*MY* confusion about the Time Turner

[elfundeb]

No: HPFGUIDX 124103

Ah, Time Turner inconsistencies -- many interesting posts, of which I'm
replying to several.

> Laurasia asked:
>
> Why is there no unanimous understanding
> of Potterverse Time Travel?

And answered:
> The problem, I think, is choice.
>
> JKR has spent a good deal of time showing us the importance of
> choices. And she gets the most credible, experienced and wise
> character she has (Dumbledore) spout freewill/choice rhetoric at
> regular intervals.

I must confess that I wonder sometimes about our assumption
that the books are full of freewill rhetoric.  "It is our choices, Harry,
that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities."  He
doesn't say that we become who we are through our choices, which is how I
would phrase it for a non-predestined world.

Laurasia:
> But she doesn't. Instead JKR shows us Hermione hiding behind Hagrid's
> Hut pleading with Harry that he *CANNOT* burst in and seize Pettigrew!
> Why is Harry's freedom of choice so resolutely BLOCKED? Why not send
> Harry and Hermione *4* *turns* back so they can nip down to Hagrid's
> ahead of time and whisk Wormtail out of the jug?

Harry is free to reject Hermione's advice but that something will prevent
him from reaching Hagrid's hut.  Yet, that choice might cause something else
to happen that affected the future he has already seen, even though Harry
was not aware of that effect (e.g., it might have affected another
character).

Laurasia:
> The only way we can see effect *before* cause is if Time is
> predefined. If Time is fixed then order isn't important.

I envision Time as a fourth dimension that exists in the past, present and
future.  In other words, the future already exists even though we do not
know what it is.  Nevertheless, we humans always have free will because we
are
constrained by our limited viewpoints, but the omniscient God, or Time,
knows what choices you will make and who you will become.  Therefore (to be
consistent with Dumbledore's statement quoted above), your choices show who
you are.  This perspective makes arguing about free will vs.
predestination is about as fruitful as arguing about how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin.


SSSusan wrote:
> JKR actually muddies the waters a bit when she "allows" Hermione to
> say, "There must be something that happened around now that [DD]
> wants us to change." Similarly, Hermione's comment about lots of
> witches & wizards having killed their past AND FUTURE selves did a
> disservice to people's understanding.

Clearly these statements, and the one that "we're breaking one of the most
important wizarding laws!  Nobody's supposed to change time, nobody!" that
cast so much doubt about what's really happening.  It makes me wonder
whether JKR fully understands the principles she uses.

But assuming it's not an error, Hermione states that changing time is
*prohibited*.  H&H do not violate this law, because
they don't change anything.  Maybe a time-turner isn't effective to change
events (although like prophecies, its use influences the past).  But perhaps
Hermione's statement means that there is something else in the WW that could
change past events.  Whatever it is, though, I really don't want to see it,
which is why I tend to assume JKR made a mistake.

But if you think about it, it's certainly possible to kill one's future self
without *changing* anything.  For example, assume that H&H1 killed H&H2
without realizing who the victims were.  (I know that this is totally
inconsistent with their characters, but this is just an illustration of the
principle.  Or maybe Werewolf!Lupin killed them on their way back to the
castle.)  H&H1, who were not killed, would have continued, and at midnight
in the hospital wing they would have used the time-turner and disappeared.
However, H&H2 would simply not return to the hospital wing at midnight;
there's nothing inconsistent with what's gone before for H&H2 to
simply be dead.  There could be a temporal problem if the bodies are
discovered before midnight while H&H1 are still around.  That would require
a little explanation (unless Dumbledore revealed that they had used the
Time-Turner), but the
result would not be inconsistent.  H&H would be dead without having changed
time.

However, this *is* a problem if hypothetical H&H1 realized who they had
killed, because absent a suicide wish, they would never choose to use the
time-turner if they knew what would happen to H&H2.  The way JKR seems to
have presented the issue, it would also have been impossible for H&H2 to
kill their past selves because H&H1 would not have been around at midnight
to use the time-turner (not to mention that H&H2 knew H&H1 were out there so
they would have been very unlikely to kill them).  In fact, the guiding
principle about not being seen doesn't have any application to the
possibility of H&H2 killing H&H1, as Hermione's comments ("You wouldn't
understand, you might even attack yourself") seem to illustrate.

Sandra wrote:
> >Time travel is only infuriating when it's handled badly, as it was
> in PoA. When it's done with all the pitfalls and traps sorted out and
> addressed (The Guardian Of Time), it's huge fun. There's been lots of
> comments about the Time Turner, and it all boils down to one major
> flaw - how could a future version of yourself go back in time to save
> a terminal tragedy happening to yourself - all on the same night?
> <snip>
> >It simply doesn't work, and I think people are beginning to see
> that.

I wonder if my ease of mind about how JKR handled the time-turner (other
than Hermione's inconsistent statements) arise from the fact that I've read
little, if any, fantasy literature and therefore have not seen time-travel
in fiction before (though I have seen movies with time-travel elements).
(Though it's not relevant here, I think I have more issues with a
time-travel universe in which events *can* be changed. )  Therefore, I had
no preconceived notions of how it
should work and looked primarily to whether JKR had handled it consistently.
I actually went back on my first reading and checked to be sure we had not
been shown Buckbeak's execution.

Finally, Betsy wrote:

> The big question I've had was how Dumbledore was aware of the
> possibility that Buckbeak escaped through time manipulation.  I
> wonder if one of his many office gadgets alerts him to Time-Turner
> use (handy to regulate a student's use of such a device) and that
> cued him in to keep an eye out for irregularities.

Dumbledore knew that Buckbeak had escaped because he had gone with Macnair
to Hagrid's hut for the execution.  He also knew that Sirius' only avenue of
escape from the locked room was through the window, which meant he had to
escape by air.  And he knew Hermione had a time-turner.  Dumbledore simply
put two and two together and realized that H&H could be sent to free
Buckbeak and rescue Sirius.  I don't believe he was 100% certain that H&H2
had freed Buckbeak, but it was very likely -- and it was probably Sirius'
only chance.

My nagging question is one that's been asked many times:  None of Hermione's
classmates noticed that she was in two places at once?

Debbie
who could use a time-turner right now