Time-Turner Questions?!

[Susana da Cunha]

No: HPFGUIDX 111143

Time travel has been a science fiction pet since forever. Being a science
fiction fan, I will try to explain the two main hypotheses usually
considered:

1 - Time travel can change events. This is the hypothesis used in "Back to
the future" (movie starring Michael J Fox). According to this, if you go
back in time and change events you can alter the future (were you came
from). Your 'past self' will *not* know of the change, but your 'present
self' will know. Because your 'past self' doesn't know, it will never go
back in time to change something that has already been changed and therefore
your 'present self' cannot take the 'past self's place. This is of course a
paradox and is not what happens in PoA (though I've seen it brilliantly
'deparadoxed' by some SF authors).

2 - Time travel cannot change events. This hypothesis states that you can
only do what has already been done - there are no "alternative futures"!
This is what happens in PoA and can only be explained by examples so I will
try to describe a few:

a) You go back in time to kill your father before you wore conceived. - You
will *not* succeed! We *know* you wore conceived, therefore you failed! Some
will ask: but what if I *do* kill him? The answer is: if you *had* killed
him then you wouldn't have been born to raise absurd questions. It's like
asking what happens if a black horse is white. It's a trick question with no
possible answer because the horse is black and not white.

b) You go back in time to kill Hitler when he was ten. - Again you won't
succeed because we know he lived longer than that.

c) You go back in time to have a chat with yourself. - This is my favorite
and it brakes down to two situations:

c1) your 'past self' doesn't know your 'present self' is coming. - You will
give yourself a fright, of course. Fortunately, you won't die of a hart
attack for the reasons discussed in example a). Your 'present self' will
then begin to convince your 'past self' that he is his 'future he'. Of
course, 'present self' already knows the outcome of his efforts because he
has lived it. This means 'past self' won't kill 'present self' or the last
would avoid the situation (unless he's suicidal). Does 'present self' have
to remember the exact words of their conversation? No. The words he decides
to say *are* the exact words that wore spoken (in 'present self's past). So
you have a (friendly or not) chat with yourself and 'present self' already
knows the outcome. 'Past self' doesn't need to know when is time to go back
in time, but he will go. Some will ask: but what if he decides *not* to go
back? The answer is, of course: he *has* decided to go back.

c2) your 'past self' knows your 'present self' is coming. - Imagine you are
alone for the afternoon with a time-turner. You're bored and lonely and you
decide: in three hours I'll come back in time to keep me company. For safety
you give yourself a password so you know it's you. Once you decided this,
you 'present self' appears and says the password. You have a nice afternoon
in your own company and at the end of it the 'past self' decides to go back
to the beginning of the afternoon. Some will ask: but what if... Ok, ok! Let
's pretend for a moment he decides not to go back. After all, it must be
very boring to relive the afternoon, right? The question is not *what
happens if* but *why will he decide to go back*. If he doesn't there will be
two of him. Who is going to keep the wife and children and who is going to
leave and start a new life? Would you really want to have that discussion
with yourself? After all, you are the same person and want the same things;
therefore you'll never reach an agreement. Not satisfied yet? I'll get back
to this issue.

d) You go back in time and run into your 'past self' by mistake. - You even
chose a date that you knew you wouldn't run into yourself, but you wore
wrong! Again, your 'present self' knows the out coming. Your 'past self' may
kill your 'present self' (never the opposite) or maybe you have the password
from example c) and your 'past self' helps you out in your task.

e) You decide duplicate yourself to form an army. - First the *how* and then
the *why*:

e1) how? You need an army *now*. You go back in time one hour and again
another hour and again... and again... and again... so you end up a day or
two 'ago' and there are still only two of you! Pretend you wait an hour
until you are at the situation described in example c2) and that 'past self'
will not go back. For the sake of argument, let's pretend there won't be a
timequake because of that. There are two of you and two time-turners but
'past self' cannot go back or he will be 'present self' an hour ago. So
'present self' goes back and, for an hour, there will be three 'selves'. The
two younger 'selves' cannot go back or they will 'disappear' into the
'present self'. So it's up to 'present self' to keep on going. Because he
has to sleep eventually he will need to go back for 8 hours when is time to
do so. After 6 months of going back 16 hours a day there will be 2881
'selves'. Done? Not quite yet: he also has to eat. For three meals a day he
will need 180 meals that have to be available at the hour he's multiplying
in. Not impossible. Every thing's solved but the timequake.

e2) why? Naturally, I mean *why it won't work*! You have 2881 'selves', all
with the same objective. Who's in charge? After the war is won, who will get
the prize? Wars are made to be fought by the little people that then go home
with PTS. You can't have an army of generals! Some will say: duplicate
Pettigrew. I think not even Pettigrew is that stupid! No one will duplicate
himself to be killed in a war; and if they live there won't be enough reword
for everyone.




The point is: it won't happen because no one would *choose* it to happen.
There is only one timeline and the events of that timeline *have* happen.
They are coherent and there are no timequakes. If someone deliberately tries
to cause a timequake it will backfire and the outcome will resolve the
paradox.

So were does that leave 'free will'?

Well, you are still free to *choose*! If you imagine you stepped out of the
timeline and wore looking at past, present and future as a whole, wouldn't
you refer at all of as past? Do you see your past actions as something that
was forced on you? Does that mean you don't act of your own accord?

It's not that events are decided for us, is that we have already made our
choices along the timeline.




Finely, what about PoA?

Hermione was worn of the 'rules'. If you want to mess with time you have to
do it in a way that doesn't backfire: "you must not be seen", especially if
you're doing something wrong that someone might try to prevent. You must not
try to change events you have witnessed or your actions will backfire. They
played by the rules and got away with it.

But what bugs me is how little surprised Dumbledore was to find Buckbeak
gone out side of Hagrid's. By the time he suggests the use of the
time-turner to save him he already knows they've succeeded. But before?

Did he go back in time and had a little chat with himself? Probably not. My
guess is the paintings heard two sets of them leaving the castle and told
him before he set off to Hagrid's (they couldn't have *seen* two sets
because one was under the invisibility cloth). Or most likely saw the pair
of them appear out of thin air when they went back in time.

Knowing they're friends of Hagrid's, DD guessed what they wore about to do.




Susana