Dimensional Travellers Immunity and Dimensional Bastard

[Thought]

Let me respond with something you said earlier.

It's like this: You think dimensional travel is subject to the same rules as normal time travel in that TTI and TB are preserved for it. Fine - then prove it.

Curiously, that is largely my objection to the need for your analysis. You never argued (much less proved) that Timelines and Dimensions are different. Simple observations indicate that they are the exact same. Being the same, one would expect the same rules to apply. You offered new rules to apply to one and not the other, but you never first proved that they are separate things in need of new rules.

Which seems to boil down to how we both perceive dimensions and timelines. It is almost like we are both looking at the same animal and I'm calling it a horse and you're calling it a zebra.

[Eske]

Let me respond with something you said earlier.

It's like this: You think dimensional travel is subject to the same rules as normal time travel in that TTI and TB are preserved for it. Fine - then prove it.

Curiously, that is largely my objection to the need for your analysis. You never argued (much less proved) that Timelines and Dimensions are different. Simple observations indicate that they are the exact same. Being the same, one would expect the same rules to apply. You offered new rules to apply to one and not the other, but you never first proved that they are separate things in need of new rules.

Which seems to boil down to how we both perceive dimensions and timelines. It is almost like we are both looking at the same animal and I'm calling it a horse and you're calling it a zebra.

TTI exists to prevent causal loops.  TB exists because if it didn't, TTI would spawn infinite time travellers.
DTI/DB work the same way.  At first, I was inclined to agree with Thought but....


When I tried to prove that DTI and DB exist, I obviously had to start with DTI - without it, DB is unnecessary.

Using the most extreme example possible, I was able to do it but that was only the most extreme example. Even then, that example involved time travel - there had to be a causal loop created moving backwards and sideways, then forwards and sideways.  Further still, the actions of the individuals needed to affect the existence of dimensional travel itself. 

Thought says that TTI=DTI and the differences do not change this.  That would mean that any change the Compendium decides to make to TTI would also be made to DTI.  From my perspective, Thought can only be wrong if such a situation exists where changes made to the concept of TTI do not create a paradox yet the same changes to DTI do, in fact, create a paradox.   That would show that, although they have the same purpose, there is something distinct that makes them unequal.

An analogy would be the screwdriver.  A phillips and a flat head are both screwdrivers, but they are still distinct. They both screw in something but you cannot call one of them by the other name.

In the same way, TTI and DTI are Causal Loop Protectors - they do the same thing but they are not the same.

So, I will get right on that example lol... 

[chrono eric]

Curiously, that is largely my objection to the need for your analysis. You never argued (much less proved) that Timelines and Dimensions are different. Simple observations indicate that they are the exact same. Being the same, one would expect the same rules to apply. You offered new rules to apply to one and not the other, but you never first proved that they are separate things in need of new rules.

Which seems to boil down to how we both perceive dimensions and timelines. It is almost like we are both looking at the same animal and I'm calling it a horse and you're calling it a zebra.

I'm not sure why you still can't see that just because timelines and dimensions may be the same thing - it doesn't matter. That is what we disagree upon. I say it doesn't matter because although timelines and dimensions may be the same, travel within or between them is not the same. As evidenced by the effects of that travel. Furthermore, just because they may be the same or similar doesn't mean that you can make the assumption that the rules apply the same way to both. That's a logical fallacy. Here's an example from biology since me and you seem to be quite familar with it:

Bacteria do not reproduce via spontaneous generation. For a long time, people did not know that Archaea existed. Now we know that they are a completely separate branch of the tree of life that evolved parallel to the Eubacteria, despite looking damn near the same under a microscope. When Archaea were discovered it was tempting to say "they look like bacteria, they clearly act like bacteria, so obviously then the same rules about spontaneous generation apply to them as they apply to bacteria". But you can't do that. You have to independently prove that Archaea do not spontaneously generate. No assumptions can be made just because of preconceived notions about how the universe works. Often our assumptions are correct, and Archaea obviously do not spontaneously generate. But you can't assume something without proving it or attempting to prove it. It's bad practice.

[Thought]

Using the most extreme example possible, I was able to do it but that was only the most extreme example. Even then, that example involved time travel - there had to be a causal loop created moving backwards and sideways, then forwards and sideways.  Further still, the actions of the individuals needed to affect the existence of dimensional travel itself. 

See, actually that is part of what I would object to. You're involving Time Travel, so is it any wonder that you are getting Time Travel like problems that necessitate explanation?

Essentially, it looks like you are adding iron filings to a mound of flour then claiming that the magneticsm that the mound exhibits needs an explanation.

Using the most extreme example possible, I was able to do it but that was only the most extreme example. Even then, that example involved time travel - there had to be a causal loop created moving backwards and sideways, then forwards and sideways.  Further still, the actions of the individuals needed to affect the existence of dimensional travel itself.

See, actually that is part of what I would object to. You're involving Time Travel, so is it any wonder that you are getting Time Travel like problems that necessitate explanation?

Essentially, it looks like you are adding iron filings to a mound of flour then claiming that the magnetism that the mound exhibits needs an explanation other than the iron there.

I eagerly await your example 

I'm not sure why you still can't see that just because timelines and dimensions may be the same thing - it doesn't matter. That is what we disagree upon. I say it doesn't matter because although timelines and dimensions may be the same, travel within or between them is not the same. As evidenced by the effects of that travel. Furthermore, just because they may be the same or similar doesn't mean that you can make the assumption that the rules apply the same way to both. That's a logical fallacy.

You are really placing too much emphasis on these "effects of travel." It appears that you are saying that if the means of travel produces certain results, then that means of travel is A, but if those means of travel do not produce certain results, then that means of travel is B. Further, A is not equal to B.

Would you agree that you are essentially claiming such?

Well then, let us suppose Bob the Time Traveler lives in 1000 AD. He travels to the future... lets say, 2300AD. He spend some time there and returns to 1000 AD. Please, point out any effects of his travel that necessitate we apply TTI or TB.

I believe you will find none in that situation, but please do correct me if I am wrong.

If we switch the direction of his travel from forward to backwards, however, we begin to run into some problems. Bob travels from 1000 AD to 600AD, spends some time there, and returns to 1000AD. By spending time in the past, Bob changed the timeline to such a degree that upon returning to 1000AD, he finds that events had progressed in such a way that he would have never left for 600AD in the first place. TTI and TB are both then applied.

By your logic, since simple forward time travel does not produce duplicates and paradoxes, it is not the same as backwards time travel. Furthermore, by your behavior, one would then need to developed Forward-Time-Traveler's Immunity as a separate entity from Backwards-Time-Traveler's Immunity.

Now you might object, and rightfully so, that the example above is too simplistic. One might suppose that, after Bob returns to 1000 AD, another Time Traveler named Jane travels from 600 AD to 1000 AD and kills Bob before he would have originally left. Would Bob cease to exist in 2300 AD? Ha Ha! Time Traveler Immunity needs to be applied here to forward time travel, does it not?

Nope.

Because Jane would have no way of telling what occurred to Bob in 2300 AD unless she travels there. Also, she may have no way of even reaching Bob before he originally left for 2300, depending on how Time Error interacts with Time Travelers. And because, even those elements aside, we have added in another variable (Jane).

By your arguments, it would seem that we'd need to suppose a Multi-Time-Traveler theorem to take into account the effects of multiple time travelers on a timeline (as the two different instances of time travel must obviously be different since they produce different results).


Depending on the exact circumstances, Time Travel may or may not necessitate TTI or TB. The mere fact that one could travel in time without producing duplicates and paradoxes does not necessitate that such a method of travel is fundamentally different than other forms of Time Travel. If such is sufficient to merit a new theory, then the fact that Simple Forward Time Travel does not produce duplicate or paradoxes would seem to set it apart just as much as dimensional time travel.

Also, for the record, if things are the same, then yes, you can make assumptions that the rules apply to both equally and in the same manner. Your own example is actually quite evident of this.

Bacteria do not reproduce via spontaneous generation.

Why would anyone claim that if the same things cannot be judged by the same rules? Unless the same objects were assumed to behave in the same manner, one could not legitimately say that Escherichia coli O157:H7 in petri dish A would behave in a manner similar to Escherichia coli O157:H7 in petri dish B.

To further use your own example, Archaea were only suspected to not be bacteria after they did something that bacteria shouldn't do (which first necessitates that there is a conception that the same and similar objects will behave in the same and similar ways). It is true, we could compare this to time and dimensional travel. Dimensional Travel appears (from a limited, uncontrolled, perspective) to not produce some results that we expect from Time Travel. The question, however, is then if those differences are different enough to merit different classifications.

To help illustrate this, let us imagine two photons. You look at one and see that it is a particle. You look at the other and see that it is a wave. Is that enough to say that these two protons are separate things that will behave differently and need their own specialized rules?


Also, to note:

When Archaea were discovered it was tempting to say "they look like bacteria, they clearly act like bacteria, so obviously then the same rules about spontaneous generation apply to them as they apply to bacteria". But you can't do that. You have to independently prove that Archaea do not spontaneously generate.

No, you have it backwards. You have to independently prove that Archaea do spontaneously generate. Scientifically you can't prove negatives; you should know that. Actually, technically speaking, you can’t prove at all, only disprove. Which requires a positive assertion (X does A). And controls.

For all we know, Archaea may spontaneously generate and we just haven't observed it. The assumptions hold until there is proof to the contrary; the contrary does not hold until there is definitive proof of the assumption.

[chrono eric]

You are really placing too much emphasis on these "effects of travel." It appears that you are saying that if the means of travel produces certain results, then that means of travel is A, but if those means of travel do not produce certain results, then that means of travel is B. Further, A is not equal to B.

Would you agree that you are essentially claiming such?

No, perhaps I should quote myself, as all I was saying was that the difference in the effects of the travel is what was important for the discussion:

Therefore the difference between dimensional and "normal" time travel is significant to the argument of why it must exist.

Which you seem to at least understand with your below example:

Well then, let us suppose Bob the Time Traveler lives in 1000 AD. He travels to the future... lets say, 2300AD. He spend some time there and returns to 1000 AD. Please, point out any effects of his travel that necessitate we apply TTI or TB.

I believe you will find none in that situation, but please do correct me if I am wrong.

It may at first seem that no effects of his travel necessitate TTI or TB, but examine it a little more closely. He first leaves in 1000 AD and emerges in 2300 AD. In this future, he has been missing from the timeline for 1300 years. If Bob the time traveller were to look in a hypothetical history book that records the history of every single person on the planet, he would find that he vanished in 1000 AD and never returned. Now, when he goes back to 1000 AD he emerges in a new timeline that is not his own. Bob the Time Traveller that emerges in 1000 AD here would remember that he came from a timeline that had no record of him appearing a second time in 1000 AD.

The Bob that emerges in 2300 AD in this timeline could look in the same hypothetical history book and see that he does emerge a second time in 1000 AD. Because the Bob that emerged the second time in 1000 AD remembers the original timeline, he has Time Traveller's Immunity. In this example it is not clear whether Bob that emerged in 2300 AD would have time travellers immunity or not since they would both remember the same timeline, so you couldn't use that as a deciding factor. However, what about Time Bastard? If Bob in 2300 AD in this new timeline enters a portal and heads back to 1000 AD, you now have a duplication problem. To solve this problem, Bob from 2300 AD would have to disappear from the timeline permanently the moment he entered the portal. TB and TTI are necessary in this example as well.

By your logic, since simple forward time travel does not produce duplicates and paradoxes, it is not the same as backwards time travel. Furthermore, by your behavior, one would then need to developed Forward-Time-Traveler's Immunity as a separate entity from Backwards-Time-Traveler's Immunity.

Your own example contradicted this as I've shown above, but I get what you are trying to say. For a single instance of forward time travel TTI and TB are not necessary. There is no reason to assume that they exist or to invoke them. But it unnecessarily complicates things to say that TTI and TB still wouldn't be in place in the absence of a situation that causes temporal problems.

Why would anyone claim that if the same things cannot be judged by the same rules? Unless the same objects were assumed to behave in the same manner, one could not legitimately say that Escherichia coli O157:H7 in petri dish A would behave in a manner similar to Escherichia coli O157:H7 in petri dish B.

Not really seeing your point here. One can't legitimately say that E coli O157:H7 would behave the same way in both petri dishes. We can predict that they will based on what we know about bacteria and that particular strain, but every new instance of something requires a new observation of it. In this example, the assumption or prediction is based upon previous evidence and the confirmation of it would be the observation that they do in fact behave in the same way.

Relating this to our discussion about TTI and TB being invoked for parallel time travel (using this instead of dimensional since you seem to abhor that word), we can predict that they will but then we could not observe it, so to speak. We could not observe an instance of TB and TTI during parallel time travel because no paradoxes, duplicates, or matter/energy conservation problems emerge. It is impossible to compare the two the same way as one would compare a particular strain of E. coli growing in one petri dish to another. The only way to elucidate this is to examine a situation in which problems would arise.  Which Eske and I have done.

To further use your own example, Archaea were only suspected to not be bacteria after they did something that bacteria shouldn't do (which first necessitates that there is a conception that the same and similar objects will behave in the same and similar ways).

Yes, perhaps the Archaea example was a bad choice. I was trying to think of an example in which two things that appear identical are actually different, and because they are different assumptions about one would not apply to the other. The spontaneous generation example was probably bad too now that I think about it. A much better example would have been growth in extreme conditions, and making assumptions about one group based on the other.

No, you have it backwards. You have to independently prove that Archaea do spontaneously generate. Scientifically you can't prove negatives; you should know that. Actually, technically speaking, you can’t prove at all, only disprove. Which requires a positive assertion (X does A). And controls.

When I was typing that quote, I actually thought to myself - "surely he won't comment on the impreciseness of this with regards to the scientific method?", but since we are having a casual conversation here, I made the assumption (ha) that you wouldn't.

[Eske]

Well then, let us suppose Bob the Time Traveler lives in 1000 AD. He travels to the future... lets say, 2300AD. He spend some time there and returns to 1000 AD. Please, point out any effects of his travel that necessitate we apply TTI or TB.

I believe you will find none in that situation, but please do correct me if I am wrong.

Alright so the question is:  If Bob is an immortal, upon his return to 1000AD, if he waited out to that point, (arrival at Time X), would he see himself appear?

From what you are saying, the answer would be indeterminable because Bob has created no need to preserve his presence (a la TTI) to avoid casual loops.  No TTI means that no TB is necessary as well.
So all I have to do is create a situation where forward time travel would have to produce a need for TTI or, if not possible, a likely need for it.   Hmm

Well here is a thought:  In the Crono series, we follow our characters Personal Timelines throughout the game - there is no point where we "have no idea of where/when they are".  Crono goes to this time, then that time, then another time etc. What do I mean?  Have a look:

Crono's watch reads 1:30PM while he is in 1000AD.
He then travels to 2300AD and remains there until 1:45PM (by his watch).
Finally, he travels to 600AD. Final time is 1:45PM

Even though I included past time travel with future time travel, the idea here is clear:  He must appear in the future no matter what.  If future time travel somehow does not necessitate TTI and random variables can influence the time travel event in such a way so that Crono does not appear in the future, then Crono's personal timeline can be split.

In other words,  Crono will appear in 600AD at 1:45PM and disappear in 1000AD at 1:30PM and literally be nowhere for 15 minutes. We know he isn't in the DBT, or cruising the timeline.  He isn't in another dimension and he can't be in any other time period or simply remain in 1000AD because that version would have been TB'ed at personal time 1:30PM.

 He would literally be absent from the universe, and then suddenly reappear - which is impossible.

If you want someone to present an example using only future travel, then sorry, because we both know that isn't possible.  There is no point of reference to the time traveller which can be altered by pure future time travel alone, no matter how many times it is done. Meaning that no change he makes to the timeline can influence him in any way.

[chrono eric]

Sorry Eske, but I'm not really sure the watch example is relevant here because technically due to TTI time travellers are emerging from past timelines that have been sent to the DBT. So they have indeed been absent from the universe and then suddenly reappeared. Ex: A time traveller goes from point A to point B (it doesn't matter). TTI is preserved here for the sake of our argument. A second time traveller then changes history so that the first time traveller never exists to time travel. He would still emerge at point B due to TTI, and he would literally emerge from "nothing".

[Eske]

Sorry Eske, but I'm not really sure the watch example is relevant here because technically due to TTI time travellers are emerging from past timelines that have been sent to the DBT. So they have indeed been absent from the universe and then suddenly reappeared. Ex: A time traveller goes from point A to point B (it doesn't matter). TTI is preserved here for the sake of our argument. A second time traveller then changes history so that the first time traveller never exists to time travel. He would still emerge at point B due to TTI, and he would literally emerge from "nothing".

First off, I will use only Compendium theories, no reverse-TB or other things because that will only complicate the issue - plus you guys haven't taken those into account in your argument.
With that said:

It isn't the same. In your example, conservation can be preserved, in mine, conservation is not preserved.

Take my first example, and then repeat the cycle because of the change to 600AD  ::

Crono appears in 600AD at 1:45PM
Crono travels from 1000AD to 2300AD at 1:30PM
Due to random variables, he never appears in 2300AD.

Remember that personal time for time travellers is Time Error.  If leave 1000AD for 2300AD - stay for 15 minutes, and then return to 1000AD, I have been absent from 1000AD for Time 1300 years, Time Error 15 mintues.


If TTI was guaranteed only one way (past travel), as in the example above - where was Crono's matter for 15 minutes?
There is nothing here to balance a lack of Crono's presence.  TB will force Crono to vanish in 1000AD and TTI will force him to appear in 600AD but for 15 minutes of Time Error (Compendium version) Crono is unaccounted for.

In your example, assuming TTI is forced with past & future travel, the matter that would have composed of Crono will vanish in 1000AD and Crono will appear in 2300AD and 600AD.

[chrono eric]

Oh, I see what you mean. I believe this question can be answered by viewing time in the Chronoverse as cyclical. Conveniently, someone else just made a thread about something that I was talking about in one of our earlier discussions in the Marle Paradox thread - namely, eternal recurrence in the Chronoverse. If you view time that way, the 15 minutes of Time Error are still accounted for.

I first started talking about cyclical time in the Chronoverse, I believe, when you mentioned a scenario about two time travellers travelling separately from each other in the same timeline. Cyclical time explains what would happen then very well. It also explains the apparent loss of Time Error in your example.

[Eske]

Oh, I see what you mean. I believe this question can be answered by viewing time in the Chronoverse as cyclical. Conveniently, someone else just made a thread about something that I was talking about in one of our earlier discussions in the Marle Paradox thread - namely, eternal recurrence in the Chronoverse. If you view time that way, the 15 minutes of Time Error are still accounted for.

I first started talking about cyclical time in the Chronoverse, I believe, when you mentioned a scenario about two time travellers travelling separately from each other in the same timeline. Cyclical time explains what would happen then very well. It also explains the apparent loss of Time Error in your example.

I saw it, but I don't see how it solves the issue.   Crono is still literally nowhere for 15 minutes of Time Error.
And you and I already thought of a similar theory anyway:  Remember?  Timelines finish out before repeating again and so on forever? (used to explain Lucca/Crono not getting sent to DBT)   So I understand the basic idea.

Crono travels to 2300AD, then all the way around the circle to 600AD.  Even still, Thoughts version of TTI will actually make this absence more easily visualized.

If you draw a circle, and put your finger on 1000AD, you should be able to trace it to 2300AD, then all the way around to 600AD without lifting your finger.  Because of Thought's version of TTI, you would trace your finger up to...

Arrival Time X, 2300AD. TTI fails and Crono is not present here for 15 minutes. So you would have to lift your finger off of the circle until..

Departure Time Y, 2300AD (bound for 600AD) - where you would complete the cycle.

Lifting your finger from the paper represents a break in continuity, and that is why Thought's version of future travel not necessitating TTI cannot be correct.

Just look at the circle, once TTI fails to produce Crono in 2300AD,  where is he?  You cannot trace your finger around to any other time period, no DBT, nothing - it isn't possible.

[Thought]

It may at first seem that no effects of his travel necessitate TTI or TB, but examine it a little more closely.

Now see, the problem there is you are making far too many assumptions that can't be fully supported.

1) Would he find that history recorded him as missing and never returned? I would propose "No," he could actually find out his own future from it. The reason for this is that I would argue and maintain that in the Chronoverse, theme is supreme. We see in CT that events do not change one way or another until one actively causes those events to change. The future doesn't magically get saved the second Crono time travels because he hasn't saved it yet; it doesn't matter if saving the future will happen later in Crono's life.

Likewise, I would argue that until Bob actively not-exists in 1000AD for his entire life, 2300AD wont record him as not being present in 1000 AD for his whole life.

However, even if you disagree with me in this matter (which is an artistic rather than scientific perspective), you could still not prove that such a hypothetical record would list him as missing.

2) Your statement that he would return to a new timeline is strange. The only difference in the timeline he returned to and the timeline he left, from his perspective, is that a few minutes, days, etc would have passed (representing his time spent in the future). That is, from his perspective nothing would have changed. From an outsider’s perspective, something might have changed, but the change isn't what is important; it is in the lack of paradoxes and duplicates.

3) You then rerun the thought experiment, supposing multiple instances of time travel (on a Time Error scale, a single instance on a regular time scale); that is, a Bob that appears in 2300 AD that reads the hypothetical book that contains information as to when he returned to 1000AD, which is a separate act from the first time Bon appeared in 2300AD. As I freely admitted, when one starts adding in extra instances of time travel and travelers, problems do appear. So even if you reject #1, by complicating the matter with an additional instance of time travel you are underlining that simple single transit forward time travel does not produce duplicates or paradoxes. Thus, again, by your reasoning it would seem to necessitate that it is inherently different than normal modes of time travel. If Dimensional Travel them merits its own rules and procedures because it is substantially different than those situations in which TTI and TB are applied, why not this very specific form of time travel as well?

Your own example contradicted this as I've shown above, but I get what you are trying to say. For a single instance of forward time travel TTI and TB are not necessary. There is no reason to assume that they exist or to invoke them. But it unnecessarily complicates things to say that TTI and TB still wouldn't be in place in the absence of a situation that causes temporal problems.

Which is exactly what you are doing! You are saying that TTI and TB are not in place for Dimensional travel because of "the absence of a situation that causes temporal problems." You then went on to propose new rules (that appear to be the same as the old rules) to deal with this mysterious form of travel.

Not really seeing your point here. One can't legitimately say that E coli O157:H7 would behave the same way in both petri dishes.

Point being, two things that are the same can be assumed to behave the same. And yes, we can legitimately say that E coli O157:H7 would behave the same way in both petri dishes. That is what makes peer review possible.

The only way to elucidate this is to examine a situation in which problems would arise.  Which Eske and I have done.

By contaminating the test subject with forward and backwards time travel, which we already know the effects of, and then claiming you've developed something that had been missing. As I said, I agree with DTI and DB, I just disagree with the necessity of it being perceived as different from TTI and TB.

When I was typing that quote, I actually thought to myself - "surely he won't comment on the impreciseness of this with regards to the scientific method?", but since we are having a casual conversation here, I made the assumption (ha) that you wouldn't.

Only because it was relevant. It appeared as if you were switching the burden of proof around and using the scientific method to justify it. Hence why I wanted to be sure we were on the same page.

If you want someone to present an example using only future travel, then sorry, because we both know that isn't possible.  There is no point of reference to the time traveller which can be altered by pure future time travel alone, no matter how many times it is done. Meaning that no change he makes to the timeline can influence him in any way.

Which was exactly the reason for asking it. Dimensional travel has the same problem; there is no point of reference to the dimensional traveler which can be altered by pure dimensional travel alone, no matter how many times it is done. You have to add time travel into the mix to get such a point of reference (or so I think we are all in agreeance on). But by adding time travel (here referencing both forward and backwards time travel), you would be subjecting such a point of reference to those forces which have already been debated and discussed; mainly, TTI and TB. My entire objection is in that instead of expanding TTI and TB to include these situation, you've proposed something new (that curiously looks exactly like the old).

Really, these last two pages have been a matter of proper placement of the ideas you two have presented. I can see the value of it being a corollary to TTI and TB, but it doesn't seem to stand as its own independent and unrelated theory. Which is why I asked originally if you two see Time and Dimensional Travel as different beasts which necessitate different rules (which is appears that you both do), and why.

The disagreeance is incredibly minor, from an objective standpoint, but still the debate continues for some reason. Sort of like arguing if steampunk should be classified under fantasy or a science fiction.

[Eske]

While one instance of time travel to the future does not necessitate TTI or TB, do you, Thought, believe those rules still apply?

What I mean is, could you explain how past time travel would corrupt any of our examples?

Example:

Bob and Jim are in 1000AD.  Jim is immortal.
Bob travels to Time X, 2300AD and then remains there for the duration of his life.
When Jim eventually reaches 2300AD, will he see Bob appear?

If he doesn't, it is like my Crono example above, Bob will be missing from the universe.
Jim sees Bob vanish,  this is the same timeline so there is no duplicate to be TB'ed (no one is sent to DBT),   there is no TB anyway because TTI isn't invoked,    so where is Bob?  

Before, I used forward and backward time travel to produce "missing" Time Error with Crono in a world where future travel does not guarantee TTI.   Here, I am simply using another person's perspective.

If Bob never reappears in the timeline, then he is missing for  large amount of Time Error, though any amount of time error unaccounted for isn't possible.


But - if you are just saying that DTI/DB should just keep the names TTI/TB because the differences are moot, then I agree.

[chrono eric]

Likewise, I would argue that until Bob actively not-exists in 1000AD for his entire life, 2300AD wont record him as not being present in 1000 AD for his whole life.

What a strange stance to take. The opposite of this statement would then also be true by your own logic - that until Bob actively exists in 1000 AD for his entire life, 2300 AD won't record him as being present in 1000 AD for his whole life. Therefore, because Bob has time travelled 1300 years into the future, bypassing 1300 years of recorded history, and because he has not yet taken a gate back to 1000 AD and has not yet actively lived his life in 1000 AD, he would not be able to read about it from a history book. As such, I stand by my original view on this subject.

2) Your statement that he would return to a new timeline is strange. The only difference in the timeline he returned to and the timeline he left, from his perspective, is that a few minutes, days, etc would have passed (representing his time spent in the future). That is, from his perspective nothing would have changed. From an outsider’s perspective, something might have changed, but the change isn't what is important; it is in the lack of paradoxes and duplicates.

I think you are confusing yourself with your own timelines=dimensions argument. By "new timeline" I simply meant that he has returned to a different version of the timeline since he has, in fact, altered the past by his simple presence there after being absent for 1300 years.

Point being, two things that are the same can be assumed to behave the same. And yes, we can legitimately say that E coli O157:H7 would behave the same way in both petri dishes. That is what makes peer review possible.

EDIT: I think that we are attempting to say the same thing but describing it in different ways - hence the confusion. I interpreted the words "legitimately say" that you used to mean "prove", and you cannot prove that O157:H7 would behave the same way in both cases. What makes peer review possible is that we can predict beyond a reasonable doubt that it will and then confirm those results repeatedly. I think we are both saying the same thing, and that by "legitimately say" you meant "predict" based on prior observations and theory. That doesn't mean that the next time that we attempt to confirm those results something unexpected won't happen. I have faith in my assumption that reality is objective and that the scientific method discerns some objective truth about reality, but I have no delusions about the limits of it.

[Thought]

What a strange stance to take. The opposite of this statement would then also be true by your own logic - that until Bob actively exists in 1000 AD for his entire life, 2300 AD won't record him as being present in 1000 AD for his whole life. Therefore, because Bob has time travelled 1300 years into the future, bypassing 1300 years of recorded history, and because he has not yet taken a gate back to 1000 AD and has not yet actively lived his life in 1000 AD, he would not be able to read about it from a history book. As such, I stand by my original view on this subject.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The keyword in what I said was "change."

First, we have a timeline. The past, present, and future are all equally complete, in motion, and static (from a non-linear perspective). Bob's personal life is already complete.

Second, we have an instance of Time Travel. That introduces a variable that allows the timeline to change. However, at this point, that is only potential; the timeline will not change until actions have been taken to cause that change.

Curiously, from this perspective, if Bob travels at the age of 25, the Bob that did stuff at the age of 40 is in the past and future, but not the present. Things can only change in the present, so what he did/will do at 40 can't be effected until 40 is the present.

But - if you are just saying that DTI/DB should just keep the names TTI/TB because the differences are moot, then I agree.

Yup, that is basically it. Though as mentioned, after this thread, I think it is valuable and proper to make a corollary statement connecting TTI/TB to dimensional travel as well.

[Eske]

Second, we have an instance of Time Travel. That introduces a variable that allows the timeline to change. However, at this point, that is only potential; the timeline will not change until actions have been taken to cause that change.

Curiously, from this perspective, if Bob travels at the age of 25, the Bob that did stuff at the age of 40 is in the past and future, but not the present. Things can only change in the present, so what he did/will do at 40 can't be effected until 40 is the present.

That's funny because Dreamline works pretty much the same way (assuming 1000AD is the literal/absolute present).