Would a deterministic universe solve the time travel paradoxon?

>>8527840
No.

>>8527840
yeah i think so actually. it would mean that time-travel would only ever be possible in a case where it led you to the point of traveling back again. this is a good idea OP. Time travel paradoxes won't happen because its impossible for them to.

>>8527840

The Universe IS deterministic. Time travel is impossible, the physics just don't work for it. Causality is the least of the problems, presumably if time travel were possible then violations of causality would be no big deal.

>>8527905
>The Universe IS deterministic.
How is the universe deterministic if our most advanced model of reality can only predict mean values?

>>8527913

Why do you think that's relevant? Deterministic =/= model-able, the universe is too complex for us to be able to predict it with much accuracy but this complexity is all deterministic in nature.

>>8527920
I don't wanna be a pain in the ass but literature says otherwise, it says that the fact that we can't predict, in a deterministic way, some characteristics of reality is an intrinsic behaviour of reality itself. However I like to look at nature thinking that it deterministic too, looks way more elegant

>>8527950
que sera, sera
whatever will be, will be
think of the last moments of the universe
it happened right?
so whatever led up to it caused it to happen
it is deterministic

>>8528478
>When philosofags attempt to take on physics majors and fail miserably

>>8528482
first not a philosofag
second physics majors are far from correct sometimes
third doesnt heisenbergs uncertainty principle mean that nothing is deterministic anyway?

>>8527920
>>8528478
If you dont even know the basics of physics, why post?

>>8529277
Determinism is a 'basic' tenet of physics; are you implying otherwise?

It's all compatibalism desu, but if you go back in the same time line, you're going to change the future at least a little, compatibalist determinist or whatever. It's still just cause and effect.

Compatibalism doesn't neccessarily dogmatically deny the existence of privilege, it just says that it's irrelevant.

>>8529305
I think you confusing determinism with causality.

Your idea reminds me of the Time Traveler's Wife.

In the book, there were eternal loops of time where you can't tell who started the sequence first.

For instance, something written in his wife's journal causing him to travel back in time to visit her as a little girl, but she would not have written that unless he had visited in the first place. It's more like Synchronicity than Causality.

File: time_machines_2x.png (107KB, 1328x459px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1328x459px

??

File: businesspepe.jpg (24KB, 317x432px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 317x432px

>ctrl+f
>no novikov

You're literally just describing the Novikov self-consistency principle, this thread can end now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle