Against Time Travel

[poliphilo]

"Freeman Dyson said a very good argument against the possibility of time travel is that we've never met any time travellers. If someone in the future had done it, someone would have come back." (Pref. Jeff Forshaw, as reported in the Indy)

No, it's a very poor argument. 

Firstly a time traveller would almost certainly be obeying some sort of prime directive- and trying to pass among us undetected.

Secondly, if they broke the directive and announced their identity (but why should they?) we'd simply disbelieve them.

Thirdly if they showed up with signs and wonders (in a UFO for example) the evidence would be placed in the file marked "paranormal" and ruled out of court. 

Comments

[raakone.livejournal.com]

And then there's another theory.....that those who time travel....might end up in another "possibility" It also explains that "suppose you went back and killed your parents before they had you" idea....that if you were to do that, it wouldn't erase you, but when you returned to the "present", a different "possibility" would take precedence. Nobody would know you because you weren't supposed to exist, but you came from another "possibility." Or I sort of relate it to the Shroedinger's Cat.....that there's one possible reality where the cat lives, one where it dies....and at every place where things can happen more than one way....the number of these "existances" or "realities" or "possibilities" or "time-streams" multiplies. Consequently, it may very well be that everyone who goes back in time ends up not in OUR "Shroediverse".....because maybe someone else already changed things, and maybe we're technically not in the "dominant" time-stream.

If my explanation sounds confusing, I apologize....but maybe someone can go back in time and translate it! *laughs* Remember, future events will affect you in the future, if they have not already done so!