lugal comments on Implications

Implications (mander.xyz)

submitted 2 years ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago (5 children)

It's by far the most plausible but sure, if you ignore Ockham's razor, sure, it's only one of many explanations

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (4 children)

More plausible than there being rules around time travel that involve not attending parties? I think not.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Malgas@beehaw.org 5 points 2 years ago

One such possibility is that you can only travel to times where the device you're using to do so exists.

More like a time gate than an H.G. Wells-style machine, but still a workable model.

parent

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Tbf the important question is: assuming that backwards time travel is possible, will people attempt to the party. And there I would say, unlikely. And while I think backwards time travel is very implausible, the experiment itself proves nothing

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

I thought in your original reply you were saying the most plausible thing was that there must be no time travel. This reply suggests otherwise, which I agree with.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

I still do not believe in time travel so I think the most plausible thing is there is no time travel. But assuming time travel was possible, there would still be no one on the party. This doesn't prove it but neither do I need any proof

parent