I recently read an interesting article on Quora where the question was asked, “Is it possible that someone has already invented time travel, figured how dangerous it was and destroyed their time machine?" I thought it might be interesting to look at it from a DFT viewpoint and see the possibilities.
The consistency paradox in time travel, sometimes referred to as a "self-consistency paradox" or "causal loop," is a fascinating concept that explores the logical issues arising from time-travel scenarios. Stephen Hawking discussed it as part of his arguments against the feasibility of time travel. Chronology Protection Conjecture by Stephen Hawking, 1992
Here is a short overview of the paradox
Imagine a scenario where an object is sent back in time one minute at intervals of one minute, repeatedly arriving at the same point in space and time. Theoretically, with each cycle, a new instance of the object would appear in the same location, resulting in an infinite buildup of mass and energy at that point. This situation would cause an extreme concentration of matter and energy, likely leading to a breakdown of physical laws or even the creation of a black hole.
Key Elements of the Consistency Paradox
-
Causal Loops and Self-Consistency: A causal loop is created when events in the past influence the future in a way that brings about the very past events again. In the paradox, each instance of the object traveling back one minute becomes part of the sequence that continually reinforces itself, creating an infinite cycle of causation.
-
Infinite Regress of Matter/Energy: Every minute, a new object appears, so matter builds up infinitely at a single point in time and space. This accumulation would theoretically reach a critical mass that physical laws, as we understand them, cannot sustain. This builds on Hawking’s idea that physical laws impose limits on the possible.
-
Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture: Hawking proposed the “chronology protection conjecture,” which suggests that the laws of physics inherently prevent time travel from creating such paradoxes. He argued that physical mechanisms—perhaps quantum effects or gravitational collapse (like a black hole formation)—would prevent these causal loops or inconsistencies from happening in the first place.
Implications for Time Travel
The consistency paradox illustrates that time travel, at least in the manner described, would violate fundamental principles of causality and conservation of mass and energy. Any theory of time travel would need to address these paradoxes, potentially with limits that prevent self-consistent causal loops or by requiring that the universe “corrects” such contradictions to maintain consistency.
This paradox raises fascinating questions about whether time travel might still be possible under certain restricted conditions—such as only allowing information, rather than physical objects, to travel backward, or requiring alternate timelines that prevent self-referential causality from occurring.
The Question: How would a 2D entity (Flatlander) view the possibility of a 3D person moving in a 3D world? Would that be viewed in a similar way as a paradox?
A 2D entity would likely find the movement of a 3D person within a 3D world paradoxical or even incomprehensible. From a 2D perspective, dimensions beyond their own would appear inconsistent or contradictory because they fall outside their frame of reference.
To illustrate this:
1. Dimensional Limitation:
A 2D being exists in a plane with only length and width. It perceives the world as if it were a flat surface, without any concept of "up" or "down." If a 3D person interacted with this 2D world, the 2D entity would only see cross-sections of the 3D person, like slices. This would result in the 2D being observing fragments of the 3D entity appearing and disappearing inexplicably, as if by magic.
2. Movement as a Paradox:
For the 2D being, a 3D person who can move "up" or "down" would seem paradoxical. When the 3D person lifts their hand, it would simply vanish from the 2D being’s world; there would be no sense of continuity, just an object disappearing. Similarly, if the 3D person reached down from above the plane to touch something, their hand would seem to appear out of nowhere. To the 2D being, such phenomena could look like paradoxes: objects appearing without cause or disappearing without reason.
3. Shape Shifting and Partial Visibility:
A 3D person moving in 3D space would appear to change shape in unpredictable ways from the 2D perspective. For instance, if a 3D sphere passed through the 2D plane, it would appear first as a point, then as a widening circle, and finally as a point again before disappearing. This “shape-shifting” violates any rules of continuity or consistency the 2D entity understands.
4. Impossible Geometry:
Since 2D beings cannot perceive depth, any object extending in a 3D direction could look like an impossible shape, something that appears to break the rules of geometry as they know them. A cube, for instance, would appear only as a collection of overlapping lines or disconnected points, creating an unresolvable puzzle.
5. Conceptual Paradox:
The concept of a third dimension would itself be paradoxical for a 2D entity. They could no more imagine moving "up" out of their plane than we could intuitively grasp a fourth spatial dimension. Even if they saw evidence of it, they wouldn’t be able to incorporate it into a consistent worldview.
This thought experiment reveals how higher-dimensional entities would confound lower-dimensional observers, much as a 4D being would mystify us. In your exploration of higher-dimensional consciousness in the Dark Fall Theory, this could symbolize how limited perceptions may make higher-dimensional experiences seem paradoxical or supernatural, even if they adhere to a consistent set of rules at their own level.