[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Setekh


Well, not anymore...

So, what have we concluded, guys? That Command has had a temporal reversal device all along, to allow the replaying of failed missions?

Actually, the entire thing was a hoax. The entire Great War was fought with nothing but games installed on personal computers...these games were given additional programming that caused the players of them to actually believe they were pilots and to form 'squads' that battled for control of 'nodes'.
It's true, I tell you!

[Setekh]

Oh, I see...

Well, I can't wait for 2367, then...

[WMCoolmon]

When we all find out it was a practical joke played on us by Command?

[Setekh]

When Command says to us, "Ho ho ho, welcome to the GTVA, Alpha 1! So, had any combat training?"

[Sesquipedalian]

The idea of altering the course of time is deeply and inherently illogical on he most fundamental of levels.  Going back into the past will not change the past, only make the time traveller part of the past.

"But what if I go back in time and assassinate Hitler? Won't that alter the course of history?"

We are all familiar with the paradox of going back in time to alter the course of history:  If one were able to travel back in time, and succeeded in assassinating Hitler, suddenly the future would be one that never had a Hitler in its past.  But then there would not be a reason for the time traveller to have gone back in time in the first place, so Hitler wouldn't have been assassinated by the time traveller, so he would have come to power, so the time traveller would have gone back to kill him, so he wouldn't have come to power... and so on and so on ad infinitum.

The reason this paradox exists is because the problem is based on flawed assumptions.  In reality, going back in time would not alter the course of history at all.  The going back and appearing at some point in the past would be precisely part of the series of events leading up to the going back.  Whatever the time traveller might do in the past is part of the flow of history which leads up to his travelling.   The true timeline would actually be like this:

At some point in history, this time traveller guy shows up out of nowhere, walks around a bit and does stuff that affects the subsequent course of history, and eventually disappears again.  History plods ever onwards, until one day this guy is born who grows up to invent time travel.  He tests his time machine, disappears for a while,and then reappears at the temporal coordinates he set into the machine before disappearing.  History plods ever onwards.

You see, what he did in the past is the past, by definition the series of events which leads up to the present.  The past he goes back to is the very past which leads up to his present moment in which he turns on the time machine.  Whatever he might do to try to kill Hitler while in the past is necessarily part of that series of events which lead up to Hitler's rise to power, and as such only contribute to Hitler's ascension, rather than prevent it.

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
The idea of altering the course of time is deeply and inherently illogical on he most fundamental of levels.  Going back into the past will not change the past, only make the time traveller part of the past.

"But what if I go back in time and assassinate Hitler? Won't that alter the course of history?"

We are all familiar with the paradox of going back in time to alter the course of history:  If one were able to travel back in time, and succeeded in assassinating Hitler, suddenly the future would be one that never had a Hitler in its past.  But then there would not be a reason for the time traveller to have gone back in time in the first place, so Hitler wouldn't have been assassinated by the time traveller, so he would have come to power, so the time traveller would have gone back to kill him, so he wouldn't have come to power... and so on and so on ad infinitum.

The reason this paradox exists is because the problem is based on flawed assumptions.  In reality, going back in time would not alter the course of history at all.  The going back and appearing at some point in the past would be precisely part of the series of events leading up to the going back.  Whatever the time traveller might do in the past is part of the flow of history which leads up to his travelling.   The true timeline would actually be like this:

At some point in history, this time traveller guy shows up out of nowhere, walks around a bit and does stuff that affects the subsequent course of history, and eventually disappears again.  History plods ever onwards, until one day this guy is born who grows up to invent time travel.  He tests his time machine, disappears for a while,and then reappears at the temporal coordinates he set into the machine before disappearing.  History plods ever onwards.

You see, what he did in the past is the past, by definition the series of events which leads up to the present.  The past he goes back to is the very past which leads up to his present moment in which he turns on the time machine.  Whatever he might do to try to kill Hitler while in the past is necessarily part of that series of events which lead up to Hitler's rise to power, and as such only contribute to Hitler's ascension, rather than prevent it.

This isnt about time travel buddy, its about completely erasing something from the timeline, in otherwords, nothing is destroyed, it simply never existed. read the original post again.

[Bishop Gantry]

This isnt about time travel buddy, its about completely erasing something from the timeline, in otherwords, nothing is destroyed, it simply never existed.  read the original post again.

The only problem with this  is if you erased it you couldnt have known it exsisted, thus you failed to erase it from time because if you succeded in doing so you would never know it since its been erased the paradox in this is your doomed to fail if you know about it because if you succeded you couldnt have known what to erase in the first place thus you will fail every ettempt at change  history or erase it...

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by Bishop Gantry


The only problem with this  is if you erased it you couldnt have known it exsisted, thus you failed to erase it from time because if you succeded in doing so you would never know it since its been erased the paradox in this is your doomed to fail if you know about it because if you succeded you couldnt have known what to erase in the first place thus you will fail every ettempt at change  history or erase it...

in that case the chronoweapon will be shielded from its effects, guys, im not worried about technicalities right now, i want the opinions of other campaign staff so i know if i should pursue it or not.  Dont give me anymore of this BS yall are coming up with, theres a way around all of it.

[Stunaep]

Well, the poll should give you the answer, which basically appears to be: Messing with FS timeline is bad, m'kay.

[Bishop Gantry]

Yeah Startrek tecnhobabble:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

Its not protected from the destructive chronoweapons when its built or later it will only be so  when its deployed and that still makes it vunerable to wipe itself out... not to mention every scientist and person behind the conscrution of it not to mention if any disurbances of the family tree is changed the slightest the chrono ship will never created or as  in Startrek where "Q" stops the  original biomass that will create life on earth so humans never exsisted in the first place...

[LtNarol]

ok, read what i wrote:

1. I'm looking for opinions of campaign staffs.
2. FORGET THE BS FOR NOW, TECHNICALITIES CAN WAIT

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by LtNarol

Dont give me anymore of this BS yall are coming up with, theres a way around all of it.

Well, actually, no there isn't.  This "B.S." is irrefutable logic ultimately based on four necessarily true statements* and the assumption that the past course of history affects the present, and as such cannot be worked around, save by Trek-like silliness or the rejection of the principle of cause and effect (which would make "changing history" meaningless, anyway).

But anyway, have fun,  LtNarol.

*
1) Anything that happens, happens.
2) Anything that has happend, has happened
3) Anything that will happen, will happen.
4) Anything that causes something else to happen, causes that something else to happen.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
...or the rejection of the principle of cause and effect (which would make "changing history" meaningless, anyway).

You make a false assumption. Causality does not always flow cause->effect. Quantum effects can have the cause follow the effect. Since causality is symmetric in this way, you cannot use it as a basis for arguing the impossibility of 'changing history'.

[Galemp]

Why is it like this? Why isn't everything different?

[CP5670]

Still, it would not really work out correctly due to all kinds of paradoxes that would come up. As I said earlier, the infinite event-based universe idea is the only way to circumvent this.

Unfortunately the "BS" is necessary to consider here, because the legitimacy of the whole idea depends on that part working out.

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by CP5670
Still, it would not really work out correctly due to all kinds of paradoxes that would come up. As I said earlier, the infinite event-based universe idea is the only way to circumvent this.

Unfortunately the "BS" is necessary to consider here, because the legitimacy of the whole idea depends on that part working out.

The weapon will be unpredictable, thats the whole point, they will end up creating situations they didnt intend.  Thats what makes the thing so perfect for linking campaigns since not all campaigns end well for the GTVA.

[aldo_14]

At the end of the day, though, surely you're just stating that parallel timelines / unvierses can exist?

In which case, is there a need for this, seeing as it's already possible and even likely?   the other thing is that trying to justify every single campaign with this would be more tenous, than simply accepting they are different peoples views on the future of the FS universe.

Personally, I think it would be a really bad idea to try and incorporate this ship into every single campaign to justify the storyline RE other campaigns.    It's fair enough for your own campaign, but not in every one.

I don't want to have to justify the Reciprocity storyline with a time-changing ship, becuase it's different from MT, or BWO, or OTT, etc.  I like having my own take on things

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by mikhael


You make a false assumption. Causality does not always flow cause->effect. Quantum effects can have the cause follow the effect. Since causality is symmetric in this way, you cannot use it as a basis for arguing the impossibility of 'changing history'.

Ah, but I did not, in fact, restrict myself to a forward moving timeline for the principle of causality in my statements. :wink:  The temporal direction of a cause-effect relationship makes no difference to my argument, so long as the relationship exists.  In fact, temporally retrograde cause-effect relationships are explicitly part of my argument: the time traveller's actions in 2367 A.D. cause the effects in 1924 when he shows up on his futile mission to assassinate Hitler.

The actual meaning of my statement that the rejection of the principle of cause and effect would make "changing history" meaningless is that without this principle, whether of forward or retrograde action through time, trying to change the course of history (or the 4-dimensional shape of things, for physicists like you, mikhael ) by any action is a futile exercise, since whatever one's actions might be, they have no effect on anything else and thus change nothing.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian

...The actual meaning of my statement that the rejection of the principle of cause and effect would make "changing history" meaningless is that without this principle, whether of forward or retrograde action through time, trying to change the course of history (or the 4-dimensional shape of things, for physicists like you, mikhael ) by any action is a futile exercise, since whatever one's actions might be, they have no effect on anything else and thus change nothing.

If actions have no effect, then you deny causality at its basis. The root of causality is that things happen, and thus cause other things to happen. Any action in the past would effect all that comes after it.  The meaning of 'after', of course, is left to the reader to discern.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by mikhael


If actions have no effect, then you deny causality at its basis. The root of causality is that things happen, and thus cause other things to happen. Any action in the past would effect all that comes after it.  The meaning of 'after', of course, is left to the reader to discern.

 That's exactly what I am saying.  I apologise for the many subclauses in the quoted sentence, but read it carefully

I'm not rejecting the principle of causality.  I am saying that:
1) IF one wants to be able to alter the course of histoyr by time travelling or using wierd temporal weapons or whatever, one must reject the principle of causality, but
2) IF one rejected the principle of causality, the whole idea of changing history by actions of any sort would be pointless, anyway.