MovieChat Forums > Safety Not Guaranteed (2012) Discussion > The problem with time travel (IMHO)

The problem with time travel (IMHO)


I'm no genius but to me, the problem with time travel is that it would be 100% impossible to not change something. Think about it this way: When you "arrive" at your time travel destination, killing the ant that is unlucky enough to be under your foot when you "land" would set off a chain reaction that as far as I can guess, would unravel "reality"!!!

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

I know that this is a very late reply but it's 8 in the morning and I'm drunk and bored, so, what the hell...

It depends on how you look at it. If events are fixed, I.E. you can't change the future or indeed the present if you choose to go back, it becomes a non-issue. Though, to be fair, the movie kind of establishes that this is not the case with the whole "note in the can" thing. If I recall correctly, they don't ever find a note in there, so it might just be the case that Kenneth (Duplass) thought that it worked that way.

If events are indeed fixed, then Kenneth and Darius have always been a part of the time-period they go to in the movie. Essentially, stepping on an ant on arrival or even killing a president or monarch wouldn't make any difference at all because it's already happened and it always will happen. However, here is where the "Grandfather paradox" comes in, which could be explained by the theory of parallel universes or the Novikov self-consistency principle. If you're interested, here are some handy summaries:

http://timetravelphilosophy.net/topics/grandfather/

https://angelicview.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/parallel-universes-time-t ravel/

http://www.examiner.com/article/temporal-theory-101-what-is-the-noviko v-self-consistency-principle

I personally like the theory of parallel universes, even though it clashes with pretty much every time travel story I've ever seen, listened to or read.

Furthermore, if you subscribe to the theory that time isn't even a thing, then time-travel stories are basically bullocks. It would be like walking from point A to point B if there weren't any space between them, it just doesn't compute.

I'm hoping that I've made some sense. As I previously stated, I am drunk. I'm also quite tired now.

Cheerio! 

reply

Maybe they didn't find a canned note because he changed his mission, seconds before they left.

Laugh, and the world thinks you're crazy.
Weep, and the world thinks you're bipolar.

reply

Or, if they did manage to alter the past and something went wrong, it's also possible the note exists in a parallel timeline. It really all depends on the model of the universe we're talking about. But the movie never really gets into that either.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

Not finding a note in the can really didn't disprove the time travel. He said if either of them got in trouble, or got stuck, to leave a note in that can for the other to find it.

reply

I'm no genius but to me, the problem with time travel is that it would be 100% impossible to not change something.


That all depends on what model of time travel the writer is using.

Think about it this way: When you "arrive" at your time travel destination, killing the ant that is unlucky enough to be under your foot when you "land" would set off a chain reaction that as far as I can guess, would unravel "reality"!!!


First of all, nobody has any idea what would happen should a paradox arise. Second, why would the butterfly effect cause reality to break down?

Here are the options. A time travelers actions are set and no change is actually possible. You would create a new branch to the timeline, where when you return to the present you're currently occupying the newly created timeline. Or you would alter your "home" reality. None of these would necessarily lead to a universe breaking paradox.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

First of all, nobody has any idea what would happen should a paradox arise. Second, why would the butterfly effect cause reality to break down?


The butterfly effect would happen because ANTYHING altered, would cause a chain reaction because anything that was in contact (directly or indirectly) with whatever was originally altered (the ant in this case) would also be altered up to and including the possibility of being caused to not exist/have existed.

I guess you're right about what "rules" are in place. My vision of a breakdown of reality assumes that the pre time travel "present" is static and that a static "present" would be subject to complete breakdown/unraveling, should someone travel back. On the other hand, if the past, present and future are/were dynamically subject to natural occurrence and/or meddling by a time traveler, all bets would be off (still could have the unraveling IMO, though). Either way, it seems impossible to be able to foresee, much less control the results. WAAAAY too many variables.

My brain is swelling lol!!!

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

The butterfly effect would happen because ANTYHING altered, would cause a chain reaction because anything that was in contact (directly or indirectly) with whatever was originally altered (the ant in this case) would also be altered up to and including the possibility of being caused to not exist/have existed.


At best, that would alter the history of Earth, not cause the entire fabric of reality to unravel.

Your idea also assumes that the traveler has gone back to the absolute beginning of time. Going back to the 1980s and stepping on an ant would have a minimal effect on our existence. The death of a single ant 32 years ago(from when this movie was released) is unlikely to cause the timeline to go wildly off course.

My vision of a breakdown of reality assumes that the pre time travel "present" is static and that a static "present" would be subject to complete breakdown/unraveling, should someone travel back.


The word static implies that no change could occur. Which I don't think is your intention. It seems that your view of time travel, at least as far as this debate, is that there is only a single timeline where any minor alteration to the timeline causes wide reaching and totally unpredictable consequences.

However, we can safely rule that out as a problem in this movie. Since the moment they vanished, everything would have appeared to change around the remaining characters. History would be rewritten and it's unlikely that Jeff and Arnau would be standing there at that exact moment.

Since that doesn't happen, either the timeline cannot be changed, or as I suggested above, Kenneth's attempt to alter the past spawned a parallel universe which he and Darius now occupy. Or for a third option, it can be changed but there's a universal mechanism in place to iron out the repercussions of any alteration to the timeline by a time traveler. As we have on the show Lost(Course correction). Which accounts for the free will of a time traveler.

On the other hand, if the past, present and future are/were dynamically subject to natural occurrence and/or meddling by a time traveler, all bets would be off (still could have the unraveling IMO, though). Either way, it seems impossible to be able to foresee, much less control the results. WAAAAY too many variables.


Like I said, it all depends on the model of time travel in question. In Lost, for example, we have a self consistent timeline. No major alteration to the timeline is possible, and any actions a time traveler will make when they journey into the past is already factual history before they travel into the past(Whatever happened, happened).

As I mentioned, Lost also put in place a mechanism to account for the free will(and knowledge of past events) of a time traveler which they refer to as course correction. The idea is that there is an "entity" responsible for the continuity of the timeline. Minor changes to the timeline are in fact possible, but through course correction, those minor changes have a net effect of 0 on the timeline overall. All major events still occur as the universe "wills" them to.

My brain is swelling lol!!!


Understandable. Most people have a hard time thinking fourth dimensionally, as Doc Brown would say. :P

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

Lol. Great discussion!! Good food for thought attempting to apply rules to something that as far as we know, is totally impossible. Fun none the less :)

Your idea also assumes that the traveler has gone back to the absolute beginning of time. Going back to the 1980s and stepping on an ant would have a minimal effect on our existence. The death of a single ant 32 years ago(from when this movie was released) is unlikely to cause the timeline to go wildly off course.


Maybe. Maybe not. I submit that an ant (that exists) is, even in it's insignificance an integral and vital part of the "fabric" of reality. If said ant, that would at some point reproduce (one example of it's impact) is killed (due to time manipulation) before it does so, GENERATIONS of ants would be caused to not exist where they would have existed and would have taken their place in the already (static? wrong choice of words?) established future. The ramifications of this are HUGE!! Suppose at some point, one or some of these ants that were supposed to exist contribute (directly of indirectly) to the demise of a person that would at some point, reproduce. Now we have GENERATIONS of people who would NOT have existed we also now have the byproducts of their existence that would not have happened, good, bad or indifferent but for the death of one ant. Everything that would have been, now isn't. A HUGE chain reaction would start as little holes in the time/space continuum but would spiral out to absolute chaos/nothingness! And for the coup de grace, I think it would happen instantaneously as soon as the ant is killed.

Impossible possibilities :)


I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

Great discussion!! Good food for thought attempting to apply rules to something that as far as we know, is totally impossible. Fun none the less :)


Absolutely. I love time travel movies because they often lend themselves to great discussions regarding how time travel could work. It's also fun when a movie establishes the rules of time travel without straight up explaining them to the audience.

Like Bill and Ted(like Lost) uses a self consistent model. It never says it outright. But the way the story plays out can only be possible if Rufus actions in helping the boys pass their report is factual history before he's ever sent back to help them. He's just fulfilling his role in the way events always played out.

With this movie none of the rules are ever actually explained to us, and we never really see the results. So we can really only speculate on what may or may not happen. But like I said, the fact that nothing changes in the present implies either that they're in a self consistent universe or that there's some sort of mechanism in place, as with Lost, to minimize the effect a time traveler can have on the timeline.

Maybe not. I submit that an ant (that exists) is, even in it's insignificance an integral and vital part of the "fabric" of reality.


Not reality. History at best, but even if the whole of life on this planet were to cease to exist, the universe would continue along just fine.

While granted we can't really know the consequences of killing that ant, it's unlikely that killing an in 1980 would cause all life on the planet to die within a 34 year time frame.

Keep in mind that history and reality are not quite the same thing. History happens in reality, but reality isn't dependent upon history. If humans never existed, reality would still be here(barring philosophical discussions regarding the nature of reality).

If said ant, that would at some point reproduce (one example of it's impact) is killed (due to time manipulation) before it does so, GENERATIONS of ants would be caused to not exist where they would have existed and would have taken their place in the already (static? wrong choice of words?) established future.


Not necessarily, because ant colonies don't reproduce with only a single sire. If you killed a queen maybe. But the impact of that one colony on the world around it is very small. It would likely take much longer than 34 years for a major impact on the entire world to take effect.

Suppose at some point, one or some of these ants that were supposed to exist contribute (directly of indirectly) to the demise of a person that would at some point, reproduce. Now we have GENERATIONS of people who would NOT have existed we also now have the byproducts of their existence that would not have happened, good, bad or indifferent but for the death of one ant. Everything that would have been, now isn't.


Except again, that wouldn't cause reality to unravel. There's no paradox there. You would be changing future history(again, depending on the model in question), but it wouldn't cause reality to fall apart.

A HUGE chain reaction would start as little holes in the time/space continuum but would spiral out to absolute chaos/nothingness! And for the coup de grace, I think it would happen instantaneously as soon as the ant is killed.


I don't know where you get the idea that "holes" in spacetime would appear because of this. I've never read a single theory on time travel that suggests causing a change in history would cause the universe to collapse.

The only time this suggestion is made is if you cause a major paradoxical event. Like killing your own grandfather(ala the grandfather paradox), thereby eliminating the possibility of you ever time traveling because your existence is tied to the existence of your grandfather. But even still, what would actually happen is entirely speculation. We don't KNOW the universe would start to fall apart, because it's never happened. We can theorize, but there's no way of actually knowing without actually attempting it.

Also, chaos is the absolute opposite of nothingness. Chaos cannot exist in "nothingness."

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

Whew! There's a lot here but I think you are looking at a lot of what I said in a rather limited way.


Not reality. History at best, but even if the whole of life on this planet were to cease to exist, the universe would continue along just fine.

While granted we can't really know the consequences of killing that ant, it's unlikely that killing an in 1980 would cause all life on the planet to die within a 34 year time frame.

Keep in mind that history and reality are not quite the same thing. History happens in reality, but reality isn't dependent upon history. If humans never existed, reality would still be here(barring philosophical discussions regarding the nature of reality).


At face value, this is plausible. The deeper problem as I see it are the "ripples" created by altering the past would continue to increase until reality WOULD suffer. I can see no possibility of the ripples stopping. Unravel completely? In my mind, yes. I only described "stages" of events. The effect would continue forward to the ultimate catastrophic conclusion as far as I can surmise. In the human timeline, to use a StarWars event, we probably would/could develop the technology to destroy an entire planet. Now with the ripples I spoke of, planets that would have been destroyed are all of a sudden not destroyed which in the big picture could "ripple" out to existence/non existence of GALAXIES and beyond!!

As far as this happening over a 34 (or whatever) time span, that's not right either since in our model, time travel/manipulation IS possible, the effects of changes would occur across time thus being instantaneous.

With the ant thing. You WOULD cause a queen (actually many(actually countless)) to not exist. I'm sure that you can see this.

I don't know where you get the idea that "holes" in spacetime would appear because of this. I've never read a single theory on time travel that suggests causing a change in history would cause the universe to collapse.


I use the term "holes" to describe voids where things like, I dunno, planets lol, would have been if time hadn't been manipulated. There would also be the opposite in things existing that otherwise would not have. You don't envision this having a catastrophic impact on "reality"? For every action, there's a reaction, and with planets/galaxies/etc. "blipping" in and out of reality, considering the infinite numbers of actions/reactions that would also be associated with them, what would you think the outcome could possibly be?

I've never read a single theory on time travel that suggests causing a change in history would cause the universe to collapse.


Lol!! Well, now you have and as far as theories go about something that is at this point, totally impossible, my theories are as good as any. :)



I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

Whew! There's a lot here but I think you are looking at a lot of what I said in a rather limited way.


Not at all. Not to offend, but I think it's your view that's limited. Your views seem based on very rigid ideas about how causality works(note: we don't actually know).

At face value, this is plausible. The deeper problem as I see it are the "ripples" created by altering the past would continue to increase until reality WOULD suffer. I can see no possibility of the ripples stopping. Unravel completely? In my mind, yes. I only described "stages" of events. The effect would continue forward to the ultimate catastrophic conclusion as far as I can surmise. In the human timeline, to use a StarWars event, we probably would/could develop the technology to destroy an entire planet. Now with the ripples I spoke of, planets that would have been destroyed are all of a sudden not destroyed which in the big picture could "ripple" out to existence/non existence of GALAXIES and beyond!!


The only way reality as a whole would suffer is as I said, if you created a paradox. But even then, we have no idea first if it's even possible to create change in the timeline, or second, what the actual result of a causal paradox would be. And third, for all we know, there is some mechanism in place that irons out any attempted change to the timeline.

By the 1980s, humanity is what it is. Killing an ant isn't going to change that.

You have given no reason why this should cause reality to fall apart. You keep saying that it would, but have given no reason for what would cause that effect. You just keep talking about changing history. Yes, the ripples would likely exist, but those ripples wouldn't make the universe collapse.

Altering history and breaking the universe are not the same thing. The present would appear to change(to an outside observer) based on the alterations you made to the past, but unless you create a major paradox, that really wouldn't be an issue.

Further, your theory assumes only a single timeline is possible. More likely creating a change in the timeline would spawn a separate branch of the timeline wherein the changes you made shape the future of that timeline, but your "home" timeline would remain unaffected.

As far as this happening over a 34 (or whatever) time span, that's not right either since in our model, time travel/manipulation IS possible, the effects of changes would occur across time thus being instantaneous.


You mean in YOUR model. The movie never presents that idea. One character suggests altering the past is possible, but we never know if he's right or not. We never see the result of any change. If we were dealing with a single timeline and change were possible within the movie, history would have instantly reshaped itself, meaning that the two remaining characters would probably not be there.

I'm aware the change would be immediate. My point is, this does not happen in the movie. So again, the more likely scenarios are either change is not possible(that it's a self consistent universe where time travelers actions are already history), or that altering the past creates an alternate timeline from the point of that change forward.

And even if we were talking about a single alterable timeline, altering history in and of itself is not going to break reality. You would have to cause some kind of paradoxical event, like killing your own grandfather, which would prevent you from going back in time and killing your grandfather because you can't exist if your grandfather died before he had your father\mother.

Though Fry in Futurama killed his own grandfather(or who he thought was his grandfather) only for it to turn out that he was his own grandfather the whole time(having slept with his own grandmother without realizing it and siring his father).

Simply altering the past wouldn't necessarily cause reality to break down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_paradox#Causality_paradoxes

Even in the case of a causal paradox, there is no agreed upon resolution. Meaning nobody has any idea what would actually happen should such a paradox arise. As far as I know, not many scientists believe it's possible to "break the universe" via time travel anymore.

With the ant thing. You WOULD cause a queen (actually many(actually countless)) to not exist. I'm sure that you can see this.


You never stipulated that the traveler killed a queen. That was my caveat. But even still, this does not explain why you believe the universe would unravel.

I use the term "holes" to describe voids where things like, I dunno, planets lol, would have been if time hadn't been manipulated. There would also be the opposite in things existing that otherwise would not have. You don't envision this having a catastrophic impact on "reality"?


How would killing an ant cause any planet to cease to exist?

Our lives do not have an impact on the nature of reality. Even if humanity never existed, the universe would continue on just fine. We are a single species on a single planet in a single solar system in a single galaxy. Our impact on the universe has been virtually nil. If you look at the entire universe, we are insignificant to the extreme. We haven't even affected 1% of the universe.

For every action, there's a reaction, and with planets/galaxies/etc. "blipping" in and out of reality, considering the infinite numbers of actions/reactions that would also be associated with them, what would you think the outcome could possibly be?


"For every action, there's a reaction" has nothing to do with this. That phrase has to do with Newtons third law of motion. And your quote is incomplete. It should be "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." It has no relation to causality.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third -Law

You still have yet to give a reason for planets or galaxies "blipping" out of existence. You've made the claim but have yet to support the idea. You say altering the timeline would cause this to happen, but you have not explained WHY this would happen. You've skipped at least one step in your reasoning.

Well, now you have and as far as theories go about something that is at this point, totally impossible, my theories are as good as any.


Not really. Because as I said, your theory is incomplete.

You have your question: What would happen if time travel into the past were possible?

You have your hypothesis: That you think the universe would collapse.

You have your conclusion: That the universe would collapse.

But you're missing steps in your reasoning. You don't actually have a theory. You just have an idea that isn't supported by evidence, which cannot be considered a theory.

We also do not know that time travel is totally impossible. All we know is that we have yet to observe it happening. But by that logic, planetary motion didn't exist before it was observed, and that isn't how science or theorizing works. Something being unknown does not make it impossible.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

Hi again.

First, let me just say that this thread is about time travel in general. Not the specifics of this movie. It's be awhile since I've watched it so the specifics are not real clear in my mind.


You have given no reason why this should cause reality to fall apart. You keep saying that it would, but have given no reason for what would cause that effect. You just keep talking about changing history. Yes, the ripples would likely exist, but those ripples wouldn't make the universe collapse.


Actually I have given reasons. Some of them are in the 2nd paragraph that you quoted.

The only way reality as a whole would suffer is as I said, if you created a paradox. But even then, we have no idea first if it's even possible to create change in the timeline, or second, what the actual result of a causal paradox would be.


I think in the greater scheme of things, lots of paradoxes would be created if entire planet's/galaxy's existences were altered.

And third, for all we know, there is some mechanism in place that irons out any attempted change to the timeline.


And for all we know, there isn't.

Further, your theory assumes only a single timeline is possible. More likely creating a change in the timeline would spawn a separate branch of the timeline wherein the changes you made shape the future of that timeline, but your "home" timeline would remain unaffected.


That is also a possible scenario. There are too many to discuss all of them.

You mean in YOUR model.


Yes. Again, I wasn't talking about this movie per se.

Even in the case of a causal paradox, there is no agreed upon resolution. Meaning nobody has any idea what would actually happen should such a paradox arise.


So I could be right :)

You never stipulated that the traveler killed a queen. That was my caveat. But even still, this does not explain why you believe the universe would unravel.


That's what I meant about thinking your view might be a little limited (no offense intended). If you eliminate an ant's family tree, it is only logical that queens would be part of it.

Also the ant it's self is just the chain reaction starting point. It could be anything. Maybe you appear from the future in the middle of a busy street somewhere and your grandfather's car swerves to avoid hitting you, causing a head on collision, killing him AND just for fun, the future inventor of the cure for cancer that would have saved the diplomat that would have prevented the "death star" from destroying the planet that the inventor of time travel lived on. There's some paradoxes for you :) Don't you see that starting with the slightest alteration, it really couldn't do anything but spin totally out of control?

Even if humanity never existed, the universe would continue on just fine.


True. But if we DID exist and were then caused to not exist, that would be a different matter entirely.

You still have yet to give a reason for planets or galaxies "blipping" out of existence. You've made the claim but have yet to support the idea. You say altering the timeline would cause this to happen, but you have not explained WHY this would happen. You've skipped at least one step in your reasoning.


Again, I did give reasons but I've hopefully clarified them here.

We also do not know that time travel is totally impossible. All we know is that we have yet to observe it happening. But by that logic, planetary motion didn't exist before it was observed, and that isn't how science or theorizing works. Something being unknown does not make it impossible.


I guess I should have stated that for all practical purposes, it is, at this time (no pun intended) impossible and being so, any rules that we attempt to impose are at best, speculation.

Tally ho!!


I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply


First, let me just say that this thread is about time travel in general. Not the specifics of this movie. It's be awhile since I've watched it so the specifics are not real clear in my mind.


While that's true, we need some kind of reference. Which is why I keep bringing up time travel stories. Examples of different models.

Actually I have given reasons. Some of them are in the 2nd paragraph that you quoted.


Those are not reasons though. Like I said, you're skipping steps. There's no reason to go from "Change is possible" to "All changes to the timeline will create a breakdown of reality." You have not connected those two ideas.

I think in the greater scheme of things, lots of paradoxes would be created if entire planet's/galaxy's existences were altered.


You haven't established why that would happen. Why would planets or galaxies pop out of existence because of the death of a single ant on Earth? What is the mechanism that causes this to happen?

And for all we know, there isn't.


You miss the point. Specifically that there is no way for you to know what would happen if altering the timeline is possible or how far reaching those effects would be.

So I could be right


Unlikely. Since we have yet to establish WHY reality would cease to exist due to a relatively minor alteration to the timeline(the death of a single ant). "I could be right" is hardly what you should take away from that quote.

That's what I meant about thinking your view might be a little limited (no offense intended). If you eliminate an ant's family tree, it is only logical that queens would be part of it.


No. You have it backwards. If you kill a queen, you kill a colony. But killing a single worker of that colony is not going to result in the death of the entire colony.

Also the ant it's self is just the chain reaction starting point. It could be anything. Maybe you appear from the future in the middle of a busy street somewhere and your grandfather's car swerves to avoid hitting you, causing a head on collision, killing him AND just for fun, the future inventor of the cure for cancer that would have saved the diplomat that would have prevented the "death star" from destroying the planet that the inventor of time travel lived on. There's some paradoxes for you :) Don't you see that starting with the slightest alteration, it really couldn't do anything but spin totally out of control?


That's really only one paradox.

And again, your argument assumes that only your model exists. That there is only a single passage through time in which all events must occur the way they're "supposed" to occur or the universe falls apart. But that doesn't make time travel impossible, it only makes it a bad idea in your model. You might alter the timeline in unpredictable ways, but there's no reason for us to assume the universe would necessarily fall apart.

True. But if we DID exist and were then caused to not exist, that would be a different matter entirely.


No, it wouldn't. Because we have not affected the universe outside of our planet in any significant way. If we ceased to exist the universe wouldn't even notice.

Again, I did give reasons but I've hopefully clarified them here.


You have not given reasons. Like I said above, you're skipping steps in logic.

I guess I should have stated that for all practical purposes, it is, at this time (no pun intended) impossible and being so, any rules that we attempt to impose are at best, speculation.


It isn't even impossible at this time. We have no way to actually go about trying it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Just like nuclear power wasn't impossible before we built the first nuclear reactor, we just hadn't built the technology to harness nuclear power yet.

In theory, time travel is perfectly possible. We just don't have a means to accomplish it at this point. But something not being practically possible isn't the same thing as something being impossible.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

All right. I have explained everything. I have given chain reaction starting points (more than once). It's up to you to think them out (or not). I feel that you are looking at things through a very narrow lens and either refuse to or can't factor things out as far as they can logically be factored out. Either way, a catastrophic fire starts with a tiny spark (ant) just as a nuclear explosion start with the splitting of an atom (ant) (Atom ant... get it lol!). The ant (or whatever) is the catalyst. The possibility of the chain reaction being reality altering IS there IMHO. You don't have to agree but my argument is clear and reasonably complete.

It's been fun :)

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

All right. I have explained everything.


You think you have, and that's exactly the problem. You're missing steps in your logic which hinders this conversation.

I have given chain reaction starting points (more than once).


What you don't have is a reason for the universe collapsing rather than history simply rewriting itself. Your chain of events adds up to nothing because you've never explained the mechanism that would cause the universe to collapse.

I feel that you are looking at things through a very narrow lens and either refuse to or can't factor things out as far as they can logically be factored out.


That's actually you. You're stuck in the whole "Time travel is impossible because it would cause the universe to collapse" idea, that you can't look at anything else. What I need from you is for you to explain WHY this would happen. What would cause the universe to collapse. Simply changing history wouldn't necessarily cause that to happen. A paradox could, in theory, cause the collapse of reality. But, simply introducing change to the timeline would not necessarily have that result.

Either way, a catastrophic fire starts with a tiny spark (ant) just as a nuclear explosion start with the splitting of an atom (ant) (Atom ant... get it lol!). The ant (or whatever) is the catalyst. The possibility of the chain reaction being reality altering IS there IMHO. You don't have to agree but my argument is clear and reasonably complete.


Your argument is totally incomplete because you have not given us a reason for the universe collapsing. As I've explained repeatedly, altering the timeline would not necessarily result in a universe collapsing paradox. You have at no point explained the mechanism that would cause this to happen. You say it would happen, and present a scenario where events would be changed, but you haven't explained why that scenario would necessarily result in the end of the universe. You just say it like that it the natural result of any alteration to the timeline. But that isn't a reason.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

At the risk of stepping in this pile, the problem with time travel is that the positional location of where you are changes constantly as the Earth rotates and revolves around the sun (and the solar system revolves around the center of the galaxy.)

The point is that you go back a week and you will be in the middle of space.


👿 I know something you don't know ... I am ambidextrous!

reply

Veddy good!! :)

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

You would enjoy the show "Timeless" if you can find it. They address this point regularly. They time-travel every episode and stress how even the most innocent deviation can impact the future .

reply