Discussion of Submitted Nitpicks 78

By Magnanimous Date 2008-01-11 16:06

Here's a newly-posted nitpicks:

Movie : Pinocchio - 1940 Nitpick Category : Other Approximate time of Nitpick : near the middle Summary : Pinocchio's Transformation. Detail : When Pinocchio starts to turn into a Donkey notice that the transformation stops after Pinocchio has left the Island. This makes no sense why would he just grow ears and a tail at one point and nothing eles at another? ah, that cartoon logic.

This isn't an inconsistency, and makes complete sense within the movie. The boys don't start to transform until they get to the island, so clearly it's being on the island that makes the boys transform into donkeys. So naturally when Pinocchio manages to leave, the transformation stops. Also, the magic seems designed to turn really awful boys, not nice kids, into donkeys. Pinocchio has some flaws but isn't really awful (or even a real boy), so it stands to reason the magic isn't going to affect him as quickly or completely.

There is a comment to this effect posted. I'd nominate the nitpick for refutation if I could, but unfortunately to do that, you need to enter the nitpick number, and no nitpick numbers are posted anywhere that I can find.

By Nitpicker49068 Date 2008-01-11 16:34 Edited 2008-01-11 17:00

This had to have been submitted by someone wanting to make a statement about the new process of submitting nitpicks. Someone actually expects sense from a kids' movie featuring a Blue Fairy, a talking cricket dressed in a tux, and a puppet who comes to life? Next thing you know, someone will expect logic and sense to drive a comedy film featuring time travel.

Some people call me 49; but it's Mr. 68 to you.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-12 06:15

>Next thing you know, someone will expect logic and sense to drive a comedy film featuring time travel.

Correction: a sci-fi/comedy. But even if it was a 100% pure comedy, consistency should be expected within a movie series. This is a nitpickers' site. We nitpick movies, all kinds of movies, you know. Comedies should not be immune to nitpicking.

By Rev. Jim Date 2008-01-12 09:08

>consistency should be expected within a movie series

By the end of the first movie, when Doc Brown returns from the future, you can see he's made some serious modifications to his time machine. (Mr. Fusion and such) Who's to say that those modifications and possibly other fixes unseen couldn't possibly change the fabric of how (linear / non linear) time travel might work? You can get to work in your own car or by bus. Both get you to work but in distinctly different ways. If you took a bike or roller blades, it would bew an entirely different experience.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-13 07:21 Edited 2008-01-13 07:32

As far as we can gather, the changes he makes to the machine affect its fuel source and how it "drives" (it can actually fly now.) As far as a I can remember, everything else seems to be the same and it works as it did before: the machine and everyone/everything inside "disappears" to instantly reappear somewhere else in time.

And if Doc Brown had made such radical changes to it, we -as well as Marty, at the very least- certainly should have been informed that this machine is now working in a very different manner and somehow takes you to "alternate universes" or "dimensions" where you can stumble upon your future-self, even though you haven't had the chance to live the normal course of your life.

By Rev. Jim Date 2008-01-13 09:01

>As far as we can gather....

Exactly. He adds Mr. Fusion, adds flying ability as well as the retracting tires, who knows, maybe even XM satalite radio. (Hopefully, now that his machine is airborne, he got that awful stalling problem fixed first.) In 30 years hence, Doc may have improved the technology to adjust time travel to his liking. Think back 30 years to 1978. Do you think people then forsaw the global impact the simple cell phone would have on society, or that they would evolve into PDAs, Blackberrys, GPS, or bluetooth to universally connect your laptop to cyberspace?

>And if Doc Brown had made such radical changes to it, we -as well as Marty, at the very least- certainly should have been informed...

As I recall, he gave only a vague discription of how his original (beginning of the first movie) machine worked. The flux capacitor is the key, but what does it do exactly that makes time travel possible? I'm not really familiar enough with the second or third movie to remember if he explained anything any different.

I'm not saying you're wrong in any facet of your arguement. There just isn't enough information to make any kind of educated judgement. Time travel is still to vague to us civilians.

By Poet Fander Date 2008-01-13 15:37

> The flux capacitor is the key, but what does it do exactly that makes time travel possible? I'm not really familiar enough with the second or third movie to remember if he explained anything any different.

It was never explained any further.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-14 06:50 Edited 2008-01-14 07:01

Doc Brown never goes into explanations about what the Flux Capacitor actually does to allow time-travel to be possible, but the general information he gives, as well as what we can deduce for ourselves through observation, is enough to formulate some pertinent conclusions about how the time-machine behaves:

1- It requires a nuclear reaction to generate enough power for the machine to make a "time jump" either backwards or forwards (this is valid for most of the first movie only and is changed at the end)

2- From the point of view of the outside observers, when the machine makes such a jump in time it and all its passengers seem to disintegrate.

3- While the outside obervers will have to wait whatever amount of time the machine was programmed to skip (1 minute, 30 years, 100 years, etc.) in order to see it and its passengers again, for the passengers it will be an instantaneous thing.

From facts #2 and #3 it is not difficult at all to deduce what could be the only possible outcome of a straightforward trip to the future in such a machine: when you arrive there, you will encounter a society where, for all outside observers, you simply have been "missing" for whatever amount of time you programmed the time-machine to skip.

By Magnanimous Date 2008-01-14 14:24

>From facts #2 and #3 it is not difficult at all to deduce what could be the only possible outcome of a straightforward trip to the future in such a machine: when you arrive there, you will encounter a society where, for all outside observers, you simply have been "missing" for whatever amount of time you programmed the time-machine to skip.

I haven't been taking part in this debate, but there's one thing about your deduction I don't follow. Suppose someone (let's call him 20-year-old Tom) jumps, say, 10 years into the future, then comes back say, 5 minutes later and doesn't leave again. That person would have been missing for 5 minutes, but 30-year-old Tom would still be around. He vanished only for 5 minutes and then came back and continued living his life. Or, are you saying that as soon as 20-year-old Tom arrived on the scene, 30-year-old Tom would vanish for some reason?

By Cassie Date 2008-01-14 18:40

Alchy's point is that the old Marty that young Marty sees in the future obviously hasn't travelled in time. If there is an old Marty there to be seen 30 years in the future, then it would have to be a Marty that has travelled to the future and returned. The old Marty he sees obviously hasn't, so he is supposed to be a Marty that never left his own time -- which is impossible.

That's the inconsistency.

By geode Date 2008-01-14 21:02

>Alchy's point is that the old Marty that young Marty sees in the future obviously hasn't travelled in time.

I thought his point was that there couldn't have been an old Marty there at all.

By Magnanimous Date 2008-01-14 23:31

That's what it sounded like to me too, from his post. But Cassie's explanation makes more sense.

By Cassie Date 2008-01-15 03:02

If there is an old Marty there, then he has to be a changed Marty. But the old Marty they meet hasn't travelled in time, he has just continued his life as if young Marty has never left -- which is impossible.

By geode Date 2008-01-15 03:24

Yeah, I know. Maybe we've got Alchy's whole stance screwed up.

However, Cassie, if you are correct, then the foundation of the Alchemist's nitpick is not: old Marty should not be there. It is: old Marty should have full knowledge of the entire situation already.

And if that's the case, the nitpick fails utterly. More than anything else, old Marty would have lived up to that point with the certain knowledge that the tiniest change in behavior can result in huge drastic repercussions, when time travelers are about. Even if old Marty has full and total knowledge of all the Bttf2 & 3 shenanigans, he is going to do everything in his power to behave exactly as he remembered himself behaving - so that there would be no chance of influencing young Marty to make a change for the worse.

After all, by then he knows everything works out - just as long as he doesn't try to warn his younger self! He'd have had decades to prepare for just a brief dumb act.

By Cassie Date 2008-01-15 05:08

> After all, by then he knows everything works out

Not true, unless the whole family (and old Marty's boss) is putting on an act for young Marty's sake. Young Marty witnesses old Marty unable to play the guitar, his mother talking about the accident, the kids behaving like jerks, and old Marty making a deal with a friend and getting fired by his boss for it. That's too much for belief.

BTW, he even get's a fax that says "You're fired", which erases when they get back to the past and undo what they did. If old Marty's behavior was an act for young Marty's sake, the fax wouldn't erase.

By geode Date 2008-01-15 18:35

It looks like you and Alchy have two separate points going (from A's post below):

>The fact is that those future versions of Marty and Jennifer should not have been there at all

I'm not going to get in the middle of it, I just wanted to make sure I was clear on what his stance was.

By Cassie Date 2008-01-16 03:06

> It looks like you and Alchy have two separate points going

I'm beginning to believe you're right.

But Alchy's right too.

By geode Date 2008-01-16 13:38

So you've switched your support from your point to his, I take it. That's what I call dedication.

By Cassie Date 2008-01-17 03:17 Edited 2008-01-17 03:20

I haven't switched anything. I think both viewpoints (mine and his) describe a particular nitpick, and both of them show that what was depicted in the film shouldn't have happened that way based on how they set themselves up.

<edit>
Also, btw, I'm not dedicated to Alchy himself, but to defending what is, imo, a really good nitpick. And I think he appreciates that for what it is.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-17 07:42

It's a "double-barrelled" nitpick, Cassie.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-15 08:08 Edited 2008-01-15 08:27

>Alchy's point is that the old Marty that young Marty sees in the future obviously hasn't travelled in time. If there is an old Marty there to be seen 30 years in the future, then it would have to be a Marty that has travelled to the future and returned. The old Marty he sees obviously hasn't, so he is supposed to be a Marty that never left his own time -- which is impossible.

>That's the inconsistency.

What you point out is also an inconsistency, but it is not even necessary to bring it up. The fact is that those future versions of Marty and Jennifer should not have been there at all, either aware or unaware of their previous time-travelling adventures and future personal problems. The key is the sequence of events, which we, as privileged observers, are well aware of and can logically follow, unlike the outside observers who can be easily fooled into seeing things in a different manner (such as the neighbors in b00p's example, who will be fooled into thinking that Marty and Jennifer have hardly been missing any time at all.)

When Marty and Jennifer take that trip to 2015 they have NOT come back yet and still they somehow, through some sort of unexplained miracle, arrive at a future where they apparently have never left 1985! That's not how it works. Even with a time-machine around things do not happen out of sequence. The time-travellers need to take actions for things to happen. Since they have not even come back yet, it is impossible that the 2015-Marty and 2015-Jennifer could exist. As you might remember, this is pretty much b00p's argument (but instead of being used in favor of the nit it was attempted against it): "since they eventually came back to 1985 then it should be possible for their future selves to exist." The big problem with this argument is that those future older selves already exist BEFORE the younger counterparts have even had a chance to come back to 1985! For b00p's argument to be truly valid this is what we would have to have seen happen:

1- Marty and Jennifer go to 2015
2- They arrive at a future where they simply have been missing for 30 years
3- Wittingly or unwittingly, they return to 1985, a few seconds or minutes right after they left
4- They live the normal course of their lives for 30 years
5- NOW, and only NOW, AFTER POINTS 1 TO 4 HAVE HAPPENED, when Marty and Jennifer arrive to 2015 they encounter a future where their older selves exist

This is the logical sequence of events for such a thing to be possible. Needless to say, this is NOT what happened in the movie. In the movie the Marty and Jennifer from 1985 take a first trip forwards to 2015 and magically there's now future older selves, living their lives as if nothing had happened in 1985, and to top it off, as you point out, totally oblivious of their previous adventures through time and still burdened with the problems they supposedly should already have been aware of and should have avoided!

By Magnanimous Date 2008-01-15 14:41

Well, Cassie's version makes sense to me, but this does not. What doesn't make sense is this:

>The big problem with this argument is that those future older selves already exist BEFORE the younger counterparts have even had a chance to come back to 1985!

They don't exist before the younger counterparts have had a chance to return to 1985; they exist in 2015, which is after. From the point of view of the time-travelers, yes it's before. But from the point of view of the rest of the universe, 2015 is after 1985. On the other hand, if they arrived in 2015 to a world where they had been missing for 20 years, then returned to 1985 and stayed there, the world they visited (the world where they had been missing) would never exist. As I understand it, the question is whether there is some kind of meta-time that keeps track of or responds to what has happened/is happening/will happen. (This is perhaps analogous to the predestination/free will argument). If there isn't, the only worlds Marty and Jennifer might travel to and return from are potential ones that never become real (worlds that, as it turn out, never come to exist, because by returning they render impossible the future world where they have never existed.) You describe this in the next post, I see.

BTW, I think you are mistaken about B00p; I think she is in favor of your nit.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-16 07:51

>They don't exist before the younger counterparts have had a chance to return to 1985; they exist in 2015, which is after.

You are letting the calendar + our usual perception of the passage of time fool you. With a time-machine around the sequence of events does not necessarily follow the calendar. 2015 is after 1985, but the time-travellers still go to 2015 FIRST and THEN back to 1985. There's a sequence of events here that you are overlooking. This is the reason why even if they eventually came back to 1985 and lived the normal course of their lives, they still could not have encountered their future selves on that initial trip to 2015. AFTER they come back to 1985, then that would be possible.

>On the other hand, if they arrived in 2015 to a world where they had been missing for 20 years, then returned to 1985 and stayed there, the world they visited (the world where they had been missing) would never exist.

That Marty-less and Jennifer-less future would have existed at first, but by coming back to 1985 and staying to live their lives they are NOW altering it. Remember: the future is not set in stone. It is shaped by your actions (in the present.)

>As I understand it, the question is whether there is some kind of meta-time that keeps track of or responds to what has happened/is happening/will happen. (This is perhaps analogous to the predestination/free will argument). If there isn't, the only worlds Marty and Jennifer might travel to and return from are potential ones that never become real (worlds that, as it turn out, never come to exist, because by returning they render impossible the future world where they have never existed.) You describe this in the next post, I see.

By returning to 1985 (and staying to live their lives) they would alter that very future where they just came from. That Marty-less and Jennifer-less future DID exist, at one point, but they will change it by coming back. This Marty-less and Jennifer-less future is the very one that we should have seen when they first take that trip to 2015, before they have even had a chance to come back to 1985.

>BTW, I think you are mistaken about B00p; I think she is in favor of your nit.

Maybe she is now, but back in the day she was using that argument against the nit. Even recently -as in right here in this thread- she still brought it back.

By Magnanimous Date 2008-01-16 15:28

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against your nitpick, just requesting an explanation and trying to understand how your nitpick would work. Your whole discussion, except for the last paragraph, assumes a particular point of view within a temporal framework is the correct one. My question is, how do we know that? Why should we use the time-travelers' point of view as the objective reference point, rather than the point of view of everyone else? As I explained, I think the concept of time-travel only makes sense if there is some kind of meta-time, some point of view not subject to time as we know it, by which time as we know it is measured.

To add to the explanation I already gave, consider this analysis:

>That Marty-less and Jennifer-less future DID exist, at one point, but they will change it by coming back.

This statement is meaningless. Not that it's poorly written, but that there is no objective content to it, which points up a problem I am having with the explanation you are giving. From the point of view of time-traveling-1985 Marty and Jennifer, 2015 is in the future, so saying the future "did" exist (and then ceased its existence) makes no sense, because it's in the future (plus, as it turns out, it never happens). The same is true for everyone else in 1985. And from the point of view of everyone in the real future as it played it, this never happened. The only people from whose point of view this Marty-less and Jennifer-less future happens is the people in that future. As it turns out, though, those people don't ever see the light of existence. They're in the same boat with all the potential futures each of us "destroys" every day by making one choice rather than another. So as I see it, to say that hypothetical future has, had, or ever will have any kind of real existence means nothing. I don't see anything in your explanation that helps me understand it further. I'm not debating this nitpick, just not understanding it.

BTW, I think you mistake B00p's position. I'll let her speak for herself, of course. But if you want to know what she thought, or thinks, you would do well to ask her.

By geode Date 2008-01-16 16:03

He thinks that the film is obligated to show us his pet hypothetical Martyless future, even though it never came to exist, because at the time they travel forward they have not yet returned back. He feels the fabric of time within the film is in some way welded to their point of view, but this is not so.

As Toomany points out, there is no support for his stance within the first movie since this is the first time anyone has travelled forward to an already visited future. The timeline has been shown to demonstrate some resilience, some persistence. The future remains as Doc saw it, even as Marty's past in the first movie remained as he knew it - it only slowly began to alter after hours and days of Marty's meddling.

If Marty and Jennifer had lingered hours or days in the future rather than returning immediately, would that future have "morphed" around them into a Martyless/Jenniferless future? It's an interesting question. But given the way the timeline is depicted - changeable, yes, but resilient! The depiction of Marty and Jennifer arriving in the same future Doc saw - the EXISTING future, that Doc visited - is a reasonable depiction by the filmmakers that does not conflict with the mechanics of spacetime that they've set up.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-17 09:06 Edited 2008-01-17 09:38

>He thinks that the film is obligated to show us his pet hypothetical Martyless future,

Of course they are, since that is the only logical consequence of their action, considering how time-travel is portrayed in the first film.

>even though it never came to exist, because at the time they travel forward they have not yet returned back.

You are getting it wrong. The reason why it does exist is precisely because they have not come back yet, and therefore have not yet had a chance to alter the Marty-less and Jennifer-less future.

>He feels the fabric of time within the film is in some way welded to their point of view, but this is not so.

It is welded to their ACTIONS. This is what will determine what will happen next.

>As Toomany points out, there is no support for his stance within the first movie since this is the first time anyone has travelled forward to an already visited future.

Not only is such a thing inconsequential to the nit, it's even wrong. When Marty goes to 1955 and then back to 1985, he is going forwards to a "future" which has already been "visited" before (it's the "future" where he comes from), though it is now somewhat altered by his actions in 1955.

> The timeline has been shown to demonstrate some resilience, some persistence. The future remains as Doc saw it, even as Marty's past in the first movie remained as he knew it - it only slowly began to alter after hours and days of Marty's meddling.

>If Marty and Jennifer had lingered hours or days in the future rather than returning immediately, would that future have "morphed" around them into a Martyless/Jenniferless future? It's an interesting question. But given the way the timeline is depicted - changeable, yes, but resilient! The depiction of Marty and Jennifer arriving in the same future Doc saw - the EXISTING future, that Doc visited - is a reasonable depiction by the filmmakers that does not conflict with the mechanics of spacetime that they've set up.

The "wave" theory is bogus. I have seen it used before against the 2015-Biff-goes-to-1955-and-alters-the-future-yet-he-comes-back-to-the-same-future-he-came-from nitpick. It's as little convincing there as it is here. Before Marty goes from 1955 to 1985, Doc tears the note Marty wrote warning him about his death. When Marty arrives to 1985 and does not make it in time to warn him in person, Doc has already mended and read the letter, and has also taken precautions against the incident. This happens fast and without delays. This proves that changes in the past alter the future practically as they happen, or at least pretty soon after they happen. It does not take "hours" for such changes to take effect. The whole "disappearing" thing in the first movie might be explained by arguing that as long as Marty remains in the past, and he does not fix the mess he's made, his future keeps looking more and more "improbable", and thus why he and the picture of his siblings start to "disappear". But as soon as he actually moves forwards in time, the changes take full effect, as clearly illustrated by the note example.

By geode Date 2008-01-17 13:46 Edited 2008-01-17 13:50

I'm not saying that your stance has not reason. It would have been reasonable for the filmmakers to depict it your way. But given the way the timestream is depicted in the films, it's also reasonable for them to depict it their way. There are little inconsistencies that run in either direction. You choose to claim that each inconsistency that supports your view is an irrefutable proof, and each inconsistency that undermines your view is another example of their "mistake." Get real. The filmmakers fudge it either way based on the NEEDS OF THE PLOT.

The depiction of the time-stream is not at all scientific in these films. The speed of the changes is inconsistent, yes, but frankly it doesn't make sense for ANY changes to be non-instantaneous! Yet there is some weird 'force' that causes graduated change in some cases. We see that there is some persistence to the timestream, and sometimes a delayed reaction. We have to accept this, as it's part of the mechanics of all the films as presented to us. It's a plot device, left only murkily explained, for the very good reason that they need to play it a bit loose here and there to make the plot happen.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-18 07:05

>I'm not saying that your stance has not reason. It would have been reasonable for the filmmakers to depict it your way. But given the way the timestream is depicted in the films, it's also reasonable for them to depict it their way. There are little inconsistencies that run in either direction. You choose to claim that each inconsistency that supports your view is an irrefutable proof, and each inconsistency that undermines your view is another example of their "mistake." Get real. The filmmakers fudge it either way based on the NEEDS OF THE PLOT.

>The depiction of the time-stream is not at all scientific in these films. The speed of the changes is inconsistent, yes, but frankly it doesn't make sense for ANY changes to be non-instantaneous! Yet there is some weird 'force' that causes graduated change in some cases. We see that there is some persistence to the timestream, and sometimes a delayed reaction. We have to accept this, as it's part of the mechanics of all the films as presented to us. It's a plot device, left only murkily explained, for the very good reason that they need to play it a bit loose here and there to make the plot happen.

What determines what constitutes an inconsistency in a movie series is very simple: chronological order. The first movie has priority. The first BTTF movie is pretty consistent in the way it shows time-travel to work. The only "strange" point that one might argue about is that whole "disappearing" thing. But even that does not cause much conflict with the other points. The second movie, on the other hand, does show something that conflicts with what was shown in the first. Thus why it's being nitpicked.

By jenzahara Date 2008-04-11 11:15

does this help?

http://graphjam.com/2008/04/07/funny-graphs-back-to-the-future-continuum/#more

By The Alchemist Date 2008-04-12 08:36

It might be useful.

By geode Date 2008-04-16 22:38

The real nitpick is in 7 years, there will be no flying skateboards.

By Cassie Date 2008-04-17 03:06

What're you talking about? The CIA has been developing them secretly for years. They are already in use at Area 51 as well as a few other places.

By Magnanimous Date 2008-04-17 18:16

Oh, please. That is absolutely absurd! I can't imagine anyone would believe something like that!

The flying skateboards are being used solely in area 52. Area 51 is reserved for UFOs, aliens, and fake moon landing sets.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-17 08:39

>Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against your nitpick, just requesting an explanation and trying to understand how your nitpick would work. Your whole discussion, except for the last paragraph, assumes a particular point of view within a temporal framework is the correct one. My question is, how do we know that? Why should we use the time-travelers' point of view as the objective reference point, rather than the point of view of everyone else?

How can you not see this is beyond me, since it's just a matter of common sense and logic. If I showed you that what you believed is true was not really so, why would you go around having so many doubts? If I showed you, for example, that "once upon a time" Al Capone had paid his taxes, but it was I with my time-machine who screwed up his income tax records so he would end up in jail, wouldn't you now be aware that things were not always as you thought they were, that there was another "existence" before, hitherto unknown to you, where Mr. Capone did not end up that way. But if I let you in on my "little secret" you would now know that it was my INTERVENTION that caused what you always thought was "normal" to happen. Yes, there is a "before" and "after" even in such time-travelling situations. Your failure to grasp this issue is what keeps you from fully understanding these hypothetical situations.

> This statement is meaningless. Not that it's poorly written, but that there is no objective content to it, which points up a problem I am having with the explanation you are giving. From the point of view of time-traveling-1985 Marty and Jennifer, 2015 is in the future, so saying the future "did" exist (and then ceased its existence) makes no sense, because it's in the future (plus, as it turns out, it never happens).

Wrong. It DID happen. You are again allowing yourself to be fooled by a sequential calendar-order of things. The fact that 2015 is ahead of 1985 on a CALENDAR does not mean that the action we see take place necessarily follows that order. With a time-machine around things in 2015 can happen BEFORE they happen in 1985. When Marty and Jennifer return back to 1985 in part 3, ALL of those mishaps and adventures through time we were allowed to watch and follow, including those that took place in 2015, are BEHIND THEM, they are part of their PAST now. The Marty-less and Jennifer-less future would be part of the past too. That future will be replaced by the fact that they come back and stay to live their lives, but that does not mean "it never happens". It DID happen, but it's NOW being altered by their actions.

>The same is true for everyone else in 1985. And from the point of view of everyone in the real future as it played it, this never happened.

But since we are privileged to have seen what actually happened we know for a fact that "everyone" in the "real future" are not getting the straight dope! They are not aware of what these characters did and went through... but we are! It's a question of knowledge. While the outside observers will go on believing things have always been as they are, totally oblivious of the actual reasons why things have turned out that way, the time-travellers, and us, know better simply because we have MORE INFORMATION.

>The only people from whose point of view this Marty-less and Jennifer-less future happens is the people in that future.

And Marty and Jennifer themselves as well. They go there and see what their action has brought about. They were witnesses of that future as well. The difference is that when they alter it, that future will only SEEM to "never have existed", but to the outside observers ONLY. The time-travellers are well aware of the reality of that future. The fact that they have altered it does not mean that they will just magically "forget" about it. They will remember that it DID happen.

> As it turns out, though, those people don't ever see the light of existence. They're in the same boat with all the potential futures each of us "destroys" every day by making one choice rather than another. So as I see it, to say that hypothetical future has, had, or ever will have any kind of real existence means nothing. I don't see anything in your explanation that helps me understand it further.

Those people did "see the light of existence". They are in fact the VERY SAME people who LATER will come to believe that Marty and Jennifer have hardly been gone at all. Can't you see that the outside observer is really little more than just a pawn in these time-travelling situations? They can be basically "manipulated" into believing one thing or another, depending on the actions of the time-traveller. I could go back in time and kidnap George Washington, make him "vanish" (I send him to the Stone Age with a one-way time-machine), I arrange things so that I become the first president of the U.S., and when I come back to the future all you helpless pawns in my little game will wholeheartedly believe that good ol' uncle Alchy was really the first president, and it has always been so. Come on, it's in all the history books! It's gotta be true! I, on the other hand, am well aware of my little "trick", and know fully well that things were not always as they seem (to you.) Again, having access to this extra information makes a whole world of difference in such situations.

>BTW, I think you mistake B00p's position. I'll let her speak for herself, of course. But if you want to know what she thought, or thinks, you would do well to ask her.

Do I? Do you remember her previous posts about this nit? Even in the recent one she still seems to want to argue against the nit.

By Magnanimous Date 2008-01-17 14:59

Meh.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-15 08:23 Edited 2008-01-15 08:34

>I haven't been taking part in this debate, but there's one thing about your deduction I don't follow. Suppose someone (let's call him 20-year-old Tom) jumps, say, 10 years into the future, then comes back say, 5 minutes later and doesn't leave again. That person would have been missing for 5 minutes, but 30-year-old Tom would still be around. He vanished only for 5 minutes and then came back and continued living his life. Or, are you saying that as soon as 20-year-old Tom arrived on the scene, 30-year-old Tom would vanish for some reason?

The reason why such arguments are flawed is that they are trying to see things from the perspective of an outside observer, not of the time-traveller himself (or us, the privileged observers who are allowed to follow him around in his wanderings through time.) To the outside observer who remains outside the machine, 20-year-old Tom will seem to have only been missing for 5 minutes. To 20-year-old Tom, however, things are going to look a wee-bit different. He will be well aware that there's a future where he's been missing for 10 years (the 10 years he skipped with the machine.) When he comes back, he will alter that future, and the very same outside observers who thought he had been gone for 10 years now will be "fooled" into believing he's only been missing for 5 minutes. But 20-year-old Tom will be well aware that that was not the case in the future he just came from. He will also be able to deduce that since he has altered the future by coming back, his own past self (the one that took the trip 10 years forwards) will also now arrive to a different future: one where he will now encounter his own future self.

By Magnanimous Date 2008-01-15 14:43

My question (which I ask in a different form above) is why the time-traveler's perception is right and the rest of the universe's is wrong. I don't see any principled reason for choosing the time-traveler's perception as the controlling one.

By Antonio Date 2008-01-15 14:55

That's kinda my point also. If you assume Alchy's perspective, it looks to be a good, well thought out nit. But from my perspective, it's not scientifically impossible becuase all of those various timelines and permutations are all valid existences (and these are NOT alternate universes or alternate dimensions, they all exist within our universe and our time) so who's to say that the filmmakers didn't just pick and choose which perspectives and which timelines to portray in order to facilitate the story telling?

That said, the more I read this thread the more I think that if I was to vote on it, I'd vote positive. (if voting comes back, which I don't think it will). I think it makes a valid point and opens up some interesting discussion

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-16 08:32 Edited 2008-01-16 08:38

>But from my perspective, it's not scientifically impossible becuase all of those various timelines and permutations are all valid existences (and these are NOT alternate universes or alternate dimensions, they all exist within our universe and our time) so who's to say that the filmmakers didn't just pick and choose which perspectives and which timelines to portray in order to facilitate the story telling?

OK, think about it like this: you can't just choose which of all these alternate "existences" you can go to. The only way you can "access" such different possible "existences" is THROUGH YOUR ACTIONS. This will determine which "existence" you end up in.

For example: there is an "existence" where you win the lottery and become richer than Bill Gates. But there's yet another "existence", which is "activated" when I take a time-machine, go to the past and, right before you can buy the winning ticket, I BUY IT FIRST. My ACTION, then, determines which of the huge bunch of possible "existences" I will end up in. You can't just go ahead and say "Oh, I choose the existence where I am the richest dude in the Galaxy!" and be magically transported there. You have to actually "activate" such possible "existences".

Now, let's apply this to the subject of the nit: by taking a time-machine and going straight to 30 years into the future, the only possible "existence" that you are "activating" is one where you will have gone missing for those very same 30 years that you "skipped" with the machine. The action has determined which future the time-travellers have ended up in.

By Antonio Date 2008-01-16 11:35

>The only way you can "access" such different possible "existences" is THROUGH YOUR ACTIONS. This will determine which "existence" you end up in.

I'm in 100% agreement with you here.

>by taking a time-machine and going straight to 30 years into the future

This is where we part ways. If time is as complex as I believe it is, how can you go "straight" into the future? Time is constantly branching off into almost endless possibilities, each as valid and real as the other. Which way is straight?

>But there's yet another "existence", which is "activated" when I take a time-machine, go to the past and, right before you can buy the winning ticket, I BUY IT FIRST

You can't activate one existence or another. All possible existences do exist, each one is as active and real as the next. What you would be doing by buying the ticket is just deciding which existence to experience (or in your terminology, access).

Granted, your interpretation is probably more relavent to the movie than mine. I'm just presenting an alternate viewpoint.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-17 09:35

>This is where we part ways. If time is as complex as I believe it is, how can you go "straight" into the future? Time is constantly branching off into almost endless possibilities, each as valid and real as the other. Which way is straight?

By "straight" I mean directly, without going to the past first and "tinkering" with anything (such as preventing yourself from taking the trip.) If you go straight into the future, you will not see your own "future-self" anywhere. For all outside observers you will simply have been missing for the last X number of years that you skipped with the machine. Your action (disappearing for X number of years) has "taken" you to the logical "existence" you have triggered (a future without yourself.)

>You can't activate one existence or another.

From one's point of view, yes. Those other "existences" are about as "inexistent", or "inaccessible", or "inactive", or whatever you prefer to call them, as they can be. However, if you had a time-machine at your disposal, you could see, or "access", or "activate", or whatever you want to call it, such "existences". But you can't just tell the machine: "Hey, take me to the existence where I am the richest dude in the Galaxy!" and it will just magically take you there. No. That's not how it works. You actually have to come up with a way to "get there". You have to set in motion the actions that will take you to that "existence" where you are the richest son-of-a-gun in the Milky Way.

By Antonio Date 2008-01-18 11:24

>Your action (disappearing for X number of years) has "taken" you to the logical "existence" you have triggered (a future without yourself.)

This would make sense, if not for the fact that you have a time machine in play here. In normal existence, we can only travel forward in time, and we can only change direction via the choices that we make. But the whole point I'm making here is that if the totality of time is not linear, and we start moving around in a time machine in ways that we can't in real life, then who's to say which "existence" is the logical one? they're all logical, and if we've got a time machine we can move to any of them at a whim.

>But you can't just tell the machine: "Hey, take me to the existence where I am the richest dude in the Galaxy!"

why not? it's a time machine. It moves through time in ways that we cannot currently move. Why assume that it can only move in one direction, particularly when there is no such thing as an absolute backwards or fowards, it's all relative.

of course, the whole thing about direction in time and space being relative brings up another point that drives me crazy about time travel. If the earth is rotating around the sun, and the sun is rotating around the center of the milky way, and the milky way is rotating around the center of the universe, then Hill valley in 1955 is nowhere near where hill valley in 1955 was, in the cosmic scale of things. Marty should have shown up in outerspace billions of miles ahead of the earth, and died from explosive decompression.

Now I've truely reached a geeky level of overthinking this, so I'm going to stop. I've said what I have to say, I don't expect you to agree, but I respect the points that you make.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-19 08:43 Edited 2008-01-19 09:01

>This would make sense, if not for the fact that you have a time machine in play here. In normal existence, we can only travel forward in time, and we can only change direction via the choices that we make.

The concept of a time-machine is just that of a time skipper. When moving forwards in time, for example, instead of having to wait for the clock to tick its way from point A to point B, the machine just skips that interim and arrives there instantaneously. It does not take you to alternate realities, or universes, and such (this holds true not only for the movie in question but I would also say for our real world, were someone to succeed in constructing such a machine.)

>But the whole point I'm making here is that if the totality of time is not linear, and we start moving around in a time machine in ways that we can't in real life, then who's to say which "existence" is the logical one? they're all logical, and if we've got a time machine we can move to any of them at a whim.

If that was so, then why is it that when Doc sends Einstein one minute into the future he does not arrive at an alternate reality where, say, people do not have eyebrows, or smoking is healthy, or dogs rule the world, and so forth? He obviously arrives at the exact same existence he just left, the only difference is that he's been gone for exactly one minute. Similarly, when Marty goes from 1955 to 1985 he arrives at the exact same existence he came from, the only changes being those brought about by his actions in the past. That's how time-travel works (and I say not only in the movie, but that's how it would also work in real life if someone was successful at making such a gadget, but that's another issue.)

>why not? it's a time machine. It moves through time in ways that we cannot currently move. Why assume that it can only move in one direction, particularly when there is no such thing as an absolute backwards or fowards, it's all relative.

Movement through time can only be in two directions: backwards or forwards. That's all you could do with a time-machine (this holds true for what we see in these movies, as well, I would say, as our real world.)

By nitpickabc Date 2008-01-20 14:39

> The concept of a time-machine is just that of a time skipper. When moving forwards in time, for example, instead of having to wait for the clock to tick its way from point A to point B, the machine just skips that interim and arrives there instantaneously. It does not take you to alternate realities, or universes, and such (this holds true not only for the movie in question but I would also say for our real world, were someone to succeed in constructing such a machine.)

I have been trying to determine whether or not Alchy has published his conclusions concerning time travel in a peer(*) reviewed journal but I can't seem to find any treatments similar to his in Phys. Rev., e.g., "Time travel paradoxes, path integrals, and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics", Phys. Rev. D 69, 124023 (2004)), arxiv.org (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0710.0983 , http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0710.2696 , http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0710.3395 , http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0610085 , http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506141 , etc.) or some other place.

As I can't find a good match, I will theorize here that Alchy is, in real life, Stephen Hawking testing out his ideas in moviechatter.com before submitting them to a real physics journal. My theory may be biased by the fact that I use character recognition software to read Alchy's posts out loud and I use the "Stephen Hawking" setting to give them more legitimacy.

(*) When it comes to nitpicks, moviechatter.com is a peer group. When it comes to physics, I was thinking that professional physicists might be the preferred peer group.

By The Alchemist Date 2008-01-21 09:05 Edited 2008-01-21 09:14

>I have been trying to determine whether or not Alchy has published his conclusions concerning time travel in a peer(*) reviewed journal but I can't seem to find any treatments similar to his in Phys. Rev., e.g., "Time travel paradoxes, path integrals, and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics", Phys. Rev. D 69, 124023 (2004))

Does that paper say anything to contradict this?:

"The concept of a time-machine is just that of a time skipper. When moving forwards in time, for example, instead of having to wait for the clock to tick its way from point A to point B, the machine just skips that interim and arrives there instantaneously. It does not take you to alternate realities, or universes, and such"

which is what you quoted above. Perhaps you can explain how by just merely wishing to go to some other of these hypothetic "many worlds" the machine will take you there, without you having to do anything to cause any alterations, "paradoxes" and so forth.

Such papers appear to consider several approaches to such matters, all of them as speculative and empirically unproven as the next (and some of them are quite hard to digest, such as the idea that, in order to avoid a paradox, physics "somehow" prevents you from doing such things as travelling to the past and killing your younger self.) I'll stick with my common sense approach, whereby things are not set in stone anywhere and it is the free will of the time-traveller (through his actions) that determines how things will turn out, not any presumed scripted impediments.

By grumpy_otter Date 2008-01-21 23:30

I traveled to Nazareth, circa 22, last week, and I discovered two things. One--that guy was short and unattractive, and two--I had done all sorts of crazy things while I was gone. But I fixed it all by resetting the proper timeline.

By Cassie Date 2008-01-22 04:00

> One--that guy was short and unattractive,

Of course he was. Isaiah said he would be.

" He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." (Is.53:2)

By geode Date 2008-01-23 02:04

By Nitpicker26930 Date 2008-01-23 06:43

What does the quote from Isaiah have to do with the subject at hand? As he is speaking of someone in his past, why would you think he is refering to someone in his future?