The Wardens and Rangers in Poul Anderson's
The Corridors Of Time and the mutant time travellers in his
There Will Be Time can neither initiate divergent timelines nor enter any already existing parallel or alternative timelines. Their entire experience is of a space-time universe with only a single timeline and it would certainly have contravened the integrity of their narratives if the author had added any sequels in which suddenly it
was possible to "change the past" just as it would contravene the integrity of a contemporary novel if either an extra-terrestrial spaceship or a temporal vehicle from the future were to arrive as a
deus ex machina on the last page. However, it is a premise of multiversal fiction that there
are many universes that have no contact with each other, some of which even have different laws of physics. Therefore, I think that there can be a role for a fictional observer who sees into the various universes without intervening in any of those worlds where such intervention would be inappropriate. The events of a contemporary novel occur on an Earth that is part of the Solar System where there
might be events happening on Mars right now although it is not the job of
this novel to inform us about them. Everything happens in a cosmic - or multi-cosmic - context even though we often do not reflect on this fact.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And of course many physicists believe in at least the theoretical possibility that alternate worlds or universes exist. I've read some of their books on this topic, while not claiming to understand everything they said about it. Two examples being: THE PHYSICS OF CHRISTIANITY, by Frank J. Tipler;* and SOMETHING DEEPLY HIDDEN, by Sean Carroll.
Ad astra! Sean
*Anderson expressed his debt to Tipler's work about the "T machines," which he used in THE AVATAR.
Disgusted by the crackpots who vandalized Stonehenge with spray paint. I hope they do hard tme in prison!
Sean
Sean,
I am not disgusted by them although I might have argued with them about whether to do it. I think that your language on such issues is far too extreme. Why did they do it? You disagree with them on certain issues. It is clear and obvious to you that you are right! If I disagree with someone, then I try to engage with their arguments, not to dismiss them as obviously wrong and then express disgust at their actions. They are disgusted by oil companies. Are human beings just going to go on being disgusted with each other indefinitely? (It would seem so.)
Paul.
A comment I saw elsewhere about the spray paint incident was
"If your proposed activist action could be suggested by an agent provocateur to discredit your movement, you probably shouldn't do it."
No belief justifies mutilating an ancient monument or work of art.
In those cases, motivation is strictly irrelevant: the same punishment should be inflicted as would be if they'd done it for money or for kicks.
Kaor, Paul!
I cannot agree with you. My arguments on why I believe you to be wrong would be those of Jim and Stirling. The crackpots who vandalized Stonehenge should be punished as harshly as the law allows.
Enough with tolerating barbarians!
Ad astra! Sean
My comment disappeared, this is a test.
Sean
From Sean M. Brooks:
Kaor, Paul!
I cannot agree with you. My arguments on why I believe you to be wrong would be those of Jim and Stirling. The crackpots who vandalized Stonehenge should be punished as harshly as the law allows.
Enough with tolerating barbarians!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I am not sure what we are disagreeing about this time. "Crackpots" amounts to a swear word. As for the consequences of their action, I expect the law to come down hard.
Meanwhile, of course, we have got to continue to be concerned about the climate in any case.
Paul.
Two people took that action and tomorrow evening will participate in a national zoom meeting.
Kaor, Paul!
Some "swear words" are rightly applied to the barbarians who vandalized Stonehenge. And I hope the perps pay hard for that.
And there should be no such zoom meeting for those goons, because all they will do is defend their vandalism, with weak willed useful idiots meekly nodding agreement!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
This extreme language is absurd. Sure, you can object, I think rightly, to that particular act of vandalism but you are writing off a whole movement of serious people with that "useful idiots" cliche again. "Weak willed," certainly not. There are people who are very strong willed in their opposition to the power that be and the way things are.
I am just going out to a meeting.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I stand by what I said, because there are far too many who are as I described them above.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
E.g., I should have cited the barbarians who tried to vandalize the MONA LISA not that months ago, for precisely the same "reasons" as the Stonehenge goons.
Blessedly, the MONA LISA had protective glass sheathing!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment