The butterfly effects would add up and and any zygote formed would not be the hitler-as-we-know anymore, since it would be a different combination of sperm and eggs.
Who needs guns when you got a time machine? Don’t like your highschool bully, just bump into their parents back in time. Or you know, “bump” ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) into their parents.
This is how we get the red alert timeline. Killing Hitler only makes a stronger enemy
Unpopular opinion.
Humanity is going to generate tyrants until we vaccinate everyone with a sense of morality and even then, we’re going to have problems with dark empaths starting shit as long as we think child soldiers can be saved.
What’s even the point man, the world will still find a way to shit on us
Dude, don’t you think we tried that? The first time we got Schickelcutlerstalin for some reason who killed everyone with his out off-control biological weapons. Then for some fucking reason we got a fucking snake hitler!
And now we are all out of time-travel juice and locked down in a reality where hitler lived AND an orange is also hitler. Well, I had a little bit left,but a giant testicle came along, kicked me in my testicles,shouted “you want fucking Mother Theresa torturing everyone to death” and disappeared.
Now I am stuck here. Fuck.
The real criticism of this plan is that whether you assassinate Hitler or just prevent his birth, it doesn’t solve the societal problems that led to the world wars. Hitler wouldn’t have happened, but the Germans would still feel snubbed by the outcome of the Great War
We have our own hitlers living now. I think we should care about them first before thinking on time traveling
Maybe someone did send a time traveler. But idk why they sent a kid with zero training and no scope lmao. It was so fucking close.
Everyone is always assuming that these time travelers have good intentions…
Then get hit with the plot twist that it was your “bumping” that actually conceived Hitler
This is the correct answer in any single chain deterministic universe… It always happened just like that.
Oh man, this happened with my wife too, just bumped into her and next thing you know she’s pregnant. I can’t believe how fertile I am sometimes.
Someone should go back in time and convince monke to stay in tree
Butterfly effect is as likely to make him more dangerous as it is to make him less
Knowing what his father was like, it’s very likely that they’d still produce a horrible kid.
I doubt that a child assigned female at birth would be as horrible in that patriarchal and misogynistic environment.
Ehh, people are capable of doing pretty nasty shit regardless of sex or gender. But on the other hand, had Hitler not been a cis man, it’d have been a lot harder to get in a position of power that’d enable hitler to do what he did. So I see your point.
cuckolds Hitler’s dad
discovers that paradoxes don’t exist the hard way
It wouldn’t be a paradox if Hitker’s dad wasn’t actual Hitler’s dad. It turns out you went back in time to make that deposit and give us the timeliness we know.
That’s still a paradox.
Its not. Its a time loop and probably proves determanism but its not a paradox.
Arguably any time loop is a paradox as it has no beginning. It kinda breaks cause and effect but I mean yea we’re talking time travel so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.
That’s not how time works. If you go back in time and kill Hitler Hitler already happened in your timeline so he’s going to happen again. You can’t change things that already happened in your past.
It’s not like we actually know how time travel would work. Because, you know, it’s not currently a thing at all.
I think that it’s fairly
settledaccepted theory that if you perceived it it happened. If you went back to the past and caused it not to happen then it wouldn’t have happened and you wouldn’t have perceived it. Basically, you can’t change what already happened because whatever you did in the past had already happened when you perceived and therefore nothing that you did changed anything.Not at all. There is many ways to rationalize time, nothing is settled at all. The “settled theory” you talk about would create paradoxes, if time travel is ever made real. And paradoxes don’t work well with reality.
There is actually a fairly common way to rationalize time that is the opposite of what you’re describing: Time is entirely a construct, there is no past, no future, only the present. Take away all of humanity’s memories and the past doesn’t exist at all.
There’s also an understanding of time that says it only goes forward, making time travelling to the past impossible.
If you don’t like something that happened to you today and go back to 2000 to change something that change that you made in 2000 had already occurred in 2000 when the thing that you didn’t like happened in 2025. What happened in 2025 happened after the change you made in 2000.
Time travel is a settled theory?
😁
That’s not what theory means at all
K
So if I leave my phone in 1929, nothing changes? That’s absurd.
If you left your phone in 1929 then you had already done it in the past today. Nothing changed.
I feel like just accepting that as the answer is a philosophically lazy answer that simply doesn’t pass the logic test because I didn’t have a time machine. Now I do. Things change. And even if it doesn’t change for us, it changes the course of time for them. Can you imagine the leap in tech if a modern flagship phone was found in the 70s? You wouldn’t be able to go so far back that they’re incapable of interpreting the tech, like what would a hunter/gatherer glean from a phone? Nothing. But in the 40s? Certainly we could have learned a lot from it by then.
You can’t just wave off something that’s pure speculation as if you know anything about it. This is as close to some weird time theology I can think of. Like the “gods plan” of time.
It’s called an ontological paradox.
I disagree. If you made a change in 2000 you had already made it when whatever happened in 2025 happened. If you went back and killed Hitler in 1885 that had already happened in 1933 when Hitler was appointed Chancellor. What happened in 1885 didn’t change what happened in 1933. Maybe you killed the wrong person. Maybe history got wrong who Hitler was. Maybe Hitler assumed the identity of the dead infant and went on to be appointed Chancellor. The point is that whatever happened in 1935 happened after whatever happened in 1885.
Edit: It’s called an ontological paradox.
Many worlds theory gives us an alternative - in one world I left my phone in 1929 and that shaped that world tremendously.
But that didn’t happen in my world and it can’t, because my world is the world where no one left their phone in 1929.
Yes. There are many paths forward from any moment in time but only one path backwards. That means that to get to where you are right now whatever happened in the past has already happened and can’t be changed.
Time is a one-way linear progression, you can’t go back in the first place. Any fictional story where time travel happens necessarily has its own rules, and every one is equally valid
I don’t think that space time works like that.
that’s a bold assertion. prove it.
🥱 💩
💩🧠
agreed
Let’s say you’re right and you’ve prevented the birth of Adolf or altered him to send him to another life trajectory. Who is to say that there wouldn’t be another mad person, naturally a man, who would rise to power and commit similar if not even worse crimes. It’s not only the person that made the fuehrer possible, it’s also everything happening in the world, especially politics at the time. So you’ve bumped Adolf but you’ve created Anton who was similarly radicalized but he wasn’t a landscape painter, he was a physics major and he made Germany develop nuclear weapons much faster. So now you have to go back and disturb Anton’s conception. Which brings about fuehrer Armin and so forth. You might be stuck in a time loop you’ll never be able to stop because you can’t control all the variables.
deleted by creator
El. Psy. Congroo.
They told me to “get rid of hitler” and I technically acomplished the mission. 🤷♂️
Just following orders?
Ah… shit… here we go again…
All you had to do was follow the damn train (to Auschwitz) CJ!
For real, there was nothing particularly special about Hitler that made him the one and only being of his type.
It was a confluence of multiple differing things, the emergence of new media technologies, and the ability to repeat a single message over and over again to as many people as needed to hear them without any equally as loud voices of dissent.
Combine that with an incredible financial depression and the consequences of an ill thought war being foisted upon your country’s shoulders.
Admittedly, it was his own personal biases against the Jewish people that caused the Holocaust, and the Aktion T4 was similarly born out of his hatred of people with mental disabilities.
In any case, if you take a miserable nation, give them a lightning rod to direct all of the misery of their own lives at, and an eloquent or charismatic leader to tell them it is okay to vent their frustrations on the helpless people that surround them, then you too can create another Hitler.
Without the Holocaust, there’d have been no international horror over the atrocities of concentration camps, gas chambers, human experimentation, genocide. Anti-Jewish sentiment was rampant around the world.
Progressives made a lot of progress off the back of WWII, and the anti-fascist sentiment in the US that survived until the greatest generation died and their grandchildren took over. It’s entirely possible that, without WWII, the fascism we see in the US today would have happened much earlier, and we’d have run our own concentration camps.
Ironically, the people who probably would have benefited most from preventing “Hitler” would be the modern Palestinians, because without Hitler, Israel would not exist today, and it wouldn’t be carrying out a genocide.
Reminds me a bit of the setting for the Red Alert series of games. Although there they actually go back in time and kill Hitler so different from the scenario in this post but the possible alternate timelines are fun to think about.
The butterfly effect refers to divergent chaotic systems. Chaos in math isn’t the layman’s chaos. It doesn’t mean wild. It only means there is no closed form mathematical solution. For example stepping on a butterfly can’t affect the weather such that the moon would crash into the Earth.
Bumping into Hitler’s parents wouldn’t necessarily change anything. You have to do something drastic such that he was conceived days to weeks apart such that the sperm was completely different. Even a minor delay wouldn’t affect it because the sperm that fertilizes an egg isn’t random. There are selection hurdles in mobility that the sperm passes such that the most “fit” is likely the one that fertilizes the egg.
No it doesn’t mean that. It means that tiny changes in input result in big changes in the output.
By your definition, a simple ellipse is chaotic. Which it clearly isn’t. Tiny changes in the axes result in tiny changes to its shape, and by extension its perimeter. Yet there is no closed form formula for the perimiter of an ellipse.
This could also be verified using a simple dictionary, not even a math textbook.
A tiny change could mean a big change but it doesn’t mean that change must be unlimited. For example a double pendulum is a classic chaotic system. There is no solution but that doesn’t mean the pendulum can move greater than the length of its segments. It’s still a bound system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
More importantly, in the real world, if you push a double pendulum, it won’t flail endlessly. It will eventually converge to the single state of rest.
what does any of that have to do with anything I said? By the way, that wikepedia page doesn’t contain the word “closed” anywhere in it. just saying
A double pendulum is bound by definition! It is a fixed point, a line with a 2 axis joint, and another line. That’s the definition.
Just because a system is chaotic doesn’t mean it can move in unlimited ways. A chaotic pendulum cannot move outside it’s predefined limits of its geometry despite being chaotic.
The real world imposes far more constraints. A double pendulum starts out in a known state. It gets pushed. It moves chaotically for a minute, then returns to its original rest state.
In the context of Hitler’s parents, you shove the dad, he moves chaotically for a second, then goes back to walking. No long term change has happened.
I completely agree with what this comment says. It’s still irrelevant though. Where did I say it has to be unbounded? You are countering an argument I did not make. Whether the result is divergent or not is irrelevant. The point is that “not having a closed form solution” is not the meaning of chaos, which was your original wrong statement.
No closed form solution is one property. It’s not wrong, only incomplete. But if a system of equations had a closed form solution, it wouldn’t be called chaotic. For example any exponential equation like x^y is extremely sensitive to initial conditions yet it isn’t chaotic.
Chaos means that a small change in initial conditions can lead to drastically different places in the long term, so I think OP was using the idea correctly. Though I agree that just bumping into the parents may not be enough to push the system into another trajectory.
Chaos means that a small change in initial conditions can lead to drastically different places in the long term
Yes, what I was trying to explain is that it could (no closed form) but doesn’t necessarily mean that is must. A chain with 2 segments is a double pendulum, the classic simple chaotic system. If you hold a piece of chain and give it a light tap, it will move chaotically for a few seconds and then come back to rest. The system will not have changed. Even with a hard push, the chain can’t move beyond the limit of the links.
If you gave Hitler’s dad a push, he would stumble for a second (chaotically), then go back to walking (return to initial state). Nothing would change.
Removed by mod
B. F. Skinner would like a word
For twenty-five hundred years people have been preoccupied with feelings and mental life, but only recently has any interest been shown in a more precise analysis of the role of the environment. Ignorance of that role led in the first place to mental fictions, and it has been perpetuated by the explanatory practices to which they gave rise.
