The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Motivation for fixing Little Chicago?
g33k:
--- Quote from: nadia.skylark on May 17, 2019, 07:19:48 PM ---The problem is that when you can change the past, stable time loops don't work.
It's like this. There is the original timeline, iteration 1. Then someone from iteration 1 goes back in time, creating iteration 2. If the timeline cannot be changed, then iteration 1 and iteration 2 are identical, and you also end up with iterations 3, 4, 5, etc. that are also identical, as the same person from each iteration goes back in time. This is a stable time loop.
However, if the timeline can be changed, then iterations 1 and 2 cannot be presumed to be identical, so the question remains "but what happened in iteration 1?"
--- End quote ---
Not accepting that argument.
The stable time-loop is ONE timeline (that includes a loop). There is no "iteration 1" & "iteration 2" &c... they are identical, in the sense of "sharing identity" -- they are not successive iterations, but a singular stream of events.
I agree that they cannot be "presumed to be" identical. Mortals are fallible, and screwups happen. In fact, with time-travel they are overwhelmingly likely to happen. Then you would indeed have different iterations, and paradox, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
But it CAN be identical. The later-in-life person can do all the things that the TT-person did, and fulfill all the actions perfectly, and create no paradox or separate "iterations." It's just horribly unlikely (which is part of why it's Against The Laws).
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---The stable time-loop is ONE timeline (that includes a loop). There is no "iteration 1" & "iteration 2" &c... they are identical, in the sense of "sharing identity" -- they are not successive iterations, but a singular stream of events.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, I should have specified that any iteration that is identical to another is the same timeline. The iteration thing is just a way of expressing it. If a=b=c=d=etc. where a, b, c, d, etc. are all numbers, then there is only one number.
--- Quote ---I agree that they cannot be "presumed to be" identical. Mortals are fallible, and screwups happen. In fact, with time-travel they are overwhelmingly likely to happen. Then you would indeed have different iterations, and paradox, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
But it CAN be identical. The later-in-life person can do all the things that the TT-person did, and fulfill all the actions perfectly, and create no paradox or separate "iterations." It's just horribly unlikely (which is part of why it's Against The Laws).
--- End quote ---
Maybe, sure. If the person going back in time was someone who was completely dedicated to not causing trouble and disrupting things, even though it meant that innocents got hurt, then I can see it maybe working.
But the person going back in time is Harry. And by saying "everything is completely the same between iterations (ie Harry did not change anything)" you are asking me to believe that Harry is the kind of person who would allow innocent people to die without trying to save them, the kind of person who would allow an innocent girl to be permanently stained with darkness without trying to prevent it--and I don't. I 100% don't believe that Harry could go back in time to that point and not try to change things, because for him to do so would be fundamentally antithetical to his character.
Therefore, in order for Harry to be the one who went back in time to fix Little Chicago, then either A) he would have to be centuries older, so that the character change makes sense--but this is almost certainly outside the scope of the time covered in the books; B) he would have to have tried to change things and failed utterly and completely, while at the same time not leaving any evidence that he was trying to change things--but Harry is not a quiet or subtle person, so I don't believe that this is possible; or C) he must have actually changed things, and the version of events we see is the result of these changes.
morriswalters:
So what your telling me is that Harry never died. Because had he, there would be no future Harry, unless I'm missing something. So what is the narrative point? Why do it? So Harry and Bob can have that conversation?
groinkick:
I'd suggest rereading Proven Guilty with the specific purpose of looking for something that stands out as odd. With the knowledge that something is going on under the surface. With that point of view it may be possible to find something.
morriswalters:
Whois Sandra Marling?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version