Poll: Does the past truely effect the future?

[Shurikens and Lightning]

This questions has been burdening me for months. Is it possible to go back in time and do something that will not effect the future? If I went back in time a day ago and had a turkey sandwich instead of a Peanut butter and Jelly will the president die? If I went to work in a short sleeve instead of a long sleeve shirt back in 1999, will Ralph Nader win the election? While these events are obviously hyperbole I cant think of a situation where the future will truly be the same if something in the past changes.

But then a game called mass effect came along, spouting ideas that your past consequences will effect the future. Theoretically no matter what your decisions were in that game, it will still be the same story in the end. While I shouldnt be comparing real life to a game, it does have some truth in it. Movies constantly use time travel and we always see major consequences, but there has to be one action that is without consequence, Right?

 

[El Poncho]

Noooo. If you kill Hitler are you saying Hitler will still be alive anyway and do he was going to do?

 

[Cherry Cola]

All actions have reactions, it all depends on how large the potential reaction is for the action you plan to do.

So if you prepare a turkey sandwich, it wouldn't change much since it is such a minor action.

My theory anyway.

Also, a lot of movies have retarded time-travel stories.

 

[Ellibod1]

We can learn from the past, so we don't make the same mistake in the future but the past will not effect the future.

"The past is the past and we should look on to the future" quoted by my history teacher on my last day of education...in school...(I'm in college)

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

Noooo. If you kill Hitler are you saying Hitler will still be alive anyway and do he was going to do?

You're missing the point.
He's asking if there is some action, some tiny action, that if changed or altered slightly, wouldn't change the future/present...

OT: Personally, though, I'm not sure...
You're probably right about that "eating a different" sandwich idea... Can anyone correct me as to how his example of:

... If I went back in time a day ago and had a turkey sandwich instead of a Peanut butter and Jelly...

would change the future?

There probably is some way it could change it, possibly. I'm curious now...

 

[Guitar Gamer]

This questions has been burdening me for months. Is it possible to go back in time and do something that will not effect the future? If I went back in time a day ago and had a turkey sandwich instead of a Peanut butter and Jelly will the president die? If I went to work in a short sleeve instead of a long sleeve shirt back in 1999, will Ralph Nader win the election? While these events are obviously hyperbole I cant think of a situation where the future will truly be the same if something in the past changes.

But then a game called mass effect came along, spouting ideas that your past consequences will effect the future. Theoretically no matter what your decisions were in that game, it will still be the same story in the end. While I shouldnt be comparing real life to a game, it does have some truth in it. Movies constantly use time travel and we always see major consequences, but there has to be one action that is without consequence, Right?

of course a change of sandvich would make a difference!!

A peanut butter sandvich almost always begs for a glass of milk
wit the extra time drinking that milk you leave the house that much later
this means that your behind the schedule of the universe, a mugger is that much likely to meet you

a drunk driver is that much more likely to be driving when you are crossing the road

THE POSSIBILITY ARE ENDLESS

 

[Shurikens and Lightning]

... If I went back in time a day ago and had a turkey sandwich instead of a Peanut butter and Jelly...

would change the future?

There probably is some way it could change it, possibly. I'm curious now...

Well logically somebody might choke on the PBJ and die. That person was going to be president.

 

[narutorules44]

yeah i guess

 

[Spiner909]

Yes it does. Butterfly Effect and all.

 

[Ganthrinor]

Going back into the past to change an event to try and prevent an event in the present or future is a Paradox. It is my personal belief that backwards timetravel is impossible, simply because the laws of the space-time continuum will not allow it.

 

[quantum mechanic]

Whatever you do will have an effect on the future. It might not be a noticeable effect, and it might be "damped" in the big scheme of things. For example, your decision to wear a yellow shirt instead of a red shirt may make one person grumpy because they hate yellow, but that mood may or may not result in them doing anything differently. It would be a major fallacy to assume that anything anyone does in the past has an amplified effect in the future.
So, does the past truly affect the future? Yes. But not necessarily in a measurable way.

Sorry, that was longer than intended.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Noooo. If you kill Hitler are you saying Hitler will still be alive anyway and do he was going to do?

A great deal of modern technology came out of WWII.

Edit: I voted yes instead of no. Arses.

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

All actions have reactions, it all depends on how large the potential reaction is for the action you plan to do.

So if you prepare a turkey sandwich, it wouldn't change much since it is such a minor action.

My theory anyway.

Also, a lot of movies have retarded time-travel stories.

Any action has and equal and oppasite reaction. So yes, if you had a turkey sandwich it would effect the future, just in a very small way.

Maybe you'll be sick the next day or something, but nothing increadable is going to happ... *metior hits the earth*

 

[Cherry Cola]

All actions have reactions, it all depends on how large the potential reaction is for the action you plan to do.

So if you prepare a turkey sandwich, it wouldn't change much since it is such a minor action.

My theory anyway.

Also, a lot of movies have retarded time-travel stories.

Any action has and equal and oppasite reaction. So yes, if you had a turkey sandwich it would effect the future, just in a very small way.

Maybe you'll be sick the next day or something, but nothing increadable is going to happ... *metior hits the earth*

Which is why I said "it wouldn't change much. I didn't completely exclude the possibility of a different outcome.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

If yuou change something in the past, that change is in itself a consequence of having changed something.

A bit more specific. If you eat a peanut butter sandwich instead of a turkey sandwich, the consequence is that you ate a PB sandwich instead of a turkey sandwich. A consequence can be something as small as that.

Also, small things lead to big problems. The terrible movie sliding doors showed that one tiny event meant a woman either caught a train and found her husband having an affair, or missed it and didn't. You may not think that your choice of sandwich changed something, but if you left the house even five minutes later because of it, your day might have gone entirely differently.

 

[CruelSpider]

Damn it I voted wrong!
Anything in the past affects the future.
Its called the "Ripple" effect. Just like the old comparison to killing a butterfly. Any changes made to the past will affect the future, in small ways, or in catastrophic.
Or at least that's what I like to believe.

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

All actions have reactions, it all depends on how large the potential reaction is for the action you plan to do.

So if you prepare a turkey sandwich, it wouldn't change much since it is such a minor action.

My theory anyway.

Also, a lot of movies have retarded time-travel stories.

Any action has and equal and oppasite reaction. So yes, if you had a turkey sandwich it would effect the future, just in a very small way.

Maybe you'll be sick the next day or something, but nothing increadable is going to happ... *metior hits the earth*

Which is why I said "it wouldn't change much. I didn't completely exclude the possibility of a different outcome.

Oh i know that, i guess i worded it wrong, i was agreeing with you, i just added the rule because it makes perfect sence in this case, and your post made me think of it. Jeez ive been wording things bad alot lately.