>I'm well aware that the future hasn't happened yet. However, if
>backwards time travel is in the future, then by definition you can
>use it to reach the future's past. Go far enough back and that's
>the present. Even further back and you've got the past.
>Anyway, if you happen to be a determinist (as I am), then this
>argument isn't even relevant. The future hasn't happened yet, but
>it will, and if it's got time travel, then it will very likely
>alter its past.
This isn't what you were arguing before:
From: Dan Fabulich <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Into the future? Absolutely. Backwards? Almost certainly not.
>Consider: if we were develop backwards time travel at some point
>in the future, then someone could have gone back in time to some
>point before today. If time travel will be discovered, then it
>has already happened.
You are arguing that because no one has come back from the future that it proves time travel (backward) is impossible. I merely stated the obvious, the reason no one has come back from the future isn't that time travel (backward) is impossible (although I believe it is.) it's that the future hasn't happened yet.
>Thus, due to the very nature of time travel, if it hasn't happened
>already, we can safely assume that it never will.
Here you restate it, the logical error is so obvious, but the words so slippery, that I was reminded of Lewis Carrol (mathematician Charles Dodgson).