Questions about Timelines and Stargate

[Platschu]

We talked about this in the "Gauntlet" topic :

A few critic voices from the Hungarian fandom already questioned that the time travel was an easy solution in so many cases : Destiny duplicated itself, so they could refill their supplies , or how the alt1/alt2/SG-1 got the ZPM for the current timeline in Moebius.... I know BW is a time travel expert and it served the main metaplot as well, but it still feels cheating. What will be the next one? A gate malfunction with duplicating? Wait a second! That was basically the Ripple Effect.

As much as I love time travelling, it feels like cheating from the writers. It can be a good plot device on character level, but I am not really a fan of acquiring technologies. I also didn't like when an alternate universe sacrifice themselves for an other AU. It is simply not logical. If you check the event with the eye of the AU timeline, why would you throw away and sacrifice everything for an other reality? Escpecially that the multiversum creates infinite number of possibilities, so maybe all the noble efforts were good for nothing.

[Chaka-Z0]

I regularly travel through time... whoops

Nice, then just go ahead and tell us what is the truth! Or you could post an ad in the newspapers to look for a partner (ever seen movie Safety Not Guarenteed?).

You're half right. Indeed, Sheppard not joining the Atlantis Expedition, and thus having O'Neill dismiss him (as he said he would if Sheppard declined) that would be an alternative universe. Since it's a binary decision (yes/no) it creates two universes, ours and another one.

But the alternate timeline part is incorrect (or rather incomplete). An alternate timeline is created when someone goes back in time and changes something--anything.

Okay I get the distinction you're making. But I think we're both wrong, assuming we're talking about actual real-life physics. I had to refresh my memory and...

*raises finger up in the air* The Multiverse Theory tells us that there are many layers of alternate universes. 6 actually (whoever came up with that must be half-mad seriously)

Level 0: Our universe, the one we're in right now
Level 1: The extension of our Universe, which contains infinite ''ergodic'' universes. If I'm reading this right, this is what we talked about (every possible outcomes of OUR Universe, with the same physic laws)
Level 2: Universes with different physic laws, so that'd be something we can't even imagine what it would look like. I don't know man maybe the planets are squares somewhere?

I'm not even going to look beyond level 2, my nose just started to bleed and I feel my eyes are next.

It's best not to go further than this. The past/present/future dilemma and such can be headache-inducing. Basically, follow Doc's explanation and everyone should know as much as is required to understand 'general time travel theory'.

I think we might have derailed the thread, slightly, since OP asked a question about Stargate timelines. And here we are, discussing white beard levels of physic.

The idea that a timeline can change without creating paradoxes or the need for the alternate universe to come into existence to avoid those paradoxes may not be overly popular among theorists, but it's a concept that gets a fair bit of use in fiction and for good reason: it's an idea that comes with consequences that are interesting to explore within a fictional setting.

Agreed, and I think its best kept that way in Sci-Fi.

Take for the example the "If you could go back in time to kill Hitler..." debate. It's a hypothetical scenario intended to challenge whether people would be willing to take one life in order to undo the millions of death that one life caused. People often view the challenge superficially, with some occasionally challenging the concept of the challenge itself by arguing that it's potentially impossible to change the past because of X paradox (e.g. if you have a gun it simply won't shoot).

Well I think the issue with this concept is that its literally a Chicken or the Egg type of paradox. Both positions can be correct at the same time, which doesn't make sense. At least there's something good in it for all of us, we get a bunch of different interesting time travel movies or stories.

The movie ''Coherence'' is a good one that tackles this, not sure if you guys seen it so I won't spoil, but it's really a great indie movie about parallel universes in a simple setting, easy to comprehend unlike many time travel movies such as Primer. When I finished Primer, I seriously felt like I was dumber than I initially was (I know it's hard to imagine eh?)

[Chaka-Z0]

We talked about this in the "Gauntlet" topic :

Was it you that mentioned that B. Wright said that time travel wasn't his strongest point?

[Xaeden]

Well I think the issue with this concept is that its literally a Chicken or the Egg type of paradox. Both positions can be correct at the same time, which doesn't make sense. At least there's something good in it for all of us, we get a bunch of different interesting time travel movies or stories.

The movie ''Coherence'' is a good one that tackles this, not sure if you guys seen it so I won't spoil, but it's really a great indie movie about parallel universes in a simple setting, easy to comprehend unlike many time travel movies such as Primer. When I finished Primer, I seriously felt like I was dumber than I initially was (I know it's hard to imagine eh?)

Agreed. There are multiple levels to it. One is what happens if you take it at face value and just question the morality of going back to kill Hitler or not because you're trying to balance taking a life with saving a life. In that scenario, people miss that you're butterfly effecting billions of people out of existence, and I usually blame TV's depiction of time travel for that as people have grown accustomed to all the faces being more or less the same with only differences in personality. Another level involves questioning the premise and inserting multiple time travel theories into the discussion.

If, for example, going back in time creates a whole other universe without Hitler and maintains the original one with all the people who were born as a result of that history, that's not morally problematic. At least not overtly; it's easy enough, as a writer, to insert a twist in there. Another issue is what if your time traveling actually allowed for Hitler's rise in the first place. It doesn't matter as you can't choose to not go back if you've already gone back as if Hitler exists because you already made a choice, but it's interesting to explore that in a story.

[thekillman]

Take for the example the "If you could go back in time to kill Hitler..." debate. It's a hypothetical scenario intended to challenge whether people would be willing to take one life in order to undo the millions of death that one life caused. People often view the challenge superficially, with some occasionally challenging the concept of the challenge itself by arguing that it's potentially impossible to change the past because of X paradox (e.g. if you have a gun it simply won't shoot).

It's funny that people never seem to consider that Hitler survived literally dozens of assassination attempts right down to having a bomb go off a few meters away from him. And that finding a disenfranchised WWI soldier somewhere in Europe wearing a gas mask would be incredibly difficult.

I hate multi-quotes, so tedious, so this is for two above ^ ^ (unless someone ninja'd, in which case it's the two above that).

There is a distinction. An alternate universe is a natural universe, as part of the theoretical "multiverse". Every possible (natural) choice that could ever be made creates its own universe. In Stargate, these kinds of universes (realities) can be visited using the quantum mirror. Then there's the classic TV show Sliders which does the same thing.

My point is that Stargate doesn't really make that distinction. Many alternate universes seem to simply be some form of "what if the timeline was slightly altered". E.g. in Road Not Taken, the revelation of the stargate happened earlier, while in our universe that was postponed. Or meeting slightly different universes where some missions went differently etc.

These are functionally indistinguishable from alternate timelines. If you entered such a universe after it is created, you couldn't tell what type it is.

Though i'd also like to point out Stargate is not wholly consistent with timetravel as some seem to do the alternate universe stuff ( E.g. SGU's "Time") while others follow the "mess with current universe" style like Continuum or 1969.

[NickEast]

My point is that Stargate doesn't really make that distinction. Many alternate universes seem to simply be some form of "what if the timeline was slightly altered". E.g. in Road Not Taken, the revelation of the stargate happened earlier, while in our universe that was postponed. Or meeting slightly different universes where some missions went differently etc.

These are functionally indistinguishable from alternate timelines. If you entered such a universe after it is created, you couldn't tell what type it is.

Though i'd also like to point out Stargate is not wholly consistent with timetravel as some seem to do the alternate universe stuff ( E.g. SGU's "Time") while others follow the "mess with current universe" style like Continuum or 1969.

You don't really seem to get what I'm saying. "The Road Not Taken" is an alternate universe, because nobody goes back in time to actually reveal the Stargate's existence. It's simply a different outcome to the same choice. An alternate timeline is created when someone purposefully goes back in time to change it, and thus physically changes time. It's not a difference in outcome based on a choice, the universe itself is changed. Carter doesn't travel in time, she travels to an parallel universe, that's the distinction.

An alternate/parallel universe is "what if the Stargate's existence was revealed?" An alternate timeline is "what happens if we go back in time to reveal the Stargate's existence?" The latter involves physical time travel, the former is just a different variation.

Remember, this isn't about a distinction in physics. I'm making a distinction in fiction, same with the multiverse theory as it applies to fiction, not real physics. Stargate doesn't make an obvious in-universe distinction, but that doesn't matter. The writing itself makes that distinction, since the show uses both types distinctly.

[Mnikolic]

I seriously need to do a re-watch of all 3 SG shows. It's been too long.

Anyway, I think what nivao explained was actually explained by not one, but at least two characters during the show's run: the difference between alternate timelines (slightly changed version(s) of the "main" reality) and alternate universe (completely different realities featuring a whole different group of people and events involved).

[NickEast]

I seriously need to do a re-watch of all 3 SG shows. It's been too long.

Anyway, I think what nivao explained was actually explained by not one, but at least two characters during the show's run: the difference between alternate timelines (slightly changed version(s) of the "main" reality) and alternate universe (completely different realities featuring a whole different group of people and events involved).

This can also apply in reverse. Carter explained one time, I think it was in "Politics" after Daniel explains about his experience during the episode before, that theoretically there can be any number of alternate universes which can range from being just slightly different, to being vastly different (e.g. where Germany won WW2 for example). Same with alternate timelines, they can range from small changes in the timeline (the difference between the original and the third timeline in "Moebius" and "Continuum"), to vastly different (Ra taking Earth's Stargate, and thus having no Stargate Program, or Atlantis not flooding so the Atlantis Expedition actually survives).

[Mnikolic]

...or Atlantis not flooding so the Atlantis Expedition actually survives.

Or the Icarus planed not being attacked by the Lucian Alliance, or someone stopping Telford to get the crew to dial Earth while the ship is re-charging. We could go on and on and just list other cases and the Stargate program wouldn't be even the reason for the majority of them.

[Xaeden]

It's funny that people never seem to consider that Hitler survived literally dozens of assassination attempts right down to having a bomb go off a few meters away from him. And that finding a disenfranchised WWI soldier somewhere in Europe wearing a gas mask would be incredibly difficult.

Well, most often the scenario involves Hitler as a baby/child because it adds another moral layer. When going after Hitler as an adult sometimes fiction will give the time traveler the ability to transport to a specific place, so he/she can appear in Hitler's office or residence. Of course, requiring the time traveler to track him down and arrange for a way to get to him would be more dramatic since, as you note, that's easier said than done.

Though i'd also like to point out Stargate is not wholly consistent with timetravel as some seem to do the alternate universe stuff ( E.g. SGU's "Time") while others follow the "mess with current universe" style like Continuum or 1969.

Could you elaborate on what it is about "Time" that makes you think it followed a different formula than any other time travel story in Stargate save "1969?"

[Chaka-Z0]

Well, most often the scenario involves Hitler as a baby/child because it adds another moral layer. When going after Hitler as an adult sometimes fiction will give the time traveler the ability to transport to a specific place, so he/she can appear in Hitler's office or residence. Of course, requiring the time traveler to track him down and arrange for a way to get to him would be more dramatic since, as you note, that's easier said than done.

If I may, there could also be the possibility that ultimately, changing events such as killing Hitler could do... absolutely nothing in the long run. Maybe Himler would've taken his place, he was actually worse than Adolf when it came to anti-antisemitism and he's the architect behind concentration camps. Never forget that Germany was such in a crappy situation that literally any hate-speech politicians could've accomplished the same results than Hitler.

There is also a theory, which I more or less agree with, that history repeats itself in cycles. Civilizations advance to a certain point, disappears or gets wiped out (Atlantians, Egyptians, etc.). Over and over again.

If you think about it, the Egyptians figured out the three forces of flight (lift-thrust-drag) as shown in hieroglyphs. They had automated water saws to cut stones. They had one of the greatest trade empire ever made. Most people assume these folks were primitive, but they were very advanced in ''ancient knowledge'' and what they had at their disposition.

[Xaeden]

If I may, there could also be the possibility that ultimately, changing events such as killing Hitler could do... absolutely nothing in the long run. Maybe Himler would've taken his place, he was actually worse than Adolf when it came to anti-antisemitism and he's the architect behind concentration camps. Never forget that Germany was such in a crappy situation that literally any hate-speech politicians could've accomplished the same results than Hitler.

Absolutely. There are levels to it that I didn't address in my overview and this is one of them. The concern that someone else will exploit the situation to create a similar or worse future is definitely an issue. Also, imagine what would have happened if the war was delayed, leading to scientific advances that made it easier to develop nuclear weapons. The world got very lucky that they were developed at the tail end of the war instead of during it.

The reason I chose to focus on all the people who would cease to exist is because it's true regardless of how things play out. If someone worse than Hitler who kills more people or someone better than him who kills less comes to power the time traveler is still ending the existence of a massive number of lives born in the aftermath of whenever the murder of Hitler takes place. Using time travel to stop atrocities only has a possibility to spare more lives than it wipes out of existence if the time travel happens within a short period after the atrocity. The greater the atrocity and the further in time away from it that you get, the larger the consequence on the people born after that event will be.

There is also a theory, which I more or less agree with, that history repeats itself in cycles. Civilizations advance to a certain point, disappears or gets wiped out (Atlantians, Egyptians, etc.). Over and over again.

Yeah, people forget the mistakes of history and often need to repeat them in order to learn them. It's like the adage that children can't be told what not to do as they need to learn not to do things by experiencing those things themselves.