Time Travel discussion

I saw the debut episode - excellent - here's my review http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2015...

I loved the bits with the watch.

I found the bit with the watch disappointingly random. The reason and the effect made no sense, to me. Why did bringing two items that have a similar history but are fundamentally different (every atom has changed over the time involved and, thus, they are not the same watches) would lead to... a bubble of slow-time.

Just seemed like an utterly random choice. Same with his immunity to it.

And if he's immune to the effect of temporal paradoxes, then why will he disappear if the plague is stopped? Even the bad guy made the point that if Cole can stop the plague, there would have been no reason to send him back, in fact he wouldn't even exist. And if he never existed, then he can't have stopped the plague. Paradox.

So either he's outside of the effect of paradox... or he's not. Either way, a major flaw presents itself.

I'm with Randy on the watch - I liked it.

Also, James - what makes you think Cole is immune to the paradoxes? I got the opposite impression.

Paul wrote: "Also, James - what makes you think Cole is immune to the paradoxes? I got the opposite impression."

Had to search for a transcript, to recall the exact words. Found it.

One of the future doctors says, specifically, "Not even a paradox can hold you back."

Then there's the "paradox" that had no effect on him. That was my second clue.

The thing is, having versions of the watch, from two times, touch is not a paradox.

Paradox: a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

You killed your grandfather, thus were not born, not being born, you could not kill your grandfather, not killing your grandfather means you were born and you killed your grandfather.

That's a temporal paradox.

I explained why the watch thing bothered me. In fact, a few reasons... can anyone say why they liked it?

Is it just, "hey, cool"?

James wrote: "I explained why the watch thing bothered me. In fact, a few reasons... can anyone say why they liked it?

Is it just, "hey, cool"?"

No, it was "Way cool!" Both times. :)

I understand your comment about them being fundamentally different, but how is that relevant? Cole's watch *came* from the other. It doesn't exist without it.

The scientists in the future certainly expected Cole (and the future timeline) to disappear. That's why they claimed he failed in his mission when he returned to the future. But then what they're attempting to do is the very definition of a paradox.

Usually in time travel stories of this nature, it's Cole that would be the one that carries the infection to the past. One article I read had a good point -- time traveling has a lot of problems with the relative immunities to diseases and bugs. We even have it traveling around the world in the present.

Randy wrote: "I understand your comment about them being fundamentally different, but how is that relevant? Cole's watch *came* from the other. It doesn't exist without it."

I don't think you do fully understand the point. They are not the same watches, on a fundamental, atomic level. In every way the second is a mere copy of the first. Every atom has been replaced with new atoms. None of the original watch remains in the later watch.

As for the "coming from the other", you came from your mother. You wouldn't exist without her. But there's no time glitch or paradox, when you touch her. It doesn't mean anything, in this context, that one "came from" the other. They're different: that's what matters and what makes the effect random.

Randy wrote: "The scientists in the future certainly expected Cole (and the future timeline) to disappear. That's why they claimed he failed in his mission when he returned to the future. But then what they're attempting to do is the very definition of a paradox."

You are making assumptions. They expected that they and their future would no longer exist. That doesn't mean that they expect him to not exist. Big difference.

I predict that, if the series continues, Cole will eventually change the future... and remain himself, without disappearing. They have to, otherwise the show would become stagnant on the one issue.

Anyone know if it is going to be on Amazon Prime or Hulu?

W. wrote: "Anyone know if it is going to be on Amazon Prime or Hulu?"

According to my FollowShows lineup, the first episode is currently free on Hulu, SyFy, and Amazon Prime.

But I wouldn't be surprised if that's just the pilot episode.

James wrote: "They are not the same watches, on a fundamental, atomic level."

I just don't see how that is relevant. Everything changes nanosecond by nanosecond. But fundamentally, they stay the same. Otherwise, we couldn't recognize things from second to second, year to year, or decade to decade.

A fundamental change would be my taking a hammer to it.

I wanna see a guy explain to his wife that he wasn't cheating, because the man she married was someone else, at the atomic level.

James wrote: "As for the "coming from the other", you came from your mother. You wouldn't exist without her. But there's no time glitch or paradox, when you touch her."

Really? Maybe touching her distracts her from ever meeting my father. Maybe I carry a disease that people in the past have no immunity to.

Butterfly effect, baby. :)

In any case, fundamentally, two different people. Atomically, no.

But, in the end, it comes down to the rules the writer makes, since we have no working model of how time travel would really work. If we go with the parallel universe theory, Cole is just returning to a different future timeline each time he travels. Not the one he left from. So then there is no paradox.

Oops...

"In any case, fundamentally, two different people. Atomically as well, but irrelevant."

Randy wrote: "Otherwise, we couldn't recognize things from second to second, year to year, or decade to decade."

You are talking about familiarity, not basic nature. Your argument would explain a paradox when you make the two watches touch. It would also explain a paradox when the watch touches a perfect forgery.

Our need to believe a constancy explains why they used that old trope, but the actual fact is that familiarity or apparent constancy is nothing more then that: an appearance. The paradox makes no sense.


Randy wrote: "A fundamental change would be my taking a hammer to it."

Actually, they would remain fundamentally the same. Breaking it doesn't alter its fundamental nature. Just its gross appearance.


Randy wrote: "I wanna see a guy explain to his wife that he wasn't cheating, because the man she married was someone else, at the atomic level."

You do understand that this is a different issue, right? This is just a joke?


Randy wrote: "Really? Maybe touching her distracts her from ever meeting my father. Maybe I carry a disease that people in the past have no immunity to."

You are skipping my point: there isn't a time-slow paradox thing, when you touch your mother. Follow back the conversation, I was responding to your assertion that one watch came from the other, so... You come from your mother and no paradox, so the explanation fails.

Randy wrote: "But, in the end, it comes down to the rules the writer makes, since we have no working model of how time travel would really work. If we go with the parallel universe theory, Cole is just returning to a different future timeline each time he travels. Not the one he left from. So then there is no paradox. "

That's true. As far as it goes.

But if this is to be well-written, then it must be consistent. As long as they maintain the rules, once they make them, it's up to the writer.

But there are rules that follow some kind of story logic and there are rules that are just pasted on and are little more then magic.

Rules that I noticed being set up:

Rule 1: Any changes in the past effect future objects, even if they are also in the past.

Rule 2: Cole is immune to paradox.
This rule is not explained, that I recall. And it doesn't follow, from rule 1. At first, I would assume that anyone who is traveling in time is immune to the effects of changes. This wouldn't be a new rule. But for that to be true, the watch wouldn't magically acquire a scratch. But it did. So... Cole is different and they knew it... not clear why.

Rule 3: If something touches another time version of itself, there will be flashing lights and time will slow down... except for Cole. They call this a "paradox".

The fact that contact causes time to slow down, for a moment, followed by an explosion... is just a random globbing of effects that make no sense. The fact that Cole is not effected, by this seems arbitrary.

And there is no paradox. They're using the wrong word.

James wrote: "You come from your mother and no paradox, so the explanation fails."

I come from her, but amputating her arm doesn't mean mine is amputated 10 years later. Amputate my arm and mine will still be amputated 10 years later. Two fundamentally different entities.

James wrote: "You do understand that this is a different issue, right? This is just a joke?"

More sarcasm than joke, but yes. Now explain to me why the person who promised eternal love and the person who cheated aren't different people, at a "fundamental and atomic level"?

James wrote: "It would also explain a paradox when the watch touches a perfect forgery."

Except the forgery is fundamentally a different item. Even though it appears the same. Just because I throw 30 pennies onto the table and you can't tell the difference between them doesn't mean they are all the same penny.

Scratching the surface of one penny doesn't create a new penny, just the appearance of an existing penny.

James wrote: "The fact that contact causes time to slow down, for a moment, followed by an explosion... is just a random globbing of effects that make no sense. The fact that Cole is not effected, by this seems arbitrary."

Wow. I agree. :)

It was still cool. :(

But it is on the SyFy channel. As they say:

Imagine greater!

:)

I always continue that phrase in my head:

"Imagine greater (because this is the best we could come up with)."

Randy wrote: "I come from her, but amputating her arm doesn't mean mine is amputated 10 years later."

You can't use what happened in the show to justify what happened in the show. My point is that nothing would happen, in either case. Using your own words, your mother should count.


Randy wrote: "Now explain to me why the person who promised eternal love and the person who cheated aren't different people, at a "fundamental and atomic level"?"

Assuming enough years have gone by (I believe it's 7), then they are, in fact, different people on an atomic level. But the cheating thing is about the story we tell. There is a difference between actual physical continuity and the continuity of our story.

And there are theories which are impossible to actually argue against that would say he is not the same person, in any way.

The point is that we feel and must act as people in a river of time, but there is no scientific support for that. Especially over decades and more.

The question you are asking is about emotions and perceptions, not about realities. I especially feel that, since you offer it as a challenge.


Randy wrote: "Except the forgery is fundamentally a different item. Even though it appears the same."

Again, I was responding to your arguments. You had argued based on appearance ("Otherwise, we couldn't recognize things from second to second, year to year"), so I pointed out why appearance is not valid.

Randy wrote: "Just because I throw 30 pennies onto the table and you can't tell the difference between them doesn't mean they are all the same penny."

Exactly!

That they look the same, does not mean they are the same.

In a real-world, fundamental way, they are not the same. Unless Reality (capital "R") is concerned with the stories that we tell ourselves, Reality (capital "R") isn't going to confuse them. They're different.

Randy wrote: "I always continue that phrase in my head:

"Imagine greater (because this is the best we could come up with)." "

Yes. The simple fact that they changed their name from SciFi to Siffy is all we need to know.

Randy wrote: "W. wrote: "Anyone know if it is going to be on Amazon Prime or Hulu?"

According to my FollowShows lineup, the first episode is currently free on Hulu, SyFy, and Amazon Prime.

But I wouldn't be su..."

Bah! The teases! Syfy lost me after canceling Caprica and SG:Universe, when washed my hand of them. But I might come back to see 12M.

James wrote: "Paul wrote: "Also, James - what makes you think Cole is immune to the paradoxes? I got the opposite impression."

Had to search for a transcript, to recall the exact words. Found it.

One of the future doctors says, specifically, "Not even a paradox can hold you back."

Then there's the "paradox" that had no effect on him. That was my second clue."

What the future doctor is saying is not that Cole is immune from paradox, but Cole and the people planning the mission are not going to let the risk of paradox get in the way of the mission. This is actually a pretty standard time travel trope, which I use in my own novels and stories. The characters know they're courting paradoxes with who knows what consequences at every turn, but they proceed anyway because their mission is more important.

As to your second "clue," I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to. 12 Monkeys is riddled with situations that seemed to be paradoxical but turn out not to be - such as killing the senior Goines, which paradoxically seemed to have no effect on the deadly plague, but that's because it turns out that the senior Goines was not responsible for that in the first place.

What I find interesting is how 12M the series is differing from 12M the movie. In the movie, paradoxes were successfully avoided in spite of the main character's best efforts, because time simply could not be changed. Every attempt to change the outcome only reinforced it further. By sending a man into the past to investigate the cause of the plague, the scientists unwittingly caused the confusion that put them on the wrong track in the first place.

In the pilot of this series, we see the main character changing the future by scratching the face of a watch. Interesting. It would appear that the "rules" for the series will differ from those of the movie. I'm not saying that's wrong, just that it's a fundamental change in the story's underlying assumptions about reality.

That being said, I had taken the future scientist's bizarre statement about Cole being "immune from paradox" to mean that apparent paradoxes would not have any affect on him. I wasn't sure how that would work, but I thought it was interesting. When he did the watch trick and he was able to move so much faster than everyone else, I assumed that this was a demonstration of that immunity. I suspect that this was somebody's idea of something they thought would look cool rather than a well reasoned exploration of time paradoxes. Time will tell.

W. wrote: "Anyone know if it is going to be on Amazon Prime or Hulu?"

You can watch the first episode free on SyFy http://www.syfy.com/12monkeys/videos/...

Good analysis, Ubiquitous (though see my above explanation for what the scientist said). I agree with your underlying philosophy - that you have to take each presentation (movie, TV series) on its own terms. This arises all the time when books and stories are made into movies, the most recent time travel story being "All You Zombies" into "Predestination".

Paul wrote: "As to your second "clue," I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to. 12 Monkeys is riddled with situations that seemed to be paradoxical but turn out not to be - such as killing the senior Goines, which paradoxically seemed to have no effect on the deadly plague, but that's because it turns out that the senior Goines was not responsible for that in the first place."

I assume you completely missed that they referred to the watch thing as a "paradox". Which means that, in the tv show, that is an example of a paradox.

If you think that's wrong, good. It is.

The doctors said paradox can't stop him. They called the watch effect a "paradox". And Cole knew the watch effect, what it would be, and that it would not effect him.

Fairly clear.

Ubiquitous wrote: "I suspect that this was somebody's idea of something they thought would look cool rather than a well reasoned exploration of time paradoxes. Time will tell. "

I suspect you are correct.

Right, the two watches - or Cole breaking the recent watch so the later one is suddenly broken - is not a paradox at all. It's just an interesting effect of time travel.

A paradox is something that undoes itself - such as the statement, this statement is a lie. If it's a lie, that means it's true. But if the statement that this statement is a lie is true, that means it's a lie, and so forth.

Nonetheless, although you're of course entitled to take whatever meaning you like from the doctor's statement, I stand by my interpretation, for the reasons I gave above. The misuse of the word paradox in the case of the watch does not have much if any bearing on what the future doc said to Cole about his not letting paradox get in the way.

?

Okay. You are, of course, free to make whatever interpretation you wish and ignore the details, even when I present them.

1. They said paradox would not stop him. (they don't strike me as the pep-talky type)

2. They describe the watch thing as a paradox.

3. It doesn't effect him and he knew it wouldn't.

You can dismiss 2, to make you argument fit, but you still are choosing to dismiss data that, in the context of the series, has to be relevant.

And we are talking about the context of this series.

But you're the one who used the word "immune" - seems to me that if the writers of this episode wanted to make that point about Cole, they would have used that word, too.

And it's a common idiom to say "nothing will stop him" - meaning he won't let anything get in his way.

But, as Ubiquitous said above, only time will tell in this series.

Ubiquitous wrote: "What I find interesting is how 12M the series is differing from 12M the movie. In the movie, paradoxes were successfully avoided in spite of the main character's best efforts, because time simply could not be changed. Every attempt to change the outcome only reinforced it further. By sending a man into the past to investigate the cause of the plague, the scientists unwittingly caused the confusion that put them on the wrong track in the first place."

Well, as I recall the movie, they weren't trying to change the past (because they couldn't?). They were trying to collect a sample of the original virus so that they could develop a cure for it in the future.

In order to avoid paradoxes in the movie, they had to look at time travel differently -- all time travel has already occurred. The entire history of the time stream is established and cannot be changed at any point.

It's similar to what they did in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. They made a note to remember to go back and plant something (keys?) they could use when they were in a sticky situation. So, if they wouldn't do that in their future, it wouldn't be there now.

Anyone getting a Janeway headache? :)

Paul wrote: "But you're the one who used the word "immune" - seems to me that if the writers of this episode wanted to make that point about Cole, they would have used that word, too."

I don't understand the disconnect, here.

He was clearly immune to the time-slowing-effect that they called a paradox. I'm not making anything up. Didn't you watch the entire episode? There was a magical time-slow and he was the only one immune to it.

I'm very confused how you could have missed that he was immune to it.

Time slowing is not in itself a paradox.

To be immune from paradox, he would have to travel back in time, and kill his younger self, for example, and still be alive. Nothing even remotely like that happened in the pilot.

We'll see if it does in subsequent episodes.

Paul wrote: "Time slowing is not in itself a paradox.

To be immune from paradox, he would have to travel back in time, and kill his younger self, for example, and still be alive. Nothing even remotely like that happened in the pilot."

I...

I made clear that I know that wasn't a paradox. I made clear that the show said it was. This suggests that, in the show universe, that is a paradox.

Right or wrong.

That's been part of my whole point. They're making stuff up, as they go along. And it shows.

So I watched this last night, and enjoyed it for the pure fun of it; for entertainment value it kept me interested and wanting to see more, which is really what television is all about. I don't feel a huge need to understand the "why" of everything. As an added bonus hubby liked it too, and there is very little we can both watch together.

my review of 12 Monkeys 1.2 http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2015... and 1.3 (which was on SyFy On Demand for 24 hours) http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2015... (review has some spoilers).

By the way, the third episode has an explicit discussion of why Cole needs to avoid stepping on Cassandra's timeline and causing a paradox which could kill him.

OMG the latest episode was so good, travelling from Cassandra's one week future, then Cole calling her telling her I know this because you tell it to me in one week. then telling her when we talk in one week's time, don't tell me abut what happens (Trying to discuss this without giving away spoilers-sorry)
This is why I love time travel!
If you are ok with spoilers, or you already watched it, Paul has an excellent review:
http://paullevinson.blogspot.ca/2015/...

I totally missed this discussion, so I'm a little late to the game. I love this show. I really liked the bit with the watch, because I've never been a fan of the multiple universe theories.

My one concern is how they are going to stretch it out over more than a season while still keeping it plausible.

Sage Italian review of 12 Monkeys, w/ref to Stephen Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture, and my story, "The Chronology Protection Case" http://www.telefilm-central.org/2015/...

my review of 12 Monkeys Season 2 debut http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2016...

I haven't watched the season 2 debut yet.

Nancy wrote: "I haven't watched the season 2 debut yet."

Nor have I. I may actually wait until the DVR has a couple of episodes recorded so I can binge them. :-)

worth watching/waiting for!

Thanks for the review Paul, I watched it, and was so confused , your review helps me sort it all out!

My pleasure, Heather - I'll probably review every episode!

my review of 12 Monkeys 2.2: http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2016...

my review of 12 Monkeys 2.3: http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2016...

my review of 12 Monkeys 2.4: http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2016... outstanding!

reviews of 12 Monkeys 2.5 http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2016... and 2.6 http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2016...

I have been watching season two and I think I like it. Lot more than season one.