Time, Repetition and the Uber-Dimension (was: Narrative Function

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 79774

Talisman wrote:

>Laurasia, you seem to have spent a good deal of time 
>crafting "authoritative" tomes on the "Two Options In
>Time Travel," 
>in which you explain your theory vs. what you assert to be my 
>theory. The problem is that you have not yet understood, or at 
>least not yet iterated, my theory. I hope you'll understand why
>I 
>don't provide a specific response to your posts, as they are not 
>germane to any actual view I hold.

Actually, in my post: #79043 I wasn't *specifically* referring to 
your theory at all. I wasn't trying to refer to *anyone's* theory. 
Rather, I was just discussing time-travel in general. So, of course 
you you'll find that I haven't detailed my understanding of *your* 
time-travel theory, because I was trying to keep my post separate 
from the many varied and dynamic time-travel theories out there.  I 
was talking about the *outcome* and what that means, regardless of 
the specific means that people have chosen to reach that outcome.


Talisman wrote:

>Acctually, the "it-was-always-that-way" theory seems to
>largely 
>render the narrative work of Time-Travel superfluous. Laurasia 
>maintains that Travelers have always achieved their goals, before 
>ever using the Turner, and that they don't actually change
>anything. 

Correct. They don't actually change anything, but they understand why 
it happens. They understand their own actions a lot better. Rather 
than Harry understanding that `he was saved by Dementors' he begins 
to understand that `*he* saved himself from Dementors.' 

Most of the time you won't be aware that you have gone back in time 
until you actually do. So you aren't looking for instances of time-
travel in everyday occurrences.  In, for instance, the `Bill and Ted' 
movies they *do* know that they will go back in time before they do, 
so begin to look at every moment with the idea `What could be 
evidence of me going back in time?' In Harry Potter we don't see this 
happen at all. We don't see Harry think `If I go back in time in half 
and hour and bury some binoculars here, then I can dig them up now 
and find them.' The point I'm trying to make is that *Harry* doesn't 
consider his goals already achieved. From the external point of view 
of `time' then, yes, they are already achieved, but from the 
character's point of view he still could fail at any time, he still 
has to put in all the work. He's still working in the *present* after 
all.

For all we know Harry could've lost his nerve at any time and may 
have to go back in time a second time, or third time until he finally 
is able to cast the Patronus over the lake and become the Harry he 
saw from the opposite bank. Just because he's seen the unchangeable 
effects in the past does not mean that he knows the *exact* cause. 
Seeing the effects before the cause doesn't ensure that you are 
assured the complete journey which was "A to B." The struggle that 
Harry faces *before* he casts the Patronus is what is interesting: 
thinking it was his father; getting excited; getting disappointed and 
scared when no one comes; realising it was him all along; getting 
excited and THEN he casts it.


Talsiman wrote:

>Under these circumstances, one doesn't wonder why the Ministry 
>controls Time-Turners, one wonders why they bother to produce them 
>at all.

Why produce Time-Turners, you ask? Because sometimes only after the 
event do you realise that you could have done something. Take the 
Buckbeak fiasco from Dumbledore's point of view. Buckbeak goes 
mysteriously missing at sunset. Later on in the night we realise that 
Sirius needs to escape. If only you'd gone back in time, borrowed 
Buckbeak and were currently hiding him out in the Forbidden Forest. 
Then you could've flown him up to the window to help Sirius escape. 
No one at the time of the execution (presumably) would have had the 
knowledge to anticipate Sirius's need for Beaky. Only someone with 
the knowledge of the next three hours could know to save Beaky. Enter 
the time-turner. It basically casts Dumbledore in the `Bill and Ted' 
role where they think `If only I'd gone back in time and tied a 
sandbag above your head- then I could pull this rope here and make it 
fall on you.'

And besides, Hermione's use of a time-turner shows another ordinary 
use of a time-turner. Magic still has ordinary day-to-day practical 
uses, even if it can be very dangerous and controlled. Time-Turners 
are dangerous for a number of reasons:

What happens if you *force* time to happen differently? By that I 
mean, what if Harry disregarded Hermione's advice and went charging 
into Hagrid's to catch Wormtail? We know that he didn't, `time' knows 
that he didn't but what if he *forced* it to happen? It is something 
that time knows *did* *not* happen, so forcing it to occur would 
destroy time. It would destroy the world. That's a pretty big weight 
on your shoulders. A pretty big reason to control Time-Turners. If 
you do something `time' knows doesn't happen, then you destroy time.

There are other ordinary reason why time-turners are dangerous: 
People can escape the law (for example) by tipping over their time-
turner. You can't apparate/disapparate inside Hogwarts, but you *can* 
tip over a time-turner. It moves you from the physical place you were 
(Hospital Wing to Entrance Hall) and into a time when no one is 
looking for you. It's an incredibly powerful transportation. Theives, 
people making mischief, etc- all could use one.


Talisman wrote:

>And, bboy, don't you go anywhere. I know that you and Laurasia
>are 
>not the same person (at least I think not)

*blushes* You actually considered the thought that bboy_mn and I are 
the same person? I'm flattered! I respect bboy_mn very much. He 
always jumps into the time-travel fray and supports me! Alas, I'm 
*not* the same person as he is... :-D

Talisman wrote:

>As to the grayness of HP's moral landscape, I am on record,
>previous 
>to the TBAY posts you laud, Laurasia, as to its being very gray, 
>indeed. This is not at all altered by Snape's helping Harry. 
>(Although, your being Kirstini's alter-ego WOULD explain a few 
>things. )

Yes, I'm aware that the greyness has been explored before. I just 
threw in those references because I thought they were good posts. 
Alas, I'm not Kirstini's alter-ego *either.* So, wrong again... Maybe 
third time lucky, eh? ;-D


Talisman wrote:
<snip>
>Time-Travelers will experience the "always" presence of
>themselves, 
>because whenever they act in the Relevant Span, they are back inside 
>of Time, once again subject to its rules, and it's denial of 
>the "return trip."

So, are you saying then that Harry really did see himself (himself-
plus-3-hours, that is) over the lake? Harry really did experience 
the "always" presences of himself being there? That's what it sounds 
like. Your whole kitchen table analogy really just proved the `it-
happened-once' theory. It proved how when you're standing outside 
time Harry really can be on one side of the lake, while Harry-plus-3-
hours can be on the other side simultaneously.  If you yourself have 
just proved that Harry can be on both sides of the lake at the exact 
moment and that time happens only once and can't go backwards, then 
where has the Snape!Theory gone? I see no need for your Snape-saved-
Harry theory, because you've just proved that Harry really can be 
standing on opposite sides of the lake at the exact same moment.

Where is the need for Snape to use some other form of repelling 
Dementors when Harry is right there with his wand out and ready? And 
if time happened only once and can't be rewound, when did he save 
Harry? When? The time that we saw *Harry* cast the Patronus? That's 
the only time you've said exists! And we *know* that Harry saved 
himself then. We were standing right next to him as he 
roared `Expecto Patronum' over the lake! Or, are you suggesting that 
the Patronus Charm *didn't* save Harry that night? That the Patronus 
just distracted everyone's attention while Snape did the *real* 
saving with some spell that we don't even know exists? That's the 
only option I can work out. That Harry really did see himself across 
the Lake, but his Patronus did nothing at all. It was the guy back up 
at the castle who did it all? silmariel's version of how Snape can 
save them all is watertight because she uses multiple timeline which 
can override one another.


Talisman wrote:

>You cannot exist as a savior-self that is even one metabolic-second 
>older than you were when you would have perished without it.
<snip>
>Therefore, older Harry could not initially save younger Harry--even 
>though Time insists that he was "always" present in both
>roles.

Why is that? Are you saying:

Harry2 and Harry1 are both at the lake. Harry2 can't save Harry1 
because Harry1 needs Harry 2 to survive?

That is: X and Y are simultaneous. 
X can't save Y because Y needs X? 

That makes no sense. 

It should be: 
X *must save* Y because X needs Y.
And this is where the problems start. 

Am I right in assuming that what you really are having an issue with 
is the idea that Harry *must* save his former self? It's not that you 
disagree with the fact that Harry and Harry-plus-3-hours are standing 
right next to each other, it is just that that now means that Harry 
had no choice in going back in time? 
Are you having an issue with choice: you think that Harry should 
always be allowed to choose? If Harry really did save himself it 
means that it already happened before he decided to do it. You have 
no issues saying that it could have physically happened (you said 
that they were both there), rather that it now renders time-travel 
stupid because every time you go back in time you have no choice in 
your actions any more? 

Well, technically Hermione threw the time-turner chain around Harry's 
neck and tipped over the hourglass on Dumbledore's orders no matter 
which way you look at it. I mean, even if you believe Snape saved 
them all at the lake, Harry didn't choose to go back in time at all: 
Hermione had done it before he even knew what was happening or given 
his consent. It was a choice that was completely out of his hands.  
Harry was thrust back in time- something he didn't count on or ask 
for. *Dumbledore* chose for Harry to go back in time. Harry just 
happened to work with the circumstances- and those included saving 
himself. 

Okay, so the choice issue is something that slipped my mind when I 
was writing my post about Narrative Function. I really should have 
included it in that post, but... Anyway, the choice issue is another 
reason why people discount the `it-happened-once' time-travel theory 
because it seemingly takes away the character's freewill, especially 
significant when given JKR's strong theme of choices. However, as I 
said previously in this post- you can still *force* time to occur 
differently, except the second you force it you cause an impossible 
paradox which ends the world. Causing something to occur (which time 
knows did not) *destroys time.*  So, Harry's actions weren't 
superfluous- there was a heavy weight on his shoulders at all times. 
If you force time to occur differently, the whole world goes down 
with you. Especially heavy when considering that time is a mysterious 
factor.

I should also point out that Harry has been thrust into many things 
without his consent (the least of which is three hours of time-
travel). *James and Lily's* choices meant that Harry was born 
according to the prophecies requirements. *Voldemort's* choice meant 
that Harry was marked his equal. Both of these choices have seriously 
shaped the way the storyline of the series has progressed, but 
neither of them belonged to Harry. Those choices have given Harry 
immense responsibility which he now must choose how to face, but he 
never chose the responsibility in the first place. In exactly the 
same way that *Dumbledore* gave Harry the responsibility of saving 
himself (by sending him back in time) and Harry *chose* to accept it, 
although never actually choosing the responsibility in the first 
place.


~<(Laurasia)>~