Would your future self become un-kill-able?

How? Wouldn't you just disappear from existence?

Giygas said
How? Wouldn't you just disappear from existence?

But if you disappear how would you kill yourself?

My theory rather then disappearing you become Something that exists outside existences itself.

For once Nat an interesting, albeit trolly and attention seeking as always, question.

Sometime ago I read a few theories on time travel to the past, some argue that time travel is possible but the universe prevents paradoxes from occurring. For example lets say you travel back in time and try to kill yourself, ''fate'' will cause you to fail and whatever does occur will match with your own memories of the past. Then there's the idea that time travel to the past is simply impossible, again to prevent the occurrence of paradoxes. There is also this idea:

Giygas said
How? Wouldn't you just disappear from existence?

That you could kill your past self but by changing the past, your future no longer exists and everything associated with it is erased from existence, include yourself at the very moment you kill yourself. Some also argue that due to this by even travelling in time you would create a new timeline and therefore eliminate yourself and your future from existence immediately which is a different version of the time travel is impossible argument.

Furthermore it could be said that if you believe every choice or action causes a branch in time, then travelling back in time merely creates another branch in time allowing you to kill yourself and for you to remain in existence. But you wouldn't be immortal as your past self would still exist, albeit in a timeline where you didn't go back i time.

The only way I could see this even occurring is if time travel isn't really time travel but rather going to another universe which so happens to exactly match our universe's past, in which case you could murder your ''past self'' but it wouldn't really be your past self and you wouldn't be immortal.

I choose to believe in the split timeline theory, myself.

Every action you do creates a seperate timeline.

Each timeline then branches off into more timelines and so on and so forth.

But travelling back in time won't change the future, but rather create an infinite number of timelines- one from deciding if you want to go to the path, and then the others deciding which year. The same thing happens when you try to kill yourself. One to decide if you do it or not, the rest to decide the time, place, and death method

But if you believe that time is just a circle of fragile string, then going back in time to kill yourself will just cut the future of the string from that moment and tie a new string together from there. You would cease to exist, but then you would exist again to either repeat that mistake, or to forget it ever happened.

K-97 said
For once Nat an interesting, albeit trolly and attention seeking as always, question. Sometime ago I read a few theories on time travel to the past, some argue that time travel is possible but the universe prevents paradoxes from occurring. For example lets say you travel back in time and try to kill yourself, ''fate'' will cause you to fail and whatever does occur will match with your own memories of the past. Then there's the idea that time travel to the past is simply impossible, again to prevent the occurrence of paradoxes. There is also this idea: That you could kill your past self but by changing the past, your future no longer exists and everything associated with it is erased from existence, include yourself at the very moment you kill yourself. Some also argue that due to this by even travelling in time you would create a new timeline and therefore eliminate yourself and your future from existence immediately which is a different version of the time travel is impossible argument. Furthermore it could be said that if you believe every choice or action causes a branch in time, then travelling back in time merely creates another branch in time allowing you to kill yourself and for you to remain in existence. But you wouldn't be immortal as your past self would still exist, albeit in a timeline where you didn't go back i time. The only way I could see this even occurring is if time travel isn't really time travel but rather going to another universe which so happens to exactly match our universe's past, in which case you could murder your ''past self'' but it wouldn't really be your past self and you wouldn't be immortal.

How about this idea, alt universe's exist, but each has there own time line/flow, that is independent of one another.

The idea that you would exist outside existent comes from the idea that the timeline try to repair it's self but because of how your action cause more problems, the space fabric of your own existences tares meaning you are dead, in this timeline the one you came from, but you yourself as a being is not effected by the changes this cause, rather you are a exception that has occurred to try to keep this timeline from collapsing into it's self like a time black hole.

In this timeline where you killed yourself you are immortal as stuff don't effect you normally, but in other timelines of different alt universe's where you alt past and future past both still live, you can be killed as the timeline of this universe wasn't the one that you paradox, and still effects you as if you didn't kill yourself.

natsumehack said
How about this idea, alt universe's exist, but each has there own time line/flow, that is independent of one another.The idea that you would exist outside existent comes from the idea that the timeline try to repair it's self but because of how your action cause more problems, the space fabric of your own existences tares meaning you are dead, in this timeline the one you came from, but you yourself as a being is not effected by the changes this cause, rather you are a exception that has occurred to try to keep this timeline from collapsing into it's self like a time black hole.In this timeline where you killed yourself you are immortal as stuff don't effect you normally, but in other timelines of different alt universe's where you alt past and future past both still live, you can be killed as the timeline of this universe wasn't the one that you paradox, and still effects you as if you didn't kill yourself.

My natural question is how would you exist outside of existence, what would sustain your consciousness?. You would no longer be a part of the natural fabric of spacetime. Heck TBH your idea could be true simply because we have absolutely no idea what could happen, but then because of this any and all ideas about what could happen outside of existence are valid. Assuming you remain a being, even tough that requires existing, I suppose you would be unkillable. But then simply because you can't interact with existence, timelines and all seeing as they are a part of existence and you have no way of rejoining existence, if you are even conscious then you would experience literal nothingness. No time. No space. Just nothing. It would be hell.

There are, as I understand it, three possible ways to look at time-travel.

You can believe in a "fixed" timeline, i.e. no events can be changed by going back in the past - so any event undertaken in the past after time-travel is already part of the "future" reality in which you live. An example of this is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - when they go back in time, everything they do had occurred when they originally went through the events (like Harry being the one to cast the patronus from the far side of the lake.) In this case, the very fact that you're alive to be able to time-travel backwards demonstrates that you either don't try, or try and fail to, kill yourself.

You can believe in a "dynamic" timeline, in which events are not fixed, and you can change them by travelling back in the past. In this case, the paradoxes you guys are discussing arise.

Or, thirdly, you can believe in a sort of multiverse theory, in which either new universes or new timelines are spawned each time you do something - and so when you go back and kill yourself, you're only affecting certain timelines, whereas in others you continue to survive. A certain requirement of this is that you can't travel between timelines/universes - otherwise the paradoxes we've already observed can come into effect.

This thread is the equivalent of a forum bong hit.

Smiral said
This thread is the equivalent of a forum bong hit.

^
Isn't this literally most threads by Nat?

Smiral said
This thread is the equivalent of a forum bong hit.

But Smiral-chan... drugs are bad... ugguuuuu~ ;-;
But friends are good! ^_^

"If only you could perceive time as I do."

Wasn't this the plot of Looper or something?

I don't know, never saw it.

Jster said
Wasn't this the plot of Looper or something?I don't know, never saw it.

yes.... except when he killed himself to stop himself, he died and his other him completely disappeared but things continued as they were instead of creating a paradox.

What they basically did was said "This sentence is false." and after saying that it was false once they ignored the fact that, that means that it's now true and just left it and "It's false, fucking deal with it."

Oh I get it

K-97 said
My natural question is how would you exist outside of existence, what would sustain your consciousness?. You would no longer be a part of the natural fabric of spacetime. Heck TBH your idea could be true simply because we have absolutely no idea what could happen, but then because of this any and all ideas about what could happen outside of existence are valid. Assuming you remain a being, even tough that requires existing, I suppose you would be unkillable. But then simply because you can't interact with existence, timelines and all seeing as they are a part of existence and you have no way of rejoining existence, if you are even conscious then you would experience literal nothingness. No time. No space. Just nothing. It would be hell.

That is one possible outcome, another is you don't exist in what is considered existence, yet at the same time you are in existence, so in other words, you become what you have made, a paradox in of it's self.

We don't know enough about ontology to know what would happen.

I could probably make up enough speculatory bullshit to fill over 20 pages of utter garbage, but I'd rather not. Instead, here is a sphere turning inside out.

CidTheKid said
We don't know enough about ontology to know what would happen.I could probably make up enough speculatory bullshit to fill over 20 pages of utter garbage, but I'd rather not. Instead, here is a sphere turning inside out.

Topology is probably the most prominent mathematical subject that I've simultaneously come across very frequently and yet utterly fail to understand beyond the basics. It's very frustrating when you're trying to learn about physics x)

I wonder if this is what a discussion of math was like, before the concept of zero was invented.

A paradox is a product of flawed perception. It's impossible to draw a triangle with three right angles, unless you do it in three dimensions -- why shouldn't time be any different? It's 'impossible,' incomprehensible, whatever -- to travel back in time and kill yourself..... so what? Is that supposed to stop you from doing it? Change the paradigm and anything becomes possible.

Halo said
Topology is probably the most prominent mathematical subject that I've simultaneously come across very frequently and yet utterly fail to understand beyond the basics. It's very frustrating when you're trying to learn about physics x)

Oh boy, that sounds something I'd like. If one were to try to understand it, what would you recommend to avoid losing your head?