Yeah, it is confusing. At first I thought he was arguing against an interpretation involving (actual, non-precognitive) time travel, which seemed so obviously r

Yeah, it is confusing. At first I thought he was arguing against an interpretation involving (actual, non-precognitive) time travel, which seemed so obviously right that I found it hard to believe that anyone could ever have claimed that interpretation. Then when I realised he was actually talking about precognition as time travel, he seemed obviously wrong.