[002]
Harmonex
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
There\'s really a simple way to describe how a stable time loop can occur. Seen from the outside, it isn\'t a paradox at all. This may have already been mentioned elsewhere. Imagine that you are traveling back in time to change something. That change occurs. Then time travel becomes available in the \
to:
There\\\'s really a simple way to describe how a stable time loop can occur. Seen from the outside, it isn\\\'t a paradox at all. This may have already been mentioned elsewhere. Imagine that you are traveling back in time to change something. That change occurs. Then time travel becomes available in the \\\"new\\\" future. Because events change, someone goes back in time to make \\\"different\\\" changes. This loops around, with each change being completely different from the first one until--an infinite amount of trials and errors later--the loop stabilizes.
For illustration, I give you the Collatz Conjecture:
*You start with a number.
*If the number is even, divide it by two.
*If the number is odd, multiply it by three and add one.
*The conjecture hypothesizes that all numbers will collapse to 1.
Say we start with 5. It\\\'s odd, so we multiply by three (15), then add one (16). Since that number is even, we divide by 2 (8). So the progression is as follows:
5
16
8
4
2
1
However, we can continue the cycle. 1 is odd, meaning we can multiply it by three (3), and add one (4). The progression is now:
1
4
2
1
4
2
1
...
We have an infinite loop that continues to feed itself. From within that loop, it looks like the loop created itself. However, from the outside, we can see how the loop was really formed. In time travel, the only history that could be observed from the future would be the final result. You would see a loop that created itself, regardless of what the reality might be.
Eventually, going back in time and making an event happen (regardless of intention) would create the events needed to make you go back in time and cause that event, assuming infinite iterations. The start isn\\\'t a paradox at all.
For illustration, I give you the Collatz Conjecture:
*You start with a number.
*If the number is even, divide it by two.
*If the number is odd, multiply it by three and add one.
*The conjecture hypothesizes that all numbers will collapse to 1.
Say we start with 5. It\\\'s odd, so we multiply by three (15), then add one (16). Since that number is even, we divide by 2 (8). So the progression is as follows:
5
16
8
4
2
1
However, we can continue the cycle. 1 is odd, meaning we can multiply it by three (3), and add one (4). The progression is now:
1
4
2
1
4
2
1
...
We have an infinite loop that continues to feed itself. From within that loop, it looks like the loop created itself. However, from the outside, we can see how the loop was really formed. In time travel, the only history that could be observed from the future would be the final result. You would see a loop that created itself, regardless of what the reality might be.
Eventually, going back in time and making an event happen (regardless of intention) would create the events needed to make you go back in time and cause that event, assuming infinite iterations. The start isn\\\'t a paradox at all.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
There\'s really a simple way to describe how a stable time loop can occur. Seen from the outside, it isn\'t a paradox at all. This may have already been mentioned elsewhere. Imagine that you are traveling back in time to change something. That change occurs. Then time travel becomes available in the \
to:
There\\\'s really a simple way to describe how a stable time loop can occur. Seen from the outside, it isn\\\'t a paradox at all. This may have already been mentioned elsewhere. Imagine that you are traveling back in time to change something. That change occurs. Then time travel becomes available in the \\\"new\\\" future. Because events change, someone goes back in time to make \\\"different\\\" changes. This loops around, with each change being completely different from the first one until--an infinite amount of trials and errors later--the loop stabilizes.
For illustration, I give you the Collatz Conjecture:
-You start with a number.
-If the number is even, divide it by two.
-If the number is odd, multiply it by three and add one.
-The conjecture hypothesizes that all numbers will collapse to 1.
Say we start with 5. It\\\'s odd, so we multiply by three (15), then add one (16). Since that number is even, we divide by 2 (8). So the progression is as follows:
5
16
8
4
2
1
However, we can continue the cycle. 1 is odd, meaning we can multiply it by three (3), and add one (4). The progression is now:
1
4
2
1
4
2
1
...
We have an infinite loop that continues to feed itself. From within that loop, it looks like the loop created itself. However, from the outside, we can see how the loop was really formed. In time travel, the only history that could be observed from the future would be the final result. You would see a loop that created itself, regardless of what the reality might be.
Eventually, going back in time and making an event happen (regardless of intention) would create the events needed to make you go back in time and cause that event, assuming infinite iterations. The start isn\\\'t a paradox at all.
For illustration, I give you the Collatz Conjecture:
-You start with a number.
-If the number is even, divide it by two.
-If the number is odd, multiply it by three and add one.
-The conjecture hypothesizes that all numbers will collapse to 1.
Say we start with 5. It\\\'s odd, so we multiply by three (15), then add one (16). Since that number is even, we divide by 2 (8). So the progression is as follows:
5
16
8
4
2
1
However, we can continue the cycle. 1 is odd, meaning we can multiply it by three (3), and add one (4). The progression is now:
1
4
2
1
4
2
1
...
We have an infinite loop that continues to feed itself. From within that loop, it looks like the loop created itself. However, from the outside, we can see how the loop was really formed. In time travel, the only history that could be observed from the future would be the final result. You would see a loop that created itself, regardless of what the reality might be.
Eventually, going back in time and making an event happen (regardless of intention) would create the events needed to make you go back in time and cause that event, assuming infinite iterations. The start isn\\\'t a paradox at all.
