Implications - eviltoast
  • lugal@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    5 months ago

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

    • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

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

      • Malgas@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months 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.

      • lugal@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        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

        • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • lugal@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months 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