3 ms·
No, the second argument was "there exists a reference frame such that the paradox is resolved" not " this is the only situation in which the paradox is resolved
by jvanderbot 4y ago
No, the second argument was "there exists a reference frame such that the paradox is resolved" not " this is the only situation in which the paradox is resolved. "
She just wanted a counter example to the claim "faster than light travel produces a paradox no matter what" by showing " well, not in _this_ case" so there might be other cases. Or even all cases, who knows.
- cyberax 4y agoThank you, agreed. However, the existence of the privileged frame by itself won't allow the paradoxes to be resolved. It would also require some kind of a "time police" as well, some kind of a process that would force the event ordering to be causally consistent. I'm trying to visualize this, and it would look like a cone that would block any FTL messages in the direction of the receiver. As the time passes, the cone will get slimmer, until it disappears once the causality catches up.
- jvanderbot 4y ago> It would also require some kind of a "time police" as well, some kind of a process that would force the event ordering to be causally consistent. If I understood the video correctly, there does not exist a time police at all, let alone one that forces things to be out of order (i.e., causality loop), vs in order or visa-versa. If it's ambiguous, then it's not fair to assume that it would cause a paradox any more than it's fair to assume it wouldn't -- and the argument goes that is not evidence for a paradox at all. Again, hammering down on the argument that "here is a just-as-plausible situation in which there would be no paradox -- however specific it might be, therefore we cannot assume there is a paradox necessarily".