/x/ I have a hypothetical thought experiment for you.
Lets take two people, person A and person B. Lets say that A hates B, and wants to kill him. A has time travelling powers, and can go forward and backwards in time at will.
A goes forward in time by 20 minutes, kills B by shooting him in the head, leaves the gun in the future, and then goes back to when he left. He then lets time pass by 20 minutes, what happens to B?
>>17708928
The time police step in to ruin what was undoubtedly a great service to humanity.
>>17708928
well either a clone of A appears and kills B, or B suddenly gets a bullet through his head and dies.
>>17708928
Possibly nothing, since A created a new timeline in the exact moment he time travelled.
TWENTY MINUTES
>>17708928
What do you mean by "goes back to where he left"?
Do you mean he basically left a savestate and returned there, breaching the principle of the conservation of mass with the new state of his brain (and everything else, assuming the conscious isn't all that's preserved)? Or do you mean he somehow reversed time, as if it were some sort of film reel? In the second case, is there some sort of overlapping meta-time predetermination thing?
>>17709140
zis
/brot
>>17709195
>In the second case, is there some sort of overlapping meta-time predetermination thing?
If you have to ask, then it's so far above your pay grade that I ought to precommit to ensuring you never obtain the right to post here ever again. But I let it slide because fuck having a static chronology.
>>17709205
I don't remember where I was going with that question honestly.
What I think I'd meant to be getting at- is the memory just anomalously unaffected? All modes of time travel I'm imagining here just turn out fucky
Also, how is the gun left in the "future"? In method 1 it's erased, along with the rest of that future (unless this idiot's gone against superastronomical odds and made a time loop some fucking how), and method 2 just doesn't make sense
assuming what OP's thinking of works out somehow, the gun wouldn't be there because you haven't time travelled yet, because that happened negative something minutes ago
>>17709230
>the gun wouldn't be there because you haven't time travelled yet
Oh well then yes, there is a metatime contained in your brain that controls the observation of futures.
>>17708928
Well done, you've realised that time travel makes no sense.
>>17709262
The ability to ask questions says nothing of their answers.
>>17709269
If the answer is contradictory it shows that the question isn't valid.
>>17709305
or we cannot understand the answer
>>17709305
Time loops do not contradict themselves. When sheer definition disagrees with you, you give up or you fail miserably. No other option abounds.
>>17708928
future, past and present exist at same time. so the future that was changed will be overwritten with time, so nothing will happen to B.
But 20 min into the future B will still be dead
What's the problem? It'll either be >>17709140
or, in the case of a single-timeline-only, you have the gun, go into the future, kill the dude + leave the gun, and come back. If you stick around to watch, you'll see yourself arrive, kill the fucker and leave the gun behind
>>17708928
Nothing, the future probability base showed you an unactualized possibility,the future hasn't happened yet."solved"
While he is travelling backwards through time is he not still travelling forwards through time?
That's the thing with timetravel. It's horseshit.
