Replies

If you are visible to others when going back in time, then the whole concept is flawed, as simply a reaction to your appearance from an individual could set off an unknown sequence of events.

The proposition put forth is that the fact of your existence makes it impossible to alter the past in such a way as to make your existence cease. That is, since you are here now, you are here and there is no way that the past exists which makes you not be here. Cause here you are.

To put it another way, it is impossible for you to have the desire or ability to go back and kill your father, because you obviously didn't, cause you're here.

"In other words, you can pop back in time and have a look around, but you cannot do anything that will alter the present you left behind."

The article goes on to state not just your presence but change anything. So if my hypothetical argument did not have anything to do with my existence, lets say that instead of careening in the house, the person became famous, built a museum, started a ghost hunting service, and created a legend. Either way, a change has been made based on the premise that "I was visible".

Ultimately, if you are visible, then your mere presence could trigger a chain of unknown events, whether for the best or the worst.