Re: Something is wrong...


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

Re: Something is wrong...

Posted By: Forrest of B.org Date: 11/22/06 9:09 a.m.
In Response To: Something is wrong... (MrHen)

When I speak of multiple timelines existing or not-existing, I mean it in an omniscient sense outside the universe, as though you were looking at a flowchart describing the causal chain of events. Because you are completely outside of time, nothing can *change*, because change is nought but a difference in something between one point and another. A cone changes diameter along some spatial axis; and in the exact same way, a growing circle changes diameter across the temporal axis. If you were somehow seeing all four dimensions of relativistic spacetime laid out in front of you the way we mere mortals can only see 1- or 2-dimensional structures, and then you saw some feature of that 4D spacetime change (e.g. a timeline got altered), then you must necessarily be experiencing some sort of "hyper-time" yourself (otherwise you could experience no change at all), and in your "hyper-past", the original timeline still exists.
This will be hard to describe without pictures and animations, but I'll try.
The classical vision of time is unilinear with no time travel. If you represent the entire 3D universe as a single point, then the shape of that complete 4D universe would be represented as just a 1-dimensional line from the past, through the present, to the future.
When you introduce time travel of any sort, that diagram of the universe must become two-dimensional. Some part of that line branches off (somehow) and turns around before reconnecting with an earlier part of the line. At this point only one of two things can happen; it continues forward along a slightly different path, creating a branching timeline, or it just connects to the old path in a perfect loop.
What you seem to be saying is that it can continue forward *over* the old path (covering it up). But if it did that, it's *still* in fact a branching timeline; you've just introduced another dimension of hypertime into the picture, a vertical one home up off the "page". If you stopped looking at this diagram top-down and swung around to look edge on to the plane of the "page", you'd see that the new timeline isn't really in the same place as the old timeline was, but above it, offset from it. If it actually *was* the case that two different lines ran through the exact same place in this omniscient view, then when you expand that to describe the state of affairs in the 3D universe represented by a little point in this diagram, you have two different things being the case in the same place at the same time in the same timeline - a contradiction, which is completely inconceivable and impossible.
If you-this-'omniscient'-observer were only seeing sequential 2D slices of this 3D diagram of world-lines, then yes, it would look to you like a branch grew out of the original timeline, wrapped around, and then wrote over the original timeline. But in that case you're not really omniscient. Someone truly omniscient, who could see all of your hyper-time at once, would see the 3D picture described above.
Now, from an inside-the-universe perspective, if the only way you have of jumping timelines is via time travel, then you can never get back to your original timeline, and in effect every time you travel to the past you're "changing" what's "real". But every timeline you abandon to travel to the past again, still continues on it's own, just without you in it. If you had some sort of device which would allow you to move not only through time but also directly across to alternate timelines, you could conceivable return to that timeline. You could go into the past, change something, go back to the future (the time you left from) of that new, changed timeline to see how it turned out, and if you don't like it, just hop back over to your original timeline and abandon the one you screwed up.
That sort of system is what I'm calling "multilinear time". Any system where it is possible to affect the past (no paradoxes prohibiting it), and where those effects weren't already taken into account in the timeline you came from (no world loops), necessarily is multilinear. The *only* other logically possible alternatives to multilinear time (both of which would be unilinear time) are world loops, which seem highly implausible, or time travel being impossible, which seems highly plausible. Although time travel could be impossible and time still be multilinear, with every possible timeline "really" existing parallel to our own, as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics predicts.
In effect, there are four ways time could work:
Unilinear with no time travel - the classical view.
Unilinear with time travel - requires world loops to be possible.
Multilinear with time travel - the way we've been discussing things.
Multilinear with no time travel - what some modern physics theorizes.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

Plotline question concerning Infinity Icarus 11/15/06 12:18 p.m.

Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity Forrest of B.org 11/15/06 1:10 p.m.

Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity RyokoTK 11/15/06 1:43 p.m.

Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity Forrest of B.org 11/15/06 3:51 p.m.

Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity Forrest of B.org 11/15/06 3:59 p.m.

time travel and plots in general MrHen 11/15/06 6:08 p.m.

Re: time travel and plots in general patrick 11/15/06 6:48 p.m.

Re: time travel and plots in general Forrest of B.org 11/15/06 7:57 p.m.

more on plot MrHen 11/16/06 5:07 a.m.

Re: more on plot Document 11/18/06 11:39 a.m.

I would not know. MrHen 11/18/06 12:33 p.m.

Re: I would not know. Document 11/18/06 12:44 p.m.

oh, okay. :) MrHen 11/18/06 3:37 p.m.

Re: oh, okay. :) thermoplyae 11/18/06 7:18 p.m.

Re: time travel and plots in general LegacyTyphoon 11/17/06 12:39 a.m.

Re: time travel Frungi 11/17/06 1:04 p.m.

Re: time travel Document 11/17/06 1:09 p.m.

Re: time travel MrHen 11/17/06 2:51 p.m.

Re: time travel Frungi 11/18/06 1:09 p.m.

Re: time travel Document 11/20/06 11:01 a.m.

well, obviously MrHen 11/20/06 12:17 p.m.

Re: well, obviously Frungi 11/20/06 5:01 p.m.

Re: well, obviously Forrest of B.org 11/20/06 6:52 p.m.

unilinear? MrHen 11/21/06 4:49 a.m.

Re: unilinear? Frungi 11/21/06 5:49 a.m.

gah, no... MrHen 11/21/06 6:21 a.m.

Re: gah, no... Frungi 11/21/06 7:41 a.m.

Re: gah, no... MrHen 11/21/06 8:25 a.m.

Hypothetical question Frungi 11/21/06 1:45 p.m.

Hypothetical answers MrHen 11/22/06 4:53 a.m.

Re: Hypothetical answers Frungi 11/22/06 4:24 p.m.

Re: Hypothetical answers MrHen 11/23/06 7:52 a.m.

Re: Hypothetical answers Frungi 11/23/06 9:11 a.m.

Re: Hypothetical answers MrHen 11/23/06 4:04 p.m.

Re: gah, no... Forrest of B.org 11/21/06 8:19 p.m.

there are no time-loops MrHen 11/22/06 4:21 a.m.

Re: unilinear? Forrest of B.org 11/21/06 8:07 p.m.

Something is wrong... MrHen 11/22/06 4:35 a.m.

Re: Something is wrong... Forrest of B.org 11/22/06 9:09 a.m.

this is awesome, I love this stuff MrHen 11/22/06 9:33 a.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff treellama 11/22/06 11:25 a.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff Forrest of B.org 11/22/06 12:00 p.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff treellama 11/22/06 2:41 p.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff Forrest of B.org 11/22/06 5:48 p.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff treellama 11/23/06 4:58 a.m.

ha, nice MrHen 11/23/06 8:05 a.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff Document 9/18/07 11:06 a.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff Forrest of B.org 11/22/06 12:28 p.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff Frungi 11/22/06 4:07 p.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff Forrest of B.org 11/22/06 6:05 p.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff Document 11/22/06 7:14 p.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff Frungi 11/22/06 7:31 p.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff Forrest of B.org 11/23/06 12:37 a.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff *LINK* Frungi 11/25/06 1:15 p.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff Forrest of B.org 11/26/06 10:04 a.m.

Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff Frungi 11/26/06 6:30 p.m.

timeline == ? MrHen 11/23/06 8:09 a.m.

agreement :) MrHen 11/23/06 8:00 a.m.

Re: Something is wrong... Aachim 11/22/06 1:24 p.m.

returning to time travel Pfhorever 11/23/06 10:13 a.m.

Re: returning to time travel Frungi 11/23/06 10:43 a.m.

Re: well, obviously Document 11/21/06 10:30 a.m.

Re: time travel Forrest of B.org 11/17/06 3:47 p.m.

Re: time travel legacytyphoon 11/17/06 8:29 p.m.

Re: time travel Document 11/17/06 9:17 p.m.

Re: time travel Frungi 11/18/06 1:07 p.m.

Re: time travel Document 11/19/06 5:59 a.m.

I disagree *LINK* MrHen 11/18/06 6:55 a.m.

Re: time travel and plots in general Frungi 11/21/06 7:48 a.m.

Re: time travel and plots in general Forrest of B.org 11/21/06 8:26 p.m.

Re: time travel and plots in general Vid Boi 11/16/06 6:18 a.m.

Re: time travel and plots in general D-M.A. 11/16/06 8:38 a.m.

Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity thermoplyae 11/15/06 2:05 p.m.

*cough* spam *cough* MrHen 11/15/06 3:35 p.m.

Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity SnowCrash 11/15/06 4:12 p.m.

Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity thermoplyae 11/15/06 5:03 p.m.

Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity kyjel 11/15/06 5:06 p.m.

Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity thermoplyae 11/15/06 6:14 p.m.

Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity Document 11/16/06 10:10 a.m.

Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity REB 11/16/06 7:31 p.m.

REB!!! *NM* ukimalefu 11/16/06 8:24 p.m.

Re: Hey, ukimalefu! *NM* REB 11/17/06 9:41 a.m.

MrHen apologized it for in his post, but thanks :) *NM* thermoplyae 11/16/06 11:27 p.m.

WMaiD Aaron Sikes 11/17/06 9:33 a.m.

Re: WMaiD kyjel 11/17/06 10:28 a.m.

It was a joke. >. *NM* MrHen 11/17/06 2:49 p.m.

Re: Got It ;-) *NM* REB 11/17/06 3:07 p.m.

WMaiD *LINK* Blayne 11/17/06 11:24 a.m.

Re: WMaiD SnowCrash 11/18/06 10:31 a.m.

Re: WMaiD Blayne 11/21/06 10:18 a.m.

Re: WMaiD Aaron Sikes 11/21/06 10:50 a.m.

Re: WMaiD Frungi 11/21/06 7:09 p.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: When I speak of multiple timelines existing or not-existing, I mean it in an : omniscient sense outside the universe, as though you were looking at a : flowchart describing the causal chain of events. Because you are : completely outside of time, nothing can *change*, because change is nought : but a difference in something between one point and another. A cone : changes diameter along some spatial axis; and in the exact same way, a : growing circle changes diameter across the temporal axis. If you were : somehow seeing all four dimensions of relativistic spacetime laid out in : front of you the way we mere mortals can only see 1- or 2-dimensional : structures, and then you saw some feature of that 4D spacetime change : (e.g. a timeline got altered), then you must necessarily be experiencing : some sort of "hyper-time" yourself (otherwise you could : experience no change at all), and in your "hyper-past", the : original timeline still exists. : This will be hard to describe without pictures and animations, but I'll try. : The classical vision of time is unilinear with no time travel. If you : represent the entire 3D universe as a single point, then the shape of that : complete 4D universe would be represented as just a 1-dimensional line : from the past, through the present, to the future. : When you introduce time travel of any sort, that diagram of the universe must : become two-dimensional. Some part of that line branches off (somehow) and : turns around before reconnecting with an earlier part of the line. At this : point only one of two things can happen; it continues forward along a : slightly different path, creating a branching timeline, or it just : connects to the old path in a perfect loop. : What you seem to be saying is that it can continue forward *over* the old : path (covering it up). But if it did that, it's *still* in fact a : branching timeline; you've just introduced another dimension of hypertime : into the picture, a vertical one home up off the "page". If you : stopped looking at this diagram top-down and swung around to look edge on : to the plane of the "page", you'd see that the new timeline : isn't really in the same place as the old timeline was, but above it, : offset from it. If it actually *was* the case that two different lines ran : through the exact same place in this omniscient view, then when you expand : that to describe the state of affairs in the 3D universe represented by a : little point in this diagram, you have two different things being the case : in the same place at the same time in the same timeline - a contradiction, : which is completely inconceivable and impossible. : If you-this-'omniscient'-observer were only seeing sequential 2D slices of : this 3D diagram of world-lines, then yes, it would look to you like a : branch grew out of the original timeline, wrapped around, and then wrote : over the original timeline. But in that case you're not really omniscient. : Someone truly omniscient, who could see all of your hyper-time at once, : would see the 3D picture described above. : Now, from an inside-the-universe perspective, if the only way you have of : jumping timelines is via time travel, then you can never get back to your : original timeline, and in effect every time you travel to the past you're : "changing" what's "real". But every timeline you : abandon to travel to the past again, still continues on it's own, just : without you in it. If you had some sort of device which would allow you to : move not only through time but also directly across to alternate : timelines, you could conceivable return to that timeline. You could go : into the past, change something, go back to the future (the time you left : from) of that new, changed timeline to see how it turned out, and if you : don't like it, just hop back over to your original timeline and abandon : the one you screwed up. : That sort of system is what I'm calling "multilinear time". Any : system where it is possible to affect the past (no paradoxes prohibiting : it), and where those effects weren't already taken into account in the : timeline you came from (no world loops), necessarily is multilinear. The : *only* other logically possible alternatives to multilinear time (both of : which would be unilinear time) are world loops, which seem highly : implausible, or time travel being impossible, which seems highly : plausible. Although time travel could be impossible and time still be : multilinear, with every possible timeline "really" existing : parallel to our own, as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics : predicts. : In effect, there are four ways time could work: Unilinear with no time travel : - the classical view. : Unilinear with time travel - requires world loops to be possible. : Multilinear with time travel - the way we've been discussing things. : Multilinear with no time travel - what some modern physics theorizes.

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

Plotline question concerning Infinity	Icarus	11/15/06 12:18 p.m.
Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity	Forrest of B.org	11/15/06 1:10 p.m.
Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity	RyokoTK	11/15/06 1:43 p.m.
Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity	Forrest of B.org	11/15/06 3:51 p.m.
Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity	Forrest of B.org	11/15/06 3:59 p.m.
time travel and plots in general	MrHen	11/15/06 6:08 p.m.
Re: time travel and plots in general	patrick	11/15/06 6:48 p.m.
Re: time travel and plots in general	Forrest of B.org	11/15/06 7:57 p.m.
more on plot	MrHen	11/16/06 5:07 a.m.
Re: more on plot	Document	11/18/06 11:39 a.m.
I would not know.	MrHen	11/18/06 12:33 p.m.
Re: I would not know.	Document	11/18/06 12:44 p.m.
oh, okay. :)	MrHen	11/18/06 3:37 p.m.
Re: oh, okay. :)	thermoplyae	11/18/06 7:18 p.m.
Re: time travel and plots in general	LegacyTyphoon	11/17/06 12:39 a.m.
Re: time travel	Frungi	11/17/06 1:04 p.m.
Re: time travel	Document	11/17/06 1:09 p.m.
Re: time travel	MrHen	11/17/06 2:51 p.m.
Re: time travel	Frungi	11/18/06 1:09 p.m.
Re: time travel	Document	11/20/06 11:01 a.m.
well, obviously	MrHen	11/20/06 12:17 p.m.
Re: well, obviously	Frungi	11/20/06 5:01 p.m.
Re: well, obviously	Forrest of B.org	11/20/06 6:52 p.m.
unilinear?	MrHen	11/21/06 4:49 a.m.
Re: unilinear?	Frungi	11/21/06 5:49 a.m.
gah, no...	MrHen	11/21/06 6:21 a.m.
Re: gah, no...	Frungi	11/21/06 7:41 a.m.
Re: gah, no...	MrHen	11/21/06 8:25 a.m.
Hypothetical question	Frungi	11/21/06 1:45 p.m.
Hypothetical answers	MrHen	11/22/06 4:53 a.m.
Re: Hypothetical answers	Frungi	11/22/06 4:24 p.m.
Re: Hypothetical answers	MrHen	11/23/06 7:52 a.m.
Re: Hypothetical answers	Frungi	11/23/06 9:11 a.m.
Re: Hypothetical answers	MrHen	11/23/06 4:04 p.m.
Re: gah, no...	Forrest of B.org	11/21/06 8:19 p.m.
there are no time-loops	MrHen	11/22/06 4:21 a.m.
Re: unilinear?	Forrest of B.org	11/21/06 8:07 p.m.
Something is wrong...	MrHen	11/22/06 4:35 a.m.
Re: Something is wrong...	Forrest of B.org	11/22/06 9:09 a.m.
this is awesome, I love this stuff	MrHen	11/22/06 9:33 a.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	treellama	11/22/06 11:25 a.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	Forrest of B.org	11/22/06 12:00 p.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	treellama	11/22/06 2:41 p.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	Forrest of B.org	11/22/06 5:48 p.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	treellama	11/23/06 4:58 a.m.
ha, nice	MrHen	11/23/06 8:05 a.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	Document	9/18/07 11:06 a.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	Forrest of B.org	11/22/06 12:28 p.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	Frungi	11/22/06 4:07 p.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	Forrest of B.org	11/22/06 6:05 p.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	Document	11/22/06 7:14 p.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	Frungi	11/22/06 7:31 p.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	Forrest of B.org	11/23/06 12:37 a.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff LINK	Frungi	11/25/06 1:15 p.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	Forrest of B.org	11/26/06 10:04 a.m.
Re: this is awesome, I love this stuff	Frungi	11/26/06 6:30 p.m.
timeline == ?	MrHen	11/23/06 8:09 a.m.
agreement :)	MrHen	11/23/06 8:00 a.m.
Re: Something is wrong...	Aachim	11/22/06 1:24 p.m.
returning to time travel	Pfhorever	11/23/06 10:13 a.m.
Re: returning to time travel	Frungi	11/23/06 10:43 a.m.
Re: well, obviously	Document	11/21/06 10:30 a.m.
Re: time travel	Forrest of B.org	11/17/06 3:47 p.m.
Re: time travel	legacytyphoon	11/17/06 8:29 p.m.
Re: time travel	Document	11/17/06 9:17 p.m.
Re: time travel	Frungi	11/18/06 1:07 p.m.
Re: time travel	Document	11/19/06 5:59 a.m.
I disagree LINK	MrHen	11/18/06 6:55 a.m.
Re: time travel and plots in general	Frungi	11/21/06 7:48 a.m.
Re: time travel and plots in general	Forrest of B.org	11/21/06 8:26 p.m.
Re: time travel and plots in general	Vid Boi	11/16/06 6:18 a.m.
Re: time travel and plots in general	D-M.A.	11/16/06 8:38 a.m.
Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity	thermoplyae	11/15/06 2:05 p.m.
cough spam cough	MrHen	11/15/06 3:35 p.m.
Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity	SnowCrash	11/15/06 4:12 p.m.
Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity	thermoplyae	11/15/06 5:03 p.m.
Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity	kyjel	11/15/06 5:06 p.m.
Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity	thermoplyae	11/15/06 6:14 p.m.
Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity	Document	11/16/06 10:10 a.m.
Re: Plotline question concerning Infinity	REB	11/16/06 7:31 p.m.
REB!!! NM	ukimalefu	11/16/06 8:24 p.m.
Re: Hey, ukimalefu! NM	REB	11/17/06 9:41 a.m.
MrHen apologized it for in his post, but thanks :) NM	thermoplyae	11/16/06 11:27 p.m.
WMaiD	Aaron Sikes	11/17/06 9:33 a.m.
Re: WMaiD	kyjel	11/17/06 10:28 a.m.
It was a joke. >. NM	MrHen	11/17/06 2:49 p.m.
Re: Got It ;-) NM	REB	11/17/06 3:07 p.m.
WMaiD LINK	Blayne	11/17/06 11:24 a.m.
Re: WMaiD	SnowCrash	11/18/06 10:31 a.m.
Re: WMaiD	Blayne	11/21/06 10:18 a.m.
Re: WMaiD	Aaron Sikes	11/21/06 10:50 a.m.
Re: WMaiD	Frungi	11/21/06 7:09 p.m.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : When I speak of multiple timelines existing or not-existing, I mean it in an : omniscient sense outside the universe, as though you were looking at a : flowchart describing the causal chain of events. Because you are : completely outside of time, nothing can change, because change is nought : but a difference in something between one point and another. A cone : changes diameter along some spatial axis; and in the exact same way, a : growing circle changes diameter across the temporal axis. If you were : somehow seeing all four dimensions of relativistic spacetime laid out in : front of you the way we mere mortals can only see 1- or 2-dimensional : structures, and then you saw some feature of that 4D spacetime change : (e.g. a timeline got altered), then you must necessarily be experiencing : some sort of "hyper-time" yourself (otherwise you could : experience no change at all), and in your "hyper-past", the : original timeline still exists. : This will be hard to describe without pictures and animations, but I'll try. : The classical vision of time is unilinear with no time travel. If you : represent the entire 3D universe as a single point, then the shape of that : complete 4D universe would be represented as just a 1-dimensional line : from the past, through the present, to the future. : When you introduce time travel of any sort, that diagram of the universe must : become two-dimensional. Some part of that line branches off (somehow) and : turns around before reconnecting with an earlier part of the line. At this : point only one of two things can happen; it continues forward along a : slightly different path, creating a branching timeline, or it just : connects to the old path in a perfect loop. : What you seem to be saying is that it can continue forward over the old : path (covering it up). But if it did that, it's still in fact a : branching timeline; you've just introduced another dimension of hypertime : into the picture, a vertical one home up off the "page". If you : stopped looking at this diagram top-down and swung around to look edge on : to the plane of the "page", you'd see that the new timeline : isn't really in the same place as the old timeline was, but above it, : offset from it. If it actually was the case that two different lines ran : through the exact same place in this omniscient view, then when you expand : that to describe the state of affairs in the 3D universe represented by a : little point in this diagram, you have two different things being the case : in the same place at the same time in the same timeline - a contradiction, : which is completely inconceivable and impossible. : If you-this-'omniscient'-observer were only seeing sequential 2D slices of : this 3D diagram of world-lines, then yes, it would look to you like a : branch grew out of the original timeline, wrapped around, and then wrote : over the original timeline. But in that case you're not really omniscient. : Someone truly omniscient, who could see all of your hyper-time at once, : would see the 3D picture described above. : Now, from an inside-the-universe perspective, if the only way you have of : jumping timelines is via time travel, then you can never get back to your : original timeline, and in effect every time you travel to the past you're : "changing" what's "real". But every timeline you : abandon to travel to the past again, still continues on it's own, just : without you in it. If you had some sort of device which would allow you to : move not only through time but also directly across to alternate : timelines, you could conceivable return to that timeline. You could go : into the past, change something, go back to the future (the time you left : from) of that new, changed timeline to see how it turned out, and if you : don't like it, just hop back over to your original timeline and abandon : the one you screwed up. : That sort of system is what I'm calling "multilinear time". Any : system where it is possible to affect the past (no paradoxes prohibiting : it), and where those effects weren't already taken into account in the : timeline you came from (no world loops), necessarily is multilinear. The : only other logically possible alternatives to multilinear time (both of : which would be unilinear time) are world loops, which seem highly : implausible, or time travel being impossible, which seems highly : plausible. Although time travel could be impossible and time still be : multilinear, with every possible timeline "really" existing : parallel to our own, as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics : predicts. : In effect, there are four ways time could work: Unilinear with no time travel : - the classical view. : Unilinear with time travel - requires world loops to be possible. : Multilinear with time travel - the way we've been discussing things. : Multilinear with no time travel - what some modern physics theorizes.
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: