*MY* confusion-Time Turner: Could vs Would

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 124209


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" <delwynmarch at y...>
wrote:
> 
>
> 
> Del replies:
> Yes, but...
> 
> Let's position ourselves at that moment in the infirmary when DD is
> about to send the kids back in time. There's only one time-line,
> right? What has happened *has* happened, right? To me this means that :
> 
> 1. Either Harry and Hermione are going to Time-Turn at some time. In
> this case, there are *right now* two pairs of them around. The 
> TT!Pair is *right now* working on saving Sirius, and there's 
> *nothing* Current!DD or Current!Pair can do to help them. ...
> 
> 2. Or Harry and Hermione are not going to Time-Turn. In this case,
> *nobody* is working *right now* on saving Sirius, and Sirius is 
> doomed.
> 
> So I really don't see why there would be any urgency in sending the
> Duo back in time, since it is not their current version that are
> saving Sirius (if anyone is), but their TT version. ...
> 
> Which is why I will side with Steve in saying that the main reason
> DD is sending them back at the time he does is mainly psychological.
> ...edited... 
> 
> Hope it makes sense.
> 
> Del

bboyminn:

Del, I do agree with the basic premise of this hypothetical. If we
assume the univeral timeline plays out the same, then Harry and
Hermione can go back at anytime, even the next day, and help save Sirius.

If the events that happened truly happened, if TT!Harry saved
Buckbeak, if TT!Harry saved himself, if TT!Harry saved Sirius, then
within reason, it doesn't matter when they went back in time to aid in
making that history.

So, I agree that they COULD do it, the posed hypothetical is valid,
but where I take acception, is in whether they WOULD do it. IF Sirius
has already been saved, THEN all motivation and need to help him is
lost. Again, why fix something that isn't broken? Why would you want
to save someone who doesn't need saving?

When Dumbledore sends them back, there is a great need and a great
urgency. In this new hypothetical situation, there is no need, and
therefore no urgency. 

Current!Harry and Current!Hemrione don't know how or why Sirius was
saved, all they know is that he was saved, and that concludes the
event for them. In a sense, that is 'end of story', 'game over'.

So, I want to make sure you understand that I am not shooting down the
basic premise of the hypothetical. Assuming that they do time travel,
exactly when is not that critical (within reason). 

However, the motivation to time travel in the first place is
tremendously different based on when they time travel. They NEEDED to
do it when Dumbledore sent them, but in the hypothetical, the DON'T
need to; all motivation is lost because the situation is already resolved.

On a more general note; Dumbledore made sure that Harry and Hermione
didn't change history. I think not changing history is critical. There
has to be a reason for the natural or wizard's law against doing so,
and the existance of the law implies that it can be done. 

Further, I stand firmly in my belief that changing history can be done
but is a dangerous and unpredictable with potentially catstrophic
results, which is exactly why it is against the law. Knowing this,
Dumbledore tries to create a scenerio in which history is created
rather than changed. 

Their time travel events didn't change the past, but molded what would
become history. Buckbeak was saved; Dumbledore may not know how or
why, but he witnesses that bit of history. Harry and Hermione are
saved, Dumbledore doesn't understand how or why, but it's an
established fact. I believe Dumbledore was also picking up a lot of
clues that are 'off-page' for the reader; maybe unnaturally rustling
of grass, sounds in the woods, and other assorted clues obtained by
his keen preception and awareness of the world around him.  

By the time they are all in the hospital wing, Dumbledore has put it
all together and knows what he must do. So, he sends Harry and
Hermione back in time. He sends them when the need is greatest, and
when history can be created rather than changed.

Again, I do understand the posed hypothetical and agree with it's
basic premise, but the flaw in the hypothetical is that while it COULD
be done, the NEED to do so has been lost.

Just ranting and raving as usual.

Steve/bboyminn