Introducing Perception-Based Time Readjustment (PBTR): A New Approach to Temporal Manipulation

Time 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.

1. 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.

Edited April 30Apr 30 by Townsend

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

Alters perception, not physics

So it should not have been posted in physics. Moved to speculations.

Sounds like you want to overwrite memories, which is in no way time travel

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

So it should not have been posted in physics. Moved to speculations.

Sounds like you want to overwrite memories, which is in no way time travel

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?

Just now, Townsend said:

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?

Had you read the rules you signed up to you would already know why your thread was moved to speculations.

It was not dismissed at all.

By way of explanation this site distinguishes carefully between mainstream Science and Hypotheses or Speculations.

This is because it is also partly a teaching site and the owners do not want to put non tested hypotheses in with mainstream so ther should be no danger of the site disseminating inappropriate information.

In order to do this the site has a speculations section, where there are some additional rules to place the onus clearly on the promoter of the hypothesis to support their proposals.

I am telling you all this because it is a teasing suggestion and I look forward to you actually supporting it.

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

I believe the dismissal of PBTR as non-physics-based ignores a fundamental issue in conventional time travel models

Mainly I paid attention to your declaration that it’s not physics, and that it has to do with perception. (also the complete lack of physics in the post) It ended up in speculations because (from your own presentation) it is new, rather than being a discussion of some established science.

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

fundamental issue in conventional time travel models: the assumption that time exists as a physical entity that can be traversed.

I don’t think any mainstream physics says that time is a physical entity. Can you hold it in a container? (Jim Croce wanted to do that)

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I don’t think any mainstream physics says that time is a physical entity. Can you hold it in a container? (Jim Croce wanted to do that)

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.

3 hours ago, Townsend said:

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.

The thing is that before you can talk about time travel you heve to define/explain exactly what you mran by 'time travel'.

Consider railway trains.

A railway train has a front and a back and, set aside relativity for the moment, a definite length in space.

When referring to the train, space travel refers to the train as a whole, not to some individual carriage in the middle.

We do not mean take a carriage out of the middle and replace it somewhere else on the track, leaving the rest of the train travelling along the track with a gap in the middle.

So why should time travel refer to an object (living or not) in this way ?

Why should time travel not refer to the entire duration of the object in time not just a chunk taken out of the middle somewhere ?

3 hours ago, Townsend said:

stored somewhere like a recording.

No it is not a recording, anymore than the light and dark sides of a planet are a recording as the terminator (back in your box Arnie) passes over .

Cut and paste recording, like Microsoft Publisher or Distiller page setting programs is an interesting idea though that needs discounting or acceptance.

Edited May 1May 1 by studiot

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

The thing is that before you can talk about time travel you heve to define/explain exactly what you mran by 'time travel'.

Consider railway trains.

A railway train has a front and a back and, set aside relativity for the moment, a definite length in space.

When referring to the train, space travel refers to the train as a whole, not to some individual carriage in the middle.

We do not mean take a carriage out of the middle and replace it somewhere else on the track, leaving the rest of the train travelling along the track with a gap in the middle.

So why should time travel refer to an object (living or not) in this way ?

Why should time travel not refer to the entire duration of the object in time not just a chunk taken out of the middle somewhere ?

No it is not a recording, anymore than the light and dark sides of a planet are a recording as the terminator (back in your box Arnie) passes over .

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, 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.

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

No it is not a recording, anymore than the light and dark sides of a planet are a recording as the terminator (back in your box Arnie) passes over .

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.

Edited May 1May 1 by Townsend

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

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, 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.

There's a reason why a paradox is impossible, you haven't 'really' thought it through properly... 😉

Firstly be aware that new members are allowed 5 posts only i9n their first 24 hours, for security reasons. So use your last post wisely,

I don't think you are supporting your proposal very well as you are just reiterating what you have already said, although you are misusing some words which have a special meaning in Science in particular 'the fact that..' ; event ;

8 hours ago, swansont said:

I don’t think any mainstream physics says that time is a physical entity. Can you hold it in a container? (Jim Croce wanted to do that)

Just now, Townsend said:

Time if physical could be viewed as the same.

I can't tell from this if you are agreeing or disagreeing with swansont but the onus is on you to support it.

There are too many claims without support in your text and in particular it is not a fact that I

Just now, Townsend said:

to the fact that you believe time travel should not be viewed as individualistic

as I did not say that, quite the reverse actually.

SF stands for Science Forums not Science Fiction.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

There's a reason why a paradox is impossible, you haven't 'really' thought it through properly... 😉

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”.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Firstly be aware that new members are allowed 5 posts only i9n their first 24 hours, for security reasons. So use your last post wisely,

I don't think you are supporting your proposal very well as you are just reiterating what you have already said, although you are misusing some words which have a special meaning in Science in particular 'the fact that..' ; event ;

I can't tell from this if you are agreeing or disagreeing with swansont but the onus is on you to support it.

There are too many claims without support in your text and in particular it is not a fact that I

as I did not say that, quite the reverse actually.

SF stands for Science Forums not Science Fiction.

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.

20 hours ago, Townsend said:

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.

If people's memories change, then retro-causality is involved. The physical brain is altered, and different courses of action may be taken on the basis of different perceptions and different physical state of neural networks. You still have paradox because you can't sweep physical changes under the rug of memory. Even if we were Boltzmann Brains or "Brains in a Vat" there would still be a physical change when memory is altered.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

"Brains in a Vat"

I am curious, is this why you are called "TheVat?"

15 hours ago, Townsend said:

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,

I don’t know which talks you’re referring to; there are a limited number if scenarios where time travel (returning to an earlier time) would be hypothetically possible

15 hours ago, Townsend said:

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,

We traverse time just sitting around. It’s noon. One minute later, it’s 12:01

15 hours ago, Townsend said:

leaving the main point out that needs addressing, is time a physical phenomena that can be interacted with?,

“Physical phenomenon” and “physical entity” carry different implications.

We can measure time. We can affect time in some ways, because time is relative to the environment you’re in (specifically your motion and gravitational potential)

15 hours ago, Townsend said:

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.

Physics does not require this to be the case.

Can you store length somewhere? Length is a physical phenomenon that subject to certain physical laws, similar to time. Many of the same arguments one applies to time must apply to length.

 

21 hours ago, Townsend said:

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.

The burden of proof is yours. You must established that time is “stored” and then where, if that’s part of your conjecture. Mainstream physics doesn’t have to establish things that are not part of it

Just now, Townsend said:

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.

There is no need to apologise, no one knows everything the main thing is that we learn when when encounter something we did not know before.

The word event is specialised in spacetime theory as meaning a point in spacetime with specific coordinates (x,y,z,t) or (x, y, z ct)

However nice as such a system is it actually contains redundant inappropriate information.

Eddington explored this and also the consequences of multiple time axes.

Both of these have consequences for any notion of time travel.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by individualistic ?

Take a 1 metre ruler.

It hast a beginning at 0 metres and an end at 1metre.

In just the same way I am suggesting that I have a start point when I first arrive and a finish point when I die, in the time domain, allbeit that these points are a bit fuzzy.

What I am suggesting is that just as you can't move the 0.5 metre point of the ruler to another location and still have a ruler,

You can't move me aged 50 to another time and still have me.

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

If people's memories change, then retro-causality is involved. The physical brain is altered, and different courses of action may be taken on the basis of different perceptions and different physical state of neural networks. You still have paradox because you can't sweep physical changes under the rug of memory. Even if we were Boltzmann Brains or "Brains in a Vat" there would still be a physical change when memory is altered.

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.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

1)We traverse time just sitting around. It’s noon. One minute later, it’s 12:01

2)Can you store length somewhere? Length is a physical phenomenon that subject to certain physical laws, similar to time. Many of the same arguments one applies to time must apply to length.

 3)The burden of proof is yours. You must established that time is “stored” and then where, if that’s part of your conjecture. Mainstream physics doesn’t have to establish things that are not part of it

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.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

There is no need to apologise, no one knows everything the main thing is that we learn when when encounter something we did not know before.

The word event is specialised in spacetime theory as meaning a point in spacetime with specific coordinates (x,y,z,t) or (x, y, z ct)

However nice as such a system is it actually contains redundant inappropriate information.

Eddington explored this and also the consequences of multiple time axes.

Both of these have consequences for any notion of time travel.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by individualistic ?

Take a 1 metre ruler.

It hast a beginning at 0 metres and an end at 1metre.

In just the same way I am suggesting that I have a start point when I first arrive and a finish point when I die, in the time domain, allbeit that these points are a bit fuzzy.

What I am suggesting is that just as you can't move the 0.5 metre point of the ruler to another location and still have a ruler,

You can't move me aged 50 to another time and still have me.

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.

36 minutes ago, Townsend said:

Because PBTR does not alter physical events only the perception of how those events are remembered,

Again, how is a perception not a physical event? You seem to be implying some supernatural phenomenon with metaphysical dualism.

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Again, how is a perception not a physical event? You seem to be implying some supernatural phenomenon with metaphysical dualism.

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.

To save time, why don't you tell me why you think a persons perception of something constitutes a physical event?

Edited May 1May 1 by Townsend

15 minutes ago, Townsend said:

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.

Aren't we part of physical reality? How can my brain show changes as it perceives something (electrochemical, synaptic, measurable interactions with sensory organs, changes in blood flow to certain brain areas), and it's "not itself a physical event." You are offering an unsupported metaphysical postulate, which is that some ethereal or supernatural thing is happening when we think or perceive. This would seem to be an example of Gilbert Ryle's category error. Ryle is an important read, if you are looking at any theory that makes claims about human minds. (he coined the term, "ghost in the machine")

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Aren't we part of physical reality? How can my brain show changes as it perceives something (electrochemical, synaptic, measurable interactions with sensory organs, changes in blood flow to certain brain areas), and it's "not itself a physical event." You are offering an unsupported metaphysical postulate, which is that some ethereal or supernatural thing is happening when we think or perceive. This would seem to be an example of Gilbert Ryle's category error. Ryle is an important read, if you are looking at any theory that makes claims about human minds. (he coined the term, "ghost in the machine")

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.

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

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.

You’re arguing semantics

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

2) Length is a fixed measurement it does not change once established. (unless an external factor is at play)

Untrue, according to relativity

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

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.

You’re not making the proper comparison. Noon is a point, and length is not. The proper correspondence would be a single point in space, which, if you were moving, you would not experience that point again unless you changed direction. Which you can do trivially in coordinate space, but not in time.

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

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.

Um, you originally posted this in physics, and complained when the topic was moved out of physics. To reverse course once again does not suggest good faith discussion.

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

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.

As above, good faith discussion means you need to present a consistent position. So be it. No physics, all perception. MiB memory erasure, it would seem.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

You’re arguing semantics

Untrue, according to relativity

You’re not making the proper comparison. Noon is a point, and length is not. The proper correspondence would be a single point in space, which, if you were moving, you would not experience that point again unless you changed direction. Which you can do trivially in coordinate space, but not in time.

Um, you originally posted this in physics, and complained when the topic was moved out of physics. To reverse course once again does not suggest good faith discussion.

As above, good faith discussion means you need to present a consistent position. So be it. No physics, all perception. MiB memory erasure, it would seem.

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 but exists as an alternative 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.

Edited May 1May 1 by Townsend

Just now, Townsend said:

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.

Unfortunately you don't seem to understand what I am saying. You would not expect time and space to be exactly the same or there would be no point distinguishing between them.

But

They do share some common properties in our universe at least.

One such property is that of continuity.

Your model breaks that continuity, which is what I was trying to demonstrate with my train analogy. Most folks perfer and understand the train analogy more readily than taking cross sections. Perhaps your background would lead you to prefer that.

Again

Just now, Townsend said:

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.

Actually something like this already happens in reality. (what constitutes reality is a good subject for another discussion ).

I mentioned the Terminator and tried to add a joke (mantion of Arnie was a joke but I can't get the joke emojis to work).

It is the correct technical term for the dividing line between day and night which allegedly moves or seeps acroos the land (or around the globe).
But of course actually the Terminator stays put and it is the the globe which revolves under it.

Which brings me to another o0f your ideas.

Have you heard of the block universe ?

Because back along you only seem to accept that the present 'exists' (another word which needs clarification) so consider past, present and future and how they work.

There are several possibilities.

In the block universe they all coexist and time does not flow.

Alternatively the present is some sort of terminator as a line between past and future and in your last post you seem to think that the past somehow disappears once the present has passed over it, just as the day dissapears when the terminator brings the night.

Which brings us back to 'reality' . Night and day are abstract nouns but they and their difference have a dramatic effect on the material world.

However as the terminator changes day into night it does not mean that New York dissapears, it is still there.

Another common property of space and time is the behaviour of wavefronts.
If you just write numbers along the space axis or the time axis the wave and wavefront appears indistinguishable (and continuous).

Your description of a future which is not set is similar to a wavefront spreading out, but again from the source to the front is still there although the front has passed that region.

So you need to consider all possibilities and choose one, giving your reasons for the choice.

Then again you have not responded to my comment about the special meaning of the word event and coordinate systems which also has implications.

As a final question can something which does not exist affect reality ?

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

Unfortunately you don't seem to understand what I am saying. You would not expect time and space to be exactly the same or there would be no point distinguishing between them.

But

They do share some common properties in our universe at least.

One such property is that of continuity.

Your model breaks that continuity, which is what I was trying to demonstrate with my train analogy. Most folks perfer and understand the train analogy more readily than taking cross sections. Perhaps your background would lead you to prefer that.

Again

Actually something like this already happens in reality. (what constitutes reality is a good subject for another discussion ).

I mentioned the Terminator and tried to add a joke (mantion of Arnie was a joke but I can't get the joke emojis to work).

It is the correct technical term for the dividing line between day and night which allegedly moves or seeps acroos the land (or around the globe).
But of course actually the Terminator stays put and it is the the globe which revolves under it.

Which brings me to another o0f your ideas.

Have you heard of the block universe ?

Because back along you only seem to accept that the present 'exists' (another word which needs clarification) so consider past, present and future and how they work.

There are several possibilities.

In the block universe they all coexist and time does not flow.

Alternatively the present is some sort of terminator as a line between past and future and in your last post you seem to think that the past somehow disappears once the present has passed over it, just as the day dissapears when the terminator brings the night.

Which brings us back to 'reality' . Night and day are abstract nouns but they and their difference have a dramatic effect on the material world.

However as the terminator changes day into night it does not mean that New York dissapears, it is still there.

Another common property of space and time is the behaviour of wavefronts.
If you just write numbers along the space axis or the time axis the wave and wavefront appears indistinguishable (and continuous).

Your description of a future which is not set is similar to a wavefront spreading out, but again from the source to the front is still there although the front has passed that region.

So you need to consider all possibilities and choose one, giving your reasons for the choice.

Then again you have not responded to my comment about the special meaning of the word event and coordinate systems which also has implications.

As a final question can something which does not exist affect reality ?

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.

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

Then again you have not responded to my comment about the special meaning of the word event and coordinate systems which also has implications.

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.

Edited May 1May 1 by Townsend

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

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.

From my perspective - physics - it’s semantics. It’s your job to explain why this distinction is imporrtant.

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

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.

Posting in physics implies you wish to discuss physics. It’s clear you do not. There’s no reason to continue along these lines.