The Pub Discussion Board

Eric Storm wrote:

Fine.  I can neither confirm nor deny that anything I have ever posted on this forum was intended to tease anyone or anything.

I knew it. Everywhere just deception and alternative facts.

o.O

Have I ever once mentioned the ability to time travel in the Dugerran universe?

Also, this is a paradox.  Without being a demighost, he wouldn't be able to travel back in time (if such a thing were possible), but unless he travels back in time, he can't be a demighost.  Some paradoxes could be seen as self-healing, but not this one, because the part that allows him to time travel requires him to have already time-traveled.

In other words, while there could, in some cases, be a logical way to work through paradoxes, this one is untenable because it requires something to happen that CAN'T happen, in order to make it happen.

Head hurt yet?

Eric Storm

uh-huh.



Eric Storm

Actually, you are simply mis-reading the scene where Jacob references the king.  All he said was that he was given to understand that the current king was similar in attitude to the last king that he had met.  He made no reference to or implication that the two kings were in any way related.

Eric Storm

It was discussed extensively on either the Writing Status thread, or one of the WAY threads.  It may, however, have been lost in the Great Hack.

No, David cannot break the curse that is holding Jacob prisoner.  He does not have that ability.  Before even beginning such a task, he'd have to know what the curse itself was, and he doesn't. 

And even if he did, David is not a strong spellcaster.  His real talents lie in forms of magic where spellcasting is an ancillary part of the process.

Eric Storm

It IS a paradox.  The reason is still the same:  In order for David to become a demighost by your scenario, he has to already be a demighost.  The Harry Potter incident is different, in that Harry obviously was already capable of conjuring the patronus, he just didn't know it yet.

In order for any time-travel sequence of this type to work without unsolvable paradoxes, the timeline UNALTERED must be able to lead the person to the point of time travel.  But the only way for David to travel through time based on your scenario is for him to go through the ALREADY ALTERED timeline.  In other words, David has to hop timelines for no logical temporal reason.

And I think I can safely reveal that the Emmig Amulet is not a time travel device.

Eric Storm

PS:  I think I should point out that I already have one time travel story, Where the Maiasaurs Roam.  I have two others in my concepts file.  Both of them sequels to current stories.  There's nothing wrong with the concept of time travel by itself.  It just has to be handled very carefully.

Perhaps, but it's a quirk of my nature that I prefer being informative over non-informative.  Makes it hard to not say anything.

Eric Storm

Okay, you're right, it's not, strictly speaking, a paradox, because they form loops:

(Given that A,B,C are the normal timeline, and A2,B2,C2 are their altered counterparts.  A is the change point, B is an intermediate point, and C is the time travel point)

A -> B -> C -> A2 -> B2 -> C2 ---> A (because C2 does not alter A, thus returning us back to the beginning.)

Here's what happens in the scenario you suggest with David:

(In this case, A2,B2,C2 represent the timeline where Jacob is cursed, and David becomes a demighost.  A,B,C represent the timeline where Jacob is not cursed.  Point A represents Jacob's cursing, B represents David's death, and C represents the notional time travel point)

It either looks like this:

A -> B -> D (There would be no C, because without becoming a demighost, David cannot time travel...)

OR

A -> B2 -> C2 -> A2 -> D2


As you can see, the problem here is that the original timeline does not allow for time travel, and the second timeline requires David to shift timelines for no reason whatsoever in order to make the time travel possible.  David has to experience the change before he can create the change.  That's why this sequence isn't possible.  Making the change relies upon the change itself, thus, until the change happens, the change cannot happen, thus the change will never happen.

Eric Storm

Okay, that is one theory of temporal mechanics.  I do believe it is the lesser-held theory, however.  Most physicists who venture into this realm tend toward the "infinite timelines possible" end of the spectrum.

If you stop and think about it philosophically, what you're suggesting means that there is no such thing as free will.  Why?  Because if time travel is possible, then there is somebody already existing in our future who has seen our actions.  If those actions cannot be changed, then we are not making choices, we are simply performing the scripted actions dictated by the future.  A single timeline system means that that timeline exists in its totality from the moment of its inception, and that means that the entire thing is already set in stone.

I'd really prefer to think that I do, in fact, have a choice, and that requires the possibility of an infinite number of timelines.

The Terminator was horrible time travel fiction.  They needed a better reason for sending the man back.  They needed something OTHER THAN JOHN HIMSELF which said that the child of this woman would be important.  And that's all it takes to fix the situation:  The reason for traveling cannot be dependent on the outcome of traveling.  That's how paradoxes happen.

Of course, if you insist on believing in a one-timeline, set-in-stone universe, then yeah, any time travel story is going to be pointless for you.

Eric Storm

Or did you simply BELIEVE it was your choice?

My point is, if there is only ONE timeline, and if time travel is possible, then ALL of that timeline has to exist from the very beginning of time.  If that is indeed the case, then every action you ever take will be dictated at the instant of the creation of the timeline.  What that means is that, while you may THINK you have a choice, you DON'T.  Your actions were predetermined by the future, because the future already knows what you did.

See, the problem with the way you're trying to work the concept is this:  You're acting as though the timeline only exists up to what we see as "now".  But if someone can travel back in time and wind up "now", then "now" is NOT the end of the timeline, and... that means that what happens "now" cannot be changed.  Therefore, you can't, in fact, choose to do anything other than what the guy from the future knows you did, because it's already in his past, so therefore immutable.  Thus, you have no free will, you only have the illusion of it.

This is why I prefer to think that, if time travel is possible, there are multiple possible timelines.  Of course, it is possible, I suppose, that retrograde time travel is not possible, and therefore there IS only one timeline, because no one can go back in time to change it.

Time travel into the future is easily possible, simply through relativistic travel.  Of course, you're stuck there once you get there, if traveling into the past isn't possible...

Eric Storm

Or...The future is determined by our current free will actions, but the past is set and a unchangeable. If time travel to the past is possible, the time traveler is unable to interact with the past.

Jamril:

The difference is that in your single-timeline version, that future is the ONLY ONE POSSIBLE.  In other words, unless it was already predetermined that some guy went back in time and did something, then some guy CANNOT go back in time and do something, no matter how much he wants to.

In my version, his universe is the result of the decisions made.  If someone goes back in time and changes something, then a new universe is spawned following those decisions.  Yes, the people in any ONE timeline see the course of actions as they took place, but it is no longer MANDATORY that they take place that way.

Look at this another way:  Take the scenario you posited: that David is the one who cursed Jacob by going back in time and doing so.  But now you have completely removed David's free will, because his future actions are DICTATED, and SET IN STONE, by the past... even though he hasn't yet made any decision about taking that action.  If the past is unchangeable, then David literally CANNOT CHOOSE to do anything other than go back in time, because it has already happened.  And this would be the case for anyone traveling back in time.  The act of traveling backward would mean that they never had any free will in choosing to go back in time, because the past had already dictated that they must.

The difference between the two concepts is not the resulting appearance to any one person:  Everyone will always see the past of their universe, which is comprised of all of the decisions and random things that happened in their timeline.  The difference arises from whether or not choices are really choices, or if they're just illusions.  In order for free will to truly exist, both possibilities of a coin flip have to be available.  But in a single-timeline system, they're not.  Only the one that the future saw happen is actually possible.  The other is precluded by the fact that, to your future time traveler, it has already happened.

Look at this one more way:  Let's say your concept is correct:  The PAST is unchangeable, but I can choose to do whatever I want right NOW.  Okay, so let's say that yesterday I appeared from twenty years in the future.  All I did was stop in and tell myself that twenty years from now, I traveled back in time to give myself this message, then I went back to the future.

Okay, now, if I REALLY have free will, I can now choose to go stand in front of an oncoming bus.  This cannot kill me.  Neither can jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, or putting a bullet through my head.  In essence, I have become immortal for those twenty years, because, according to your theory, the past events I've seen MUST HAPPEN, but I still have the freedom to do whatever I want right now, no matter how fatal it should be.  I can lop off my head, and it will not only not kill me, but not paralyze me, because twenty years from now, I went back into the immutable past with my head attached and my legs functioning.

This is a logical impossibility.  Either I am REQUIRED to behave in a specific way, in order to allow that piece of time travel to take place, OR that time travel event is not guaranteed to happen.  You cannot have both free will AND a single timeline, if time travel is possible.

Fenixreign:

Time is generally considered a dimension, not a "thing".  In other words, "space-time" has four dimensions: length, width, height, and time.  Dimensions are, in fact, linear (they are represented by lines, after all...)

Of course, all of this gets completely fucked by the fact that space-time is warped by gravity...  Well, that and the fact that cosmologists think that space-time has like 11 or 13 dimensions or something...

Eric Storm

I don't think anything could destroy a timeline.  Paradoxes could perhaps terminate one, but it would still exist, just that it would either come to an end, or loop infinitely... and no, if it was looping infinitely, no one in it would ever notice.

As to when would a new timeline form if you went back in time:  Your appearance in that particular point in time would BE a change, thus that would create a new timeline.  The REALLY interesting question is, let's say that all you did was pop back in time (changes the timeline), stand there for a couple seconds not doing anything, and then go back.

Do you go back to your original timeline?  Answer:  Probably not.  Though the new timeline you're on may not be noticeably different to you.

As to how far back along the tree you could go, I would assume that you would be able to travel as far BACK as you like... but I don't think traveling to other branches would be possible.  I think you'd end up creating new branches instead.

Eric Storm