The Good Old Time Travel Paradoxes II

(ii) If a time traveler departs from midday on 12 December 2066 and arrives at 1:00 AM on 1 January 1066, then he will think, "I was in 2066. Now I am in 1066." However, his "was" and "now" refer to the order of his subjective experiences, not to any objective temporal relationships. Objectively, his arrival precedes his departure by nearly 1001 years.

(iii) If he is in the Time Patrol universe and if, having arrived in 1066, he prevents the Norman Conquest of England in that year, then he will think, "First the Normans conquered England but now they did not." His "first" and "now" do not refer to any temporal relationship within a single timeline. He remembers a timeline with a Norman Conquest. He has generated a timeline without a Norman Conquest. Thus, his "first" and "now" refer to a temporal relationship between those two timelines.

(iv) There is another way to account for the time traveler's experience in 1066.

We could say that:

there is only one timeline but its events are discontinuous;
thus, a time traveler with false memories appears ex nihilo in 1066;
he prevents a Norman Conquest;
no time traveler departs from 2066;
in that year, history has always recorded a failed Norman invasion of England;
no time traveler has ever had reason to travel to 1066 in order to cause that failure.

If we go with the single discontinuous timeline account, then, to remain consistent, we should avoid saying anything like that the time traveler was in an original version of 2066 or that he is now in an altered version of history etc. I think that discussion sometimes oscillates inconsistently between a single timeline and multiple timelines.