But it's so vastly, radically different than the accepted definition of time travel that it's hard to make any coherent debate or argument with regards to it.
Yes, exactly. When I said that the thread was talking about the 'classic defintion of time travel' I was talking about the science fiction, back to the future, quantum leap, superman flying around the earth type of time travel. My definition of 'time travel' is radically different than that, and I only wanted to bring it up as an interesting point.
Here's a discussion I had with a collegue a while ago about time travel and the persistance of human conciousness.
Me - Ok, so if I got in a delorian time machine and took you 1 day into the past, and introduced yourself to yourself... ignoring the paradox that you don't remember that, are you still you, or are you him, or is he you, or are you two different people?
him - Well I guess we are two different people.
me - Why?
him - because I've got a days experience on him. I know a day's worth of information more than him. I'm a day older, my cells have degraded, regrown, etc. I'm different than he is.
me - OK, so would the same hold true if I took you backwards in time one minute into the past?
him - I guess.
me - How about one second, one thousandth of a second, one trillionth of a second? Basically if there's two of you standing there from different times, no matter what that time is, then aren't you a different person?
Him - I guuuuessssssss, yeah..... I suppose if there's two of us, then we can't be the same person.
me - but so aren't you in essence, at any given moment of your life a different 'person' than you were at any different moment ? At what point does the you that exists... RIGHT NOW.... cease to exist? That's the folly of time travel, to think that it exists only as a single direction river. If that's the case, then nano second by nano second, instant by instant, the you that you are is disappearing and instantly reforming only to dissappear again. That's madness.