Time Loops are Impossible

[@WisdomCritFail]

I feel like this guy just dropped his mug and really wanted to make a video about it.

[@briantabu5235]

😂😂

[@fabianvalenzuela3935]

Video essays are the new let’s plays.

[@BanditRants]

I loved this man, I'm really enjoying the input of your own footage into these videos as well. Topic, narration, and overall delivery all 10/10. You're an absolute gem my man, can't wait for the next upload.

[@arnisdreshaj7903]

BanditRants What I hate though is the fact that this guy is not known as well as other youtubers but as you can see here he has shown why he is a great youtuber with amazing talent. He deserves the amazing social blade, not some cancer vlogger.

[@lionelkentler]

Bro you two are kinda similar

[@raymondstewart3350]

I have taught both metaphysics and modal logic--the logic discussed in this video--and this is completely wrong. The axiom he's discussing doesn't say anything like what he's saying. It DOES NOT mean that if the relationship between two things is necessary then both things are necessary. All the axiom means is that if their connection is necessary (if the second HAS TO be true if the first is) then IF the first is necessary (and it might not be) THEN the second one is also necessary. But they might have a necessary connection while neither is necessary. Consider for example, "If Joe is a bachelor, then Joe is unmaried." There's a necessary connection between these Joe HAS TO be unmarried if he's a bachelor. But it would be insane to think that that means that Joe HAS TO be both unmarried. But's a crucial inference made in this video. There are similar mistakes all over. The creator is trying to jam all kinds of unrelated parts of philosophy together, but he misunderstands each. I appreciate the effort, but sadly this video is fundamentally mistaken on a number of points.

[@GiorgioSlow]

Finally someone who knows what he's talking about! Folks in the comment playing the little metaphysician without any understanding of contemporary analytic philosophy are so annoying!

[@fealca1622]

I was honestly trying to give him a chance when I first saw the cracks in his logic, like maybe he'd address the issues in his way of thinking just as an example. But he kept moving forward with basic mistakes that even I, someone who's extent of study in this field is reading a few explainations online by people who do this for a living, could see there were some serious issues throughout.

[@danielw.1339]

I completely disagree. The whole argument relies on determinism being false, which as I would expect someone as intelligent as you should know, has not been proven false. In fact, everything we know about Relativity leads us to the unsettling conclusion that actually, time is on an equal footing with the spatial dimensions, meaning that all events that will ever happen already exist. You can't change the future in the same way that a tick mark on a ruler can't change how far away the next tick mark will be. It just *is.* Whether you agree with this view or not, you cannot deny that your argument hinges on this *not* being true and that our current interpretation of the implications of the Theory of Relativity are false, which I'm sure you can agree has not been demonstrated to be the case. tl;dr: For your argument to be viable, you must show that the current interpretation of Einstein's Theory of Relativity is false.

[@fergochan]

But... the universe isn't deterministic, that's what quantum mechanics tells us. There are a number of experiments, like Bell's Inequality, that suggest there is no way of explaining this fundamental randomness in a deterministic way. Which of Einstein's relativities are you talking about? Special Relativity is perfectly compatible with quantum mechanics. That's how we get antiparticles. You have to be careful with what you mean when you say time is on "an equal footing" with space. Time is distinguished from spatial directions by a negative sign in the Minkowski metric, for example. Special Rel doesn't just do away with causality, and determinism isn't strictly necessary. General Relativity, on the other hand, is actually incompatible with quantum mechanics, as it assumes a curved rather than flat spacetime. This leads to the conclusion that either (or both of!) quantum and relativity are wrong in their current incarnations. Still, I'm not certain that General Rel necessarily implies determinism. However, it is true that the universe on a macro scale very deterministic, which is a very interesting feature, and may well make all my above points moot as far as the argument in the video is concerned. Is human decision making deterministic? The evidence seems to imply that this is very much the case. Also, one of the features of General Relativity is "closed timelike curves" which imply some kind of time travel, and it would potentially allow other kinds of time travel as well, though all this is the subject of some debate amongst physicists.

[@Gogglesofkrome]

>has not been proven false First off, boyo, you can't prove a negative. Second off, Quantum mechanics completely throws the concept of determinism off its tracks. If you were to go back in time, chances are that the quantum phenomenon that had taken place in your past that you'd already experienced may not even happen again the same way, this second time around. In fact if you're (un)lucky enough, a large enough group of sub atomic particles could change at the right time to completely change the properties of any collection of atoms at any one point of time, effectively changing the outcome of history.

[@DNPinthePP]

You can too prove a negative. In fact if the statement "you can't prove a negative" is true, you could never prove it.

[@Gogglesofkrome]

You're right in that you 'can' prove a negative, and I suppose I am wrong for not really elaborating on my point, in which that it is a fallacy, since the burden to prove your own argument lays on yourself, and not on your opponents.

[@DNPinthePP]

RedMatter I can’t argue with that. Honestly I didn’t disagree with your main point just had to nitpick on that statement.

[@ToonamiT0M]

Everything said in this video seemed to be asserting cause and effect as understood in a linear time line. Then stating that that understanding is the de facto end of the discussion. But once you step outside linear time, a cause can become its own cause. Outside linear time, there doesn't necessarily need to be a first cause or final effect. Just because some movies poorly represent these ideas doesn't mean the idea is invalid.

[@tetsujin_144]

Indeed. People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually from a non-linear, non subjective viewpoint, it's really more like a big ball...(People seem to remember that line mostly for the words that come next - but I think it's a smarter line than the part that "sticks" would tend to suggest. It suggests a model in which time loops could occur - and that if they occur, they could iterate. If John Cole saw the Hawiian shirt and thought "this is too much like my vision, I'm causing the future and should stop" - then he'd make a different choice, something less distinctive perhaps, and the time loop might converge on a set of events that don't change themselves in the loop. It's nonsense, of course, by any grounded understanding we have in how time, space, and energy work. But as a rationalization of how time travel could work, in a setting where time travel is an accepted reality, I like it.)

[@ncpolley]

Mildly pretentious.

[@Diego-ur8ku]

Yes.

[@lennylikesmusic]

Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey

[@Jarednhk]

I can't believe you dropped your poor mug for a video

[@More_Row]

Glorry Thought you meant his face for a second.

[@something3118]

If Garfield never existed, we wouldn’t have Garfield Cart. Unsubbed

[@xxbenjamingamerxx7269]

Or gorfield

[@bigfreerf]

So how does King Crimson work again?

[@Dantezgt]

It just works

[@RoseDeDax]

It's more like killer Queen Bites za dusto King Crimson is more of diavolo seeing what will happen in the future with epitaph and then getting rid of that future making it seem like he teleports or just immediately killed someone. (I know it's a joke comment but I'm here just to show how it works)

[@elcalabozodelandroide2]

No lose (ahora traducelo al español)

[@jordanzamora422]

This is all assuming Cole has free will, that people have free will, what if his actions are completely independent of himself, what if his self is perfectly predetermined and completely predictable, what if choice and control is merely an illusion

[@JustinY.]

Tell that to Okabe my dude

[@lc_donut3195]

👌

[@jla4685]

How... How!?

[@jba8256]

Alright

[@mrcraziekyle]

You're amazing!

[@cornball2448]

Quite stale

[@RobotUnderscore]

masterful as always also alan watts yesss

[@HugoLopez-ry5bj]

RobotUnderscore I was also very excited by the video when Alan Watts came into question. Thank you again MisterAmazing, you’re doing gods work.

[@atomous4373]

RobotUnderscore Alan watts is god

[@Xeonic97]

Time Loops are absolutely "possible." They just are a lot more stringent than multiverse theory and easily break. Assuming that prophecy-style time is impossible is pretty bold, considering we prophesize the outcomes of natural phenomena every waking moment. Time loops are a consequence of having predictable laws of nature and true time travel (to the actual past, instead of to an alternate reality time-shifted however long). It needs to have whoever is in it unaware of the loop until it is too late for them to change the path, or someone/thing forcing the loop. Also, some details like the exact shirt don't matter on such small timescales assuming the butterfly effect is in effect. The overall loop can hold with minor differences each time, sometimes with major changes if someone/thing is forcing the loop. Free will isn't an argument against a well-written time loop. The logical example is an oversimplification and assumes they are all self-contained. But they are not because they can be finite in length and have clear beginning and ending events in those cases. The title should be "Time Loops are Illogical" because there's an argument you can make, and much more closely follows the content of the video.

[@jacksonw453]

Nice

[@THEPELADOMASTER]

Xeonic97 _ we don't "profesize" things, we predict things. There's a difference there. A prediction has evidence behind it. Predicting the weather isn't a magical thing, and can be wrong. A profecy doesn't have evidence behind it, it has no logical way of existing, no reason behind it, and (assuming it's a movie profecy, where they come true) it always comes true because it exists, because someone saw it. If you don't predict the weather it's still going to happen. If you don't see the profecy, then it won't happen.

[@theapexsurvivor9538]

Hell, multiple time lines can theoretically generate a time loop that is stable. Steins;Gate franchise spoilers Steins;Gate is a great example of this: Okabe is alerted to Kurisu "dying" by a sound from upstairs (in the version we see, this is his future self screaming as he spills his own blood). He jumps to the alpha attractor field and goes through hell, jumps back to the beta field, kills Kurisu and goes down the 0 timeline, where he produces a D-Rine which he sends to himself just after he returned from killing Kurisu. This Okabe is from a world where his future self probably got the metal oopa first, so he saves Kurisu, but he doesn't collect the metal oopa (this is the start of the time loop as Okabe has to scream from self-harm but also leave his past self the metal oopa once). This Okabe realises that he has to ensure that the next Okabe gets the metal oopa and saves Kurisu, so he produces project skuld as shown in the original series. Finally Okabe saves both Kurisu and stops WW3 and the main time loop finishes, having likely produced the set up for a new Okabe to go down the 0 route but without the metal oopa being present. This also probably proves that Steins;Gate has more than one active world line as this loop requires two active world lines. I think that time loops only work if the origin of the loop is not the time traveler, as that would directly allow them to break the loop before it occurs. "Groundhog Days" occur so long as the main character doesn't perform a specific set of actions, "eternal damnations" occur because the universe fucked up and now someone is trapped in an indefinite loop, and "Steins;Gates" occur because something in the past lead to time travel being necessary, but in returning to the past they alter the events in such a way that they recreate themselves, thus even escaping the loop will reproduce the loop for your past self. These are all self consistent because the cause occurs independent of the effect: the cause in our case study is Kurisu "dying" and the metal oopa being obtained by past Okabe. The effect being that Okabe goes back in time and recreates the appearance of a dead Kurisu to make his own timeline consistent. Let me know if I missed anything that would make me wrong, other than that I'm a failure at life, that I don't have a life, and that my mother is gay, as I am already well aware of those facts. Also let me know if you come up with anything that would expand the possibility of a time loop being viable.

[@thenamedoesnotmatter]

+TheApexSurvivor your dad lesbian

[@Quandry1]

the multi-timeline theory doesn't necessarily lead to paradox's either except when overly simplified. Because multiple-timeline theory allows for something to both happen and not happen at the same time. Which is where most examples for and against time travel and it's affects really fall apart and create the so called paradox issue. Time loops can be a lot more complicated and far reaching than people think. Existing in parallel timelines that can be stable because both doing something and not doing something either leading to the event that creates the time travel or doesn't create the time travel to loop back on each other and feed into the stabilization of the greater time loop as a whole. What actually gets in the way and causes "paradoxes" is more the fallacy of an oversimplified and slightly ill defined concept of free will and in some sense a preternatural awareness to events because of it combined by the idea that a loop has to always feed back directly into itself and the events that lead into it. However a loop does not have to be a purely closed system event and the only chance of paradox forcing an event to always have to take place is only in single timeline narratives that throws away the idea of branching paths because the past is set so you would have to exist in the past and to get into the past you either have to travel from the present or future to that past. Take events that are already predetermined by what happened in the past. Then either continue riding time forward or return to the present or a future period and the actions have to be the same each time. Which is what is the basis for most paradox theory. The reality however is to recognize a simple fact that there is quite a good chance for most people not to recognize the key event and change things in such ways until after they have already happened. On a side Note. Apex thank you for pointing out Steins Gate. I will have to look that up and check it out. It sounds rather interesting.

[@hmmyesinteresting]

If everything in the universe comes in twos, while comedy comes in threes. Then, Nothing and everything exists. We are what we think will happen. We are the cause with no cause. Beautiful. Masterful. Amazing.

[@vaptan5878]

hmm yes interesting. Sounds like Quantum mechanics

[@thomassam7150]

amazing. *misteramazing*

[@MonoOne101]

If

[@TehComs]

-Anonymous Highschool Notebook

[@TehComs]

-Anonymous Highschool Notebook

[@angstyandproud4875]

I can't wait for Justin Y. to comment on this video and gain thousands of likes inexplicably.

[@angstyandproud4875]

Also great video, Im going to have to watch it a few times to understand everything and catch all the subtleties!

[@internetuser9342]

It's actually physically confirmed that all people that like justin y's comments are depressed

[@thatnikkakris2339]

Angsty And Proud you guys heard of Dat

[@meincoof6094]

a youtuber Nightmare Expo conversed with him, determined how he achieves his micro... lepton celebrity status... would recommend

[@AhsimNreiziev]

Just 54 likes at present. Which means you got more likes than him! Congratulations! Of course, he did post 3 days later than you so maybe he'll catch up

[@nnnn65490]

It never ceases to amaze me why people would EVER, EVER think that you can answer a PHYSICS question with PHILOSOPHY. I love this channel, but it really irks me when KZbinrs do this. The way that argument was constructed is how we used to try to figure out how the world works IN THE DARK AGES. The universe is infinitely stranger than human experience could ever show you. And in fact it may be very possible for time loops to exist. They are called CLOSED TIME-LIKE CURVES and are viable solutions to the Einstein Field equations. AND they do have causal paradoxes. I just don't understand why someone would ever try to figure ANYTHING out this way. If you went back to Ancient Greece and told them anything about quantum mechanics they would poke holes all over in that theory of yours. Except they would be WRONG. Just go read Lucretius' arguments for atoms or Niechze's against them. Tthat's the equivalent of what this shit is. VIRTUALLY NONE OF YOUR EXPERIENCE IS REFLECTIVE OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS SO TRYING TO DEDUCE ANYTHING FROM THAT IS STUPID.

[@ForOrAgainstUs]

I think Donnie Darko does a good job. It's a movie about showing a world which can't exist, and the surreality of exploring it. The timeloop implodes, ultimately making that world non-existent, and it ends up simply being a simple tragedy, where everything within the timeloop shouldn't be happening and therefore didn't. It ended up just being a surreal trip through a world that didn't exist.

[@donatodiniccolodibettobardi842]

Time loops are impossible because time travel - as we imagine it in fiction - is (most likely) impossible. If it's possible at all, that's another question. Time travel in fiction can be anything you want it to be and there's no physics or philosophy police to stop you from doing it the way you like.

[@BrainInACat]

another amazing video. great topic here as well. very dope my dude.

[@BrainInACat]

also i love the alan watts quite. love that guy.

[@zeroclout6306]

Muh. Free. Will.

[@Nestoras_Zogopoulos]

wait.........

[@justunderreality]

You honestly think you have it?

[@zeroclout6306]

I'm just pointing out that this video relies on it. I'm not arguing for or against it here. if you want to really ask me what I think I'd have to say it begs the question. "Who is it that has a will?" (either free or determined)

[@justunderreality]

Well said. I misunderstood your initial statement :)

[@zeroclout6306]

It's my fault for being vague.

[@Hurileno]

You only made this video so that you can put the blame somewhere else for dropping your coffee

[@PRTZLnet]

title

[@kevinlassberg]

I've come full fucking circle on Justin Y. I watched the Casually Explained vid on millennials vs boomers and yet again saw him in the comments. I went to his channel, and saw this video in passing on his featured list. I initially ignored it because at the time I was more interested in Justin Y than a time loop video. I moved on to a vid he featured about who he is by Nightmare Expo. Thinking I was done with the experience of Justin Y for the time being, I randomly decided I felt like some meme music and looked up the Krab Borg Remix vid by Chris Kogos. Having listened to it before I knew I would fall down the Resonance x Home, because somehow I am inexplicably drawn to it. From there, I see *you* did a video explaining what makes Resonance invoke such a sense of nostalgia. Intrigued by the video and interested in the other content you make, I open up your main video list and low and behold, here lies the Impossible Time Loops video I first saw featured by Justin Y. He owns us all. We *belong* to him.

[@KazmirRunik]

Virtual particles are technically in a time loop. The negative particle is congruent to the same positive particle moving in reverse through time, and you could therefore think of it not as the two particles appearing and canceling out, but as ONE particle moving in a circle through the x-plane and the time-plane. The quantum world is pretty loopy.

[@madmangogaming]

A wise man once said "One often meets their destiny on the path they take to avoid it". Thank you Master Oogway.

[@tummywubs5071]

I think its more plausible for people to realise that perhaps we have no idea how these things really work at this point in our existence. Maybe it will take the invention of an apparatus what can help us determine. I personally think its probably an infinite amount of things and also finite due to how things in the universe are finite and infinite at the same time.

[@blanco7726]

If you want to see a complex time loop watch Dark

[@wimble28fra85]

Yeetus my feetus

[@FIRE-OWL.]

Anoos Eggroll pray to yeezus To YONT The YOLK

[@wimble28fra85]

Fire Owl fetus deletus

[@Matt_10203]

Anoos Eggroll yeetus deletus tha feetus

[@BlONIC]

Deletus thus fetus my n e g u s

[@meincoof6094]

and the cringe recedes

[@Corrupted]

Great stuff dude!

[@DissectingThoughts]

I think you're a bit confused about the modal logic there, mate.

[@crypticcorvus2879]

I agree with you, but only up to the point that these things don't *need* to happen - but that doesn't necessarily make a time loop impossible, you'd just need a very, very simple loop comprised of events that aren't independent, and in some kind of self-contained isolation. That's...kind of pedantic, but I think it could still be used in storytelling. You'd need an airtight series of events in which the characters feel completely compelled to act as they do, as close to that idea of dominoes falling as you can get. So you'd need as few Hawaiian shirt moments as possible, where the characters either have little real choice or at least feel that they have no choice but to act as they do. It's technically not a loop as, well, the characters could technically stop moving or kill themselves, but it would still effectively act as a loop, because they never will choose that.

[@naoiseahearnewoods2192]

No matter the topic, you can guarantee misteramazing delivers with some badass editing!

[@aaronmyers6686]

Imagine dropping your mug and, instead of immediately cleaning it up, taking a couple minutes to film a few pans of the spill.

[@OnEiNsAnEmOtHeRfUcKa]

Long video that manages to say nothing. You base your entire argument on the premise that a time loop can't have an inherent cause, which is simply untrue. You can create something that loops infinitely with ease, but that loop in and of itself still had an origin point, one where the factors that eventually because the loop originated. This is one demonstrable through one of the most common and basic of programming errors, or even the spinning of a wheel in a vacuum. "The only thing causing the action(s) to continue, is the action(s), therefore it cannot exist". That is simply wrong. A time loop can be brought into being, or a time loop can be broken, but it will still remain a sequence of cause and effect for an indeterminate number of "loops". In fact, you can even have *overlapping* time loops. Let's take the twelve monkeys example of the hawaiin shirt, and say for the sake of the argument, that Cole refuses to wear it, in an attempt to diverge from the time loop. Events play out the same, and he dies, as the shirt was a detail of no real consequence. Except, now his younger self knows he dies wearing a black shirt, and when the event re-occurs, he again attempts to exit the time loop, and puts on the Hawaiin shirt. You now have two loops of the same sequence of events that feed into each other ad infinitum. But of course, that would likely take too much time to be worth putting into the movie. Also, your argument that "they don't NEED to do this, therefore it doesn't work" falls apart in equal measure, at least as far as individuals without knowledge of the future of the loop are concerned. Human behaviour and indeed the universe as a whole are predictable, and behave in predictable ways. If all factors leading to an event are the same, the result is the same. Simple determinism. If you roll a die and get a five, it doesn't magically become a three in the past because the outcome was truly entropic - you're throwing a cube. Physics can predict the outcome, outcome dictates environment, environment dictates information and information dictates behaviours. Simply _wanting_ rather than _needing_ is enough. As for the characters acting that way when they DO have knowledge, well... that's just bad writing.

[@UziTVallAccess]

he explained above that a lot of things were cut to make the video shorter and more easily comprehensible. Great comment though

[@Cri_Jackal]

This guy clearly hasn't seen the Homestuck timeline, at one point it finds a way to time travel without travelling through time while creating a schrodinger's cat out of the time in between two events while at the same time actualizing the schrodinger's situation in the act a creating it, all without time travel while still functioning as time travel.

[@Rhinee]

Can’t go back in time because time is just a way that we organise our movements in Euclidean space. It’s not a physical thing. You can dilate time etc but never go back or change things that have happened

[@yag0d]

Thank you!

[@theyvorcer9077]

Rhine But if time is light and you manage to travel faster then light what would happen?

[@yag0d]

The Yvorcer Time isn't light

[@Nestoras_Zogopoulos]

let us first make ftl possible before talking our asses off

[@jarls5890]

The behavior of particles in QP says otherwise. There is nothing inherently problematic with "going back in time" from a physics standpoint. Sending back a person in time is a completely different story - and does seem highly improbable. Regarding the video about how the character doesn't "need" to buy a specific shirt as he knows he will be shot wearing that shirt - if he saw himself getting shot wearing that shirt - he WILL wear that shirt on that day - what will happen and has happened cannot be undone or changed. The "extremely improbable" will be the only probability in such circumstances. Perhaps a contrived example - but lets say he deliberately picks a different shirt at the store in order to "trick time" - something will then happen at the airport that makes him wear that exact shirt he saw himself getting shot as a kid. Of course this makes it sound like we do not have free will - physics do not care.

[@Zhatt]

Something you're getting close to touching on is T-symmetry, or the ability to essentially allow time to run backwards. If time is symmetric then you could say that you dropping the mug is the result of it hitting the floor. Many mathematical systems are symmetric, but it appears time is not mostly due to thermodynamics. This is super simplified, but you get the idea. Edit: Veritasium has a good video on time symmetry.

[@unukabg8690]

too too roo

[@loo2955]

Thank you, I was always worried about being trapped in a time loop

[@UltimateKyuubiFox]

And your argument as to why people traveling back in time can change the future is... You didn’t make one. The whole point of a timeloop is that the future already happened. Once you travel back in time, you can’t do anything to change it. You’re not changing anything. If you could change things, you’d create a new timeline. For the timeloop theory? Sure, you travelled back in time. But, as far as the timeline is concerned, you were already there. This version of reality already has ‘current you’ in that part of time. Even before you ‘go’ there. Because you do go there. Thus you existed there already. Nothing changes. Everything you do there already happened before you ‘went’ because by ‘going’ you assured you’d be there. And everything you do from that point on? From the future’s perspective, you’ve already done it. It’s immutable. It’s locked into place. You do have ‘free will’. You enact that ‘free will’. It’s just that reality has already been locked in on the result of your choices. That’s The Point. It’s a perfectly logical statement. Your argument against it is “That’s dumb.” ... okay... cool... make an argument?

[@awkwardsilence4427]

UltimateKyuubiFox What happens when you do something that'd create a paradox? Like, what if you went back in time and killed your younger self?

[@awkwardsilence4427]

Noah Meh, the first way would kinda require that the universe has a will of its own if it actively tries to stop you, which would require so many more forces at play, and make it overall a whole lot more convoluted than it should be. I feel like Occam's razor would probably come into effect. As for the second way, I'm not so sure I follow. What happens to the time traveller upon the death of his younger self? If it's all the same timeline then he should immediately die? Or does he just disappear from existence? Either way, that'd require something to happen in the natural world that cause him to suddenly die, or in the case of the latter that'd mean that there's sudden matter (his body) lost from the world...what would the mechanics of that be? How would that work?

[@justunderreality]

Awkward Silence Agreed. He would die. His older self would cease to be. And instantaneously someone else that fulfills his end would take his place. As for the first, why assume the universe is not alive? That is a massive assumption on its own. It would be like cells believing the thing that they are a part of (us) is not alive because they have never seen evidence of it.

[@fergochan]

+AwkwardSilence, he didn't say that the universe "actively" tries to stop you. It's a difficult topic to discuss because I'm not sure we have the vocab for it, but I take it to mean that the universe is arranged in such a way that when you go back things proceed exactly as they already have. This is necessarily the case, because those things have already happened. Take the example in the video. When the kid watched his older self get killed that older self was behaving in a way that was already consistent with the knowledge of when and how he would die, so he was unable to avoid those things this time, for whatever reasons, so when he goes back the exact same sequence of events will proceed the "next" time (it's really the same time). Alternatively the kid was mistaken. He misremembered the shirt. There was an optical illusion that made the kid think the shirt was a different colour. The kid actually saw his long lost twin identical twin brother get shot and thought it was himself. With imperfect knowledge of the past the older self is unable to avoid repeating it. Not hugely satisfying, though, as if you had access to time travel there's nothing really that would stop you from constructing a situation where you had sufficient knowledge. I don't really like Noah's second suggestion. It'd be kind of neat from a movie perspective but it seems entirely unphysical. There is another option to explain away the problem of trying to mix free will with time travel, which is that there isn't a time *loop* at all. You travel back in time, but the point you arrive at is that point on a *different* timeline. The two timelines share all events up to the point of your arrival and from there diverge, each down their own "trouser leg of time". In the "original" leg you continue your life up until the point you disappear from that timeline. In the "new" leg you can take whatever actions you like. If you kill your child self the only consequence is that the new timeline will never have an adult version of that self. In the original timeline that child still grew up to become you and kill the "other" child. If you then go back in time once more you create another timeline and so on and so forth. There could be an arbitrarily high number of timelines. This sounds very similar to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics where wavefunction collapse is replaced by timeline splitting, suggesting that for any event every possible outcome actually does occur.

[@justunderreality]

Michael Ferguson Thank you for helping to clarify. As to your dislike of my second option... Completely understandable. Although sound, it is convoluted (and I personally think the universe thives on simplicity). I purposely left out the multiple timeline theory because (to me) it's not really time travel... It's dimension hopping. This means the time traveler is an escapist abandoning his original time for complete strangers that may have had their past changed already. But yes... That misclassification is also a possibility from a protagonist driven narrative.

[@OtherDoorFilms]

And then you get Donnie Darko, where the movie thinks it gets caught in a time loop until Donnie eventually realizes "Wait, I don't have to go along with this shit."

[@DSCM0725]

Mister Amazing never disappoints

[@difdkfhrjbffuhdyiodi3344]

Mister amazing : Time loops are impossible! Me: obviously, backwards time travel is impossible in the first place

[@radiofloyd2359]

Currently seems impossible to us*.

[@kasperdahlin6675]

my new favourite channel

[@Talladarr]

So... You almost started the real conversation on this topic(around 8:45), and then just breezed past it, though I can understand why. The real issue here, and a key factor into whether temporal loops can actually be possible, is the matter of free will(whether or not it exists). In large part, this is the debate people(in general) refuse to have and it has a massive impact on the question of temporal loops. Progress is finally starting to be made in this regard, thanks to the likes of Sam Harris, but this is where the conversation needs to start, and only in that context can that conversation can we come to any conclusion about temporal looping.

[@samueljk123]

COMMENT AND RIDDLE: Great vid by the legend misteramazing! Since the topic is time. i've got this interesting riddle, moreso a fresh perspective. read if interested: "There's 3 people riding a pickup truck on the highway. 1 is a clairvoyant, one is an old woman with Alzheimer, and the last one is you. Now each are sitting in the car facing their own direction NEVER diverting from it. 1 is at the wheel looking FORWARD, 2 is right next to one always looking SIDEWAYS and 3 is at the back of the truck always looking BEHIND. Who sits where? See if someone gets this. hint: it's all about how WE perceive time.

[@yag0d]

I don't get the end result of this. Why would we have to choose where each one sits? But anways, Old Man on the wheel, clairvoyant looking sideways and I am at the back.

[@samueljk123]

ヤゴ its moreso a way of figuring out how if people can find the metaphore hidden within. The clairvoyant sees whats to come so he looks forward. The alzheimer only lives the present therefore he looks sideways. You, you are looking backwards only able to see the now and what has happened in the past. A poor explanation but an interesting thought nonetheless

[@yag0d]

Samueljk But the thing is, if the clairvoyant just sees the future he can't do anything in the present to drive the car properly, so he needs to be looking sideways, and the Old Man just sees the present, so he goes on the wheel to adjust to the road as it reveals itself to him, and I am the one who sees the past, so it is probably better for me to be at the back. I don't know, I was thinking in arranging everyone in the most efficient way :p

[@note4note804]

Wouldn't the old woman be in the back because all she can do is see glimpses of the past and even then it's constantly escaping her? Like the moment she is able to distinguish what has entered her view, it's gone to the all consuming horizon. That said the sideways one is a crap metaphor. Almost no one is capable of only living in the now.

[@justunderreality]

Honestly, I think the alzheimer would take the wheel as a way to drive his own life that he has now lost. I would be looking back trying to remember how I got here in the first place, and the clarvoient would be looking sideways trying to establish what is "now". Ultimately it is not a question about what is the "right" answer but who you are as the person that is answering.

[@AlwayzHilarious]

This made me think of the very first episode of Bravest Warriors where they're stuck in a time loop, but after going through it twice they just decide not to do it again and the episode ends

[@koolman5865]

Where are my fucking cringe compilations >:( Great video man, I'm glad I found this channel. Keep up the great content!

[@LadyGreySpacePirate]

I wonder if that's what hell is like. I imagine hell will be like living your worst memory over and over forever.

[@ambermind3233]

How did you get this good at editing? I'm trying but it's just really difficult to get to a level where I can do what you can. Could you mabye do a tutorial or something? Or mabye some advice? Thanks!

[@markelbaptiste3073]

AmberMin check out Justin odisho and also AMV tuts

[@alazyedit]

It's mostly a feeling one picks up overtime, you'll get better as time progresses Learn your editing software, if it had a camera tool you most likely can recreate the effect at the start. Learn timing, especially syncing audio with visuals - again seen at the start. I hope misteramazing does do some tutorials, but other than that, there's plenty of good tutorials on the effects & style he uses Oh yeah & fucking use ease - he spams the shit out of that

[@raiden3058]

AmberMind Mister Amazing does have some tutorials on his second channel. And he even made a video about video editing.

[@atlmcd]

He’s made previous videos on how he edits

[@julian3bk]

I once had a professor say, " Saul Kripke is the only philosopher I know banned from United Airlines." But he didn't elaborate and I can't find why online

[@Skimmerlit]

I've never enjoyed if-then philosophy; waaaay too abstract

[@ncpolley]

...

[@vladimirhoffman7653]

>Clicks on video to understand time travel >Watches video >Still doesn't understand time travel great video though keep it up.

[@benzur3503]

2:08 >:( purposefully misreading nietzsche is annoying

[@fealca1622]

Right?!? I had to try and compose myself for several seconds before I could move on😂

[@jf_iskindabored]

Finally!

[@maximeteppe7627]

I appreciate the philosophical references, it's thought provoking. But at the end of the day it doesn't really change my outlook on time loops, it just gives me neat new terms to discuss it. So here we go: the question of determinism is still open, we don't know for sure that we have free will, and we don't even know for sure that randmoness exists either, in the sense that I can't know for sure that there is another world whereI made different choices (like say, play a tabletop game rather than type a comment on youtube) or where seemingly random events happended differently (say a world where I make a fumble on my dice roll and other where I succeed) I can conceive of a world where the timeline i'm in is the only possible and necessary timeline. And I can conceive of other worlds where time travel exists and nonetheless there is only one timeline. Several worlds, but nothing in those worlds has the ability to travel to another timeline. The time loop or other causal shain is, in this world, physically necessary, but not metaphyscally so. and it would not be that gods hate you and decide that it is necessary that you suffer. It is just that in this world, your actions are always the result of causes, and those causes always the result of a previous effect. The fact that the events of twelve monkeys aren't metaphysically necessary does not mean that the events of our own timeline aren't, including, why not, time loops happening that we are not aware of. Of course as you pointed out, a closed time loop withpout a way out actually removes the need for causality: there is no original cause because events just are, and are unmovable: at a given point in the timeline there will always be the same snapshot, reflecting nearby events, but not really cause by them. Like twelve monkeys is a movie that always plays out th same, frame by frame, each frame identical each time, set in a certain place on the movie roll, but apart from its location, unrelated to frames before and after, and the movement of one moment into the next an illusion of our sense and of our brain trying to interpret events as a logical chain. In a world where causality is unescapable, causality itself is unnecessary, and can only be a concept in our heads, a filter to interpret the world.

[@RahmetullahGamingTr]

everything is pre-determined. we are only robots.

[@emanuellopez8578]

Time travels is probably the most complicated way to carry a plot

[@keplomancer]

still waiting for justin y.

[@doofs]

honestly, if they found out how to broke the system good for them. that also does mean somebody else can break it though, so that'll be fun.

[@Plinian1312]

Dr.Dankenstein please don't attract him by commenting

[@lmoody9000]

That man needs a new fucking hobby.

[@Jugendberg]

SHHHH, DON'T SAY THAT!!!! it's "he who should not be named", don't say that word. What if he heard you?!

[@damienknox]

as someone that was stuck in a loop of it for quite a long "time" I assure you that time loops can and so exist. But i did make it back out of it, against all logic and reason, because my memory helped me figure out and fix why it was looping.

[@GenericName43]

9/10 IGN

[@TairnKA]

"Wibbly wobbly, timey wimey" stuff...

[@Tevo-sf8nc]

however if instead of time traveling backward as you see in most flicks you simply rewound the universe like a vhs you would have to do all of the things leading to the future you came from because all conditions leading to it from what you had for breakfast to your exact brain chemistry would be identical. so in five years since the same would be true then it is already set in stone. nobody is forcing your hand and you don't have to make certain choices but you will make those choices because of your past experiences and because of the person you will come to be all effects have a cause. if you could know the position and motion of all particles in the universe you could extrapolate all future actions until the death of the universe. this is fate.

[@fergochan]

I love where you say "don't have to make certain choices but you will". A perfect description of determinism.

[@ryftedmage1404]

What happens when the characters are allowed to break the cycle, and the time loop is more of a time cyclone that eventually dies out?

[@DJDoughnet]

I want to know why this channel does not have more subs, TELL ME

[@infinitethoughs]

The beautiful ramblings of a madman

[@reyaflygunn9243]

The problem with necessary entities is that they are a misleading use of descriptions. There is no such thing as a "two", it is a description we use to portray when there is 1+1 items in a group. What does necessary even mean? Is it when that concept exists in all universes? If so, then what of a universe that consists solely of a singularity? Is it when such a concept is conceivable? Then that begs the question, who is imagining this thing that doesnt exist, there are possible worlds with no minds to think. To sum this up, necessary entities are an argument from ignorance, the only things that cannot be proven to not be in all possible worlds are the things that are not even things that exist.

[@agamemnonofmycenae5258]

Yes,his statement also backs no proof of numbers existing.This is a classic argument of apologetics.I don't say that he is atheist/theist,just that he has the wrong impression on how someone perceives reality. Counting are certainly something invented(since it makes life more convenient).There can be a world were counting does not exist,even if the possibility for it being established still being there. Also humans and generally anything organic,has limited scope on how it interacts with the world and its perception of it(blind not seeing,dogs having a better sense of smell) .In a sense,everyone,no matter how similar,can have a drastically varying interaction/perceptiom with its enviroment.General consensus is required to establish something as existing(generally organic interaction). However it is not a requirement for a thing's existence,since the general consensus is made of imperfect perception and hence is itself imperfect.In an ideal situation,the general consensus is perfect and therefore its results without fault. Therefore,while it can easily eliminate things out of existence(Daleks for example),it can never really prove individual existence.That's why during refinement and improving,it can always go back to disprove established claims,whether they were theorised existing or non-existing(lasers are a good example).

[@greenyoshi119]

Johannes Fotiadis he didnt say counting though, he said numbers, not numbers that have to be percieved by any being either, just numbers that can be used to quantify things in that universe; it is inconcievable to think of a scenario where numbers themselves dont exist, so they are considered as something that is necessary for a universe to exist

[@reyaflygunn9243]

Greenyoshi119, the point here is that there is no evidence that numbers actually exist. They are simply something we use to describe the amount of items in a group. The reason why it is difficult to imagine a world without numbers is because there are no numbers in our reality. Take a perfect circle for example. This is a geometric shape that we have never seen to exist anywhere. This is a mental construct that we use in math to better understand other concepts that may or may not be possible in reality. The moment you define a number as something that can exist, we can imagine a world without it. That is what I was talking about in my previous comment. We can imagine worlds where it is physically impossible for the number two to exist, that would be the world of the singularity. Nothing there can create a second thing because everything is attached in such a way that you cannot ever measure anything without resulting in a one or a zero. In fact, this world cannot even conceive of the number two. Therefore to claim that the number two is a necessary entity (a 'thing' that any conceived world must have), is false. Johannes Fotiadis was referring to necessary entities being rarely used outside of religious apologist arguments such as the ontological argument where they try to pass something that cannot be falsified (numbers, perfect shapes, mental constructs) as being identical to something that can be falsified (objective morality, Supreme beings, supernatural effects)

[@DoubleTTB22]

1 and 0 are still numbers. A singularity would just mean that there is 1 of something in that instance. Numbers would still exist in that scenario.

[@reyaflygunn9243]

DoubleTTB22, The point of the singularity was to say that there is a world where the number two could not be applied in any way shape or form to it. The point of that was to say that you cannot simply say "the number 2 is a necessary entity". My example of the singularity was just that, an example to show why necessary entities are false. All you have done is stated that we can describe the singularity world using 1 and 0. You have done nothing to support the argument that the EXISTENCE of numbers is true for all possible worlds. If you wish to say that numbers still exist in a singularity world, you have to not only prove that [descriptions of things] are [things], but also that there is something in a singularity you can describe with the exact number 14.

[@Kikilang60]

You can't travel back in your own time line. If you could travel back in time, it would be in another time line, another world. There would be know paradox because you would not be in the cause and affect of your own time line. Traveling back in time is really, traveling sideways in the multiverse.

[@MrFreakRite]

Lol go figure the waffle house mug doesnt break. As an employee i can vouch they are bricks.

[@TechTehScience]

I'd argue that what you presented was not that Time Loops are impossible, but the presented situations in these works of fiction are highly improbable. An example would be a situation in which someone at no point notices they're creating a time loop until it has already happened, one where someone would be unable to go against the flow of history because they were never aware to begin with that the actions they were taking were causing it.

[@amazinggoose104]

E

[@8Delian8]

Nice to see a timelord mastermind explaining all of this to mere mortals like us.

[@gahvns]

That ending was definently the best ending to any of your videos ever. good shit man.

[@grantpaylago]

Keep it up man. Everything in this video is flawless. The substance and material down to the editing is amazing.

[@DedeLP100]

A good solution to the problem of free will in time travel scenarios is a quote from Dark: "We are not free in our actions, because we are not free in what we feel" Rough translation from the german but it basically says that you personally will always take the path you took before because you are the same person and lived the same life and therefore have similar desires as your past self had in this exact moment

[@coreblaster6809]

Happy one year anniversary of this video

[@jiffylou98]

You had me, then you lost me...then you had me again... and therefore you lost me.

[@ghostfire4623]

"Ok Jeff, just so you know you are now creating 6 different timelines"

[@DomingosMultichannel]

im so impressed by that, that you trying to get a unique perspective of things like time traveling, what usually flows for the most people to the multiverse scheme.

[@SimplyMavAgain]

Damnit, I wanted you to convince me. I really was excited to learn something new that would entirely shift my perspective and I really wanted you to make me believe you. And yes, I have learned something new, that was exciting, kind of. Exciting and underwhelming in the end. I feel like something was missing, I can't pinpoint it but you didn't manage to convince me, to actually shift my perspective and you came *REALLY* close to it. You almost did. And then the video ended. I would have loved for you to actually do it and you did teach me new things, there's your like AND your new subscriber. But you only barely lost me in the end. Guess I'll have to hope for the next video to blow my mind just a bit more.

[@radiofloyd2359]

The issue is that this is set on the premise that things happen because other things happen. The idea of time loops is more so that everything happened is happening and will happen just because it did, is and will. Using a causality POV on an inherently deterministic concept will lead to nothing.

[@resolutionblaze363]

"Nietzche killed the gods for us." I'm pretty sure Nietzche literally said, "WE killed the gods, and now we're fucked if we don't do something to fix it."

[@Gamerboy_Joy]

woah you're telling me that time travel is impossible? im gonna need to sit down for this whammy of a realization

[@newwaveplus]

The idea of time loops use to fuck with my mind so much as a ten year old, so this video puts my mind at ease.

[@charliemals3]

Youre probably one of the hardest workers ive seen on youtube so far

[@FireShell7]

Isn't the notion of breaking a time loop dependent on the idea that free will exists in the first place?

[@crashkop5670]

i personally cannot fathom a world in which the blessed light of garfield doesnt shine on me every single day

[@10smackers88]

Truly magnificent. This is the only show on the internet that is so wonderfully made and precisely executed as to make me feel like I just watched a full length feature film when it’s over.

[@isaacdiaz5661]

MisterAmazing knocks over his mug one day: "wow time travel is so cool, I should make a video about this!"

[@huskySSBM]

I'm glad that you make really high quality content instead of cringe compilations now. This stuff is beautifully edited, well scripted, and overall very informative. Never stop man

[@aissatmohamed5221]

Idk how u keep getting better and better, when u started from perfection, awesome content, keep up the great work

[@shawn4110]

One thing that you have possibly missed here is that in the time loop of 12 Monkeys, not only was Cole always dead in the past and already in every place in time that he traveled back to; he also always made every decision exactly the way that he did and could not have ever done otherwise. We see that in the scene where he ends up in a trench of WW1 (or II can't remember which). His picture from that jump is shown in a lecture, but that lecture happens before he goes to the trench from Cole's point of view (ie it is later in the film that he goes to the trench than it is in the film that the picture is shown). I believe that you are already on board with this idea in the video. Whereby there are no timelines, everything that happens is not an alternative timeline, but the only timeline that there ever was and you correctly conclude that everything that happens just happens. Where you go wrong, in my view, is two fold. 1) Cause and effect are not invalidated in such a world at all as you seem to think. The mug does fall, and it does fall because you dropped it, but only because dropping it precedes the fall. A cause is just the immediate and connected action that precedes the effect. It actually doesn't matter that there can be other potential causes (other directly connected actions that could have occurred instead) because those actions did not happen. Which leads me to 2) The world of 12 Monkeys is 100% deterministic. The mug in that world was always dropped and nothing can change it to another cause regardless of whether such an alternative cause is possible. It simply did not happen, possible or not, and simply cannot be otherwise. Likewise, Cole cannot as you suggest choose not to go to the airport. He has no free will. No one does. Their choices are simply the result of their brain state at the time which is linked back in a continuous unbroken chain of previous brain states and previous environmental stimuli which exactly cause every decision he makes up until the inevitable choices that end the film. The only thing that we can say is that Cole probably should have made a different decision based on his foreknowledge, but we cannot say that he could have a made a different decision anymore than we can say that the mug can decide not to fall knowing it will break. The mug and Cole both have no actual agency just the illusion of it. A world where the mug fell for another reason is possible, but in this world it is not actually possible for the mug to not fall or to fall for any other reason. It is determined and was determined from the very beginning of time.

[@AlgernonCSwinburne]

Mister Amazing, you need to do your summer homework. We’ve entered an endless recursion of time.

[@Jescide]

if you go back in time you change the future of the reality in that time line but when coming to the present you go back to the same reality you started in.

[@zeevdrifter2707]

one of your problems is you assume we have free will and that we aren't just in the grand reality of the universe little wind-up toys powered by food until we die, and all our choices can be predicted and understood if you had an extremely detailed review of someone's mental state and personality. the other more easy to swallow one is you're applying a linear cause and effect to a temporal concept if time isn't fluid, it makes if time is non linear to say events in the future are the reason things in the past happen and to ask what is the source of a loop is silly cause perhaps the loop didn't always start as a loob, but time simply repeating or reshuffling could change that, like a timeline of the timelines changing. which can create closed loops, even if it happens off screen or panel.

[@xenathcytrin202]

Well, I know of one work of fiction that got time loops right. In homestuck, there are numerous time loops and shenanigans, all which is kept in a linear single timeline by timelines that get off the alpha timeline becoming doomed, everyone in them dying, and eventually collapsing into irrelevance. Why, you might ask? Because some skull headed, rainbow clown billiard ball themed, space hulk with green sun powers became the embodiment of time and has forced the whole of causality to bring about his own existence by destroying timelines that don't. Makes perfect sense.

[@nobodyknowsforsure]

nah I'm going with the alternate realities principle - if I go back and crap on someone's seat in a classroom that's an alternate timeline vs me leaving an apple next time.

[@cloudwolf3972]

A good example of time loop is the time loop of the 11th doctor from Doctor Who, where he saves himself from pandora box.

[@AndroidOO3]

There is a way to do loops. We are not seeing 12 monkies in its entirety. We see one cycle of the loop. The loop exists as an equilibrium, it happens because the other things in the loop cause it to happen and so on and so forth into the future forever. But, while we can assume that the loop would continue forward forever we cannot say that it has ALWAYS happened. There must have been an initial travel back in time with a Bruce that didnt see himself shot, a clean timeline. This untraumatized Bruce did something that initiated what would eventually equalize into a loop where the parts drive themselves.

[@scvnthorpe__]

I'm not so sure about the pragmatist view - at any given time in the past where a time traveller from the future has arrived and brought an effect, the events leading up to this *haven't* occurred yet for them to originate from, so you still get that problem plus a slew of questions about the nature of time in a world where backwards time travel is even possible. Honestly though, the philosophy of time is something I really ought to pursue and it's good to see more mention of Arabic scholars amongst discussions of philosophy in general, especially owing to the past popular neglect of philosophical canon from outside 'the west' as it were.