Time Travel Paradoxes and Terminator 2
Laurie Mann
in the past, that the future should be changed. This is an IDEA, it
is not a fact, but it has a curious type of logic.
Movies involving time travel handle this notion differently. SOMEWHERE IN
TIME, the filmed version of Matheson's BID TIME RETURN, had the hero
"think" his way back to about 1912 because he once received an antique
pocket watch from an old woman. When he gets to the past, the much younger
woman accidentally keeps the pocket watch. So the paradox is, in the
"original" time stream, where did the watch come from??
The first BACK TO THE FUTURE "made the case" for ONE time stream. It
included the odd device of people fading out of photographs or out of
reality, depending on what Marty did in 1955. However, the second BACK TO
THE FUTURE movie got wrapped up in the notion of alternate time streams.
The idea of jumping between alternate versions of history was very messy.
It didn't match the theory of time travel portrayed in the first movie
at all.
Terminator 2 has several major time travel paradoxes, but they are
all spoilers, so...
SPOILER ALERT:
I said in my review of T2 that Cameron missed a major philosophical
point---that if Sarah prevented the nuclear holocaust, she would have
"killed" off her son in the process. If the future was a more pleasant
place, Kyle Reese would never have been sent back save Sarah, and John
Connor should not have been conceived. A few posters have said I believe
this because of the BTTF version of time travel. Not at all. This notion
of history disruption certainly predates BTTF movies.
But there are other issues here. In T1, it looks like the Terminator and
Reese do not "change history." One could wonder about the cops and other
folks who were wasted, but Sarah survives the chaos. In T2, it looks like
history HAS been changed, because Dyson is killed and Cyberdyne is destroyed.
<>[The principle of] legal subordination of one sex to the
<>other--is wrong in itself...it ought to be replaced by a
<>principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or
<>privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other.
<>The Subjection of Women (1869), John Stuart Mill
*** Laurie Mann *** lmann%jjm...@m2c.m2c.org ***
*** NeXT Mail: lm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com ***
R o d Johnson
>A time travel paradox is the notion that if someone changes something
>in the past, that the future should be changed.
No, a time travel paradox is a situation in which, changing
something in the past leads to an inconsistent or paradoxical time
line--for instance, if changing the past leads to a present in which
the original time travel did not happen (killing one's grandfather),
or in which something exists without having come to exists (the old
"where did X come from" cliche).
"Paradox" is being more and more sloppily used. The butterfly-effect
story in Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder," for instance, is *not* a
paradox.
--
Rod Johnson * rjoh...@vela.acs.oakland.edu * (313) 650 2315
"Don't con me with your mind expansion slop!"
--Joe Friday
Brian Matthews
|all spoilers, so...
|SPOILER ALERT:
|I said in my review of T2 that Cameron missed a major philosophical
|point---that if Sarah prevented the nuclear holocaust, she would have
|"killed" off her son in the process.
How do we know Sarah prevented the nuclear holocaust? The only thing
we know is that Arnie told them that SkyNet had been created using
CyberDyne technology invented by the guy Sarah then tried to kill
(damn, can't remember his name.) We certainly have no proof that the
future changed, and there are a lot of explanations of why it didn't:
1. Arnie was wrong. I believe that Reese said in T1 that a lot of
records were destroyed, so maybe SkyNet thought CyberDyne had invented
the chip, but some independent company did.
2. Arnie was right, before the chips were destroyed. However, another
company could have been working on the chip, so with CyberDyne out of
the way, they invent it, which still leads to SkyNet. Remember, all of
the politicians and military people that actually used the chips to
build SkyNet are still around (possible T3 plot: remove the
politicians/generals responsible for SkyNet). Thus when the chips
are destroyed, the future *does* change - but the only thing that
changes is the record of the name of the inventor of the chip.
3. They were too late in destroying the chip. Presumably CyberDyne
has some smart sysadmins who make off-site backups :-). If CyberDyne
was far enough along in the development, the loss of the lab wouldn't be
much of a setback, so they go on to develop the chip, giving credit to
the guy who did most of the work. This scenario might be the most plausible
because there is some evidence in the movie that this happened.
|If the future was a more pleasant
|place, Kyle Reese would never have been sent back save Sarah, and John
|Connor should not have been conceived.
True, if you assume the future was a more pleasant place. We have no
direct evidence of this. In fact, John Connor not disappearing could
be considered evidence that the future didn't change, for whatever
reason.
|But there are other issues here. In T1, it looks like the Terminator and
|Reese do not "change history." One could wonder about the cops and other
|folks who were wasted, but Sarah survives the chaos. In T2, it looks like
|history HAS been changed, because Dyson is killed and Cyberdyne is destroyed.
But again, there's no actual evidence that the future has changed.
--
Brian L. Matthews b...@6sceng.UUCP
Brian Wright
How about that the future didn't change because a PART of the Terminator is
STILL left? Which one you ask? How about his arm? Oh, but it was tossed in
and destroyed you say. Yes, the FIRST movie arm WAS. The second movie ARM was
not. It still exists and is caught in the cog where it was pulled it off.
Because that arm exists, it is probable the future didn't change. Granted the
arm isn't the chip, but it is still quite advanced. Maybe enough so to study
and learn from (to make terminators).
Because of number three and the second arm, it could be conceivable that the
terminators will still exist and the future hasn't changed.
>|If the future was a more pleasant
>|place, Kyle Reese would never have been sent back save Sarah, and John
>|Connor should not have been conceived.
>
>True, if you assume the future was a more pleasant place. We have no
>direct evidence of this. In fact, John Connor not disappearing could
>be considered evidence that the future didn't change, for whatever
>reason.
The arm could be the reason that John didn't disappear.
>|But there are other issues here. In T1, it looks like the Terminator and
>|Reese do not "change history." One could wonder about the cops and other
>|folks who were wasted, but Sarah survives the chaos. In T2, it looks like
>|history HAS been changed, because Dyson is killed and Cyberdyne is destroyed.
>
>But again, there's no actual evidence that the future has changed.
Exactly, just suspicions that it won't happen on Sarah's part.
>--
>Brian L. Matthews b...@6sceng.UUCP
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Wright
wright%etsu...@ricevm1.rice.edu or wri...@etsuvax2.bitnet
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaimer... not my words and all that jazz.
Gaurang Hirpara
Well according to the book everything worked out just nicely.
but, that's just the book.
BOOK SPOILER:
john grows up to be a senator who opposes stuff like SkyNet.
--dan
Brian Matthews
|In article <46...@polari.UUCP>, 6si...@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes...
|How about that the future didn't change because a PART of the Terminator is
|STILL left? Which one you ask? How about his arm? Oh, but it was tossed in
|and destroyed you say. Yes, the FIRST movie arm WAS. The second movie ARM was
|not. It still exists and is caught in the cog where it was pulled it off.
Yes, I thought of this when I went to post, but forgot to include it.
You can argue about whether the future changed or not, but you can't
argue that there is a bit of Terminator still present.
Also, in T1, didn't the Terminator's legs get pulled off? As I recall,
it was pulling itself around using its arms when Sarah squashed it with
its arm sticking out, which CyberDyne has. It didn't look like
CyberDyne had the legs (at least they were never shown to us, and if
they were in the same vault as the arm and the chip, Miles Dyson
should have known about them). So where are they?
|Exactly, just suspicions that it won't happen on Sarah's part.
Right. Events led Sarah (and the audience) to believe that destroying
the chips would change the future. There's no real evidence that's
the case. In fact, John Connor not disappearing could be evidence
that the future didn't change.
Eddie McCreary
In article <10...@jjmhome.UUCP> lm...@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann) writes:
SPOILER ALERT:
I said in my review of T2 that Cameron missed a major philosophical
point---that if Sarah prevented the nuclear holocaust, she would have
"killed" off her son in the process. If the future was a more pleasant
place, Kyle Reese would never have been sent back save Sarah, and John
Connor should not have been conceived. A few posters have said I believe
this because of the BTTF version of time travel. Not at all. This notion
of history disruption certainly predates BTTF movies.
But there are other issues here. In T1, it looks like the Terminator and
Reese do not "change history." One could wonder about the cops and other
folks who were wasted, but Sarah survives the chaos. In T2, it looks like
history HAS been changed, because Dyson is killed and Cyberdyne is destroyed.
I agree that the two movies seem to imply different mechanisms for resolving
conflicts, but they are not necessarily mutually exlusive. The first
one, taken by itself, used a closed loop effect. SkyNet, by sending
the Terminator back, both caused Connor to be born and its own creation.
This could bring in problems of predestination, but that's rather nasty.
Reece mentions that he comes from "One possible future, I don't know
tech stuff." This implies a set of possible futures, where nothing is
set.
Many years ago, there was a thesis in physics which introduced the
many worlds theory of quantum mechanics. This was developed to
explain what happens when a quantum wave function collapses into
a particular state. We cannot predict this exactly, we can only
predict it in terms of probabilities. An example of this is whether
or not a radioactive nuclei will decay or not. We can say that after
a period of time half of them will have decayed, but we can't say
which particular ones will decay. The mamy worlds theory of
quantum mechanics says that for each collapse; two universes are
created, one in which the wave function collapsed, one in which it
did not.
This easily explains both movies. The events in T1 could have spawned
a new future, but one in which the main events relevent to the story
remained intact. (i.e. the creation of SkyNet and Judgment Day) Secondary
events could have been changed, i.e. which particular cops get killed
in the police station. In T2, more drastic effects occur, in which
SkyNet is now never created and disaster is averted. Of course,
we don't know that Judgment Day never occurs, all of the companies
I'm familiar with keep backups off-site just in case of natural
disaster. But, the future is now no longer certain. Sarah has
hope, and humanity has a chance.
Whoosh, that was rather a lot for me. Any errors should be assumed to
be the result of a tired mind and a bad memory.
--
Ed=McCreary%Eng=Eval-Rel%Eng=H...@bangate.compaq.com
or EMcC...@uh.edu ^== nasty, eh?
Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
Joseph Campbell
Subrata Sircar
>I said in my review of T2 that Cameron missed a major philosophical
>point---that if Sarah prevented the nuclear holocaust, she would have
>"killed" off her son in the process. If the future was a more pleasant
>place, Kyle Reese would never have been sent back save Sarah, and John
>Connor should not have been conceived. A few posters have said I believe
>this because of the BTTF version of time travel. Not at all. This notion
>of history disruption certainly predates BTTF movies.
I'm not sure that this is so; for example, consider THE PROTEUS MISSION, by
James Hogan. Exactly this sort of thing happens; people are sent back to
prevent the occupation of Europe by the Nazis and end up with our world,
rather than the world where the Nazis take over OR the world where all is
sweetness and light.
>But there are other issues here. In T1, it looks like the Terminator and
>Reese do not "change history." One could wonder about the cops and other
>folks who were wasted, but Sarah survives the chaos. In T2, it looks like
>history HAS been changed, because Dyson is killed and Cyberdyne is destroyed.
In fact, the case can be made (now) that without Terminator's CPU to jump-start
Cyberdyne, SkyNet doesn't come about. In other words, they have to send the
Terminator back because unless he gets wrecked in the past, they can't use his
CPU to design the CPU's for SkyNet ...
--
Subrata Sircar | sksi...@phoenix.princeton.edu |Prophet& SPAMIT Charter Member
I don't speak for Princeton, and they don't speak for me.
"May their souls rot in easy-listening hell!" - Johnny Melnibone, GRIMJACK #76
"I seem to suffer from irrelevant flashbacks." - Paul, PAUL THE SAMURAI #1
George McBay
>>|I said in my review of T2 that Cameron missed a major philosophical
>>|point---that if Sarah prevented the nuclear holocaust, she would have
>>|"killed" off her son in the process.
>>
>
Sorry I left so much in, but this is the current discussion on T2..
Now...For all the people arguing, its pointless, until I see a signed letter
from Cameron, I will believe that they did change the future, and SkyNet never
happened....The reason being, one of the subtle themes of the picture
was (To paraphrase..not sure the exact quote) "There is no fate
except what we make".....Now if they did all that and yet SkyNet happens
anyways, no matter what, and is impossible to stop....That goes against that
theme....
Randy Sopicki
Remember!!
Alternate timelines. Time is a river with many tributaries. They created a
new timeline. No war.
----
ProLine: rsopicki@pro-amber
Internet: rsop...@pro-amber.cts.com
UUCP: crash!pro-amber!rsopicki
ARPA: crash!pro-amber!rsop...@nosc.mil
Email Mujahideen
In article <46...@polari.UUCP> 6si...@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes:
+
+In article <7JUL91...@etsuv2.etsu.edu> wri...@etsuv2.etsu.edu writes:
+|In article <46...@polari.UUCP>, 6si...@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes...
+|>How do we know Sarah prevented the nuclear holocaust? [...]
+|How about that the future didn't change because a PART of the Terminator is
+|STILL left? Which one you ask? How about his arm? Oh, but it was tossed in
+|and destroyed you say. Yes, the FIRST movie arm WAS. The second movie ARM was
+|not. It still exists and is caught in the cog where it was pulled it off.
+
+Yes, I thought of this when I went to post, but forgot to include it.
+You can argue about whether the future changed or not, but you can't
+argue that there is a bit of Terminator still present.
+
+Also, in T1, didn't the Terminator's legs get pulled off? As I recall,
+it was pulling itself around using its arms when Sarah squashed it with
+its arm sticking out, which CyberDyne has. It didn't look like
+CyberDyne had the legs (at least they were never shown to us, and if
+they were in the same vault as the arm and the chip, Miles Dyson
+should have known about them). So where are they?
According to the book for T1, the two guys who left the robotics
company to found Cyberdyne, took the chip only. Presumably they
would only have a short time to pick up something and stash it
under their coats before the cops cordoned off the area. The T1
legs were in a different part of the factory than the rest of the
body.
--
Robert Allen, r...@sun.com DISCLAIMER: I said it, not my company.
"Traditionalists often study what is taught, not what there is to create."
- Ed Parker, Grandmaster, American Kenpo.
Brian Matthews
|Now if they did all that and yet SkyNet happens
|anyways, no matter what, and is impossible to stop....That goes against that
|theme....
I didn't say SkyNet is impossible to stop, just that they didn't happen
to do it in T2.
Ken Richards
>In-Reply-To: message from 6si...@polari.UUCP
>Remember!!
>Alternate timelines. Time is a river with many tributaries. They created a
>new timeline. No war.
>----
Fine, but then why bother sending a terminator back to kill John if at best
it would merely create a new timeline? The Skynet from the timeline that sent the
terminator would see no benefit from its actions. If you take the alternate timeline
approach, changing the past is pointless because it will affect your timeline not one bit.
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Ken Richards | lauto!ke...@cse.ogi.edu
Logic Automation | or
| ...!uunet!sequent!lauto!kenr
Brian Matthews
In article <16...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> r...@batcomfs.Eng.Sun.COM (Email Mujahideen) writes:
| According to the book for T1, the two guys who left the robotics
| company to found Cyberdyne, took the chip only. Presumably they
| would only have a short time to pick up something and stash it
| under their coats before the cops cordoned off the area. The T1
| legs were in a different part of the factory than the rest of the
| body.
Which brings up the question, where did they get the arm? But it does
confirm my thought that there are other Terminator parts present - its
legs.
James Davis Nicoll
>rsop...@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki) writes:
>
>>Remember!!
>>Alternate timelines. Time is a river with many tributaries. They created a
>>new timeline. No war.
>
>it would merely create a new timeline? The Skynet from the timeline that sent the
>terminator would see no benefit from its actions. If you take the alternate timeline
>approach, changing the past is pointless because it will affect your timeline not one bit.
That particular Skynet would not benefit, but since it was
probably pooched, why not invest some effort helping to increase the
number of timelines on whixh Skynet wins? Just because a tinkering with
the past has several possible outcomes doesn't mean each outcome has the
same probablity, and perhaps Skynet's activity leads to a high proportion
of Skynet dominated timelines.
James Nicoll
Doug Krause
Blown off by one of Reese's pipe bombs.
Douglas Krause One yuppie can ruin your whole day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California, Irvine Internet: dkr...@orion.oac.uci.edu
Welcome to Irvine: Yuppieland USA BITNET: DJKr...@uci.edu
Brian Hilchie
>Now...For all the people arguing, its pointless, until I see a signed letter
>from Cameron, I will believe that they did change the future, and SkyNet
>never happened....
I don't care what Cameron says. I don't care what the book says.
I don't care what the scenes that were shot but left on the cutting
room floor say. The film as released does not leave out the possibility
that the future remains unchanged and if the producers (with or
without Cameron) want to make another sequel on this basis there
would be no conflict with T2.
--
Brian Hilchie | "If God is everywhere,
br...@alzabo.ocunix.on.ca | is he in the toilet?"
Ferenc Szabo
>
>
>
>I said in my review of T2 that Cameron missed a major philosophical
>point---that if Sarah prevented the nuclear holocaust, she would have
>"killed" off her son in the process. If the future was a more pleasant
>place, Kyle Reese would never have been sent back save Sarah, and John
>Connor should not have been conceived. A few posters have said I believe
>this because of the BTTF version of time travel. Not at all. This notion
>of history disruption certainly predates BTTF movies.
>
>But there are other issues here. In T1, it looks like the Terminator and
>Reese do not "change history." One could wonder about the cops and other
>folks who were wasted, but Sarah survives the chaos. In T2, it looks like
>history HAS been changed, because Dyson is killed and Cyberdyne is destroyed.
>
ferenc
Frank Boosman
> >|But there are other issues here. In T1, it looks like the Terminator and
> >|Reese do not "change history." One could wonder about the cops and other
> >|folks who were wasted, but Sarah survives the chaos. In T2, it looks like
> >|history HAS been changed, because Dyson is killed and Cyberdyne is destroyed.
> >
> >But again, there's no actual evidence that the future has changed.
>
> Exactly, just suspicions that it won't happen on Sarah's part.
After seeing the movie the second time, my wife and I both had the same
reaction: it would have been interesting if, when the T-101 disappeared
in the molten steel, the scene shifted to a Denny's in Los Angeles. We
would see Sarah Connor working as a waitress (or the manager, perhaps),
and none of the events of either movie ever really "happened." (This is
similar to the "Yesterday's Enterprise" episode of ST:TNG.)
Of course, Cameron couldn't do this for the simple reason that audiences
would have stormed out of theaters in anger. At least I think I would have
felt cheated. But it's an interesting idea to mull over nonetheless...
-- Frank Boosman
Adobe Systems, Inc.
Mountain View, CA
boo...@adobe.com
Wayne Throop
> A time travel paradox is the notion that if someone changes something
> in the past, that the future should be changed.
I'd say it's more narrow. To be a paradox, the change in the future
should be of such a nature that it precludes the events leading to
making the change in the first place. And remember, from Heinlein's
_All_You_Zombies_, (and copied into _Number_of_The_Beast_ (I think))
"Any paradox can be paradoctored"... upon which more later.
SPOILER IN NEXT PARAGRAPH
As an aside to other elements of this thread, several people have said
they found it obvious that "as soon as" the problematical chips were
melted, the terminator "should" "instantly" disappear. But it seems to
me that just a moment's reflection on what might be meant by "instantly"
or "as soon as" (or whatever words used to imply simultenaity) in this
context would show that it just isn't that simple.
Often, the Back to the Future model of time-travel is trotted out to
compare here. Note that the BTTF model is a remarkably poor and ill
thought out model as such things go. So remarkably poor that I'm
motivated to remark upon it.
> The first BACK TO THE FUTURE "made the case" for ONE time stream.
Yes, and yet at the same time originated the "second marty" problem,
and why didn't Marty's memories adjust to conform to "his" "new"
history? Yes, yes, endless excuses can be made: since he was in
the time machine he was exempt, or he was a "causal nexus" or
whatever doubletalk. But the point is, that even in the first BTTF,
taken all by itself, the time travel model is ill thought out.
> However, the second BACK TO
> THE FUTURE movie got wrapped up in the notion of alternate time streams.
Which, as Laurie points out, doesn't match the first movie well at all.
And it isn't even stuck to very well in and of itself.
> SPOILER ALERT:
Ditto.
> In T1, it looks like the Terminator and
> Reese do not "change history." One could wonder about the cops and other
> folks who were wasted, but Sarah survives the chaos. In T2, it looks like
> history HAS been changed, because Dyson is killed and Cyberdyne is destroyed.
Like BTTF, I think the time travel model was changed between movies.
The first movie takes the "big static 4-dimensional tinker-toy"
fatalistic "history can't be changed" model. The second movie pretty
strongly takes up on Reese's comment about all that "tech stuff" in
the first movie, and lands on the side of an "alternate timestream"
"all the myriad ways" "multiverse" model.
In fact, I've read interviews (while standing in line at a Drug store
buying greeting cards, of all places) with Cameron which indicate that
this apparent shift was intentional on his part, and that he wanted to
reinforce the non-predestination our-future-is-what-we-make-it
message. Based on what I've seen and read, I'd say that, in Cameron's
mind at least, The War has been averted, the 3 billions have been saved.
Now, what particular model of time-travel is the second movie using?
I'd say the most explicit exposition of this model is in James Hogan's
_Thrice_Upon_a_Time_. A very similar model is also in David Gerrold's
_The_Man_Who_Folded_Himself_. These models have the feature that
1) they can easily appear to be the 4-d-static-tinkertoy-unchangeable
model, and 2) they both allow for "orphaned causes".
One thing to note about these and other such models, is they all seem to
introduce the notion of some sort of meta-time in which versions of a
timestream occur "before" and "after" each other. Another such model
that has the notion of meta-time more explicitly is Asimov's
_The_End_of_Eternity_. I've often wondered why nobody (as far as I
know) has taken this further, and wondered about traveling in the
meta-time, and the meta-meta-time and so on. (This infinite regress
is about the only problematical feature of such models... I consider
this group of models to be the best thought out (besides the static
one, that is).)
Quickly reviewing some questions others have raised.
Did saving the world imply having John Connor disappear in a puff of
logic? No, this would require a BTTF marty-and-the-fading-photograph
model, which is pretty clearly not what they are using. John Connor is
an effect of an orphaned cause. _The_Man_Who_Folded_Himself_ has the
most complete discussion I know of of such things.
Were the 3 billion "really" saved or do they "still" die in the
"original" time stream? They were really, most sincerely, saved.
See _Thrice_Upon_a_Time_ for the most thorough discussion of *this*
effect I know of. The model in Niven's _All_the_Myriad_Ways_ is
slightly different, and takes the opposite view.
But the model I see as most likely, the _Thrice_Upon_a_Time_,
_The_Man_Who_Folded_Himself_, or _End_of_Eternity_ model has one nasty
philosophical "feature" to it. It *does* include the "butterfly"
effect, such that a returning traveler can find their universe
irretreivably destroyed. There is no "alternate timeline" to go back
to. All those changes just *are*. The most you can do is try to come
up with an inverse change that is close, and the longer the butterfly
effect propogates, the more difficult this is. As is also addressed
in Zelazny's _Roadmarks_.
As this relates to T2, I'd say that the first time-tamper *reinforced*
the apocalyptic future, introducing what had potential of becoming
a self-reinforcing loop-like structure. The second movie (seemingly)
has broken this loop. Only the future (and Cameron) knows for sure.
And finally, no mention of time travel in SF would be complete without
urging everybody to read Niven's _The_Theory_And_Practice_of_Time_Travel_,
collected in (I think... I'll be corrected if I'm wrong) the _All_the_Myrid_
_Ways_ collection, along with _Man_of_Steel_Woman_of_Kleenex_ and other
such classics.
You know what? I really tend to dislike time travel stories.
Something like this makes me realize how pervasive such things are in SF.
Sigh.
--
Wayne Throop ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Laurana Bailey
| Terminator 2 has several major time travel paradoxes, but they are
| all spoilers, so...
|
| SPOILER ALERT:
|
|
| I said in my review of T2 that Cameron missed a major philosophical
| point---that if Sarah prevented the nuclear holocaust, she would have
| "killed" off her son in the process. If the future was a more pleasant
| place, Kyle Reese would never have been sent back save Sarah, and John
| Connor should not have been conceived. A few posters have said I believe
| this because of the BTTF version of time travel. Not at all. This notion
| of history disruption certainly predates BTTF movies.
|
| But there are other issues here. In T1, it looks like the Terminator and
| Reese do not "change history." One could wonder about the cops and other
| folks who were wasted, but Sarah survives the chaos. In T2, it looks like
| history HAS been changed, because Dyson is killed and Cyberdyne is destroyed.
Cameron explained in one of his interviews on the movie how he had
decided to handle time paradoxes. Ready? He said, "I ignore them."
Not very logical, but it save a lot of time trying to explain things.
Laurana
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|Just another lemming... | Yet another Amiga maniac set loose |
| | on the world...and you thought things|
|lmba...@vela.acs.oakland.edu | couldn't get any worse. |
Laurana Bailey
and not one mention of the classic show Doctor Who.
Okay, okay, I admit that the show Doctor Who has broken several of
it's own rules in the last 25 years it has been on the air, but I'm
such a big fan that I had to at LEAST mention it. ;-)
James Wiggs
Most of the Terminator's body was blown into pieces that were pretty
mundane-looking: hydraulic pistons, gears, etc. There was a flash of an
almost-intact foot falling onto the catwalk right after the explosion.
The arm was probably the only piece of the Terminator that was almost
completely undamaged--because it was still reaching for Sarah Connor
from inside the hydraulic press when she finally found the button to
push. Seen that movie at least 15 times, and I *still* feel a thrill
when she finds the button and sneers: "You're terminated, f*cker!"
and slams that button with an audible grunt.
>Brian L. Matthews b...@6sceng.UUCP
James Wiggs
wi...@chemc2.chem.washington.edu _or_ wi...@milton.u.washington.edu
#include <std.disclaimer>
"Definitely you." - John Connor
Ian Brown
In article <1991Jul8.1...@cabezon.uucp> ke...@cabezon.uucp (Ken Richards) writes:
>
>>In-Reply-To: message from 6si...@polari.UUCP
>
>>Remember!!
>>Alternate timelines. Time is a river with many tributaries. They created a
>>new timeline. No war.
>>----
>
>Fine, but then why bother sending a terminator back to kill John if at best
>it would merely create a new timeline? The Skynet from the timeline that sent the
>terminator would see no benefit from its actions. If you take the alternate timeline
>approach, changing the past is pointless because it will affect your timeline not one bit.
In a sense, even with a single timeline, you really can't change it, at least,
not in a noticible way, from your perspective. The 'you' in the changed line
will not be the same 'you' as the original, because of the change (ie. I very
much doubt that the new 'you' would remember being defeated and desperately
trying to change things.)
Since the current 'you' won't experience the change, it makes no difference
whether you have a single timeline or not; either way, the current 'you' has
lost the war. However, you can change it so that another 'you', in the same,
or in another, timeline can win. This would seem better than knowing that you
have lost and did nothing about it.
In fact, with multiple timelines, it might be *necessary* for you to attempt to
change the past to *cause* those other timelines to come into being.
System Administrator
I don't want to not pick but weren't the legs of the Terminator in T1 blown
off when Reese put the last plastique bomb in its body??
Doug Fierro
>In a sense, even with a single timeline, you really can't change it, at least,
>not in a noticible way, from your perspective. The 'you' in the changed line
>will not be the same 'you' as the original, because of the change (ie. I very
>much doubt that the new 'you' would remember being defeated and desperately
>trying to change things.)
This seems logical; it's all a matter of your *current* perspective.
>
>Since the current 'you' won't experience the change, it makes no difference
>whether you have a single timeline or not; either way, the current 'you' has
>lost the war. However, you can change it so that another 'you', in the same,
>or in another, timeline can win. This would seem better than knowing that you
>have lost and did nothing about it.
But then the big question is, if you can send someone back to your past
and change events that affect your current existence, do you just dissappear
or do you not notice anything different? With alternate timelines, I would
guess you would never know if you were sucessful or not. With just one
timeline, if you are successful then you have no recollection of a nuclear
holocaust, because it never happened (I know that's hard to swallow). Only
a timetraveler would know what happened.
Doug
--
Doug Fierro
|\ UTS System Software
O __________|_\______ CASE tools development
\_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */ fie...@uts.amdahl.com
__\____ |=================/ (408)746-7102
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doug Fierro
>is not a fact, but it has a curious type of logic.
>
as Einstein once said, it is all relative...
>Terminator 2 has several major time travel paradoxes, but they are
>all spoilers, so...
>
>SPOILER ALERT:
>
>
wouldln't want to let the control-l slip by :-)
>
>I said in my review of T2 that Cameron missed a major philosophical
>point---that if Sarah prevented the nuclear holocaust, she would have
>"killed" off her son in the process. If the future was a more pleasant
>place, Kyle Reese would never have been sent back save Sarah, and John
>Connor should not have been conceived. A few posters have said I believe
>this because of the BTTF version of time travel. Not at all. This notion
>of history disruption certainly predates BTTF movies.
So we are going on the assumption here that there is one timeline. It's
important to state the assumptions before discussing a theory, especially
with something as complicated as time travel.
Even so, John would not have been "killed off" when the chip is thrown
in the molten steel pit, because he is right there. Who was his father?
Kyle. When was John conceived? 1984. That's all you need to know- John
is alive and well and his existence is established.
The real question is Reese's existence in 1984. He came from 2037 or
some date in the future. But if the war was prevented, then there is
no time machine or "great warrior" to send Reese back (I'm assuming that
Skynet made the time machine, but that part is irrelevant here). But
because Reese is a time traveler, he escapes the existence he left (which
was eventually "erased" by the events in T2, assuming a single timeline).
Reese's parents probably have not been married yet in 1995, but there he is.
Paradox? It depends how you define a paradox. Maybe if you can time travel,
it is possible to be alive even if your parents aren't born yet; therfore
there is no paradox. You can argue "Where did Reese come from in 1984?",
and an accepted answer would be "from an existence that was erased" due to
time travel. So in fact it would be possible with time travel to have
hundreds of "orphaned" people, and it would not be considerd a paradox, just
a side-effect of time. (Now when you start bringing objects back to the
past, you start to break some laws of physics, but that is another argument.)
The idea with a paradox is that something that is self-contradictory exists,
but if you accept time travel as something that is possible, then things you
might have considered a paradox are now possible. I think it would have been
a greater paradox if John simply disappeared into thin air- where did his
matter go?
So to sum it up, there is no "history disruption" because you are
creating history itself. The old existence simply does not exist anymore,
so there is nothing to disrupt. The only person who would notice this
'disruption' is Kyle. In fact, you could argue that here in 1991, our
existence was made possible by a time traveler who changed events in
1944, but no one here on earth would be aware of it. It all depends
on your relevant point of view in time.
>
>But there are other issues here. In T1, it looks like the Terminator and
>Reese do not "change history." One could wonder about the cops and other
>folks who were wasted, but Sarah survives the chaos.
Indeed, in T1 the idea was to prevent Skynet from changing history, since
the rebels won, according to Reese. But with all the people killed in T1,
it would be hard to believe that the future was not changed- with 30 or
more people killed, what are the chances that they or their offspring did
not contribute something significant to society (good or bad)?
>In T2, it looks like
>history HAS been changed, because Dyson is killed and Cyberdyne is destroyed.
Correct, but now (again assuming one timeline) the war and skynet
did not exist, so the only people who observe something being changed
are the time travelers themselves. Sarah knows that the future is
changed but only through the knowledge of other time travelers.
hope this hasn't bored or overwhelmed anyone!
Synth F. Oberheim
>>SPOILER ALERT:
>>
> Even so, John would not have been "killed off" when the chip is thrown
>in the molten steel pit, because he is right there. Who was his father?
>Kyle. When was John conceived? 1984. That's all you need to know- John
>is alive and well and his existence is established.
[The following deals with the Single Timeline theory, so take it with
a grain of salt, all you Parallel Universers ...]
Is this really all we need to know? It seems that you're addressing the
past here the way we all address it in our linear-time perception -- as
"once something happens and becomes the past, we don't have to worry
about it -- it's said and done, and unimportant." This is fine for all
of us here, who live out our lives forever moving away from the past,
because we *don't* deal with it anymore, and it doesn't affect us anymore.
But in T2, the past should theoretically affect the present, because events
in the past are changed. In T2, the past is a direct result of the future;
the future *causes* the past, and since the future can be changed, the past
will be affected by it. (What I'm referring to, of course, is Reese causing
the conception of John Connor, and Arnie causing the inception of SkyNet and
Judgment Day). Because Sarah stepped in and halted the creation of SkyNet,
she also eliminated the reason for Reese and Arnie-1 going through time to
1984. A parallel universe theory would account for John's continued existence,
but a single timeline theory says that not just the future, but the *past*
and the present, would be changed.
>The real question is Reese's existence in 1984. He came from 2037 or
>some date in the future. But if the war was prevented, then there is
>no time machine or "great warrior" to send Reese back (I'm assuming that
>Skynet made the time machine, but that part is irrelevant here). But
>because Reese is a time traveler, he escapes the existence he left (which
>was eventually "erased" by the events in T2, assuming a single timeline).
Interesting. Notice how this idea is more exclusively BackToTheFuturean
than just the concept of a single, changing timeline. (^ sorry about the
awkward adjective, folks :-). But if we instead analyze this from pure
"cause-and-effect", Reese would never have appeared in 1984 if he had
never stepped into a time machine in 2027. I'm clinging to cause-and-
effect and a Single Timeline because this is what the first movie
subscribed to.
>Reese's parents probably have not been married yet in 1995, but there he is.
>Paradox? It depends how you define a paradox. Maybe if you can time travel,
>it is possible to be alive even if your parents aren't born yet; therfore
>there is no paradox. You can argue "Where did Reese come from in 1984?",
>and an accepted answer would be "from an existence that was erased" due to
>time travel. So in fact it would be possible with time travel to have
>hundreds of "orphaned" people, and it would not be considerd a paradox, just
>a side-effect of time.
Again, a good argument.
>(Now when you start bringing objects back to the
>past, you start to break some laws of physics, but that is another argument.)
Laws of physics are already being broken from having just *people* jump around
in time, so ... definitely another argument. :-)
>The idea with a paradox is that something that is self-contradictory exists,
>but if you accept time travel as something that is possible, then things you
>might have considered a paradox are now possible. I think it would have been
>a greater paradox if John simply disappeared into thin air- where did his
>matter go?
You could conceivably go back to John's conception (now John's NON-conception)
and trace where the matter in Sarah, that led to John's development, went
instead. (Any biologists out there?) Instead, the matter may have been
burned up as calories, excreted, any number of things. When events would
be changed, we'd find that the matter (that would have been John) would be
scattered to the four winds, so to speak. But the matter wouldn't "cease
to exist" -- it would still be accounted for.
>>But there are other issues here. In T1, it looks like the Terminator and
>>Reese do not "change history." One could wonder about the cops and other
>>folks who were wasted, but Sarah survives the chaos.
>
> Indeed, in T1 the idea was to prevent Skynet from changing history, since
>the rebels won, according to Reese. But with all the people killed in T1,
>it would be hard to believe that the future was not changed- with 30 or
>more people killed, what are the chances that they or their offspring did
>not contribute something significant to society (good or bad)?
No, T1 suggests that all the events we saw, including the massacre of the
policemen, *always did* happen that way -- the appearance of Reese and Arnie
in 1984 was a part of the natural course of history, and not an abnormal
occurence that disrupts a previous timeline. Why? Because the movie
strongly suggests that it was always Arnie and Reese that were responsible
for SkyNet and Judgment Day. I've referred to this before as a closed
loop. In the Single Timeline theory, this fits in quite plausibly.
===============================================================================
:: :: :: :: :: Synth sy...@euler.unm.edu "Howls of derisive
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: (F. Oberheim) sy...@yenta.alb.nm.us laughter, Bruce!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire your boss! Get out of the rat race forever. Call 24hr msg (505) 764-0621
===============================================================================
I'm a sweet little cupcake -- BAKED BY THE DEVIL!
Doug Fierro
>In article <10...@jjmhome.UUCP> lm...@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann) writes:
>
>>A time travel paradox is the notion that if someone changes something
>>in the past, that the future should be changed.
>
>something in the past leads to an inconsistent or paradoxical time
Well, actually that's not right either. You don't have to change an
event for a Paradox to exist- Example: Bring the U.S. Constitution from
the year 2000 back to 1950. Two exact copies of the document now exist in
1950, with the same molecular composition. Are you creating matter- and
hence violationing the conservation of mass/energy laws- when you transport
an object back to the past? --> Paradox.
>"Paradox" is being more and more sloppily used.
I would agree. We have to define what we mean by paradox before analyzing
time travel.
Bronis Vidugiris
)No, T1 suggests that all the events we saw, including the massacre of the
)policemen, *always did* happen that way -- the appearance of Reese and Arnie
)in 1984 was a part of the natural course of history, and not an abnormal
)occurence that disrupts a previous timeline. Why? Because the movie
)strongly suggests that it was always Arnie and Reese that were responsible
)for SkyNet and Judgment Day. I've referred to this before as a closed
)loop. In the Single Timeline theory, this fits in quite plausibly.
The biggest thing about T1 that illustrates it's 'hand of destiny' point
of view, is, IMO, the picture of Sarah Connor taken at the end - the very
same picture we see Reese with.
--
* Disclaimer *
This posting (probably) represents what the NNTP socket was told, but it
isn't representative of Company Policy or Opinion.
Brad Templeton
(Spoliers)
T1 fit well with the deterministic scheme of time travel, but of course T2
got rid of that idea by having Sarah blow up Cyberdyne.
But even worse, they showed that SkyNet was its own father, and that doesn't
fit well with any of the consistent theories of time travel.
SkyNet, we presume, knew its history. It is a stretch to claim that it
was unaware -- or could not figure out -- that it was based on chips from
the crushed Arnold of Terminator 1.
But that's a problem, because that requires that you take the deterministic
theory of time travel -- you always went back in time and did this and you
always will -- loops are possible but they are closed, no jumps in the middle,
no killing your grandfather and erasing the future.
But of course Skynet puts into effect actions that cause its grandfather to
be killed. (A nice Irony, in T1, Skynet sends a terminator to kill Conner's
mother before he was born, in T2, Conner sends back a terminator that ends up
helping kill Skynet's father before it is born)
So once again, like in BTTF, we have time travel that breaks the "rules" of
consistent time travel. Still liked the movie, though
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
Venus Flytrap
>So once again, like in BTTF, we have time travel that breaks the "rules" of
>consistent time travel. Still liked the movie, though
>--
>Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
How can you break the rules of time travel when we don't even know if it is
possible and if it is possible how it works. I think time travel movies differ
because there is no right or wrong answer. At least not yet :^)
Bryan Lepine
umle...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
James Davis Nicoll
>In <1991Jul23.1...@looking.on.ca> br...@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>>So once again, like in BTTF, we have time travel that breaks the "rules" of
>>consistent time travel. Still liked the movie, though
>
>possible and if it is possible how it works. I think time travel movies differ
>because there is no right or wrong answer. At least not yet :^)
Try 'man timetravel'.
Seriously, I think Brad meant the time travel as shown in T1 & T2
did not follow an internally consistant set of rules (It set some rules
up, and then broke them).
James Nicoll
Brad Templeton
used in Terminator and we'll find the error.
There are two primary schools of consistent time travel. In consistent time
travel, when everything settles down, there are no discontinuities, except
for the exit and entry paths of time travel itself.
Note that all methods of time travel, except the deterministic style, involve
at least two time dimensions. Normal time, as experienced by us, and t', the
dimension in which time travel takes place. Ie. there was a t' before you
went back in time and changed reality and a t' after you did this.
Some of the consistent theories:
a) Deterministic -- all follows a set plan. You went back in time and you
always did and always will. While back in time (or in the present) you
follow the path of destiny, it can't be changed. In theory a discontinuity
is consistent with this time of time travel, but then you have an
inconsistent universe.
b) Change your own past, change your present (with possible delay)
b1) If you make a change that causes a discontinuity/paradox, you
vanish and your travel is undone, or you simply can't make such
changes (fate conspires to stop you)
b2) You can make such changes (such as killing your grandpa) but
they take a while to be propagated forward, so you have a chance to
undo them. If you don't, poof.
b3) You can make such changes, erasing the world you came from, but
you continue to exist because you're back in time. I consider this
an inconsistent scheme because it leaves you there as a causeless
discontinuity.
c) Change the past, create an alternate time-track
You don't change the world you came from, you create another one, possibly
barring you from returning to your original, possibly not. Both (or many)
continue on. In one SF story, you created an alternate world for yourself
only by going back in time, the rest of the universe ticked on. (The
protagonist faded away to a ghost)
d) Cause and effect abandoned
This is inconsistent TT. There's a lot of it, although much of the
classic TT, such as "by his boostraps" is actually deterministic TT.
e) My personal scheme
Someday, if I get the guts, I'll write an SF story based on it.
Terminator 2 is of type B3, an inconsistent type. Skynet created itself,
a Skynet created Terminator helped destroy Cyberdyne.
BTTF mixes B2 and type C, and they don't really mix.
Doug Fierro
>In article <1991Jul23....@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umle...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Venus Flytrap) writes:
>>
>>>So once again, like in BTTF, we have time travel that breaks the "rules" of
>>>consistent time travel. Still liked the movie, though
I HATE it when BTTF is referenced when discussing any type of time travel
theory...
>>
>>How can you break the rules of time travel when we don't even know if it is
>>possible and if it is possible how it works. I think time travel movies differ
>>because there is no right or wrong answer. At least not yet :^)
>
> Try 'man timetravel'.
>
> Seriously, I think Brad meant the time travel as shown in T1 & T2
>did not follow an internally consistant set of rules (It set some rules
>up, and then broke them).
Well, I didn't see any rules broken, given the assumptions of time travel
to begin with. If you could be specific on which rules it set up and then
broke, I'd be glad to debate it with you :-)
I think it held up pretty well, although the movie did make some subtle
mistakes. Just wanted to see what you spotted.
Joseph Majeske
Doug Fierro
>
>>>SPOILER ALERT:
>>>
>
>> Even so, John would not have been "killed off" when the chip is thrown
>>in the molten steel pit, because he is right there. Who was his father?
>>Kyle. When was John conceived? 1984. That's all you need to know- John
>>is alive and well and his existence is established.
>
>[The following deals with the Single Timeline theory, so take it with
>a grain of salt, all you Parallel Universers ...]
>
>Is this really all we need to know? It seems that you're addressing the
>past here the way we all address it in our linear-time perception -- as
>"once something happens and becomes the past, we don't have to worry
>about it -- it's said and done, and unimportant." This is fine for all
>of us here, who live out our lives forever moving away from the past,
>because we *don't* deal with it anymore, and it doesn't affect us anymore.
Well, I was originally trying to explain why John does not go "poof" and
vanish once the CPU chips are destroyed. Because Reese was in the T2 timeline,
John exists. If Reese was killed BEFORE conception w/ Sarah (lucky dog :-)),
John Connor would not have existed at all, unless Sarah found another father.
>
>But in T2, the past should theoretically affect the present, because events
>in the past are changed. In T2, the past is a direct result of the future;
>the future *causes* the past, and since the future can be changed, the past
>will be affected by it. (What I'm referring to, of course, is Reese causing
>the conception of John Connor, and Arnie causing the inception of SkyNet and
>Judgment Day). Because Sarah stepped in and halted the creation of SkyNet,
>she also eliminated the reason for Reese and Arnie-1 going through time to
>1984. A parallel universe theory would account for John's continued existence,
>but a single timeline theory says that not just the future, but the *past*
>and the present, would be changed.
The past would only be changed at the point of entry of a time traveler,
so when Reese showed up in 1984, everything following that had the POSSIBILITY
of being changed, but every thing before 1984 remains as it was. If a
timetraveler did not have contact with anyone and did not alter any past
events, then the existence from whence he came from will still happen exactly
the same way again.
>
>>The real question is Reese's existence in 1984. He came from 2037 or
>>some date in the future. But if the war was prevented, then there is
>>no time machine or "great warrior" to send Reese back (I'm assuming that
>>Skynet made the time machine, but that part is irrelevant here). But
>>because Reese is a time traveler, he escapes the existence he left (which
>>was eventually "erased" by the events in T2, assuming a single timeline).
>
>Interesting. Notice how this idea is more exclusively BackToTheFuturean
>than just the concept of a single, changing timeline. (^ sorry about the
>awkward adjective, folks :-). But if we instead analyze this from pure
>"cause-and-effect", Reese would never have appeared in 1984 if he had
>never stepped into a time machine in 2027. I'm clinging to cause-and-
>effect and a Single Timeline because this is what the first movie
>subscribed to.
I don't see why you make this assumption- sort of the deterministic theory-
that it has always happened and always will happen- That Reese will always
go back in time no matter what the existence currently is. I don't think
the movie "subscribed" to this theory.
>
>>Reese's parents probably have not been married yet in 1995, but there he is.
>>Paradox? It depends how you define a paradox. Maybe if you can time travel,
[...]
>>a greater paradox if John simply disappeared into thin air- where did his
>>matter go?
>
>You could conceivably go back to John's conception (now John's NON-conception)
>and trace where the matter in Sarah, that led to John's development, went
>instead. (Any biologists out there?) Instead, the matter may have been
>burned up as calories, excreted, any number of things. When events would
>be changed, we'd find that the matter (that would have been John) would be
>scattered to the four winds, so to speak. But the matter wouldn't "cease
>to exist" -- it would still be accounted for.
This is introducing "magic"- which doesn't hold up well on its own.
If you can come up with a physical event that is possible in our existence
that could happen to John Connor in the steel mill, I might be able to believe
it. But I'm not aware of matter suddenly burning up as calories, excreted,
or "scattered to the four winds" without some kind of direct physical cause-
effect (i.e., setting John on fire or something like that). It is possible to
do this with matter, but the only abnormal human phenomenon I've heard about
that might destroy people is spontaneous human-combustion, and I'm not even
sure if this is a rumor or not.
>
>>>But there are other issues here. In T1, it looks like the Terminator and
>>>Reese do not "change history." One could wonder about the cops and other
>>>folks who were wasted, but Sarah survives the chaos.
>>
>> Indeed, in T1 the idea was to prevent Skynet from changing history, since
>>the rebels won, according to Reese. But with all the people killed in T1,
>>it would be hard to believe that the future was not changed- with 30 or
>>more people killed, what are the chances that they or their offspring did
>>not contribute something significant to society (good or bad)?
>
>No, T1 suggests that all the events we saw, including the massacre of the
>policemen, *always did* happen that way -- the appearance of Reese and Arnie
Hold on a sec; you are assuming a deterministic approach again- and I don't
think this is what the movie had in mind at all. Case in point- the existence
in which Reese was from BEFORE he was sent back to 1984. Are you trying to
say that all those cops were slain in the police station even in the 1984 of
Reese's original existence? I don't think so, since there was no such thing
as a terminator in that existence until after the nulcear war. I'm assuming
here that no time travel ever took place before Reese's existence.
I'm glad to get you thinking here, Synth. If you need me to expand any
of these ideas, just give a holler. The idea of a 'time-loop' does not
hold up under the T1-T2 storyline. For a terminator to always be sent back
in time to kill people, you always have to have a time machine in each
existence to transport it (single-universe assumption here). I think in the T2
timeline, there is no time machine present, at least in the 21st century,
since Skynet has been erased due to the efforts of both Sarah and John Connor
(when he becomes a Senator later on, he fights the Skynet bill). So the cycle
of sending terminators back is stopped in the T2 timeline- no more can go back
if there is no master computer like Skynet in existence.
Synth F. Oberheim
>>Judgment Day). Because Sarah stepped in and halted the creation of SkyNet,
>>she also eliminated the reason for Reese and Arnie-1 going through time to
>>1984. A parallel universe theory would account for John's continued existence,
>>but a single timeline theory says that not just the future, but the *past*
>>and the present, would be changed.
>
> The past would only be changed at the point of entry of a time traveler,
>so when Reese showed up in 1984, everything following that had the POSSIBILITY
>of being changed, but every thing before 1984 remains as it was. If a
>timetraveler did not have contact with anyone and did not alter any past
>events, then the existence from whence he came from will still happen exactly
>the same way again.
But of course this is not the case in T1 -- Reese undeniably did intervene
with 1984 by conceiving John. Everything from that point forward would
be "tainted" with Reese's intervention.
>>>Reese's parents probably have not been married yet in 1995, but there he is.
>>>Paradox? It depends how you define a paradox. Maybe if you can time travel,
> [...]
>
>>>a greater paradox if John simply disappeared into thin air- where did his
>>>matter go?
>>
>>You could conceivably go back to John's conception (now John's NON-conception)
>>and trace where the matter in Sarah, that led to John's development, went
>>instead. (Any biologists out there?) Instead, the matter may have been
>>burned up as calories, excreted, any number of things. When events would
>>be changed, we'd find that the matter (that would have been John) would be
>>scattered to the four winds, so to speak. But the matter wouldn't "cease
>>to exist" -- it would still be accounted for.
>
> This is introducing "magic"- which doesn't hold up well on its own.
How is this "magic"? We're both talking about alternate timelines. Either
Sarah conceives John, or she doesn't. If she doesn't, her matter and energy
that would have been devoted to development of the embryo/fetus would
instead be diverted to some other function in her body. An alternate
timeline; an alternate *natural course of events*. I don't mean to
imply that John's matter in the steel mill would physically "go" somewhere
else. What I suggest is that time would be rewritten, and if you had
the ability, you would be able to trace, from 1984 onward, the path
that the matter would go, instead of being used to develop John. So
when you'd trace to 1995, the matter *would* exist somewhere, and not
simply disappear into thin air.
>>No, T1 suggests that all the events we saw, including the massacre of the
>>policemen, *always did* happen that way -- the appearance of Reese and Arnie
>
> Hold on a sec; you are assuming a deterministic approach again- and I don't
>think this is what the movie had in mind at all. Case in point- the existence
>in which Reese was from BEFORE he was sent back to 1984. Are you trying to
>say that all those cops were slain in the police station even in the 1984 of
>Reese's original existence? I don't think so, since there was no such thing
>as a terminator in that existence until after the nulcear war. I'm assuming
>here that no time travel ever took place before Reese's existence.
Are *you* saying that John Connor could've existed, and led the humans
to rebellion, without Reese going back in time? There were many points
in T1 that suggested that the events we saw were *not* an "alternate"
timeline unfolding, but part of the one, original timeline. It seems to me
that you're having trouble just visualizing this single timeline/closed
loop theory, much less agreeing or disagreeing with it ... surely you've
seen other examples of this concept in other SF literature and media?
>I'm glad to get you thinking here, Synth.
And me you, Doug. :-)
>The idea of a 'time-loop' does not
>hold up under the T1-T2 storyline.
It does in T1, does not in T2. This is why I initially had problems with
seeming "flaws" in T2, after absorbing how perfectly everything fit into
place in T1.
===============================================================================
:: :: :: :: :: Synth sy...@euler.unm.edu "Push the button,
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: (F. Oberheim) sy...@yenta.alb.nm.us Frank ..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire your boss! Get out of the rat race forever. Call 24hr msg (505) 764-0621
===============================================================================
The Spirit of Modern Music Technology Personified! (with Paul & the band!)
Doug Fierro
>
>Are *you* saying that John Connor could've existed, and led the humans
>to rebellion, without Reese going back in time?
Yes, that is what I'm saying.
John Connor in the T1 existence (before Reese gets sent back) was the son of
Sarah Connor and someone else we don't know. Skynet could have easily sent
back a terminator to kill John Connor's dad before he met Sarah. If his
father had a child with a female time traveler instead of Sarah, would you
still argue that John could have only existed because someone from the future
was sent back in time? There was an "original" existence at one time before
time travel was invented. I'm assuming that this is the existence we
observe in T1. It could be possible that the T1 existence was the result of
a previous time traveler that we do not know about, but somewhere there
was an original existence of John Connor before time travel was possible and
Reese was NOT the father in that existence. We are not aware of any time
travel before T1, so this is a reasonable assumption.
You're saying that if Reese wasn't sent back, John Connor would have
never existed, and that's not quite true. If Reese was sent back to 1984
and he got Sarah pregnant, BUT he never spoke to Sarah about the future, then
maybe John Connor would not have become the rebel savior in the new existence,
since John now has part of Kyle's genetics, and therefore he is not quite
exaclty the same John Connor that sent back Reese in 2027. But because of the
information Reese passed on to Sarah, John Connor was prepared to do battle
with Skynet. Before Reese went back in time, the John Connor in that
existence rose to power without knowledge of the future (we assume)- sort of
a natural selection thing. Just having knowledge of the future does not
necessarily result in the creation of a great warrior, but apparently John
still was able to rise to power, inheriting the genetics of the same mother
as before but a different father.
>There were many points
>in T1 that suggested that the events we saw were *not* an "alternate"
>timeline unfolding, but part of the one, original timeline. It seems to me
>that you're having trouble just visualizing this single timeline/closed
>loop theory, much less agreeing or disagreeing with it ... surely you've
>seen other examples of this concept in other SF literature and media?
I'm having no problems visualizing time-loops, and this is not a closed
loop in either T1 or T2. A closed time-loop implies a deterministic action
which will always happen, and the John Connor loop only happens twice, if
you go by T1&T2. If you assume that no time travel occured before T1, then
it is simply not possible for Reese to be solely responsible for John's
existence. If there was time travel going on before the T1 existence, then
I could give a scenario where John Connor's existence is directly attributed
to a time traveler from the future. Because T1 assumes that Reese was the
first human time traveler, and John Connor existed before Reese went back in
time, one can logically conclude that John Connor's existence was already
established before Reese went back to 1984. John's existence was altered
after Reese went back to 1984, but it was not CREATED. I don't know how to
state this any simpler.
James P. Dusek
The handling of time travel in T* was the worst I have ever seen.(Well
iI've seen Milinum(sp?) with Kris K. and that was BAD, but they just showd
why time travel by stupid people should not be allowed.) Reese could not be
the father of John Connor, after all it was because of John Connor that he
was sent back.
The parts of the Terminator were used to make skynet, which than
made the Terminators. This too is impossible, because the future creates itself
by sending pices into the past. I whish J.C. would have consulted some scientist when he tought this plot up. They could have fixed some of these points.
J.Dusek
goath...@wkuvx1.bitnet
Seems to me that it's pretty hard to argue that the time travel is incorrect
since we don't know if it's possible at all. They're all theories---just
because those in the T* movies don't follow *our* logic doesn't mean it couldn't
happen that way. When they prove how time travel really works, *then*
you can complain about them, along with everything else that deals with time
travel....
No flames, just a view....
Hunter
------
Hunter Goatley, WKU, goath...@wkuvx1.bitnet, 502-745-5251
Synth F. Oberheim
>John Connor in the T1 existence (before Reese gets sent back) was the son of
>Sarah Connor and someone else we don't know. Skynet could have easily sent
>back a terminator to kill John Connor's dad before he met Sarah. If his
>father had a child with a female time traveler instead of Sarah, would you
>still argue that John could have only existed because someone from the future
>was sent back in time? There was an "original" existence at one time before
>time travel was invented. I'm assuming that this is the existence we
>observe in T1.
There was nothing in the film to suggest a previous, "original" timeline,
untampered from time travel intervention. Off the top of my head there were
two Star Trek episodes, "City on the Edge of Forever" and "Assignment: Earth",
that suggested that journeys back into the past were a part of the natural
course of history (read: they always happened). Now if T1 had presented some
scenes that suggested the same event, before-and-after, actually being
*altered* (Back to the Future is a good example of this), then your point
might be more plausible. But T1 in fact sugggested that this "loop" always
was there -- that Reese always was the father of John, that Arnie's carcass
being left behind in 1984 was what caused the holocaust.
> You're saying that if Reese wasn't sent back, John Connor would have
>never existed, and that's not quite true.
Sarah says this in T1.
>If Reese was sent back to 1984
>and he got Sarah pregnant, BUT he never spoke to Sarah about the future, then
>maybe John Connor would not have become the rebel savior in the new existence,
Sarah knows this; this is why she feels compelled to make the tapes and pass
along the information to John.
>since John now has part of Kyle's genetics, and therefore he is not quite
>exaclty the same John Connor that sent back Reese in 2027.
Again, the movie suggested that John always was the son of Reese, that John
always was "part of Kyle's genetics" when he meets Reese in 2027, and sends
him back to 1984 to conceive him.
>But because of the
>information Reese passed on to Sarah, John Connor was prepared to do battle
>with Skynet. Before Reese went back in time, the John Connor in that
>existence rose to power without knowledge of the future (we assume)- sort of
>a natural selection thing. Just having knowledge of the future does not
>necessarily result in the creation of a great warrior, but apparently John
>still was able to rise to power, inheriting the genetics of the same mother
>as before but a different father.
So tell me, where was all of this in the film?
The movie stated that John's warrior skills were taught to him *by Sarah*.
That was an important point. We also witness how the Terminator nightmare
strengthened Sarah, how it brought out her instincts for survival ("Good field
dressing ..." "You like it? It's my first.") and fighting. Putting two
and two together, it becomes clear that John *will* become a great leader
and fighter (*had* become from Reese's point-of-view) based on the training
that Sarah will give him as he grows up. We see the beginnings of it
unfolding in the movie as it takes place in 1984.
> I'm having no problems visualizing time-loops, and this is not a closed
>loop in either T1 or T2. A closed time-loop implies a deterministic action
>which will always happen, and the John Connor loop only happens twice, if
>you go by T1&T2. If you assume that no time travel occured before T1, then
>it is simply not possible for Reese to be solely responsible for John's
>existence.
Indeed, but this is a rather large assumption, since nothing in the *film*
(T1) ever suggested it.
>If there was time travel going on before the T1 existence, then
>I could give a scenario where John Connor's existence is directly attributed
>to a time traveler from the future. Because T1 assumes that Reese was the
>first human time traveler, and John Connor existed before Reese went back in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>time, one can logically conclude that John Connor's existence was already
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>established before Reese went back to 1984.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No -- from the point-of-view you're taking -- viewing time sequentially -- you
would follow Reese's existence as such:
1984. Reese appears from 2027, conceives John, dies.
20??. Reese is born, grows into adulthood.
2027. Reese becomes time traveler, disappears from 2027 to go to 1984.
Simply from the nature of time travel, it is quite plausible for Reese to
be the world's first time traveler, and yet make a mark in the past long
before he ever makes the actual trip.
I understand your point, but can't subscribe to it simply because the *movie*
never hinted at what you're suggesting.
I think part of the problem is that you're seeking to integrate T1 and T2's
differing theories. I feel that the two films are free and separate from each
other because it seemed that Cameron, in wanting to write T2, compromised his
ideas that made T1's story so well-conceived and cohesive.
===============================================================================
:: :: :: :: :: Synth sy...@euler.unm.edu "Push the button,
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: (F. Oberheim) sy...@yenta.alb.nm.us Frank ..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire your boss! Get out of the rat race forever. Call 24hr msg (505) 764-0621
===============================================================================
There are monkeyboys in the facility.