Time Travel: Rejected Ideas and Philosophical Debate - Essay Sample

Introduction

The concept of second time around and transformative ideas were significantly rejected during the discussion because various scholars and philosophers argued against the notion of time travel. Most of the arguments stated that it was not only impossible to have time travel in reality, but also very unlikely. The idea of time travel is a philosophical and fictional idea that humans should adopt traveling through time and space using a time machine (Nahin, 2001). However, the theory is an illusion because these capabilities are not possible in regards to the new technological abilities. The primary reason that led to the rejection of this fiction is that past, and current only exists through the changes that were incurred during those time and today. Therefore, it is very likely to go back to the past time or have an earlier time today as postulated by the "second time around." Moreover, changing the past to current is also uneasy because they only exhibit theoretical existence and not physical.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

To better understands the reliability of time travel, one must prove whether the aspect is physically or logically possible. Godel (1949) stipulated that there was a mutual relationship between time travel and Albert Einstein's philosophy of general relativity. Indirectly, he was thus trying to prove that time travel is physically possible. Newton, on the other hand, views time and space as unique objects which are not influenced whatsoever with any physical object characteristic. According to him, it is, therefore, impossible for humans to travel to them since there fictitious, and no one can see them in a realistic view (Schneider, 2016). Although Einstein's view seemed promising to prove that there was a linkage between time, space, and objects, the discussion suggested such a look would lead to a series of contradictions. For example, people know that Caesar died in the year 44BCE from the concept of presentation 2.

However, when someone assumes to go back to the same year, Caesar would decide to use the military to kill the person who killed him first. This would raise a contradiction that he did not die in 44BCE. But the primary concern remains, where is he? This knowledge is therefore close to proving that even with the use of time machines, the second time around is not possible. Neither can the activities in the past be altered to realize new results, as illustrated by Caesar's death case.

Besides, the arguments against the time travel continue to increase upon the introduction of the grandfather paradox scenario as stipulated in the first lesson presentation. The boy has only realized that his grandfather was evil during his time and later on engaged in criminal and immoral activities. The boy is concerned and decides to utilize the idea of the time machine for the second time around, to help him in getting back to 1940 and kill his grandfather before doing the evil acts. Excitingly, the unlikelihood of the case is proved by the fact that as a boy, it is not even possible to kill your grandfather. First, when the grandfather was a boy, the boy was not in existence (Schneider, 2016). Two significant lessons and facts are derived from this illustration to help in further disqualification of the time travel idea. One, it not possible for a boy and a grandfather to exist at the same time, both as boys. Two that there is no likelihood of time travel reality, minus the aspect of its impossibility.

Paul Horwich further stated that time travel is not only impossible but also improbable. However, Horwich uses the Lewis solution cases to arrive at the same conclusion that was brought forth after learning of the grandfather paradox. In other words, the following observations and judgment can be derived from the grandfather paradox, Lewis, and Horwich's ideas.

The paradox indicates that in the current time, one may decide to influence the activity that occurred in the past, but under no circumstances can they be changed (Lewis, 1976). For example, the grandson cannot use the time machine as proposed by the time travel to get back the same past and even the granddad as a boy. Lesson 2 presentation also noted that Killing's granddad as a boy would mean, the whole bloodline is destroyed. Therefore, the current boy would not even exist. It is the same approach that both Lewis and Horwich used to explain their position on the debitive issue of time travel. Horwich stated that there were no possibilities of such occurrences to see one in the same position of past time. Also, Lewis added that the boy could only kill the grandfather to a specific line of the facts, but it is ideally impossible to kill him in all of the aspects of events (Lewis, 1976). The second time around is thus considered as an illusion, and not something which physically feasible to sustain.

Therefore, what exactly would stop or bar an individual from alternating the past? Lewis answered this by saying clearly the ordinary events in existence will prevent one from changing the past, without any influence of any object like a guardian angel, etc. (Lewis, 1976). Horwich reiterated that the idea of changing the past makes time travel much more improbable than it is impossible. Various scholars and philosophers also argue in general that the concept or illustration by Lewis engages an inexplicable ringfencing for the past events; this changing the past would be physically impossible but theoretically possible.

Finally, the third presentation also reviewed some of the drawbacks and challenges which might be caused if the idea of the time machine was real in existence. The first challenge noted is the creation of causal loops where the origin of things can not be traced by offering an illustration of a boy who struggles in his lifetime to gather the tools and parts needed to make a time machine. Upon completion, he is old but decides to take a machine back in around 1971, to enlighten people how time machine is made.

Ideally, people would ask where the knowledge came from. It from another older man who had died and time machine neither nor resurrect him. Meanwhile, the occurrence of causal loops is impossible. Because they are strictly related to the time machine, it renders time machine idea to be absurd too. Other than causal loops, there will be the challenge of creating and identifying identities. One as a baby can't symbolize the same being at 25 years. The 25 years being would be able to walk and speak, yet the baby won't. It, therefore, means that the two beings are not identical.

Lewis further solves the problem by supporting that the two beings cannot be identical. Lewis suggested that, although the two possess the same physical properties because they are from the same root, the person at 25 is independent even in the ring. So, it means that objects are usually divided into parts (Lewis, 1976). The fact that the two parts are from the same purpose does not mean that they are similar. In conclusion, an individual can not use a time machine to assume a past time or have a second time around. The activities that occurred in the past can also not be changed at all circumstances.

References

Lewis, D. (1976). The paradoxes of time travel. American Philosophical Quarterly, 13(2), 145-152.

Nahin, P. J. (2001). Time machines: Time travel in physics, metaphysics, and science fiction. Springer Science & Business Media.

Schneider, S. (Ed.). (2016). Science fiction and philosophy: from time travel to superintelligence. John Wiley & Sons.