Bootstrap paradox with a time machine in ironWill the universe reset, or self destruct?What determines which stable time loops occur?Temporal Ethics for bidirectional time-travel with branching time-linesIf we discovered time travel, what would happen to the value of currency?How would I NOT get rich by going back in time and telling myself about Google?How do you prevent causal loops from happening with the Novikov self-consistency principle?Where are the tourists from the future?How do I manage memetic infection while time traveling?What happens when you create a time paradox?The World is ending, but we have a time-machine
How to know the operations made to calculate the Levenshtein distance between strings?
Finding an optimal set without forbidden subsets
To “Er” Is Human
Is it OK to say "The situation is pregnant with a crisis"?
What is the meaning of "it" in "as luck would have it"?
How do I use efficient repeats in sheets for pop music?
Available snapshots for main net?
What does this Pokemon Trainer mean by saying the player is "SHELLOS"?
Confusion in understanding the behavior of inductor in RL circuit with DC source
Did the Shuttle payload bay have illumination?
Is it advisable to inform the CEO about his brother accessing his office?
What's the idiomatic (or best) way to trim surrounding whitespace from a string?
Can you help me, to widen the page. Thank you
Other homotopy invariants?
Why is quantum gravity non-renormalizable?
Merging two data frames into a new one with unique items marked with 1 or 0
Can I deep fry food in butter instead of vegetable oil?
Why are examinees often not allowed to leave during the start and end of an exam?
Cannot overlay, because ListPlot does not draw same X range despite the same PlotRange
Could citing a database like libgen get one into trouble?
Turing Machines: What is the difference between recognizing, deciding, total, accepting, rejecting?
Searching for single buildings in QGIS
Is there a connection between representation theory and PDEs?
2019 2-letters 33-length list
Bootstrap paradox with a time machine in iron
Will the universe reset, or self destruct?What determines which stable time loops occur?Temporal Ethics for bidirectional time-travel with branching time-linesIf we discovered time travel, what would happen to the value of currency?How would I NOT get rich by going back in time and telling myself about Google?How do you prevent causal loops from happening with the Novikov self-consistency principle?Where are the tourists from the future?How do I manage memetic infection while time traveling?What happens when you create a time paradox?The World is ending, but we have a time-machine
$begingroup$
I wonder if a time machine can be the cause of a bootstrap paradox?
Background: Let's say one day I found in my room a portable time machine. I use this machine to travel to the future, where I realize I am the person who placed the machine in my room. I then travel to the past to drop off the time machine and let my past self use it.
The time machine always travels with me. There is only one time machine.
Condition: Now let's say this time machine has critical components built of iron and, after many, many iterations, it rusts and falls out of order. At some point I won't be able to travel to the future ... but the time machine should be here, shouldn't it ?
Question: Is something wrong with my scenario, or could this happen? (If so, how is it possible (theoretically)?)
time-travel paradox
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I wonder if a time machine can be the cause of a bootstrap paradox?
Background: Let's say one day I found in my room a portable time machine. I use this machine to travel to the future, where I realize I am the person who placed the machine in my room. I then travel to the past to drop off the time machine and let my past self use it.
The time machine always travels with me. There is only one time machine.
Condition: Now let's say this time machine has critical components built of iron and, after many, many iterations, it rusts and falls out of order. At some point I won't be able to travel to the future ... but the time machine should be here, shouldn't it ?
Question: Is something wrong with my scenario, or could this happen? (If so, how is it possible (theoretically)?)
time-travel paradox
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"After many many loops it rusts and then become out of order": how many streams of time are there in your world? "Let my past me use it": and thus multiple future yous accumulate in the past.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The problem with a loop like this, is that it has no beginning, and it has no end. The time machine will behave as though it is infinitely old at all moments within the loop, and will experience maximum entropy.
$endgroup$
– Arkenstein XII
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Bootstrap paradoxes usually assume a completely fixed timeline, are you imagining a universe where it is in principle possible to "change" the past, or are you just asking how this type of paradox could possibly work in a fixed timeline given the natural tendency of metal to rust? If the latter, in normal physics there is always a finite probability that entropy-decreasing thermodynamic fluctuations happen, maybe one would have to happen in your scenario. Or since the technology of a machine that was never built is kind of arbitrary, you could assume self-repair abilities like living beings.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I wonder if a time machine can be the cause of a bootstrap paradox?
Background: Let's say one day I found in my room a portable time machine. I use this machine to travel to the future, where I realize I am the person who placed the machine in my room. I then travel to the past to drop off the time machine and let my past self use it.
The time machine always travels with me. There is only one time machine.
Condition: Now let's say this time machine has critical components built of iron and, after many, many iterations, it rusts and falls out of order. At some point I won't be able to travel to the future ... but the time machine should be here, shouldn't it ?
Question: Is something wrong with my scenario, or could this happen? (If so, how is it possible (theoretically)?)
time-travel paradox
New contributor
$endgroup$
I wonder if a time machine can be the cause of a bootstrap paradox?
Background: Let's say one day I found in my room a portable time machine. I use this machine to travel to the future, where I realize I am the person who placed the machine in my room. I then travel to the past to drop off the time machine and let my past self use it.
The time machine always travels with me. There is only one time machine.
Condition: Now let's say this time machine has critical components built of iron and, after many, many iterations, it rusts and falls out of order. At some point I won't be able to travel to the future ... but the time machine should be here, shouldn't it ?
Question: Is something wrong with my scenario, or could this happen? (If so, how is it possible (theoretically)?)
time-travel paradox
time-travel paradox
New contributor
New contributor
edited 7 hours ago
Cyn
15.6k2 gold badges31 silver badges72 bronze badges
15.6k2 gold badges31 silver badges72 bronze badges
New contributor
asked 9 hours ago
KizuxKizux
261 bronze badge
261 bronze badge
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
"After many many loops it rusts and then become out of order": how many streams of time are there in your world? "Let my past me use it": and thus multiple future yous accumulate in the past.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The problem with a loop like this, is that it has no beginning, and it has no end. The time machine will behave as though it is infinitely old at all moments within the loop, and will experience maximum entropy.
$endgroup$
– Arkenstein XII
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Bootstrap paradoxes usually assume a completely fixed timeline, are you imagining a universe where it is in principle possible to "change" the past, or are you just asking how this type of paradox could possibly work in a fixed timeline given the natural tendency of metal to rust? If the latter, in normal physics there is always a finite probability that entropy-decreasing thermodynamic fluctuations happen, maybe one would have to happen in your scenario. Or since the technology of a machine that was never built is kind of arbitrary, you could assume self-repair abilities like living beings.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"After many many loops it rusts and then become out of order": how many streams of time are there in your world? "Let my past me use it": and thus multiple future yous accumulate in the past.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The problem with a loop like this, is that it has no beginning, and it has no end. The time machine will behave as though it is infinitely old at all moments within the loop, and will experience maximum entropy.
$endgroup$
– Arkenstein XII
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Bootstrap paradoxes usually assume a completely fixed timeline, are you imagining a universe where it is in principle possible to "change" the past, or are you just asking how this type of paradox could possibly work in a fixed timeline given the natural tendency of metal to rust? If the latter, in normal physics there is always a finite probability that entropy-decreasing thermodynamic fluctuations happen, maybe one would have to happen in your scenario. Or since the technology of a machine that was never built is kind of arbitrary, you could assume self-repair abilities like living beings.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
"After many many loops it rusts and then become out of order": how many streams of time are there in your world? "Let my past me use it": and thus multiple future yous accumulate in the past.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
"After many many loops it rusts and then become out of order": how many streams of time are there in your world? "Let my past me use it": and thus multiple future yous accumulate in the past.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The problem with a loop like this, is that it has no beginning, and it has no end. The time machine will behave as though it is infinitely old at all moments within the loop, and will experience maximum entropy.
$endgroup$
– Arkenstein XII
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The problem with a loop like this, is that it has no beginning, and it has no end. The time machine will behave as though it is infinitely old at all moments within the loop, and will experience maximum entropy.
$endgroup$
– Arkenstein XII
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Bootstrap paradoxes usually assume a completely fixed timeline, are you imagining a universe where it is in principle possible to "change" the past, or are you just asking how this type of paradox could possibly work in a fixed timeline given the natural tendency of metal to rust? If the latter, in normal physics there is always a finite probability that entropy-decreasing thermodynamic fluctuations happen, maybe one would have to happen in your scenario. Or since the technology of a machine that was never built is kind of arbitrary, you could assume self-repair abilities like living beings.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Bootstrap paradoxes usually assume a completely fixed timeline, are you imagining a universe where it is in principle possible to "change" the past, or are you just asking how this type of paradox could possibly work in a fixed timeline given the natural tendency of metal to rust? If the latter, in normal physics there is always a finite probability that entropy-decreasing thermodynamic fluctuations happen, maybe one would have to happen in your scenario. Or since the technology of a machine that was never built is kind of arbitrary, you could assume self-repair abilities like living beings.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
7 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The paradox only occurs if you assume a single timeline. In which case it is pretty much identical to the 'grandfather paradox'. In the left fig. below, if there is a single timeline then there is a single 'time-path' for you (red line) - that doesn't in itself produce a paradox, but the time-machine also only has a single path (blue line) which by definition must be closed. So the time machine would age further in each loop and result in your paradox - unless time travel itself somehow reverses entropy in the machine in which case you could arm-wave yourself out of the paradox.
If you accept a multiverse-like multiple history situation, things are a little more complicated but there is no paradox. On the right below, some initial you (red line) gets access to a time machine, travels forwards and then backwards. On arrival at the end of the backwards step the timeline splits. The original timeline continues (in which you disappeared, reappeared in the future and then disappeared again forever). An alternate you (orange line) now repeats your journey in a first alternative universe,. This can be repeated numerous times until eventually (with the yellow-line you) the time-machine breaks and yellow you, the time machine, and your green-you alternative spend their lives all together in a final alternative. Note that the blue line is open , not closed, so the machine can obey the normal laws of entropy.
There is still a potential paradox in answering where the time machine came from in the first place. But a non-paradoxical solution would be that in some 'first' time-line, someone invents the time machine, then someone travels with it back in time and in a 'first' alternative timeline, stops that person from inventing it, so no 'other' time machine appears in any of the observed timelines.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Bootstrap Paradox is a theoretical paradox of time travel that occurs when an object or piece of information sent back in time becomes trapped within an infinite cause-effect loop in which the item no longer has a discernible point of origin, and is said to be “uncaused” or “self-created”. It is also known as an Ontological Paradox, in reference to ontology, a branch of metaphysics dealing with the study of being and existence. (Source)
Can the time machine be a necessary component of the bootstrap paradox? sure! A really good example is, IMO, the machine in the movie Primer (2004). Does your scenario describe a viable bootstrap paradox? Maybe.
All bootstrap paradoxes focusing on an object have one basic problem: the object never seems to get old. This is because the explanation of the paradox is, IMO, inadequate. Note that the quote above states, "...trapped within an infinite cause-effect loop..." This is NOT a requirement for a bootstrap paradox. In fact, it's almost never the case than an infinite loop exists (at least I've never heard of one where it had to exist, or could even be assumed to exist).
Why? Let's look at your scenario. you-before-first-use finds the machine and uses it, causing you to become future-you. Future-you travels back in time to place the machine. And there's the problem. Future-you watches you-before-first-use use the machine ... and then lives out the rest of his/her life in comfort and profit (having sold the rights to your autobiography). The loop only occurs once. The only way it could occur an infinite number of times is for future-you to always be the one who uses the machine the first time.
Curiously, neither example used in the source I quote above represents an infinite loop, even though the article believes they do. In Heinlein’s short story “All You Zombies” (1959), the protagonist travels back in time to impregnate his/her former self, becoming his/her own parent. OK, the person who traveled back in time didn't disappear. The linearity of time for the traveler is unique with a single loop. It can only be thought of as happening over-and-over if you ignore the future of that aspect of the protagonist (who most likely lived a long and happy life...)
The example of Somewhere in Time (1980) involves a pocket watch. But, once again, the loop only can occur once unless you assume that when Christopher Reeves traveled back in time he somehow merged with his future self.
It's easier to answer the question by asserting a single loop — but then you wouldn't have a question.
Since the loop can only occur once in your scenario, there's no issue with the iron components becoming rusted and failing.
What would it take to get infinite loops in my scenario?
Star Trek the Next Generation investigated two possible ways.
One is like in Star Trek the Next Generation's Cause and Effect. The ship itself is thrown back in time to a starting point. When tracking the linear history of the ship, there is only one ship repeating the same loop in time over and over and over. The show creatively lets the crew in on the secret by providing means of "communicating" outside the loop. There are never, for example, two Picards. There's only ever one. In this case, nothing can age, and so your iron components would never fail. Said another way, time simply "resets" to the beginning of the loop.
The second is STNG's episode Time Squared. In this, a future Picard is thrown back into the past. But this episode cheats the question by never portraying an infinite loop. This is a good example because it shows what to do with the duplicates (Picard and the shuttle craft): they're destroyed in the explosion. So, although the episode does not show an infinite loop, one could be created if Picard took the same actions over and over.
But in your case, you-before-first-use always uses the machine. There's no way to create an infinite loop because you need future-you to always make the choice.
Conclusion
Which returns us to the above stated conclusion: your machine will never take more than one iteration and therefore the component will never wear out. If you figure out how to make iterations, it will either always result in a new machine or in the machine never aging.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The question was about the machine itself, not the person riding it, no? Likewise when people talk about a closed time loop in Somewhere in Time they are talking about the watch, not Christopher Reeve's character.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl in this case, the object is the subject of the paradox, but everyone and everything is involved - unless you consider this a question about magic. If the people don't/can't age, neither can the machine. The paradox is described as the inability to determine the origin of the object, but that's not what the OP's asking about. He's asking about whether or not degradation can break the paradox. Considering he asked, "can this happen?" an answer like mine that advocates it cannot is suitable regardless of reason.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why should the machine's lack of age imply the people can't? See the diagram titled "single future closed loop" in Penguino's answer, there can be continued progressive aging along the red line, but any aging along the blue line has to reverse itself at some point before it meets itself and closes the loop. Every point on the blue line lies in both the past and future of every other point, but that's not true of the red line, where you can define a notion of proper time along it that continually goes forward from birth to death.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl, I explained my reasoning in my answer. You needn't like it or agree with it. Indeed, you could help the OP considerably by posting your own answer.
$endgroup$
– JBH
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't see any part of your answer that explains the reasoning behind your comment "If the people don't/can''t age, neither can the machine", that's all I was asking about in my last comment--unless I misunderstood and you didn't mean to imply that since the people age normally throughout the loop, that shows there is no longer a paradox about whether the machine ages in the loop (but if you didn't mean to imply that I don't see how your comments about the people would actually address the paradox about the machine).
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a thought experiment out there that says that time travel is impossible; not because of the physics, but because of what we do with it.
Basically it goes like this. If time travel is possible, we'll use it to change the past. Eventually, we'll change the past to one in which it is impossible to create or use time travel. Hence, time travel is impossible.
Your antiquating time machine paradox is really just a less complex version of this. The loop is infinite. The durability of your time machine is not. The Laws of Entropy state that this loop has to eventually fail because eventually the machine fails. While the Ship of Theseus model can help, the problem is that every time you consume a resource in the past to fix the machine, you're also making a minor change to the past that could (eventually) accumulate to a future which precludes the use of the time machine. Even if you only use parts in the future, or the latest point in your loop, eventually the supply of those parts has to run out also. All things considered, this is not an infinitely tenable scenario.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What you call a thought experiment in your paragraphs one & two is an argument formulated by the SF writer Larry Niven. It also is known as Niven's Law. The argument is a reductio ad absurdum, and like most reductio ad absurdum is probably false. It is wholly dependent on the models' nature of time and type of time travel that occurs within it. It demands time can be rewritten. My own suspicion is this model of time travel will only restrict the use of time travel not make it impossible. Time machines are ingenious exercises in logic.
$endgroup$
– a4android
5 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you're looking for a way to do this, then Ship of Theseus is the way to go. That is, the Time Machine is made up of parts and the parts are gradually replaced alongside this time-travel cycle. Each part is replaceable, but despite that, the ship cannot be completely built from scratch for reason which aren't understood. Of course, this doesn't really help because any time loop (which puts physical objects in the past) generates entropy and these time loops are supposedly infinite, which means an infinite increase in entropy.
You're asking 'Is this possible if I don't replace it?' and the answer is 'No', but it's not 'No' because the machine rusts, it's 'No' because it's a self-fulfilling paradox. Time is linear, not circular, the time machine can't be there in the first place. Something cannot come from nothing.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "these time loops are supposedly infinite"? Thinking in terms of spacetime as a fixed 4D structure (the block universe idea, see my comment here for another way to think about this perspective) there's just one loop, it's not as if there are multiple cycles of the loop where the entropy can be different in each cycle (not unless you posit what the site here calls "metatime")
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl I mean infinite from a linear perspective on the time machine's part.
$endgroup$
– Halfthawed
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Doesn't the temporal "perspective" of a physical object depend on the assumption of some physical process that records change over time, like a clock or computer memory? In a fixed timeline there should be no such internal recording indicating multiple iterations of the loop.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Kizux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f149947%2fbootstrap-paradox-with-a-time-machine-in-iron%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The paradox only occurs if you assume a single timeline. In which case it is pretty much identical to the 'grandfather paradox'. In the left fig. below, if there is a single timeline then there is a single 'time-path' for you (red line) - that doesn't in itself produce a paradox, but the time-machine also only has a single path (blue line) which by definition must be closed. So the time machine would age further in each loop and result in your paradox - unless time travel itself somehow reverses entropy in the machine in which case you could arm-wave yourself out of the paradox.
If you accept a multiverse-like multiple history situation, things are a little more complicated but there is no paradox. On the right below, some initial you (red line) gets access to a time machine, travels forwards and then backwards. On arrival at the end of the backwards step the timeline splits. The original timeline continues (in which you disappeared, reappeared in the future and then disappeared again forever). An alternate you (orange line) now repeats your journey in a first alternative universe,. This can be repeated numerous times until eventually (with the yellow-line you) the time-machine breaks and yellow you, the time machine, and your green-you alternative spend their lives all together in a final alternative. Note that the blue line is open , not closed, so the machine can obey the normal laws of entropy.
There is still a potential paradox in answering where the time machine came from in the first place. But a non-paradoxical solution would be that in some 'first' time-line, someone invents the time machine, then someone travels with it back in time and in a 'first' alternative timeline, stops that person from inventing it, so no 'other' time machine appears in any of the observed timelines.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The paradox only occurs if you assume a single timeline. In which case it is pretty much identical to the 'grandfather paradox'. In the left fig. below, if there is a single timeline then there is a single 'time-path' for you (red line) - that doesn't in itself produce a paradox, but the time-machine also only has a single path (blue line) which by definition must be closed. So the time machine would age further in each loop and result in your paradox - unless time travel itself somehow reverses entropy in the machine in which case you could arm-wave yourself out of the paradox.
If you accept a multiverse-like multiple history situation, things are a little more complicated but there is no paradox. On the right below, some initial you (red line) gets access to a time machine, travels forwards and then backwards. On arrival at the end of the backwards step the timeline splits. The original timeline continues (in which you disappeared, reappeared in the future and then disappeared again forever). An alternate you (orange line) now repeats your journey in a first alternative universe,. This can be repeated numerous times until eventually (with the yellow-line you) the time-machine breaks and yellow you, the time machine, and your green-you alternative spend their lives all together in a final alternative. Note that the blue line is open , not closed, so the machine can obey the normal laws of entropy.
There is still a potential paradox in answering where the time machine came from in the first place. But a non-paradoxical solution would be that in some 'first' time-line, someone invents the time machine, then someone travels with it back in time and in a 'first' alternative timeline, stops that person from inventing it, so no 'other' time machine appears in any of the observed timelines.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The paradox only occurs if you assume a single timeline. In which case it is pretty much identical to the 'grandfather paradox'. In the left fig. below, if there is a single timeline then there is a single 'time-path' for you (red line) - that doesn't in itself produce a paradox, but the time-machine also only has a single path (blue line) which by definition must be closed. So the time machine would age further in each loop and result in your paradox - unless time travel itself somehow reverses entropy in the machine in which case you could arm-wave yourself out of the paradox.
If you accept a multiverse-like multiple history situation, things are a little more complicated but there is no paradox. On the right below, some initial you (red line) gets access to a time machine, travels forwards and then backwards. On arrival at the end of the backwards step the timeline splits. The original timeline continues (in which you disappeared, reappeared in the future and then disappeared again forever). An alternate you (orange line) now repeats your journey in a first alternative universe,. This can be repeated numerous times until eventually (with the yellow-line you) the time-machine breaks and yellow you, the time machine, and your green-you alternative spend their lives all together in a final alternative. Note that the blue line is open , not closed, so the machine can obey the normal laws of entropy.
There is still a potential paradox in answering where the time machine came from in the first place. But a non-paradoxical solution would be that in some 'first' time-line, someone invents the time machine, then someone travels with it back in time and in a 'first' alternative timeline, stops that person from inventing it, so no 'other' time machine appears in any of the observed timelines.
$endgroup$
The paradox only occurs if you assume a single timeline. In which case it is pretty much identical to the 'grandfather paradox'. In the left fig. below, if there is a single timeline then there is a single 'time-path' for you (red line) - that doesn't in itself produce a paradox, but the time-machine also only has a single path (blue line) which by definition must be closed. So the time machine would age further in each loop and result in your paradox - unless time travel itself somehow reverses entropy in the machine in which case you could arm-wave yourself out of the paradox.
If you accept a multiverse-like multiple history situation, things are a little more complicated but there is no paradox. On the right below, some initial you (red line) gets access to a time machine, travels forwards and then backwards. On arrival at the end of the backwards step the timeline splits. The original timeline continues (in which you disappeared, reappeared in the future and then disappeared again forever). An alternate you (orange line) now repeats your journey in a first alternative universe,. This can be repeated numerous times until eventually (with the yellow-line you) the time-machine breaks and yellow you, the time machine, and your green-you alternative spend their lives all together in a final alternative. Note that the blue line is open , not closed, so the machine can obey the normal laws of entropy.
There is still a potential paradox in answering where the time machine came from in the first place. But a non-paradoxical solution would be that in some 'first' time-line, someone invents the time machine, then someone travels with it back in time and in a 'first' alternative timeline, stops that person from inventing it, so no 'other' time machine appears in any of the observed timelines.
answered 6 hours ago
PenguinoPenguino
1,8644 silver badges11 bronze badges
1,8644 silver badges11 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Bootstrap Paradox is a theoretical paradox of time travel that occurs when an object or piece of information sent back in time becomes trapped within an infinite cause-effect loop in which the item no longer has a discernible point of origin, and is said to be “uncaused” or “self-created”. It is also known as an Ontological Paradox, in reference to ontology, a branch of metaphysics dealing with the study of being and existence. (Source)
Can the time machine be a necessary component of the bootstrap paradox? sure! A really good example is, IMO, the machine in the movie Primer (2004). Does your scenario describe a viable bootstrap paradox? Maybe.
All bootstrap paradoxes focusing on an object have one basic problem: the object never seems to get old. This is because the explanation of the paradox is, IMO, inadequate. Note that the quote above states, "...trapped within an infinite cause-effect loop..." This is NOT a requirement for a bootstrap paradox. In fact, it's almost never the case than an infinite loop exists (at least I've never heard of one where it had to exist, or could even be assumed to exist).
Why? Let's look at your scenario. you-before-first-use finds the machine and uses it, causing you to become future-you. Future-you travels back in time to place the machine. And there's the problem. Future-you watches you-before-first-use use the machine ... and then lives out the rest of his/her life in comfort and profit (having sold the rights to your autobiography). The loop only occurs once. The only way it could occur an infinite number of times is for future-you to always be the one who uses the machine the first time.
Curiously, neither example used in the source I quote above represents an infinite loop, even though the article believes they do. In Heinlein’s short story “All You Zombies” (1959), the protagonist travels back in time to impregnate his/her former self, becoming his/her own parent. OK, the person who traveled back in time didn't disappear. The linearity of time for the traveler is unique with a single loop. It can only be thought of as happening over-and-over if you ignore the future of that aspect of the protagonist (who most likely lived a long and happy life...)
The example of Somewhere in Time (1980) involves a pocket watch. But, once again, the loop only can occur once unless you assume that when Christopher Reeves traveled back in time he somehow merged with his future self.
It's easier to answer the question by asserting a single loop — but then you wouldn't have a question.
Since the loop can only occur once in your scenario, there's no issue with the iron components becoming rusted and failing.
What would it take to get infinite loops in my scenario?
Star Trek the Next Generation investigated two possible ways.
One is like in Star Trek the Next Generation's Cause and Effect. The ship itself is thrown back in time to a starting point. When tracking the linear history of the ship, there is only one ship repeating the same loop in time over and over and over. The show creatively lets the crew in on the secret by providing means of "communicating" outside the loop. There are never, for example, two Picards. There's only ever one. In this case, nothing can age, and so your iron components would never fail. Said another way, time simply "resets" to the beginning of the loop.
The second is STNG's episode Time Squared. In this, a future Picard is thrown back into the past. But this episode cheats the question by never portraying an infinite loop. This is a good example because it shows what to do with the duplicates (Picard and the shuttle craft): they're destroyed in the explosion. So, although the episode does not show an infinite loop, one could be created if Picard took the same actions over and over.
But in your case, you-before-first-use always uses the machine. There's no way to create an infinite loop because you need future-you to always make the choice.
Conclusion
Which returns us to the above stated conclusion: your machine will never take more than one iteration and therefore the component will never wear out. If you figure out how to make iterations, it will either always result in a new machine or in the machine never aging.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The question was about the machine itself, not the person riding it, no? Likewise when people talk about a closed time loop in Somewhere in Time they are talking about the watch, not Christopher Reeve's character.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl in this case, the object is the subject of the paradox, but everyone and everything is involved - unless you consider this a question about magic. If the people don't/can't age, neither can the machine. The paradox is described as the inability to determine the origin of the object, but that's not what the OP's asking about. He's asking about whether or not degradation can break the paradox. Considering he asked, "can this happen?" an answer like mine that advocates it cannot is suitable regardless of reason.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why should the machine's lack of age imply the people can't? See the diagram titled "single future closed loop" in Penguino's answer, there can be continued progressive aging along the red line, but any aging along the blue line has to reverse itself at some point before it meets itself and closes the loop. Every point on the blue line lies in both the past and future of every other point, but that's not true of the red line, where you can define a notion of proper time along it that continually goes forward from birth to death.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl, I explained my reasoning in my answer. You needn't like it or agree with it. Indeed, you could help the OP considerably by posting your own answer.
$endgroup$
– JBH
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't see any part of your answer that explains the reasoning behind your comment "If the people don't/can''t age, neither can the machine", that's all I was asking about in my last comment--unless I misunderstood and you didn't mean to imply that since the people age normally throughout the loop, that shows there is no longer a paradox about whether the machine ages in the loop (but if you didn't mean to imply that I don't see how your comments about the people would actually address the paradox about the machine).
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Bootstrap Paradox is a theoretical paradox of time travel that occurs when an object or piece of information sent back in time becomes trapped within an infinite cause-effect loop in which the item no longer has a discernible point of origin, and is said to be “uncaused” or “self-created”. It is also known as an Ontological Paradox, in reference to ontology, a branch of metaphysics dealing with the study of being and existence. (Source)
Can the time machine be a necessary component of the bootstrap paradox? sure! A really good example is, IMO, the machine in the movie Primer (2004). Does your scenario describe a viable bootstrap paradox? Maybe.
All bootstrap paradoxes focusing on an object have one basic problem: the object never seems to get old. This is because the explanation of the paradox is, IMO, inadequate. Note that the quote above states, "...trapped within an infinite cause-effect loop..." This is NOT a requirement for a bootstrap paradox. In fact, it's almost never the case than an infinite loop exists (at least I've never heard of one where it had to exist, or could even be assumed to exist).
Why? Let's look at your scenario. you-before-first-use finds the machine and uses it, causing you to become future-you. Future-you travels back in time to place the machine. And there's the problem. Future-you watches you-before-first-use use the machine ... and then lives out the rest of his/her life in comfort and profit (having sold the rights to your autobiography). The loop only occurs once. The only way it could occur an infinite number of times is for future-you to always be the one who uses the machine the first time.
Curiously, neither example used in the source I quote above represents an infinite loop, even though the article believes they do. In Heinlein’s short story “All You Zombies” (1959), the protagonist travels back in time to impregnate his/her former self, becoming his/her own parent. OK, the person who traveled back in time didn't disappear. The linearity of time for the traveler is unique with a single loop. It can only be thought of as happening over-and-over if you ignore the future of that aspect of the protagonist (who most likely lived a long and happy life...)
The example of Somewhere in Time (1980) involves a pocket watch. But, once again, the loop only can occur once unless you assume that when Christopher Reeves traveled back in time he somehow merged with his future self.
It's easier to answer the question by asserting a single loop — but then you wouldn't have a question.
Since the loop can only occur once in your scenario, there's no issue with the iron components becoming rusted and failing.
What would it take to get infinite loops in my scenario?
Star Trek the Next Generation investigated two possible ways.
One is like in Star Trek the Next Generation's Cause and Effect. The ship itself is thrown back in time to a starting point. When tracking the linear history of the ship, there is only one ship repeating the same loop in time over and over and over. The show creatively lets the crew in on the secret by providing means of "communicating" outside the loop. There are never, for example, two Picards. There's only ever one. In this case, nothing can age, and so your iron components would never fail. Said another way, time simply "resets" to the beginning of the loop.
The second is STNG's episode Time Squared. In this, a future Picard is thrown back into the past. But this episode cheats the question by never portraying an infinite loop. This is a good example because it shows what to do with the duplicates (Picard and the shuttle craft): they're destroyed in the explosion. So, although the episode does not show an infinite loop, one could be created if Picard took the same actions over and over.
But in your case, you-before-first-use always uses the machine. There's no way to create an infinite loop because you need future-you to always make the choice.
Conclusion
Which returns us to the above stated conclusion: your machine will never take more than one iteration and therefore the component will never wear out. If you figure out how to make iterations, it will either always result in a new machine or in the machine never aging.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The question was about the machine itself, not the person riding it, no? Likewise when people talk about a closed time loop in Somewhere in Time they are talking about the watch, not Christopher Reeve's character.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl in this case, the object is the subject of the paradox, but everyone and everything is involved - unless you consider this a question about magic. If the people don't/can't age, neither can the machine. The paradox is described as the inability to determine the origin of the object, but that's not what the OP's asking about. He's asking about whether or not degradation can break the paradox. Considering he asked, "can this happen?" an answer like mine that advocates it cannot is suitable regardless of reason.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why should the machine's lack of age imply the people can't? See the diagram titled "single future closed loop" in Penguino's answer, there can be continued progressive aging along the red line, but any aging along the blue line has to reverse itself at some point before it meets itself and closes the loop. Every point on the blue line lies in both the past and future of every other point, but that's not true of the red line, where you can define a notion of proper time along it that continually goes forward from birth to death.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl, I explained my reasoning in my answer. You needn't like it or agree with it. Indeed, you could help the OP considerably by posting your own answer.
$endgroup$
– JBH
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't see any part of your answer that explains the reasoning behind your comment "If the people don't/can''t age, neither can the machine", that's all I was asking about in my last comment--unless I misunderstood and you didn't mean to imply that since the people age normally throughout the loop, that shows there is no longer a paradox about whether the machine ages in the loop (but if you didn't mean to imply that I don't see how your comments about the people would actually address the paradox about the machine).
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Bootstrap Paradox is a theoretical paradox of time travel that occurs when an object or piece of information sent back in time becomes trapped within an infinite cause-effect loop in which the item no longer has a discernible point of origin, and is said to be “uncaused” or “self-created”. It is also known as an Ontological Paradox, in reference to ontology, a branch of metaphysics dealing with the study of being and existence. (Source)
Can the time machine be a necessary component of the bootstrap paradox? sure! A really good example is, IMO, the machine in the movie Primer (2004). Does your scenario describe a viable bootstrap paradox? Maybe.
All bootstrap paradoxes focusing on an object have one basic problem: the object never seems to get old. This is because the explanation of the paradox is, IMO, inadequate. Note that the quote above states, "...trapped within an infinite cause-effect loop..." This is NOT a requirement for a bootstrap paradox. In fact, it's almost never the case than an infinite loop exists (at least I've never heard of one where it had to exist, or could even be assumed to exist).
Why? Let's look at your scenario. you-before-first-use finds the machine and uses it, causing you to become future-you. Future-you travels back in time to place the machine. And there's the problem. Future-you watches you-before-first-use use the machine ... and then lives out the rest of his/her life in comfort and profit (having sold the rights to your autobiography). The loop only occurs once. The only way it could occur an infinite number of times is for future-you to always be the one who uses the machine the first time.
Curiously, neither example used in the source I quote above represents an infinite loop, even though the article believes they do. In Heinlein’s short story “All You Zombies” (1959), the protagonist travels back in time to impregnate his/her former self, becoming his/her own parent. OK, the person who traveled back in time didn't disappear. The linearity of time for the traveler is unique with a single loop. It can only be thought of as happening over-and-over if you ignore the future of that aspect of the protagonist (who most likely lived a long and happy life...)
The example of Somewhere in Time (1980) involves a pocket watch. But, once again, the loop only can occur once unless you assume that when Christopher Reeves traveled back in time he somehow merged with his future self.
It's easier to answer the question by asserting a single loop — but then you wouldn't have a question.
Since the loop can only occur once in your scenario, there's no issue with the iron components becoming rusted and failing.
What would it take to get infinite loops in my scenario?
Star Trek the Next Generation investigated two possible ways.
One is like in Star Trek the Next Generation's Cause and Effect. The ship itself is thrown back in time to a starting point. When tracking the linear history of the ship, there is only one ship repeating the same loop in time over and over and over. The show creatively lets the crew in on the secret by providing means of "communicating" outside the loop. There are never, for example, two Picards. There's only ever one. In this case, nothing can age, and so your iron components would never fail. Said another way, time simply "resets" to the beginning of the loop.
The second is STNG's episode Time Squared. In this, a future Picard is thrown back into the past. But this episode cheats the question by never portraying an infinite loop. This is a good example because it shows what to do with the duplicates (Picard and the shuttle craft): they're destroyed in the explosion. So, although the episode does not show an infinite loop, one could be created if Picard took the same actions over and over.
But in your case, you-before-first-use always uses the machine. There's no way to create an infinite loop because you need future-you to always make the choice.
Conclusion
Which returns us to the above stated conclusion: your machine will never take more than one iteration and therefore the component will never wear out. If you figure out how to make iterations, it will either always result in a new machine or in the machine never aging.
$endgroup$
The Bootstrap Paradox is a theoretical paradox of time travel that occurs when an object or piece of information sent back in time becomes trapped within an infinite cause-effect loop in which the item no longer has a discernible point of origin, and is said to be “uncaused” or “self-created”. It is also known as an Ontological Paradox, in reference to ontology, a branch of metaphysics dealing with the study of being and existence. (Source)
Can the time machine be a necessary component of the bootstrap paradox? sure! A really good example is, IMO, the machine in the movie Primer (2004). Does your scenario describe a viable bootstrap paradox? Maybe.
All bootstrap paradoxes focusing on an object have one basic problem: the object never seems to get old. This is because the explanation of the paradox is, IMO, inadequate. Note that the quote above states, "...trapped within an infinite cause-effect loop..." This is NOT a requirement for a bootstrap paradox. In fact, it's almost never the case than an infinite loop exists (at least I've never heard of one where it had to exist, or could even be assumed to exist).
Why? Let's look at your scenario. you-before-first-use finds the machine and uses it, causing you to become future-you. Future-you travels back in time to place the machine. And there's the problem. Future-you watches you-before-first-use use the machine ... and then lives out the rest of his/her life in comfort and profit (having sold the rights to your autobiography). The loop only occurs once. The only way it could occur an infinite number of times is for future-you to always be the one who uses the machine the first time.
Curiously, neither example used in the source I quote above represents an infinite loop, even though the article believes they do. In Heinlein’s short story “All You Zombies” (1959), the protagonist travels back in time to impregnate his/her former self, becoming his/her own parent. OK, the person who traveled back in time didn't disappear. The linearity of time for the traveler is unique with a single loop. It can only be thought of as happening over-and-over if you ignore the future of that aspect of the protagonist (who most likely lived a long and happy life...)
The example of Somewhere in Time (1980) involves a pocket watch. But, once again, the loop only can occur once unless you assume that when Christopher Reeves traveled back in time he somehow merged with his future self.
It's easier to answer the question by asserting a single loop — but then you wouldn't have a question.
Since the loop can only occur once in your scenario, there's no issue with the iron components becoming rusted and failing.
What would it take to get infinite loops in my scenario?
Star Trek the Next Generation investigated two possible ways.
One is like in Star Trek the Next Generation's Cause and Effect. The ship itself is thrown back in time to a starting point. When tracking the linear history of the ship, there is only one ship repeating the same loop in time over and over and over. The show creatively lets the crew in on the secret by providing means of "communicating" outside the loop. There are never, for example, two Picards. There's only ever one. In this case, nothing can age, and so your iron components would never fail. Said another way, time simply "resets" to the beginning of the loop.
The second is STNG's episode Time Squared. In this, a future Picard is thrown back into the past. But this episode cheats the question by never portraying an infinite loop. This is a good example because it shows what to do with the duplicates (Picard and the shuttle craft): they're destroyed in the explosion. So, although the episode does not show an infinite loop, one could be created if Picard took the same actions over and over.
But in your case, you-before-first-use always uses the machine. There's no way to create an infinite loop because you need future-you to always make the choice.
Conclusion
Which returns us to the above stated conclusion: your machine will never take more than one iteration and therefore the component will never wear out. If you figure out how to make iterations, it will either always result in a new machine or in the machine never aging.
answered 6 hours ago
JBHJBH
56.4k9 gold badges130 silver badges271 bronze badges
56.4k9 gold badges130 silver badges271 bronze badges
$begingroup$
The question was about the machine itself, not the person riding it, no? Likewise when people talk about a closed time loop in Somewhere in Time they are talking about the watch, not Christopher Reeve's character.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl in this case, the object is the subject of the paradox, but everyone and everything is involved - unless you consider this a question about magic. If the people don't/can't age, neither can the machine. The paradox is described as the inability to determine the origin of the object, but that's not what the OP's asking about. He's asking about whether or not degradation can break the paradox. Considering he asked, "can this happen?" an answer like mine that advocates it cannot is suitable regardless of reason.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why should the machine's lack of age imply the people can't? See the diagram titled "single future closed loop" in Penguino's answer, there can be continued progressive aging along the red line, but any aging along the blue line has to reverse itself at some point before it meets itself and closes the loop. Every point on the blue line lies in both the past and future of every other point, but that's not true of the red line, where you can define a notion of proper time along it that continually goes forward from birth to death.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl, I explained my reasoning in my answer. You needn't like it or agree with it. Indeed, you could help the OP considerably by posting your own answer.
$endgroup$
– JBH
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't see any part of your answer that explains the reasoning behind your comment "If the people don't/can''t age, neither can the machine", that's all I was asking about in my last comment--unless I misunderstood and you didn't mean to imply that since the people age normally throughout the loop, that shows there is no longer a paradox about whether the machine ages in the loop (but if you didn't mean to imply that I don't see how your comments about the people would actually address the paradox about the machine).
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question was about the machine itself, not the person riding it, no? Likewise when people talk about a closed time loop in Somewhere in Time they are talking about the watch, not Christopher Reeve's character.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl in this case, the object is the subject of the paradox, but everyone and everything is involved - unless you consider this a question about magic. If the people don't/can't age, neither can the machine. The paradox is described as the inability to determine the origin of the object, but that's not what the OP's asking about. He's asking about whether or not degradation can break the paradox. Considering he asked, "can this happen?" an answer like mine that advocates it cannot is suitable regardless of reason.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why should the machine's lack of age imply the people can't? See the diagram titled "single future closed loop" in Penguino's answer, there can be continued progressive aging along the red line, but any aging along the blue line has to reverse itself at some point before it meets itself and closes the loop. Every point on the blue line lies in both the past and future of every other point, but that's not true of the red line, where you can define a notion of proper time along it that continually goes forward from birth to death.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl, I explained my reasoning in my answer. You needn't like it or agree with it. Indeed, you could help the OP considerably by posting your own answer.
$endgroup$
– JBH
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't see any part of your answer that explains the reasoning behind your comment "If the people don't/can''t age, neither can the machine", that's all I was asking about in my last comment--unless I misunderstood and you didn't mean to imply that since the people age normally throughout the loop, that shows there is no longer a paradox about whether the machine ages in the loop (but if you didn't mean to imply that I don't see how your comments about the people would actually address the paradox about the machine).
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
The question was about the machine itself, not the person riding it, no? Likewise when people talk about a closed time loop in Somewhere in Time they are talking about the watch, not Christopher Reeve's character.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The question was about the machine itself, not the person riding it, no? Likewise when people talk about a closed time loop in Somewhere in Time they are talking about the watch, not Christopher Reeve's character.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl in this case, the object is the subject of the paradox, but everyone and everything is involved - unless you consider this a question about magic. If the people don't/can't age, neither can the machine. The paradox is described as the inability to determine the origin of the object, but that's not what the OP's asking about. He's asking about whether or not degradation can break the paradox. Considering he asked, "can this happen?" an answer like mine that advocates it cannot is suitable regardless of reason.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl in this case, the object is the subject of the paradox, but everyone and everything is involved - unless you consider this a question about magic. If the people don't/can't age, neither can the machine. The paradox is described as the inability to determine the origin of the object, but that's not what the OP's asking about. He's asking about whether or not degradation can break the paradox. Considering he asked, "can this happen?" an answer like mine that advocates it cannot is suitable regardless of reason.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why should the machine's lack of age imply the people can't? See the diagram titled "single future closed loop" in Penguino's answer, there can be continued progressive aging along the red line, but any aging along the blue line has to reverse itself at some point before it meets itself and closes the loop. Every point on the blue line lies in both the past and future of every other point, but that's not true of the red line, where you can define a notion of proper time along it that continually goes forward from birth to death.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why should the machine's lack of age imply the people can't? See the diagram titled "single future closed loop" in Penguino's answer, there can be continued progressive aging along the red line, but any aging along the blue line has to reverse itself at some point before it meets itself and closes the loop. Every point on the blue line lies in both the past and future of every other point, but that's not true of the red line, where you can define a notion of proper time along it that continually goes forward from birth to death.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl, I explained my reasoning in my answer. You needn't like it or agree with it. Indeed, you could help the OP considerably by posting your own answer.
$endgroup$
– JBH
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl, I explained my reasoning in my answer. You needn't like it or agree with it. Indeed, you could help the OP considerably by posting your own answer.
$endgroup$
– JBH
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't see any part of your answer that explains the reasoning behind your comment "If the people don't/can''t age, neither can the machine", that's all I was asking about in my last comment--unless I misunderstood and you didn't mean to imply that since the people age normally throughout the loop, that shows there is no longer a paradox about whether the machine ages in the loop (but if you didn't mean to imply that I don't see how your comments about the people would actually address the paradox about the machine).
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I don't see any part of your answer that explains the reasoning behind your comment "If the people don't/can''t age, neither can the machine", that's all I was asking about in my last comment--unless I misunderstood and you didn't mean to imply that since the people age normally throughout the loop, that shows there is no longer a paradox about whether the machine ages in the loop (but if you didn't mean to imply that I don't see how your comments about the people would actually address the paradox about the machine).
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a thought experiment out there that says that time travel is impossible; not because of the physics, but because of what we do with it.
Basically it goes like this. If time travel is possible, we'll use it to change the past. Eventually, we'll change the past to one in which it is impossible to create or use time travel. Hence, time travel is impossible.
Your antiquating time machine paradox is really just a less complex version of this. The loop is infinite. The durability of your time machine is not. The Laws of Entropy state that this loop has to eventually fail because eventually the machine fails. While the Ship of Theseus model can help, the problem is that every time you consume a resource in the past to fix the machine, you're also making a minor change to the past that could (eventually) accumulate to a future which precludes the use of the time machine. Even if you only use parts in the future, or the latest point in your loop, eventually the supply of those parts has to run out also. All things considered, this is not an infinitely tenable scenario.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What you call a thought experiment in your paragraphs one & two is an argument formulated by the SF writer Larry Niven. It also is known as Niven's Law. The argument is a reductio ad absurdum, and like most reductio ad absurdum is probably false. It is wholly dependent on the models' nature of time and type of time travel that occurs within it. It demands time can be rewritten. My own suspicion is this model of time travel will only restrict the use of time travel not make it impossible. Time machines are ingenious exercises in logic.
$endgroup$
– a4android
5 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a thought experiment out there that says that time travel is impossible; not because of the physics, but because of what we do with it.
Basically it goes like this. If time travel is possible, we'll use it to change the past. Eventually, we'll change the past to one in which it is impossible to create or use time travel. Hence, time travel is impossible.
Your antiquating time machine paradox is really just a less complex version of this. The loop is infinite. The durability of your time machine is not. The Laws of Entropy state that this loop has to eventually fail because eventually the machine fails. While the Ship of Theseus model can help, the problem is that every time you consume a resource in the past to fix the machine, you're also making a minor change to the past that could (eventually) accumulate to a future which precludes the use of the time machine. Even if you only use parts in the future, or the latest point in your loop, eventually the supply of those parts has to run out also. All things considered, this is not an infinitely tenable scenario.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What you call a thought experiment in your paragraphs one & two is an argument formulated by the SF writer Larry Niven. It also is known as Niven's Law. The argument is a reductio ad absurdum, and like most reductio ad absurdum is probably false. It is wholly dependent on the models' nature of time and type of time travel that occurs within it. It demands time can be rewritten. My own suspicion is this model of time travel will only restrict the use of time travel not make it impossible. Time machines are ingenious exercises in logic.
$endgroup$
– a4android
5 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a thought experiment out there that says that time travel is impossible; not because of the physics, but because of what we do with it.
Basically it goes like this. If time travel is possible, we'll use it to change the past. Eventually, we'll change the past to one in which it is impossible to create or use time travel. Hence, time travel is impossible.
Your antiquating time machine paradox is really just a less complex version of this. The loop is infinite. The durability of your time machine is not. The Laws of Entropy state that this loop has to eventually fail because eventually the machine fails. While the Ship of Theseus model can help, the problem is that every time you consume a resource in the past to fix the machine, you're also making a minor change to the past that could (eventually) accumulate to a future which precludes the use of the time machine. Even if you only use parts in the future, or the latest point in your loop, eventually the supply of those parts has to run out also. All things considered, this is not an infinitely tenable scenario.
$endgroup$
There is a thought experiment out there that says that time travel is impossible; not because of the physics, but because of what we do with it.
Basically it goes like this. If time travel is possible, we'll use it to change the past. Eventually, we'll change the past to one in which it is impossible to create or use time travel. Hence, time travel is impossible.
Your antiquating time machine paradox is really just a less complex version of this. The loop is infinite. The durability of your time machine is not. The Laws of Entropy state that this loop has to eventually fail because eventually the machine fails. While the Ship of Theseus model can help, the problem is that every time you consume a resource in the past to fix the machine, you're also making a minor change to the past that could (eventually) accumulate to a future which precludes the use of the time machine. Even if you only use parts in the future, or the latest point in your loop, eventually the supply of those parts has to run out also. All things considered, this is not an infinitely tenable scenario.
answered 5 hours ago
Tim B IITim B II
36.8k6 gold badges79 silver badges144 bronze badges
36.8k6 gold badges79 silver badges144 bronze badges
$begingroup$
What you call a thought experiment in your paragraphs one & two is an argument formulated by the SF writer Larry Niven. It also is known as Niven's Law. The argument is a reductio ad absurdum, and like most reductio ad absurdum is probably false. It is wholly dependent on the models' nature of time and type of time travel that occurs within it. It demands time can be rewritten. My own suspicion is this model of time travel will only restrict the use of time travel not make it impossible. Time machines are ingenious exercises in logic.
$endgroup$
– a4android
5 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you call a thought experiment in your paragraphs one & two is an argument formulated by the SF writer Larry Niven. It also is known as Niven's Law. The argument is a reductio ad absurdum, and like most reductio ad absurdum is probably false. It is wholly dependent on the models' nature of time and type of time travel that occurs within it. It demands time can be rewritten. My own suspicion is this model of time travel will only restrict the use of time travel not make it impossible. Time machines are ingenious exercises in logic.
$endgroup$
– a4android
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
What you call a thought experiment in your paragraphs one & two is an argument formulated by the SF writer Larry Niven. It also is known as Niven's Law. The argument is a reductio ad absurdum, and like most reductio ad absurdum is probably false. It is wholly dependent on the models' nature of time and type of time travel that occurs within it. It demands time can be rewritten. My own suspicion is this model of time travel will only restrict the use of time travel not make it impossible. Time machines are ingenious exercises in logic.
$endgroup$
– a4android
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
What you call a thought experiment in your paragraphs one & two is an argument formulated by the SF writer Larry Niven. It also is known as Niven's Law. The argument is a reductio ad absurdum, and like most reductio ad absurdum is probably false. It is wholly dependent on the models' nature of time and type of time travel that occurs within it. It demands time can be rewritten. My own suspicion is this model of time travel will only restrict the use of time travel not make it impossible. Time machines are ingenious exercises in logic.
$endgroup$
– a4android
5 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you're looking for a way to do this, then Ship of Theseus is the way to go. That is, the Time Machine is made up of parts and the parts are gradually replaced alongside this time-travel cycle. Each part is replaceable, but despite that, the ship cannot be completely built from scratch for reason which aren't understood. Of course, this doesn't really help because any time loop (which puts physical objects in the past) generates entropy and these time loops are supposedly infinite, which means an infinite increase in entropy.
You're asking 'Is this possible if I don't replace it?' and the answer is 'No', but it's not 'No' because the machine rusts, it's 'No' because it's a self-fulfilling paradox. Time is linear, not circular, the time machine can't be there in the first place. Something cannot come from nothing.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "these time loops are supposedly infinite"? Thinking in terms of spacetime as a fixed 4D structure (the block universe idea, see my comment here for another way to think about this perspective) there's just one loop, it's not as if there are multiple cycles of the loop where the entropy can be different in each cycle (not unless you posit what the site here calls "metatime")
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl I mean infinite from a linear perspective on the time machine's part.
$endgroup$
– Halfthawed
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Doesn't the temporal "perspective" of a physical object depend on the assumption of some physical process that records change over time, like a clock or computer memory? In a fixed timeline there should be no such internal recording indicating multiple iterations of the loop.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you're looking for a way to do this, then Ship of Theseus is the way to go. That is, the Time Machine is made up of parts and the parts are gradually replaced alongside this time-travel cycle. Each part is replaceable, but despite that, the ship cannot be completely built from scratch for reason which aren't understood. Of course, this doesn't really help because any time loop (which puts physical objects in the past) generates entropy and these time loops are supposedly infinite, which means an infinite increase in entropy.
You're asking 'Is this possible if I don't replace it?' and the answer is 'No', but it's not 'No' because the machine rusts, it's 'No' because it's a self-fulfilling paradox. Time is linear, not circular, the time machine can't be there in the first place. Something cannot come from nothing.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "these time loops are supposedly infinite"? Thinking in terms of spacetime as a fixed 4D structure (the block universe idea, see my comment here for another way to think about this perspective) there's just one loop, it's not as if there are multiple cycles of the loop where the entropy can be different in each cycle (not unless you posit what the site here calls "metatime")
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl I mean infinite from a linear perspective on the time machine's part.
$endgroup$
– Halfthawed
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Doesn't the temporal "perspective" of a physical object depend on the assumption of some physical process that records change over time, like a clock or computer memory? In a fixed timeline there should be no such internal recording indicating multiple iterations of the loop.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you're looking for a way to do this, then Ship of Theseus is the way to go. That is, the Time Machine is made up of parts and the parts are gradually replaced alongside this time-travel cycle. Each part is replaceable, but despite that, the ship cannot be completely built from scratch for reason which aren't understood. Of course, this doesn't really help because any time loop (which puts physical objects in the past) generates entropy and these time loops are supposedly infinite, which means an infinite increase in entropy.
You're asking 'Is this possible if I don't replace it?' and the answer is 'No', but it's not 'No' because the machine rusts, it's 'No' because it's a self-fulfilling paradox. Time is linear, not circular, the time machine can't be there in the first place. Something cannot come from nothing.
$endgroup$
If you're looking for a way to do this, then Ship of Theseus is the way to go. That is, the Time Machine is made up of parts and the parts are gradually replaced alongside this time-travel cycle. Each part is replaceable, but despite that, the ship cannot be completely built from scratch for reason which aren't understood. Of course, this doesn't really help because any time loop (which puts physical objects in the past) generates entropy and these time loops are supposedly infinite, which means an infinite increase in entropy.
You're asking 'Is this possible if I don't replace it?' and the answer is 'No', but it's not 'No' because the machine rusts, it's 'No' because it's a self-fulfilling paradox. Time is linear, not circular, the time machine can't be there in the first place. Something cannot come from nothing.
answered 8 hours ago
HalfthawedHalfthawed
2,6814 silver badges16 bronze badges
2,6814 silver badges16 bronze badges
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "these time loops are supposedly infinite"? Thinking in terms of spacetime as a fixed 4D structure (the block universe idea, see my comment here for another way to think about this perspective) there's just one loop, it's not as if there are multiple cycles of the loop where the entropy can be different in each cycle (not unless you posit what the site here calls "metatime")
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl I mean infinite from a linear perspective on the time machine's part.
$endgroup$
– Halfthawed
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Doesn't the temporal "perspective" of a physical object depend on the assumption of some physical process that records change over time, like a clock or computer memory? In a fixed timeline there should be no such internal recording indicating multiple iterations of the loop.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "these time loops are supposedly infinite"? Thinking in terms of spacetime as a fixed 4D structure (the block universe idea, see my comment here for another way to think about this perspective) there's just one loop, it's not as if there are multiple cycles of the loop where the entropy can be different in each cycle (not unless you posit what the site here calls "metatime")
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl I mean infinite from a linear perspective on the time machine's part.
$endgroup$
– Halfthawed
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Doesn't the temporal "perspective" of a physical object depend on the assumption of some physical process that records change over time, like a clock or computer memory? In a fixed timeline there should be no such internal recording indicating multiple iterations of the loop.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "these time loops are supposedly infinite"? Thinking in terms of spacetime as a fixed 4D structure (the block universe idea, see my comment here for another way to think about this perspective) there's just one loop, it's not as if there are multiple cycles of the loop where the entropy can be different in each cycle (not unless you posit what the site here calls "metatime")
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "these time loops are supposedly infinite"? Thinking in terms of spacetime as a fixed 4D structure (the block universe idea, see my comment here for another way to think about this perspective) there's just one loop, it's not as if there are multiple cycles of the loop where the entropy can be different in each cycle (not unless you posit what the site here calls "metatime")
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl I mean infinite from a linear perspective on the time machine's part.
$endgroup$
– Halfthawed
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hypnosifl I mean infinite from a linear perspective on the time machine's part.
$endgroup$
– Halfthawed
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Doesn't the temporal "perspective" of a physical object depend on the assumption of some physical process that records change over time, like a clock or computer memory? In a fixed timeline there should be no such internal recording indicating multiple iterations of the loop.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Doesn't the temporal "perspective" of a physical object depend on the assumption of some physical process that records change over time, like a clock or computer memory? In a fixed timeline there should be no such internal recording indicating multiple iterations of the loop.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Kizux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kizux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kizux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kizux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f149947%2fbootstrap-paradox-with-a-time-machine-in-iron%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
"After many many loops it rusts and then become out of order": how many streams of time are there in your world? "Let my past me use it": and thus multiple future yous accumulate in the past.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The problem with a loop like this, is that it has no beginning, and it has no end. The time machine will behave as though it is infinitely old at all moments within the loop, and will experience maximum entropy.
$endgroup$
– Arkenstein XII
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Bootstrap paradoxes usually assume a completely fixed timeline, are you imagining a universe where it is in principle possible to "change" the past, or are you just asking how this type of paradox could possibly work in a fixed timeline given the natural tendency of metal to rust? If the latter, in normal physics there is always a finite probability that entropy-decreasing thermodynamic fluctuations happen, maybe one would have to happen in your scenario. Or since the technology of a machine that was never built is kind of arbitrary, you could assume self-repair abilities like living beings.
$endgroup$
– Hypnosifl
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
7 hours ago