Face it, bros, it's never ever going to happen. It's either impossible or humans die before discovering it, but think for a minute:
No matter how closely guarded the secret, the technique would EVENTUALLY get out and/or mishap/accident would lead to some idiot getting control of the technology... Because, after it's invented, one could literally travel to our time or before from any point in the future, if it could happen, we would have time travelers appearing left and right from infinitely far in the future... prove me wrong
it's possible that a system will be invented that allows travel forward in time only
or a system that allows travelling backwards only to the point at which the machine was first activated like in the movie Primer
>>28179854
I'm traveling through time right now.
i agree what it's very unlikely, but the mere fact that we haven't had visitors from the future does not prove the concept is impossible
maybe they invent it and make it illegal to go back beyond a certain point, or maybe they do come back all the time and change little things and their technology is so advanced we just can't detect them
>>28179854
this doesn't really make much sense, though. if we're talking about an einstein-rosen bridge, then there's no reason why you can't go anywhere
It's probably for the best tbqh so I don't mind. Somebody could travel back in time and alter things in the smallest, most innocuous way and it could completely change the course of history.
I wonder what would actually happen if a paradox was created.
Although, AI could be a dangerous invention too and I'd be a bit disappointed if that didn't take off. Not sure why it wouldn't though.
Even if we can't create an artificial conciousness, can't we perfectly simulate one in such a way that it acts identically to one?
>>28179952
>it's possible that a system will be invented that allows travel forward in time only
Yeah, it's called traveling 99.9999999% of c.
>>28179952
>>28179992
or what if they invent the concept but the cost of travelling is so high that they can't afford to go back more than a few days
there are tonnes of arguments OP
This makes some pretty wild assumptions about the way the time-space continuum works.
>>28179854
Forward time travel is possible and will be a thing within the next 100 years. Backwards time travel is likely impossible
On a related note, what does /r9k/ think of pic related? i thought it was an interesting film
>>28180013
>Although, AI could be a dangerous invention too and I'd be a bit disappointed if that didn't take off. Not sure why it wouldn't though. Even if we can't create an artificial conciousness, can't we perfectly simulate one in such a way that it acts identically to one?
Honestly, why do people have this hard-on for AI? Why does it matter? How will strong-AI's creation benefit your life or anyone else's? What can it possibly give you that you couldn't otherwise acquire yourself?
>>28180086
pretty much this. why would anyone want to create a $40 billion dollar droid with true consciousness when you can just pay some impoverished poo-in-loo to do the job for $5 a week
>>28179854
scientists believe that time travel into the future is possible but not backwards.
so your theory isn't very effective.
>>28180086
The idea is that it will eventually lead to the creation of artificial beings with godlike intelligence, which is equal parts exciting and terrifying.
Basically the theory is that it's possible for a human to design an AI which could design a better AI, which will design an exponentially better AI, which will design an exponentially better AI, and so on until things get out of hand. This explains it better than I can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
>>28179854
>Time Travel will never be invented
Yes it has. It's called /r9k/.
I came here in 2007 and now it's suddenly 2016. I just traveled 9 years and have no memory of it.
>>28180172
>The idea is that it will eventually lead to the creation of artificial beings with godlike intelligence, which is equal parts exciting and terrifying.
That's basically what I thought. It's a bunch of atheists wanting a god, not realizing what that may entail if it goes wrong. They're naive optimists.
>Basically the theory is that it's possible for a human to design an AI which could design a better AI, which will design an exponentially better AI, which will design an exponentially better AI, and so on until things get out of hand. This explains it better than I can:
I already know the theory. The thing is that we really don't know what consciousness is and on top of that, there are limits. Exponentials don't go on forever.
>>28180172
Counterpoint I've heard is that there's a physical limit to how good the processors can get and so there's only a certain level of fast and smart computers can go to.
>>28180247
It's called Moore's law... it basically states that processors get twice as fast and half as cheap every two years, and people have been saying it was going to stop for years now... and it essentially finally has. This next generation of 14nm intel processors are basically as fast as silicon based processors can get, and unless we can discover a different way of manufacturing them, computers aren't gonna get much faster. pretty depressing stuff
Time travel could create an alternative dimension.
Any divergences wouldn't matter someone else traveling to that time with technology could land at the starting point of where the time in that dimension could mean that time line wasn't really predetermined like say he teleported in today right now at this instance when an aligator was chomping down on a bird and eats it, another time traveler teleports into the timeline the first traveler isnt there alligator eats bird, third time traveler teleports in, first and second are not there alligator snaps down at bird in jaws but it makes it out and flies away.
Or the geography/environment hazards could be different they time travel and land in a rock or something.
>>28180314
i'm not familiar with the details of string theory, but im fairly certain (unless some educated anon wants to come in and educate me), multiverse theory has little to no scientific basis
>>28179854
>time travel is invented
>not going back in time and sharing it with everyone in the past because muh paradoxes
Pussies.
>>28180247
You are literally a biological computer. Until we have a computation device that emulates a human being (in which ever way shape or form) that itself is evidence that computer science and engineering has not reached its ceiling.
In the late 80s, there was a time travelers convention held. The date and location was highly publicized. But, nobody showed up.
Ergo: time travel is impossible.
Checkmate, atheists.
>>28180349
The multiverse theory is predicated on the idea that for each possible quantum possibility, a different universe is created. It's just one interpretation in quantum physics.
Penrose and Hameroff have their own theory which wouldn't require that.
>>28180379
Depends on if the universe is realist or idealist(or something entirely different). There are valid theories that state the universe derives from consciousness instead of the other way around. We ultimately don't know how the brain works and especially consciousness. It's still "The Hard Problem".
>>28180247
Except even a very basic intelligence that can learn non-specific information and correlate it would become smarter than any human within a very short time span. Who knows what types of technology it would give birth to. Imagine being able to study all of physics as we know it faster than it takes a human to read one book about a specific topic. What could it do with that information? It's impossible for us to comprehend.
>>28180349
I don't know shit about string theory.
I'm just suggesting multi-universe that are effected by the butterfly effect is a possibility.
also time travelers would still probably age it would physically take time to go between things no matter how sciencey time travel shit is probably. they could die of dehydration or starvation long before old age or ever getting there.
>>28180394
>be me
>from the future
>some smug, skeptical jackasses think that I should be obligated to prove to them that time travel is real by going out of my way and traveling back in time to some lame party where I'd probably be captured, imprisoned and analyzed
>implying I don't have better things to do, places I would rather see
>implying I don't already have my itinerary planned out and this wouldn't completely throw it off
And muh paradoxes and temporal prime directive, of course
>>28179854
>implying it hasn't already been invented
>implying presidents are not groomed by time travellers since their youth to become president
>>28180563
Wouldn't they be doing a better job?
>>28180540
I wasn't implying anyone was obligated to expose time travel, I was implying that people are inherently stupid, and eventually someone would fuck up or some jackass would steal a machine and the secret would be lose for all past humans living from the date the fuckup took them to and onward. Because, given the (theoretical) nature of backwards time travel, there is literally an infinite amount of time after the creation of the technology in which someone can fuck up and travel to the front lawn of the 1997 white house.
>>28180574
They're doing exactly the job they're supposed to do.
>>28180608
a job that scales from shitty to merely mediocre? i realize few leaders are appreciated in the present, but we havent had a truly good president in decades...
>>28179854
>humanity finds a way to upload your mind to a computer and live in simulated heaven
>travel back in time and snatch every human before death
>,it. Changes nothing
>every human ever goes to heaven
>>28179985
>tfw stuck in the past
>>28180013
Travel back in time and kill yourself to find out
>>28180936
>4chin in 300 years
>>28180086
>>28180120
Beacause you aren't understanding what ai entails.
AI is a machine that can learn and improve itself. At first it will be slow, but it's exponential growth. If we can control something that learns how to solve problems quickly, at an exponential rate, we could figure out a lot of shit.
Stop watching so much sci-fi shit. Real ai is not a robot that acts like a human.
>>28181006
Meme archeology.
>>28180574
The fact that people can go back in time to affect future events gives them some control but it's not sound. There's simply not that many time travelers, it's not foolproof, the time travelers go insane. lots of complications. but they can have a basic idea of who is elligible for running along one timeline
>>28181111
>Real ai is not a robot that acts like a human
Yes it is. Just look at all those NSA Big Bertha supercomputers. You're telling me those things couldn't perfectly mimic human conversation, pitch, etc?little newflashfor ya: they can
![qn16907a[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/NRwTTz5.jpg "qn16907a[1].jpg")
>>28181111
Nice quads. But I really don't know if we as a species are wise enough to create something so powerful without a high chance of royally screwing ourselves.
>>28181165
Just because they can do it, does not mean that's what they're meant for. Please do some research on Ai and its purpose.
>>28181167
Exactly. Honestly, all we would need to do is create something basic that can learn and improve itself. After a while, it'd be out of hand.
>>28181165
Take it from someone who studies the industry: they can't. Making AIs is very, very hard, we don't even have the mathematics developed to create a functioning, human-level general intelligence. We could make a speech algorithm that could maybe generate a good human voice, but that's different from having a complete general intelligence.
You'll need vaccinations or some protection to time travel. There could be Super airbone AIDS in the future. If you go back in time there's going to be tons of
>>28180120
You don't create a 40 billion dollar thinking machine to do what humans can already do. You build it to do things men are incapable of, solve problems that seem impossible to us. Robotic slaves will never be cheap enough to replace our real slaves in any job that requires thought anyway.
>>28179854
What if they make a time machine that can only travel back as far as the first invented/built time machine?
>>28181390
what is at all significant about the day the device was invented? what is preventing you from going back further? that is illogical
>>28181879
The idea is that you can only go back in time to the point where the machine is created, or first turned on because there is nothing before that moment to maintain a wormhole or gateway(of some sort) into the past.
The second we turn such a machine on, we could be swarmed with visitors from the future.
