Hypothetical

[goldkin]

Today's question mirrors my thoughts:

Suppose you were presented with convincing evidence that you made a series of bad decisions in the past. These decisions are all rooted at a single point in time. Had more information been available at this time, it would have changed your entire life for the better, achieving a defined set of life goals that you've otherwise failed to attain.

Now suppose you were given the ability to change that decision. The means are irrelevant: this could be anything from borrowing the Epoch to finding a loophole in quantum entanglement. You are able to change this decision with 100% certainty.

But there's a catch. Due to the inconvenience of a single timeline and the grandfather paradox, doing so will end your existence in favor of your beneficiary clone. The exact time it ends is not defined, but if you alter history it is assured. As an indirect result, you cannot return to your original time.

What would you do in this case? Would you take the opportunity to reshape your life, even if it could only be enjoyed it vicariously? Or would you continue to be the person you became despite your definably flawed existence in your own mind?

I'll offer my rationale in the comments, if anyone is curious.

Comments

[jaabi.livejournal.com]

I know this is an old entry, but I wandered across this and I was reminded of something that I theorised recently.

Everyone has their own "personal timeline" so-to-speak. Whenever I try to describe it though I find it comes off like the usual parallel timelines in fiction - of which I think it is not.
Your timeline works like this:
"Past" future - time travel to "change past" - "new" future.
Your timeline is based on your perception rather than the believed arrow of time. It's like two arrows: one is your memories and physical state, and one is for the rest of the world.

This is sort of like time traveller's immunity right? Well... what if you did something that stopped you from having to go back in time in the first place? Like your example - if you succeed in "fixing" your past you won't need to go back and change it. Or if someone else changed history to stop you from going back.

Only "you" would still exist. You would still have gone back in time and done your thing. To this other you, or someone who'd altered your past also, you would have not.

When I think about it, it seems like Solipsism in the context of time travel though. Which I don't really identify with. Maybe its like Solipsism, but also not. If you do something to someone's past it is changed to you, but not to them. You each have your own timeline, separated by the things you have done, yet you're also in each other's timeline.

... man, this doesn't make any sense.