The Instigator
WaraiOtoko
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
dennisf
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is impossible to change the outcome of an event with time travel unless information is retained

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
WaraiOtoko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 86703
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

WaraiOtoko

Pro

This is more or less a thought experiment for determinism. Con is arguing for the ability to change outcomes without information. Conditions are that you will die via a random car crashing into your home as you are watching television in 30 seconds. Upon death you are rewinded to 60 seconds before your time of death all states of the universe are reverted to their exact positions and states at that particular point in time. You do not retain any knowledge past the point of the rewinded 60 seconds. Can you break the loop?
dennisf

Con

Yes I could break the loop. I am going to go off the exact words you stated.

"Conditions are that you will die via a random car crashing into your home as you are watching television in 30 seconds."

I would just go as far away from my house as far as possible, problem solved.
Debate Round No. 1
WaraiOtoko

Pro

You didn't read carefully enough. I stated that you do not retain the memories of any moment past the point that you rewwind to. Thanks for accepting this debate it's something I've thought a bit about and I'd like to hear another perspective. :) cheers.
dennisf

Con

"You do not retain any knowledge past the point of the rewinded 60 seconds."

I see your point there but your wording is quite confusing. This kind of implies that anything after the 60 seconds you don't remember. But that is beside the point.

According to the law of infinite probability eventually, you should be able to survive. One of those times you might wander outside.
Debate Round No. 2
WaraiOtoko

Pro

The point is that a person does not really get to choose what they do, they make decisions based on their knowledge and experiences and a given moment in time. So no matter how many times you retry, nothing has changed that would lead you to change your actions thus resulting in your death. Every "decision" is made with a reason that can be traced to the decision makers experiences and cause and efffect relationships in their life. It isn't a matter of probability because there is no reason for your actions to change because all the stimuli and experiences stay the same so thus you make the same choices and walk the same path. I'm just wanting to know if anyone can give a reason why they could be able to change their fate.
dennisf

Con

There are different ways one could respond to the same stimuli based on experience. This means that something could happen which leads him to get out of harms way.
Debate Round No. 3
WaraiOtoko

Pro

Do you have any proof that the same person would respond differently to the same stimuli? If so, I'd like to see it. My theory is following universal cause and effect law. Since you brought up no other points I'll leave it at that.
dennisf

Con

If I was hungry I might either decide between eating a sandwich or sitting and watching TV. I stay to watch TV and the car comes and kills me. Everything the same the next time, what if I feel like getting up to get a sandwich? The outside stimuli didn't matter you thought the same thing yet you just decided differently. Like flipping a coin. What makes me say heads and the next time I could just as easily say tails.
Debate Round No. 4
WaraiOtoko

Pro

But you can't prove that because it is never an identical situation? Any given point in time is a unique situation with unuque stimuli that consciously and unconscious affects decision making. We can only act different with new information, the neurons in my brain fired a certain way and if I rewinded time to that point and nothing has changed, why would it work any different? I feel we have kinda wasted our generous debate room so I guess we can continue in the comments if you wish.
dennisf

Con

Yeah I agree with that.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
However that is assuming things like the future are even there, what if we are just making it as we go with our day to day decisions based off our past. It still would techincally be our choice because if you went back in time with the same thoughts and things happen to you, you would want to make the same decisions due to how you have lived. I totally agree that you wouldn't be able to break this loop, but it does indeed prove a form of Free Will. Just because you know what someone else is going to do, doesn't mean they didn't choose that. you may know their actions will lead to their death but they don't, so maybe they are making the choice they believe is best. So this doesn't per se show that we don't have free will, because it is the persons choice to make what they would normally do, if they did have information of their death they midst likely would make a different decision. So really we are stuck. From this we can't say people don't have free will due to then making their decisions that lead to death, but we can't say they do because if someone could say we are all predestined. However I present to you that changes is perspective. As a theory I like: Schrodingers Cat, states that something unobserved we have both solutions, the Cat would be Dead and Alive in the Box until observed. Now we "observed" the choice and its consequences, this made that the only true solution. However if we didn't have knowledge of the future then it would remain either or. The man not dying and dying at the same time, a fork in the road he would make the decision of at that time, however we made the decision for him when observing his future.
Posted by WaraiOtoko 1 year ago
WaraiOtoko
Yes that is a point I'm making, there is no free will only difference in stimuli/information.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
This is a debate on determinism. Unless new information is added we will do exactly the same thing and get the same outcome.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
WaraiOtokodennisfTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con agrees with Pro in the final round and therefore concedes the debate. More convincing argument points go to Pro.
Vote Placed by ObiWan 1 year ago
ObiWan
WaraiOtokodennisfTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Although this read more like a forum post than a debate. Pro began the debate by putting forward an overall logically sound argument and while it could have been countered con never satisfactorily addressed the argument put forward by pro, that if the same person is continuously put in the exact same situation they will essentially act the exact same way. The only defence of his position were vague statements and while the hunger argument made in round 4 was close to a rebuttal this course of reasoning was both ineffectively explained and completely dropped.