The Instigator
Scyrone
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
MTGandP
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Time Travel is (theoretically) and will eventually be possible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 7 votes the winner is...
MTGandP
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,379 times Debate No: 8615
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

Scyrone

Pro

I am Pro (affirming) the statement that Time Travel is possible. I will present the reasoning why.

Time is defined as the numerically induced events between point 'a' and point 'c' where 'a' is infinitely in the past and 'c' is infinitely in the future, and point 'b' is the now (which philosophically is described as '.0000...1 (with the '0' recurring infinitely)).

Time Travel will be defined as the ability to change the patterns and energies of atoms to look as though as if it were younger or older.

I present the first argument that time is man made. We do not need time to exist, because we have defined it for ourselves. When the first homo sapiens came into being, they did not have a concept of time. They lived without it. Therefore, we also have the ability to live without it, because we had to ability to birth it and to kill it (in a metaphorical sense of it being 'alive'). Therefore, by taking away time, we have the ability to control and manipulate it. Therefore, I proceed to my second point.

We have the ability to transport people.

http://inventors.about.com...

With this ability we can disintegrate and successfully reintegrate that person into a being. So if we have the ability to take atoms and destroy the energy that is between them, and we have the ability to take those atoms, rip them apart, and rearrange them, then why not rearrange those atoms in a copied order that looks like the original 'data' but a younger or older version that is approximated.

For example, if we were to do this on a planetary scale. Since nothiing is truly destroyed, and energy and atoms just go through formational changes, then is it possible to say that we could restructure a person through transportation technology and make them look younger by recconecting the energies to outline a copied form of it's original person? Yes. We could therefore bend time in a way. Since time can be possible to not exist, we can take things that lay outside of it, and replicate them in different ways. Therefore we are restructured beings, defining the time and matter reoccurence of age.

Message me if you have any complaints or questions (or if you are confused).
MTGandP

Con

My opponent's contention is inherently flawed in several places.

"Time is defined as the numerically induced events between point 'a' and point 'c' where 'a' is infinitely in the past and 'c' is infinitely in the future"
A point cannot be infinitely far away. Infinity is not a quantity.

"point 'b' is the now (which philosophically is described as '.0000...1 (with the '0' recurring infinitely))"
This is also impossible. One cannot have an infinite sequence followed by another number. The one does not exist, since it only appears at the end of the sequence of zeros, and the sequence of zeros never ends. Therefore, my opponent's mathematical representation of time is flawed.

"We do not need time to exist, because we have defined it for ourselves."
The word "time" is a pointer to a metaphorical construct that we call "time". This metaphorical construct is itself a representation of an actual physical force or entity. Though the metaphorical construct is not real, it is used to represent something real. "Time" the construct is not real, but "time" the actual entity represented by the construct IS real.

"When the first homo sapiens came into being, they did not have a concept of time."
They did not have a concept of time, i.e. they had no metaphorical construct to represent time. But time was still a reality. Time the reality still proceeded, we just didn't measure it in terms of the metaphorical construct known as "time".

========

"if we have the ability to take atoms and destroy the energy that is between them"
We don't. Energy cannot be created or destroyed [1].

"we have the ability to take those atoms, rip them apart, and rearrange them"
This requires a large quantity of energy, causing an imbalance between the "new" old universe and the "old" old universe.

"why not rearrange those atoms in a copied order that looks like the original 'data' but a younger or older version that is approximated."
Atomic decay cannot be reversed by any known means. Therefore, it is impossible to make atoms look younger.

"we could restructure a person through transportation technology and make them look younger by recconecting the energies to outline a copied form of it's original person"
1. We would have to know what the original person looked like, down to the atom.
2. We would have to find atoms that were in the exact right stage of decay and then assemble them into a person.

"we can take things that lay outside of [time]"
How can something lay outside of time?

========

Resolution negated.

[1] http://www.cartage.org.lb...
Debate Round No. 1
Scyrone

Pro

"A point cannot be infinitely far away. Infinity is not a quantity."

Yes it is. Infinity divided by infinity is one. It is an unlimited quantity. It might be too complex to completely understand, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"Therefore, my opponent's mathematical representation of time is flawed."

Who said I was talking about mathematics? I am talking about Philosophy and Science. Science in the sense of atoms and energy, and philosophy as in wisdom. Scientifically and Mathematically .000..1 is impossible, but philosophically you would be able to interpret what it represents.

""Time" the construct is not real, but "time" the actual entity represented by the construct IS real."

I never said it wasn't real, but there is NO entity of time. There was a conceptualization, but if we removed all clocks in the world and all numbers, we could still survive. If we took all of everything within time and divided it by two (6 months in a year, 2 weeks in a month, etc.) then we would not be lost, we would survive. We have the ability to change time. There is no physical construct of time. Only an ideal conceptualization of time. Therefore, time is an idea and is not real in a physical sense.

"We don't. Energy cannot be created or destroyed [1]."

My mistake, if we could put the energy in line with that of other structures and create different energies in different formations (take energy and transform it, something which is possible) then this would be able to be accomplished.

"This requires a large quantity of energy, causing an imbalance between the "new" old universe and the "old" old universe."

This doesn't make sense. The "new" and "old" old universe?

"Atomic decay cannot be reversed by any known means. Therefore, it is impossible to make atoms look younger."

Who said anything about reversing? I am talking about rearranging.

"How can something lay outside of time?"

Because time can be taken away, as proven before.

"1. We would have to know what the original person looked like, down to the atom.
2. We would have to find atoms that were in the exact right stage of decay and then assemble them into a person."

1. We actually have the technology which can look all the way down to the atom.
2. Or use the person themselves that already have the right decay stage.

I'm not done with time travel yet. You think this was my only form of time travel? No. There is actually no law of physics that prohibits time travel.

Space is bendable, just as time in able to be manipulated and bendable. If we were to launch through a worm hole, since a wormhole is a bend in time and space, we would be able to go through the bended time and space.

Same as going at high speeds. Clocks in space stations above Earth have to be set a little bit faster, because as we move farther away from the Earths gravitational pull, clocks tend to be slower. It is also actually said that if we didn't have a moon, then the earth would spin faster, therefore having our days spin faster too. The moon goes in an opposite orbit of the spin, therefore taking it's miniscule gravitational pull and slowing us down. Actually, theoretically if we were to take two atomic clocks and put one on the ground and travel one at lightspeed, the one going lightspeed would be fairly slower than the one on the ground.

Science, physics, and philosophy are able to destroy my opponent's arguments on this matter.
MTGandP

Con

"Infinity divided by infinity is one."
False, and I can prove it by contradiction.

1. Infinity divided by infinity is one.
2. Infinity plus infinity equals infinity. (Strange but true. For example, the set of all even numbers is infinite, the set of all odd numbers is infinite, and the set of all integers (evens + odds) is infinite.)

infinity / infinity = 1
(infinity + infinity) / infinity = 1
(infinity / infinity) + (infinity / infinity) = 1
1 + 1 = 1

If infinity / infinity = 1, then 2 = 1. It does not. Theorem disproven.

"Scientifically and Mathematically .000..1 is impossible, but philosophically you would be able to interpret what it represents."
.000..1 does not make any sense, mathematically or philosophically. .000..1 is not possible, for the reasons I stated in round one. My explanation works whether we are talking about mathematics or philosophy.

"If we took all of everything within time and divided it by two (6 months in a year, 2 weeks in a month, etc.) then we would not be lost, we would survive."
That is because THAT IS NOT TIME. That is merely our representation of time. We have not changed time at all by changing how we measure it; it still passes in the exact same way.

"This doesn't make sense. The "new" and "old" old universe?"
The "new" old universe is the one we are creating by manipulating matter. The "old" old universe is the one in the past.

"Who said anything about reversing? I am talking about rearranging."
It is impossible to make something look exactly as it did in the past because atomic decay cannot be reversed.

"Because time can be taken away, as proven before."
Time cannot be "taken away". Time can be warped through near-lightspeed travel, but I don't that that that is what my opponent is referring to.

"1. We actually have the technology which can look all the way down to the atom."
No we don't. See Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

"2. Or use the person themselves that already have the right decay stage."
Let's say we want to push a person a year into the past. That person's atoms would have to have exactly one year's worth less of decay. Since atomic decay cannot be reversed, the person cannot return to the state of one year ago, and therefore cannot time travel.

"There is actually no law of physics that prohibits time travel."
There is no law of physics that prohibits invisible pink unicorns the size of quarks from spontaneously appearing a thousand times per second, either.
Laws of physics do not prohibit things. They allow things. Unless allowed, everything is prohibited. And no known law allows time travel.

"If we were to launch through a worm hole, since a wormhole is a bend in time and space, we would be able to go through the bended time and space."
-If I were to go through a wormhole, I would not be time traveling since my atoms would not be returning to an earlier state.
-I see no concrete evidence that wormholes exist. Sure, they have been postulated, but we've never seen one and the evidence for their existence isn't great.

"Clocks in space stations above Earth have to be set a little bit faster, because as we move farther away from the Earths gravitational pull, clocks tend to be slower."
Due to relativity? Sorry, but special relativity is far too weak at that speed to have any effects, much less general relativity.

"It is also actually said that if we didn't have a moon, then the earth would spin faster, therefore having our days spin faster too."
Days would go by faster, but time would not change at all. Days are only a method of measuring time, and do not correlate to actual time.

"Actually, theoretically if we were to take two atomic clocks and put one on the ground and travel one at lightspeed, the one going lightspeed would be fairly slower than the one on the ground."
1. It is impossible to move at lightspeed.
2. It would not be going fairly slower, it would be stopped. Of course, we can't forget about the twin paradox. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Physics has not provided us with any method of time travel. Philosophy is completely irrelevant, at least to my opponent's arguments. Mathematics has disproven some of my opponent's claims. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kahvan 7 years ago
Kahvan
Here are some thoughts of mine. i think that time does exist but is in the next dimension. We can measure and feel its effects but cannot travel through it. Having said this we cannot travel though time while in this dimension so to speak. the 3rd dimension we are in constricts us but we are still active participant in time so time travel is not possible. that is my thought. however I agree with a lot of what scyrone said in that we could eventually be able top reconstruct atoms and teleport people. But I would think that.00..1 is possible.
Posted by Scyrone 7 years ago
Scyrone
Time is man's definition of getting older and the passing of events. It isn't some secret construct of the universe that nobody knows about.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
Interesting debate; I likey.
Posted by MrMarkP37 7 years ago
MrMarkP37
This sucks I thought it would be an interesting scientific debate but it turned into a symantics argument with a flawed and foolish definition of time. Pro stated that if we removed all clocks, etc... this point was seemingly we could destroy time in this way, when that is not the case, time still exists we just couldn't measure it without these things we've invented. If time didn't exist then we wouldn't get older.
And by the way it is, in theory, possible to travel forward in time. If you accelerated away from the planet at a fast rate (like half the speed of light) and then turned around after a year and returned. It would seem like two years to you but might be a hundred years on Earth. We don't have the technology to do this yet (because our rockets aren't fast enough) but we might be able to one day.
Posted by Scyrone 7 years ago
Scyrone
You guys should watch national geographic more lol
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"Time isn't real, it's just the progression of events in the universe."

Your definition of time is circular - embedded into the concept of 'progression' is the idea of time. But don't worry, defining time has been a long problem anyway ;D
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
Time travel would be awesome if it were possible, but sadly it's not. Time isn't real, it's just the progression of events in the universe. It would be impossible to just go to a future event or a past event.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Yeah, time travel is impossible. I just wish that I won my debate about it.
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
Problems:

(1) Quantum Computing technology would have to be invented before data compression of living organisms could be achieved

(2) No current medium exists for the transportation of data that would eliminate minor static that would produce catastrophic results when recreating multicellular living organisms

Those can be overcome; in fact, teleportation has already been achieved (though no scientist is insane enough to even think of trying it out on living creatures): http://www.foxnews.com...

However, the third major obstacle can't be practically overcome:

(3) No medium can possibly exist to translate the information in the past... Hence, even if we could compress the data for a human being, there is no way to send it back in time and nothing in the past to decompress the information...

However... If the infinite multiverse theory is (by chance) correct, information could be (theoretically) transferred through small wormholes in the space/time continuum... Though how the information would know where and how to come out of the quantum foam is anyone's guess.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
IMO, time is a direction, not a dimension.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Kahvan 7 years ago
Kahvan
ScyroneMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
ScyroneMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MrMarkP37 7 years ago
MrMarkP37
ScyroneMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KirstinKate 7 years ago
KirstinKate
ScyroneMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Scyrone 7 years ago
Scyrone
ScyroneMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
ScyroneMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
ScyroneMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06