By the end of "Brave To Be A King," we know that, in the Danellian timeline, two Time Patrolmen, Manse Everard and Keith Denison, prevent the assassination of the infant Cyrus. However, these Patrolmen intervene to prevent that assassination only because they remember their experience of a timeline in which Cyrus was assassinated in infancy, then Denison was forced to play the role of the adult Cyrus. Thus, there is a relationship of cause and effect between the two timelines even though the Patrolmen state that the timeline with Denison as Cyrus has no claim to existence. This is odd. However, it establishes that, even before it has been agreed whether "deleted" timelines exist, it is possible to place the timelines in a causal, and therefore also in a temporal, order. The simplest explanation of this temporal order is that the Danellian timeline succeeds the Denison-as-Cyrus timeline in a second temporal dimension, thus that, within
that dimension, the latter timeline can be said both to have existed and also no longer to exist. Of course, within the Danellian timeline, with its single internal temporal dimension, the events of Denison's career as Cyrus simply never occurred.
The question of the existence of timelines is not settled by the tenses of the Temporal language. However, if the temporal nature of the relationship between timelines is acknowledged, then it should be a straightforward linguistic task to assign appropriate extra tenses. This could be done even in English. Thus, in "Delenda Est," the Danellian timeline is succeeded by the Carthaginian timeline which in turn is succeeded by the restored Danellian timeline. Specifically, the Second Punic War, won by the Romans, did occur (past tense) in an earlier period of the restored Danellian timeline whereas the Second Roman War, won by the Carthaginians (neither "did" nor "will" but some new word) occur (meta-past tense) in an earlier timeline ("earlier" in the meta-sense). By contrast, no tense applies to a timeline which is said not only not to exist but never to have existed.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Ugh, this hurts my head, esp. the issue you raised in the last sentence of your first paragraph! (Smiles)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that this is straightforward if you understand dimensions as directions at right angles to each other. If a horizontal straight line across the bottom of a page represents an original timeline, then parallel straight lines above it up the page represent successive timelines. The arrow of time of each timeline is from left to right across the page whereas the arrow of time of the second temporal dimension stretches up the page.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
When I read and reread these commentaries by you, I think I can get what you are saying. But it's hard to either pin down for good or to make emotional sense of, I fear.
In contrast, I find the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics much more intellectually satisfactory. That interpretation allows for the possibility of alternate worlds or universes, which I think is a far more likely possibility than time traveling.
The untitled preface to THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS has a good brief discussion of alternate worlds. And writers like Frank Tipler and Sean Carroll have discussed such things in their books.
You seem to like Anderson's Time Patrol stories more than those where he used the premise of alternate universes. I enjoy reading both kinds, but I have a preference for the OPERATION books, THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS, and A MIDSUMMER TEMPEST, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I love the Time Patrol. I have blogged about the Old Phoenix multiverse recently.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I think I can tell how ENTHUSIASTIC you are about the Time Patrol stories! (Smiles)
Yes, you have discussed Anderson's alternate worlds stories as well. To say nothing of those by Stirling.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Sean!
The Copenhagen interpretation is that the wave function collapses when an observation is made, so I think you may mean that you find the Many Worlds interpretation more satisfactory (namely, that both, or all, possible events take place, with the universe splitting). Personally, though, I’m inclined to favor the Transactional interpretation, that an observation or interaction sends a wave function back in time. That seems to give a plausible solution to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (no relation) paradox, and it accounts for the complex conjugate wave functions that I learned about as a physics student as having physical existence, not merely being a mathematical assumption which somehow gives correct answers.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Thanks, Nicholas. And, if you can understand that, you're a better man than I am!
Kaor, Nicholas!
Many thanks for your always interesting comments! Ditto, what Paul said. I think I have some vague inkling of getting what you wrote. It reminds me of some of the things Michaud was saying about recent cosmological thought in his book CONTACT WITH ALIEN CIVILIZATIONS. And in works like Frank Tipler's THE PHYSICS OF CHRISTIANITY. But I don't claim to truly understand it!
Regards! Sean
Post a Comment