You find yourself in the cretaceous

[untermensche]

In other words no point unless we accept miracles are possible.

We already have to accept the miracle intercontinental travel for them to die in South America regardless of chronological order.

It is not a miracle to move in space.

It is a miracle to move backwards in time and change the past.

 

[Jokodo]

In other words no point unless we accept miracles are possible.

We already have to accept the miracle intercontinental travel for them to die in South America regardless of chronological order.

It is not a miracle to move in space.

It is a miracle to move backwards in time and change the past.

How many more times will you repeat the lie that what we're talking about involves changing the past?

 

[DBT]

In other words no point unless we accept miracles are possible.

We already have to accept the miracle intercontinental travel for them to die in South America regardless of chronological order.

It is not a miracle to move in space.

It is a miracle to move backwards in time and change the past.

The event has already happened in the past before the time traveler leaves. The appearance of the time traveler was a part of the course of events during that period in time, their present. It was an event that happened in their present moment in time, which we call the past. The past was not changed.

You are confusing our past with their present.

 

[untermensche]

It is not a miracle to move in space.

It is a miracle to move backwards in time and change the past.

How many more times will you repeat the lie that what we're talking about involves changing the past?

If you go back to some time that has already occurred without you there, if you go back to 1850, then your presence there has changed 1850.

You can't go back to any time that has already occurred without changing it.

Stop saying you can.

 

[untermensche]

It is not a miracle to move in space.

It is a miracle to move backwards in time and change the past.

The event has already happened in the past before the time traveler leaves. The appearance of the time traveler was a part of the course of events during that period in time, their present. It was an event that happened in their present moment in time, which we call the past. The past was not changed.

You are confusing our past with their present.

That is not how reality works.

People cannot do anything until they exist.

A person can't be born in 2021 and have done things in 1774.

To travel back to a time before you were born means going to a time you have never been before.

If you go back to the age of dinosaurs it will be the first time you do that.

The age of dinosaurs has already happened without you.

Your presence there changes the past.

 

[bilby]

It is not a miracle to move in space.

It is a miracle to move backwards in time and change the past.

How many more times will you repeat the lie that what we're talking about involves changing the past?

If you go back to some time that has already occurred without you there, if you go back to 1850, then your presence there has changed 1850.

You can't go back to any time that has already occurred without changing it.

Stop saying you can.

Nobody is saying you can.

If you travel back in time to 1850, then you were there. There was never an 1850 without your arrival there in a time machine from whenever you set out. Nothing is changed by your arrival; You can't NOT arrive, because you always did and always will.

 

[bilby]

It is not a miracle to move in space.

It is a miracle to move backwards in time and change the past.

The event has already happened in the past before the time traveler leaves. The appearance of the time traveler was a part of the course of events during that period in time, their present. It was an event that happened in their present moment in time, which we call the past. The past was not changed.

You are confusing our past with their present.

That is not how reality works.

How the fuck do you know?

People cannot do anything until they exist.

A person can't be born in 2021 and have done things in 1774.

Unless they have time travel.

To travel back to a time before you were born means going to a time you have never been before.

Not necessarily. If the block time hypothesis is correct, it means going to a time you always went to.

If you go back to the age of dinosaurs it will be the first time you do that.

That's an incoherent statement in the context of time travel.

The age of dinosaurs has already happened without you.

Or with you.

Your presence there changes the past.

Or doesn't.

 

[skepticalbip]

If you go back to some time that has already occurred without you there, if you go back to 1850, then your presence there has changed 1850.

You can't go back to any time that has already occurred without changing it.

Stop saying you can.

Nobody is saying you can.

It is easier for him to continually assert and argue his strawman than for him to grasp that time is a dimension. Even though the realization that we live in a spacetime universe was made over a hundred years ago.

 

[DBT]

It is not a miracle to move in space.

It is a miracle to move backwards in time and change the past.

How many more times will you repeat the lie that what we're talking about involves changing the past?

If you go back to some time that has already occurred without you there, if you go back to 1850, then your presence there has changed 1850.

You can't go back to any time that has already occurred without changing it.

Stop saying you can.

If you travel to the past, the past has not happened without your presence in the past If you are there, it didn't happen without you. Nothing was changed, you simply arrived, you went about your business and you left, and at some time in the distant future when it becomes time for your departure, you take your trip to the past.

 

[untermensche]

That is not how reality works.

How the fuck do you know?

I am an adult. Not a child living in comic books.

You can't magically just be in some time before you were born.

The idea is nonsensical gibberish.

To get to a time before you were born would require going there.

You can't just magically be there.

And it would mean going to time that already passed without you.

So you going there would change it.

Not necessarily. If the block time hypothesis is correct, it means going to a time you always went to.

Going to see a dinosaur means going to a time that has passed already without you there. A time before you were born.

If it passed already without you there you could not have always been there.

If you go back to the age of dinosaurs it will be the first time you do that.

That's an incoherent statement in the context of time travel.

Translation: It shows your ideas to be nonsense and you can't deal with it.

You did not live in the time of dinosaurs.

Their time has come and gone without you.

If you somehow go back to the time of dinosaurs it will be the first time you go there.

You have never been there before.

If their time came and went without you once your miraculous presence would be a change to the past.

Impossible.

 

[untermensche]

If you go back to some time that has already occurred without you there, if you go back to 1850, then your presence there has changed 1850.

You can't go back to any time that has already occurred without changing it.

Stop saying you can.

Nobody is saying you can.

If you travel back in time to 1850, then you were there. There was never an 1850 without your arrival there in a time machine from whenever you set out. Nothing is changed by your arrival; You can't NOT arrive, because you always did and always will.

There already was an 1850 without me. I was not there.

So I cannot travel to it.

There was an entire past without you already.

You can't travel to it.

That would change it.

 

[Jokodo]

It is not a miracle to move in space.

It is a miracle to move backwards in time and change the past.

How many more times will you repeat the lie that what we're talking about involves changing the past?

If you go back to some time that has already occurred without you there, if you go back to 1850, then your presence there has changed 1850.

You can't go back to any time that has already occurred without changing it.

Stop saying you can.

You can if you give up the illusion of free will.

Stop with the magic thinking.

 

[untermensche]

If you go back to some time that has already occurred without you there, if you go back to 1850, then your presence there has changed 1850.

You can't go back to any time that has already occurred without changing it.

Stop saying you can.

You can if you give up the illusion of free will.

Stop with the magic thinking.

Nope.

1850 has already come and gone and you were not in it.

If you go to 1850 you will change what has already happened.

Impossible.

 

[Jokodo]

If you go back to some time that has already occurred without you there, if you go back to 1850, then your presence there has changed 1850.

You can't go back to any time that has already occurred without changing it.

Stop saying you can.

You can if you give up the illusion of free will.

Stop with the magic thinking.

Nope.

1850 has already come and gone and you were not in it.

Probably I wasn't in it. Maybe I was. You don't know. I don't know.

If you go to 1850 you will change what has already happened.

Not if the only version of 1850 is one in which I am.

Impossible.

So basically your argument boils down to "time travel is impossible because it would involve time travel".

It's possible that time travel is possible without changing the past, and free will is an illusion.

It's possible that time travel is impossible and free will is still an illusion.

You assume without argument, or without even making your assumptions explicit, that free will is real, and base the rest of your argument on that premise. If free will is real, time travel could involve changing the past. In a deterministic universe, it doesn't have to. What happens, happens, past, present, or future. If the past contains a time traveler from the future, then the future contains a person travelling back to the past -- and vice versa.

 

[untermensche]

Nope.

1850 has already come and gone and you were not in it.

Probably I wasn't in it. Maybe I was. You don't know. I don't know.

I was not there. I know that for a fact.

So I cannot go there.

Even if you lend me your time machine.

If you go to 1850 you will change what has already happened.

Not if the only version of 1850 is one in which I am.

There is the version that ran where every moment in it was called the present.

That version of 1850 ran without me in it.

So I can't go there no matter how fancy your time machine is.

So basically your argument boils down to "time travel is impossible because it would involve time travel".

It boils down to the fact that me going back to 1850 would change the 1850 that already happened.

So no matter how great your time machine is I can't go there.

 

[Jokodo]

I was not there. I know that for a fact.

No you don't. It's a plausible assumption, but not a known fact.

So I cannot go there.

Even if you lend me your time machine.

If you go to 1850 you will change what has already happened.

Not if the only version of 1850 is one in which I am.

There is the version that ran where every moment in it was called the present.

That version of 1850 ran without me in it.

You don't know that.

So I can't go there no matter how fancy your time machine is.

So basically your argument boils down to "time travel is impossible because it would involve time travel".

It boils down to the fact that me going back to 1850 would change the 1850 that already happened.

You don't know that.

So no matter how great your time machine is I can't go there.

If you weren't in it, then you're not going there - independent of whether doing so would violate any laws of physics.

Just like if noboby from Bhutan visited me, nobody from Bhutan came to visit me - independent of the physical and legal possibility of travelling from Bhutan to Austria.

 

[untermensche]

No you don't. It's a plausible assumption, but not a known fact.

I have never been to 1850.

I know this for a fact.

So according to you I can never go there.

Even with your time machine.

You don't know that.

I know beyond the shadow of any doubt I have never been to 1850.

So according to you I can never go there.

You don't know that.

I know beyond the shadow of any doubt I have never been to 1850.

So according to you I can never go there.

If you weren't in it, then you're not going there

What a laugh.

For me to go back to the days of the dinosaur would mean going to some time I was not in.

But you have a time machine.

I guess I can't go.

 

[Jokodo]

I have never been to 1850.

I know this for a fact.

How do you no there isn't an intersection between what's in two years time in your timeline and what most of us call 1850?

You don't. The only thing you know is that your past timeline hasn't crossed 1850.

 

[untermensche]

I have never been to 1850.

I know this for a fact.

How do you no there isn't an intersection between what's in two years time in your timeline and what most of us call 1850?

You don't. The only thing you know is that your past timeline hasn't crossed 1850.

You seem to think the 1850 that existed before I was born doesn't count as 1850 existing without me already.

 

[Jokodo]

I have never been to 1850.

I know this for a fact.

How do you no there isn't an intersection between what's in two years time in your timeline and what most of us call 1850?

You don't. The only thing you know is that your past timeline hasn't crossed 1850.

You seem to think the 1850 that existed before I was born doesn't count as 1850 existing without me already.

Not if it has you as a time traveller from the future in it, no. A 1850 with untermensche emerging from a time machine does not count as an 1850 without untermensche in it. That's not rocket science, a basic understanding of the English language should suffice.