"Moebius" - Temporal Paradox

[Erik Pasternak]

OK, are you suggesting time travel in two different alternate universes???

Or more.

[Erik Pasternak]

All of this stuff tends to make my head feel like it will explode. I read a short story years ago, I think it was by Heinlen, about a company or something that sold trips into the past, the prehistoric age mostly. It was like a tourist type thing but they had it rigged so that the "tourists" couldn't touch anything or even step on the ground. If I remember correctly a tourist stepped off of the path and crushed a plant or something and they came back and everything was different. From most theories I've read each and every little thing that you do sets of a series of events and the possibilities are mind numbing. That's why I tend not to think of the scientific side of things during sci-fi shows. I would need about 8 aspirin by the time the show was over.

I saw that in Bio last year. I was a clip from Mystery Science Theater

[Daniel Jackson]

Or more.

Why not just time travel in the existing SG-1 universe?

[Erik Pasternak]

Why not just time travel in the existing SG-1 universe?

More possiblities my way.

[Jarnin]

Time paradoxes are so 20th century...

The Novikov self-consistency principle seems to indicate that any event that has a high probability of causing a paradox has an equally proportionate chance of not happening at all.

Take the Grandfather paradox as example. It says that if you travel back in time and kill your grandfather before he fathers your parent, you can never exist. If you no longer exist, how can you travel back in time and kill your grandfather?

The Novikov self-consistency principle basically says that no matter how hard you tried, you wouldn't be able to kill your grandfather. If you tried to shoot him, he'd survive. If you tried to drop a piano on his head, it'd miss. If you tried to blow him up with an A-Bomb, it'd turn out to be a dud.
Probabilities would always rule in favor of maintaining the timeline, so you'd never be able to create a paradox.


So, if Moebius turns out to be a time travel episode, the heroes can't change anything that would cause something in their past from happening. In other words, all these "dead" bad guys they're bringing back are going to be bit players, and they won't die until they're supposed to.

[Erik Pasternak]

Time paradoxes are so 20th century...

The Novikov self-consistency principle seems to indicate that any event that has a high probability of causing a paradox has an equally proportionate chance of not happening at all.

Take the Grandfather paradox as example. It says that if you travel back in time and kill your grandfather before he fathers your parent, you can never exist. If you no longer exist, how can you travel back in time and kill your grandfather?

The Novikov self-consistency principle basically says that no matter how hard you tried, you wouldn't be able to kill your grandfather. If you tried to shoot him, he'd survive. If you tried to drop a piano on his head, it'd miss. If you tried to blow him up with an A-Bomb, it'd turn out to be a dud.
Probabilities would always rule in favor of maintaining the timeline, so you'd never be able to create a paradox.


So, if Moebius turns out to be a time travel episode, the heroes can't change anything that would cause something in their past from happening. In other words, all these "dead" bad guys they're bringing back are going to be bit players, and they won't die until they're supposed to.

The thing is though that Stargate is science-FICTION. Take Star Trek, multiple paradoxs when you factor in all the series.

[Amakusa]

The thing is though that Stargate is science-FICTION.

That's beside the point. The principle still possibly applies, and really, it's the only time travel method that really works without stretching credibility too far.

[Daniel Jackson]

Take the Grandfather paradox as example. It says that if you travel back in time and kill your grandfather before he fathers your parent, you can never exist. If you no longer exist, how can you travel back in time and kill your grandfather?

That's not a paradox. If you go back in time and kill your grandfather as a child, the changes to the future have no effect on you, becuase you are no longer a component of that future. True, you no longer exist in the newly formed future that you return to, but you yourself don't cease to exist, becuase you were in the past when the future changed. It's quite simple, really.

The Novikov self-consistency principle basically says that no matter how hard you tried, you wouldn't be able to kill your grandfather. If you tried to shoot him, he'd survive. If you tried to drop a piano on his head, it'd miss. If you tried to blow him up with an A-Bomb, it'd turn out to be a dud.
Probabilities would always rule in favor of maintaining the timeline, so you'd never be able to create a paradox.

This would imply that time is sentient - it's not, it's nothing more than the forward motion of the universe. You say probabilities will rule in favor of maintaining the timeline - why?

So, if Moebius turns out to be a time travel episode, the heroes can't change anything that would cause something in their past from happening. In other words, all these "dead" bad guys they're bringing back are going to be bit players, and they won't die until they're supposed to.

Sure they can change the past. They can stop the rebellion against Ra if they want. They're future would cease to exist, and that would be a problem, but the only "uber force" that would stop them would be God.

[Jarnin]

That's not a paradox. If you go back in time and kill your grandfather as a child, the changes to the future have no effect on you, becuase you are no longer a component of that future. True, you no longer exist in the newly formed future that you return to, but you yourself don't cease to exist, becuase you were in the past when the future changed. It's quite simple, really.

You're talking about the Back to the Future II and III time travel methods, which consists of you traveling into an alternate timeline when you travel back in time. This would work, and in fact is my preference when it comes to time travel theories, but that's not what I was talking about.

This would imply that time is sentient - it's not, it's nothing more than the forward motion of the universe. You say probabilities will rule in favor of maintaining the timeline - why?

First of all, I'm not saying anything, it's the principle that says that, and secondly, if you had followed the link explaining the principle, you'd understand why.

Sure they can change the past. They can stop the rebellion against Ra if they want. They're future would cease to exist, and that would be a problem, but the only "uber force" that would stop them would be God.

If we're talking alternate timelines, then yes, they can change their futures, but they wouldn't destroy anything.

Since you seem to be stuck on Alternate timelines, let me explain something really quick: In the alternate timeline time travel theory, you don't travel into your past, you travel to the past of an alternate timeline. That keeps paradoxes from appearing.
When you travel back in time from your original timeline, you effectively cease to exist there, so any actions you take in the past of the alternate timeline you travel to has no bearing on your existance.
You can kill your grandfather before he fathers your father, and you'll still exist afterwards. The reason for this is that you were born in an alternate timeline, so from your perspective, you have a non-paradoxical history.

In a linear timeline travel, you actually travel into the past in the same timeline, and this gives way to all kinds of paradoxes, like the grandfather paradox. The Novikov self-consistency principle is a way to get rid of paradoxes for linear timeline travel.

In other words, with either time travel theory, paradoxes simply need not apply anymore.

[Unas]

Maybe the plot is much simpler than the going to Egypt theory. For example, instead of using the stargate to time travel, the Ascended are doing it to test Jack. Time traveling with the stargate is very clumsy, the other method, if it exists would simplify the story.

Lets say the Ascended want to see Jack is worthy enough to be their successor or whatever the Asgard claim. They allow Jack to rescue his son, he comes back to see the results. He's still retired, Kawalsky leads SG1, Ra and Apophis are still alive, earth is being invaded. He has to choose between his son whose all grown up and the fate of the planet, blah, blah, blah.

This is a far more likely story because its well within budget and we all know TPTB is a fan of unoriginal cliches. Plus, it may finally finish the "Jack is the key to humanity's future" arc thats been dragged about since season 2.

[N8ball88]

I know what's going to happen!

[KuraiTengai]

There is no paradox. If SG-1 starts the rebellion, then here's whut happens.

Timeline A - Earth Rebellion occurs and burries Ra's Stargate. Thousands of years later, SG-1 goes on a wacky time travel adventure.

Timeline B - Thousands of years ago, history gets alterred some how, so it's left to SG-1 to repair history and start the rebellion against Ra and bury the Stargate.

Timeline C - Thousands of years ago, SG-1 starts a rebellion against Ra to bury the Stargate, then in the present, SG-1 goes on a wacky time travel adventure, they end up in the past, and have to start the rebellion...

Basically, you have the first timeline, then the 2nd timeline where history is altered, then a third timeline where the heroes repair history, but create a pre-destined paradox in the process. Any questions?

sounds like a good theory. but i only have one issue with the whole "sg1 starting the rebellion" idea.

in the first season ep, fire and water, it was stated that the fish looking dudes mate, amoroca, started the rebellion in while in babylon and that was why she was killed.

or thats the impression i was under. feel free to correct me if im wrong.

[KayMan2k]

The Novikov self-consistency principle basically says that no matter how hard you tried, you wouldn't be able to kill your grandfather. If you tried to shoot him, he'd survive. If you tried to drop a piano on his head, it'd miss. If you tried to blow him up with an A-Bomb, it'd turn out to be a dud.
Probabilities would always rule in favor of maintaining the timeline, so you'd never be able to create a paradox.

This is the time travel principle that was followed in the remake of "The Time Machine". Interesting concept.

[Ugly Pig]

in the first season ep, fire and water, it was stated that the fish looking dudes mate, amoroca, started the rebellion in while in babylon and that was why she was killed.

That was just a theory. I don't recall anyone stating it with any certainty.

[Daniel Jackson]

You're talking about the Back to the Future II and III time travel methods, which consists of you traveling into an alternate timeline when you travel back in time.

No, it does not consist of traveling into an alternate timeline, you have to think beyond the three-dimensional realm we live in. When you go back in time, you become a component of the past, thus you are not effected by changes to the future.

I'm not saying anything, it's the principle that says that

The principle is wrong.

If we're talking alternate timelines, then yes, they can change their futures, but they wouldn't destroy anything.

Um, whut? You can't have multiple futures existing at once. There is only one timeline. Changing it is like changing the coarse of a stream or the shape of a balled up sheet of paper. You don't create another reallity when you alter the past, you reshape the reallity you already exist in.

Since you seem to be stuck on Alternate timelines, let me explain something really quick: In the alternate timeline time travel theory, you don't travel into your past, you travel to the past of an alternate timeline. That keeps paradoxes from appearing.
When you travel back in time from your original timeline, you effectively cease to exist there, so any actions you take in the past of the alternate timeline you travel to has no bearing on your existance.
You can kill your grandfather before he fathers your father, and you'll still exist afterwards. The reason for this is that you were born in an alternate timeline, so from your perspective, you have a non-paradoxical history.

That's not time travel, that's traveling to alternate reallities and has nothing to do with time travel.

In a linear timeline travel, you actually travel into the past in the same timeline, and this gives way to all kinds of paradoxes, like the grandfather paradox.

This doesn't give way to paradoxes. You can go back in time, kill your grandfather, then return to a future where you don't exist without ceasing to exist. Why do you not cease to exist? Simple, you were in the past, thus uneffected by changes to the future. This doesn't require "alternate reallities," it's simply reshaping a single timeline. If you're in the past where the changes are being made, you don't get effected. It's quite simple, really.