ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Time Travel Paradoxes

CaptainLee39

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this Jul. 08 2012, 6:28 pm

There are plenty of time travel paradoxes in Star Trek, as everyone of you should know. Also, there appear to be inconsistencies in time travel, which aren't exactly paradoxes but still seem strange. I wanted to write one down I just noticed, but I'm to tired, so here is something I just made up and I wanted to hear from you what you think about it.


Imagine you built a time machine. But sadly it took you so long to finally construct it, that you are very old! You won't have much time left in your life, so you decide to travel back in time and tell your younger self how to construct the time machine. What would happen?


a) You would die normally, but your former self would live another life with his new time machine (this would be an alternate / parallel timeline)


b) You would cease to exist, because you altered the past in a way, that the person you are doesn't exist anymore, because your former self, when being as old as you are now, has no need to travel back in time to tell how to build the time machine, thusly negating what has happened in the first place. But this way, he will also not receive the plans from his future self, so...


c) ...once you travel back one time, there will be an endless loop, because to uphold this timeline you have to travel back agin and again, to ensure you know how to build the time machine earlier, so that you could have the amusing time travel life you wanted.


What do you think? Can you come up with more time travel paradoxes? Or rather talk about the ones already there in Star Trek, ENT's episode E² comes to my mind. That episode might give a hint at how the time mechanics in the Star Trek universe work.


 


I'm a huge Star Trek fan from Germany! I'm currently working on my own series, so stay tuned. (I will update this signature eventually)

JK1701

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 264

Report this Jul. 09 2012, 8:02 am

That is an excellent question! I was actually pondering on time travel and paradoxes earlier today, and I catch myself often pondering them when it comes to now only Star Trek, but also movies like Back To The Future. I would imagine that, assuming you did not die in one of your time traveling expeditions, that your older self would still exist, but would be altered to reflect your experiences in your now altered life. You would remember all the things you did after the time alteration, as well as being visited by yourself. I suppose there is a possibility of an alternate timeline (ala Star Trek '09) but I tend to think that any change to the timeline would simply be reflected in the actual timeline and would not create a new one. You would simply return to the future, now being the person you created instead of the person you were, and you would die with all your new memories.


What I was pondering earlier today is this: say a person were planning to go back in time to 1893. While perusing a history book, they find mention of themselves and discover that, in traveling back through time, they only lived 3 years and were killed by a bandit. They then decide to go to 1896 and prevent the murder from happening. Would they, by virtue of deciding to travel 3 years later than originally intended, erase themselves from existing in the time period and start an entirely new timeline from 1896 onward? Or would they actually be able to arrive and save themselves from an already existing fate in that timeline?


Also, what are your thoughts on traveling to the future and meeting your older self? I do not believe it is possible, because if you get into a time machine and travel 20 years into the future, you skip over those 20 years. Meaning, for all intents and purposes, you do not exist for those 20 years. There is no you. You are in the time machine. Therefore, it would be impossible to meet an older version of yourself. What do you think?


Ahh, Kirk, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb which tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold? It's very cold....in space.

CaptainLee39

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this Jul. 09 2012, 1:50 pm

Concerning your last "experiment", I would also agree on that. If you meet an older self, than it has to be one of another reality/universe, but not in the same one.


Concerning your first "experiment", I have another suggestion. Since you haven't travelled back in time yet, there wouldn't be any history records of your death yet. But even if that is somehow possible and you travel back to 1896, you now haven't travelled back in time to 1893 and so there is no one you could rescue (that's also one of your suggestions).


Sorry for once again the short post, but I have to go to bed now.


I'm a huge Star Trek fan from Germany! I'm currently working on my own series, so stay tuned. (I will update this signature eventually)

JK1701

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 264

Report this Jul. 09 2012, 2:29 pm

I was thinking the same thing, that if you did go to a different time, it would negate the original timeline and you would have no one to save. I have to agree with Captain Kirk. Time travel gives me a headache!


Ahh, Kirk, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb which tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold? It's very cold....in space.

Data's Girl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 273

Report this Jul. 09 2012, 10:40 pm

And of course the old "A man goes back in time and kills his mother, which means he doesn't exist, but then he can't kill his mother, which means he's still alive, but then he can kill her..." One. And so on... Ouch.


tai nasha no karosha :)

CaptainLee39

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this Jul. 10 2012, 3:43 am

Quote: Data's Girl @ Jul. 09 2012, 10:40 pm

>

>And of course the old "A man goes back in time and kills his mother, which means he doesn't exist, but then he can't kill his mother, which means he's still alive, but then he can kill her..." One. And so on... Ouch.

>


My view of this paradox is, that once he dealt sufficient damage to her, to kill her, he won't exist. But if she would still be able to recover from her injuries, you wouldn't vanish (or maybe you would, if you stabbed her in her vagina lol)


 


I'm a huge Star Trek fan from Germany! I'm currently working on my own series, so stay tuned. (I will update this signature eventually)

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: DS9TREK, FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum