Townsend

yes I know you are a moderator, does that change how I have to reply to you, No, you do not have any special right to be spoken to differently, infact, you should hold yourself to a higher standard than others when replying to other people, you are representing this forum, the fact that you mocked an idea just because you do not think it has merit, MIB reference, you then accuse me of pulling a bait and switch without any evidence except to use it as a justification to reply, then on top of that you accuse me of trolling, again without any evidence, this is not the role of a moderator, a moderator is impartial and is to enforce rules based on factual evidence. you have none but your own opinion. And yes just because you are a moderator doesn't mean I cannot defend myself. But all this is a moot point. People come here to share ideas and converse on those ideas, whether it validates or invalidates is not the primary concern, the sharing of that idea and the discourse around it, is more important, you Mr Moderator have made a mockery of that, so whatever you need to do, thats fine, lock the thread, delete it, whatever, I shall not be frequenting these forums again.

I have to keep referring to stored versions because the conversation keeps going on about time travel and classic physics models, neither of which PBTR relies on, I have already said this numerous times, I am not the one that replies with time travel, I answer because you have taken the time to reply. You're forcing PBTR into a classical stored timeline model that it does not rely on. The assumption that history must be physically archived somewhere is unfounded—there is no empirical evidence that past moments persist as retrievable states. I have only stated this in the context of physical time travel. PBTR does not need a stored version of the past because it operates within cognitive mechanisms, not physics. If history is shaped by collective recall, then modifying perception is modifying history, without requiring an external storage system. Your reference to The Matrix is a mischaracterization—PBTR does not assume a fabricated simulation, nor does it rely on artificial control of memory. It functions through well-documented cognitive principles like memory reconsolidation, schema theory, and collective reinterpretation. And yes, perception can be deceived—but that reinforces PBTR, not disproves it. If perception shapes historical continuity, then controlling perception is functionally equivalent to altering history. Whether scientists strive for objectivity is irrelevant—PBTR is not claiming objectivity, it is demonstrating that reality is defined by how events are collectively remembered. there was no bait and switch at all, that is what you want to believe to justify your response, I posted it in physics because I mentioned time travel, time travel is physics yes? So I believed it belonged in Physics thats it, no other reason. It turned out to be the wrong section because the premise wasn't just time travel.. I did not know at the time there was a speculation section. So how can you say for certain without knowing what i was thinking that i was doing what you accuse. As for trolling, I could say the same for you, you keep replying, so aren't you doing the same thing you are accusing me of. If you want to exit the conversation that is fine, if you believe I am trolling that is fine, you are allowed to have your opinion, but that is what it is, your own opinion, Thank you for the replies.

From my perspective - the person who started the conversation You joined - it's your job to explain why you think the distinction is not important to keep the flow of the conversation going. Again, as I have already said, I posted it in physics because the mention of time travel, I will not go over the same thing, you can read the reply I gave you last time for the answer.

PBTR does not violate continuity—it redefines it. If historical reality is shaped by collective perception rather than stored past states, then modifying perception alters history without needing traditional time travel. The block universe assumes past, present, and future coexist, but PBTR challenges this by showing that historical shifts occur through reinterpretation, not traversal. As for your final question. does something need to exist physically to affect reality. my answer would be no, Ideas, beliefs, and memory influence the world without requiring physical presence. PBTR works within this principle, showing that perception dictates history rather than assuming past moments are physically stored locations. you did not frame this in a way that need a response, you framed it as something you were telling me, not asking me to respond. So i do not know why you have included this. I appreciate the engagement with this topic from everyone so far, but I want to clarify something—not as a criticism, but as an important distinction. Throughout this discussion, PBTR has been consistently framed within traditional physics-based models, like continuity, coordinate systems, and the block universe. Mainly due to the fact that the discussion veered of from the original point of PBTR. While these frameworks are valuable in understanding classical time theories, PBTR operates on a fundamentally different premise, it is not attempting to fit within existing physical models of time travel, but rather exploring how historical perception shapes reality as an alternative. If we continually assess PBTR through physics-based assumptions, we might overlook the core idea—that perception, not physical traversal, dictates historical continuity. The challenge here is not whether PBTR can align with current physics but whether it presents an alternative mechanism for how the past is understood and integrated into reality. I’d love to hear your thoughts on PBTR itself, rather than how it fits within established paradigms. Do you see a scenario where perception alone could shift historical understanding, independent of spacetime continuity? If you cannot do that, then that's fine, the discussion will end here.

This isn’t just a semantic distinction, it’s a crucial conceptual difference. Experiencing the passage of time is passive; you exist as it unfolds. Traversing time, however, implies a stored timeline that can be actively navigated. Conflating the two assumes past moments exist as retrievable locations, which has never been proven. This distinction matters because PBTR functions entirely within perception—reshaping historical understanding without relying on stored physical time. Calling it semantics ignores the deeper implications of how we define and interact with time itself I posted this in physics, because of the mention of an alternative to time travel, was it the wrong place in the end, yes, as was pointed out, I have made no mention about it since its move to speculation at all after that, so I do not know where you have come up with that I have reversed course again, unless i have missed something. I have held a constant position throughout, the only reason time travel was bought into the discussion was because another poster asked me to define time travel. my position has always been that PBTR does not involve or rely on time travel and you can scour my posts to see for yourself. As for the MIB reference, good faith discussion remember, why poke fun at someone's idea just because you think it has no merit.

You’re conflating neural activity with perception itself. While perception is enabled by biological mechanisms, it is an interpretation of reality, not an external physical event. If perception were directly physical, then simply imagining a frog should produce a real, tangible frog in the external world—but perception is a cognitive process, not a direct material interaction. PBTR works within that cognitive science, modifying how memories are formed and understood—it does not assume any supernatural force or dualism, only that perception shapes historical continuity without requiring direct physical manipulation of past events.

Perception is the interpretation of reality, it is how we process and understand events, but it is not itself a physical event. If perception were a physical event, it would have tangible effects on the external world, but instead, it operates internally within cognition. PBTR functions within this distinction—modifying perception alters how reality is remembered and understood, but it does not require physical manipulation of past events themselves.

I appreciate the reply and hello welcome to the conversation Because PBTR does not alter physical events only the perception of how those events are remembered, Universal Memory remains intact, while Conscious Memory adjusts to reflect a new collective understanding. If the majority accepts this new perception as truth, it becomes the dominant historical reality. Since no material changes occur, only experiential shifts, retro-causality does not apply. Additionally, natural memory distortions already happen in daily life, where people recall events differently and make decisions based on their personal recollection. These shifts do not produce paradoxes, meaning the same principle applies to PBTR only at a broader scale. 1) I do not know it you miswrote or you confused this reply with something else, but we don’t traverse time from noon to 12:01 we experience its passage. Traversing time (to me at least) would imply active engagement, while experiencing the noon to 12:01 time change simply means existing as time progresses passively. These are (again, to me at least) two separate concepts one rooted in spacetime physics, the other in perception and cognition. 2) Length is a fixed measurement it does not change once established. (unless an external factor is at play) If you measure the length of a table today and measure it again tomorrow, you will get the same result. Time, is dynamic it progresses continuously and cannot be remeasured in the same way. You cannot go back and remeasure ‘12:00 PM’ once it has passed, because that exact moment no longer exists. 3) "there are a limited number if scenarios where time travel (returning to an earlier time) would be hypothetically possible" this was your statement, so the scenarios where it is hypothetically possible has the burden of proof, they must show how they would interact with time to travel from one point in it to another. My theory has nothing to do with physical time travel. We seem to have crossed streams and got confused somewhere and now we are just debating time travel, Just to clarify, because the conversation has branched off, I do not believe physical time travel is plausible. The variables are too complex, and beyond the physical limitations, there are ethical and moral dilemmas that make it impractical. At no point did I say that PBTR relied on time travel to work. I was asked to define time travel before talking about it, and in doing so, I said that for time travel to be a reality, it must be ascertained if time is a physical entity that can be interacted with,(this is my opinion) for it to be traversed, the discussion seems to have strayed from there. I appreciate your understanding. thank you. I understand your ruler analogy, if you remove part of a ruler, you no longer have a complete ruler. But comparing that to moving a person through time isn’t valid because the ruler is static, it already exists in full form. You, however, are not fully formed in the timeline. You do not have a definitive endpoint yet because the future is not set. Even if you were moved, you would still exist, because your position in time is part of an ongoing process, not a fixed coordinate like a ruler's measurement. As for Individualistic, it may just be a difference in how we speak, or use words, I mean it in the sense of an individual act, singular act, that type of thing. As in do you see time travel as only the person moving through time, or the entire universe and all within it being rewound to that point at which the traveller travels back to. Just to clear any confusion, I will present the thought experiment I devised that led me to think of PBTR in the first place. The experiment involves the entire population, bar one person, an impartial observer, who after the experiment ends agrees never to speak of the experiment or divulge any of what happened during the experiment. So everyone is told they are going to go to sleep for 3 hours, after which they are to be woken up and asked to confirm that 3 hours has passed by checking the clock next to them, they then are told they are free to continue on with their life. 1 hour into the experiment as everyone is sleeping, all devices capable of displaying the time are forwarded a further 2 hours, to make the 3 hour total - 1 hour sleep, 2 hours added. Everyone is woken up and asked to confirm the time, they all confirm 3 hours has passed and off they go continuing with their life. Now everyone in the world believes that the time shown on devices is the correct and original time. Only the observer knows that this is not true. So this raises the question, Is Time Real, or is it just a perception of how we see reality? this led me to think of what else could be changed based on our perception of it, which obviously led me to history.

this response is frustratingly vague—it doesn’t provide any specific reason as to why you have that view, therefore I cannot respond to you in a way that would be appropriate, you are basically just being dismissive of an idea. If you believe paradoxes are impossible, you should at least explain why instead of saying you haven’t “thought it through properly”. My use or misuse of certain terms is right to be called out, I did say in my opening post that I am not formally trained in these scientific areas beyond that of high school, and that was 30+ years ago now. I do have a keen interest in science, theoretical ideas and the use of thought experiments though, but that does not excuse my misuse, so please allow me to apologize. Secondly, Yes I am agreeing with Swansont, no theory claims to view time as a physical entity, that is the point I am making, If time is not physical, then no matter how good the theory is, there can be no destination point to travel to. Thirdly, as you have now stated, you do think that time travel is Individualistic, would you further explain as to why you have that view, because we seem to disagree on that point, and it is always good to have different viewpoints. As you have pointed out, this is my last reply for today, so any replies will have to be responded to tomorrow.

Lets go with the standard definition of time travel that everyone understands and so that everybody reading is on the same page, "the ability to move freely through time" A function of this ability would be to be able to change events that happened throughout history. Therefore creating a situation that these changed events,, to create a new future. ( now the problem I see with this type of time travel is that it would not be viable to physically change something without creating a new timeline and effectively ending the original timeline at the point of time travel) this is what I assume most people think of when they hear time travel. As for the train, I assume you a referring to the fact that you believe time travel should not be viewed as individualistic but taken as a whole, everything, not just that object is the time traveller, and this is true, I agree, to view it as any other way, would not be a logical conclusion, if one was to time travel to the past to change history, then everything must go back with them to that exact point to be able to be changed. Including everything that led up to that point. This is a very wide lens view of it, that most people when they hear time travel, do not think about, so again we should stick to the standard acceptance of the function of time travel for anybody reading along. PBTR Theory does not include the physical aspect of this, you do not travel physically to a point, you adjust the memory of how that event occurred and the outcome of it, ie people's perception of that event has changed, they now believe that it has changed, leading to how they live their lives from now on based on the information that they now believe. It is using the same function of the physical time travel, change an event in the past to create a new future, but instead of physically changing it, you have changed it based on the way people perceived it. I make the implication that if one was to time travel, then one would have to be able to interact with time, the theories like the ones mentioned previously say, that if we do this, or use this mechanism, then voila time travel is theoretically possible, but these theories do not establish the fact of time being a physical entity within the universe. What I am saying, is that in order to address this issue, they first must ascertain if time is physical, and if true, then that must mean that it is stored somewhere, like a record of information, think of a song or a movie (terminator if you wish, you seem to like that one), it is a simplistic view I know, but it is applicable to a certain degree, the song you are listening to, or the movie you are watching is a physical record of that information, and you can freely rewind, fast forward, pause any moment within that recorded information. Time if physical could be viewed as the same. Thus allowing it to be interactable.

the time travel theories that are talked about in todays science talks about using things like wormholes, infinite rods span at near or at lightspeed to influence gravity to bend spacetime, and revolving black holes, these theories even if it is not implicitly stated are all predicated on the assumption that time can be traversed by doing so within these theoretical models, leaving the main point out that needs addressing, is time a physical phenomena that can be interacted with?, the only way that it would be interactable, is if it is stored somewhere like a recording. A type of information that can be accessed and modified to achieve a point to point traversal.

I appreciate the response, though I believe the dismissal of PBTR as non-physics-based ignores a fundamental issue in conventional time travel models: the assumption that time exists as a physical entity that can be traversed. Before rejecting PBTR outright, one must first establish where time is stored in the universe—if past moments do not physically persist in spacetime, then traditional models relying on traversal inherently lack a destination. PBTR does not interact with spacetime because it challenges the notion that spacetime itself holds a retrievable past. Instead, it operates within the only tangible mechanism through which humans experience time: perception and collective memory. Dismissing perception as irrelevant to time manipulation assumes that history exists independently of observation, yet quantum mechanics and cognitive science suggest that observed reality is shaped by interpretation. If time travel is defined solely as physical movement rather than experiential revision, then it fails to address the core function of time as experienced by conscious beings. PBTR does not rewrite memories arbitrarily—it reconfigures experiential continuity through consensus-driven reinforcement, ensuring logical historical adaptation rather than physical displacement. If physics allows speculative models such as wormholes and infinite-length rods, why should PBTR—a thought experiment operating within actual human cognition—be dismissed as mere speculation rather than evaluated as a theoretical alternative to spacetime traversal?

Introducing Perception-Based Time Readjustment (PBTR): A New Approach to Temporal ManipulationTime travel has long been the subject of scientific inquiry, philosophical debate, and speculative fiction. Yet, despite its theoretical depth, conventional time travel models remain plagued by causality paradoxes, ethical dilemmas, and spacetime traversal limitations. What if history could be reshaped without violating causality? What if reality was dictated not by absolute chronology, but by perception-driven truth formation? What if we could modify collective memory, ensuring historical continuity without spacetime intervention? This is the foundation of Perception-Based Time Readjustment (PBTR)—a paradigm-shifting model that challenges traditional assumptions about time. PBTR does not rely on physical traversal or spacetime distortion; instead, it operates within Conscious Memory, ensuring history is modified at the perceptual level, free from paradoxes and ethical concerns. This theory explores PBTR as the first paradox-free temporal manipulation framework, ensuring that reality remains logically coherent, ethically sustainable, and cognitively aligned. Experts across philosophy, cognitive science, theoretical physics, and neuroscience are invited to critically examine its structural integrity, interdisciplinary implications, and potential applications. PBTR challenges the very nature of how time is experienced, remembered, and defined. If perception dictates reality, does time itself exist beyond memory? I find the workings of the brain to be fascinating, and whilst I am not formally trained in the areas presented in my Theory, I do find it a compelling theory that could make you challenge the way you think, so here it is, I invite any and all to read and think. Perception-Based Time Readjustment (PBTR): A Paradigm Shift in Temporal Manipulation Perception-Based Time Readjustment (PBTR) is a theoretical framework for non-physical temporal manipulation, distinct from conventional time travel models. PBTR asserts that reality is shaped by collective perception rather than absolute chronology, meaning historical events can be modified without physical spacetime traversal, instead shifting within Conscious Memory while Universal Memory remains intact. Unlike traditional time travel theories—where causality paradoxes, universal resets, and ethical dilemmas arise—PBTR offers a paradox-free method of adjusting history, ensuring seamless experiential continuity while preserving structural integrity. This paper presents a fully refined model of PBTR, addressing its mechanics, implications, and interdisciplinary applications, including cognitive science, philosophy, and theoretical physics. Introduction 1.1 The Problem with Traditional Time Travel Models Conventional time travel theories propose physical traversal through spacetime, often relying on constructs such as wormholes, black holes, and quantum entanglement. These models introduce severe conceptual challenges, including: Causality disruptions → The Grandfather Paradox and recursive timeline collapses. Universal resets → Every act of time travel rewinds reality, erasing societal progress. Ethical dilemmas → Do time travelers have the right to rewrite history for all beings? This paper introduces Perception-Based Time Readjustment (PBTR) as an alternative, removing these risks by ensuring reality is modified only through experiential perception shifts, avoiding the need for physical intervention. 1.2 Core Thesis of PBTR PBTR proposes that truth is reinforced through collective consensus—if a majority of individuals accept an altered historical perception, then that version of history becomes functionally real within Conscious Memory. PBTR separates history into two layers: Universal Memory → Objective, immutable record of events that exists beyond perception. Conscious Memory → Flexible experiential layer shaped by collective awareness, capable of revision. Rather than physically altering the past, PBTR reshapes societal perception, ensuring that revised historical narratives feel seamless and logically continuous without disrupting Universal Memory. 2. Theoretical Framework 2.1 Mechanism of PBTR: Reality Through Consensus PBTR is governed by perceptual reinforcement rather than direct historical modification. This ensures: Historical events are not erased, but reinterpreted, allowing adaptive realignment. The 51% threshold principle ensures altered memory becomes the dominant historical reality. Memory synchronization prevents contradictions or cognitive dissonance, allowing real-time perception correction. 2.2 Resolving the Physical Contradiction Problem Since history is traditionally tied to physical evidence (buildings, records, artifacts), PBTR ensures that existing structures are naturally integrated into revised perception rather than requiring environmental modification. Individuals subconsciously reinterpret these elements, allowing logical continuity without infrastructure adjustments. 2.3 Eliminating Temporal Paradoxes PBTR inherently prevents paradox formation by avoiding direct spacetime interaction. Key paradox resolutions include: Grandfather Paradox Elimination → History is restructured experientially, not causally, ensuring time loops cannot form. Recursive Timeline Prevention → Perception correction ensures no self-sustaining reality disruptions. Historical Continuity Safeguards → Memory reinforcement ensures revised history remains stable rather than fragmenting. 3. Methodology of PBTR Application 3.1 Threshold Mechanics PBTR operates on a critical mass of altered perception—once a majority (51%) accepts the revised timeline, it is seamlessly integrated into Conscious Memory, ensuring consensus-driven reality stabilization. 3.2 Cognitive Integration Process PBTR employs adaptive perception correction, ensuring that individuals naturally absorb altered truths into their reasoning structures. This process prevents recognition of prior reality, eliminating cognitive dissonance and historical inconsistency. 3.3 Self-Sustaining Reality Formation Once PBTR is applied, no further intervention is required—memory synchronization naturally maintains historical continuity, preventing fragmentation or external disruption. 4. Ethical Considerations & Safeguards 4.1 PBTR vs. Traditional Time Travel Models Conventional Time Travel - Requires spacetime traversal Risks universal resets Introduces paradoxes Ethical concerns (consent) PBTR - Alters perception, not physics Ensures continuity without disruption Prevents paradoxes by eliminating causality shifts Avoids forced resets, ensuring free will PBTR presents a fundamentally ethical alternative to time travel, ensuring free will remains intact, reality remains self-reinforcing, and historical progression continues without intervention. 4.2 Avoiding Ideological Manipulation Risks One potential concern with PBTR is whether perception shifts could be exploited for mass ideological control. Safeguards include: Transparency in memory realignment mechanisms to prevent misuse for propaganda-based historical revisionism. Limited application scope, ensuring PBTR serves only as a corrective tool, rather than an unrestricted historical rewriting mechanism. 5. Implications for Theoretical Physics & Cognitive Science 5.1 Does PBTR Redefine the Nature of Time? PBTR raises foundational questions about the nature of time itself, including: Is time an independent physical entity, or merely a cognitive construct shaped by experience? If perception dictates reality, does PBTR challenge the assumption that history exists beyond memory? 5.2 Intersection with Neuroscience & Memory Reconstruction PBTR aligns with existing cognitive models, including: Memory reconsolidation theory → How altered memories naturally integrate into human reasoning structures. Social truth reinforcement → How collective agreement dictates historical validity and experiential continuity. 5.3 Potential Link to Quantum Observer Theory Some theoretical physicists propose that reality is shaped by observation (quantum wave function collapse). PBTR may align with these principles, reinforcing the idea that perception itself dictates the formation of time-referenced truth. 6. Conclusion & Expert Review Directions PBTR presents a revolutionary theoretical model, ensuring paradox-free, ethical, and cognitively sustainable time manipulation through perception-based reality adjustments. Unlike conventional spacetime traversal theories, PBTR ensures: Reality remains stable, avoiding causality disruptions. Historical shifts feel seamless, ensuring logical continuity. Time manipulation occurs without ethical violations, preserving free will. Key Question for Expert Evaluation Does PBTR represent a new paradigm in time manipulation, warranting interdisciplinary investigation across philosophy, theoretical physics, and cognitive science? Future Directions for PBTR Refinement Further exploration of cognitive reinforcement mechanisms ensuring flawless perception correction. Ethical discussions surrounding responsible application and societal safeguards. Potential crossover with AI-driven memory structuring and neural network perception models. Final Thoughts PBTR presents the most logically refined model of temporal manipulation, ensuring a self-sustaining, ethical, and paradox-free framework that redefines history through perception rather than spacetime traversal. As experts explore its implications, PBTR may fundamentally challenge existing assumptions about time, memory, and reality formation.