CW writes:

> >c) Accepting "a)" and "b)" you assume "physical laws" making time travel 
> >possible (which is of course controversial;  this could be in principle 
> >possible with very special assumption, which could also be false in 
> >principle with other assumption).
> Time travel is as possible as teleportation of human beings.
> >If you do theoretical reasonings you have to make clear the assumptions 
> >which are making things "possible in principle". Up to here, I can follow 
> >you (I can imagine such fundamental assumptions).
> Of course, there are many details and assumptions to say PUA is possible.
> My point is that PUA is possible just like teleportation of human beings.
> I think they have similar possibility.

Not at all. There is a *huge* difference between what is possible in theory and 
what is possible practically. A person wearing down a mountain with his fingers 
is a practical impossibility, but there is nothing in the laws of physics 
making it a 
theoretical impossibility. A person flying to Alpha Centauri in 5 minutes is 
possible, but the laws of physics make it theoretically impossible. A person 
simultaneously taller than 180cm and shorter than 170cm is a logical 
These three examples for everyday purposes are equally unlikely to happen, but 
they are fundamentally different from a philosophical standpoint. In the case 
classical teleportation, there is nothing in the laws of physics making it 
impossible, and it is certainly not logically impossible. Time travel is much 
dubious: it may be a physical impossibility, and it may even be a logical 

Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to