You find yourself in the cretaceous

[untermensche]

They didn't just die. They were killed by a person who wasn't born until long after the lookalike actually died of cancer in 1956.

What the fuck? I specifically said a lookalike who died in an unsolved mystery death in 1933, but because he was a nobody history books don't talk about him.

That was his second death.

You are getting an inkling of the problem.

His first death was from cancer in 1956. Then later some guy came from the future and killed him in 1933.

He didn't die of cancer in 1956. He died in 1933

Time travel.

It's miraculous.

How did the dinosaur live and die without any human presence then suddenly in some way have some human visit them?

They didn't. Either they had a human visit them, in which case they never lived and died without any human presence, or they didn't.

It is a fact that all the dinosaurs lived and died before humans existed.

None experienced humans during that time.

To go into the past is to go to a time you have never been.

I'm going to places I've never been every other day.

Then you know.

You can't have already been to a place you have never been to.

You can't have already been to a time you have never been to.

There is no "the first time".

Of course there is.

There is the first time the dinosaurs lived, before humans existed. The only time they existed.

Millions of dinosaurs lived and died before humans existed. So there could be no time travelers while those dinosaurs lived and died the first time.

If a time traveler goes back to the time of the dinosaur now we have the "second time" the dinosaur has a life.

A different life with a time traveler in it this time.

 

[Jokodo]

That was his second death.

You are getting an inkling of the problem.

His first death was from cancer in 1956. Then later some guy came from the future and killed him in 1933.

He didn't die of cancer in 1956. He died in 1933

Time travel.

It's miraculous.

How did the dinosaur live and die without any human presence then suddenly in some way have some human visit them?

They didn't. Either they had a human visit them, in which case they never lived and died without any human presence, or they didn't.

It is a fact that all the dinosaurs lived and died before humans existed.

None experienced humans during that time.

To go into the past is to go to a time you have never been.

I'm going to places I've never been every other day.

Then you know.

You can't have already been to a place you have never been to.

You can't have already been to a time you have never been to.

There is no "the first time".

Of course there is.

There is the first time the dinosaurs lived, before humans existed. The only time they existed.

Millions of dinosaurs lived and died before humans existed. So there could be no time travelers while those dinosaurs lived and died the first time.

If a time traveler goes back to the time of the dinosaur now we have the "second time" the dinosaur has a life.

A different life with a time traveler in it this time.

We're making progress! You seem to have moved from "time travel is impossible because it involves time travel, which is impossible" to "if time travel is impossible, it follows that time travel is impossible"

 

[untermensche]

We're making progress! You seem to have moved from "time travel is impossible because it involves time travel, which is impossible" to "if time travel is impossible, it follows that time travel is impossible"

I am at my destination. Been there a while.

I understand this.

I know beyond doubt any observer moving from their present to the past would change the past. This is simply denied by the believers, the faithful.

And all any time traveling observer could do in theory is move from their present to the past or future.

None can have already been in the past or future before they get there.

Just like you can't already be in your kitchen before you get there.

 

[Jokodo]

We're making progress! You seem to have moved from "time travel is impossible because it involves time travel, which is impossible" to "if time travel is impossible, it follows that time travel is impossible"

I am at my destination. Been there a while.

I understand this.

I know moving into the past from the present would change the past.

And all any observer could in theory do is move from their present to the past.

None can have already been in the past before they get there.

Just like you can't already be in your kitchen before you get there.

But I can enter the kitchen from the living room while someone else enters it from the hallway

 

[untermensche]

We're making progress! You seem to have moved from "time travel is impossible because it involves time travel, which is impossible" to "if time travel is impossible, it follows that time travel is impossible"

I am at my destination. Been there a while.

I understand this.

I know moving into the past from the present would change the past.

And all any observer could in theory do is move from their present to the past.

None can have already been in the past before they get there.

Just like you can't already be in your kitchen before you get there.

But I can enter the kitchen from the living room while someone else enters it from the hallway

But you can't be sitting in your kitchen while up in your bed asleep.

You can't have already been to a past you have never been to.

Anybody going to the past was not there before they go and will only be there when they arrive.

If I go to 1850 I have never been there before I go.

It means 1850 has changed when I get there.

 

[Jokodo]

But I can enter the kitchen from the living room while someone else enters it from the hallway

But you can't be sitting in your kitchen while up in your bed asleep.

You can't have already been to a past you have never been to.

Anybody going to the past was not there before they go and will only be there when they arrive.

If I go to 1850 I have never been there before I go.

It means 1850 has changed when I get there.

No, it doesn't mean that. It just means that you entered 1850 through the backdoor while everyone else entered through the front door, or that you reached New Zealand by flying via the Americas while everyone else went via Dubai or Singapore

 

[untermensche]

But I can enter the kitchen from the living room while someone else enters it from the hallway

But you can't be sitting in your kitchen while up in your bed asleep.

You can't have already been to a past you have never been to.

Anybody going to the past was not there before they go and will only be there when they arrive.

If I go to 1850 I have never been there before I go.

It means 1850 has changed when I get there.

No, it doesn't mean that. It just means that you entered 1850 through the backdoor while everyone else entered through the front door, or that you reached New Zealand by flying via the Americas while everyone else went via Dubai or Singapore

Of course I entered some back door.

This is all pure fantasy.

But I have not entered that door until I enter it.

When I get to 1850 I have never been there before.

My mere presence changes 1850.

 

[Jokodo]

No, it doesn't mean that. It just means that you entered 1850 through the backdoor while everyone else entered through the front door, or that you reached New Zealand by flying via the Americas while everyone else went via Dubai or Singapore

Of course I entered some back door.

This is all pure fantasy.

But I have not entered that door until I enter it.

When I get to 1850 I have never been there before.

My mere presence changes 1850.

No-one else has been there either.

 

[untermensche]

No, it doesn't mean that. It just means that you entered 1850 through the backdoor while everyone else entered through the front door, or that you reached New Zealand by flying via the Americas while everyone else went via Dubai or Singapore

Of course I entered some back door.

This is all pure fantasy.

But I have not entered that door until I enter it.

When I get to 1850 I have never been there before.

My mere presence changes 1850.

No-one else has been there either.

That's right. For all the people there it is a change.

They already lived through their entire lives without me there once. They did that before I left.

Now suddenly I have entered through some back door to a time I never was before.

 

[untermensche]

You seem to think I can go from my present to a past where nothing is happening so I won't disturb anything.

A convenient delusion.

Any event in the past we know about can't be changed for some reason.

But definitely it is possible for people to go to any time in the past.

They just can't change anything we know about.

How convenient.

 

[Treedbear]

You seem to think I can go from my present to a past where nothing is happening so I won't disturb anything.

A convenient delusion.

Any event in the past we know about can't be changed for some reason.

But definitely it is possible for people to go to any time in the past.

They just can't change anything we know about.

How convenient.

You finally came to a valid point. Nobody is arguing that time travel is definitely a possibility. They're saying what would be the case if the block-time model is true. Just to make it plain, I agree with you that time travel isn't possible because the past and future as described in the block-time model don't exist except as concepts of the mind. That said, if they did, then according to the theory everything that has happened, is happening now, and will happen is set in stone. Asking what is possible in that situation is a non sequitur. So the answers to your previous questions are:

If a time traveler went to 1933 or earlier they were unsuccessful in killing Hitler in that year. There is a good reason for that but we don't know what it is. There were probably many attempts. Perhaps they were finally successful in 1945. We don't know. And if any of those attempts were made by you then you'd have no memory of it because you've since died and so your memories were erased and the evidence from history has not yet been made available.

It's hard to imagine how Paleontologists would be able to find evidence for a few humans temporarily existing 65M years ago. And of course they would have died long ago and would have no memories of the event when they were then born in the present.

So the fact that we don't know about it doesn't mean it wasn't so. But the idea that it's too convenient by half is a very good place to begin an argument that therefore if time travel ever becomes possible it would prove that the block-time model is wrong. Too convenient because it's circular. "You can't change anything in the past because it would change the future which would then change the past, etc, etc.". Why is it not possible? "Because that's the way it is." Haven't you been told? Some things require no explanation by definition.

 

[untermensche]

[removed]

 

[untermensche]

You seem to think I can go from my present to a past where nothing is happening so I won't disturb anything.

A convenient delusion.

Any event in the past we know about can't be changed for some reason.

But definitely it is possible for people to go to any time in the past.

They just can't change anything we know about.

How convenient.

You finally came to a valid point. Nobody is arguing that time travel is definitely a possibility. They're saying what would be the case if the block-time model is true. Just to make it plain, I agree with you that time travel isn't possible because the past and future as described in the block-time model don't exist except as concepts of the mind. That said, if they did, then according to the theory everything that has happened, is happening now, and will happen is set in stone. Asking what is possible in that situation is a non sequitur. So the answers to your previous questions are:

If a time traveler went to 1933 or earlier they were unsuccessful in killing Hitler in that year. There is a good reason for that but we don't know what it is. There were probably many attempts. Perhaps they were finally successful in 1945. We don't know. And if any of those attempts were made by you then you'd have no memory of it because you've since died and so your memories were erased and the evidence from history has not yet been made available.

It's hard to imagine how Paleontologists would be able to find evidence for a few humans temporarily existing 65M years ago. And of course they would have died long ago and would have no memories of the event when they were then born in the present.

So the fact that we don't know about it doesn't mean it wasn't so. But the idea that it's too convenient by half is a very good place to begin an argument that therefore if time travel ever becomes possible it would prove that the block-time model is wrong. Too convenient because it's circular. "You can't change anything in the past because it would change the future which would then change the past, etc, etc.". Why is it not possible? "Because that's the way it is." Haven't you been told? Some things require no explanation by definition.

Convenient delusion.

At your birth the entire past before your birth has already happened. All the events in that past have already happened. Time is directional.

If you move into the past you change it since all the events have already happened.

We can clearly see the problem in the case of history we know about.

The same problem exists in every moment in history we don't know about.

To move there from the present would change those moments that already occurred.

The only way time travel is possible is if changing the past is possible.

If time travel is possible it is possible for a person in the future to travel back to 1933 and kill Hitler.

If that is not possible then time travel at any time in the future is not possible because merely observing the past is changing it as much as killing Hitler in 1933.

 

[DBT]

[removed] I don't think you understand the principle, that our past was the 1870 present when the time traveller appeared and became a part of 1870 events. The traveller does not change the past, he becomes a part of the present 1870.

 

[skepticalbip]

[removed] I don't think you understand the principle, that our past was the 1870 present when the time traveller appeared and became a part of 1870 events. The traveller does not change the past, he becomes a part of the present 1870.

You mean like the time traveler that hired Lee Harvey Oswald?

 

[untermensche]

[removed] I don't think you understand the principle, that our past was the 1870 present when the time traveller appeared and became a part of 1870 events. The traveller does not change the past, he becomes a part of the present 1870.

It is[removed] to say a person, who has a beginning after events have happened, does not change those events by somehow becoming a new part of them.

 

[untermensche]

[removed]

 

[Treedbear]

You seem to think I can go from my present to a past where nothing is happening so I won't disturb anything.

A convenient delusion.

Any event in the past we know about can't be changed for some reason.

But definitely it is possible for people to go to any time in the past.

They just can't change anything we know about.

How convenient.

You finally came to a valid point. Nobody is arguing that time travel is definitely a possibility. They're saying what would be the case if the block-time model is true. Just to make it plain, I agree with you that time travel isn't possible because the past and future as described in the block-time model don't exist except as concepts of the mind. That said, if they did, then according to the theory everything that has happened, is happening now, and will happen is set in stone. Asking what is possible in that situation is a non sequitur. So the answers to your previous questions are:

If a time traveler went to 1933 or earlier they were unsuccessful in killing Hitler in that year. There is a good reason for that but we don't know what it is. There were probably many attempts. Perhaps they were finally successful in 1945. We don't know. And if any of those attempts were made by you then you'd have no memory of it because you've since died and so your memories were erased and the evidence from history has not yet been made available.

It's hard to imagine how Paleontologists would be able to find evidence for a few humans temporarily existing 65M years ago. And of course they would have died long ago and would have no memories of the event when they were then born in the present.

So the fact that we don't know about it doesn't mean it wasn't so. But the idea that it's too convenient by half is a very good place to begin an argument that therefore if time travel ever becomes possible it would prove that the block-time model is wrong. Too convenient because it's circular. "You can't change anything in the past because it would change the future which would then change the past, etc, etc.". Why is it not possible? "Because that's the way it is." Haven't you been told? Some things require no explanation by definition.

Convenient delusion.

At your birth the entire past before your birth has already happened. All the events in that past have already happened. Time is directional.

If you move into the past you change it since all the events have already happened.

We can clearly see the problem in the case of history we know about.

The same problem exists in every moment in history we don't know about.

To move there from the present would change those moments that already occurred.

The only way time travel is possible is if changing the past is possible.

If time travel is possible it is possible for a person in the future to travel back to 1933 and kill Hitler.

If that is not possible then time travel at any time in the future is not possible because merely observing the past is changing it as much as killing Hitler in 1933.

You don't seem to understand. By definition nothing can change. Think of it like an electronic amplifier circuit or a voltage regulator circuit. The output feeds back into the input in order to maintain a stable system. Not that the block-time model calls for anything like dynamic stabilization. But the end result is the same. What you seem to be saying is that this can't work because the input is required for the output to exist in its present state. But situations like this can logically exist and they do. The only questions is how does the block-time universe get there to begin with?

 

[Elixir]

Here are our rational options:

Time travel is possible because changing the past is possible.

Time travel is impossible because changing the past .

Or:
Stating that something is impossible because you can’t understand how it could be possible is irrational, and frequently a mistake. Especially when many people who know more about it than you do are able to see how it could be possible.
Yes it would be magic, to you.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
AC Clarke

 

[untermensche]

[removed]