[SoothingDave]

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.

I guess the point is that anything your future self would do do "change" the past would already be reflected in the past as we know it. It's very deterministic.

If you had the ability to travel into the past and make yourself rich?(by buying stocks, betting on horse races, etc.), then you would be rich today. Because the past already happened. That you are not rich today is evidence that you did not do such a thing and that you never will.

SD

[RegulatorCountry]

"That you are not rich today is evidence that you did not do such a thing and that you never will."

But that just so UNFAIR.

[blabs]

The entire concept is flawed, unless you are not visible and cannot interact with the environment. Your mere presence could set of an unknown sequence of events, period. Any small change could result in a large change, perhaps not to you directly, but maybe inderictely, which in effect could direct your decisions.

The only way this concept holds any water is if you are not visible, and the environment that you are in cannot be altered at all, not one iota. That means you can't even breathe the air.