Resolved: If possible time travel should not be researched and developed.

============================ 1. The past be with you, and also with you. ============================ "Time travel would be dangerous for the present." Actually we don't know. All claims related to time travel should be prefaced with a "what if" since absolute claims on this matter do not exist, and would require a knowledge base we do not have. The claim 'bad things will happen' then is at best a probabilistic model, one however that is unfounded as we simply do not know how time travel would work (granting that it could). As such we can call it a particular model (damage model) regarding the possibility only (unfounded) about causal events should time travel occur. It is a guess, nothing more, at a what if scenario. It's on equal standing with any other model, say, time line primacy (an original time line reasserts itself upon paradox), or causal line splits (multi dimensions of each causal act of which we experience just one of countless multitudes). "Granted, one could rewrite the history books and prevent things like the Holocaust, and turn the tide of battles throughout history; there is NO telling what dramatic consequences it would have on the reality that the operator would be coming from." If we grant your model as true, then determinism of a single time line is asserted. Do all consequences need to be dramatic? Not at all. Are all consequences bad? Not at all. Can a decision be validly based upon a premise "no telling what" - poorly at best. In fact if we grant that particular model as true then it provides the best possible model of working out the function of what would occur given a specific event, not the opposite. "In the end, you could be causing the death of millions by so much as going back in time to save the person who has the cure for cancer. We simply do not know." Large issue here - it follows a very narrow allowance for action. By which, X will cause Y presupposes a narrow causal chain of events occurring in a global market of decision making. For example, 'X does Y, allowing uber Hitler person to arise whose actions put Hitler to shame in the genocidal hall of fame', disavows the plethora of decision making each individual makes, and equally, that individuals exist that make decisions. It's like damning the meteor that killed the dinosaurs that allowed mammals to prosper that gave rise to hominids and eventually gave rise to homo sapiens that led to the formation of the German state and the policies of the Third Reich. Simply because an event occurs prior to another, does not make it equally damnable as being responsible for it. ========================= 2. It's time, Jim, but not as we know it. ========================= "Time travel would be dangerous and unpredictable." Unpredictable =/= dangerous however. Rolling a thousand D20s is unpredictable - it's not however dangerous short of trying to swallow some. "All we can say for sure s that we can't say anything for sure, which is just the problem." Then all such claims of "it's dangerous" are void, since it presupposes a model where it is precisely *not* unpredictable. "the present and the future are at stake." Or are they? Again that presupposes a specific model of time travel and of causal chain events (causal chains may end in dead ends - there is no rule that states they should enact continuously in this regard). Such a model where one's actions create a causal split to occur leaving the 'original' time line free to occur is also for consideration. As such no negative (or any) consequences are applied to the time line (just an alternate one not for consideration). The fact we don't know nor can't say makes all such arguments largely void as they rely on a model that is unproven. Even if we grant it as true, it largely fails - basing a decision on non parameters is largely a contradiction. "Would you let a four year old make your eggs for breakfast? No, because you would probably get salmonella. Just the same, would you put the course of the present and the future in to the hands of someone who has little to no clue as to what to expect?" While this whole debate skims around appeals to consequence (yes I know, not all cases are a fallacy), this is probably the best valid example of the fallacy itself. Firstly, stating no consequences can be known, is not the same as consequences are available that should be avoided. Your own premise makes your argument void in this regards and again, assumes a specific model of time travel. Lastly, simply because something is unknown, does not make it invalid for consideration. Depths of the ocean are largely unknown, reaches of space are largely unknown - yet we still seek to explore these with relative impunity. We may awaken some leviathan sleeping in the cold dark ocean trenches (Cthulhu!) who devours us all - we don't let that explicit unknown stop us however. Simply, the unknown is an invalid marker for decision making on this scale. You would create stasis of intellectual advancement under this model. ================ 3. Run away! Run away! ================ "Time travel could be dangerous to the operator." And? So is eating triple patty, bacon cheeseburgers. Yet they are still allowed to be served. Individuals should be responsible for their own decisions, here it is no exception. A time traveller would be fully cognisant of the fact that 'this may be the end' - no one forces that action. It didn't stop space missions, it's not a valid excuse here either. It also need not require a living actor to accomplish - the required tech for time travel would easily put us on par with a tech level that allowed remote non human viewers (heck we do it already on Mars). Such mechanical observers also cut down worries about causal horror. ================ So what feasible good could come from time travel? History buffs need no longer rely on questionable artifacts to ascertain events, we now have observers to do that. In fact this could be feasibly managed for a great deal of missing knowledge - even prior to homo sapiens. The role of observers would allow a vast increase in the repository of historical knowledge, both human and otherwise. Tick one for knowledge. Yay knowledge. Cures for diseases/illnesses could be retro placed in the hands of those able to make use of them, long before such diseases wreak havoc. Tick one for bleeding heart liberals. In fact such causality mongering could preempt casualties from occurring in a lot of disasters after they occur - time travel advice - clear the area. That's another tick right there. I'm sure Philip K Dick would be chuffed too, we now have time police. Tick one for justice. Simply, the concerns are based on unwarranted assertions of a particular model. Even if such a model were true, the concerns are largely invalid or blown out of proportion. The benefits however, quite impressive. == :)