Paradox of Time Travel in PoA

[davenclaw]

No: HPFGUIDX 132017

> Marozi:
> 
> This isn't how it works in the Potterverse, though. 
> There is no "first time" or "lost past," the two
> Harrys coexisted in a single linear time.  By the time
> Harry wound up in the hospital, he had already saved
> himself, he just didn't know it yet.  History didn't
> change (and in this model, could not be changed),
> Harry just understood his own part in it better.  
> 

This still doesn't make sense. Let's think of it this way.  Harry 
and Hermione experience the same three hour block of time in three 
different ways:

- the original way, before time was changed
- the altered way
- as time-travelers

Reading through it again, I realize that WE NEVER SEE THE ORIGINAL 
EVENTS.  We only see the events as they were changed, and the events 
from the perspective of the time-travlers.

Here is the problem: In order for Harry to end up in the hospital 
and use the time-turner, he had to have been saved from the 
Dementors.  In order for him to have been saved from the Dementors, 
he had to have gone back in time.  But the moment when Dumbledore 
tells Harry and Hermione to use the time-turner is a discrete 
event.  We only see this event from the perspective of a Harry and 
Hermione whose memory now only reflects the altered past - thus 
Harry now only remembers seeing his own Patronus, even though he 
hasn't actually created it yet.

I understand what everyone is saying about how once events are 
changed, they are changed.  But this ignores the basic fact that 
there were events that took place prior to Harry and Hermione going 
back in time - otherwise, what were they changing?  And remember 
when Dumbledore says they can save two innocent lives?  Clearly he 
is speaking as though Buckbeak had been executed.  But when we re-
read the events as they were written, we see that maybe the dropping 
of the ax was when he threw it at a fence.  The idea seems to be 
that we are lead to believe he has been executed, but we are 
actually seeing the altered events, which we don't understand until 
we read that part.  But I think it is JKR's intention that the FIRST 
TIME we read through the events, we are seeing them as they were 
altered.  And yet, Dumbledore implies that Buckbeak had been 
executed.  This is a huge problem - if everyone's memory is of 
events as they were altered, how can Harry remember his Patronus 
while Dumbledore still thinks that Buckbeak has been executed?  The 
easy explanation is that he KNOWS that Buckbeak escaped - his only 
memory is of the altered events - but he also knows that he escaped 
BECAUSE of the actions of the kids, which he now has to instigate.

Now, regarding the point that someone else made, that if Dumbledore 
had saved Harry the first time, he would have seen it when he went 
back.  Now perhaps - perhaps - Dumbledore was about to save him from 
somewhere that Harry couldn't see.  So Dumbledore saves him, comes 
up with the time-travel idea, and next time around, just when he is 
about to save Harry, TT-Harry conjures the Patronus and Dumbledore 
witnesses this and says "huh, looks like those kids went back in 
time! What a great idea!"  So in the altered timeline, the time-
travel idea is inspired by witnessing the consequences of the idea 
itself - but in the ORIGINAL events, he came up with the idea anyway.

It's all quite confusing, but my overall point is that there is a 
sequence of events that occurred before the moment when they went 
back in time, which we never see, and no one in the story knows 
anything about.

- davenclaw