This is mark Joseph “young” blog entry #206, on the subject of Temporal Thoughts on Colkatay Columbus.
I realized that the premise of this movie was absurd enough that it was probably not going to be a serious time travel film. Found on Netflix, the blurb simply said that Christopher Columbus arrives in Kolkata, India in the present, where two young men seek his advice in their own searches for success.
What was not evident, though, was that the movie itself was not intended to be absurd nor even comedic, and it might not involve time travel at all. It is an Indian movie, viewed with subtitles.
Apart from the intrepid explorer himself, who plays a significant role in the story, our primary characters are called Sam and Ray.
Sam has a longer more ethnic name, but he shortened it and cut all ties with his family eight years before the story opens. He is reasonably successful as a radio disk jockey (an “RJ” in the parlance of the film), but wants to be a musical recording artist. To this end, he has begun dating an entirely self-absorbed girl solely because her father is wealthy enough to finance the production of an album for him–despite the fact that he has a very close relationship with a girl who adores him.
Ray is a corporate office worker who writes short stories in what little spare time he has, and wants to succeed as a writer, but with mixed objectives he also wants a promotion up the corporate ladder. His complication is that he is clearly attracted to a girl who is his superior, perhaps supervisor, in the company, and she to him, but although he would like to pursue a relationship he is too concerned about persuading her to pull some strings to get him promoted.
One day the two young men are riding in the back seat of a car driven by one of their friends when they almost hit a man, maybe sixty or so from appearance, dressed in Italian Renaissance clothing. They are curious and engage him in conversation, and he claims to be Christopher Columbus, the discoverer of America, or at least of quite a few islands off its coast. Then when he swoons (and hey, wearing all that heavy warm clothing in India, it’s surprising he lasted as long as he did) they catch him, bundle him into their car, and then debate whether to take him to a hospital or take him to their home to see if he can help them find success.
That is certainly the theme of the film, that everyone is exploring, searching for something. Columbus believes himself to be the greatest explorer, and wants to help people find what they seek, so he becomes involved in advising the boys on reaching their goals. It is genuinely interesting, if you aren’t stymied by the slow pace, but it is not the point of our investigation.
At this point we have three plausible understandings of who this person might be. He might, of course, be some crazy person who believes himself to be Christopher Columbus, memorized much of his history from available sources such as Wikipedia, and dresses and acts the part. He might be the real Christopher Columbus, rumors of his death having been greatly exaggerated, still alive half a millennium later. He might be the real Christopher Columbus leaping across time to the present.
When the film is rising to its climax the first of those is knocked out of consideration, as fifteenth century Portuguese explorer Bartholomew Diaz (first man to navigate around the southern tip of Africa to reach India by water) shows up at the apartment looking for Columbus, saying that the latter gave him the address and asked him to bring a hammock so he could sleep better. It appears that they are genuinely who they claim to be, despite the weak explanations for their fluency in the local language and somewhat native appearance.
However, Diaz explains that he has been living in South Africa in recent years, along with Gandhi, and that suggests that they are not time travelers at all. They simply are the continuations of their original selves from years before, still alive after their deaths.
That may be the significance here. In the closing scene, two other young men are asked for help by someone in a military uniform who claims his motorcycle broke down and gives his name as Che Guevara. In some way, these famous people are still around.
There might be a clue to the author’s intent in the fact that a couple times characters engage in tossing quotations from famous people at each other. One even comments that if you become famous, silly little things you said become famous quotes. There is thus a sense in which those famous people are still with us, still influencing us, still in some sense alive in our midst, having a sort of immortality that is manifest within the movie by their corporeal presence.
I had some concern that at some point Columbus might return to the past. Indeed, there is pressure on him to “go back”. However, he only returns to his ship, and we can reasonably conclude that he does not travel through time in any way different from the rest of us, he only has continued to do so for five centuries beyond when we thought he died.
So despite the notion of Christopher Columbus appearing in the early twenty-first century, there is no time travel in this one.
I appear to have access to copies of Paradox, Synchronicity, The Man from the Future, and Abby Sen, all of which have strong claims to containing time travel elements. Watch for posts, either here on the web log or as full page analyses in the Temporal Anomalies in Time Travel Movies section of the site.
This is mark Joseph “young” blog entry #201, on the subject of The Grandfather Paradox Solution.
Award-winning science fiction author Larry Niven.
I sent birthday greetings to a time travel fan on Facebook–one who deserves special mention, as he has provided copies of several time travel movies analyzed on our Temporal Anomalies site–and in response received a discussion of a time travel issue. I would have said that this is addressed already on the site, but I recognize that the site has become unwieldy in some ways and it’s difficult to find, let alone absorb, it all. I have edited his comments for space, and added links to references on the site for those who are uncertain of the terminology.
I’ve been thinking about Niven’s Law (ie the popular “if you change it in the past it stays changed even if you undo the time travel” version).
Here’s the thing–without it, it seems to me that things work by magic. Let’s use the old example of going back and killing my grandfather as a child.
Replacement theory is where it gets interesting (of course). Let’s first postulate that I’m not going back to kill Granddad. Let’s say instead that I’d discovered in talking to other people that there was some sort of childhood toy in my granddad’s house…that was extremely rare, and if I went back and got it I could sell it for a fortune in the future….Unfortunately while I’m back in the past I interrupt a burglar, he shoots at me and misses but kills my granddad who was hiding behind the couch watching this armed burglar tussle with me….
So…I haven’t erased my motivation for going back. However, obviously if I never exist, I can’t go back, which means that I won’t interrupt the burglar, which means he won’t shoot….
But what exactly happens? What does the burglar see? Does he just see me vanish into thin air? That’s what I mean–there’s no real known phenomena that would cause that. And in fact he wouldn’t see it anyway, because the whole idea is that I could never have been there in the 1st place.
I think in reality, if time travel is possible at all…either Niven’s Law must exist or else something like Hawking’s Conjecture must be true (the one where he says that you will be physically unable to successfully perform any actions that would create a paradox…). I find the Conjecture even less likely (it pretty much falls under your “God won’t let it happen” thing).
Mind you that doesn’t get off the hook with “uncaused causes“. There’s no perfect answers. It just always seemed weird to me that things could magically change just because I remove the reason for the change.
This happens to be exactly the problem that is resolved by the standard concept of the infinity loop, two histories each of which causes the other. My reader has missed this, falling into the notion presented by other time travel stories, perhaps most notoriously the ending of The Philadelphia Experiment II, in which the death of the childless father causes the son, a moment later, to dissolve into non-existence. The reality postulated by the theory is much less complicated.
The postulated problem suggests that when I travel to the past I accidentally cause the death of my own grandfather. The questioner then wonders whether I flicker out of existence, but recognizes that the problem is more complicated, that in fact if I never existed I never made the trip to the past and the burglar never shot at me. That, though, means he never killed my grandfather, and I am able to make the trip to the past. This much the question recognizes; it then gets caught in trying to make both versions of time real simultaneously, as if the death of my grandfather means that I must immediately vanish. This fails to grasp the significance of causal chains, which we will here review.
In all of our science, we have causal chains: A causes B, B causes C. If B does not happen, C does not happen, because C only happens if caused by B; similarly, B only happens if caused by A, so if we prevent A, we prevent B, and in so doing we also prevent C. This is simple for us in most situations, because of two “rules” that have always applied to everything we have observed. One is that causes and effects have always happened in temporal sequence, that is, A happens before B and B before C even if only infinitessimally (the hammer strikes the firing pin which compresses and ignites the gunpowder which drives the bullet out of the shell, all in a fraction of a second but that fraction divided into sequential fractions). The other is that once a cause has brought about an effect we are unable to remove the cause.
Time travel erases both of those rules, and therein lies our confusions.
In the present circumstance, the original history has Burglar invading Grandfather’s house, observed perhaps by grandfather but otherwise unmolested. Decades pass and Traveler learns of the valuable toy in Grandfather’s attic. Having access to a time machine, he travels to a time when he believes he can obtain the toy without changing anything significant in history.
There is an issue here which is not addressed in the problem: we do not know how Traveler became aware of the presence of the toy in the attic, but if he removes it too soon he might well break the chain of information such that he does not know about the toy. For example, if his information about the toy comes from the estate sale records, the toy will not be listed there once he has removed it. However, our theorist having been careful on all other points, we will assume that Traveler got the information through a source that predates his effort to steal the toy.
He arrives in the past, and interrupts Burglar, who in attempting to kill him accidentally kills Grandfather. There are scores of steps in this causal chain, but simplifying it we have A: Traveler travels to the past; B: Traveler interferes with Burglar; and C: Burglar kills Grandfather.
However, there was a causal chain in the original history in which Grandfather sired Father who sired Traveler, who eventually left for the past. Our logic problem recognizes that because Grandfather is now prematurely dead, Father will never be born, and Traveler in turn will never be born. It is precisely because the original causal chain has been disrupted that Traveler is never born–there is nothing magical about that, and no one imagines that it is. We understand completely that if you remove the cause of an effect, the effect never happens; if you kill someone’s grandfather before he has children, the grandchild is never born.
Yet exactly the same rule applies at the other end. If Traveler is never born, he never makes the trip to the past, which means A: Traveler travels to the past never happens. Since A is the cause of B: Traveler interferes with Burglar, B never happens, and since B never happens, C: Burglar kills grandfather, also never happens. If it applies to the A-B-C sequence that is Grandfather sires Father, Father sires Traveler, then it also applies equally to the A-B-C sequence Traveler travels to the past, Traveler interferes with Burglar, Burglar kills Grandfather. The removal of the cause A undoes the effects B and C.
We balk at this because what we perceive as inaction in the future is becoming a cause of a change in the past, and we feel as if whether or not the past can be changed it can only be changed by someone traveling to the past. However, if we look at it a different way, it might become clearer. If I know that Gary traveled to the past, leaving tomorrow, and that what he changed altered history in a disastrous way, in theory I might attempt to travel to the past and prevent him from making that mistake, but could I not just as easily act to prevent him from making the disastrous trip? (I admit that this would cause an infinity loop, but the point is only that preventing the trip to the past will prevent the changes to the past just as surely as traveling to the past to do so would.) At the same time, we are mistaken to think of “not traveling to the past” as inaction. It is much more properly different action, and different action becomes a different cause that has a different effect. Further, since the effect B which is the cause of the effect C is itself the effect of A, if A is undone–if Traveler does not go to the past–then B is also undone–Traveler does not interfere with Burglar–and C is in turn undone–Grandfather is not killed.
But we return to what it is that Burglar experiences when his stray bullet kills Grandfather, theoretically undoing the existence of Traveler.
I admit that it is plausible that this event will cause time to unravel entirely, and the universe will cease to exist. I think, though, that this is a bit extreme, and further it seems to require that the universe “knows” that history has changed in an irreconcilable way. I don’t think the universe can know anything of the sort–for the universe, despite the fact that someone arrived from the future and became a new cause, this is the first time through these events, and as far as the universe “knows” (if it can be said to “know” anything in any sense), this is the history that exists. It does not “know” that the man who just died is the grandfather, and thus the necessary cause of the life, of the Traveler who incidentally caused his death. It has to “discover” that by playing through the events which follow.
There is thus an interweaving of two histories, in a sense. Traveler comes from a universe in which Grandfather had a child. The history of the universe is being rewritten, event by event, cause by cause, moment by moment, but it has not been rewritten yet. Since under replacement theory there is ultimately only one history of the universe, each moment that is created erases and replaces the moment that was the same time in the other history. That means the cause of Traveler’s presence in the past, cause A, has not yet been erased, and so Traveler still exists in the past even while his history is being erased and rewritten.
Ultimately the moment comes when cause A needs to happen in order for effect B, in the past, to be supported. If we had an N-jump, that would happen. To use our example modified, there was no Burglar, Traveler successfully collected the toy and stored it in a place where he could recover it in the future, and returned to the future without significantly altering the past. Thus as the moment of his departure approaches he is the same person planning the same trip, and at the right moment he does so, cause A creating effect B, his arrival in the past. This creates a stable history, and we have a sort of diverging hiccough: because traveler leaves for the past on schedule, time continues into the future based on the history Traveler created and now confirmed.
However, with Burglar in the mix, we know that Grandfather died and Traveler was never born. That means cause A never happens, and effect B never happens–we already know what happens if no time traveler arrives from the future, because that was the original history. Burglar passes through the house unmolested, Grandfather survives to sire Father who sires Traveler. That results in Traveler making the trip, creating the other history.
In no history does anyone simply disappear. In no history does something inexplicably change without cause. The difference between the original history and the altered history is that in the altered history someone arrives from the future and introduces causes that create a different set of events leading to its own undoing, while in the original history no one arrives from the future and so events follow the undisturbed path of events to the moment when someone decides to change them.
I should note that in all of this we experience the changes at the speed of time. There is a sense in which at the instant Grandfather dies, Traveler ceases ever to have existed–but that only happens because of the intervening causes and effects which fail to bring him to life. We experience those events at the speed of time; using time travel we presumably could skip ahead to the outcomes in the future. That, though, means that in some sense all of those events happen instantaneously–and as I have suggested in The Spreadsheet Illustration, it can be understood as all happening simultaneously–it is Einstein who said that time exists so that everything would not happen at once, but if the nature of time is such that time travel is possible, the reality is that everything does happen “at once”, and time exists so that we can experience the causal chains in the order in which events cause each other. So in that sense the moment Burglar kills Grandfather, Traveler ceases to exist, but his non-existence can only be discovered by following the causal chain to the moment when he fails to arrive in the past.
I hope this clarifies the problem and the solution. I should mention that we previously addressed the matter in relation to a supposed “multiverse” solution in web log post #81: The Grandfather Paradox Problem just over a year ago.
[contact-form][contact-field label=”Name” type=”name” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Email” type=”email” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Website” type=”url” /][contact-field label=”Comment: Note that this form will contact the author by e-mail; to post comments to the article, see below; or visit the site forums.” type=”textarea” /][/contact-form]
This is mark Joseph “young” blog entry #199, on the subject of Time Travel Movies that Work.
A few weeks ago, one of my readers specifically asked what time travel movies I thought actually worked, temporally. My musings on this were interrupted by an extended hospitalization, but I have felt for a while that I ought to be writing something about time travel and for various reasons have not been able to obtain copies of any new time travel movies, so here’s a review of some of the old ones.
Paul Nigh’s ‘TeamTimeCar.com’ Back to the Future DeLorean Time Machine
Let’s clear out a few issues first. The first two Terminator films, and the third, were all “workable”, but they required a tremendous number of less than probable events. That is, if we were in the world where the onscreen stories were occurring, we would know that we were in a statistically unlikely world, but if we were in the world from which those events might have arisen we would be very foolish to trust that things were going to work that way. A lot of our movies are like that, and I’m not going to include a lot of movies which “work provided a lot of improbable events occur”.
There are also a couple of movies that land on the time travel desk which “work” because either there is no time travel within the film (although time travel issues are raised) or we don’t know any details about it. Terminator Genisys [edit] Salvation is noteworthy in this regard, as there is a lot of concern over what happens if Kyle Reese is killed before traveling back to become John Conner’s father. Also in this category is the very enjoyable Safety Not Guaranteed, in which we are never entirely certain whether the machine actually does travel in time until the end. These are good movies and technically time travel movies that work, but do so because the time travel is outside the frame of the film.
The first movie that genuinely impressed me as near perfect was Twelve Monkeys. It still is impressive, although there are problems with it that I missed because I had not yet recognized them. Perhaps the biggest is that it appears they are using a time travel projector/collector, and as we saw in Timeline they are seriously problematic. That problem is resolved if, as we suggest in the beginning of our Twelve Monkeys analysis, the return trip is not initiated from the future but based on a timer that determines when he returns. So although there are more caveats than there once were, this is still on the list of the better films.
Source Code genuinely blew me away, because it works brilliantly–but not as a time travel story. Explaining what it actually is would be a major spoiler, but if you have not seen it, do so, and then read the analysis.
I genuinely love Eleven Minutes Ago. It is a quirky independent film in which a time traveler accidentally crashes a wedding party, falls in love with one of the bridesmaids, and woos her by returning to the party in eleven minute segments out of sequence. The most difficult part of this film is the card trick, but even that has a better than even chance of working.
Also on the list of films that work is Los Cronocrimines a.k.a. TimeCrimes. It is certainly temporally convoluted, but with a few not entirely unreasonable assumptions we obtain a working story. The time machine itself in this instance suffers from the same problems as that devised by H. G. Wells: once someone is using it, why are they not inside it if someone else tries to use it to travel the same temporal path? However, since no one knows a way to travel through time, we tend to avoid looking too closely at the methods suggested.
That is also the main problem with Time After Time, in which H. G. Wells pursues Jack the Ripper into the twentieth century. The end of the movie might create some genetic problem issues, but that is beyond what we know from the film. Of course, this works largely because the time travel is only at the beginning and not part of the larger story. There are a few temporal hiccoughs in the beginning, though.
I should mention Back to the Future, the first part. It has some nonsense in it concerning what happens to the photo and to Marty when it appears that his history is being undone, and in the end it should not be the Marty we know but the affluent Marty who grew up in that affluent home whom we see in the future, but otherwise this does a reasonable job of producing a replacement theory story. The sequels are fraught with impossibilities and problems, but I saw the original at its twenty-fifth anniversary showing and thought it stood the test of time, even though this was the second analysis (the third film) I had written.
The Star Trek movies deserve mention, particularly Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. There are some problems with it, but in the main it holds together. The other three time-travel-based films in the series are all over the map, from the disastrous Generations to the slightly problematic First Contact to the challenging Star Trek (2009).
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was a surprise because I knew that the time travel in the book did not work, but discovered that because of one small change that in the movie did. It’s not perfect, but its functional.
I also need to mention Flight of the Navigator, which lands on the list because we are provided with the A-B timeline only, with Davey being delivered to the beginning of the altered C-D timeline at the end of the film. That of course changes everything, and we don’t see how, but we can envision a solution to the time travel problems (indeed, more than one), and so reasonably can include it in movies that work.
[contact-form subject='[mark Joseph %26quot;young%26quot;’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment: Note that this form will contact the author by e-mail; to post comments to the article, see below; or visit the site forums.’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
This is mark Joseph “young” blog entry #197, on the subject of Launching the mark Joseph “young” Forums.
Once upon a time, what now seems a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, there were forums at Gaming Outpost.
Well, there were forums almost everywhere, but the ones at Gaming Outpost were significant, big deal forums in the gaming world for a while, and then not so much but still important to me and to many of those who read my work and played Multiverser. They were probably then the most reliable way to reach me, and there were plenty of discussions, not to mention quite a few games played, on those forums.
Then they crashed, and all of that was lost.
I can’t promise that this won’t happen to these new forums, but we’re going to make an effort, with the help of our Patreon and PayPal.me supporters, to keep them up and running, and to pay attention to what is posted here.
I arranged the forums in alphabetical order; I was going to arrange them in reverse alphabetical order, because I have always hated being the last in line for everything, but as I installed them the software put the next one on top, and although I could see how to resequence them, I realized that that would put Bible and Theology on the bottom, and while I’m not a stickler for silly formalities I could see that some people would object to that, more so than anyone would object to any other forum being at the bottom. It is probably appropriate that it is on top. The forum categories correspond roughly to the web log main topics, with a few tweaks and additions.
I long wished for a place to discuss time travel and time travel movies, and that’s there now. I don’t expect most of the discussions will wind up here, but perhaps at least some will, and that will make it worthwhile. I’ve also made a home for discussions of the Christian Gamers Guild Faith and Gaming series, and for the upcoming (this December) Faith in Play and RPG-ology series there. There are music and ministry sections, space for logic problems discussions, law and politics pages, space for games, and a place to discuss my books, if anyone is interested in any of those topics.
I have also added a Multiverser game play forum. I have in the past been overwhelmed by the number of players who wanted to play, even with my rule that I would only post one time per day to any game thread and expected players to observe the same courtesy (except for obvious correction posts). Please do not presume that because you want to play Multiverser you can just start a thread and I’ll pick up your game. I will give first priority to people who have played the game with me before, whether live or online, picking up where we were; I will also open the door on an individual basis to people who have wanted to play for a long time but for various reasons have not been able to do so (such as Andrew in South Africa). Beyond that, well, talk to me and I’ll see what kind of time I have–after all, I have no idea how many of my previous players will return, or how much work it’s going to be to get back up to speed on their long-interrupted games.
My thanks to Kyler and Nikolaj, who have already helped me track down some of the bugs and fix them. I’m told that if you are not registered, the link on the top left corner of the page will work, but the one on the top right corner will not–unfortunately, I can neither see either link while logged into the site, nor find how to fix a lot of those problems. But I am working on it, and there is a forum specifically for contacting me about problems, and a link to my Facebook page if you can’t even get as far as that.
I look forward to seeing you.
[contact-form subject='[mark Joseph %26quot;young%26quot;’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment: Note that this form will contact the author by e-mail; to post comments to the article, see below; or visit the site forums.’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
This is mark Joseph “young” blog entry #185, on the subject of Notes on Time Travel in The Flash.
Let me first say that I do like the current television incarnation of The Flash–not as much as I enjoyed the 1990 version, but more than some superhero efforts I’ve seen. I have small complaints, such as that this Barry Allen seems a lot younger, and a lot less capable at his day job, than the one I remember from comics in the nineteen sixties, but a lot of what is different from what I remember is good–and hey, it’s been half a century since I was reading comic books, so I have no idea what it’s like now. It’s an entertaining show, and I look forward to more episodes appearing.
It’s the time travel elements that irk me.
I really hope that doesn’t surprise anyone.
Let me also say that the totally bogus notion of how to travel through time, by traveling fast enough, does not particularly bother me either. Maybe it’s because I remember Superman doing it when I was in grade school, and I remember realizing that it didn’t really make sense that flying around the earth fast enough in one direction would take you to the past, and doing it in the other direction would bring you back to the present, but it made for a good story. Peter Davison’s Doctor (Who?) once said not to trust anyone who thought he was going to go back in time by exceeding the speed of light, because it really didn’t work that way, but since no one knows how it works I usually give a pass on method. This speed trick is popular–even Star Trek used it in the original series and in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. You can’t do it that way, but it’s only a story, and in that world apparently you can.
At this point I have seen all the episodes in what is, I think, the first two seasons, and there has been an inordinate amount of time travel. I have elsewhere explained why I do not do detailed analyses of time travel television shows, and a lot of those reasons apply here–Barry frequently travels to the same point in the past, and so do his enemies, and thus we are faced with the fact that what happens in later episodes is going to alter what happened in earlier ones. So I am not dealing with those kinds of details here; I am just looking at two concepts that can be abstracted from the story, and the problems I have with these.
The big one is the time remnant.
The concept here is that you can duplicate yourself by traveling to the past–and that much is certainly true. It is a kind of a joke skill in Multiverser, that a character who can time travel to the past fights for one minute, then in the next minute uses his time travel skill to go back two minutes to the beginning of the fight so that there are two of him, and does this at the end of every minute until he manages, by sheer numbers, to win the fight in one minute. Then, since every duplicate version of himself has to travel back to become the next duplicate version of himself, a minute later all vanish but the last, who does not make the trip to the past but continues living into the future.
The problem with the skill is that you absolutely have to survive those first two minutes without any assistance, because until you get to the point in the future where you can travel to the past, you have not yet arrived in the past. Your arrival in the past changes history, but in order to change history there must have been an original history to change, a history in which you did not arrive.
The problem with the time remnant is that he becomes disconnected from his own linear history, and thus he cannot exist.
Let us create a hypothetical. Barry is supposed to meet his boss to discuss a case over lattes at that coffee shop, but as he is on his way he learns that Killer Frost is robbing a jewelry store downtown. He quickly dresses as The Flash, manages to nab her and deliver her to holding back at the collider, and then realizes that he has missed his meeting with his boss, who is going to be unhappy and does not know that his not entirely competent lab technician is secretly The Flash. The boss has been fuming over this incompetence, pays for his latte, and heads back to the office. Barry decides this is important, so he travels fast enough to go back in time. Now as his one-hour-younger self is headed downtown to stop Killer Frost, he dresses as Barry and meets his boss, who has no memory of the original history and so does not know that Barry did not show. They have their meeting while Killer Frost is being captured and taken to holding, and at this moment there are two Barry Allens in the world–one of whom just captured Killer Frost, the other of whom did that an hour ago and has since had a meeting with his boss.
However, the Barry Allen who just captured Killer Frost still has to travel to the past to become the Barry Allen who meets with his boss. If he does not do so, that Barry Allen will never come into existence. However, when he does so, he ceases to exist in the future–because for him, he lives through that hour twice, but there is only one of him before that hour, and there is only one of him after that hour.
If the first Barry is killed before he travels to the past, then he never makes the trip and there is no duplicate–no “time remnant”. However, if the second Barry is killed, then it becomes inevitable that the first Barry will travel to the past and be killed–or if not, that time will become caught in an infinity loop, in which two different histories are vying for reality.
This also means you cannot create a temporal duplicate of yourself “before the fact”–that is, Barry can’t say, “I have to stop Killer Frost, but I have to meet with my boss, so I’m going to travel back in time a minute so that there are two of me, and then one of me will go stop Killer Frost while the other meets with my boss.” He can create two of himself for that minute, but at the end of that minute either the one of him that did not just arrive from the future a minute ago has to go back and become the other, or the other will cease ever to have existed and no one will ever do anything again.
So Barry could create a temporal duplicate of himself, but it would not work the way we see it in the show. His duplicate self would be dependent on him making that trip back at the moment in the future when he did so, at which point the “original” becomes the “duplicate” in the past, and the “duplicate” continues into the future.
Of course, the show allows that there are consequences to playing with time: if you duplicate yourself, you become the target of time wraiths.
What the heck?
I’m afraid that D. C. Comics, or at least their television production affiliate, has now stepped into the realm of theology.
They probably want us to think that the Speed Force exists in, or as, some para-natural parallel dimension, but it does not act like a parallel dimension. It acts like a supernatural being. It might not be God, but it certainly has the qualities of a god. Those Speed Wraiths are its minions, its “angels”, if you will. Sure, they look more demonic than angelic–but it’s no accident that they recall scenes from Ghost, taking the spirits of the wicked departed wherever it is that they go. They really have nothing to do with time travel itself, except that since they work as supernatural enforcers for a supernatural being involved with time and temporal distortion, they punish those who cause severe temporal problems by grossly violating the rules.
The part I don’t like about them is that they are a poor replacement for what really happens when you mess with time. There’s no particular reason why such supernatural beings could not exist in the service of a temporal god connected to the power of super speed. They are not, however, a logical consequence of breaking the rules of time. They are a supernatural intervention.
I am sometimes asked whether I think God would intervene to prevent a temporal disaster. I do not know, but this is not that. Grabbing the time traveler and removing him for punishment after he has caused the damage does not undo the damage. Of course, in theory temporal agents could, as in Minority Report, capture the time traveler before he causes the disaster–but then, he would not know for what he is being punished, and has a reasonable justice-based defense to the effect that he cannot be punished for what he was going to do but never did. God might know that he would have done it, but he himself does not know that he would not have changed his mind. It is certainly not impossible for God to prevent the effects of a time traveler’s stupidity, even to prevent an intentionally-created grandfather paradox–but His intervention would be unseen, because the cause of the problem would be prevented (in exactly the way fixed time theorists would expect) rather than the effect undone.
So I’ll accept time wraiths as supernatural minions of a god overseeing time and velocity, while recognizing that they have never done anything to protect time except punish those who have done the damage. There are still major problems with time travel in the series, but they would require so much more work to address even at this point, and are likely to be altered significantly as the series continues, so we will ignore them.
[contact-form subject='[mark Joseph %26quot;young%26quot;’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment: Note that this form will contact the author by e-mail; to post comments to the article, see below.’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
This is mark Joseph “young” blog entry #169, on the subject of Do Web Logs Lower the Bar?.
I noticed something.
I don’t know whether any of you noticed it, and there is an aspect to it that causes me to hope you did not, to suspect some of you did, and to think that I ought not be calling it to the attention of the rest. But it is worth recognizing, I suppose, even if it is at my own expense to some degree.
What I noticed was that some of the web log posts I publish are not up the the same standard I would expect of my web pages.
Certainly it is the case that some of the web log subjects are what might be called transient. I was quite surprised to see in my stats recently that someone visited the page that covered the 2015 election results for New Jersey. I’m thinking it must have been a mistake. Yet at the time it was important information, even if in another year it won’t even tell you who is in the Assembly, because we’ll have had another election.
It is also the case that being an eclectic sort of web log it is going to have pages that do not appeal to everyone–indeed, probably there are no pages that appeal to everyone. I recently lost one of my Patreon supporters, and that saddens me, but he was the only person contributing as a time travel fan, and was not contributing enough to pay for one DVD per year; I’m sure he is disappointed that I haven’t done more time travel pages, but there has not been that much available to me and the budget has been particularly tight. With pages about law, politics, music, Bible, games, logic problems, and other miscellany, there will certainly be pages that any particular reader would not read. Yet that has always been true of the web site, and although the web log is not quite as conveniently divided into sections it does have navigation aids to help people find what they want.
What I mean, though, is that I don’t seem to apply the same standard to web log pages as I would to web pages.
I suppose that’s to be expected. As I think about it, I recognize that I put a lot more time and thought into articles I am writing for e-zines and web sites that are not my own. I expect more of myself, hold myself to a higher standard, when I am writing such pieces. For one thing, I can’t go back and edit them later–which on my own site I will only do for obvious errors, never for content. For another, something of mine published by someone else should represent the best that I can offer, both for my own reputation and for that of the publisher. If you’re reading my work at RPGNet, or the Christian Gamers Guild, or The Learning Fountain, or any of the many other sites for which I’ve written over the decades, you might not know any more about me than what you find there.
It’s also the case that, frankly, anyone can set up his own web site, fairly cheaply and easily, write his own articles, and publish them for the world to ignore. There is a limited number of opportunities for someone to write for someone else’s site, and to be asked to do so, or permitted to do so, is something of a recognition above the ordinary.
Of course, there are even fewer opportunities to write for print, and fewer now than there once were. Not that you can’t publish your own printed books and comics and magazines, but that those that exist are selective in what they will print, and so the bar is higher.
The web log system makes it quicker and easier to write and publish something. I suspect that there are many bloggers out there who open the software, start typing what they want to say, and hit publish, as if it were an e-mail. I maintain a higher standard than that–all of my web log posts are composed offline, and with the only exceptions being the “breaking news” sort (like the aforementioned election results page) they all get held at least overnight, usually several days, reread and edited and tweaked until I am happy with them. (As I write this, there are two web log posts awaiting publication which have been pending for two days, and I will review this one several times over the time that they go to press.) But even so, the standard of what I will publish as a web log post is considerably lower than that which I will publish as a web page.
In that sense, the web log becomes more like diary, something in which you compose your thoughts and then ignore them–except that this diary is open to the world. I think–I hope–all bloggers put more thought and care into their web log posts than they do into forum conversations and Tweets and Facebook posts. However, while I have read some web log posts that were excellent, I have also read a few that caused me to wonder whether the author was thinking. I try to keep some standard here, but I admit that sometimes I wonder whether I posted something because I thought it was worth posting or because I wanted to keep the blog living and active.
In any case, if you read something here and wonder why I bothered to post it, perhaps now you have a better idea of that.
[contact-form subject='[mark Joseph %26quot;young%26quot;’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment: Note that this form will contact the author by e-mail; to post comments to the article, see below.’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
This is mark Joseph “young” blog entry #150, on the subject of 2016 Retrospective.
Periodically I try to look back over some period of time and review what I have published, and the end of the year is a good time to do this. Thus before the new year begins I am offering you a reminder of articles you might have seen–or might have missed–over the past twelve months. I am not going to recall them all. For one thing, that would be far too many, and it in some cases will be easier to point to another location where certain categories of articles are indexed (which will appear more obvious as we progress). For another, although we did this a year ago in web log post #34: Happy Old Year, we also did it late in March in #70: Writing Backwards and Forwards, when we had finished posting Verse Three, Chapter One: The First Multiverser Novel. So we will begin with the last third of March, and will reference some articles through indices and other sources.
I have divided articles into the categories which I thought most appropriate to them. Many of these articles are reasonably in two or more categories–articles related to music often relate to writing, or Bible and theology; Bible and politics articles sometimes are nearly interchangeable. I, of course, think it is all worth reading; I hope you think it at least worth considering reading.
I should also explain those odd six-digit numbers for anyone for whom they are not obvious, because they are at least non-standard. They are YYMMDD, that is, year, month, and day of the date of publication of each article, each represented by two digits. Thus the first one which appears, 160325, represents this year 2016, the third month March, and the twenty-fifth day.
Let’s start with writings about writing.
There is quite a bit that should be in this category. After all, that previous retrospective post appeared as we finished posting that first novel, and we have since posted the second, all one hundred sixty-two chapters of which are indexed in their own website section, Old Verses New. If you’ve not read the novels, you have some catching up to do. I also published one more behind-the-writings post on that first novel, #71: Footnotes on Verse Three, Chapter One 160325, to cover notes unearthed in an old file on the hard drive.
I have also added a Novel Support Section which at this point contains character sheets for several of the characters in the first novel and one in the second; also, if you have enjoyed reading the novels and have not seen #149: Toward the Third Novel 161223, it is a must-read.
Also on the subject of writing, I discussed what was required for someone to be identified as an “author” in, appropriately, #72: Being an Author 160410. I addressed #118: Dry Spells 161012 and how to deal with them, and gave some advice on #132: Writing Horror 161116. There was also one fun Multiverser story which had been at Dice Tales years ago which I revived here, #146: Chris and the Teleporting Spaceships 161220
I struggled with where on this list to put #120: Giving Offense 161014. It deals with political issues of sexuality and involves a bit of theological perspective, but ultimately is about the concept of tolerance and how we handle disagreements.
It should be mentioned that not everything I write is here at M. J. Young Net; I write a bit about writing in my Goodreads book reviews.
Of course, I also wrote a fair amount of Bible and Theology material.
Part of it was apologetic, that is, discussing the reasons for belief and answers to the arguments against it. In this category we have #73: Authenticity of the New Testament Accounts 160413, #76: Intelligent Simulation 160424 (specifically addressing an incongruity between denying the possibility of “Intelligent Design” while accepting that the universe might be the equivalent of a computer program), and #84: Man-made Religion 160527 (addressing the charge that the fact all religions are different proves none are true).
#114: St. Teresa, Pedophile Priests, and Miracles 160917 is probably a bit of both, as it is a response to a criticism of Christian faith (specifically the Roman Catholic Church, but impacting all of us).
Again, not everything I wrote is here. The Faith and Gaming series and related materials including some from The Way, the Truth, and the Dice are being republished at the Christian Gamers Guild; to date, twenty-six such articles have appeared, but more are on the way including one written recently (a rules set for what I think might be a Christian game) which I debated posting here but decided to give to them as fresh content. Meanwhile, the Chaplain’s Bible Study continues, having completed I & II Peter and now entering the last chapter of I John.
Again, some posts which are listed below as political are closely connected to principles of faith; after all, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are inextricably connected. Also, quite a few of the music posts are also Bible or theology posts, since I have been involved in Christian music for decades.
So Music will be the next subject.
Since it is something people ask musicians, I decided to give some thought and put some words to #75: Musical Influences 160423, the artists who have impacted my composing, arranging, and performances.
I also reached into my memories of being in radio, how it applies to being a musician and to being a writer, in #77: Radio Activity 160427.
The lyrics to my song Free 161017 were added to the site, because it was referenced in one of the articles and I thought the readers should be able to find them if they wished.
There were quite a few articles about Law and Politics, although despite the fact that this was an “election year” (of course, there are elections every year, but this one was special), most of them were not really about that. By March the Presidential race had devolved into such utter nonsense that there was little chance of making sense of it, so I stopped writing about it after talking about Ridiculous Republicans and Dizzying Democrats.
Other topics loosely under discrimination include #87: Spanish Ice Cream 160616 (about whether a well-known shop can refuse to take orders in languages other than English), #130: Economics and Racism 161112 (about how and why unemployment stimulates racist attitudes), and #135: What Racism Is 161127 (explaining why it is possible for blacks to have racist attitudes toward whites). Several with connections to law and economics include #105: Forced Philanthropy 160820 (taxing those with more to give to those with less), #108: The Value of Ostentation 160826 (arguing that the purchase of expensive baubles by the rich is good for the poor), #137: Conservative Penny-pinching 161023 (discussing spending cuts), and #145: The New Internet Tax Law 161219 (about how Colorado has gotten around the problem of charging sales tax on Internet purchases).
A few other topics were hit, including one on freedom of speech and religion called #144: Shutting Off the Jukebox 161218, one on scare tactics used to promote policy entitled #80: Environmental Blackmail 160508, and one in which court decisions in recent immigration cases seem likely to impact the future of legalized marijuana, called #96: Federal Non-enforcement 160727.
We have a number of other posts that we’re categorizing as Logic/Miscellany, mostly because they otherwise defy categorization (or, perhaps, become categories with single items within them). #92: Electronic Tyranny 060708 is a response to someone’s suggestion that we need to break away from social media to get our lives back. #93: What Is a Friend? 060720 presents two concepts of the word, and my own preference on that. #112: Isn’t It Obvious? 160904 is really just a couple of real life problems with logical solutions. I also did a product review of an old washing machine that was once new, Notes on a Maytag Centennial Washing Machine 160424.
Although it does not involve much writing, with tongue planted firmly in cheek I offer Gazebos in the Wild, a Pinterest board which posts photographs with taxonomies attempting to capture and identify these dangerous wild creatures in their natural habitats. You would have to have heard the story of Eric and the Gazebo for that to be funny, I think.
Of course, I post on social media, but the interesting ones are on Patreon, and mostly because I include notes on projects still ahead and life issues impeding them. As 2017 arrives, I expect to continue writing and posting–I already have two drafts, one on music and the other on breaking bad habits. I invite your feedback.
[contact-form subject='[mark Joseph %26quot;young%26quot;’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment: Note that this form will contact the author by e-mail; to post comments to the article, see below.’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
This is mark Joseph “young” blog entry #117, on the subject of The Prime Universe.
Proofreading some pages I wrote for Bob Slade (character introduced in Verse Three, Chapter One: The First Multiverser Novel) brought a smile to my face. Bob always tickles me; he is written to be fun. In this particular instance he wonders whether something in the universe he is visiting is like it is in “the real world”, and realizes that he still thinks of the earth in which he was born as somehow more “real” than the half dozen universes in which he has lived for more years than he was there. It occurred to me that that might be “gamer-think”, but it seemed like something Bob would ponder. I let it stay.
A few days later I was very much enjoying a book by Ian Harac (those of you who follow my Goodreads reviews will undoubtedly read about it there in a few days), a sort of multiverse story in which the lead characters are investigating inter-universe smuggling, and one of them referred to their universe of origin as “earth prime”. It struck me then: how does a culture that travels the multiverse define a concept like “earth prime”?
If you believe in the sort of diverging universe theory in which for every choice the universe divides into two universes, one in which that happens and the other in which it does not (I do not), you might think there is a simple answer: the “prime” universe is the root one from which all others diverged. That, though, does not work. Let us suppose that at the dawn of human history a hypothetical Cain is faced with the choice of whether or not to kill his hypothetical brother Abel. By this theory, our universe splits into two, one in which Abel is killed by Cain and the other in which they are both alive. Which is the prime universe, and which the divergent? Obviously, you suggest, the one in which Cain took the action to kill Abel is the diverging one, because Cain did something that changed history. That’s not true, of course: Cain did something that created history, as there was no history of that moment prior to that moment. Further, although we have so viewed it, it is not as if it is a choice between killing Abel and not killing Abel. It is rather a choice between killing Abel and doing something else instead. He could have gone back to work on his garden; he could have left to have a chat with his mother; he could have asked his brother to teach him to raise sheep. If we are in the universe in which Cain killed Abel, to us it appears that those are all divergent universes; yet if we are in one of those, it is the death that is the divergence, or one of the divergences. We might think that the death is the most dramatic or drastic version of history, but that is very much our ego: why should killing one man be a more significant event than giving life to thousands of vegetables and their offspring? It assumes the importance of humans.
I agree that humans are more important than vegetables, but in the scheme of a godless diverging multiverse that can’t be more than a personal preference.
Thus in a sense, if all universes diverged from one original, all have claim to be that original. If you cut an earthworm in half, both halves regenerate giving you two earthworms; both of them are the original. Every amoeba having come into existence by the cellular division of an amoeba in which one becomes two is the first amoeba that ever lived, from its own perspective. Every universe that is viewed as diverging from another can itself be viewed as the original from which the other diverged, and that is the reality from the objective outside view. There is no “prime” universe in that sense.
Of course, there are other theories of the multiverse. Some hold that all the many parallel universes have always existed, either eternally or from the beginning of time. No such universe can claim to be “first” in a temporal sense. Yet often one is still identified as “prime”.
Let us remember that the suggestion is made that there is an infinite number of such universes. I find that absurd, but concede that if the notion of parallel universes of this sort is true there might well be more universes than there are stars in our own. Vast becomes too small a word.
Something distinguishes each universe in this multiverse. Whatever it is, if we are to become able to travel it in a controlled fashion we have to discover it and turn it into something quantifiable. Thus if every universe has a “frequency” at which it “vibrates”, we can give every universe a number equal to that frequency–akin to radio stations, each of which is identified by the number of cycles per second (renamed to honor a scientist named “Hertz”, changing the abbreviation from c.p.s. to hz.). Of course, it is unlikely that universes “vibrate”, but there would have to be some measurable and quantifiable distinguishing factor, something akin to coordinates, for which we could make a scale.
Making a scale is the problem–not that we could not make one, but that any scale we made would be arbitrary by definition. Inches and feet are only “real” because we have agreed definitions. The metric system prides itself on being scientific, every unit defined in relation to every other unit, but ultimately the basic unit, the meter, even though it is defined by other scientifically determinable values, is still arbitrary. The unit of time we call a second is one sixtieth of one sixtieth of one twenty-fourth of the average period of rotation of this planet from sunrise to sunrise over a year–fundamentally arbitrary and not so constant as was once believed. So we might think that the “prime” universe is the one in which the measured value of the vibrations is “one” on our scale, but our scale is arbitrary. As with the number of “gravs” as a measurement of the gravitic force of other planets, we arbitrarily assign “one” to our own planet and measure the others against that.
Perhaps, though, we could make the “prime” universe that one with the lowest “vibration” (or the highest–it is the same result). The problem here is that, assuming “zero” is not a possible reading (all universes by this definition must vibrate, and “zero” constitutes not doing so) and given the incredible number of such universes, we could never be certain that we had found the universe with the lowest frequency and so could not know which universe was “prime”. We might devise a formula which determined a theoretical lowest possible frequency for a universe; the formula would very likely be incorrect, and we might not be able to determine whether a universe with that value actually exists.
So then the prime universe is decided arbitrarily, and the best choice would be that universe which first determined how to travel to the others. We would label our universe “prime” and measure all the others by their relationship to us; our “frequency” would be “one-point-zero-zero” out to however many places seemed necessary for accuracy, others measured by variation from that.
However, the odds are fairly slim (what am I saying? they’re infinitessimal) that our universe would be the first to discover how to travel the multiverse. Further, given the hypothetical vastness of the multiverse it might be a thousand, a million, a billion years–even never–before we encountered a world which had independently learned to do what we do (unless of course by some wild chance they found us before we solved the problem, but then they have the same problem): which universe gets to be “prime” because they discovered this first?
Ultimately, then, we call our universe “prime” if we invented our own way of traveling the multiverse, not because that has any meaning other than that we regard it our original home. If someone brings the technology to us from another universe, in all likelihood we will call their universe “prime”, and ours will be defined on the scale they devised. It seems the word has no meaning other than “that universe we have chosen as the one by which our scale is calibrated”. If there is a multiverse of this sort, there is no “prime” universe by any other meaning.
[contact-form subject='[mark Joseph %26quot;young%26quot;’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment: Note that this form will contact the author by e-mail; to post comments to the article, see below.’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
This is mark Joseph “young” blog entry #85, on the subject of Time Travel Coming on Television
I got several notices from readers alerting me to something new in time travel coming to a small screen near you, and I paid little attention to them, I’m afraid. For one thing, I don’t do analyses of time travel media other than movies, for reasons detailed elsewhere. For another, at present I don’t have access to “regular” or even “cable” television–I watch DVDs, Netflix via an RCA Streaming device, and sometimes manage to borrow the equipment to Chromecast something from my office computer to the living room television. For another–well, television series about time travel rarely work. As a boy I enjoyed Time Tunnel, and I have the series on DVD, but for anyone who has any coherent theory of time it is a temporal nightmare. I liked Se7en Days, and even used it as the basis for an example of a way in which the past can be safely altered. However, ever since Star Trek: Voyager delivered three temporally disastrous episodes in its first season, I have been extremely wary of any time travel television series, and for some combinations of these three reasons I never watched The Sarah Conner Chronicles or Continuum.
I’m still interested in time travel, though, and it seems that I got all these notifications of upcoming time travel television because there’s more than one show on the horizon.
Sometime in 2016 FOX will be bringing a made-for-TV comedy movie under the title Making History (photo above). The trailer looks highly entertaining. I am considerably more forgiving of absurd temporal disasters in comedies because they’re supposed to be funny, and well done absurd can be funny. In this iteration one of our primary characters, pretty much a failure in the present, has hopped back to the past and fallen in love with Paul Revere’s daughter. Revere expected his daughter to marry the man of his choosing, and is so upset about this he fails to make his famed ride to warn of the approach of the British, and the Colonies are overrun. Our bumbling hero returns to the present and persuades his history professor to come back with him to fix the problem, but the fact that the professor is black adds more complications to the situation.
It is, of course, absurd on its face: once the American Revolution has been undone, the time traveler cannot return to the world he left behind, because it has been erased. Yet it looks like a good foundation for a very funny story, and if after it airs I can find it somewhere I can watch, I’ll probably give you a more detailed account of just how disastrous it is.
Meanwhile, NBC is also getting into the act with a drama called Timeless, which is announced as a 2016 television series. Here the story is darker: some group has stolen a time machine and traveled to the past to alter American history in ways that are apparently significant to someone. In the trailer, they are attempting to prevent the Hindenburg disaster. Our time-traveling heroes are sent back to protect history, to prevent the changes.
We have previously noted the major problems with efforts to prevent changes to the past, particularly in our analysis of TimeCop as well as repeatedly in the Terminator series. This can only end in temporal disaster–and since it’s a television series we can probably expect repeated disasters week after week. On the bright side, it looks like a well-made well-acted action-packed adventure. On the dark side, it appears to mix theories of time rather randomly–the very fact that a team has been sent to the past to prevent it from changing says it can’t be fixed time, but one of the time travelers reports having a copy of a document that another member of the team has not yet written.
To confuse matters, IMDb reports not one but two current movies under the same title, one released this year and another slated for next year. Those might see analysis eventually, if I can get copies.
Also in production for anticipated release next year on ABC is a series entitled Time After Time based perhaps loosely on the movie of that name or the book on which that movie was based. This is the story in which H. G. Wells has invented a time machine and somehow Jack the Ripper has managed to use it to escape into time, with Wells in pursuit. Information is at this point quite sketchy. The movie was good, but had a lot of temporal difficulties which a series promises to compound. Still, it has some promise, depending on how it plays.
So time travel fans will have plenty to entertain in the months ahead.
As always, if you have questions about time travel stories you have seen, write to me (you can use the e-mail comments link below), assume I have not seen whatever it is you saw and give me details, and I’ll do my best to answer based on what you describe. Meanwhile, if you want me to see these, you’ll have to use the Patreon or PayPal.me links to increase the support of this site to a level that can pay for such luxuries, or arrange to mail me DVD copies of them. Thank you.
[contact-form subject='[mark Joseph %26quot;young%26quot;’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment: Note that this form will contact the author by e-mail; to post comments to the article, see below.’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
This is mark Joseph “young” blog entry #81, on the subject of The Grandfather Paradox Problem.
A friend who was playing Multiverser with me before we were on Facebook tagged me in a post about a time travel video, in which someone offers a scientific solution to the famous Grandfather Paradox: what happens if I travel back in time and kill my own grandfather before he has children? As the cartoon below shows, if you did that, you would undo your own existence, and if you undid your existence you would not be able to travel to the past and do that.
There are already quite a few links in this page, and there undoubtedly will be quite a few more before we’re done, so I recommend ignoring them all until you’ve read the page, and then deciding whether there are any you particularly want to pursue.
The video inappropriately seems to suggest that this is “the scientific” answer and therefore the true one. That’s careless. It even recognizes the alternate dimension solution, dismissing it as “boring” (because it just avoids the paradox)–and we agree that it’s a poor solution, because whether we are speaking of parallel dimensions (a vast, possibly infinite, set of dimensions which have always existed) or divergent dimensions (the creation of new branching universes caused by the arrival of the traveler), it is not time travel. The video ignores other solutions, such as The Novikov Self-consistency Principle (in essence a fixed time theory solution which asserts time travel is only possible in universes in which the past is immutable). It also ignores replacement theory; we’ll get to that.
If the video is confusing to you, don’t be embarrassed: it’s a confusing theory. I think it’s the theory behind Dr. Manhattan’s perception of the world in Watchmen: it isn’t exactly that all possible worlds exist, it’s that they all co-exist within a single but complex spatio-temporal space.
One of the problems of divergent dimension theory is the question of where all the matter and energy originate to create another identical universe. That is, if you have a matter replicator on the order of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and you want to create a cup of tea, you need as much energy as you would obtain from the nuclear annihilation of an identical cup of tea, plus a bit more to operate the machine. If you want to create another identical universe, you would need to consume all the matter and energy of the original universe plus probably a bit more to do the work. Assuming you could do it, your original universe would have ceased to exist anyway.
There are a few other problems with this. Since you had to use some of the energy to perform the process, you wind up with a slightly smaller replacement universe; and assuming that you have a time traveler who left that other universe, either he was destroyed when that universe was (creating the paradox we are attempting to avoid) or his matter and energy are not included in the total (shorting us yet a bit more). But those are extra quibbles.
If you maintain a divergent dimension theory idea without time travel, that is, that every choice, every possible occurrence, creates two universes, in one of which the event happened and the other it did not, you multiply this problem exponentially, since for anything I could be doing right at this moment there exists a universe in which I am doing that, and for everything you could be doing there exists a universe in which you are doing that, and as long as what we might be doing is compatible those two lists are multiplied–I do thing A while you do thing A, I do thing A while you do thing B, I do thing B while you do thing A, and by the time we get to four possible actions for two hypothetical people we have sixteen universes, and we have only gotten started.
The theory behind the solution offered by the video attempts to resolve that issue, and in a strictly theoretical way it does so rather cleverly. There are not innumerable copies of me; there is only one. That one individual exists as a bundle of matter and energy across all the many dimensions, and is doing all the different things he might be doing. My consciousness only remembers those events which are sequentially chained in the history of what I am aware of doing at the moment–I have no awareness of what I am doing or what I ever did in those other dimensions, but it is still me doing it.
The idea sprang from the problem addressed by that famous feline Schrödinger’s Cat. Because of some other theories in quantum physics the state of an unstable atom was viewed as problematic. It might decay at any moment, and therefore it might have decayed since you last looked. Someone (his name is not as famous as Schrödinger’s) proposed that the answer to this was that the atom existed in both a decayed and an undecayed state, and when you looked at it you determined not exactly in which state it was but rather in which universe you were observing it. Until you looked, it was both decayed and undecayed, and the act of looking determined the state. Schrödinger said that this was absurd, since if that were true he could set up an experiment in which a cat who would die the instant a specific atom decayed would be both alive and dead until someone checked, and since the cat cannot possibly be both alive and dead the theory is nonsense. However, the theory was immediately defended with the assertion that what Schrödinger claimed was impossible was actually the reality, that the cat actually is both alive and dead until someone looks and discovers whether we are in a dimension in which it is alive or one in which it is dead.
I don’t know that Schrödinger was persuaded, but the idea took hold and expanded, attaching to events that were not in any obvious way connected to the uncertainties of subatomic decay: suddenly anything that might have happened has happened, and all of us are both alive and dead, sitting in church and visiting a brothel, fabulously famous and desperately destitute, at the same time.
I have problems with that; I have addressed them on other pages. The present video does not venture there–it only discusses the notion that two such states could exist simultaneously, one in which my grandfather lived and led to my existence, the other in which I killed him, and so the fact that I both do and do not exist at this moment because of a future action I will take in the past is not a problem.
I still see it as a problem. Let’s get at it, though, by noting that I have a brother. (In reality I have two, and a sister, and a batch of cousins, nephews, neices, and cousins-once-or-twice-removed who might also be affected, but let’s stick to one brother.) We have talked about the problem of having a brother in multiple dimension theory before, but it’s a different problem in this version.
The problem is that when I kill my grandfather, I also rather inadvertently also kill my brother’s grandfather.
My reality is convoluted, but it is comprehensible. There is a reality in which I exist up to the moment–let’s call it “today”–when I leave for the past, and after that–“tomorrow”–I no longer exist because I left and never returned. There is another reality in which I was never born, and so “today” I do not exist and never existed, and that’s confusing–but tomorrow is somewhat simpler, because tomorrow I still do not exist because I never existed. In my experience, therefore, I both exist and do not exist today, but tomorrow I simply do not exist. Reality is unstable for a while, but then we might suppose that it stabilizes “today” when I leave for what we will call “yesterday”, stretching the term about a century to when my grandfather was a child.
What, though, of my brother? There is a reality in which he exists “today”, and since he does not leave to go back to “yesterday” he, in that reality, still exists “tomorrow”. Yet since I went back to “yesterday” and killed our young grandfather, there is a reality in which he was never born, either. My reality stabilizes into a universe tomorrow in which I do not exist–but his reality never does so. From the moment I either do or do not kill our grandfather, he either does or does not exist, and that never changes.
That’s very dramatic when we consider him; he is quite obviously impacted by whether or not I killed our grandfather. Yet it is not just whether or not he exists tomorrow; it’s whether we have existed in these intervening years, and what the shape of the future will be hereafter. We always discuss this as killing a grandfather before he has children, but that means there is that intervening generation–in which one of our parents was never born. Reflect on it and you’ll recognize that no matter what happened between your parents, their lives would have been very different had they never met, and if one of them had never been born, they would never have met. I have elsewhere written about the genetic problem. Note that had our mother not married our father, she probably would have married someone else; and whoever that was probably actually did marry someone else in this reality whom they would not have married had they married Mom. That ripples through hundreds, possibly thousands, of relationships, displacing couples and altering the identities of a large segment of the next generation which in turn multiplies the impact, as the couples marrying in that generation are altered by the fact that thousands of them were never born, replaced by thousands who were born instead. So it is not just my brother and I who both do and do not exist; it is thousands of others whose births will be prevented if my mother marries someone other than my father.
And when we reach the end of that bit of twisted time in which there are two different realities, one in which I live and leave for the past and the other in which I am never born, we have two worlds that are so completely different that it becomes utter nonsense to speak of them even as parallel. The counterpart for my brother Roy Young is probably someone like Vinnie de LaRosa, who also exists in one dimension but not in the other. The world has been so altered by this one event that the two versions can never converge to the same future. “Tomorrow” can never be unified.
At that point, whether we say that there is a diverging universe with its own history beginning from the moment of my arrival in the past or that there is only one universe in which the same matter is configured in different ways in various histories which diverge from each other becomes a matter of semantics which solve nothing. It is divergent universe theory with a lot of smoke and mirrors to make us think it is something else.
Meanwhile, the same action–killing your grandfather–in replacement theory causes an infinity loop. In essence, there is an original history in which my grandfather lived and I was born, and I departed for the past ending that history, and as I arrived in the past I erased the original history and began writing a different single history of the world in which my grandfather died young and I was never born; then at the moment I fail to travel to the past, I remove myself from the past (the exact reason the grandfather paradox is a problem) and create a history in which I am not there, my grandfather lives, and ultimately I am born–the original history restored, leading to my decision to travel to the past. Those two versions of history repeat, each causing the other, perpetually; “tomorrow” never comes, because it can only exist as a single universe with a single set of people and events if it has a single unified history in which all causes and effects are found.
So the video suggests an interesting idea that ultimately is not different from the divergent or parallel dimension theory it begins by dismissing. It is not really something different.
[contact-form subject='[mark Joseph %26quot;young%26quot;’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment: Note that this form will contact the author by e-mail; to post comments to the article, see below.’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
A generalist: learning less and less about more and more, one day to know nothing about everything.
