A time-travel question...

[west3man]

This question is inspired by an old comic book story I recently read.

1) Think about a hypothetical moment in history when 5000 of people died due to an explosion.
2) Imagine that a time traveller arrived in that time period just before the explosion would occur.
3) Let's say that he went to the site of the fated explosion, prior to its occurrence, because he it would occur and he could use that explosive energy to get back to his own time period (unharmed).
4) Let's also say that, as a result of his presence/actions, the lit fuse to the explosive device was accidently extinguished and the explosion wouldn't take place.
5) Now imagine that after realizing that he'd changed history, the time traveller deliberately relit the fuse, causing the explosion to occur.
6) As a result of his actions all the people that were fated to die in the original, explosion ended up dying in the one the time-traveller caused.
7) No one other than those same, exact 5000 people died in the explosion.

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?
B) Would you say he's a murderer?
C)What would you have done in his place?

[TinMan]

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?
B) Would you say he's a murderer?
C)What would you have done in his place?

A) No, I think it would be more morally reprehensible to actually change the future in that way. Besides, there's no telling what changing something of that magnitude would cause in the future.

B) Nope

C) I'dda blown the fuckers up!

[darkkeeperjr]

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?
No. cause he had to put history back the way it was!

B) Would you say he's a murderer?
No, cause sometimes you have to kill to set things right. if you do it for that reason or other nobles reason then a murderer, No

C)What would you have done in his place?[/QUOTE]

Lit the fuse.


interesting that you never gave a reason for him lighting the fuse.
A: wanting to go home or B: keeping history correct cause time line may wink out or something else horrible.

[west3man]

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?
No. cause he had to put history back the way it was!

B) Would you say he's a murderer?
No, cause sometimes you have to kill to set things right. if you do it for that reason or other nobles reason then a murderer, No

C)What would you have done in his place?

Lit the fuse.


interesting that you never gave a reason for him lighting the fuse.
A: wanting to go home or B: keeping history correct cause time line may wink out or something else horrible.He went there so he could go home. Without the fuse he couldn't go home (right away, at least) and history, from his perspective, would've been changed.

So, if you're wondering which was his primary motivation, I dunno.

Would it change your answer if he did it to get home as opposed to doing it so the future wouldn't be changed?

[darkkeeperjr]

Yes my answer changes, cause if he put himself above 5000 people then he becomes a murderer.

Not to say i would had done different. where's my lighter?

[SilverSequence]

Are we sure that he isn't the original murderer?

Maybe the fuse would never have been relit if he weren't there, but since he was history has changed to include the deaths of 5000 people. Thus in the future he learns that 5000 people were killed by an "unknown bomber" (the time traveller).

Sure he's stuck in a loop of sorts, but it's the only thing that really makes sense. This would also explain the exact same number of people dying.

Furthermore, if he relites the fuse is absolutely a murderer. Just because god tells me that you're going to die today does not make it alright for me to be the one who does it. If you were walking down the street and a guy ran up to you claiming to be from the future, would you let him shoot you because he believes it's "history"?

thus:

a) heck yes he's done a bad thing

b) yes, just because you "know" the future doesn't make killing people alright

c) either find another way to get home or do my best to live in my new time period. Life's funny like that.

[west3man]

Yes my answer changes, cause if he put himself above 5000 people then he becomes a murderer.

Not to say i would had done different. where's my lighter?
Interesting. Same 5000 people, same way of dying, same man, same ends... but in one case he's a murderer and in the other he's not.

Well, that's one of the reasons I asked the question. I just find that interesting.

[ocelotrevs]

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?
Yes. But if he didn't things alot worse could happen

B) Would you say he's a murderer?
No, he was preserving the timeline. But what's to say that he's not t the casue of the explosion he went back to prevent.

C)What would you have done in his place?

Close my eyes and lit the fuse.
If I didn't I may have made a paradox.

But I wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

[west3man]

Are we sure that he isn't the original murderer?

Maybe the fuse would never have been relit if he weren't there, but since he was history has changed to include the deaths of 5000 people. Thus in the future he learns that 5000 people were killed by an "unknown bomber" (the time traveller). Well, remember, HE's the one who put the fuse OUT. If he were never there, as far as we know, the explosion would've taken place.

Sure he's stuck in a loop of sorts, but it's the only thing that really makes sense. This would also explain the exact same number of people dying.

Furthermore, if he relites the fuse is absolutely a murderer. Just because god tells me that you're going to die today does not make it alright for me to be the one who does it. If you were walking down the street and a guy ran up to you claiming to be from the future, would you let him shoot you because he believes it's "history"?Well, we don't know if that guy's nuts, in your scenario.

In the scenario I presented, the details are all givens. So, we KNOW the guy is from the future.

thus:

a) heck yes he's done a bad thing

b) yes, just because you "know" the future doesn't make killing people alright

c) either find another way to get home or do my best to live in my new time period. Life's funny like that.So tell me this... if you'd arrived at the scene of the explosion, but let it occur without interfering, are you doing a bad thing, then? Are you a murderer? An accessory?

[Cei-U!]

If the past is immutable, he would have no choice about lighting the fuse even if he believes he is acting out of free will. If the explosion does not occur, his future era doesn't come into existence and he will not travel back to stop it in the first place.

Cei-U!
I summon the Exedrin!

[west3man]

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?
Yes. But if he didn't things alot worse could happen

B) Would you say he's a murderer?
No, he was preserving the timeline. But what's to say that he's not t the casue of the explosion he went back to prevent. If he hadn't gone back there, the fuse would've remained lit, as far as we know.

C)What would you have done in his place?

Close my eyes and lit the fuse.
If I didn't I may have made a paradox.

But I wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.
Maybe he didn't MEAN to get involved.

[tricksterpup]

C)What would you have done in his place?
I would have gone back to the time of Dinosaurs and stepped on a Butterfly.

[west3man]

If the past is immutable, he would have no choice about lighting the fuse even if he believes he is acting out of free will. If the explosion does not occur, his future era doesn't come into existence and he will not travel back to stop it in the first place.Not if his actions would only result in creating a divergent timeline.

Cei-U!
I summon the Exedrin!
But does lighting the fuse count as a bad thing and/or murder?
What would you have done if you could've chosen? (assuming free will exists)

[TinMan]

Yes my answer changes, cause if he put himself above 5000 people then he becomes a murderer.

Not to say i would had done different. where's my lighter?

I find it odd that he has to have a primary and a secondary reason. I mean, to me, its two reasons that justify doing it; make sure the futures correct and to get home.

I think the moral dilemma would be bigger if his intent was to stay in the past. I mean, if he was gonna stay there anyway, what would he care if the future changed and he saved those peoples lives.

[TinMan]

If the past is immutable, he would have no choice about lighting the fuse even if he believes he is acting out of free will. If the explosion does not occur, his future era doesn't come into existence and he will not travel back to stop it in the first place.

Cei-U!
I summon the Exedrin!

But wouldn't he remain a time/space anomally since he was already there? I mean, his future had to exist at one point so he could even come back in time, so wouldn't time continue on with him in the present to create a new future? Or would he just disappear from the time/space continuum?

[tricksterpup]

If the past is immutable, he would have no choice about lighting the fuse even if he believes he is acting out of free will. If the explosion does not occur, his future era doesn't come into existence and he will not travel back to stop it in the first place.

Cei-U!
I summon the Exedrin!
I would rather go back in time and step on a butterfly. :D

[borateen]

Sounds like the Superman crossover Time after Time, where Supes is bouncing around the distant past, the recent past, and the far future, and explosions are the only way he can travel. At one point, he lands on the moon during the Legion's time just before it is blown up. He ends up helping stop the explosion (of course Superman can't let anyone die, regardless of he's stuck in time or not), but one of the Linear Men reactivates the bomb and blows the moon up...because that's what is supposed to happen.

Now, onto the answers:

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?
Yes, I would say that killing 5,000 people is a bad thing.

B) Would you say he's a murderer?
Yes, I would say that killing 5,000 makes a person a murderer.

C)What would you have done in his place?
I don't know. I'd like to think that I'd always place a person's life over my own happiness, but I don't think I can ever answer a question like this. You just never know how you're going to act until you're actually put into the situation.

[Cei-U!]

Not if his actions would only result in creating a divergent timeline.

Hence my opening qualifier that the past is immutable. Many theoriticians believe that time travel into the past is impossible and discredit the idea of divergence (though they do accept the existence of alternate realities in which the explosion does not occur).

But does lighting the fuse count as a bad thing and/or murder?

I dunno. Which is the greatest evil: killing 5,000 people history says are fated to die at that time and place or altering the future without knowing the consequences. What if one of those saved brings about a thermonuclear war and mankind goes extinct? Then you'd be responsible for genocide instead of mere mass murder.

What would you have done if you could've chosen? (assuming free will exists)

Truthfully it's such an arbitrary and impossible scenario that I can't begin to predict my behavior in those circumstances.

Cei-U!
I summon the great unknown!

[west3man]

Sounds like the Superman crossover Time after Time, where Supes is bouncing around the distant past, the recent past, and the far future, and explosions are the only way he can travel. At one point, he lands on the moon during the Legion's time just before it is blown up. He ends up helping stop the explosion (of course Superman can't let anyone die, regardless of he's stuck in time or not), but one of the Linear Men reactivates the bomb and blows the moon up...because that's what is supposed to happen.That's the one. I needed to pair down the variables to create a viable hypothetical.

Now, onto the answers:

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?
Yes, I would say that killing 5,000 people is a bad thing....even though we don't know if the deaths of 5,000 people then would result in saving tens of thousands of people?

B) Would you say he's a murderer?
Yes, I would say that killing 5,000 makes a person a murderer.[/quote]...even though we don't know if the deaths of 5,000 people then would result in saving tens of thousands of people?

C)What would you have done in his place?
I don't know. I'd like to think that I'd always place a person's life over my own happiness, but I don't think I can ever answer a question like this. You just never know how you're going to act until you're actually put into the situation.So, I'll ask you what I asked someone else, if you don't mind.

If he never put the fuse out, but he also never tried to stop the explosion, would that make him "bad" or a murderer?

[Dreadstar]

Not if his actions would only result in creating a divergent timeline.

I *know* I'm going to regret this, I just know it.

Divergent timelines implicate alternate universes.

If he created a divergent timline, the original universe still exists, only now he's riding it out in a different one.

So therefore the 5000 people die anyway. Only not in THIS universe, in the other one. If you consider two divergent timelines to be real due to a choice or action, then both states exist: The 5000 die *and* the 5000 live.

[tricksterpup]

A Sound of Thunder

[ocelotrevs]

If he hadn't gone back there, the fuse would've remained lit, as far as we know.

Fair enough. I still don't see him as a murderer.


Maybe he didn't MEAN to get involved.He got involved when he decided to go and interfere with the explosion.

[west3man]

Hence my opening qualifier that the past is immutable. Many theoriticians believe that time travel into the past is impossible and discredit the idea of divergence (though they do accept the existence of alternate realities in which the explosion does not occur).I didn't think a divergent timeline directly contradicted the concept of immutable time.

He didn't change an event. (Changing an event would prove that time is not immutable.) He just, potentially, created an alternate timeline.

But if you still think the two are mutually exclusive, I guess that's that.

I dunno. Which is the greatest evil: killing 5,000 people history says are fated to die at that time and place or altering the future without knowing the consequences. What if one of those saved brings about a thermonuclear war and mankind goes extinct? Then you'd be responsible for genocide instead of mere mass murder.

Truthfully it's such an arbitrary and impossible scenario that I can't begin to predict my behavior in those circumstances.

Cei-U!
I summon the great unknown!Oh well.

[west3man]

I *know* I'm going to regret this, I just know it.

Divergent timelines implicate alternate universes.

If he created a divergent timline, the original universe still exists, only now he's riding it out in a different one.

So therefore the 5000 people die anyway. Only not in THIS universe, in the other one. If you consider two divergent timelines to be real due to a choice or action, then both states exist: The 5000 die *and* the 5000 live.
If a divergent timeline were created, I agree.

[west3man]

Fair enough. I still don't see him as a murderer.

He got involved when he decided to go and interfere with the explosion.If that's what you meant by saying you wouldn't have gotten involved, doesn't that contradict your saying you would've "Close[d your] eyes and lit the fuse," because if you didn't, you "may have made a paradox?"

Are you saying that once you found yourself in that time period you wouldn't have sought out an explosion to get yourself back home?

[Cei-U!]

Oh well.

I'm not raining on your parade, west. I honestly don't know how I'd react.

As for the whole time travel/alternate reality thing, you might want to check out a book called Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions and the Future of the Cosmos by physicist Michio Kaku. He does a great job of explaining the latest thinking on these subjects in layman's terms. The theory of the past's immutability is only one of many offered but is the one that makes the most sense to me given the question of where the matter constituting the diverged timeline comes from.

Cei-U!
I summon the migraine!

[PatrickG]

I consider it morally reprehensible NOT to alter history when we have the power to.

[west3man]

I'm not raining on your parade, west. I honestly don't know how I'd react. It's my parade and I can imagine raindrops if I want to... or something.

No. Any answer anyone gives is what it is. I'll question it as far as my curiosity and their patience allows, but it was a given that one or more people would throw their hands up at the whole thing.

The theory of the past's immutability is only one of many offered but is the one that makes the most sense to me given the question of where the matter constituting the diverged timeline comes from.
That's a toughie.

[west3man]

I consider it morally reprehensible NOT to alter history when we have the power to.So, if I could go back in time and keep your parents from meeting, but fail to do so, I'm morally reprehensible?

Way to put your existence where your mouth is.

[Cei-U!]

So, if I could go back in time and keep your parents from meeting, but fail to do so, I'm morally reprehensible?

Way to put your existence where your mouth is.

Better yet, you could marry Patrick's mom and become his dad!

Cei-U!
I run for cover!

[Dizzy D]

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?
Yes, he sacrificed people for what he perceived should be history. So what if history has been changed, who's to say that his own time wasn't the result of a similar change and that history has any intrinsic value.

B) Would you say he's a murderer?
Yes, he killed 5000 people. As you can see from no1, I don't buy any "they were supposed to die/going to die anyway"-arguments.

C)What would you have done in his place?
Try to prevent the explosion in the first place.

[borateen]

That's the one. I needed to pair down the variables to create a viable hypothetical.

...even though we don't know if the deaths of 5,000 people then would result in saving tens of thousands of people?

B) Would you say he's a murderer?
Yes, I would say that killing 5,000 makes a person a murderer. ...even though we don't know if the deaths of 5,000 people then would result in saving tens of thousands of people??

We KNOW 5,000 WILL die. You're right...one of these people may be the next Hitler...but we don't know that? Should I refuse to provide CPR to a random stranger because they MIGHT drive drunk next week and kill a family?

So, I'll ask you what I asked someone else, if you don't mind.

If he never put the fuse out, but he also never tried to stop the explosion, would that make him "bad" or a murderer?

Neglegent homicide. His inaction caused the death of others, therefore he can be held accountable for those deaths.

[SilverSequence]

Hows this then:

If the past is immutable there is no reason for you to relite the fuse...is HAS to happen, and you might as well not be a murderer and not do it yourself.

On the other hand, if the past is changeable then by reliting the fuse you are unquestionably a murderer.

Thus the only thing to do is to not relite the fuse. Heck while you're at it you might as well try to save as many people as you can.

[Dizzy D]

What if one of those saved brings about a thermonuclear war and mankind goes extinct? Then you'd be responsible for genocide instead of mere mass murder.

No, you're not. Are doctors responsible for the people they save? You would be responsible for saving the lives of 5000 people. One of those 5000 people would be responsible for mankind's extinction. We are not responsible for the actions of others.

[darkkeeperjr]

It seems most people have one theory on time travel which is:

If you don't light the fuse you will create a different time line where 5000 people live instead of dieing.

How about you don't light the fuse and the bomb blows anyway.
why? because the event has happen already.
the event is the cause,and the effect is the bomb blowing up regardless if it's lit or not.

If the bomb was not supposed to blow then going in the past and lighting a fuse will not ignite the bomb.

Unless the bomb was put there by the time traveler to blow up hilter when he was a baby then........Oh my head hurts!

[Chiasm]

It doesn't have to be that complex. All you have to do in order to utterly change the whole future is bump into someone in the past who is going to be a parent someday. Or make them move to avoid you. Change their path by one second.

Because what you've done by that one little thing is change their future if only by a second. Which means that different sperm / egg will be used to conceive all children. Theres millions of little spermies down there all fighting to win the race and a single second will result in a different one winning. And in addition because you've delayed the person one second that person will have one second delayed interactions with everyone else that day. Which will in turn change all their stuff. Which will lead to different offpsring. And of course all those different offspring will be having offspring who never existed.

[lucasb]

There's a fundamental problem with the whole scenario: we don't know the rules.

See, since time travel isn't possible in real life (as far as we know), all we have to go on are various works of fiction. And in every such fictional scenario, the rules of time travel are whatever the author makes up.

So: in one scenario, there is only a single timeline, and any change to it will result in a drastically different present for the time-traveller to return to. As in the Ray Bradbury story Tricksterpup keeps referring to.

Or: it could be that the past is immutable, as was the rule for a long time in the Superman stories Pre-Crisis. The past has already taken place, and any actions the time-traveller may take are already part of that past and therefore inevitable. Thus the explosion took place because he DID light the fuse, and that is the way it's always been. If you happened to run across an old daguerreotype taken a few moments before the blast, there he'd be, match in hand.

Or: the past can't be changed, but attempting to do so creates an alternate universe. Which, I'm told, some serious physicists believe is what happens EVERY time you make a decision (no time-travel needed.) I have no idea where all the extra matter comes from. So much for the laws of conservation of mass and energy...

I'm sure there are other possibilities I can't think of, but those are some of the major ones, and it affects the morality of your decision depending on which rules apply.

In scenarios one and three, I'd say that yes, the traveller is indeed guilty of murder, since he has the power to save those people. He'll have to find some other way back, or resign himself to living out the rest of his days in the past.
In scenario two, well, he's still a murderer, but he really had no choice, because that explosion always was a part of history, and he was always the one responsible.

[Solaris]

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?
B) Would you say he's a murderer?
C)What would you have done in his place?

A. Yes.

B. Very probably. He may have been brought there by a higher power to change events.

C. Call in a bomb threat, tell them how much explosive is within "this" area (without giving the specific location of the explosives) and that they need to evacuate the area in "X" circle, and they have one hour to do so. When the hour is up (or if the cops come in earlier, warn them away and then light it), light the fuse. Go home.

I know there still may be some people who die in "C.", but everyone that could be gotten out *has* been, and the only ones there (IF they're there) *know* what they're dealing with. It's not like people dying with no warning.

[Nikita]

This question is inspired by an old comic book story I recently read.

1) Think about a hypothetical moment in history when 5000 of people died due to an explosion.
2) Imagine that a time traveller arrived in that time period just before the explosion would occur.
3) Let's say that he went to the site of the fated explosion, prior to its occurrence, because he it would occur and he could use that explosive energy to get back to his own time period (unharmed).
4) Let's also say that, as a result of his presence/actions, the lit fuse to the explosive device was accidently extinguished and the explosion wouldn't take place.
5) Now imagine that after realizing that he'd changed history, the time traveller deliberately relit the fuse, causing the explosion to occur.
6) As a result of his actions all the people that were fated to die in the original, explosion ended up dying in the one the time-traveller caused.
7) No one other than those same, exact 5000 people died in the explosion.

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?
B) Would you say he's a murderer?
C)What would you have done in his place?



Wow, interesting question. I suppose I'd have to know his motives a little better. Did he cause the explosion to make sure nothing else would change in the future? In other words, did he feel the need to cause it to make sure other lives might be saved in the future?

I probably would not have lit the fuse even if I knew it would change history. (but that's because I'm a hypocrite and a pussy) :D

[borateen]

I know there still may be some people who die in "C.", but everyone that could be gotten out *has* been, and the only ones there (IF they're there) *know* what they're dealing with. It's not like people dying with no warning.

So, to you, that makes those deaths acceptable? You'd be okay with those people having died so you could get home?

[TinMan]

A. Yes.

B. Very probably. He may have been brought there by a higher power to change events.

C. Call in a bomb threat, tell them how much explosive is within "this" area (without giving the specific location of the explosives) and that they need to evacuate the area in "X" circle, and they have one hour to do so. When the hour is up (or if the cops come in earlier, warn them away and then light it), light the fuse. Go home.

I know there still may be some people who die in "C.", but everyone that could be gotten out *has* been, and the only ones there (IF they're there) *know* what they're dealing with. It's not like people dying with no warning.

Now thats thinking outside the box. I've got a pretty good beer buzz going on, so I don't have much more to say than that.... but I like it! Wooo!

[Endel]

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?
yes. he, because of his time travel, stoped a bomb that would have killed 5000. he was given the chance to do something great, but threw it away to go back home.

B) Would you say he's a murderer?

yes, his choice to relite the fuze makes him a murderer. had he not stoped the bomb in the first place (but still known it would happen) it would have just been history playing out. but since he did make things change, his 're-righting' history make him a killer of 5000 people
C)What would you have done in his place?
i would have stayed. comforts of home be damned thats 5000+ (decendents of survivors!!) lives

[Zeta]

I'm pretty sure that it's all moot, since time travel is impossible. We like to almost picture time and events as places, rather than processes, something we walk through, not something that happens. Old and future events problably don't lie in some timeline dimension, discarded till we encounter them or use science to pop in and out of them.

Although, I suppose you could effectively simulated time travel if you somehow found a way to reverse all chemical reactions in the universe and then resume them - it wouldn't be the sort of time travel where you could bounce back and forth between eras and bring dinosaurs through time, but it wouldn't be out of the quesiton. Although you wouldn't notice it because your molecules and atoms would be totally rearranged so that it was say - the version of you 2 years earlier with no memories of what happened. And doing so would require so much energy, it might mean instant entrophy - although theoretically, if the process were to work, the time travel process itself would be reversed and no energy would be used at all.

Still not very practical.

[Endel]

I'm pretty sure that it's all moot, since time travel is impossible. We like to almost picture time and events as places, rather than processes, something we walk through, not something that happens. Old and future events problably don't lie in some timeline dimension, discarded till we encounter them or use science to pop in and out of them.

Although, I suppose you could effectively simulated time travel if you somehow found a way to reverse all chemical reactions in the universe and then resume them - it wouldn't be the sort of time travel where you could bounce back and forth between eras and bring dinosaurs through time, but it wouldn't be out of the quesiton. Although you wouldn't notice it because your molecules and atoms would be totally rearranged so that it was say - the version of you 2 years earlier with no memories of what happened. And doing so would require so much energy, it might mean instant entrophy - although theoretically, if the process were to work, the time travel process itself would be reversed and no energy would be used at all.

Still not very practical.
wait wait wait, we are posting on a forum who's main topics are COMIC BOOKS, ANIME, AND FAN FICTION and you're jumping into a thread and disproving it based on logic & physics????

[Zeta]

Hey, it would actually work just like the super-device on Galaxy Quest, except the user would have no memory of what happened. So he'd basically stick the galaxy in an infinite repeating loop, unless you believe in chaos theory, in which case eventually someone would trip him or he would randomly have a heart attack or something to break the loop.

[PatrickG]

So, if I could go back in time and keep your parents from meeting, but fail to do so, I'm morally reprehensible?

Way to put your existence where your mouth is.

It depends on your motivation for doing so.

But I believe that killing is universally wrong so I have a clearcut choice on this issue.

I wouldn't kill Osama bin Laden to save my best friend and my parents. Granted, I might try to kick him in the nuts. I might get myself shot. But I would not intentionally kill him.

But keeping my parents from meeting in the past is no more or less wrong than keeping two people from meeting in the present.

And regarding Cei-U's idea, fine. The moral and practical ramifications of your behavior may stem from the intent but if you can go back in time and marry my mom before my dad gets the chance, fine.

[Iangould]

b) yes, just because you "know" the future doesn't make killing people alright


But arguably by changing the course of history he's killing *everyone* in his original version of the future.

[west3man]

It depends on your motivation for doing so.

But I believe that killing is universally wrong so I have a clearcut choice on this issue.

I wouldn't kill Osama bin Laden to save my best friend and my parents. Granted, I might try to kick him in the nuts. I might get myself shot. But I would not intentionally kill him.

But keeping my parents from meeting in the past is no more or less wrong than keeping two people from meeting in the present.

And regarding Cei-U's idea, fine. The moral and practical ramifications of your behavior may stem from the intent but if you can go back in time and marry my mom before my dad gets the chance, fine.
This misses my point, slightly, but it brings up a much more interesting one.

"But keeping my parents from meeting in the past is no more or less wrong than keeping two people from meeting in the present."

That shit is powerful.

[Motormouse]

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?

What he done was neither good nor bad, it was simply neccessary

B) Would you say he's a murderer?

If they were already dead in his time line then no.

C)What would you have done in his place?

Re-light the fuse and hope that i can forgive myself.

You don't say how long ago this hypothetical explosion was but as it was something as simple as stepping on a fuse and extinguishing it then it stands to reason that were talking about sometime in the last 700 years and excluding the 20th/21st century.
Now it may not be very nice for our intrepid hero to notice that his size 12 Nike's have put out the fuse which means that he'll have to re-light it and assume responsibility for 5000 deaths but what are the alternatives? Going back a mere 10 generations 1024 wonderful people had to get together to make me (i.e 2 parents, 4 grand parents, 8 g-grand parents 16 g-g-Grand parents etc...) so within 10 generations, those 5000 individuals could potentially be ultimately responsible for 5'120,000 people (plus change). I'm sure that my maths are flawed somewhere here but the further back you go, the more descendants those 5000 will have, the more you will change your own time line, and that would simply be too irresponsible. the best thing that you could do is to simply live with your guilt, but don't be too hard on yourself as they were dead anyway. the only other option that i could see would be for you to somehow bring the 5000 into the future with you.

Who knows, one of the 5000 might have discovered a cure for cancer, but it's just as likely that one runs down an infant winston Churchill or simply his parents never meet because someone who wasn't supposed to be there fell in love with his mother years before his father was on the scene resulting in different offspring and fundamentally changing my own past/present. The question is, would you somehow remain unchanged and know that things were different (read lightning by Dean koontz, the hypothesis there is that you can change your own future but not your past. Someone from the 30's could come to 1962 and stop kennedy from being assassinated. he could do that because in 1930 where he is from, the future isn't set and is therefore suseptable to change, but as in my life time Kennedy was dead and part of my history, it cannot be changed)

Bottom line, only a total f*cking idiot would mess with his own past :eek:

[west3man]

A) Would you say that the time traveller did a bad thing?

What he done was neither good nor bad, it was simply neccessary

B) Would you say he's a murderer?

If they were already dead in his time line then no.

C)What would you have done in his place?

Re-light the fuse and hope that i can forgive myself.

You don't say how long ago this hypothetical explosion was but as it was something as simple as stepping on a fuse and extinguishing it then it stands to reason that were talking about sometime in the last 700 years and excluding the 20th/21st century.
Now it may not be very nice for our intrepid hero to notice that his size 12 Nike's have put out the fuse which means that he'll have to re-light it and assume responsibility for 5000 deaths but what are the alternatives? Going back a mere 10 generations 1024 wonderful people had to get together to make me (i.e 2 parents, 4 grand parents, 8 g-grand parents 16 g-g-Grand parents etc...) so within 10 generations, those 5000 individuals could potentially be ultimately responsible for 5'120,000 people (plus change). I'm sure that my maths are flawed somewhere here but the further back you go, the more descendants those 5000 will have, the more you will change your own time line, and that would simply be too irresponsible. the best thing that you could do is to simply live with your guilt, but don't be too hard on yourself as they were dead anyway. the only other option that i could see would be for you to somehow bring the 5000 into the future with you.

Who knows, one of the 5000 might have discovered a cure for cancer, but it's just as likely that one runs down an infant winston Churchill or simply his parents never meet because someone who wasn't supposed to be there fell in love with his mother years before his father was on the scene resulting in different offspring and fundamentally changing my own past/present. The question is, would you somehow remain unchanged and know that things were different (read lightning by Dean koontz, the hypothesis there is that you can change your own future but not your past. Someone from the 30's could come to 1962 and stop kennedy from being assassinated. he could do that because in 1930 where he is from, the future isn't set and is therefore suseptable to change, but as in my life time Kennedy was dead and part of my history, it cannot be changed)

Bottom line, only a total f*cking idiot would mess with his own past :eek:
I don't remember exactly what I was going to say before the board went bust, but I thought this was an interesting take on things.

I wonder if anyone's answer would change if it were revealed that changing the past would *definitely* doom all of reality. Considering some of the responses, so far, I'm not prepared to assume that it would change the minds of some.

[Cotton]

Heck, I'd make sure those 5000 people are dead. Even if somehow blowing up those 5000 people wasn't an option anymore, I'd go to each and every single one of those people's homes and strangle them all in their sleep if I have to.

That being said, that would make me a horrible person wouldn't it? Just imagine if you had went back to 2001 and prevented the terrorist attacks and saved the lives of those that were killed, but then decided that you didn't want to change history, and made it where they still happen. If I had known what was going to happen then, would it make me a bad person if I didn't try to prevent it?

I ain't sure, but is 2001 recent enough to make an exception? That raises another question: Would you change history if you knew for sure that it was going to be for the better. Like for example: Let's say that there was this machine that let you viewed the consequences of your actions and that saving the life of JFK ushers in an era of peace and prosperity for everyone in the World, hypothetically speaking (No one can say for sure JFK would've improved the World) would you change History?