You have heard this one, You go back in time, kill your dad before you were born... what would happen....

Now I'm no mathematical genius. I don't sit in Stanford lounges arguing mathematical principles with America's finest. Just wanted to get a few things out of the way. I could very well be wrong and flawed, but from my perspective, I think if you went back and killed your dad, you would still exist, but you would never have been born. You would be an exception, something that didn't belong.

I was sitting in between classes and was thinking about this, and I jotted down a graph and some math equations. I thought i'd share them with you and let you rip them apart.

Now this whole argument is on the basis that time is wave, and is not a cohesive continuum. You can go back, but you can't go forward.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8172/timeparadoxrr6.jpg

So as you can see

Adam (me) = a
Dad = (d)
Mom = (m)

Mom and Dad married 5 years before I was born

(d-5) + (m-5) = a
d + m = a

Now, I find me a TIME MACHINE... and I make the jump back at the age of 20.

(a + 20) (d+ 40) (m+40) = (n) [natural order]
(a + 20) - 40 = (a+20) (d-20) (m-20)

So now I'm 20 years old, am back 20 years before I was born, where I theoretically don't exist:

(a + 20) = -a

Now I go and kill my father, canceling out my birth:

(a + 20) - (d - 15) = (a-a) (a+20) (m-15)
m + d (does not equal) a

However, I remain. The wave of time has passed. I was never born but yet I exist because I have to exist in order to kill my father. If I never existed, my father wouldn't have been murdered by me.

(a+20) MUST exist = life - (d)
(a + 20) - (d-15) = -a + (a + 20)

Now remember, this is just my innocent, time paradox enjoyment. But I'd love to hear people rip my math and theory to shreds, or give me other theories... I've heard many of them, but it's been awhile;)

I think that you are probably right, if you went back in time and killed your father or even grandfather, you would not be blinked out of existence. You would simply start a new timeline. Now I wouldnt want to be the first one to try that, but that's what I think.

(d-5) + (m-5) = a
d + m = a
Error already. d + m = a + 10.

I can't make heads or tails of the rest of it. You call this math, but I don't see it. Here's a good example:
(a + 20) = -a
Simplifying, a is -10. Were you drunk when you came up with this?

lol, you didnt have the math up when I saw this before, Decka. I tend to agree with Borg here... the math is kinda fubar, I cant really find a basis for it.

Oh and for the record, I forgot to say earlier... traveling to the past BEFORE you invent the time machine is impossible :)

I can understand your confusion borg .. and on a purely math scale you would be right. But the variables in the equations aren't meant to be taken as numbers, but as people

a+ 20 = Adam at 20 years old.

m-5 = Mom 5 years before Adam was born

So if you look at it THAT way.. taking it in the context of the number line, and not just pure basic mathematics.. it might make a bit more sense. I"m not saying i'm right, i'm just saying my perspective.

And Phyrex... I never said I could travel to the past before I built the time machine. The wave of time reached until I was 20 years old. Then i built the time machine. The time machine would be like me.... 40 years back in time, but never built/invented, or in my case, born.

You can kill yourself infinitely many times according to your premise.

First, go back 2 minutes and kill yourself from 2 minutes ago.
Now, go back again, kill yourself. And, you should expect to see another you appear, trying to kill yourself, so kill him, too.
Now, go back again, this time you should see yourself appear trying kill yourself, so kill him. Then kill yourself. Then you should see yourself appear whom the first one you killed would have killed, so kill him.
Now, go back again, and this time the available you for you to kill should become four.
etc etc etc.

well it would be the same person... me.. going back in time every 2 minutes and killing an unaware me - 2 minutes. Theoretically, yea it works.. might get sick of killing yourself though LOL.

IF your dad died before you were born you would never be born. You can not argue that.

IF your dad died before you were born you would never be born. You can not argue that.
Nitpick: If your dad died before you were conceived you would never be born.

Nitpick: If your dad died before you were conceived you would never be born.
:eek: what if he wasn't really your dad?

wtf is going on in your lives that makes you ppl think about killing your father?

Nitpick: If your dad died before you were conceived you would never be born.

OK, you are right, but you know what I meant.

:eek: what if he wasn't really your dad?

wtf is going on in your lives that makes you ppl think about killing your father?

I think they ALL need to find 'em a girlfriend before they zone off into never-never land.

:@@:

IF your dad died before you were born you would never be born. You can not argue that.

You are right, you would not have been conceived OR born...

but in my theory... it you go back and murder your dad, you would still EXIST and yet have never been born.

You are right, you would not have been conceived OR born...

but in my theory... it you go back and murder your dad, you would still EXIST and yet have never been born.
But here's the thing, Decka. You have a very inconsistent state if you do that. If you return back to the future after doing the deed, where are you then? The same universe you were in before, with your dad still alive? Then obviously the past is immutable and any changes you made in "your past" were made on a timeline that doesn't exist.

The other scenario is this: You go back to your present, and your dad is dead. No dad, no conception. No conception, no birth. No birth, no you. You existing in that universe violates the core tenets of our universe, that being that energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. Yet your existence just broke that tenet. Doesn't parse.

Also, you have the obvious inconsistency is that, in the universe you now find yourself, you don't (and never did) exist, or were born, or anything. Yet, you were. Your existence is proof of it, and you still have your memories of you being five and whatnot. Thus, I think that everything you wrote is complete rubbish, and that time travel (to the past) is simply not possible. Or at least, if it is, it is impossible for you to alter it.

but you know what I meant.

Yes, but on AllForums we pretend we don't!

But here's the thing, Decka. You have a very inconsistent state if you do that. If you return back to the future after doing the deed, where are you then?

As long as you are in the boundaries of the "past", being the "wave" of time that is going along... you can go back to where you started. You have a time machine.. lol.

The same universe you were in before, with your dad still alive?

No, your dad would still be dead. Things will of course have changed. Nobody would know who the hell you were. You would be something that should not be, but are.

The other scenario is this: You go back to your present, and your dad is dead. No dad, no conception. No conception, no birth. No birth, no you. You existing in that universe violates the core tenets of our universe, that being that energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. Yet your existence just broke that tenet. Doesn't parse.

Yes but if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then how do you explain the sudden disappearance of matter which "was" me when I kill my dad? That can't happen. In order for me to be able to kill my father, I have to exist and go back in time. In my opinion, I can't just wipe the both of us out. I would physically kill my dad, but I would remain.

Also, you have the obvious inconsistency is that, in the universe you now find yourself, you don't (and never did) exist, or were born, or anything. Yet, you were. Your existence is proof of it, and you still have your memories of you being five and whatnot.

Of course I have memories. I would have memories of my dad, who I went back in time and killed. I would have memories of growing up, building the time machine.... all of that is my own timeline. I would remember my youth, but it would only exist inside my head. I never influenced those whom I influenced... I never was friends with those who I was friends with. Everyone that I knew, their life would be altered. Everything I did, any consequences of my actions that caused change would be altered.

To sum it up.. I would remember everything and everyone, but they would not remember me. And things would be as if I never existed... but I still would.

Thus, I think that everything you wrote is complete rubbish, and that time travel (to the past) is simply not possible. Or at least, if it is, it is impossible for you to alter it.

Hey, I made this thread for input... I'm glad you took the time to read over what I came up with and comment. I agree that time travel is a stretch, but then again, our universe is so vast and unexplainable, there might be things out there that we don't even know about.

Yes but if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then how do you explain the sudden disappearance of matter which "was" me when I kill my dad?
What disappearance? The only matter disappearance was when you zapped off to the past in your time machine--and I was assuming that disappearance for the sake of argument.
Of course I have memories. I would have memories of my dad, who I went back in time and killed. I would have memories of growing up, building the time machine.... all of that is my own timeline. I would remember my youth, but it would only exist inside my head. I never influenced those whom I influenced... I never was friends with those who I was friends with. Everyone that I knew, their life would be altered. Everything I did, any consequences of my actions that caused change would be altered.
So you argue that there is no objective reality, and all reality is subjective? That's what it sounds like.

What disappearance? The only matter disappearance was when you zapped off to the past in your time machine--and I was assuming that disappearance for the sake of argument.

Matter is not destroyed in time travel, but displaced. You still exist, just in a different time. It's (past +1) = (present - 1)

So you argue that there is no objective reality, and all reality is subjective? That's what it sounds like.

Depends on your definition of reality. Is reality what our senses detect? Is there a space-time continuum that we are grounded in? Is reality merely our own body's full capacity of taking in what the universe has to offer?

I can't answer that. I don't know if reality is a "place".. or a "point-of-view"... I don't think anybody does.

Matter is not destroyed in time travel, but displaced. You still exist, just in a different time. It's (past +1) = (present - 1)


Depends on your definition of reality. Is reality what our senses detect? Is there a space-time continuum that we are grounded in? Is reality merely our own body's full capacity of taking in what the universe has to offer?

I can't answer that. I don't know if reality is a "place".. or a "point-of-view"... I don't think anybody does.
Reality does effect you and the only thing you can do is work with it.

Decka, it is impossible to exist if you were never born.

Basically, the way I see it there are three solutions to this paradox:
1. Time traveling to the past is impossible.
2. If it is possible, you cannot affect the past at all and/or anything you did to affect it would be instantaneously corrected.
3. If you did go back to the past and kill your father, you would immediately cease to exist entirely.

So take your pick. I personally think that time travel is possible, and that option number 2 is the most likely.

Basically, the way I see it there are three solutions to this paradox:
1. Time traveling to the past is impossible.
2. If it is possible, you cannot affect the past at all and/or anything you did to affect it would be instantaneously corrected.
3. If you did go back to the past and kill your father, you would immediately cease to exist entirely.

So take your pick. I personally think that time travel is possible, and that option number 2 is the most likely.

The problem with 2. is that it eliminates free will. Everything is written in stone and we cannot change anything.

I like the parallel universe theory. I won't even bother trying to explain it, as I'm sure I'd butcher it horribly. There's a two part youtube video where smart people explain the idea.

Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=V7AupwRJrgM&feature=related (http://youtube.com/watch?v=NS1-SZ2L81k&feature=related)
Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NS1-SZ2L81k&feature=related

The problem with 2. is that it eliminates free will. Everything is written in stone and we cannot change anything.
Everything in the past is written in stone, yes.

I like the parallel universe theory. I won't even bother trying to explain it, as I'm sure I'd butcher it horribly. There's a two part youtube video where smart people explain the idea.
Also a good possibility that seems at least somewhat likely to me.

Everything in the past is written in stone, yes.

Is it the past if we travel into it? Does it not become the present for us then?

no it is still the past because it already happened

no it is still the past because it already happened

If the past is written in stone, then so is the future. If I travel back in time and cannot change anything, then wasn't I supposed to travel back in time in the first place? After all, I'm in the past and the past is written in stone. From there, we can see that I was destined to travel back into time all along and that I don't have free will.

If the past is written in stone, then so is the future. If I travel back in time and cannot change anything, then wasn't I supposed to travel back in time in the first place? After all, I'm in the past and the past is written in stone. From there, we can see that I was destined to travel back into time all along and that I don't have free will.
This sort of convoluted situation is why it might be unlikely that we can travel into the past at all. Traveling into the future seems slightly more likely to me anyways...

This sort of convoluted situation is why it might be unlikely that we can travel into the past at all. Traveling into the future seems slightly more likely to me anyways...

Traveling into the future is cake, we already know how to do it. The trick is being able to do it. A short 4 minute youtube video explaining the concept.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

This sort of convoluted situation is why it might be unlikely that we can travel into the past at all. Traveling into the future seems slightly more likely to me anyways...

but the future is the past to a more distant future

but the future is the past to a more distant future

LoL, that sounds like a conversation I would have if I was totally baked.

"Nah man...think about it...the future is really just the past, if you live in more distant future, man!"

LoL, that sounds like a conversation I would have if I was totally baked.

"Nah man...think about it...the future is really just the past, if you live in more distant future, man!"
I almost never get that deep... it's more like: "Do I sound ::giggle:: really really stupid right now? Are you sure?" or "Oh my god dude I want a brownie. NO WAIT, I want pizza! Nooo holy crap cheese fries! With bacon!" Either that or i just sit and stare at the wall and laugh and say "What?" whenever anyone talks to me. :p

Decka, it is impossible to exist if you were never born.

If that were true Trav, then you couldn't possibly go back before you were born to kill your dad. It depends on how you view time travel.

I think there is a stationary time wave, one that goes along a line like a wave, as i stated earlier. A time machine would allow you to go back, but the wave has already passed. So while you could make changes, you would still exist. If you didn't go back in time to kill your dad, then you would exist. If you DID go back in time and kill your dad, you would STILL exist, you would just create drastic changes to the natural wave of time, which is long past you.

If that were true Trav, then you couldn't possibly go back before you were born to kill your dad. It depends on how you view time travel.

I think there is a stationary time wave, one that goes along a line like a wave, as i stated earlier. A time machine would allow you to go back, but the wave has already passed. So while you could make changes, you would still exist. If you didn't go back in time to kill your dad, then you would exist. If you DID go back in time and kill your dad, you would STILL exist, you would just create drastic changes to the natural wave of time, which is long past you.
You keep saying the word "wave". I don't understand how you're trying to use it. You're referring to something similar to a sine wave, yes? What are the axes? What sense does "back" and "forward" make? What about time makes you think that it is an oscillating function, i.e. a wave?

If that were true Trav, then you couldn't possibly go back before you were born to kill your dad. It depends on how you view time travel.

I think there is a stationary time wave, one that goes along a line like a wave, as i stated earlier. A time machine would allow you to go back, but the wave has already passed. So while you could make changes, you would still exist. If you didn't go back in time to kill your dad, then you would exist. If you DID go back in time and kill your dad, you would STILL exist, you would just create drastic changes to the natural wave of time, which is long past you.

Dude, haven't you ever seen Back to the Future? When Michael J Fox's parents almost don't fall in love and get married Michael J Fox starts to fade out of existence! It is time travel 101 brother, if you were never born you can not exist.