Paradox of Time Travel in PoA - Before & After

[davenclaw]

No: HPFGUIDX 137422

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlv230" <jlv230 at y...> wrote:

> JLV:
> 6pm takes place before 10pm *to the clock*, 

You know full well that I'm not just talking about what clock says.  
I'm talking about the actual moment in time.


> You also assume that "6-10pm happens before 
> 10pm changes what happened at 6pm" which is begging the question. 

I didn't think that assuming that time occurs sequentially was 
begging the question, but maybe it is. Are you saying that 10pm has 
already happened at 6pm, and this was ALWAYS the case?


> You also miss, throughout your response, the crucial distinction 
> between `affect' and `change'. These words do not mean the same 
> thing. In the context of this discussion, `affect' means `be a 
cause 
> of' and `change' means `to stop being one way and start being 
> another'. 

The only way that time traveling can cause something to happen 
without it being a change is if you assume that the future has 
already occured before the past is actually lived.  This is the view 
of time that someone else expressed, that all time pre-exists and we 
are just working through it sequentially.  To use your words, your 
assertion is "begging the question."


> JLV:
> Actually, at 9.15pm-to-the-clock he *has* time travelled in a 
sense, 
> because there are two Harrys around. It must have happened, 
because 
> the effect is there.

This certainly doesn't contradict what I said.  As I said, we are 
witnessing altered events, which now include the time traveling 
Harry.  But until the time comes where he time-travels, there is 
only one Harry.  This changes when he time travels.


> JLV:
> I did no such thing. I said `affect'. You read `change'. Please 
bear 
> the distinction I have made in mind because there is a lot of 
> potential ambiguity here.

Maybe you can explain to me how one can experience the effects of a 
decision that hasn't been made yet.

 
> > Davenclaw:
> > I don't see the logical inconsistency with a dual-timeline 
theory.
> 
> JLV:
> Okay, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Maybe you can explain it. I must have missed it.


> > Davenclaw:
> > but I also don't see how you can fail to see the huge problem 
with 
> > the single timeline theory.  9pm can't come before 6pm, so 6-9pm 
> > must take place before time traveling occurs, meaning that there 
> is 
> > a timeline without a time traveler before there is a timeline 
with 
> a 
> > time traveler.
> 
> JLV:
> That simply isn't true. Remember 6pm takes place before 10pm *to 
the 
> clock*, but to TT!Harry 10pm-to-the-clock on Hogwart's wall takes 
> place twice, once earlier-to-Harry and once later-to-Harry.

I'm not concerned with TT!Harry experiencing the same clock time 
twice.  I'm concerned with the original Harry experiencing the 
affects of time-travel before he has traveled in time.  Before he 
ever sits up in that hospital room, he is doing other things.  These 
things happen before he is in the hospital room, before he and 
Hermione time-turn. How can things that he does before time 
traveling ALWAYS have been part of the timeline, even when that time 
hasn't occured yet?  Before he time-travels, at 7pm, 10pm has never 
been reached, there is no time traveler.


> JLV:
> Ouch. Is fake canon an oxymoron? Anyway, I didn't say 
> that "McGonagal is a hysterical liar". Those are your words. 
Please 
> don't put words in my mouth.

They are a description of an explanation that someone provided to 
explain why she would say that the past can be changed when really 
it can't.  I'm not sure if it was you, but I believe you accepted 
it.  If not, you haven't explained how your theory can be reconciled 
with this aspect of canon.


> JLV:
> I'm not sure what you mean. I think you've missed my point. 
Remember 
> the `change'/'affect' distinction.

There is only a distinction between "change/affect" in this context  
if you assume that the future has already happened before it is 
experienced sequentially, which is begging the question.


> JLV:
> An event at 10pm-to-the-clock in Hogwarts can affect one at 9pm-to-
> the-clock. 

Yes, but not until 10pm is reached, which first requires a 9pm to 
have occurred without the influence of events at 10pm.  The loop 
from 10pm back to 9pm first requires progression from 9pm to 10pm 
without a loop.


> Alternatively, you could propose a `multiple timelines' theory, in 
> which events happen and then are rewritten, and memories are 
> modified to `change' them to what they should be as if the new 
> events did indeed happen that way the `first time round'.
> 
> > Davenclaw:
> > It's just that after the time traveling takes place all 
> > knowledge of pre-time-traveling events is lost.
> 
> Almost as if those events really did happen that way all along. I 
> really think this reduces to the single-timeline theory. Why 
imagine 
> events happened that JKR "never wrote"? 

Yes, as I have said the affect on everyone's memory would be that 
the altered events are the only ones they are aware of.  The problem 
comes with explaining how Harry was saved by the dementors before 
his memory of the original events was replaced with a memory of him 
saving himself from dementors.  The problem that then arises is, 
before TT!Harry ever saved himself from dementors, he would have had 
a memory of the original events, so it's not clear why he would 
think he needed to save himself if he knew he had already been 
saved... maybe he saved the life of the person who had saved him 
originally?

I never said my theory wasn't problematic, but the problems with my 
theory lie in JKR's failure to realize and write about them.  But in 
my opinion this is better than the problem of requiring us to think 
of all events in time being pre-destined but then only experienced 
after the fact, which is necessary for your theory to work.


> JLV:
> So you are allowed to think JKR made a mistake, but anyone who 
says 
> she might possibly have made a mistake when she wrote Hermione's 
> speech is really saying that "McGonagal is a hysterical liar" and 
> creating fake canon?

Yes, the problem comes with reconciling the theory with the facts 
presented in the book.  Per my theory, the facts in the book are not 
contradicted, but there must have been other events which are not 
written about and probably never conceived of, which is what I am 
complaining about.  Your theory requires us to completely dismiss 
explanations of time travel that were actually given in order to 
assert that she was writing from that perspective.

Perhaps the problem boils down to the fact that she had a "single 
timeline theory" in mind but wrote explanations that contradicted 
this theory.  What's more, this theory requires not just a 
particular theory of time *travel*, but of the nature of time 
itself - it requires us to consider time as having already taken 
place before it is experienced, and perhaps others find this theory 
more plausible than I do.


- davenclaw