Paradox of Time Travel in PoA (long!)

[smilingator4915]

No: HPFGUIDX 135607

smilingator:

I was so excited to see a post that wasn't about HBP... turned out to
be in reference to a post I made about 3 weeks ago on time traveling
in POA (see post #132073)

>davenclaw: 
> If time can't be changed, then why would Dumbledore need to send the 
> kids back in time at all?  Everything had already worked itself out, 
> right?  

Ahhh, the beauty of DD's statement and Hermione's understanding of
"more time". Harry and Hermione did have a choice as to whether or not
they should go back in time. Since H/Hr did go back in time, Buckbeak
and Sirius were saved. The reason that everything worked itself out
was BECAUSE the two went back in time, not IN SPITE of the fact that
they went back in time. Had H/Hr not gone back, Buckbeak would be dead
and probably more people than Sirius would have been *kissed* by the
dementors.

> This theory requires that the impact of having gone back in 
> time is seen before the point in time at which the time travelers 
> actually go back in time.  It means that you would make the decision 
> to go back in time with the understanding that the impact of this 
> decision had already been experienced, but that the traveling itself 
> was required in order to fulfill what had already happened.  

A tad bit confusing (I know), but yes, you have the right idea! At the
point in time where H/Hr decided to go back in time (well, really
Hermione did because Harry was a little confused), they did not know
whether or not they would be successful in saving Sirius. But they
were willing to try. The full impact of time traveling was not known
to the two travellers, but Hermione did realize that the only chance
to save Sirius would be to go back in time.

>Now who 
> in the world would waste their time (no pun intended) going back in 
> time to make happen what, from their perspective, had already 
> happened?  Why bother?  

TTH!/TTHr! "bothered" because H/Hr did not have enough TIME to learn
the truth about Sirius AND save Sirius and Buckbeak. Maybe instead of
saying the kids needed "more time", DD should have said that they
needed "more help". Essentially, the kids needed to be in two places
at once and time travelling allowed them to do that. Keep in mind that
the events we read only occurred because the two did decide to time
travel. Had they not, we would have read different story.

>This basically means that if they choose NOT 
> to go back in time, then they never went back in time.  This means 
> that NO MATTER WHAT DECISION THEY MAKE when given the opportunity to 
> time turn, THAT decision will be what makes events occur as they have 
> already occurred. 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

>This means that Dumbledore could have 
> said "Buckbeak escaped and Sirius is escaping right now, but only 
> because you are about to go back in time and make that happen, so 
> go."   

He could have said this, but I am not 100% sure that DD knew that
Sirius and Buckbeak had escaped. I think he just hoped that the kids
would be successful in making this happen. And if he had said it, then
it would have blown the suspense of the next few pages, in which we
readers crossed our fingers and hoped TTH!/TTHr! pulled it off. 

>And somehow they have no choice in the matter, since they are 
> essentially predestined to go back in time.

Okay, this statement contradicts what you just said earlier, about the
kids CHOOSING to go back in time or not go back in time. They do have
a choice whether or not go back in time. It's just that the events
that occurred depend on that decision. They chose to go back in time,
so Sirius and Buckbeak were saved. Had they not gone back in time,
Sirius and Buckbeak would have been lost. 

> There is just no logical way that this is the way time travel works in 
> this story. I don't buy that theory for half a second. I think the 
> only thing that comes close to making sense is that time is changed, 
> and we are only shown the same series of events AFTER they have been 
> changed, first from the perspective of the non-time-travelers and then 
> from the perspective of the time-travelers.  Some other series of 
> events was altered and never shown, and in my opinion never even 
> considered in JKR's mind - I think that we she writes is the extent to 
> which she envisioned time travel and didn't really get this far into 
> the consequences of that portrayal.

As I explained in my previous post, there are a number of time
travelling theories out there, but most stem from two main beliefs...
that time can be changed and in doing so, alternate universes are
created OR that time can not be changed. My interpretation of the
canon is that JKR is operating under Theory 2. I mean, she explains
observations from the first perspective while we are experiencing the
second perspective. If she was not operating under this theory, then
what would be her point in discussing things, such as the footsteps in
the corridor, the falling of the axe when we thought Buckbeak was
killed, or Harry saving himself with the patronus? The important
thing: NOTHING CHANGED during the dual telling of the events but our
perspective of them. I'm not sure what canon evidence you have for
believing that there was some other sequence of events that was
altered, but I'd love to hear about it  :)

Just my thoughts...

smilingator (who is now going to go do lesson plans... no more summer,
school is starting soon!)