Fair enough.
But time travel doesn't mean immortality. Immortality is impossible, because EVENTUALLY something will happen to end it (after all, no system can survive without an input. Even someone with nanobots (like the star-brothers and star-sisters in
Voyagers III: Star Brothers by Ben Bova) would perish if starved long enough. Kinda like . . . what'shisface? That guy Hercules fought who was half-giant, and healed from contact with the Earth?
EDIT: Antaeus, thanks vaguely googling, "hercules giant fought earth".
Did you know???
Me inventing a time machine would create a paradox.
Not, if my theory is correct (time is like spaghetti, it doesn't matter if it doubles back on itself, it'll go forward eventually), due to time travel, but due to my dilemma.
Sheldon Cooper wrote:You know, I've been thinking about time travel again.
Leonard Hofstadter wrote:Why? Did you hit a roadblock with invisibility?
Sheldon Cooper wrote:Put it on the back burner. Anyway, it occurs to me, if I ever did perfect a time machine I would just go into the past and give it to myself, thus eliminating the need for me to invent it in the first place.
Leonard Hofstadter wrote:Interesting.
Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yeah, it really takes the pressure off.
Except I KNOW I have bad judgement, and as such probably wouldn't go back in time and give it to myself.
But if future me had bad judgement too, then they might go back in time and try to give it to himself/herself/itself . . . or is it myself?
Anyway, if I went back in time and the bad judgement worked out, I would, obviously, realize that I had bad judgement, and thus in the future use it to go to the past future and NOT give it to myself. Of course, that means new past me would just go along and create a time machine, and so on and so forth until the gradual changes in the loop became great enough that I ended up not inventing the time machine and leaving myself/himself/herself/itself very well enough alone.
Or would he/she/it/I just not give it to myself?