|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Dec 26, 2006 20:34:44 GMT -5
The simple act of breathing, of occupying space, of existing at all is an action within itself. It is impossible for someone to do absolutely nothing. By the theories presented here, the general agreement seems to be that even the most subtle of actions can influence the past, present and future. However, the effect on the continuum by the presence of someone being in a time period not their own is quite unforseeable. If you merely stood in some shadowed and unvisited corner in the past until you died, and no one found your body for DNA testing purposes (If such things existed in the past in question) then would not the continuum continue normally, or would the effect upon the world by one more person drawing breath change the future in subtle ways? Or, as TMP suggests, would dying in the past completely erase yourself from existence?
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Dec 26, 2006 20:38:20 GMT -5
Depending on what happens, exactly. Alright, so the example is that you're on the brink of death and travel to the past. Then say you die as soon as you get there. What if you're in the middle of nowhere that is not even inhabited NOW? Like the Sahara. What if you were buiried by sand over the course of time? It doesn't affect anybody at all. I don't see how it could ever affect anybody. Therefore, nothing at all would happen.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Dec 26, 2006 20:56:06 GMT -5
It all depends on your standpoint. TMP seems to suggest that if you die in the past, you would be erased from existence altogether from any moment beyond that point. On the other hand, it is also possible that you could travel back in time and die without such a major effect. It is at least conceivable that if you died in the past, then history would merely record that Mr. X went back in time and died, without the timeline or any family you had in the future being adversely affected. Whether or not the people in the past discovered that Mr. X was originally from the future would also affect the outcome. This is looking at the time/space continuum in a very simple way, which may be altogether incorrect, but we are merely theorizing, are we not? It depends, in great part, how the time/space continuum compensates for discrempencies in the timeline.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Dec 26, 2006 21:51:21 GMT -5
It all depends on your standpoint. TMP seems to suggest that if you die in the past, you would be erased from existence altogether from any moment beyond that point. On the other hand, it is also possible that you could travel back in time and die without such a major effect. It is at least conceivable that if you died in the past, then history would merely record that Mr. X went back in time and died, without the timeline or any family you had in the future being adversely affected. Whether or not the people in the past discovered that Mr. X was originally from the future would also affect the outcome. This is looking at the time/space continuum in a very simple way, which may be altogether incorrect, but we are merely theorizing, are we not? It depends, in great part, how the time/space continuum compensates for discrempencies in the timeline. Maybe, but we'll just never really know until time travel is possible. If it ever is...who knows? Maybe time travel is just flat out impossible. If it is I would be disappointed, because I would love to go back and see some things, and even go forward.
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Dec 26, 2006 22:06:14 GMT -5
I hold the Presentist view, but I will still write about time travel, since it is such an interesting plot device.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Dec 27, 2006 17:01:59 GMT -5
I would say that I'm somewhere in the middle between Presentism and Eternalism. Because I do say that the past and future are real, but I do not say that all three are absolutely equal. Obviously the present is more dominant than the other two. That's my stance.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Dec 29, 2006 3:43:07 GMT -5
I would be more on the Eternalism side. I do believe that there is a past time for sure, but an existing future, I'm not so sure about. If my theory: (The statement that the time line has already taken into account all of the events that are meant to happen, meaning that no changes can be made because an attempted change in the time line was also accounted for. This is a rough summary, the real summary is earlier within this topic), holds true, then a future would clearly exist. If not then, it is uncertain.
To add to the earlier argument. Dying in the past (assuming you survived the time travel) could be as simple as very little happening as you guys suggest, or the world could be completely different just by having that guy in the past for a fraction of a moment. I said a long time ago on this topic that all it would take to change the course of the world, could be as simple as a misplaced pebble in the past.
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Dec 29, 2006 10:52:11 GMT -5
I'll tell you why I like Presentism. Let's say in the future, someone travels back in time. SO therefore, in the past, it is determined that there is a future, and that your whole life is already planned out for you and that everything you do and will do is already predetermined. I don't like the idea of not being in control of my own life(neo) because I believe in free will, not fate.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Dec 29, 2006 13:27:34 GMT -5
See, I'd be in the middle of them. But more towards the Eternalist side.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Dec 29, 2006 21:56:51 GMT -5
This is where my theory gets a little bit deeper. In my theory, I believe that although history as taken into account all of your actions, fate does not control you. It would be more accurate that you control fate. You are creating history with your own will, but history is compensating for your actions. See where I'm going with this?
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Dec 29, 2006 22:14:50 GMT -5
Yeah, I do. I prefer to think that humans have free will and a designated fate. all of the choices that a person would make would lead up to that designated fate, even though the person wouldn't know it.
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Dec 29, 2006 23:31:26 GMT -5
I like this theory. You have the tools to make the trail, but the destination as already there, the trail doesn't matter, as long as you get to the end.
Now, I might have already said this in Creepy Theory thread, but what if people from the future went back in time and established themselves as gods? It would make sense..i mean most of the images look human.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Jan 1, 2007 2:37:45 GMT -5
If my theory applies then this is the result of that time travel. Life as we know it is because of what they did. If not, then people will most likely worship their "gods" and when they die, they will live on as either an existing religion or a legend, altering our belief system and much more.
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Jan 1, 2007 11:28:47 GMT -5
I have a similar theory to yours, it might even be the same thing. If you travel back in time and make a change, it automatically becomes your life and has never been otherwise. SO you can make a lot of changes you want in the past and it doesn't matter(unless you kill your grandfather) because no one has ever known life to be different.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Jan 1, 2007 23:18:16 GMT -5
Now, what would happen if you went back in time and killed yourself?
|
|