The Instigator
infalliblemind
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Gondun
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Theoretically, it is possible to travel into the future.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,301 times Debate No: 31947
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

infalliblemind

Pro

I believe that in theory, it is possible for a being to travel into the future, however short it may be. Prove me wrong.
Gondun

Con

I accept this debate.
For the sake of simplicity it will be assumed that there is one time line and no parallel universes.

It would be impossible to travel to the future for two main reasons: uncertainty and paradoxes.

The first reason that it is impossible to travel to the future is that the future is not set in stone. The future changes depending on what happens in the present, so the future is always changing. Because the future is so unstable, it would be impossible to arrive at any one time or place.

The other problem of time travel to the future is the paradoxes always associated with time travel. Although most paradoxes are geared toward the past, there are two main paradoxes dealing with the future. The first is the scientific journal paradox. This talks about a loop that would be created if some information (like a scientific journal) was found in the future, brought back to the present, then published in the same journal it was found in. The information would have come from nowhere, thus causing a paradox. The second paradox is far more likely and practical. It is the idea that after going to the future, you would change some behavior in the past, changing the future that you saw. For example, if you went to the future and learned that you died in a car crash on December 12, 2013 on your way to work, when you returned to the past you would go a different way or not drive to work at all. This creates a paradox because if you don't die, then when you went into the future, you wouldn't have known not to drive to work that day.

Unless the Pro can show that time travel to the future could land you in a certain place and that it would not create any paradoxes, then I win this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
infalliblemind

Pro

First I would like to start by thanking Gondun for accepting this debate. You raise some points but as you said, we are assuming that there is only one timeline, and are not considering parallel universes.

I will address you argument of paradoxes first.
You said; "The first is the scientific journal paradox. This talks about a loop that would be created if some information (like a scientific journal) was found in the future, brought back to the present, then published in the same journal it was found in." In order for this to be valid, we would have to submit to the possibility of time travel into the past. I did not agree to this nor do I think it possible. Unless you can prove time travel into the past, there is no way for someone who went to the future to bring back something to the present.

Your second paradox example was "if you went to the future and learned that you died in a car crash on December 12, 2013 on your way to work, when you returned to the past you would go a different way or not drive to work at all." This is impossible because when you travel to the future, you don't leave yourself behind. When you leave, you left. The "you" from the past would then travel into the future. So if you left May 3, 2012 to go to the future, you no longer exist in the present to be in a car crash December 3, 2013.

And your other argument is that the future is uncertain. I can disprove your argument here with an example of how travel into the future ca be achieved. You're thinking of time travel in the conventional "Sci-Fi" way where you press some buttons and you end up in the future. But there is no way to make that happen at this point in time. But, as Albert Einstein proved, time is relative to the speed you are traveling. This is fact, ask anyone who works at the space station. All the clocks on the satellites must be slightly adjusted because of the speed they are orbiting the Earth. But that is minuscule and is not the time travel we dream of. But, if you can create a craft and travel at the speed of light, time literally slows down for you. So instead of going to a random point into the future, essentially you would be traveling half the speed that time on Earth is. So if you traveled at the speed of light for five years, when you return to Earth, ten years will have passed. This type of time travel negates the "uncertainty" because life goes on as usual, you are simply traveling in a different "time".

So unless my opponent can prove time travel in the past, or disprove Einstein, this match is mine.
Gondun

Con

In response to the Pro's argument about how none of the paradoxes would occur, they are based of the idea that you would be returning from the time travel, not be stuck in the future. Time travel to the past would be possible as long as you do not travel further back that the present you left. None of the paradoxes usually associated with traveling to the past would apply because the future is flexible and changes all the time. Also, the BoP to show that travel from the future to the past is impossible falls to my opponent for the same reason that I have the BoP to show that travel to the future is impossible.

The Pro says that travel to the future would be possible, not with a Sci-Fi method but one involving light speed. His light speed method would not be considered time travel in this instance because it is merely accelerated living. This would be like comparing driving really fast to teleporting. Just because you are getting there faster than normal doesn't mean you are telleporting/time traveling. Time travel is moving through time without the need to experience the intervening period.

I am winning this debate because the Pro's only argument against the paradoxes is that past travel is not possible, but he has not proved that. Also, Pro's proposed method of "time travel" to avoid the uncertainty of the future is not actually time travel.
Debate Round No. 2
infalliblemind

Pro

I would like to direct con to my first statement of the debate "I believe that in theory, it is possible for a being to travel into the future, however short it may be." I would also like to point out that we are not bound by just the idea of time travel. As long as you can travel into a future moment, by time, or by space it is considered TRAVELING INTO THE FUTURE. Now as I said in the comments, technically we are all traveling into the future right now. BUT as promised that will not be part of my argument.


Again, Cons argument of pradoxes is completely dependent upon the possibility of returning back to the present. Con said "Time travel to the past would be possible as long as you do not travel further back that the present you left". This is a huge statement, and I'm afraid he has absolutly no evidence, or findings to back up this claim. Should we take his word for it? If he could get some meat to back up that claim he may have won, but I see no huge scientific time travel breakthroughs on the horizon. I have presented and backed up a way for one to travel into the future using Albert Einsteins time travel theory. Con has said traveling back through time is possible with no proof at all. So unless you establish the fact that one can travel BACK through time, as well as FOREWARD, that argument is invalid.

As for his second paradox example, it is still flawed. Con stated "if you went to the future and learned that you died in a car crash on December 12, 2013 on your way to work, when you returned to the past you would go a different way or not drive to work at all." If one went into the future and say he could return back to the present in which he left, even then there is no possible way for one to die after he has already left. As stated by Con earlier, we are on a non-parallel universe basis for this debate. When dealing with the future in this case, there is only one "you".

Con said "His light speed method would not be considered time travel in this instance because it is merely accelerated living" Wether or not it is considered "time travel" or not (which is arguable, but thats for another time) one would still be traveling at an accelerated rate into the future. By slowing down time for yourself, you can effectively arrive at a later point in time, thus traveling into the future.



So unless Con establishes some proof for backward time traveling this debate is mine.

http://everythingforever.com...











Gondun

Con

I find it ironic that travel to the future is assumed possible until proven impossible by me, but the idea of traveling back to the present is assumed impossible until proved by me. Either both should be assumed true and require disproving or both should be assumed false and require proving.

Now, I'm not saying that I think traveling to the past is possible, only that if you can travel to the future, then you can return to where you started.

Because we are assuming that both directions of travel are assumed possible until proven impossible, my arguments about paradoxes still stand. All of Pro's "no proof" arguments against it are only a cop-out and should not be acknowledged. Also, this idea that there can only be one "you" is not really applicable here. The paradox argument does not have to be about you, the car crash was just an example of how what you see in the future will change your behavior.

The Pro says that "Whether or not it is considered "time travel" or not (which is arguable, but that's for another time) one would still be traveling at an accelerated rate into the future." Firstly, whether or not that is really time travel is not for another time. It is not time travel, therefore the uncertainty principle that he completely ignored in this round means that time travel to the future is impossible. On the second half of the statement, time travel is jumping from one point in time to another without going through the time in between, not getting there faster.

I am winning this debate because the Pro has not sufficiently rebutted my arguments about paradoxes. I am also winning because time travel does not involve passing through the time in between, so there would not be a certain future for you to arrive in.
Debate Round No. 3
infalliblemind

Pro

infalliblemind forfeited this round.
Gondun

Con

Ok, we've had a pretty good debate so far. When voting, just don't count round 4 or the forfeit.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by infalliblemind 4 years ago
infalliblemind
I'm sorry I missed the final (and most important) round of this debate. I missed my chance for a rebuttal because I have been in the ER (stomach issues). All I ask is that voters don't consider my lack of a final round as a forfeit. I again apologize for a disappointing end to a great debate.
Posted by Gondun 4 years ago
Gondun
I would appreciate it if you did not bring any of your own information or bias into this.
Posted by Michel 4 years ago
Michel
Is it me, or someone has watched "the universe" documentary on time travel? ;)

Anyway, pro is winning this for me...
Posted by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
Pro, you're changing the status quo. If you don't come up with arguments of your own, technically the most you can do now is make equilibrium. Then you wouldn't have overcome the presumption that travel to the future is impossible, and Con would win.
Posted by Enlightened 4 years ago
Enlightened
Technically in every second of our existence we are already traveling into the future.
Posted by infalliblemind 4 years ago
infalliblemind
@drhead. Yes it does
Posted by drhead 4 years ago
drhead
Does suspended animation count as traveling into the future?
Posted by infalliblemind 4 years ago
infalliblemind
I won't "troll" you, I made this as a serious debate and I intend to argue without being overly critical. Though that is true, that will not be a part of my arguement.
Posted by dragonb95 4 years ago
dragonb95
I'm afraid if I accept you will just say "we are all time travelling to the future at normal speed thus I have won"
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Aren't we always traveling into the future?
No votes have been placed for this debate.