Multiple Timelines Or A Mutable Timeline?

Merau Varagan, the main villain of the Time Patrol series, has two conversations with Manse Everard and one with Stephen Tamberly. Thus, Varagan appears three times, as does his clone mate, Raor. This is way more than any other villain in the series. Everard's thoughts after his second conversation with Varagan inspired the following observations.

I have been referring to the Time Patrol universe in two ways, either as a single mutable timeline or as a succession of timelines. This is because I regard these as two ways of saying the same thing. For the sake of the argument, let us say that, on the one hand, there is only one timeline but that, on the other hand, this single timeline changes. What can this mean?

The timeline exists only because of change. If the universe had remained in its initial state and had not changed to another state, then there would have been no time and therefore no timeline. Time is nothing more than the relationship between a state changed from and a state changed to just as space is the relationships between material objects. Spatial relationships change - objects move - so there is a temporal relationship between a number of spatial relationships. The timeline is simply the sum total of the successive cosmic states and of the temporal relationships between them. Temporal relationships are "before" and "after" or "earlier" and "later." So what would it mean for the timeline itself to change?

Let us use Arabic numerals to denote one set of cosmic states and lower case Roman numerals to denote a second such set. If s = state, then s1 is one state of the universe and the sequence s1, s2, s3 is a state of the timeline. Thus, the timeline, or one section of it, might change from the sequence s1, s2, s3 to the sequence si, sii, siii. In this case, the Roman numerals sequence comes after, and is later than, the Arabic sequence. There is a temporal (or hyper-temporal?) relationship between the two states of the timeline. A second temporal dimension would contain successive states of the timeline just as the familiar temporal dimension contains successive states of the universe.

However, I can see only a terminological difference between the phrase, "successive states of the timeline," and the shorter phrase, "successive timelines." A time traveler who remembers the s1, s2, s3 sequence but who now experiences the si, sii, siii sequence could say either that the timeline has changed or that he is now in another timeline but, on my hypothesis, these would be two ways of saying the same thing.

At each moment of the first temporal dimension, there is a universe with three spatial dimensions. At each moment of the second temporal dimension, there is a continuum with one temporal and three spatial dimensions. It is confusion between the two temporal dimensions that causes confusion in discussions of time travel.

After his second conversation with Varagan, Everard thinks:

"I should've retorted, 'Suppose [Raor] succeeds. Suppose she does blot out the future. You'll be in it, remember? You'll stop ever having existed.'" (The Shield Of Time, p. 45)

No, he won't. Raor might generate a subsequent timeline such that, when discussing the events occurring along on the temporal axis of that timeline, it is true to say that Varagan has never existed along that timeline. However, that cannot change the fact that he has existed, does exist and will continue to exist in the current timeline. I keep making the same point about Everard's (mis)understanding of the mutable timeline because it feels fresh and slightly different each time.

My non-existence in a subsequent timeline is of no more concern to me now than is my non-existence after my death in the current timeline. My existence is bounded in any case. However, in at least this one timeline, I do exist and will cease to exist - at death, not before - but cannot cease to have existed.

Everard's thoughts continue:

"You'll stop ever having existed.
"Except, of course, in those bits of space-time pastward of the change moment, in which he was engaged on his pranks. He'd've pointed that out with some glee, maybe." (ibid.)

But why should a time traveler care whether any of his previous deeds are preserved in a subsequent timeline? Those deeds are past to him in any case. He is not going to relive them.

"Or maybe not. In any case, I doubt he fears obliteration. The ultimate nihilist." (ibid.)

To know that you will not/do not (Temporal language tense needed) exist in a subsequent timeline is not to face obliteration in your current timeline. To lay this ghost, maybe I need to respond on this issue every time I re-encounter it when rereading the Time Patrol series?

Meanwhile, what is about to happen to Varagan in his personal future in his current timeline? He has been arrested by the Time Patrol and will be sent to the exile planet but that requires another post.