You find yourself in the cretaceous

[DBT]

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.

In order to remember being back in 1850 you first need to take the trip. You can't remember something before it happens to you. Your trip to the past happens in your future, until then you have no awareness or memory of being in the past, yet, if you do travel, you are in the past but have no memory of it.

 

[untermensche]

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.

1850 started and ended. 1851 started. Many more years started and completed.

Then I was born.

I cannot go to something that is complete and over without changing it.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

1850 started and ended. 1851 started. Many more years started and completed.

And for all we know, before it was over an untermensche 5 or 15 or 50 years older than you are now emerged from a time machine, so you going there, in your future, is not just possible without changing the past but necessary for the past not to change.

 

[untermensche]

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

In order to remember being back in 1850 you first need to take the trip. You can't remember something before it happens to you. Your trip to the past happens in your future, until then you have no awareness or memory of being in the past, yet, if you do travel, you are in the past but have no memory of it.

It is physically impossible to take a trip before you are born. Even if time travel were possible you would have to be born first before you could do it.

1850 finished before I was born. It was complete before I was born. It's complete existence had occurred already before I was born.

1850 had come and gone without me already before I was born.

I could only travel to 1850 as an intruder from the present.

I can't have always been there.

And to go there would be to change 1850 since I was born after 1850.

 

[untermensche]

1850 started and ended. 1851 started. Many more years started and completed.

And for all we know, before it was over an untermensche 5 or 15 or 50 years older than you are now emerged from a time machine, so you going there, in your future, is not just possible without changing the past but necessary for the past not to change.

1850 occurred first then me. 1850 was over and done, complete, before I was even born.

Me going there at any time would change it.

 

[Jokodo]

1850 started and ended. 1851 started. Many more years started and completed.

And for all we know, before it was over an untermensche 5 or 15 or 50 years older than you are now emerged from a time machine, so you going there, in your future, is not just possible without changing the past but necessary for the past not to change.

1850 occurred first then me. 1850 was over and done, complete, before I was even born.

That's why it would require time travel for you to have been part of 1850. So we're back to "time travel is impossible because it would entail time travel".

Me going there at any time would change it.

Not in a deterministic block universe in which no version of 1850 without you emerging from a time machine ever existed.

 

[Jokodo]

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

In order to remember being back in 1850 you first need to take the trip. You can't remember something before it happens to you. Your trip to the past happens in your future, until then you have no awareness or memory of being in the past, yet, if you do travel, you are in the past but have no memory of it.

It is physically impossible to take a trip before you are born. Even if time travel were possible you would have to be born first before you could do it.

In your timeline, yes. In the timeline of people born in 1820, a guy from the future emerges from a time machine when they are 30.

1850 finished before I was born. It was complete before I was born. It's complete existence had occurred already before I was born.

And it may have contained you looping back from the present before you were born. Only in a non-deterministic model is there a contradiction.

1850 had come and gone without me already before I was born.

I could only travel to 1850 as an intruder from the present.

I can't have always been there.

That doesn't follow from the above.

And to go there would be to change 1850 since I was born after 1850.

Non sequitur.

 

[bilby]

I am an adult.

That is very evidently NOT a means to understanding or knowledge.

Not a child living in comic books.

And that is both bleeding bloody obvious, and a non-sequitur.

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

No, obviously you need some technological method to get there. Just as I am not magically on a continent half way around the world from my birthplace. I used a flying machine to get here.

The idea is nonsensical gibberish.

Not in any way you appear able to demonstrate.

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

Yes. Some kind of 'time machine' would seem requisite.

You can't just magically be there.

No shit, lieutenant obvious.

But you're going to need to work harder if you want to make captain.

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

No, it wouldn't. It could; Or it could mean going to time that already passed with you; Or something else again - depending on what the hell you actually mean by the word "passed".

Your lack of imagination isn't a reflection of, nor a path to knowledge about, reality.

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.

Hey, Déjà vu!

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.

Unless you were there, due to some kind of time travel.

A time before you were born.

Yes.

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

And if it passed already with you there, you could not have never been there.

See, this isn't that difficult to grasp.

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.

It's déjà vu all over again.

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.

Your translation skills are even more woeful than your ability to grasp logic.

You did not live in the time of dinosaurs.

Not yet.

Their time has come and gone without you.

How do you know this? By having survived for eighteen (or in some jurisdictions twenty one) years? By successfully avoiding being resident in a comic book while below that age? Shit, even religion is a less dumb attempt to achieve knowledge than these techniques of yours.

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

First in whose frame of reference?

You have never been there before.

Before what? And in whose frame of reference??

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

Yes. And if it didn't, it wouldn't.

Impossible.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[bilby]

Time travel is impossible because it would entail time travel, which is impossible.

 

[untermensche]

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

No, obviously you need some technological method to get there. Just as I am not magically on a continent half way around the world from my birthplace. I used a flying machine to get here.

Even if I believe your silly magic a person must be born first, then they can start time traveling.

Being born gives you a specific beginning in time.

All the time that occurred before you were born did not contain you. If you go into it you have changed it.

Their time has come and gone without you.

How do you know this?

The dinosaurs don't exist anymore.

Their time has come and gone.

And it happened before you even existed.

You could not have been a part of that time.

You claim you could possibly go back to that time that completed without you in the past and change it.

That is impossible.

 

[bilby]

Even if I believe your silly magic a person must be born first, then they can start time traveling.

Being born gives you a specific beginning in time.

All the time that occurred before you were born did not contain you. If you go into it you have changed it.

Their time has come and gone without you.

How do you know this?

The dinosaurs don't exist anymore.

Their time has come and gone.

And it happened before you even existed.

You could not have been a part of that time.

You claim you could possibly go back to that time that completed without you in the past and change it.

That is impossible.

...because it would entail time travel...



Oh, and your statement "You claim you could possibly go back to that time that completed without you in the past and change it" is both very definitely false, and a searing indictment of your ability to comprehend other people's positions.

I claim, very specifically, and repeatedly, that it is not proven to be impossible to go back to a time in the past, but that if we accept the "block time" hypothesis, doing so would NOT change anything.

Try to understand this. It's the centrepiece of the block time hypothesis. Time travel, if it occurs, DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.

If you have read my posts in this thread, and STILL you believe that I am discussing the possibility of changing the past when talking about block time, then your inability to read for comprehension is such that you are incapable of useful contribution to any online discussion.

What you say I am claiming, is absolutely and definitively the opposite of what I am claiming.

So either you haven't understood a word I have written; Or you are deliberately ascribing to me a position I do not hold for some kind of dramatic effect. If it's the former, you need to write less and think more. If it's the latter, then you should just GTFO.

 

[untermensche]

Time travel is impossible because it would entail time travel, which is impossible.

Impossible because an observer has a specific beginning in time.

And time is directional.

Even if an observer can break the directional movement of time it is still directional.

The miracle of a human breaking through the directional movement of time is a silly absurd thought but it would not change time itself. It would just be a magic exception.

The dinosaurs completed their forward movement in time without any humans there. Before humans evolved.

To put a human there would be a different forward movement through time.

A change to the past.

Impossible.

 

[untermensche]

Even if I believe your silly magic a person must be born first, then they can start time traveling.

Being born gives you a specific beginning in time.

All the time that occurred before you were born did not contain you. If you go into it you have changed it.





The dinosaurs don't exist anymore.

Their time has come and gone.

And it happened before you even existed.

You could not have been a part of that time.

You claim you could possibly go back to that time that completed without you in the past and change it.

That is impossible.

...because it would entail time travel...

View attachment 33176

What is circular is the nonsense that if a person is born in 1980 they can go to 1850 and not change it.

Because they always existed there or some other miraculous nonsense.

Except of course the first time 1850 ran and they were not there because they were not even born yet.

You have no rational explanations for your miracles and take the liars way out.

 

[bilby]

Even if I believe your silly magic a person must be born first, then they can start time traveling.

Being born gives you a specific beginning in time.

All the time that occurred before you were born did not contain you. If you go into it you have changed it.





The dinosaurs don't exist anymore.

Their time has come and gone.

And it happened before you even existed.

You could not have been a part of that time.

You claim you could possibly go back to that time that completed without you in the past and change it.

That is impossible.

...because it would entail time travel...

View attachment 33176

What is circular is the nonsense that if a person is born in 1980 they can go to 1850 and not change it.

Because they always existed there or some other miraculous nonsense.

Except of course the first time 1850 ran and they were not there because they were not even born yet.

You have no rational explanations for your miracles and take the liars way out.

You presumably missed my edit-to-add, so here it is again:

Oh, and your statement "You claim you could possibly go back to that time that completed without you in the past and change it" is both very definitely false, and a searing indictment of your ability to comprehend other people's positions.

I claim, very specifically, and repeatedly, that it is not proven to be impossible to go back to a time in the past, but that if we accept the "block time" hypothesis, doing so would NOT change anything.

Try to understand this. It's the centrepiece of the block time hypothesis. Time travel, if it occurs, DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.

If you have read my posts in this thread, and STILL you believe that I am discussing the possibility of changing the past when talking about block time, then your inability to read for comprehension is such that you are incapable of useful contribution to any online discussion.

What you say I am claiming, is absolutely and definitively the opposite of what I am claiming.

So either you haven't understood a word I have written; Or you are deliberately ascribing to me a position I do not hold for some kind of dramatic effect. If it's the former, you need to write less and think more. If it's the latter, then you should just GTFO.

[removed]

 

[Jokodo]

Even if I believe your silly magic a person must be born first, then they can start time traveling.

Being born gives you a specific beginning in time.

All the time that occurred before you were born did not contain you. If you go into it you have changed it.





The dinosaurs don't exist anymore.

Their time has come and gone.

And it happened before you even existed.

You could not have been a part of that time.

You claim you could possibly go back to that time that completed without you in the past and change it.

That is impossible.

...because it would entail time travel...

View attachment 33176

What is circular is the nonsense that if a person is born in 1980 they can go to 1850 and not change it.

That may be false. But what the hell is circular about it?

Because they always existed there or some other miraculous nonsense.

Except of course the first time 1850 ran and they were not there because they were not even born yet.

If they were there as a time traveller from the distant future, then obviously they weren't born yet (in everyone else's timeline; in their own timeline, they were born already). That only entails they weren't there if you're already independently convinced time travel is impossible. So we're back to "time travel is impossible because it would entail time travel."

 

[untermensche]

Oh, and your statement "You claim you could possibly go back to that time that completed without you in the past and change it" is both very definitely false, and a searing indictment of your ability to comprehend other people's positions.

It is the only way going back in time could work.

It would always mean going back to some time that first completed without you.

I claim, very specifically, and repeatedly, that it is not proven to be impossible to go back to a time in the past, but that if we accept the "block time" hypothesis, doing so would NOT change anything.

The block time hypothesis says that nothing can change, including the past.

It does not say time travel is possible.

It does not say I can go back to 1933 and kill Hitler and change the past.

But of course you do believe it may be possible for somebody in the future to go back to 1933 and kill Hitler and change the past.

Try to understand this. It's the centrepiece of the block time hypothesis. Time travel, if it occurs, DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.

I understand you believe this but it is rubbish you can't support.

Going back to 1933 and killing Hitler would change the past.

And you think it may be possible.

 

[untermensche]

What is circular is the nonsense that if a person is born in 1980 they can go to 1850 and not change it.

That may be false. But what the hell is circular about it?

It is most definitely false.

Because they always existed there or some other miraculous nonsense.

Except of course the first time 1850 ran and they were not there because they were not even born yet.

If they were there as a time traveller from the distant future, then obviously they weren't born yet (in everyone else's timeline; in their own timeline, they were born already). That only entails they weren't there if you're already independently convinced time travel is impossible. So we're back to "time travel is impossible because it would entail time travel."

They can't have just been there as travelers. They would have to move from their present to there.

In their present 1850 is completed. It completed long ago.

They can go to a completed 1850 from the past and change it into something else but they can't go to a completed 1850 and not change it.

 

[Jokodo]

It is the only way going back in time could work.

It would always mean going back to some time that first completed without you.



The block time hypothesis says that nothing can change, including the past.

It does not say time travel is possible.

It doesn't say it's impossible either.

It does not say I can go back to 1933 and kill Hitler and change the past.

It says our past can not be changed, and neither the future. It does not say whether the past (more precisely: our past) contains entities with a crooked timeline, on which our future precedes our past.

But of course you do believe it may be possible for somebody in the future to go back to 1933 and kill Hitler and change the past.

My 10 year old would fail his reading class if this were how he summarized bilby's post, and rightly so!

Try to understand this. It's the centrepiece of the block time hypothesis. Time travel, if it occurs, DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.

I understand you believe this but it is rubbish you can't support.

Going back to 1933 and killing Hitler would change the past.

Yes, it would. But going back to 1933 and killing a Hitler lookalike who died under mysterious circumstances would not. Since Hitler did live, no time traveler successfully traveled/travels/will travel to 1933 and kill him. We cannot from that conclude that time travel is impossible, anymore than we can conclude that intercontinental travel is impossible from the fact that I didn't have a visitor from Bhutan yesterday.

 

[untermensche]

[removed]

 

[bilby]

[removed]