1 David Wipperfurth March 1, 2004 The Constructs of Time and Time Travel Time Travel is a terminology used to denote

a “shift” in Time affecting all but the “traveling” party. You can’t talk of such a concept without talking about the concept of time its self. Time is relatively simplistic, although there are massively misconstrued notions about the topic. I would have liked to prove that Time Travel was impossible, but alas I cannot. Upon inspection of Time itself, I have found that both traveling to the future and past is possible: possible, but not exactly the same way in which you would traditionally think Time Travel to be; and not at all probable. First, Time must be defined, so as to clarify Time Travel, and more over, the dogmatic misconceptions tied to the concept of Time. Time is a familiar pattern of change. This definition is specific and should be taken literally. An instant in Time is a theoretical point at which no change is occurring. Time is a progression of these instances, thus any change shows the passage of Time. Time is a human invention; it’s a concept which, without cognizance, wouldn’t exist. Not only because it is a concept, but also because you can’t talk of change without knowing that something is different from one “moment” to the next. This is partially why the term familiarity is implemented. As humans, our nature is to look for patterns, and we use patterns to estimate our own principal of Time. The change has to be familiar to utilize patterns of it, and the patterns have to be familiar to extract values of Time. To determine the accuracy of time we rely on the complexity of the pattern we use to measure with. This is an intrinsic nature of

2 Time: the closer we get to including everything into the pattern, the closer we get to producing a perfect Time measurement. This definition, though useful, is imperfect. It uses the term ‘change’, which could not be properly defined without using the concept of Time. So a fundamental definition of Time needs to have no time references. Time is a rationalization of a comparison of something to its self, not having a difference of zero. This supplemental definition shows that Time is a perception, and also sheds light on an ironic quirk. To rationalize or to compare takes Time, yet Time would not exist without these processes. This definition may be confusing. To simplify, think of a newborn baby looking at an object, the baby does not know of Time, but soon after that object is no longer what it once was, the baby needs to make a rationalization of this change. Babies actually have a very complex learning progression, but realize that most living things have some concept of Time, so it is not a high level concept. It is nearly an instinctual concept, which is half the problem with defining it. No one ever had to define Time for you; every living thing invents the concept of time for themselves. That is Time, simple and profound. But, for utility, this concept of Time has been objectified. This objectification has skewed the idea by applying attributes to the concept improperly, through similarity conglomeration. For example, Time and space appear to be similar, and you can travel through space, so why not travel through Time? Time Travel is a deceptive term, because it presupposes that manipulation of Time, if possible, would be the equivalent of traveling through space, and holds the same characteristics. Using our definition of Time, traveling to the past becomes a matter of semantics. It is impossible to go back in time, because it is impossible to revert change. It is possible

3 to simply make another change with an opposite affect, while nearly the same, a clear distinction should be made. The new change is still a change and is still progression of Time. If everything were changed to a prior point in Time, it would be some amount of time in the future, just at a spatially identical reality as the prior Time. Assuming you did change everything back to what it was at a previous Time, events would then almost certainly occur as they had the first time presuming true randomness does not exist, and no external forces affected reality’s progression. If you did this but you were not an exception to this change, then reality would be stuck in a loop for the rest of eternity, because you would inevitably reverse the changes at the same stage every time. As long as you’re a reference for ‘Time Travel’, meaning you remain un-affected by the changing of reality, you could do anything without creating any sort of paradox or conundrum. It’d be not unlike setting up a chessboard after having played a game of chess, it’s not the same game, it just looks that way, and this new game has no affect on the old one. To refute a popular philosophic argument, it’s not a matter of can’t or won’t, you could kill yourself because your former self has no impact on whether your current self could make the ‘Time Conversion’ necessary to kill yourself. In fact, this implies that there would be two of you. The only way there would be two of you is if you created a second “you” to begin with. To actually change everything back to a past Time, you would need a metaphoric snapshot of the instance in reality. This memory of the past would have to be absolutely pervasive, down past the quark, to the very base unit of structure, which is currently still undetermined. Besides needing this memory of the instance, which you want to convert to, you would need something that could then actually do the converting. This is a fairly

4 hefty order and certainly improbable, mainly because no one would ever have a good enough reason to devote the exorbitant amount of resources. When considering the improbability of building a machine of this nature, the ideas of entropy and chaos come to mind. Not only would such a machine have to overcome implausibility similar to one hundred percent energy conservation, it would also literally have to over come one hundred percent energy conservation. The future hasn’t occurred yet, so to ‘travel’ to the future you couldn’t just load a snapshot of a future Time, it couldn’t just be one change to that point. It would have to be all the changes in between, like hitting fast forward on a VCR. Interesting side note: it makes no difference whether everything goes faster, or you go slower, since there are only two possible choices for perspective, either situation looks exactly the same. Assume for a moment that when you press the metaphoric fast forward button, you, along with everything else, start moving faster… How could you tell? In fact, I’d like to state as fact, that Time doesn’t move at a constant rate, it fluctuates drastically, but the change in Time is wide spread and affects everything exactly the same. I say this only because it’s not possible to dissolve this argument. There is no possible point of reference outside of everything to measure an affect like this from. We could easily be traveling to the future faster now, then now, or now. To be precise this “fact” is un-falsifiable, and so philosophically couldn’t be argued one way or the other. In addition, the mere idea that Time would be occurring at different speeds is a precarious postulation. To explain the nature of this concept it will be said that it’s akin to wind-chill; it’s not the actual temperature, just what the temperature ‘feels like’. The quintessential example of this is cryogenic stasis, and the easiest way to travel to the future “faster” than anyone else.

5 To conclude; Time is nearly a synonym for change, ‘traveling’ to the past is possible though not probable, ‘traveling’ to the future is a fairly normal occurrence, but it goes faster if you go slower. Time, having no method of measure outside of everything, is completely relative.