Reading:

Vihvelin, Kadri. 1996. What time travelers cannot do. Philosophical Studies 81 (2-3): 315-330.

Rennick, Stephanie. 2015. Things mere mortals can do, but philosophers can’t. Analysis 75 (1): 22-26.

 

The second meeting discussed the above readings, which were presented by Dania.

Focusing more on Vihvelin's article, we discussed the question presented – can a Time Traveler kill their baby-self?

The article argued that they can't, featuring Suzy and Baby Suzy. Even if Suzy has the weapon and the training, something will make it so she wouldn't be able to kill her baby-self (like the gun jamming or missing her shot). We discussed the issues of Suzy's willingness to kill, and the definition of "Can" as "having the ability" in contrast to "Will", in relation to the objective of killing her baby-self leading to success.

Then we discussed the subject of antecedent worlds and parallel worlds, since someone killing their baby-self leads to a paradox – if they killed themselves, how did their adult version come to the situation in which they are killing themselves?

Vihvelin argues that in such antecedent worlds, where Time Travel might be possible, the Laws of Nature of our world wouldn't apply, and specifies a world in which human resurrection is possible. It was argued that if human resurrection is possible, then the whole notion of death would be obsolete, which would have further repercussions. This challenged the viability of the "counterfactuals" presented, as they were addressing different sets of realities, and countering them, instead of our own reality.

From there, the discussion moved onto the different types of Time Travel possible, which also included the question of why would you Time Travel – with some participants in favour of changing the past, while others preferred to observe it.

There was physical Time Travel, in which the Time Traveler moves through time with their body. This had several issues – if you travel back – do you still affect what is happening? Assuming you managed to do so and also be invisible – what about your oxygen intake? If you are not invisible, your mere presence can alter reality dramatically, even by someone merely glancing your way instead of the other. Therefore, it was argued a Time Traveler could never just "silently observe" the past, due to the Ripple Effect.

This brought forward an incredibly optimistic notion, counter to the fatalistic notions discussed – that pointed to people's innate value at every given time. When you are displaced in time and placed in another time, it is as if suddenly everything you do has enormous influence and repercussions on reality. If so, what is to say this is not already true, when you are not misplaced in time?

The second manner to time travel was the traveling of one's consciousness. This led to a different set of questions; assuming that you would travel to your own "Self" (and not to the body of a stranger), what would happen to the existing consciousness, in the past or in the future?

The options suggested were that it would either be Frozen, Overridden (killing the person you traveled into), or Merge with your own.

Assuming you would Merge, how would that come to be? If you travel to the future and have accesses to the memories of the time period you skipped, but no emotional connection to them, are they your own memories?

This was embodied in a scene from the movie Click (2006), in which the protagonist views a past memory he hadn't experienced, while interacting with his father, who since died. He is incredibly frustrated and embittered, yelling at his past-self for ignoring his father. It was suggested that this scene could also represent self-reflection, remorse and guilt, which we all experience when we look back on certain memories.

It was said that memories are our soul and essence, as a participant shared their experience with Alzheimer.

Another possibility of Time Travel was the one discussed in "The Ruby Red Trilogy", a book series by Kerstin Gier. In this work, the protagonist has a time-traveling gene, which allows her and others to time travel. People are aware of the time-travel gene, and those who have it receive guidance regarding it.

It was argued that moving through time is not merely through a linear time, but that you can move sideways, as well. One of the participants argued that the "branching timelines" theory is based on a loophole, and was not convinced by it. The problem of when does a Time Loop starts, exactly, for the first time, was brought up.

Then there was the issue of which Time Traveler has the "higher ground" in a possible conflict between Time-versions; is it the one in the Past or the one in the Future? On the one hand, the people in the Future have Hindsight, which is said to be 20-20. They know what would come to pass, and have better technology.

On the other hand, the people in the Past, while they can not exactly use Foresight, have the better starting point – they have the advantage of time itself; whenever the Future starts, they have X years more. For example, if the conflict is 50 years from "Now" (which is the past), then the Past has 50 years more than the Future.

Then again, if you travel to the Future, then your Future-self already knows you have the capacity to do so, and has your own experience. This was dealt with in the show Dr. Who, in an episode called "Time Crash" (2007).

Finally, we asked what would happen if you would meet your Self from a different time (past or future). It is said it could break the fabric of time itself, and reality would implode. However, another question was how far would you go? To the past? To the future? Years? Or Minutes?

If your child-self met you, would they necessarily recognize you? Could they merely mistake you as a relative? Would you recognize yourself?

 

The discussion was engaging, and again popular media was brought up, as it grappled with a few of these questions.