The Grandfather Paradox – Resolved? – Minute Physics
June 23, 2016 in Science | Tags: Grandfather Paradox, Minute Physics, Science | by The Arbourist
Oh, it was that easy? :)
Progressive Bloggers
Your opinions…
 | tildeb on Bill Maher – I Think He… |
| tildeb on The Absolute State of the CBC… |
 | SM on The Absolute State of the CBC… |
| tildeb on The Absolute State of the CBC… |
| SM on Can We NOT put Males in Female… |
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
- Toronto police chief says he accepts verdict in Zameer trial as fallout continues over comments
- Trudeau dismisses plea from doctors to reconsider capital gains tax change
- Why rights groups say so many Palestinians in the West Bank are being attacked with impunity
- Women's sports are having a moment, but sexism is still holding back success
- Bluey's surprise new episode was based on this dad's chaotic family camping trip
- U.S. authorities recover 2 bodies amid search for B.C. kayakers
- Tesla's Q1 net income down 55% year over year
- UN rights chief calls for independent investigation as more bodies recovered from Gaza mass graves
- Filipino family gets 2nd chance at a life in Canada after paying $24K to unregistered immigration consultant
- Redevelopment plans in question after historic Edmonton air hangar gutted by fire
Blogs I Follow
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
8 comments
June 23, 2016 at 6:55 am
Steve Ruis
Thanks, hadn’t thought of that. Love that guy!
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Dead Wild Roses wrote:
> The Arbourist posted: “Oh, it was that easy? :) > https://youtu.be/XayNKY944lY” >
LikeLike
June 23, 2016 at 7:56 am
john zande
Ha! Brain. Blown.
LikeLike
June 23, 2016 at 9:54 am
Mystro
I see no real difference between the first solution of the “copy” timeline and the second solution of the “parallel” timeline. They both invoke a second, near identical timeline to dodge the paradox. The second answer just throws in some super neato superposition stuff to try and distract you from the fact that it is the same boring resolution as the first.
That is, assuming there is some (not-mentioned in the vid) method of going past the time loop so that both the parallel time lines can play out. If such is the case, the two scenarios are exactly the same.
However, if there is no such method (and I see no reason for there to be), then all of time would be looped back over and over, going through those two parallel realities indefinitely. It would be impossible for time to move forward, effectively removing any kind of future past the loop. This, in my mind, would be the paradox destroying the universe, rather than the paradox being resolved.
LikeLike
June 23, 2016 at 10:33 am
The Arbourist
@mystrox
Quantum indeterminacy should not be dismissed so casually as it fundamental to our understanding how our universe works. If closed time loops were a thing, then the logical solution via quantum indeterminacy would hold.
Currently, as stated in the vid, closed time loops are not probable events.
Moot point, unless foregrounding philosophical argumentation happens to be the goal.
LikeLike
June 23, 2016 at 11:23 am
Mystro
@The Arbourist
“Quantum indeterminacy should not be dismissed so casually as it fundamental to our understanding how our universe works.”
I didn’t dismiss the importance of quantum indeterminacy. I dismissed it as way to differentiate between the two resolutions to the grandfather paradox. Best case scenario, it is merely an extra detail to the original resolution, and it still only dodges the paradox. And according to the vid, that’s just boring. Worst case scenario, time itself gets stuck and the future is destroyed.
Mystro: “It would be impossible for time to move forward,”
Arb: “Moot point”
The universe – all of existence as we know it – is comprised of / housed in spacetime. Literally everything depends on it. As such, I have a tough time with any argument that relies on it’s termination being moot. I think not ending time is a pretty good goal.
“If closed time loops were a thing…closed time loops are not probable events.”
Sure doesn’t look like a resolved paradox to me. Simultaneous yet mutually exclusive events that stop the universe (by extension – reality) from working is kind of a defining feature of a paradox. .
LikeLike
June 23, 2016 at 12:42 pm
The Arbourist
@Mystro
Going back in time – necessary requirement that closed loops exist – our evidence to date showing that closed loops do not/cannot exist, thus time travel doesn’t exist (in this sense) – thus moot.
Is it worth discussing the resolution a paradoxical situation that, to the limits of our knowledge, can’t empirically exist? As stated earlier, other than scoring philosophical points, it seems rather moot to me.
LikeLike
June 23, 2016 at 1:31 pm
Mystro
@The Arbourist
“Is it worth discussing the resolution a paradoxical situation that, to the limits of our knowledge, can’t empirically exist?”
You posted the vid, not me. Unless this posting was masochistic in nature, it indicates that it holds at least some interest to you.
Or perhaps it was a trap all along. Post something you think is not worth talking about to start a conversation, then when someone takes the bait, call them out for talking about it at all. Very devious.
For me, it’s just fun to think about. I’m agreeing with the vid that one type of resolution is less than satisfying. However, the one presented either does no better or fails to resolve the paradox at all.
LikeLike
June 23, 2016 at 2:56 pm
The Arbourist
@mystrox
I most certainly did. And the main point of the vid is that our thinking sometimes creates the paradox, or a certain class of paradox, and that’s the conclusion of the vid.
Some days I like going down the rabbit hole, other days not so much.
The idea the quantum indeterminacy, or that both states can exist together allows for a different take on the situation and puts forth a possible solution to the problem. I think the solution has merit.
So if doesn’t do it for you or your standards – *shrugs* it would seem arguing further would fall into the category of things that I cannot change and thus not very productive use of our time.
LikeLike