesn't make the whole thing fall apart. For whatever reason(s), the events /did/ play out as they did, or rather do as they do, regardless of necessity.
2. The lack of cause in a time loop, or otherwise the self-causality of a time loop, is commonly brought up as the bootstrap paradox. The bootstrap paradox is falsidical - it goes away when you understand the situation a little better. The time loop as presented is not necessarily the original sequence of events - the original cause predating the loop has simply been overwritten. Something else made it possible, but events in the time loop gradually or suddenly adjusted to become self-perpetuating. The snake, originally traveling on a straight line, at some point turned and /then/ began to swallow its own tail. That we first encountered it in the state of swallowing its own tail doesn't mean it can only exist because it swallows its own tail.
time loops exist. sometimes i get random thoughts for no reason. later in the day i see that random thought happen. its wasnt a random thought. i must of saw it happened before and thats why i thought of it. i guess it occur at important times for reasons i dont know.
Yes, but alternative realities with time travel are... Rick and Morty forever!
This was very interesting. I agree that the idea that the timeline "must" happen isn't compelling, because it kind of infers a conscious preference which supposes a cosmic consciousness, a sort of god.
I would make the point though that at least from the storytelling perspective you are avoiding the fact that James Cole already has predetermined parts of his life that conflict with his personal desires. He is not sure of how powerful the people who sent him back are, but they are powerful enough to send people back in time. He knows the future will be messed up whether he does something or not. There is also the fact that the person telling him to put on the wig and Hawaiian shirt is someone he is growing fond of. He isn't choosing to do what he is "predestined" to do out of whim, he is strongly compelled to do it. It shows that his emotional need for connection and understanding is trumping the thoughts of time travel suicide.
That was a bit of a mess, it's been a while since I've seen the movie. But my main point is that time travel in movies is usually a story telling device around a theme, rather than a realistic representation of reality. So let's just hope for good themes and plots, let time travel adapt the required storytelling.
Nice to see a timelord mastermind explaining all of this to mere mortals like us.
As I see it time loops are possible, but not on their own, if you were to find yourself in a future where something that has happened needs to be undone, and you go into the past to undo it only to find yourself causing it, then it is possible to find yourself stuck in a loop of causing that thing and traveling back to try and stop it, but only if there existed a time when you didn't and it still happened. Basically so long as your attempts to change the past fail, and you do not kill anyone significant to your first bout of time travel it's possible, just highly unlikely.
Your videos are so trippy but also so amazing 10/10
What if dark matter can become visible matter via timeline splitting. The pressure for new matter is stored out of sight so to speak and all we need is a disturbance in the timeline
i had no problem understanding predestination but i've given up on trying to understand primer. this video i will allow myself to watch ten times and if i still don't get it then i call it quits