Oh no not another free will thread.

[Edwardo Piet]

That gap between who a person is and who they think they are.  It might be the most interesting thing about people to me.  

I find you to be a fascinating case.  I think I got some more insight into that in this thread.  That's really what I find interesting.  Although, the implications of time travel on noncausal events is definitely an interesting hypothetical to bat around, but I don't think anyone here had much to add on that front.

I don't think time travel in the traditional sense of travelling to the past or future is possible. I don't think the past or future exists.

We could travel through space-time as we experience it so that from everyone else's perspectives they haven't seen us yet and we're seeing things a lot sooner so from our perspective we're in the future and their perspective we're in the past.... and we could perhaps 'time travel' as redefined in science (as science loves to redefine things... but that's not a criticism of science because as long as the model works it doesn't matter. It would be silly, for instance, if scientists had to change the label every time their understanding developed. i.e. after they split the atom which was a by definition unsplitable thing... if they then stopped calling it an atom.... the idea of having to keep revising the label every time science makes progress would be silly and it would impede progress. But nonetheless... it is still the case that when something is redefined what is now being talked about is something slightly different than what that word originally refereed to).... but not as normally defined.

I think my perception of myself is sure as hell a lot more accurate than yours is of me.

And furthermore, you speak as if intuitions are a problem... but it's just down to an intuition that you think you've gained insight about my own perception of myself.

Which is fine. I have my own intuitions too. And I sure as hell have the intuition that I understand myself better than you understand yours. For me, self-analysis and introspection is king. Improve your own faulty thinking and you can improve your own thinking about reality. Improve your own self-understanding and you can better apply yourself to the rest of the world.

You think you've made some kind of silly victory over me complaining about theists talking about a God outside of the universe but me doing the same about causality... but as I said that is a total and utter strawman because the only alternative to causality is acausality and to pick one is no less rational by default than picking the other or neither. Whereas God not only is highly unparsimonious and postulating a complex entity with many parts and abilities based on nothing... but in many cases it actually does interfere with science and claims about reality as we experience it... unlike what I said about causality.

So you just demonstrated your own false analogy and strawman there.

This thread is actually a testament to your red herrings, strawmen, equivocations and false analogies... and your inability to make some very basic philosophical distinctions on a thread about a philosophical matter.

But I fully expect that, and care little that, few people are capable of appreciating this so they'll take your easy answers and simplistic strawmen instead. That is completely unsurprising but what is right is right independent of what anyone thinks... and that's kind of my whole point. If I'm right I'm not right because I or anyone else thinks I'm right. I'm right because I'm saying stuff that is correct because a contradiction of what I say is demonstrably incorrect.