Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If the target dies at time T2 after the traveler arrives at T1 < T2, the past is not altered but simply contains the killing event.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The claim conflates metaphysical pastness with epistemic access; something being 'in the past' doesn't resolve whether it was causally determined before the traveler existed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the traveler genuinely could have chosen not to kill at T1, then the death at T2 wasn't fixed prior to their arrival, making 'simply contains' misleading.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The past is a fixed block of spacetime events; adding a time traveler to T1 simply means they were always part of that historical block.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the target's death at T2 is a real event in history, it must have always been part of the past, regardless of causal origin.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
No contradiction arises if the traveler's action at T1 was the actual cause of death at T2 all along—the timeline remains consistent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.