• 5too@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Nah, this is just the glimpse before the time travel cleanup crew comes through and clears up all the evidence!

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      This proves nothing, since having you in the know would alter the future.

      Absence of evidence is not evidence.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I like the idea that time machines can only transport people within the time machines own timeline. You can go back in time and see yourself finish the time machine but you can’t go back one second before that.

      Like it’s one end of wormhole that gets anchored at a particular point in time and the other end drifts forward through time, you can enter and exit the wormhole at any point in its worldline but only within that limit

      It’s still allows for time travel, and explains why no one has ever met a time traveller.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 hours ago

        The concept of timelines (or that each decision creates a new dimension) ignores almost all of the fundamental laws of physics.

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          I mean, backwards time travel goes against our current understanding of physics. But multiple dimensions, or the many-worlds interpretation, etc, are not incompatible with our current understanding of physics, no, it’s just presently an untestable hypothesis

          • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            It doesn’t work with the law of conservation of energy for one. Except if you assume a framework of universes, in which anything goes but then you needn’t bother with physics at all.

            • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              7 hours ago

              You know what’s funny? Conservation of energy isn’t true on a universal scale in our universe in the first place. The expansion of our universe over time actually breaks that symmetry. This is why light can get redshifted over travelling long distances. It loses energy into… nothing

          • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            It doesn’t work with the law of conservation of energy for one. Except if you assume a framework of universes in which anything goes but then you needn’t bother with phisycs at all.

            • Natanael@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              MWI can easily ignore conservation of energy either by only considering in-universe energy or otherwise putting all universes in the same configuration space (much like one of those matter phase graphs showing how possible states grow on one side)

              This does still leave plenty of problems around stuff like branching triggers and much more, though

      • MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Clearly this mad scientist handcuffed themselves, got into a duffel bag, and then shot themselves in the head twice. Classic suicide.