I’d need to run simulations if possible for possible outcomes. But there’s a few “it depends”: Am on on a parallel timeline or will my memories of Hitler be wiped the moment it happens?

I’d need to run simulations if possible for possible outcomes. But there’s a few “it depends”: Am on on a parallel timeline or will my memories of Hitler be wiped the moment it happens?


If it’s the same timeline and I can loop back and do it and the moment it’s done, I gain the new timeline in my memory and have no memory of the old timeline? Then yeah. No problem.

If I have to live with being the “only one who knows” the alternate history? Don’t know yet.


Ah, it’s an ethics question. Can I live with the lone knowledge of an alternate history that will no longer be because of an action I took?

Well, that’s something we do every day for the future. We make decisions that affect the future. Maybe something we do is a mistake and negatively affects the timeline and only we know what another timeline might have been like.

It’s not 100% the same but it’s similar.


Part of me believes, “If he didn’t do it, someone else would have stepped in his place”. A kind of “sign of the times”. Zeitgesit? I think they call it that.

I tend towards that way of thinking. THEN AGAIN, I _don’t_ know that for sure and perhaps history *is* the actions of “significant persons of history” is not primarily a consequence of environment.

Also, the general murder question. Could I murder? Well, one of the reasons why I don’t believe in murder is it’s the destruction of “potentials’.

Is Hitler’s future fixed? All actions taken will be exactly as they were with no possible modifications?

Or could a few choice words shake up his world so none of that comes to pass, at least not by his hand? If so, murder is unnecessary.’


It continues to happen in mini-forms in different parts of the world, although not in europe/america. But nothing so huge.

But Zeitgeist-wise, I mean that, if Hitler wasn’t there to do what he did, is it likely that someone else would have had the same ideas and thoughts and intentions and goals and would have done something *similar* instead?

Yeah, that’s very possible. But not inevitable, which is what keeps me from fully embracing Zeitgeist. Still, it’s how I lean.


I just realized how you can analogize it to the doors too: You have three doors. Door number one, you know. Door #2 or #3 is things get worse and the other is things get better. So if it’s an otherwise equal chance of better / worse between 2+3 and choice 1 is already in the “bad” category, then there’s a greater chance of better, because #1 is already undesirable.

At least I think if I remember it right. Your answer came as I was typing mine, so I figured I’d finish my thought here but we’re basically saying the same thing


Yet, I understand the desire to do nothing. “I’ll keep what I know”. I tend towards that behavior when I can. Predictability seems more desirable than unpredictability.

Yet rationally, I know the allure of certainty is a drug that misleads.

Still, habits – preferring certainty over uncertainty – is hard to break. But in thought experiments like this it’s easier to be objective because it’s a scenario I’m never going to actually face. [possible but highly unlikely]


I “tend towards” a status quo way of thinking/ “Keep things as we know them” because unexpected consequences, butterfly effect, etc.

WW1 started with an assassination they say. Maybe competing Time Traveler? [although I think it’s more complicated than that].

*Because* I tend to believe somebody else might come in to do more or less what Hitler did (making Hitler not very special *at all*] – fulfilling figurehead and speech-speaker role – his death is *almost* meaningless.

Yet, it might not be meaningless.


One could point to “all the marvelous results of WW2″ – the technology advances and such.

Yet why wouldn’t those have been made without WW2? After all, we were obviously capable of those new technologies.


Mathematicians that do it for a living get pissed off at her answer and have tried to prove it wrong. It’s counter-intuitive. She’s right, but it’s counter-intuitive, even for mathematicians.




Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

four × = 4

Leave a Reply