If backwards time travel were possible in Sci Fi

[farmerben]

It is cliche to say that a time traveler could go back in time and kill Hitler thus stopping WWII.  

Let's juxtapose the question.  If you could save the life of someone in order to change history for the better, who would you save?

 

 

[Spacescifi]

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

It is cliche to say that a time traveler could go back in time and kill Hitler thus stopping WWII.  

Let's juxtapose the question.  If you could save the life of someone in order to change history for the better, who would you save?

 

 

 

Hahahaha! I would counter your argument and say that this has nothing to do with anything being better, since better is a subjective term and what better is depends on individual opinion.

We are what allow. We are not what we forbid.

Now Earth has a mix of both, so it is more a sliding scale of what a society allows more versus what it allows less that determines what kind of society they will be.

The great irony is that the only people that matter are really powerful people capable of changing history, or those who would have been (but how can we ever know?).

I don't know if it would have made life better, but I do wonder what would have happened if JFK was never assassinated.

In some cases it won't matter though. For example I believe even if Alexander the Great did not die young his empire would have split not long after his death, since he seemed less concerned with empire administration than expanding it's boundaries through war, and I remember stories that the only reason he stopped trying to conquer the world was because his men forced him to.

Probably assassinated him too.

 

Edited June 30 by Spacescifi

[farmerben]

My thought was to save Abraham Lincoln.  Reconstruction would have gone much better.  Our political landscape today would be quite different.

Suppose Alexander lived to conquer all of India and beyond.  Indian religion, philosophy, and mathematics would have permeated the western world early and completely.

 

 

[Spacescifi]

12 minutes ago, farmerben said:

My thought was to save Abraham Lincoln.  Reconstruction would have gone much better.  Our political landscape today would be quite different.

Suppose Alexander lived to conquer all of India and beyond.  Indian religion, philosophy, and mathematics would have permeated the western world early and completely.

 

 

 

Yep.... could backfire though if the Indians and Asians get their act together and decide to conquer Europe... only successfully this time.

The Mongol and Hun hordes nearly did,  but with knowledge comes power, and assuming Asia evolves faster than it actually did we might have an Asian world hegemony instead of a Western one.

[Spacescifi]

23 minutes ago, farmerben said:

My thought was to save Abraham Lincoln.  Reconstruction would have gone much better.  Our political landscape today would be quite different.

Suppose Alexander lived to conquer all of India and beyond.  Indian religion, philosophy, and mathematics would have permeated the western world early and completely.

 

 

Perhaps... I think Booth was just one of several who would have tried to off Lincoln if given a chance (he made a LOT of enemies).

One man can effect a lot of change, especially by laws.

And laws are the only thing a man can leave behind when he is dead to effect change.

So assuming the next president (was it Grant?) does not simply repeal some of Lincoln's reforms under popular pressure, even then they will be under pressure not to fully enforce the reforms if at all. Especially in the former Confederate States of America.

The second problem is that although Grant was praised for helping win the war, he was heavily criticized for running a corrupt government. Even my history book in high school class decades ago acknowledged this but I don't remember the reasons as to why.

[domenprevc]

It will be fun experience

[jimmymcgoochie]

A few things to consider:

1. What if someone worse came along and took control of 1930s Germany instead and they actually won the war? The socio-economic situation at that time was pretty dire with rampant hyperinflation and so the promise of an economic, social and military comeback appealed to many; that won’t go away just because one person isn’t there, and who knows who else could step in to take the lead?
2. If time travel was possible and you could go back in time and change a historical event, it’s almost certain that you would erase your own existence in the process (and the further back you go the more likely it gets) and so you would never go back in time to change that event, so it would happen anyway. Or alternatively, you might still exist but you wouldn’t know that you needed to go back in time to change the past because it didn’t need changing in your new version of history, so it wouldn’t change and you’re back where you started. You end up with a loop of “x happens > I go back and prevent x > x doesn’t happen > I don’t go back and prevent x > x happens”.

[kerbiloid]

On 6/30/2024 at 3:36 PM, farmerben said:

kill Hitler thus stopping WWII.  

You could kill any Hitler you wish among the countless other Hitler instances in the multiverse, and stop some WWIIs, while not stopping ten times WWIIs more.

(If a single public speaker was indeed valuable himself).

Also, without Hitler and WWII the nukes would stay excessive for ones, and unavailable for others, so there would be no nuclear parity, and the WWII could happen in 1950s between other parties.

On 6/30/2024 at 6:19 PM, farmerben said:

Suppose Alexander lived to conquer all of India and beyond.  Indian religion, philosophy, and mathematics would have permeated the western world early and completely.

Some could even rule in British Empire.

On 6/30/2024 at 6:19 PM, farmerben said:

My thought was to save Abraham Lincoln.  Reconstruction would have gone much better.  Our political landscape today would be quite different.

He was a lawyer. The lawyers aren't live beings. They are emanations of a system.

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

A few things to consider:

1. What if someone worse came along and took control of 1930s Germany instead and they actually won the war? The socio-economic situation at that time was pretty dire with rampant hyperinflation and so the promise of an economic, social and military comeback appealed to many; that won’t go away just because one person isn’t there, and who knows who else could step in to take the lead?
2. If time travel was possible and you could go back in time and change a historical event, it’s almost certain that you would erase your own existence in the process (and the further back you go the more likely it gets) and so you would never go back in time to change that event, so it would happen anyway. Or alternatively, you might still exist but you wouldn’t know that you needed to go back in time to change the past because it didn’t need changing in your new version of history, so it wouldn’t change and you’re back where you started. You end up with a loop of “x happens > I go back and prevent x > x doesn’t happen > I don’t go back and prevent x > x happens”.

Worse is also subjective here, someone less evil and more sane than Hitler would be more dangerous, less evil than Hitler and you can still be very bad. 
More of an problem, killing Hitler would also kill you unless well over 80 years old as the world would change and you are not born so you could not kill Hitler. 

Outside of: You have an time machine, then you have to go back in time and kill Hitler. Ok, I'm off. 
How did it go? Well I found him in an bunker in a city who was falling to Soviet forces, entered the bunker using the invisibility cloak and shot him with a pistol I picked up. It was a dead lady next to him. 
**********

[kerbiloid]

As my grandfather from the Northern part of Russia had been decommissioned after WWII in the Southern part of it, where he met and married to my grandmother, I'm strictly against preventing the WWII, as how could my mother be born then?

I just wonder, wasn't there another way to let them pair? More peaceful, or so. Why was it necessary to make a whole world war for that?

Edited July 2 by kerbiloid

[farmerben]

In my model it's not like Back to the Future, where you disappear if you prevent your own birth.  Einstein has a model where you can be your own grandpa.  Your grandparents might not meet each other and have you, but they are likely to have other kids.  Why be selfish?   You're not allowed to become a serial killer who goes back a forth fixing your own screw ups, because hand waving argument.

WWII might happen anyway.  The Soviets and the Japanese were committed expansionists.  It would just be different.

I'll stick with my plan to save Abraham Lincoln, as I'm most confident he could improve things slightly compared to what actually happened.

Orson Scott Card has an interesting story called Pastwatch:  The Redemption of Christopher Columbus.  In which by empowering the Native Americans just prior to Columbus' arrival, it is possible to avoid ecological devastation in our near future.  A very good read.

I also thought about saving the life of Jesus.  We get way more parables and teachings.  But a few things would be different.

Edited July 2 by farmerben

[ColdJ]

On 6/30/2024 at 10:36 PM, farmerben said:

If you could save the life of someone in order to change history for the better, who would you save?

Robin Williams - Actor and comedian. (They made the world easier to live in)

Dr Michael Moseley (They made the world a healthier place)

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

I also thought about saving the life of Jesus.

Are you sure you have read the episode with St.Peter and sword? It was a plan.

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

empowering the Native Americans just prior to Columbus' arrival, it is possible to avoid ecological devastation in our near future.

The first thing the empowered Native Americans would do would be crossing the 4 km of water between America and Chukotka, and rush to the south.

Instead of the countless Ninja Samurai vs Shaolin Monks documentaries from 1980s, we would be watching Ninja Samurai and Shaolin Monks vs Red Devils From Beyond The Ocean.
Or  Hairy Legs and Three Knives In The Captured Land Of Boiled Ant Eggs And Funny Bamboo Grizzlies, depending on who wins.

[kerbiloid]

On 6/30/2024 at 6:19 PM, farmerben said:

My thought was to save Abraham Lincoln.  Reconstruction would have gone much better.

Warlock!

[darthgently]

On 7/2/2024 at 8:36 AM, ColdJ said:

Robin Williams - Actor and comedian. (They made the world easier to live in)

Ironically, all evidence points to the fact that Robin Williams, while doing drugs with Richard Pryor had a chance to save Pryor's life from overdose by calling 911, but Williams, presumably concerned about being involved in the situation, simply walked (stumbled?) away.

So many of our favorite comedians are basically marketing their dysfunction as entertainment.  And we are entertained, as they are comedic geniuses.  But the cost is very often quite high as the incentive is for them to become more dysfunctional.  Richard Pryor, John Belushi, Andy Kaufmann, so many...

Edited July 14 by darthgently

[ColdJ]

4 hours ago, darthgently said:

And we are entertained, as they are comedic geniuses.  But the cost is very often quite high as the incentive is for them to become more dysfunctional.  Richard Pryor, John Belushi, Andy Kaufmann, so many...

Yes, but they are visible reflections of our own dysfunctions, we just can't put them out in to the world to be scutinised, so they give us way to know we are not alone.

I know that Robin Williams was deeply flawed, but when I think of him I take in his whole career. There are movies he made that few people ever mention but were quite deep.

If you ever get the chance, see the movie "What Dreams may come". It is beautiful, sad and wonderful.

[darthgently]

4 hours ago, ColdJ said:

Yes, but they are visible reflections of our own dysfunctions, we just can't put them out in to the world to be scutinised, so they give us way to know we are not alone.

I know that Robin Williams was deeply flawed, but when I think of him I take in his whole career. There are movies he made that few people ever mention but were quite deep.

If you ever get the chance, see the movie "What Dreams may come". It is beautiful, sad and wonderful.

I was, and am, a long time Robin Williams fan.   The same for Richard Pryor.  Which is what made that whole mess sting so much.  Given Williams depth I couldn't imagine him making the choice he did.  But he did.  I'll never get it I suppose

[TheSaint]

Niven's Law:  If the universe of discourse permits the possibility of time travel and of changing the past, then no time machine will be invented in that universe.

This isn't just a declarative. It's a self-correction. Think about it. I invent a time machine. Now I have created an entire future timeline in which time travel (and editing of my past timeline) is possible. In all of those future possibilities, all of which involve changing the past, at some point someone will go back into the past and make a change which will, intentionally or unintentionally, prevent me from inventing the time machine. And then there will be no time machine in that universe. Not only is this possible, it may actually be an ongoing process.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, TheSaint said:

I invent a time machine. Now I have created an entire future timeline in which time travel (and editing of my past timeline) is possible. In all of those future possibilities, all of which involve changing the past, at some point someone will go back into the past and make a change which will

You can "change" something only by excluding at least one dimension from the Universe to use it as a reference co-ordinate axis, to distinguish two states of the rest part of the Universe as "before" and "after", or "from" and "to".

I.e. this assumption is by definition applicable only to an incomlete Universe, lacking a technically infinite number of its possible states.

When you don't arbitrarily exclude something, there can be no "before", "after", "from", and "to".
There is a static unchangeable hologram-like infinite set of states, including all logically possible states of the Universe, when "you" as physical Observer are a laser beam, reading a CD-R, where you can read everything, but can change nothing, but your current reading position.
So, you can pass to the state of the Universe when the cup is broken, or the state where it is intact, but you can't break the cup because both states of the Universe are possible, so they exist, and the cup state is a Schroedinger's superposition of the cup states.

Thus, you just can reach any "point" of the space-time continuum by infinite number of ways, and can leave it by infinite number of ways.
Some ways to leave the point are more probable, due their less difference from the existing state, and probably due to the way which you had reached the current state.

So, in a complete Universe there is no such thing as the time machine, just not because of causality, past changing, or so, but because it is a CD-R which doesn't know what's the "time", and why some co-ordinate is more important than another.

That's also why is the multiverse interpretation superior to the usually used Copenhagen interpretation. The latter excludes at least one dimension, while the multiverse interpretation includes them all, making the Copenhagen just a particular case.

[Terwin]

Any process humans are capable of performing can also be done naturally (ie without intelligent action).  As such, if travel into the past is possible, then all of causality is broken.  And considering the scale of the universe, natural  paradox will happen.  What impact do those two have on your universe?  Can it even exist?

[kerbiloid]

On 7/17/2024 at 7:00 PM, Terwin said:

Any process humans are capable of performing can also be done naturally (ie without intelligent action).

Like natural woods of SLS rockets.

The humans are the natural way to make things naturally by nature.

They are a developed, self-organized part of the Earth lithosphere.

Edited July 19 by kerbiloid