Time Travel and Prophecies (was PoA: an explanation of the time/patronus parado)

[jsmithqwert]

No: HPFGUIDX 68167

> 
> Olivia Wood wrote:
>  
> > Okay, considering what the Prophecy in OoP says about Harry 
killing 
> > Voldy or Voldy killing Harry, it would have been impossible for 
> > Harry to have been kissed, since the terms of the prophecy hadn't 
> > been fulfilled yet. So maybe Harry wouldn't have been given the 
> > second chance, the ability to time-travel from the future to 
> prevent 
> > his own death, if it wasn't for the 'greater magic' that ensures 
> the 
> > fullfilment of prophecies and such matters.
> 
> Me:
> 
> Well, you see, prophecies are ridiculousy ambiguous. I think you 
> could say that if Harry died at the lake it was because the 
Demenotrs 
> attacked him, and that was because they were there looking for 
Sirius 
> Black, and that was because the MoM thought that he was a Voldemort 
> supporter...
> 
> You see, so you can always bring it back to Voldemort. Essentially, 
> you could argue that if Harry was kiseed by the Dementors at the 
> lake, in a round-about way, it still could be traced back to 
> Voldemort. This is the wonders of ambiguous prophecies.
> 
> ~<(Laurasia)>~

I think the thing to remember about the prophesy is that it is not 
causal.  It seems that Olivia's argument is a bit post hoc ergo 
propter hoc.  Prophesies don't dictate the final outcome, they 
indicate it.  This is very difficult to explain, and I may not make 
myself entirely clear.  Althought what the prophesy says is 
inevitable, that doesn't mean that people act out of character to 
ensure its fulfillment.  In fact, it is inevitable precisely because 
people act within character and, thereby, promote the forseen and 
continuing strand of causality.  If there had been no prophesy, 
Dumbledore would still have sent Harry and Hermeione back to save 
themselves, Sirius, Buckbeak, etc. . .  Saving innocent people from 
disasterous endings is what Dumbledore does, and if he has to fudge a 
little about laws and logic, then so be it.  We can't say that Harry 
and Hermeione had to go back in time in order to enable the 
prophesy's fulfillment by protecting Harry1 because the prophesy is 
true due to Harry and Hermeione's travel back in time.  If, 
hypothetically, they did not, then the prophesy would not be a 
prophesy at all but just another of Trelawney's educated guesses.  In 
fact, it probably would never have been made.  To close, stipulating 
that Harry and Hermeione went back in time because of the profesy is 
a logical fallacy.  The existence of the prophesy before their jaunt 
through time does not indicate causality.  In fact, because of the 
complicated nature of single-dimensional time travel and prophesies 
themselves, Harry and Hermeione's trip back in time contributed to 
the cause of the prophesy even though it came later.

jsmithqwert - who is sure that he has thoroughly lost everyone in 
this convoluted post and apologizes that coordinating two incredibly 
abstract concepts like time-travel and prophesies involves such 
confusing reasoning and additionally apologizes for any gaps in his 
reasoning (he is sure that there are some) and finally, apologizes, 
that this closing statement is a rediculous use of run-on.