Sunday, 1 December 2024

Why There Is No Time Travel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9NGV-5h7yE brings evidence in the direction of there being time travel and the media is hiding the actual results of CERN for a long time now. At a certain stage, it was possible to find news on their progresses in what regards time travel. That doesn't happen now.

Yet, time travel shouldn't be possible for several very logical reasons: Assume the soul exists, as the bible (necromancers can indeed tell the future) and spiritists claim, then, since all parallel universes (each point in time would have a universe 'made just for it', so that we could travel to anywhere in time, and time is infinite in the sense that it is continuous and therefore, given two moments in time, we can always find another one in the middle) would have to contain exactly the same life and facts as those in the universe we inhabit until such a point in time (when we travel), so that we would have to exist as us in an infinite number of universes at the same time, so that the soul must be infinite. If the soul is infinite, though, as some claim (an argument mainly based on there being no limit in time for its existence), then it equally inhabits our 'copies', which would be in an infinite number, then we don't have a reason to sustain that our awareness or conscience remains only with the particular universe from which we depart in our time trip. Besides, it would have to be true that we never needed the vehicles or anything that goes beyond our body resources to access those parallel universes. We say the soul has to be infinite then because we would have to activelly be thinking, and therefore have awareness of being in each one of the parallel universes (infinity of those), to make decisions about our lives on each fraction of second of existence of those, based on whatever changes are imposed by the time travel of others.

If we then imagine that we can time travel but cannot change events, we are obliged to commit to believing that we are not seen by others during time travel, since being seen would provoke change of events (they could take pictures of us there, as the link suggests, if nothing else). In this case, we must be a soul, since we keep awareness and so on. If we are a soul, we again don't need any machine to time travel: we can get that via meditation or others. Some hypnotherapists claim to be able to 'transport' people to their past lives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_life_regression, https://www.centreofexcellence.com/what-is-past-life-regression/ and https://josephinehardman.com/the-healing-power-of-understanding-your-past-lives/. Notice however that if we are the soul when we time travel, then our copy, in the universe to which we travel, doesn't have one or has a copy of ours. We could then imagine it has a copy of ours.If it doesn't, time travel implies that our body, in the universe we departed from, was left without a soul, which is not acceptable. If each copy has its own copy of our soul, the different copies of the soul would accumulate different experiences throughout our lives, since we are now assuming time travel can change facts, and those copies of our soul could 'arrive' in paradise at different times on top, so that the soul, after the death of the body, or of the copy of it, would be the result of the merging of all those copies and would be able to keep track of each copie's history on earth and would still be able to evolve at different rhytm for each one of those. That frontally contradicts the theories of spiritism, which is the only religion I know that has studied life after death in depth and, if there are necromancers in modernity, those would most likely be spiritists, so that it is also way more likely that if someone holds the truth about life after death, that would be them.

If we assume that after we time travel we change facts, say we travel to our past and kill our father's father before he gives birth to our father, then the departure universe, we assume in modern theories, would be 'updated' accordingly, which means it would stop existing, therefore would get destroyed forever, generating another universe for the same point in time. We then desintegrate or something during that move, of killing our grandfather. The problem with that theory is that another person could travel to the future, for instance, and kill us before we kill our grandfather, which would mean the arrival universe would be updated to include the information about our arrival (as well as theirs) and the departure universe would have us disappearing at that point in time and only the things that require our actions would have other developments, but all other things would remain ceteris paribus. We then need the departure universe to keep on existing after our death, so that another time traveler, from a time that comes before the 'x time', when we kill our grandfather, can change events soon before that development. The departure universe cannot be recovered anymore according to the previous development, so that we again have inconsistency.

If we say there is no soul, the result is still the same because we then imagine something like a pin in our brain (and in the brain of our copies) where our essence is and we would have to travel with this pin so that the awareness of the entire trip is registered in it. However, in this case, our body, in the universe we departed from, would again be left without it and therefore could not register the changes occurring during the period of the time travel, inconsistency again. Therefore, once more, there is no time travel.

Wednesday, 23 October 2024

A Solution to The Sorites

 We propose a nonclassical logical system to solve the sorites, since LEM is not preserved in this system. The main advantages of this system are: preservation of the classical logic truth-values and tables apart from when the subject speaks in a confusional way, when the truth-values will still be classical, but the table is going to change. Speaking in a confusional way means that they utter both A and not-A or utter nothing involving A, so neither A nor not-A. Yet another advantage is that, in it, contradictions are false, just like in classical logic. There is a clear explanation for the boundaries: it is only when the individual has confused speech that we have to intervene with the translation of their speech into logical entries. Each individual has their own assessment results and therefore is entitled to their own assignment of responses: does this predicate apply or not to this soritical sequence entity? If they answer yes and no at the same time or if they don’t answer, which means they are confused, we put a false (0) as the truth-value of the premise. If a person utters, with no confusion, A, then not-A may still be true or false. If the person says true and false, then we mark that as false and, if they say nothing, we also mark that as false.

Take A and B to be two consecutive soritical sequence premises. We then have the classical logic table for speech that contains no confusion, so, for instance, when the individual utters A but does not utter not-A.

A

B

A=>B

AΛB

AVB

not-A

not-B

not-AVB

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

When there is confusion, the table will change. Say the individual makes confusion when talking about A but not when talking about B, so they utter A and not-A but utter B only or they utter nothing involving A and utter B only. Because there is confusion when they refer to A, A is false (0). Not-A is also false (0) because there is confusion about A.

The table will then be:

A

B

A=>B

AΛB

AVB

not-A

not-B

not-AVB

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

Another possibility, in terms of confusional speech, is that they utter A and not-A plus B and not-B or utter nothing about A and nothing about B or utter nothing about A plus B and not-B or utter A and not-A plus nothing about B. Because there is confusion when they refer to both A and B, A is false (0) and so is B (0).

A

B

A=>B

AΛB

AVB

not-A

not-B

not-AVB

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Yet another possibility, in terms of confusional speech, is that they utter A and not-A plus not-B or they say nothing about A and utter not-B. In this case, there is confusion when they refer to A, so that A is false (0) plus not-A is false as well (0). Not-B was uttered, so that not-B is true (1) and B is false (0).

A

B

A=>B

AΛB

AVB

not-A

not-B

not-AVB

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

 Here you have the article with the solution: Sorites