Time-Travel- why Harry *can* save himself (was: POA Dementor Kiss on Harry)

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 79019

I (Laurasia) originally wrote: 
> Your premise that we are always stuck with a soul-sucked Harry 
unless someone else saves him relies on one thing- that there has 
to be a `first time' that time occurs in which no-one has gone back 
in time. 

Talisman responded: 
>Indeed, every one of your theories acknowledges the same 
>premise. 

Me (Laurasia) now:

No, actually, they don't. Read what I what again: 

I wrote:
>When you turn over the time-turner you get transported back in 
time. 
> Time has not moved backwards, rather *you* have been transported 
> through it. Time occurs only once; it's only people that can 
> experience it more than once.

The whole point of this theory is that time only occurs once. There 
are two Harrys and Hermiones in it, but time occurred only once.  
Time wasn't rewound or replayed.  There were two Harrys and two 
Hermiones, but from the external point of view time occurred only 
once. Sure, Harry and Hermione lived through 27 hours consecutively, 
but that day was only 24 hours long. 

bboy_mn  wrote this, and it explains what I am saying so perfectly, 
that I'd like for you to read it:

>We have one immutable source of time which is neutral and 
independant,
>marching ever forward; I call that the timeline. Then we have 
people's
>perception of that passage of time, and we have time as a biological
>event; the wearing down of the human body.

Talisman wrote :
>Sounds like one time/multiple experiences to me. And you are still 
>showing an accrual of experiences, yet you try to deny the need to 
>deal with a first instance of a sucked-if-not-saved Harry experience.

There is no need to deal with a first instance of a sucked-if-not-
saved Harry experience because there was no first time when Harry2 
wasn't there.  Whilst we experience the narrative from Harry's point 
of view, from and external point of view Harry was always there, 
sneaking around the edge of the Forbidden Forest. You use the 
words `first instance-' the whole point of this theory is that there 
*is* *no* first instance of events. There is only *one.*

Talisman originally wrote:

>Even if time travel ultimately results in a single, albeit 
>modified, reality, I maintain that you have to be functional to 
>initiate the cycle.

But! I'm not saying that time has *ultimately* resulted in a 
single `modified' reality at all. I'm saying that time *was* *always* 
that single reality. It wasn't `modified' at all- it was the way it 
from the start. It occurred only once. It was never changed. Harry2 
and Hermione2 were there at 9pm. 9pm occurred only once. It was never 
rewound and replayed. It was never modified. I'm repeating myself- 
but this is the most crucial part of the theory. 

I see that our definitions of what it means to have a single reality 
are not consistent. I'm guessing from your comments that you think a 
singular reality just means that there is one timeline. You are 
forgetting that the nature of how the time-turner works greatly 
impacts on this. In my original post I described three different 
versions of how the time-turner works. In the first one I allowed the 
time-turner to rewind reality. In this instance there is only one 
timeline. It could be considered `a single reality' because all 
action takes place on the same timeline- the time-turner just rewinds 
and presses play again. HOWEVER, it is not a self-consistent timeline 
that would enable Harry to save himself. You are correct in saying 
that on this `one timeline' version of reality there is no way of 
Harry to save himself. In the `first time' that time occurs Harry 
gets soul-sucked. Therefore he is not alive to rewind time to prevent 
himself getting soul-sucked. We are agreed on this point.

The self-consistent singular timeline version is vastly different. 
Instead of rewinding time and letting it happen again (overriding 
what had already occurred) it *was* *always* *like* *that.*  The time-
turner moves Harry and Hermione through space. The time-turner does 
not repeat time. Time has _not_ `resulted' in a singular, albeit 
modified version of reality at all- it was always like that from the 
start. They were really there. From the point of view of an external 
observer time occurs only once in a continuous straight line. 9pm 
occurred only once. It was _not_ experienced firstly as a version 
without Time-Turner!Harry in it. He was always there.

You spent a good deal of time trying to debunk the singular timeline 
theory. However, you only debunked *one* singular timeline theory. 
This is a completely different theory- I thought that I made that 
clear in my original post by clearly showing you how you could have a 
singular timeline, but still a soul-sucked Harry. You still have not 
let go of the idea of having a `first time.' In this self-consistent 
version of events there was no `first time' in which Harry had no yet 
gone back in time. There was one and only one time and Harry was 
always there.

 

Your theory that `unless someone else saves Harry we are always stuck 
with a soul sucked Harry' is *wrong.* There *is* a way of Harry to 
save himself. I have just described it above. You original post 
(78370) did not discredit this theory at all. In fact, it didn't even 
acknowledge that this theory exists. Your original post proved how 
Harry can't save himself in a singular-timeline version of events 
*where* *the* *time-turner* *moves* *time* *backwards* and new 
version of events overrides the old version. You did not even 
acknowledge that there is an interpretation of the events in which 
Time occurs only once and there is never a `first time.' This is the 
self-consistent version of Time-Travel that allows Harry to save 
himself- because he really did go back to 9pm when it was occurring 
for the first and only time. Therefore, when he cast his Patronus 
over the lake it was the first and only time anyone had *ever* cast a 
Patronus over the lake because _9pm_ _occurred_ _only_ _once_.

I'm not saying that your version of events is wrong. I'm saying that 
your blatant disregard for any other theory is wrong.

Talsiman wrote:
>You are still confusing yourself with the word "time." And to avoid 
>a hopeless reiteration of the mess, just look at the initial step in 
>your "great de-bunking" theory, and I quote you:

"When you turn over the time-turner you get transported back in 
time."

And what's wrong with that??? You get transported *back* *in* *time.* 
Not making time *go* *backwards.* Harry and Hermione get picked up 
and placed in the actual events. The only time they actually occur. 
They haven't rewound and then replaced the events that they just 
experienced from a different point of view. They are actually 
interacting with them- back in time. 

Talisman wrote:
>Go ahead and pitch a time-turner through the veil. Sirius can't use 
>it to get out. Even if, by your reasoning, he could then make it so 
>his death never happened,i.e. "save himself."

Actually, that is the exact point that I am *not* proposing. In fact, 
it's the exact *opposite* of what I'm proposing. In this theory there 
could be no possible way of saving Sirius because he actually did go 
through the veil- the only time that that time ever occurred. 
Therefore, no matter how many people go back in time to try to save 
him, we know that they will never succeed because, hey, we saw him go 
through the veil. There is only one-time that this event occurred, 
and no matter how many people experience it from other points of 
view, it still happened for the only time- so their presence will not 
be able to change it. Sirius can't turn over the time-turner because 
he doesn't have one (I assume) and because he's dead. Time occurred 
only once, and Sirius fell. If we accept *your* theory, then it's 
entirely possible for Sirius to be saved, so long as he isn't the one 
turning over the time-turner. Because in *your* version of time-
travel time can be undone and modified. So Harry could go back in 
time, intercept Sirius before his death and he would never fall 
through the veil at all.

Talisman wrote:
>If you straighten out your jumbled semantics, you'll see that what I 
>endorse is rather different than what you attribute to me, and that 
>you have not effectively argued against it. 

And the same to you. Because you have no argued against me at all. 
What you attribute me is actually *not* what I am saying. You have 
argued against a theory which I acknowledge exists, but no not 
endorse whatsoever. If you really want to prove beyond all reasonable 
doubt that there is no way of having a self-consistent time-line, 
then I suggest you start again. 

And besides, I wasn't attributing you anything- I was showing you 
another interpretation of events. In fact, I avoided mentioning your 
theory in depth because it was already clear how you would like it to 
work. If you want me to debunk your theory, then I will. 

~<(Laurasia)>~