empleat

Why do you even answer then? If you are not gonna answer the question? If anything in theory could be done to avoid this...

If there is infinite time??? Also we don't know, if it will be the exactly same universe, or with a slightly different initial conditions.

Except: if you will exist again in the next universe! If it is infinite cycle, sooner or later, you would live again...

I guess you didn't read my first post. Is there anything (hypothetically/theoretically) that could be done about Eternal Return - to avoid it? In CCC only light, radiation and massless particles can cross into another aeon (next iteration of the universe). So there is a hope perhaps. https://youtu.be/PC2JOQ7z5L0?t=669 Although I have no idea, if particles from which is my brain, could be changed to these types of particles... As I heard particles will lose mass in heat death era... Also there is Big Bounce and so many other scary scenarios, even I heard heat death is mostly accepted. Who knows...

You didn't answer. So there is nothing, which can be done? Anyways this was a desperate attempt, last hope I guess. So I wanted to ask... But I already knew there isn't probably anything, which can be done on 99.999999...% As who knows what would happen with particles from which I am in trillion trillion trillion years and in the next iteration. However it is...

If photon is matter and it ceases to exist. What is left then? You said: there are particles and they have energy. So then is it turned into another particle? Because of conservation of matter and energy: "matter, or energy can't be destroyed". In layman terms: thing is what are all forms of photons? Even if I turn myself into light, would that mean, that possibly light can be turned back into particles from which I Am? At some point could it turn into something conscious? Does this has any practical implications? You are not here to tell me everything. I asked more like in a sense: if you think (theoretically/hypothetically) there could be an escape. I don't know if there is even remote answer to this, probably not, as it may depend on far far future! Even black holes will evaporate as radiation. It seems like nothing lasts forever! Even if I was light. Or did something, it wouldn't probably last! Only thing I would life for, if there was like a possible escape, lets say in 50 years theoretically possible! And even then, not sure if I wanted to risk it. Because most likely there is not! Wait and now I Am confused. I thought matter doesn't change into energy. Instead there is matter, which has energy. And some of these particles are massless. I am not even sure what it means. As E = mc^2. Would massless mean no energy?

Yeah I read about these things and I can't even imagine them! I have already problem imagining warping of space time and similar concepts, like time around black hole (as I wondered, if black hole could cause time loop in a vicinity). Or 4D. I have aphantasia - I have no mind's eye (almost no mental images), but I Am great in logic. Sometimes: I can see some, but I wouldn't call them images! More like black blurs... It is like they are behind black cover, or something. And have no continuity. BTW Stargate is my all time favorite TV Show, there are plenty of wormholes

Yeah not to say, that it is not incredible work! And verified by countless experiments, or consistent without many doubts, like theory of Evolution. E.g. in case of Inflation, you can change the theory: so it fits almost any data and problem is - we don't know initial conditions. So we don't know from what we should extrapolate! And reason for them! I am terrible at giving examples: e.g. what if I was Boltzman Brain and everything was just intricate hallucination and wasn't true?! We are limited by our senses. And everything is essentially guessing, as you can't get behind certain point in time and you get into singularity. And how do you even know, what you see from your senses is real? We could be in a simulation. Scientists even proposed practical experiment, but it wasn't realized yet, because it is technically impossible ATM, or perhaps, because philosophical implications! That's what I mean. While it is not likely that something like GR, or Evolution will change any time soon. Still can we ultimate know the truth, that is the question!

So even if light is absorbed. E.g. as thermal energy. Is it still light? As: Can light change back and forth to matter, or not? EDIT: Or rather from mass to massless and in opposite? As I again forget about energy being property of particles. I was interested: if you could e.g. make light from a person and if he would stay light forever. This is obviously very hypothetical, even impossible probably for long time. If it was possible like in 50 years, I would go for it perhaps But even light probably doesn't stay light all time, or it is not convertible - no idea!

That is soo naive! I am very open-minded. I almost never come to definitive conclusions, if I can't prove something empirically, or at least by logic! I know - science is not concerned with finding a proof. And basic premises of any theory could be wrong. It is just some theory, which fits all data best and is accepted in scientific circles... Lately scientists themselves attack Inflation and some scientists called other scientists - uncritical believers: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=581a72acb45e E.g. materialism can be false! Everything is un-provable, but also irrefutable (at least from current understanding so you don't crucify me )! Except: I think, therefore I am. And I leave my opinions open to a change!

Hahaha. How is it irrational??? Even Nietzsche engaged in this idea. We simply don't know that. Prove it is irrational... I mean: I appreciate it. But what you said doesn't disprove eternal return! Or explain how so!

Wait what? I am not sure where you are heading with this... Not before I wrote it and put it there. And how would I even know, if I found that in last iteration of the universe?

But is there anything possibly anyone could do to avoid eternal recurrence? Even highly theoretically, because probably there isn't!

So that means, we don't know if light experiences time? Sorry, I can't believe myself, that I wrote matter again What is then distinction between matter and energy? Ultimate question was: is there anything, we could ever do to stop eternal recurrence? Or avoid experiencing time? Also even light can be turned into heat energy and then it could experience time - don't know!

I knew about energy and matter being essentially the same thing. I don't know enough about subject to formally describe it. And why distinction is even made, if that is so... Point is: that light does not experience time! I don't know exactly why! But if matter equals energy, then particles are energy. Yet there is a distinction! Light e.g. is said: to not experience time. I don't remember, if this can be said only about light, or same is true about energy. That's why I asked! I read only matter can experience time. But how is that so: if matter equals energy?

To clarify: only reason I even answered to that topic... was to ask: if anyone could do anything to escape this! But I highly doubt it... It was not philosophical! I just wanted to know (this would be highly theoretical) if there is possibly an escape!!! For example: energy doesn't experience time! But even if you made yourself into energy: it wouldn't help necessarily, because energy can be turned back into matter!

What? I never said that! I meant: what you said is simply not true! Maybe I should have been more specific, since you don't understand. But I thought: you simply wanted to cheer me up, by making it sound like it is not true, or something... Which implies a possibility! I never said that it is not true! Or it is true! At least if my memory is not failing me. I said: even possibility of it being true is hell and that's it! Because what if it is true???

Thanks for trying to cheer me up, but I am unfortunately too of a logical person for this to work. And I know: this is simply not true... I COULD BE WRONG AND I MIGHT AS WELL BE RIGHT! AS IT IS NOT PROOVABLE, BUT ALSO IRREFUTABLE! WE DON'T KNOW IF IT IS TRUE, OR NOT!!! WE DON'T KNOW!!! WE DON'T KNOW!!! WE JUST DON'T KNOW... WARNING: NO PERSON SHOULD EVER KNOW THIS:

I don't understand you guys - how don't you have extreme depression?! This is not completely true. I sorta do, 86% of population is religions, people have innate defensive mechanisms. And most of people have positive illusions and don't see the world: how it truly is! And lie to themselves. Fact is - life is hell!!! https://aeon.co/essays/the-voice-of-sadness-is-censored-as-sick-what-if-its-sane I am troubled by this idea of Eternal Return long time. Read spoiler for more info: I am warning you - Extremely depressive (no human being should ever know about this) read for you own risk!!! E.g. Nihilism is not a choice, or philosophy, it simply arrives! This is similar, you may have defense mechanisms right now, but even thinking about this can totally change you forever! Even if you already knew about it, I don't think most people fully realize/admit consequences...

Sorry mistake, I meant: if external factors affect our behavior and change it in some way, then there could be only limited free will! I wanted to say that: if you are truly responsible for your own actions (ultimately responsibility). And other conditions required for free will being true, then you have free will - at least until some external influences affect it, or take it away completely! Because if there ought to be free will, it would have to be apparently some limited version! E.g. external factors, which affect us and can literally change our decisions!

Not at all, asking is great, as an answer to a question eliminates uncertainty I don't even know what normal responsibility would mean in this case! As you know Ultimate Responsibility means: that you have to be Ultimately Responsible for the way you are - to be truly responsible for your actions. How would you even define normal responsibility? Either: 1. You and only you are truly responsible for your actions and nothing else is!!! (aka Ultimate Responsibility) = condition for free will 2. You are not truly responsible for your actions and something else is! = free will worth of having is false You are either responsible for your actions, or you aren't! I can't see any middle ground! NOTE: for point 1. to be true, doesn't require following to be true: - the notion of free will where you can do everything, even that what is not metaphysically possible! - the version of free will which is immune to external influences. As we know: people can take free will of others away! Ideally my definition of free will would include latter. Yet I am benevolent to notions of less free will! As obviously our free will is limited greatly by countless factors, which is apparent, just by an observation of every day life! Like: - what if someone someone takes you into slavery - also some people have much less control of their lives: people with diseases, financial problems etc. If you defined some limited version of free will e.g: you follow a programming, which was given to you by your genes/environment, before you was even born! Let's say you can choose 35% of your decisions freely somehow... still these decisions would have to come from somewhere! Then this version of free will would still have - the problem of Origination! Casual people usually say something like this: there is limited free will. We cannot control everything, but there are some things we can control! Are there? When everything is either: pre-determined, or random. Your decisions couldn't come from nothing! If so: how were they decided by your own free will? If they didn't come from nothing, everything that exists is either pre-determined/random. How are you responsible for that? And here we go: the problem of Origination again! I think you are mixing apples with oranges and by that i mean: We are not ultimately free to do everything. VS We are not ultimately responsible for our actions. In exactly what sense we are also not "ultimate free" you meant it? BTW this is what your best libertarian friends say : "Some forms of libertarianism assert that human actions do not have causes and are chosen consciously – i.e. are not random. This assertion raises the question: what are these conscious decisions based on? Since they can't be based on nothing." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress Oh sorry they are not your friends and whole libertarian philosophy is just metaphorical speech (I AM JUST JOKING) So if anything: i am against some forms of libertarianism! I don't think currently: any camp of free will can prove free will worth of having is real! If anything i would be an incompatibilist! Unless something changes. I disagree. It is like to say: a terminator (which is a machine) has free will, because he can do what he wants, while he cannot choose his own programming (to want what he wants)! Sure you have to acknowledge: we can't do anything without a reason! This can be anything from an instinct to a logical reason! Imagine being a body without a brain, you have no reason to do anything! After you are born, where did any reason come from - to be also decided by your own free will? It couldn't come from nothing right? Because if you are nothing, you can't choose between anything, because you have no preferences yet! So if you want to stand on your position. You need to explain origin of this decision and how it is decided by your own free will from nothing!!! Which is currently impossible! Therefore it is a problem! Then again: how do you explain origin of these things? As they had to come from something!!! LOL a theory is based on scientific facts! You keep saying it is absurd, yet you didn't provide any evidence/counter arguments!!! You only posted your definition of free will, which doesn't disprove my definition, or my logic! As you can't explain currently origin of your decisions, but they had to come from somewhere right? If they came from nothing, still doesn't explain how they are free... We are on scientific forums, i think it is fair, that you give proof why my arguments are not true, or why my logic is illogical! You gave no proof so far, so... Don't you think, that Einstein and Schopenhauer would be smart enough to avoid practical and theoretical absurdity??? Also Tesla and Goethe (one of biggest geniuses who ever lived) didn't believe in free will too! Prove my empirical observations/facts are wrong, prove my logic is illogical! Even better prove Einstein was wrong!!! It can seem absurd, but it isn't really! It is logical! Honestly (if think about it) it can sound absurd, i have to give you that! How could I be responsible for my origin? I couldn't, it is impossible, which is logical. But if I say: I could - it sounds absurd! As currently, there is not even way to imagine - how?! Or if I say: I would have to be able to do that - in order to have free will! But then it would be logical, that we don't! But absurd having to do that, in order to have free will! I should have specified this sooner, as it created confusion for you, but to me it is logical. Do you know what is amazing, i realized - i saw so many remarks to free will/fate etc. in TV shows. Yet it never occurred to me, before existential crisis: that free will could be false! People take free will for granted, as our brains play illusions on us! It is one of these simple problems, which are so complicated, that they created (over 2000 years) countless philosophical disputes! Some concepts are hard to grasp even for people like Einstein! I don't understand, why you picked this sentence! Which was only an analogy (so i don't have to rewrite whole definition of Origination in each sentence) and you read already full definition of the Origination problem! You had to know this! Then why would you call me on this sentence, that it is metaphorical speech? Yes this sentence alone is metaphorical speech! But not the Origination problem to which i am referring, which is logical and based on empirical observations and facts! You just keep saying that: this is metaphorical speech. But you give no arguments/proof I would gladly listen to some counter-arguments! I don't care about being right, i just want to know the truth! This is not true! Many philosophies like compatibilism conditioned free will on moral responsibility. Which is a logical fallacy! It doesn't mean yet that: all ideas from this area of philosophy are all bad! It is like to say: your philosophy is bad, because you inadvertently gave me 2 options to refute your position that free will is true. If i refuted one, it would lead to conclusion that free will is false. Because of the option: moral responsibility being false! Then it would mean: free will is also false! Just because some compatibilist was once wrong: it doesn't mean his whole philosophy is bad! Many philosophies were linked with god and different things, which were not necessarily relevant to idea, or logically sound! But usually at least some basic premises, or something was correct. Some philosophies used logical fallacies for sure! Perhaps it would help to consider real world scenarios to understand this better! As Nikola Tesla said: Lets go through these points to better understand this problem: If we had no preferences: we couldn't decide anything right? We didn't exist forever, if so: how does that help to a cause of free will? (currently beyond human understanding) We didn't appear from nothing to the state: how we are now! And if so: how were we responsible for that? How did we choose that freely? Otherwise we had to come from something! Before you existed as a conscious being, or as particles scattered across the space: how could you choose anything by your own non-existent free will?! Something has to be given to you first, before you can decide/choose anything! Everything is either pre-determined/random When you was born, everything you was: were things you didn't choose! You didn't choose environment as well! From this point it is interaction between genes and environment, which will determine each of your future actions! If points (7,8,9,10) are true, then how is it possible you can decide freely, without influence of any of causal chains from the past? If points (7,8.9,10,11) are true, how can you decide freely, without anything prior, which would cause that? How does free will come from nothing? If it did come from nothing, we can't even know nature of a such phenomena. As it is past of singularity! Else how do you explain free will, for which to be true: doesn't matter where your preferences came from? As scientific method is to observe the reality, make assumptions, test them by an experiment and if these assumptions differ from result of an experiment. Scientists will change their theory: based on what they discovered! And do experiment again! We should take real world scenarios and make theory how it would be possible to have free will in any case! And we should ask same question in every permutation that exists! I can't even imagine how free will could exist! I agree with Compatibilism until the point of our preferences, where did these come from to be free (chosen by us)? It is just unimaginable! Let me give you some real world examples, as it all becomes easier to understand with them: - I wanted to be a big philosopher, because my dad is (how often we can see influence of parents on kids e.g. their pressure...) - if I had a higher IQ, I could perhaps see something in a situation, I would miss otherwise! - a parasite invaded my brain and caused a risky behavior, or a suicide! - we have first time proof genes increase risks of developing ADHD about 75%, you realize as person with a ADHD will behave dramatically in a distinct way, than person with no ADHD? I didn't choose my ADHD! https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181128115024.htm - i played game called Diablo 3, there was an action house, where you could literally make thousands of $, without any risk and depositing any currency! I wouldn't think at that time: you would make money on a PC game, because usually you can't! You can make like couple cents... If I knew that, you can make 10ths of thousands $ by playing that game, I would play it 24/7!!! - if I prefer to pick vanilla over a chocolate, ultimately - I didn't choose I want to pick vanilla, but my genes/environment did! Of which I had no control! I picked vanilla, because i have appetite for it, but i didn't choose that appetite! - why someone prefers spicy food, over food without a spice? - i am on a hike and bear attacks me: i am going to run, because i am not a NAVY Seal and i don't have any weapons on me! I didn't choose that bear will attack me and couldn't predict that on 100%. In this case "i run" is: what i want to do. But i didn't chose what i want. I can only choose between flight, or fight. But since i can't fight a bear. So i have only 2 options left: run, or to die. But who would choose to die? Let me give you an another example: 1. prefer to shop in Lidl 2. there are 4 shops in my area: wallmart, tesco, globus, lidl 3. lidl, wallmart, tesco were closed at day, i decided - i need to shop on 4. my only option left, is the globus Therefore i go shop there because: A. i need to shop B. i have no other options in area Note: i could go shop elsewhere further beyond this area, but for sake of argument, lets say you are lazy for 2 hour drive! Lets say: i am pre-determined to want to go shop to lidl, but I didn't choose that I want to do that in that situation! That's my preference and out of my control! Perhaps they have better sortiment, but i didn't choose that! Logically you go where they have best foods, depends on your personality - you didn't choose. And even idea to change personality, had to come from somewhere... Other shops at that day were unexpectedly closed! Let's say: i couldn't predict that by any means (also out of my control). Then I went to shop to the globus, because it was my only option left! Not because i would wish to go there! While I am hungry and i want to go shopping for food! I saw over 10ths of thousand TV shows and i read 10ths of thousands articles about psychology. If you consider everything that exist, it doesn't seem we have free will on 99% As i tried to look at this from all angles! Give me practical example how we are free in any situation and i can try to explain why we are not! You can give question without external influences, as these affect us for sure! Yeah but libertarianism is based on empirical observations/evidence too! E.g. event-causal camp, which asserts: nature is causing our brains and there is inherent randomness/uncertainty! Which is empirical fact: everything is either pre-determined/random. But claiming that uncertainty is needed for free will is not! As we don't know, if there is uncertainty, or everything is just random. Also we don't know, if free will is incompatible with determinism on 100% and by an empirical experiment! Some libertarian camps are less empirical, but whole libertarianism isn't just metaphorical speech for sure! Also some forms of libertarianism are compatible with adequate determinism. To address one of your older points, which is related to this: Yeah but we don't know empirically, if we could done otherwise. This is just an assumption. If compatibilism was purely empirical, it would be probably in an area of science! Almost no philosophy is completely empirical! Yeah i think i agree with you on that. E.g. in Compatibilism: maybe it doesn't. If you knew someone from 100% and state of an environment from 100%. Then you could predict everything he will ever do. But if he is ultimately responsible for his actions and nothing else is! And he could have done otherwise! Then he has free will, even if you could predict his behavior! But besides that: this would allow other people to abuse other people more, which could result in less free will overall for people! Because not everyone would have this technology! It depends, if this is acceptable for you. He said: only one of possible requirements for free will (not necessary)! He mentions it, because it could have implications for free will: https://youtu.be/RY7hjt5Gi-E?t=524 Another important consideration, if future is singular (what it could mean for free will): https://youtu.be/RY7hjt5Gi-E?t=594 See he is not trying to overstep, merely provided insight from a physicist perspective! Some argue: unpredictability of decision is important for free will. There is paradox in this: if you could predict from 100% your behavior, you would change at least some of your decisions right? But if you changed them, that means they would never happened in the first place!!! So how could you predict: they will happen? This would be a paradox - if future was already set! But if future was not set in stone, then perhaps: knowing where your current state will lead you, it would make you to change your behavior in future! And because future doesn't exist yet, it wouldn't lead to a paradox, just to possible future. Woah! Perphaps we could make ourselves more free, if we could predict future! E.g. people, when they get older, regret some of their decisions (because they didn't know any better in past) but if they knew what they will do and implications of their actions, some would change them for sure! You could say: if future is singular and pre-determined. I am not sure, but perhaps: you could still done otherwise, as you will do only 1 thing at any point in time. And what you will do: will be determined by your decision at each point in time! Again problem is Origination, where did your initial state come from to be free??? Which will then determine all your future states!!! Also how can you be free from an environment, which you didn't choose? Science says: who we are is always dependent on our environment: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/body-switching Also i see a problem: if freely decided something, you should know reasons for your decision right? Yet i already sent proof, that people sometimes can't tell - why they did something. As their unconscious processes are not visible to them. There is a debate what this could mean for free will. As this is related mainly to rash decisions, if not only to them. But as I listed perfect example: some prisoners escaped from a court, when they had a lucky opportunity. And they had very small amount of time to make a decision, which will affect their lives greatly. After they did catch them, they couldn't explain why they did that! But it could add years in prison to their sentence and affect their life in main way! Shouldn't they know - why they did such important decision, if they are free? You can expect someone born into rich family and someone born in Africa to lead very different life, even if they were the same person! This could be actually tested on AI, once it will become smarter! Once we eliminate free will from every permutation, what's left?! This is also backing up my claims: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#FreeWillProbCausDete I don't know what else to tell you... Origination is empirical and logical! Again Stanford states: this is a real problem! That's what I was saying, this is indeed a problem! Again you are suppressing the premise, that we didn't choose our initial state. And you said: Which is logical fallacy in my opinion! And empirically not correct, as we know everything comes from something, once the universe exists! Which begs the question, where did your preferences come from? E.g Quantum information cannot be destroyed, nor come from nothing. Macroscopic information can be destroyed, but not the energy, or the matter. Which also couldn't come from nothing. Except the universe - some theories say!!! I don't know, if something could come from nothing once the universe pops into the existence. There are some virtual particles, which constantly pop into existence and vanish. But even they are possibly caused by some existing particles, or something in QM, if i remember that correctly! And how could you be responsible for origin of the universe, before anything even existed? Or for something, which comes from nothing? Doesn't make sense and is currently unintelligible to the humans. You would have to get past singularity too!!! And as PBS said, if that came from another universe, there would be same problem of Origination. As he said in order to generate new information in close region is only by randomness and how is that free?

LOL people's answers here. There is no inherent purpose to the universe, at least as far as we know! There are many philosophies like absurdism: people are inherently trying to find a purpose in the meaningless world, which creates the absurd! Or existentialism, of which basic premise is, that we make our own purpose. At the end it doesn't really matter, we are nothing, we can't change anything! So either you can kill yourself, or just enjoy life, anything else would be stupid...

I want to add important info to this post, as no one replied long time and i found important information, which complements subject of this post: In my first post i mentioned podcast with some philosopher articulating the origination problem in other way, than i was expressing it myself - i am 99% sure, this was G Strawson (British analytic philosopher) as his expression of the problem was very similar to the expression in podcast! I found his page on wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson This lead me to Arthur Schopenhauer's wiki page! And that G Strawson's argument: You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do. resembles Arthur Schopenhauer's position in On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason This lead me to 28th reference about Albert Einstein on Schopenhauer's wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer which says he doesn't believe in Free Will in Schopenhauer's words: "Albert Einstein in Mein Glaubensbekenntnis (August 1932): "I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants,[Der Mensch kann wohl tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will]' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper." Schopenhauer's clearer, actual words were: "You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing." [Du kannst tun was du willst: aber du kannst in jedem gegebenen Augenblick deines Lebens nur ein Bestimmtes wollen und schlechterdings nichts anderes als dieses eine.] On the Freedom of the Will, Ch. II." So even Albert Einstein though same: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants". Which is equivalent of the origination problem, or causa sui, or ultimate responsibility, or how you like to call it! Just expressed differently! So i still stand on my position. And that this problem is pertinent to the question, whether or not, we have free will. It is not metaphorical speech! It is based on logic and empirical observations/facts, that everything comes from something. "Ex nihilo nihil fit" or "Nothing Comes from Nothing". With possible exception of the universe itself, but how were you responsible for that? And since from that point everything is pre-determined, or random... Or if you existed forever, that still doesn't answer the question, how do you choose your own preferences in that scenario? Also we have empirical proof that genes determine our personality traits. And evolution is taken as fact in biology! So could you be responsible for your genes, before you was even born?! Even while using dualism and similar philosophies, this is still a problem. And that's all i was saying, that this is a problem!

I read either same topic, or something similar: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/time-travel-paradox?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1 However by this account, it means: that you can't change anything. You can travel back (paradox-free) but you can't change anything significantly! So depressing... So that kinda defeats point of time-travel, unless you could change something minuscule and chain of events would change something significantly. But according to this universe is self-correcting. Who knows: what else would happen (unintended/adverse events)...