|
Orange Devil posted:Clearly because he is a time traveler who killed the Archduke to prevent something truly horrible. "Good news everyone, I prevented the succession crisis and the Third and Fourth Balkan wars that needlessly killed tens of thousands of people and displaced half a million residents of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ferdinand won't be shaking things up and pissing off the Hungarians anymore and we can go straight into the 20th Century Long Peace"  "What? Why aren't you all happy, what happened?"
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
"No no, what if we build like a industrial plant, and invite 6 million of my bestest buds into the rooms...and then just hot box it all night."
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
Well with that attitude, no wonder
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:There was only one man with the power, vision, and strength of mind to kill Hitler, and he succeeded. Yeah but he was hosed up. He also killed the guy who killed Hitler.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Yeah but he also killed the guy who killed the guy who killed Hitler. Even that heroism couldn't prevent his untimely death
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Whoa, wait, what? One way to get around the paradox of time-travel is to assume the past can't be changed: the present we see is already the result of all time travel that will ever happen. Otherwise you're caught in logical paradoxes: if I go back and kill Adolf Hitler as a child, then there will be no Adolf Hitler in charge of Germany and in the future when time travel is invented no one would think to say "hey you know it sure would be swell if we went back in time to kill Hitler" It makes some sense if you think about it. When we talk about change, it refers to things that are one way at one moment and different in another moment. You can say "oh the streeetlight at 6th and main changed, it was red at 3:57pm on April 12 1962, and green at 3:59". But it doesn't seem to make sense to say "Oh at 3:57pm one thing happened, but then after that 3:57pm was different and something else happened". From that perspective, anything a time traveller does has to be consistent with what already happened or it wouldn't have happened that way. The best explanation I've heard is one that takes questions of free will out of it: imagine you knock a pool ball into a time machine, calculated at a perfect angle that it goes back in time a split second, bounces off something, and knocks its past self out of the way so it could never have entered the time machine. What would you see? One resolution is that when the ball comes out, its angle is wrong, and strikes only a glancing blow at its past self, knocking it a bit askew and it still goes into the machine but at a slightly wrong angle, goes back, comes out at that wrong angle...
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If you had a time machine and killed Hitler instead of Ronald Reagan then you are a bigger monster than Hitler. Won't the republicans just hire some other folksy idiot puppet to make people feel good about Jim Crow again?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Kill Emperor Wilhelm I in 1871, then give Frederick III a smoking cessation class.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
VideoTapir posted:If there is a multiverse and every Hitler murder just creates a separate timeline among infinite concurrent timelines without affecting ours, does that obviate any responsibility to kill Hitler or does it heighten it? If time travel created a branching universe running concurrently with copies of everyone alive, you would be morally obligated to create as many timelines as possible to maximise the multiverse's utility function. Killing Hitler takes too much time, every second you spend on one trip doing that is hundreds of billions of people who could exist it you made a bunch of one-second trips changing something small.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 06:59
|
|