Dimensional Travellers Immunity and Dimensional Bastard

[chrono eric]

OK, so in the "Time Devourer's Defeat Undoes the Fall of Guardia and Lucca's Death" thread Eske and I wrote out several proofs of what we dubbed Dimensional Traveller's Immunity and Dimensional Bastard. The full thread can be found here:

http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,6571.0.html

But because it is an enormous discussion that took several tangents I thought I would make a separate thread that concisely outlines what we were talking about so that people can discuss/criticize it without having to wade through four pages of posts - most of which are nearly short story length in and of themselves.

The main idea was: Are events of dimensional travel preserved in the timeline as are events of time travel? The Compendium leaves this question completely wide open in their "Chrono Cross Resolutions" article and it assumes that dimensional travelling events are preserved without ever attempting to prove it. So how would one go about proving it?

Well, one of the major reasons that TTI/TB needs to exist is to prevent paradoxes and duplicates from occurring even with simple instances of time travel. So to prove the necessity of DTI/DB, one would have to outline a legitimate scenario in which a paradox or duplications would occur if DTI or DB did not exist. We have done this below. Note that dimensional travel in and of itself is not inherently paradoxical - problems only arise when dimensional travel is also associated with some sort of time travel.

Dimensional Travellers Immunity Scenario (paradox arises):

Professor A invents a Time Travel "gate key" and can open time gates anywhere.
Then, 10 minutes later, he invents a machine that creates a Dimensional Vortex that exists in all time periods (like CTDS) and is fixed in place, and can only exist if the machine is operational.
Professor A can lay time gates perfectly on top of the Dimensional Vortex to use both simultaneously.
Professor A indeed uses his devices simultaneously, immediately after both are invented.

From Dimension 1, Time X,   Professor A travels to  Dimension 2, Time X-10.
There, he tells a resident, Person B, to traverse dimensions  to Dimension 1 and kill Professor A before all means of extra/other spatial travel were invented.   

Person B at D2: Time X-10 travels  to     D1: Time X-10 and kills Professor A just seconds after Time Travel is invented.  Dimensional Travel is never invented.

Now lets add  "1" to Time Error and play this through again.

A (time) gate will open in Time X-10 no matter what.   But where?     Time portals will always open no matter what because of TTI.   Which means Professor A (who, by TTI, will always remember inventing dimensional travel as well) will appear 10 minutes into the past, meet the counterpart of Person B and tell him to cross dimensions to kill Professor A.  Professor A will be shocked to see that the dimensional vortex no longer exists.   (If the machine is rendered inoperable, the vortex ceases to exist in all time periods.  like how the CTDS  portals only exist in all time periods for Time Error Y+1 after they are created at Time Error Y.)

That means that no version of Person B crosses dimensions (NOT time) to kill Professor A.  If DTI did not exist  this would create a loop because if Person B can't kill Professor A, then dimensional travel will exist --  but then Person B would now be able to kill Professor A, negating the existence of dimensional travel - and so on.

Dimensional Bastard Scenario (duplication arises):

Two dimensions exist which are parallel to each other in time. In Dimension 1 a man called Dimensional Traveler exists in the timeline. In Dimension 2 he was never born. A person called Time Traveller was born in Dimension 2 and may or may not exist in Dimension 1 (doesn't matter).

Dimension 1: Time X: Dimensional Traveller goes to dimension 2 via some dimensional gate.

Dimension 2: Time X: Dimensional Traveller appears in dimension 2. Time Traveller meets Dimensional Traveller, decides he is an asshole, and travels first to Dimension 1 with the intent of going back in time to kill his grandfather so he never exists.

Dimension 1: Time X+1: Time Traveller arrives in dimension 1, goes back in time to X-100.

Dimension 1: Time X-100: Time Traveller kills Dimensional Travellers grandfather, changing history in Dimension 1 so that Dimensional Traveller never crosses the dimensions to Dimension 2, then travels back to the present in Dimension 1 and goes back to his home dimension of Dimension 2 at Time X+2.

Dimension 2: Time X+2: Time Traveller returns to his home dimension anticipating that Dimensional Traveller wouldn't be there. Does he meet Dimensional Traveller, or not?

Quite a thinker, eh?

In this situation, the act of Time Traveller killing Dimensional Travellers grandfather in Dimension 1 is preserved via TTI. The act of Time Traveller reappearing in the future of Dimension 1 is likewise preserved via TTI. But is the act of crossing the dimensions preserved by DTI/DB? This situation actually doesn't prove whether or not Dimensional Traveller will be there when Time Traveller returns, but lets analyze what would happen if Time Traveller did not disappear at the original instance of his dimensional crossing (ie: if Dimensional Bastard does not exist):

At Time X Time Traveller would not vanish. At Time X+2 this Time Traveller would meet his future self arriving from his journey to kill Dimensional Bastards' grandfather. There would be a problem of duplicates. Therefore Dimensional Bastard must necessarily exist to eliminate duplicates from the timeline.

[Thought]

Lets see if I have this right.

You are arguing that, like TTI, a Dimension Crosser's (I like it more than Dimensional Traveller) appearance in a dimension is preserved regardless of any changes to the timeline/dimensions?

I don't see a reason why that shouldn't be the case. After all, the distinction between dimensions and timelines rather academic. One is essentially the other, so shifting between dimensions is shifting between timelines as well. In effect, a Dimension Crosser IS a Time Traveler. I'd argue that DCI/DTI is the exact same as TTI, because, well, same situation, different direction. Instead of going forward or backwards, its more of side to side.

As for the second point, Dimension Orphan Theory (because Dimension Bastard Theory can get confused with the Darkness Beyond Time if they are abbreviated): I had a much harder time following this one, but I think my response to DCI works here too. Dimension travel is Time travel, so Dimensional Bastard is the same as Time Bastard.

But so let me ask you a question:

Do you see Dimensional Travel as different than Time Travel? If so, why?

[chrono eric]

Chrono Cross specifically illustrated a difference between dimensional travel and time travel. Just because there may be "infinite dimensions" in the Chronoverse that represent all possible versions of a timeline does not mean that time travel and dimensional travel are the same thing. If an individual travels from one dimension into another in the Chronoverse, they are not creating a situation in which they travel backwards or forwards in time within a single dimension. That is the difference. Time travel could be defined as the backwards or forwards movement in a timeline within a single dimension. Dimensional travel could be defined as traversing parallel dimensions (arriving in a parallel timeline) with no movement through time. Also note that a single instance of time travel into the past is technically problematic since an individual arrives at a past point in the timeline in which he previously didn't exist. But every instance of dimensional travel is not problematic at all unless it is associated with an instance of time travel. This illustrates the difference between the two well.

As such, dimensional travel is not intrinsically problematic like time travel is. That was what our arguments attempt to show. We, like you, assumed that dimensional travel would follow the same rules as time travel in that events would be preserved. But nobody had ever attempted to write out a logical proof of it before. To gain support for the concept that DTI and DB is necessary in the Chronoverse, one would have to create a situation in which a paradox would be created if it wasn't. That is what we have done.

In this sense, TTI and TB and DTI and DB are not one and the same as they arise from different circumstances (temporal travel and dimensional travel), but they follow similar logic and reasons for needing to exist in that they prevent paradoxes and prevent a duplication of information. But it is one thing to assume it is necessary for the Chronoverse and another to show a situation in which it would be.

[Thought]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.

Kid travels back in time from 1020 to 1010. She changes the past, and a new timeline should thus be created.

Well, a new timeline is created, except it takes the form of a dimension. What is the fundamental difference, then, between a timeline and a dimension? If these were material things which we could examine, how would their makeup differ? Is it like comparing Hydrogen to Oxygen? Is it like comparing Ice to Steam? Or is it like comparing distilled water from Maine with distilled water from England?

To note, the Chronoverse can't have infinite dimensions or there would be no need for a DBT, as every time a timeline changed, it would be a new dimension instead of being discarded.

Rather, dimensions must be rare. CC does tell us how they are formed; Belthasar states that Home and Another world split because there was a 50/50 chance of Kid's change to the timeline suceeding. That's a pretty difficult thing to do; to have dead even chances of one thing or another happening.

So dimensions seem to just be timelines in which a change occurred but the outcome cannot be resolved.

To help illustrate my point, lets say Time is a 4 lane road. Time Travel as it is usually defined is forward or backward along that road. Dimensional travel, however, is sort of like chaning lanes (moving side to side). You still moved on the road, but it was just a different manner of doing so. One is still moving through time, just not in the direction we normally think of. To say traveling forward is fundamentally different than traveling to the side seems to be curiously limited in orientation.

Turn to your left and right and what was "sideways" travel becomes forward and backward travel. So it seems like distinguishing Dimensional Travel as fundamentally different than Time Travel seems like you are insisting that the orientation of a traveler's perspective is key. Hence my original question (part 2); why do you see these as separate things? Is it just because standard Time Travel can produce temporal problems while non-standard (that is, dimensional) travel doesn't appear to produce temporal problems?

Also, a single instance of Traveling between dimensions is problematic, as Chrono Cross is a wonderful example of

[chrono eric]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.

No, you weren't, because this quote -

After all, the distinction between dimensions and timelines rather academic. One is essentially the other, so shifting between dimensions is shifting between timelines as well. In effect, a Dimension Crosser IS a Time Traveler.

Makes it sound as if you were saying that every time an individual travels within a timeline it creates a new dimension, rather than sending the future of that timeline to the DBT.

Take the form of dimensional travel in Chrono Cross as an example. You hop back and forth between Home and Another, but both worlds exist parallel to each other in time. You are going to another timeline, yes. But you are not travelling backwards or forwards through time. Which you seem to understand here:

To help illustrate my point, lets say Time is a 4 lane road. Time Travel as it is usually defined is forward or backward along that road. Dimensional travel, however, is sort of like chaning lanes (moving side to side). You still moved on the road, but it was just a different manner of doing so. One is still moving through time, just not in the direction we normally think of. To say traveling forward is fundamentally different than traveling to the side seems to be curiously limited in orientation.

Turn to your left and right and what was "sideways" travel becomes forward and backward travel. So it seems like distinguishing Dimensional Travel as fundamentally different than Time Travel seems like you are insisting that the orientation of a traveler's perspective is key. Hence my original question (part 2); why do you see these as separate things?

You are just complicating things by defining dimensional travel as a lateral movement through timelines, thus making dimensional travel still a form of time travel. But it doesn't matter what you call it, the implications are the same. You are arguing about the definition of dimensional travel vs. time travel but that definition has no bearing on the concept of Dimensional Travellers Immunity or Dimensional Bastard, because as you say here:

Is it just because standard Time Travel can produce temporal problems while non-standard (that is, dimensional) travel doesn't appear to produce temporal problems?

A "lateral" movement throug time (or dimensional travel) does not produce temporal problems as does a backwards or forwards movement. So my point is - it doesn't matter what your definition of dimensional travel is, because TTI and TB are still not the same thing as DTI and DB, and you cannot prove one in the same way that you can prove the other.

Also, a single instance of Traveling between dimensions is problematic, as Chrono Cross is a wonderful example of

It may be problematic in the sense of actually traversing a dimension (hell if I had to die first before I could do it I'd say count me out, thanks), but not in the sense that it creates problems with the timeline. 

[Thought]

So it does seem that movement causing problems is what you see as the defining and separating element between Time and Dimensional travel. Is that correct?

My argument is basically that Time and Dimensional travel is the same, but in a different direction of motion. Since timelines and dimensions are the same "stuff" (both big balls of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff, as it were), they should be under the same laws of temporal-physics.

To return to the analogy of the road, there are forces at work regardless of the direction of movement. Let us say that there is a headwind. Moving forward is difficult, moving backwards is easier, and moving side to side isn't particularly affected. The force is still there, acting on the car, because everything is the same, but you don't notice it as much. It isn’t a problem, but it is still there. Same goes with inertia; changing lanes doesn't require a lot of force, so it can disperse so quickly that you won’t notice. But moving forward a mile or backwards a mile and there will be more energy, thus more inertia, thus you'll notice it more.

It appears that you are essentially trying to argue that thought it has been proven that inertia influences cars that are traveling forwards and backwards, you still need to prove that a totally different force, alike inertia in all notable manners but fundamentally different, is in effect when one travels from side to side.

Just to make sure I am clear in my general intent; I agree with your theory, I just disagree that there was a need for it.

[chrono eric]

It appears that you are essentially trying to argue that thought it has been proven that inertia influences cars that are traveling forwards and backwards, you still need to prove that a totally different force, alike inertia in all notable manners but fundamentally different, is in effect when one travels from side to side.

No, as I said, DTI and DB are essentially the same "force" as TTI and TB - which I believe is the point you are trying to make and I agree with it. However, to call DTI and DB the latter because they are technically the same thing working in a different way would be confusing terminology.

Just to make sure I am clear in my general intent; I agree with your theory, I just disagree that there was a need for it.

The need for a proof of it was because no one had ever done it before. The Compendium assumes that DTI and DB exists without ever demonstrating a situation in which it would have to exist to avoid paradoxes. This becomes particularly annoying in the "Chrono Cross Resolutions" article in which it is assumed that Serge would disappear in 1020 AD in the reunified timeline due to a Dimensional Bastard type effect, without ever showing that it would be necessary to remove him from the timeline in the first place.

It is one thing to say that TB and TTI have to exist to maintain mass/energy, and to prevent paradoxes and duplicates from occurring. But this is not a problem with dimensional travel, so one can't apply the logic for the existence of TTI and TB to dimensional travel and say that consequently events of dimensional travel must be preserved in a similar fashion. Especially not without attempting to prove it somehow. That's just sloppy. And lazy.

So although the Serge situation is likely an exception as we discussed in another thread here, we have demonstrated that Dimensional Bastard would have to exist (and DTI for that matter too). Which would be a nice addition to the Compendium's understanding of the nature of time travel in the Chronoverse.

[Thought]

Wait, are you saying that greater complexity (via adding DCI and DB) is necessary so that it is easier for people to understand the underlying concept?

To provide another interpretation of your paradox examples, they could also just be showing that there is no different between Time and Dimensional travel; that the concepts of TTI and TB exist regardless of if the motion is through a single timeline or multiple timelines, making these multiversal forces of nature.

Also, the problem with Dimensions is either they violate the conservation of mass/energy in which case TB is bunk, or TB is just bunk from the get go.

When a new dimension is created, where does the matter/energy for it come from. Either it comes from nowhere, in which case why could the same not be applied to Time Bastards, or the matter and energy exist in two dimensions simultaneously (as multiple dimensions are assumed to behave in the real world). Same atom, as it were, but existing in two locations at once. But if the same matter can exist in two locations at once, why would a time bastard need to be shunted to the DBT?

The only possible way to save TB is to assume that most dimensions are not interconnection; never were, never will be. Except one, a fluke that should have never happened (and which threatens the universe itself). The split of Home and Another world. TB doesn't apply because this should be impossible.

But anywho, all that doesn't have too much to do with this thread.

[chrono eric]

To provide another interpretation of your paradox examples, they could also just be showing that there is no different between Time and Dimensional travel; that the concepts of TTI and TB exist regardless of if the motion is through a single timeline or multiple timelines, making these multiversal forces of nature.

Yes, but it is necessary to show the reason why this is - because it is not readily apparent that dimensional travel would work the same was as typical time travel since it does not create paradoxes or duplicates.

Also, the problem with Dimensions is either they violate the conservation of mass/energy in which case TB is bunk, or TB is just bunk from the get go.

Yes, I have always wondered about this, and since there can be exceptions to almost every rule (especially fictitious ones  ) I just chalked this up as one of them.

But recently I have been giving it more thought with CTDS and the Dimensional Vortex. Are most dimensions inaccessible to each other? How does one go about travelling between dimensions then? If the Chrono Cross case was unique, then what were the unique circumstances that lead to the DV rather than it being a necessary plot device? But that's a topic for another thread I suppose.

[Thought]

Yes, but it is necessary to show the reason why this is - because it is not readily apparent that dimensional travel would work the same was as typical time travel since it does not create paradoxes or duplicates.

While maybe not readily apparent, I think with a little thought it's pretty clear.

In CT, we have Timelines. Whee! They get changed and discarded and everything is fine.

In CC, we STILL have Timelines. Whee! They get changed but, for some reason, not discarded. Why should we assume that a rose is a rose when it is in the trash but not when it is on the table (to use another metaphor).

I think that is really what you've done. You've "proven" that a rose (or TTI) by any other name... only it seems like you're insisting that those other names are other things entirely.

Yes, I have always wondered about this, and since there can be exceptions to almost every rule (especially fictitious ones  ) I just chalked this up as one of them.

Very true, though I would generally present this hierarchy of rule stability.

1) A rule is unbreakable unless it serves to make for a good story (that is, when rule and plot are in conflict, plot wins).
2) A rule is as unbreakable as in the real world unless otherwise noted or needed.
3) Rules that are not in the real world at all behave as if they were subject to #2.

Actually, a lot of my general objections to Time Traveler Immunity and Time Bastard is I think they violate #1 at times.

By Dimensional Vortex you mean the one in CT:DS, right? Not the references made in CC, correct?

[chrono eric]

While maybe not readily apparent, I think with a little thought it's pretty clear.

Yes, with a little thought it is pretty clear - which is what we did. Gave it a little thought. But unless one attempts to formulate a proof for it, as we did, anyone that says so is just talking out of their ass.

In CT, we have Timelines. Whee! They get changed and discarded and everything is fine.

In CC, we STILL have Timelines. Whee! They get changed but, for some reason, not discarded. Why should we assume that a rose is a rose when it is in the trash but not when it is on the table (to use another metaphor).

Not really understanding your point here. In CT, timelines are discarded to the DBT when a change is made. In CC, the timelines in Home and Another World are still discarded to the DBT every time a change is made. There is no difference. I imagine you mean the original instance of splitting the dimensions was unique, and the reason for that, as you pointed out, was that there was a 50/50 chance of Serge living.

By Dimensional Vortex you mean the one in CT:DS, right? Not the references made in CC, correct?

Yes, the one in CC is ambiguous in nature.

[Thought]

Not really understanding your point here. In CT, timelines are discarded to the DBT when a change is made. In CC, the timelines in Home and Another World are still discarded to the DBT every time a change is made. There is no difference. I imagine you mean the original instance of splitting the dimensions was unique, and the reason for that, as you pointed out, was that there was a 50/50 chance of Serge living.

Mostly, but specifically that it appears that Another World and Home World are timelines. Normally, one would be sent to the DBT (or so we assume), but it wasn't. However, merely not traveling somewhere does not change the fundamental nature of a thing. Thus the point is, a dimension is a timeline, but in a different location. The same rules would be assumed to still apply unless one first argues that timelines and dimensions are different things. Only then is it valuable and worthwhile to develop theories specifically relating to time and dimensional travel.

Your entire proof appears to be nothing more than calling a rabbit a smeerp, as it were.

[chrono eric]

Ah I see what you were getting at now. A dimension is a timeline, yes - existing parallel to other dimensions (timelines) that coexist simultaneously with it. ie: At any given point on a given timeline, there are x number of parallel timelines or "dimensions".

However, you seem to still not accept that there is a difference in significance of the instance of travelling between parallel timelines to the instance of travelling within a single timeline.

Both are essentially forms of time travel, which is the point you were trying to make. But one form of time travel is more significant than the other, in that what we call "normal" time travel produces duplicates and paradoxes while dimensional travel (or parallel time travel) does not. TTI and TB have to exist for "normal" time travel but they don't necessarily have to for dimensional travel. You cannot take one and assume the other.

So the point is not that dimensional travel and time travel are two sides of the same coin and essentially similar things, and therefore that TTI and TB would work the same way, but that the implications of the two types of travel are different. You are hung up on the fact that dimensional travel and time travel are both aspects of the larger whole which is time travel and therefore should be subject to the same rules, but this is fallacious as it makes a huge assumption without proving anything.

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. Explain why. If you can't, then you have no basis for an argument. Saying that dimensional travel and time travel are both types of time travel is not a suitable explanation. Which is why creating a situation in which a paradox or duplicates would occur if TTI and TB were not present for dimensional travel is necessary to demonstrate that they must exist.

[Thought]

Giving it a bit more thought, it wouldn't be amiss to add a line to TTI and TB stating that it applies to "Dimensions" as well as "timelines." Or perhaps merely adding a separate article stating that timelines are dimensions and visa versa.

The center of our disagreement seems to be in that you find pure Dimensional travel's lack of paradoxes to be indicative of a distinct nature, where as I do not.

Anywho, at this point I think we've both made our points and it doesn't seem like either of us are really making any headway in convincing the other person. I'm still arguing that regardless of direction, traveling in time is traveling in time. And you're still arguing that the direction makes a parallel-world of difference.

[chrono eric]

I'm not entirely sure if you have gotten what I am trying to say yet. But all I am trying to say, when it boils down to it, is that the difference is only important for the sake of proving the existence of DTI and DB (or TTI and TB since it might as well be called the same thing). This is because the explanation of why TTI and TB exist in the Chronoverse in the first place does not apply to dimensional travel. Therefore the difference between dimensional and "normal" time travel is significant to the argument of why it must exist.