HOLY SHIT!
YOU GUYS ARE SMART FOR NO DAMN REASON!!!
THIS SHIT DON’T MAKE NO SENSE
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
In the second one, when they destroy the prototype Skynet chip, shouldn’t the terminator, and the kid vanish ala “back to the future”?
That’s what I always thought.[/quote]
Please elaborate.[/quote]
I get what he is saying, but he is wrong. Destroying that doesn’t prevent terminators from being made just like killing ONE scientist doesn’t stop the creation of Skynet.
There is the idea that no matter what changes are made in a time line, significant events will still happen one way or another. For example, you may go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby. That won’t necessarily stop “Hootler” from growing up down the street and doing the same thing.
As far as the OP, he hasn’t sent Reese back yet, so yeah, there still could be significant changes to the history we currently know as far as these movies. As long as Reese bones Sara Conner though, everything should still fall into place…except maybe John will suddenly turn into a woman.[/quote]
Wasn’t there a Twilight Zone episode along these lines? Someone goes back in time and prevents Lincoln from being assassinated, only to come back to the future and discover that Lincoln was killed anyway, by someone else?
[quote]enrac wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
In the second one, when they destroy the prototype Skynet chip, shouldn’t the terminator, and the kid vanish ala “back to the future”?
That’s what I always thought.[/quote]
Please elaborate.[/quote]
I get what he is saying, but he is wrong. Destroying that doesn’t prevent terminators from being made just like killing ONE scientist doesn’t stop the creation of Skynet.
There is the idea that no matter what changes are made in a time line, significant events will still happen one way or another. For example, you may go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby. That won’t necessarily stop “Hootler” from growing up down the street and doing the same thing.
As far as the OP, he hasn’t sent Reese back yet, so yeah, there still could be significant changes to the history we currently know as far as these movies. As long as Reese bones Sara Conner though, everything should still fall into place…except maybe John will suddenly turn into a woman.[/quote]
Wasn’t there a Twilight Zone episode along these lines? Someone goes back in time and prevents Lincoln from being assassinated, only to come back to the future and discover that Lincoln was killed anyway, by someone else?[/quote]
If youre grandpa gets killed after he gets youre grandma pregnant with youre father and you go back in time to prevent grandpa from getting killed so you can meet him, and grandpa ends up knocking up some other dame, do you immediatly have new cousins when you get back.And if so do they know you?
[quote]roybot wrote:
That’s why I said that the photograph of Sarah Connor is so important. You can’t explain the loop by saying that John Connor must’ve had a different father at some point, because then JC would have no reason to give Kyle Reese the photo of Sarah in the first place. JC specifically gives Reese the photo because he knows he will father him in the past. Having a different father alters that.
[/quote]
You ever watch the movie Deja Vu with Denzel Washington? That movie had the best explanations of time. Time is the Mississippi River. All the comings and goings of Reese and the Terminators are merely pebbles thrown into the mighty river. They make a few ripples, a few things change, but ultimately it all flows to the same end. Some details will change but the big events still happen.
John Connor giving Reese the photo of Sara is simple commmon since. Without the photo Reese has a name and a rough location, with it he’ll know her face as well. It would be a pretty sad screw up if Reese spent his days saving the wrong Sara Connor. What makes the photo special is its location and circumstances.
It would be hard to imagine the bar hopping/clubbing Sara Connor at the beginning of T1 finding herself driving a jeep in Mexico without the whole killer robot fiasco occurring. If the photo Reese had and the photo at the end of the movie had been different the paradox would be a much simpler issue. But simple issues make for shitty debate, and lame stories.
All this serious debate is gay. Time to make this thread cool.
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
it’s a movie dude. what theoretical physicists these days suggest is that if you could travel backwards through time you would need to have a multi-verse to do so and therefore would not be able to change the outcome of your own dimension’s future anyway so the whole point of going back in time to prevent an event in your origin universe would be removed. i,e the ‘grandfather paradox’.
[/quote]
Grandfather paradox doesn’t really work. It’s a bit flimsy.
The multi-verse is one argument. Additionally a multiverse and universe would be indistinguishable from any perspective except that of the ultimate observer’s. If you traveled back in time, killed your own grandfather prior to his impregnating your grandmother, then a divergence in the multi-verse would occur.
One reality would continue down its original known course and the one you currently occupy would begin a new path. Each reality would be exclusive and independent from the other. From your perspective only the new reality would exist and it would be the only reality you are capable of experiencing.
My guess is you could go so far as to bang your grandmother to produce what would have been your father/mother. You could create a whole new series of small events but probably wouldn’t be able to change larger events like the Vietnam War, Microsoft Windows, and Bill Clinton’s election
The grandfather paradox relies on the idea of “unique events”. Example, if you went back in time and killed Thomas Edison then the incandescent light bulb would have not been invented. However, that is highly unlikely. History shows that 22 other scientists had developed the incandescent light bulb prior to Edison.
Edison gets the credit because his was arguably the best in that situation. If Edison was removed from the equation then somebody else would have stepped in and filled the void. The details may be changed but ultimately the light bulb would have been invented.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
All this serious debate is gay. Time to make this thread cool.
its a lost cause
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
it’s a movie dude. what theoretical physicists these days suggest is that if you could travel backwards through time you would need to have a multi-verse to do so and therefore would not be able to change the outcome of your own dimension’s future anyway so the whole point of going back in time to prevent an event in your origin universe would be removed. i,e the ‘grandfather paradox’.
[/quote]
Grandfather paradox doesn’t really work. It’s a bit flimsy.
The multi-verse is one argument. Additionally a multiverse and universe would be indistinguishable from any perspective except that of the ultimate observer’s. If you traveled back in time, killed your own grandfather prior to his impregnating your grandmother, then a divergence in the multi-verse would occur. One reality would continue down its original known course and the one you currently occupy would begin a new path.
Each reality would be exclusive and independent from the other. From your perspective only the new reality would exist and it would be the only reality you are capable of experiencing. My guess is you could go so far as to bang your grandmother to produce what would have been your father/mother. You could create a whole new series of small events but probably wouldn’t be able to change larger events like the Vietnam War, Microsoft Windows, and Bill Clinton’s election
The grandfather paradox relies on the idea of “unique events”. Example, if you went back in time and killed Thomas Edison then the incandescent light bulb would have not been invented. However, that is highly unlikely. History shows that 22 other scientists had developed the incandescent light bulb prior to Edison.
Edison gets the credit because his was arguably the best in that situation. If Edison was removed from the equation then somebody else would have stepped in and filled the void. The details may be changed but ultimately the light bulb would have been invented.[/quote]
yea and Tesla invented the energy-saver one we use nowadays. thats irrelevant though.
you guys are arguing/questioning about what would happen if you went back in time considering ONE universe. a ‘grandfather paradox’ is only applicable in a universe. in a multi-verse it doesn’t matter because there are an infinite number of these universes or dimensions.
the thing is that if you time travel in a multi-verse with the intention to alter history it is impossible because you have not traveled into the past of your universe but into the present of another dimension which functions independent of your own which negates the point of ever going back.
its a simple concept. but at the same time terminator a movie so it doesn’t really matter if certain things dont add up, just enjoy the big explosions and surround sound.
SO bujo what you are saying is if The guy who created skynet hadnt created it then someone else would have and the T800 would have looked like Roland Kickenger.
I just think this is funny, Its my thread I can hijack it.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
SO bujo what you are saying is if The guy who created skynet hadnt created it then someone else would have and the T800 would have looked like Roland Kickenger.[/quote]
Or it could have looked like John Candy
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
yea and Tesla invented the energy-saver one we use nowadays. thats irrelevant though.
you guys are arguing/questioning about what would happen if you went back in time considering ONE universe. a ‘grandfather paradox’ is only applicable in a universe. in a multi-verse it doesn’t matter because there are an infinite number of these universes or dimensions.
the thing is that if you time travel in a multi-verse with the intention to alter history it is impossible because you have not traveled into the past of your universe but into the present of another dimension which functions independent of your own which negates the point of ever going back.
its a simple concept. but at the same time terminator a movie so it doesn’t really matter if certain things dont add up, just enjoy the big explosions and surround sound. [/quote]
From the perspective of the “time traveler” the realities would be indistinguishable. The “time traveler” could only experience the reality he/she occupied. The existence or nonexistence of other realities would be a moot point.
Explosions are the primary factor determining what movies I go see. Arguing the theories that would allow the movie’s story to become a reality is simply part of the fun of being a sci-fi junkie. If you think this is bad you should have seen me after the release of Star Trek arguing about multi-verses and the need of a mining vessels capable of taking on Fderation and Klingon armadas.
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
yea and Tesla invented the energy-saver one we use nowadays. thats irrelevant though.
you guys are arguing/questioning about what would happen if you went back in time considering ONE universe. a ‘grandfather paradox’ is only applicable in a universe. in a multi-verse it doesn’t matter because there are an infinite number of these universes or dimensions.
the thing is that if you time travel in a multi-verse with the intention to alter history it is impossible because you have not traveled into the past of your universe but into the present of another dimension which functions independent of your own which negates the point of ever going back.
its a simple concept. but at the same time terminator a movie so it doesn’t really matter if certain things dont add up, just enjoy the big explosions and surround sound. [/quote]
From the perspective of the “time traveler” the realities would be indistinguishable. The “time traveler” could only experience the reality he/she occupied. The existence or nonexistence of other realities would be a moot point.
Explosions are the primary factor determining what movies I go see. Arguing the theories that would allow the movie’s story to become a reality is simply part of the fun of being a sci-fi junkie. If you think this is bad you should have seen me after the release of Star Trek arguing about multi-verses and the need of a mining vessels capable of taking on Fderation and Klingon armadas. [/quote]
bro, from the perspective of the time traveler the realities would most definitely be quite distinguishable. in one universe he shows up out of nowhere, i think thats pretty distinguishable, he doesn’t have a place in the other universe.
the whole thing about multiple dimensions is that they are all slightly different from one another. so besides the fact that even IF you went to an exact copy of your dimension the fact that none of the events would crossover which makes the point of time travel to change events POINTLESS is that you would have a hard time even finding a dimension where the events have coincided enough with your home dimension that you’d even be familiar with it if you wanted to ignore the previous fact.
theres a dimension where you understand all of this and agree with me. unfortunately it isn’t this one.
I dont understand the idea that if you travel back in time you will end up in some other dimension where all is different.
Im familiar with multiple universe’s and dimensions but why couldnt someone travel through time in this dimension or universe.
[quote]Bujo wrote:
You ever watch the movie Deja Vu with Denzel Washington? That movie had the best explanations of time. Time is the Mississippi River. All the comings and goings of Reese and the Terminators are merely pebbles thrown into the mighty river. They make a few ripples, a few things change, but ultimately it all flows to the same end. Some details will change but the big events still happen.
John Connor giving Reese the photo of Sara is simple commmon since. Without the photo Reese has a name and a rough location, with it he’ll know her face as well. It would be a pretty sad screw up if Reese spent his days saving the wrong Sara Connor. What makes the photo special is its location and circumstances. [/quote]
That is one explanation. But then you’ve also got to account for the fact that if Reese hadn’t already gone back and completed his mission, there would be no photo for JC to give him in the first place (well, not that particular photo, anyway). You could say that some other set of circumstances led up to the causal loop, but no other set of circumstances would’ve led up to that photo being taken in that particular gas station at that specific time. See where I’m going with this?
The photo is there to emphasize the idea that all the events of the movie are predestined. Within the context of the movie, John Connor always existed. There was never a ‘first time’ when the T-800 was sent back to kill Sarah Connor.
Connor is not only the architect of his own fate but he is also responsible for creating Skynet (Skynet is also just as responsible for the birth of JC). Both are capable of preventing the other from existing (Skynet can eliminate JC by not sending the first T-800 back, and Connor can stop Skynet by sacrificing himself. But in doing so, they’ll destroy themselves as well…
[quote]
It would be hard to imagine the bar hopping/clubbing Sara Connor at the beginning of T1 finding herself driving a jeep in Mexico without the whole killer robot fiasco occurring. If the photo Reese had and the photo at the end of the movie had been different the paradox would be a much simpler issue. But simple issues make for shitty debate, and lame stories.[/quote]
Well that’s the point I was trying to make - things couldn’t have happened in any other way than they did. Otherwise, you’d have ended up with a photo other than the one we see in the movie.
As for the argument that minor events may change but the significant events will occur no matter what, well they’ve already changed to the point where T:S is not the future predicted in T1. Meaning that T:S won’t lead back exactly to the events in the first movie. I explained that in an earlier post. The sequels contradict the original movie, so they have to take place on an alternate timeline (either along a branch leading out of the causal loop of T1, or in an alternate universe).
Besides, the science of the Terminator movies is questionable: they seem more philsophical than scientific (to me anyway).
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
And I hope this doesnt hijack this thread but roybot the egg had to have come first, some reptile millions of years ago layed a bunch of eggs and one had feathers, then over time that first step forward towards chickens kept evolving untill it was a chicken as we know them today.Hence the egg came first.[/quote]
Which leaves you with two questions:
- At which point can the reptile with feathers be considered a chicken?
- At which point did the reptile egg become a chicken egg?
Not trying to prove you wrong. Just some food for thought.[/quote]
its a logical paradox, there’s no right answer - that’s how logical paradoxes work. [/quote]
I agree, there is no answer. Any “answer” just creates another question. That’s the point I was trying to make. Theory of evolution doesn’t solve the chicken / egg conundrum because chicken eggs and chickens didn’t evolve independently of each other, so you can’t say which came first.
Even if you could, you’re still left with the question of whether the reptile egg came before the reptile - and you end up back where you started.
All this is overthinking it anyway. You’re not supposed to think about it literally - it was used by ancient Chinese philosophers as a way of saying that “understanding the universe is like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first”. It’s not like you’re doing a crossword on the train home from work 
No more talk of chickens and eggs (honest!). Normal service can now resume.
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
the whole thing about multiple dimensions is that they are all slightly different from one another. so besides the fact that even IF you went to an exact copy of your dimension the fact that none of the events would crossover which makes the point of time travel to change events POINTLESS is that you would have a hard time even finding a dimension where the events have coincided enough with your home dimension that you’d even be familiar with it if you wanted to ignore the previous fact.
theres a dimension where you understand all of this and agree with me. unfortunately it isn’t this one.[/quote]
You’re confusing dimensions with universes. Dimension essentially means how many coordinates you need to specify a point in some space. For example, classical space is three-dimensional, and Minkowski spacetime is four-dimensional.
The Everett (or neo-Everett) many-worlds interpretation of QM might resolve time travel paradoxes, assuming it is correct. However causality is preserved because it is a local theory with no hidden variables.
I think you guys put more thought into this than James Cameron himself did.
The way he ended Terminator was brilliant. Instead of any kind of long-winded explanation, he simply had Sarah say “a person could go crazy thinking about this”. Trying to get any concrete answers out of a paradox makes for some interesting debate, but not much else.
On a completely unrelated note, I really want to acquire the outfit of the guy dancing at 1:26 of the Tech Noir video. Those classy duds would land me an unbelievable amount of tail.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
the whole thing about multiple dimensions is that they are all slightly different from one another. so besides the fact that even IF you went to an exact copy of your dimension the fact that none of the events would crossover which makes the point of time travel to change events POINTLESS is that you would have a hard time even finding a dimension where the events have coincided enough with your home dimension that you’d even be familiar with it if you wanted to ignore the previous fact.
theres a dimension where you understand all of this and agree with me. unfortunately it isn’t this one.[/quote]
You’re confusing dimensions with universes. Dimension essentially means how many coordinates you need to specify a point in some space. For example, classical space is three-dimensional, and Minkowski spacetime is four-dimensional.
The Everett (or neo-Everett) many-worlds interpretation of QM might resolve time travel paradoxes, assuming it is correct. However causality is preserved because it is a local theory with no hidden variables.[/quote]
yeah i wasn’t sure what you’re supposed to call it then i remembered (what i thought) they were saying on a history channel show about multiple worlds and called them dimensions or maybe it was alternate universe lol.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
All this serious debate is gay. Time to make this thread cool.
Agreed, the debate is silly because the latest Terminator sucked bad. Open heart surgery in the desert? I couldn’t find much wrong in some of the technical stuff in the first move and second movie. In the clip you posted, Sarah Connor would most likely be dead at that moment. FMJ bullets in a longer barreled 9mm Uzi that he used would have penetrated through to Sarah, but I’ll let that one slide.
The last movie was riddled with silly shit that rendered it unwatchable to me.