Time Travel discussion

Did anyone read this at the weekend? I thought the twist was really cute. I was a huge fan of Robert Silverberg as a teenager, and I feel like revisiting my collection.

Reading Question:

How did this story make you feel, knowing that anyone's time jaunt, could phase you and change who you are?

Well, I didn't get emotionally-involved enough that I was made to feel it.

However, I did wonder about how normal most people were taking it. The actual change would be relatively easy, since you probably wouldn't even be aware of it, unless your attention were directed to it. But I more wonder about the fear of it.

But your question revolves around why I didn't get into it, emotionally: I didn't feel the characters were acting reasonably.

I liked the conceit, though; the battle to game time. Not bad. Too casual, but nice idea.

I'd be apoplectic if I thought someone was changing my timeline, because you could guarantee it wouldn't be for the better - and aside from that, it's your life and your choices.

The author makes the very good points that these 'crimes' would be difficult to prove, and that you wouldn't be aware of them for more than a few transitional hours.

It's not the actual changes, it's the knowledge that changes can occur.

The actual changes are unpredictable and you wouldn't be able to get all worked up about them because they would feel normal.

The problem is that people would never have the opportunity to get used to them, since they always forget that a change occurred. This means that, for all intents and purposes, everyone would feel like it hasn't happened to them... yet.

Kind of like today.

Oh... my... god... it's happening, now! We're in that world and we don't realize it!

(I knew I was supposed to be famous and loved, damn it!)

James wrote: "It's not the actual changes, it's the knowledge that changes can occur.

The actual changes are unpredictable and you wouldn't be able to get all worked up about them because they would feel norma..."

Hmm. I had this fleeting feeling that you were famous and loved, James but it's fading. ;-)

I see what your saying James, how can I be upset with something that seems so natural. I think the fear of losing who I am would be horrific!

Lincoln wrote: "I see what your saying James, how can I be upset with something that seems so natural. I think the fear of losing who I am would be horrific!"

But then it does bring up this whole issue of Descartian proof of existence. As the great man pointed out: there is no way you can prove that you didn't just come into existence five minutes ago with all of your memories. All you can do is sit there and say "I think, therefore I am".

If someone changed your timeline, you would still be you, but what I think what we find horrific is that we wouldn't have been the sum of our own choices. We would be the sum of someone else's choices. Discussion point: how much of you are is your experiences? If you hadn't had bad experience X or good experience Y at the age of N, would you really be someone completely different?

Mark #9 mentions the famous quote by Descartes:

Incorrect; I checked it out with my Time Fistula.

This axiom is simply a deduction that follows from what he really said:

'I doubt, therefore I might be.'

Just saying

Mark, that is the discussion to end all, isn't it? I know I would be a different person if *this* had happened and if *this* had not. I don't mean just my current status would change, but I would *be* different. And I'm ok with that - because I choose to be. It would drive me mad to dwell on the 'might have beens.'

And if I lived in the world Silverberg created for the story, I'd logically conclude that I'd be better off trying to do the best I could with each new life. At one point Janine says, in effect, never mind the past, try to save the future. That's as far as I'd go. I might not even worry about the future. Maybe we'd all become Zen masters (or is it Buddhists?), becoming very good at living in the present.

So, as I read the story, to answer Lincoln's Q, I did *feel* anxious (on behalf of the characters) - but I recovered quickly after reading it.

I really liked the way the story worked out the solution. (view spoiler)[Everyone a winner! High likelihood of more stability from now on! Much better than phasing Tommy out of existence. (hide spoiler)]

Howard wrote: "This axiom is simply a deduction that follows from what he really said:

'I doubt, therefore I might be..."

Very good Howard. I almost bought the t-shirt.

But, in my particular case...

I have NO doubt, therefore I WILL be.

Or, at least I was, if I set the levers correctly on my time machine."

Lance #13:

Heh heh heh spelled backwards is...

Time can be linear, no?

Howard wrote: "Mark #9 mentions the famous quote by Descartes:
Incorrect; I checked it out with my Time Fistula.
This axiom is simply a deduction that follows from what he really said:
'I doubt, therefore I might be.'
Just saying "

Actually, Descartes' original phrase was, "je pense, donc je suis", which translates as "I think, therefore I am".

He determined that, as the base truth that he could assume to be true, it was the foundation of a philosophy.

I'm curious where you found the inaccurate alternative.

Howard wrote: "Lance #13:

Heh heh heh spelled backwards is...

Time can be linear, no?"

Hmmmm! A chap called Euclid once told me that is is more likely to be slightly curved. I'll grant you that it is possible that if COULD be linear, but my machine is incapable of travelling in straight lines. How about yours?

Mark wrote: "If someone changed your timeline, you would still be you, but what I think what we find horrific is that we wouldn't have been the sum of our own choices. We would be the sum of someone else's choices. Discussion point: how much of you are is your experiences? If you hadn't had bad experience X or good experience Y at the age of N, would you really be someone completely different? "

I don't know about completely different, but you would certainly change.

I don't think the concept of tabula rasa has any legs to stand on, anymore. We are clearly a product of a combination of nurture and nature, so changing aspects of our past wouldn't guarantee major personality changes (especially since all of the changes occur after he becomes an adult).

But your question does highlight the fact that no one seems to change, despite wholesale modifications to their adult lives.

James wrote: "I'm curious where you found the inaccurate alternative..."

No need to await Howard's response. I know how he discovered the alternative. A beautiful and trustworthy, red-headed time-traveler told him. As far as I am aware, that lady has never told a fib before, so why would we doubt her?

Lance wrote: "James wrote: "I'm curious where you found the inaccurate alternative..."

No need to await Howard's response. I know how he discovered the alternative. A beautiful and trustworthy, red-headed time-..."

I think we're haggling over trifles. Did anybody pick up on the fact that Voltaire didn't say anything about giving up his life to defend an individual's right to say anything? Apparently it was one of his biographers who came up with it.

Anyway, I agree with the comment by Cheryl - our protagonist came up with the best possible solution: (view spoiler)[neutralise with good vibes! (hide spoiler)] A really clever feel-good ending. I thought it might turn ugly. And you're right, Cheryl: own the future - it's where you're going to live! :-)

Mark wrote: "our protagonist came up with the best possible solution: neutralise with good vibes! "

I guess we got different interpretations for the ending.

What I saw was the protagonist lost all details and only knew what sparse details (fact of a happy marriage, name of wife) he wrote down, before it all went away. When he meets Janine, he really is meeting her, for the first time.

The resolution is akin to a crystal ball fortune teller saying, "a woman named Janine will be the love of your life"... so he meets a woman named Janine and...

But they are not the same people who met and fell in love and he has become accustomed to casual sex, so Janine could very easily become one more score. Or they may be lucky.

I did note that the final line,
(view spoiler)[“It’s a long story,” he said. “Let’s have a drink and I’ll tell you all about it.”
sounds like the opening of a really cheesy pick-up line. And when he explains... it's going to sound like an even cheesier pick-up line. (hide spoiler)]

Ah James, let go of your cynicism this once, and let me and Mark feel the hea. ;)

Ah, it's a pleasant enough ending. As such things go.

I'm really not a cynic. Ray Bradbury is one of my top authors. You can't be a cynic who loves Bradbury. It just doesn't work.

Ray Bradbury

Answer to Reading Question:
This story made me feel nervous. Might be happening as we speak! :(

As for changing lives, I think we change all the time. I pretty much know I am not the person I was 20 years ago.

Cheryl wrote: "I really liked the way the story worked out the solution. [spoilers removed]"

I liked it too but I kind of felt sorry for (view spoiler)[the kids who no longer existed at the end (hide spoiler)]

James wrote: "Ah, it's a pleasant enough ending. As such things go.

I'm really not a cynic. Ray Bradbury is one of my top authors. You can't be a cynic who loves Bradbury. It just doesn't work."

Of course, I also really love Harlan Ellison, so I guess the two help make me a realist. So you can trust me.

Did anyone see Edge of Tomorrow Or Live Die Repeat or whatever name they decided on...

The very end of that film Tom Cruise having all the memories of the many timelines and Emily Blunt with no knowledge of their past...I always thought a last line spoken by Tom Cruise should of been Your middle name is Rose

Do you get the same vibe for the end of Timestack?

Glynn wrote: "Cheryl wrote: "I really liked the way the story worked out the solution. [spoilers removed]"

I liked it too but I kind of felt sorry for [spoilers removed]"

Glynn, you've brought up a valuable point here. (view spoiler)[It's explained in the story that causing people to not exist is a serious crime. Difficult to prove, but murder nevertheless. (hide spoiler)]

Mark,

Actually, it would be impossible to prove. All changes would be impossible to prove, since they become the always-reality.

James wrote: "Mark,

Actually, it would be impossible to prove. All changes would be impossible to prove, since they become the always-reality."

And is it (view spoiler)["murder nevertheless"? Can you sensibly be accused of murdering someone who never existed and that no one ever heard of? It would be akin to being charged with murdering someone's imaginary friend. Except that they can probably remember their imaginary friend. (hide spoiler)]

James wrote: "Mark,

Actually, it would be impossible to prove. All changes would be impossible to prove, since they become the always-reality."

Yes, that's what intrigued me about what the author was saying about the law. I wondered how on earth they would prove anything, given what we were given to understand about the way changes happen.

James wrote: "James wrote: "Mark,

Actually, it would be impossible to prove. All changes would be impossible to prove, since they become the always-reality."

And is it [spoilers removed]"
From what I recall from the story, you'd only ever even remember for three hours or so.

FYI, I did charge a close relative with the murder of my imaginary friend...

It was interesting how Silverberg (view spoiler)[said that it was criminal to murder via TT, but 'almost' unenforceable. A patina of sensibility, to help readers suspend disbelief and focus on the main story? (hide spoiler)]

(James, Ellison and Bradbury are both fantasists. Geniuses, yes, but neither writes anything approaching realism. They use their writing to propagandize their dreams and fears. Trust me on that. ;)

Cheryl wrote: "It was interesting how Silverberg [spoilers removed]

(James, Ellison and Bradbury are both fantasists. Geniuses, yes, but neither writes anything approaching realism. They use their writing to p..."

No, no... I mean that Bradbury is an eternal optimist and Ellison is a confirmed cynic. I fall in-between.

I enjoyed this story because it was unique. But geez, what a terrible future to look forward to. I would NEVER want to live in a world where my past could be changed so easily or so frequently. And if an individual's life could be altered by someone going back and causing one person not to meet another, can you imagine how much history could be changed by such a minor incident?

In terms of forgetting what happened, what about those who kept a diary? Would the diary also change? And if so, what would prevent people from committing heinous crimes and then time traveling to erase them? What would be the point of trying when you knew your actions might be in vain anyway?

As far as this story specifically, I thought it was interesting that in the end, all of the kinks worked themselves out and there was a low probability that those lifelines would be changed again. Is time an active character, like a puzzle that keeps trying to solve itself until it gets it right?

Samantha wrote: "I enjoyed this story because it was unique. But geez, what a terrible future to look forward to. I would NEVER want to live in a world where my past could be changed so easily or so frequently. And..."

That's an interesting analogy, Samantha - a puzzle that sorts itself out.

I seem to remember the protagonist having scribbled notes, and there being a reference to the notes fading.

Samantha wrote: "I enjoyed this story because it was unique. But geez, what a terrible future to look forward to. I would NEVER want to live in a world where my past could be changed so easily or so frequently. "

How do you know that you don't, already? If such time travel exists, but is not public, then maybe "yesterday", you were a billionaire?

Everything changes, because that becomes reality.

As for someone erasing a crime... that means the crime never happened. Why would you want to jail someone who didn't commit murder?

James wrote: "Samantha wrote: "I enjoyed this story because it was unique. But geez, what a terrible future to look forward to. I would NEVER want to live in a world where my past could be changed so easily or s..."

Hmm. Alternatively, didn't capital punishment just become painless? And if the victim is restored to life, then the crime never happened. So do you reprieve the criminal you just airbrushed from history? Or do you just make sure the criminal's personality was changed so that he never committed the murder?

Mark wrote: "And if the victim is restored to life, then the crime never happened. So do you reprieve the criminal you just airbrushed from history? Or do you just make sure the criminal's personality was changed so that he never committed the murder? "


Samantha had written, "what would prevent people from committing heinous crimes and then time traveling to erase them?" And I was responding to that, where the individual erased their own crime.

However, in answer to you, I don't see it being an issue. If the crime has been erased, then there is no crime and, hence, no criminal.

Further, there would be no memory of any crime, nor would anyone feel any need to see someone punished, for something that everyone clearly remembers never happened.

Philip K. Dick had a bit to say about this.

You can evaluate these questions, by looking at the world we live in.

"But we don't have time travel", you might say. How would you know? Maybe the inventor kept it a secret and he's currently engaged in a series of attempts to change the world into his version of a demented Shangri-la.

So, what if I told you that you committed an accidental murder that would ultimately net you jail time, due to your own culpability? In the real world. But that was erased, so it never happened.

Do you, at this moment, feel that you should be jailed or that you are any more bad a person? Of course not. Because it never happened.

Same thing, in the world of this short story.

As I'm sure you're all aware, the Descartian view has moved on:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...

The question is...Are you a criminal of circumstance? Remove the motive for the crime will the criminal still be violent in a completely different timeline?

Mark wrote: "As I'm sure you're all aware, the Descartian view has moved on:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/..."

I missed the connection.

Regarding the article... silly, but they have to publish, or perish. There is nothing you could say, within a simulation, that is relevant. What are the rules, outside of the universe?

If you are in a simulation, all results (accurate or otherwise) are simulated. And your knowledge of physics is what the simulation gives you. You can not challenge the possibility of a greater reality, without being able to test/evaluate that greater reality.

Besides. You can't prove a negative. Which those researchers know, very well.

Lincoln wrote: "The question is...Are you a criminal of circumstance? Remove the motive for the crime will the criminal still be violent in a completely different timeline?"

I don't recall if it was made clear, or not, but what about the one who traveled back in time and changed things... do they remember the old timeline?

Because then that could be a potential form of rehabilitation for criminals. They commit a crime and are sentenced to go back and undo it. Under Time Police supervision, of course.

My reasoning is that many individuals could be savable, if they could undo that first BIG mistake.

(or I could simply be being an optimist)

I believe you are overly optimistic. Criminals sent back in time won't be any more remorseful - and in fact may become less so since they know their actions can be undone on a whim. A universe with no consequences... We'd become a ruthless people overnight.

Ok James, W. def. earns 'most cynical' in this thread so far.
I disagree. I understand your argument, W., but I don't buy it. I do believe a lot more ppl make mistakes and develop criminal attitudes & behaviors, than are just bad ppl in search of opportunities.

Cheryl #46:

I disagree.

Read History.

No consequence no restraint.

Just saying

I wear the Most Cynical badge with pride. :)
I hope I am wrong, but my experience is the vast majority of people will disappoint if left unchecked. It is the human condition that naturally restrains us, and therefore keeps (most of) us honest. Could be the profession speaking too. Corporate security for 15 years, Army Intel for 7. I don't exactly see the best side of people at work.

Anyone ever see the movie Hollow Man? It was a terribly average film, but one line from Kevin Bacon struck me as poignant. He is invisible and telling his colleague, "It's amazing what you can do when you don't have to look at yourself in the mirror."

That argument presupposes that most people want to be evil and harm others, but are constrained by society. That can't be possible or we'd never have progressed beyond rocks and caves.

There would never have been a "society" to restrain us, if we were all happy to entertain our basest whims and desires.

ty James