The folly of time travel in fiction

[The Lensman]

Of course, there's nothing to say that someone else might not have had similar ideas to Hitler and taken his place. The details are different of course, but the thrust of history would be the same. Then again, obviously, there's nothing to say it'll remain the same. Still, factors that shape so-called great men might still exist to shape other men into greatness.

I'd say it also attaches far too much importance to genetics. Had Hitler's mother died at birth and Alois married someone less enabling of Hitler's childhood predispositions, things would have been equally different.

Or maybe people just aren't as important to history as we would like to think. If Hitler did not exist, maybe the time and circumstances were just right for the Nazis to arise. Somebody else would have been Hitler instead.

Like I mentioned before, if Edison had not lived maybe the time was just right for the light bulb?

The conditions that allowed Hitler to thrive would've been present regardless of whether he was or not, because WW1 still would've happened. You'd still have alot of bitter, pissed off Germans and someone would've capitalized on that sooner or later.

Take out Edison, and we'd probably be looking at Tesla instead. The face of technology would be different, and we may have some things we don't have and vice versa.

The Wright Brothers weren't the only people trying to build aircraft...there were several others also working on powered flight.

If Rush Limbaugh did not exist, you'd still see the rise of conservative media because conservatives were getting fed up and angry around that time. It may have happened a little later, the names would be different, but the conditions were there for someone to thrive.

As for altering the past creating a parallel universe....until someone can explain how preventing two people from fucking (or any other Earth based change) generates enough energy to create a universe with several thousand galaxies, each containing billions of stars, I'll pass on it.

For time travel logic, I generally hold to Anderson's "Time Patrol" series.

One of the most creative time travel series I've read was "Time Breakers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Breakers

 

[CommanderRaytas]

But if they change the timeline, then that moment will no longer exist!

Don't you just hate temporal mechanics?

 

[Checkmate]

It only becomes a problem if you insist on making it one. Since time travel doesn't exist, there are no rules about how it works. If you don't want time travel creating alternate universes or "always happened" paradoxes, or whatever else comes up, you have only yourself to blame for making it so impossible.

It's like complaining that your protagonist doesn't own a Jaguar, but instead drives around in a beat-up Ford Pinto. And, even after wining the mega lotto, you still refuse to give him one because... well, I don't know why other than because you, the author, are being stupid and making things difficult for no particular reason that anyone else can puzzle out.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I'd say it also attaches far too much importance to genetics. Had Hitler's mother died at birth and Alois married someone less enabling of Hitler's childhood predispositions, things would have been equally different.

Or maybe people just aren't as important to history as we would like to think. If Hitler did not exist, maybe the time and circumstances were just right for the Nazis to arise. Somebody else would have been Hitler instead.

Like I mentioned before, if Edison had not lived maybe the time was just right for the light bulb?

The conditions that allowed Hitler to thrive would've been present regardless of whether he was or not, because WW1 still would've happened. You'd still have alot of bitter, pissed off Germans and someone would've capitalized on that sooner or later.

Take out Edison, and we'd probably be looking at Tesla instead. The face of technology would be different, and we may have some things we don't have and vice versa.

The Wright Brothers weren't the only people trying to build aircraft...there were several others also working on powered flight.

If Rush Limbaugh did not exist, you'd still see the rise of conservative media because conservatives were getting fed up and angry around that time. It may have happened a little later, the names would be different, but the conditions were there for someone to thrive.

As for altering the past creating a parallel universe....until someone can explain how preventing two people from fucking (or any other Earth based change) generates enough energy to create a universe with several thousand galaxies, each containing billions of stars, I'll pass on it.

For time travel logic, I generally hold to Anderson's "Time Patrol" series.

One of the most creative time travel series I've read was "Time Breakers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Breakers

So the Germans were inevitably to become Nazis? I always knew the beaker people couldn't be trusted.

 

[issreliant]

This is why dicussing time travel gives me nose bleeds!!!

 

[Myasishchev]

As for altering the past creating a parallel universe....until someone can explain how preventing two people from fucking (or any other Earth based change) generates enough energy to create a universe with several thousand galaxies, each containing billions of stars, I'll pass on it.

The idea is that they already exist, as in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

[The Lensman]

Or maybe people just aren't as important to history as we would like to think. If Hitler did not exist, maybe the time and circumstances were just right for the Nazis to arise. Somebody else would have been Hitler instead.

Like I mentioned before, if Edison had not lived maybe the time was just right for the light bulb?

The conditions that allowed Hitler to thrive would've been present regardless of whether he was or not, because WW1 still would've happened. You'd still have alot of bitter, pissed off Germans and someone would've capitalized on that sooner or later.

Take out Edison, and we'd probably be looking at Tesla instead. The face of technology would be different, and we may have some things we don't have and vice versa.

The Wright Brothers weren't the only people trying to build aircraft...there were several others also working on powered flight.

If Rush Limbaugh did not exist, you'd still see the rise of conservative media because conservatives were getting fed up and angry around that time. It may have happened a little later, the names would be different, but the conditions were there for someone to thrive.

As for altering the past creating a parallel universe....until someone can explain how preventing two people from fucking (or any other Earth based change) generates enough energy to create a universe with several thousand galaxies, each containing billions of stars, I'll pass on it.

For time travel logic, I generally hold to Anderson's "Time Patrol" series.

One of the most creative time travel series I've read was "Time Breakers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Breakers

So the Germans were inevitably to become Nazis? I always knew the beaker people couldn't be trusted.

LOL! Something like Nazi's, but not necessarily called Nazi's. The persecution of the Jews may or may not have happened....but angry zealots tend to scapegoat some group or another as a way to rile up the base and make them feel as if they could just be rid of them, their lot in life would be easier.

 

[The Lensman]

As for altering the past creating a parallel universe....until someone can explain how preventing two people from fucking (or any other Earth based change) generates enough energy to create a universe with several thousand galaxies, each containing billions of stars, I'll pass on it.

The idea is that they already exist, as in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I've heard two theories:

1. Traveling to the "past" is really just traveling to an alternate world...which seems to be what you're saying.

2. That changing an event **creates** an alternate universe....as in a new universe now exists where it did not before. Whether it's called "alternate universe" or "timeline", it's still a separate and entire universe that did not exist prior to the change.

The second one does not explain how an entire universe could come into existence by preventing two people from making Elvis or Edison.

The concepts are not the same.

 

[Myasishchev]

I see what you mean. Ala "Yesterday's Enterprise" where a ship going back in time is able to generate the jiggawatts of power necessary to rearrange large parts of the Star Trek universe. Yeah, that's pretty dumb.

 

[Gov Kodos]

The conditions that allowed Hitler to thrive would've been present regardless of whether he was or not, because WW1 still would've happened. You'd still have alot of bitter, pissed off Germans and someone would've capitalized on that sooner or later.

Take out Edison, and we'd probably be looking at Tesla instead. The face of technology would be different, and we may have some things we don't have and vice versa.

The Wright Brothers weren't the only people trying to build aircraft...there were several others also working on powered flight.

If Rush Limbaugh did not exist, you'd still see the rise of conservative media because conservatives were getting fed up and angry around that time. It may have happened a little later, the names would be different, but the conditions were there for someone to thrive.

As for altering the past creating a parallel universe....until someone can explain how preventing two people from fucking (or any other Earth based change) generates enough energy to create a universe with several thousand galaxies, each containing billions of stars, I'll pass on it.

For time travel logic, I generally hold to Anderson's "Time Patrol" series.

One of the most creative time travel series I've read was "Time Breakers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Breakers

So the Germans were inevitably to become Nazis? I always knew the beaker people couldn't be trusted.

LOL! Something like Nazi's, but not necessarily called Nazi's. The persecution of the Jews may or may not have happened....but angry zealots tend to scapegoat some group or another as a way to rile up the base and make them feel as if they could just be rid of them, their lot in life would be easier.

Not wanting to drag this off base much further, but I've never subscribed to a fatalistic view of history. Apart from the sequence of events, motivations and causes are things of interpretation as much as fact. Examine history from a Marxist, Feminist, Great Man, Racist, or any other and from each you'll get a different view and understanding of varying worth and validity. History has much akin to fiction in that respect, more so than biology which what your suggesting seems to imply. I'd say you've chosen a view of history where events are inevitable, yet virulent antisemitism didn't arise during or after WWI in Germany. The politically far right in Germany wanted a pan German state, but most didn't envision going to war with everyone in Europe, and biological racism wasn't a part of all of them. Without Hitler I doubt the second unpleasantness would have reached the proportions it did.

 

[Checkmate]

As for altering the past creating a parallel universe....until someone can explain how preventing two people from fucking (or any other Earth based change) generates enough energy to create a universe with several thousand galaxies, each containing billions of stars, I'll pass on it.

The idea is that they already exist, as in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I've heard two theories:

1. Traveling to the "past" is really just traveling to an alternate world...which seems to be what you're saying.

2. That changing an event **creates** an alternate universe....as in a new universe now exists where it did not before. Whether it's called "alternate universe" or "timeline", it's still a separate and entire universe that did not exist prior to the change.

The second one does not explain how an entire universe could come into existence by preventing two people from making Elvis or Edison.

The concepts are not the same.

And, again, they're referring to the semi-popular 'quantum mechanics' theory where every choice that has ever been made, ever will be made, and is being made automatically creates new universes. There's an incalculable number of them. You just happen to be in the one that's 'most probable.' And that one gets swapped every time you make a choice, including choosing to travel through time.

Again: Come up with a theory you like, then write about that. Don't sit around bemoaning how horrible time travel is because it's not 'realistic.' Of course it's not realistic, it's fucking time travel, and you have full control over any laws regarding it in your work of fiction. You can't be wrong. You're the one making the rules.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm trying to write a story (not Star Trek) where the heroes chase a villain back in time. This guy is trying to change history in his favor and the heroes are trying to stop him. By the end of the story, the heroes do stop him and they go back to their future.

But I'm having troubles because I can't overlook the butterfly effect. To me, there is no way that all these characters could go back to the past and not have it affect what happens in the future. When they return to the future, things should logically be altered, but I don't think I want that to happen. Hence, I'm blocked from writing the story.

Any suggestions?

Have it so that before they go back in time the find some clue that says they go back in time, but they don't understand it. Then when they are back in time, they inadvertently leave that clue behind, thus showing that in the original version of things, they'd always gone back in time, as others have suggested.

 

[theenglish]

So the Germans were inevitably to become Nazis? I always knew the beaker people couldn't be trusted.

LOL! Something like Nazi's, but not necessarily called Nazi's. The persecution of the Jews may or may not have happened....but angry zealots tend to scapegoat some group or another as a way to rile up the base and make them feel as if they could just be rid of them, their lot in life would be easier.

Right. Remember that James Milgrim's experiment implies the conditions for such a thing are always present in the general population.

 

[The Lensman]

The idea is that they already exist, as in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I've heard two theories:

1. Traveling to the "past" is really just traveling to an alternate world...which seems to be what you're saying.

2. That changing an event **creates** an alternate universe....as in a new universe now exists where it did not before. Whether it's called "alternate universe" or "timeline", it's still a separate and entire universe that did not exist prior to the change.

The second one does not explain how an entire universe could come into existence by preventing two people from making Elvis or Edison.

The concepts are not the same.

And, again, they're referring to the semi-popular 'quantum mechanics' theory where every choice that has ever been made, ever will be made, and is being made automatically creates new universes. There's an incalculable number of them. You just happen to be in the one that's 'most probable.' And that one gets swapped every time you make a choice, including choosing to travel through time.

Again: Come up with a theory you like, then write about that. Don't sit around bemoaning how horrible time travel is because it's not 'realistic.' Of course it's not realistic, it's fucking time travel, and you have full control over any laws regarding it in your work of fiction. You can't be wrong. You're the one making the rules.

Oh I got the reference....I'm just saying that if it took the Big Bang to create *this* universe, and that's the prevailing theory of universe creation...then it's going to take more than just an action like turning left or right to create another, completely whole universe containing thousands of galaxies.

Or does it? (cue eerie music)

The whole thing "Quantum Mechanics" thing is enough to give one a big headache.

As for your last paragraph.....157% agreement. You are the god of your fictional world, it operates by whatever laws you want. So go crazy with it!

 

[Guy Gardener]

The universe is still expanding from the big bang.

Possibly all of these alternate timelines are still surfing on that same crest that began the first universe.

Of course this makes you wonder how the big crunch would limit the creation of further universes?

 

[Checkmate]

They're also not separate universes. "Universe" encompasses everything by the very definition of the word. They're simply different potential realities, with any one coming to the forefront based upon the choices/changes made.

It's like flipping a coin. About half the time it's going to come up heads. But when it comes up tails, that doesn't mean it's a different coin.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The word multiverse was invented a long time ago to define fields of tangled universes.

Uni means "one" not "all".

 

[Checkmate]

"The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists, including all space, time, matter, energy, planets, stars, galaxies, intergalactic space, and beyond."

Just because a handful of people in the last hundred years created a new word to try and distinguish their convoluted explanations, that doesn't negate that "universe" covers everything by default.

 

[The Lensman]

"The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists, including all space, time, matter, energy, planets, stars, galaxies, intergalactic space, and beyond."

Just because a handful of people in the last hundred years created a new word to try and distinguish their convoluted explanations, that doesn't negate that "universe" covers everything by default.

From the same Wikipedia page:

"The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists including all space, time, matter, energy, planets, stars, galaxies, intergalactic space, and beyond. Definitions and usage vary."

"commonly defined" not "The universe is defined as...."

And from lower on the page:

"It is possible to conceive of disconnected space-times, each existing but unable to interact with one another. An easily visualized metaphor is a group of separate soap bubbles, in which observers living on one soap bubble cannot interact with those on other soap bubbles, even in principle. According to one common terminology, each "soap bubble" of space-time is denoted as a universe, whereas our particular space-time is denoted as the universe, just as we call our moon the Moon. The entire collection of these separate space-times is denoted as the multiverse. In principle, the other unconnected universes may have different dimensionalities and topologies of space-time, different forms of matter and energy, and different physical laws and physical constants, although such possibilities are currently speculative"

The latter is the generally accepted usage in sci-fi fiction, and what is this thread about? A guy trying to write a story.