Time Travel Rant - Part 2

This is a continuation of a post I did a while back. Part 1 can be found here.

In mathematics, there is this concept called consistency. An axiomatic mathematical system is consistent, if you cannot prove contrary things. For example, you would not be able to prove that 1+1=2 and 1+1≠2.

An axiomatic mathematical system is built upon 3 things: undefined terms, defined terms, and axioms (or assumptions.) Given these things, you can build amazing mathematical systems like Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry. The difference between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry are the assumptions made. However, the two geometries are (in general) not compatible with each other. If you combine the two geometries, you will quickly find that it is non-consistent. In other words, you would be able to prove two contrary theorems.

For a mathematician, non-consistent systems are not very interesting. This is because of the way these systems are built. If you can prove two contrary statements, you can prove ANY two statements. Thus, if you can state a conjecture in the language of the system, it is automatically true. While the proof might not be trivial, you could prove any statement to be true.  With any statement being true, you can imagine that these systems are not very compelling or interesting.

So, why am I mentioning this in a post about time travel? Simply because non-consistent systems are not interesting. If you have conflicting assertions, both of which are true, you end up with uninteresting systems. This is a problem with time travel being impossible. It opens up a realm of things, that quickly devolve into something uninteresting.  You strip a story of the things that may make it compelling.

To illustrate, let us explore Star Trek! In the original series, the transporter was simply a way to get the crew of the USS Enterprise quickly and easily to the planet. It was a short cut. It was a device that allowed them to put more story in their timeslot. Anything beyond that was mostly ignored. It was just a way to get on with the story the writers were telling.

Flash forward to Star Trek: The Next Generation. The new series began with the premise, we have this technology, what are the consequences of this technology? Thus, instead of being a plot device to speed up a story, they explored the consequences of having this impossible technology at their disposal. It quickly devolved into farcical plot devices.

For instance, in the second season, there is an episode entitled Unnatural Selection. In it, Dr. Pulaski beams down to a research station where these genetically modified children are living. Everyone around these kids suddenly and rapidly age. (More info can be found here.) Dr. Pulaski finds herself unnaturally aging, and they use the transporter to fix her. So, what this means is that if some redshirt beamed down and was killed, they should be able to fix him using this technique with the transporter. (Not once does this happen.)

Moreover, it means that you could live forever. All you would have to do is store a particular pattern in the "pattern buffer" and use the transporter to restore you to that pattern at the end of the day. You would be perpetually that pattern. This is in essence what they did to bring Scotty onto the show. Thus, all of the near-death experiences and dangers were meaningless because everyone could be restored using the transporter.

By looking at the consequences of this technological impossibility, it could easily devolve into non-interesting story arcs. What was meant as a shortcut to telling interesting stories, became a Deus Ex Machina to resolve plot points. This is the problem with allowing individuals to travel backwards in time. Instead of a shortcut to exploring a world without Stalin, there are stories that relish the great paradoxes of the entire genre. They are like non-consistent mathematical systems. Anything is possible, so they are not very interesting.

I would like to propose a theory of time that allows for a world without WWII, but removes the paradox. I wish for a more sciencey science fiction if you will.  Because of the grandfather paradox, we need a believable way to get around that.  Most stories that attempt to explain away the paradox have failed.   That includes Dr. Who.  Hence, we need to look at time differently.

I think of time as an unraveling carpet. We sit on the string that trails behind. That string is the unchanging past. However, if we look in the other direction, we see an expanse of possibilities. The future is wide open. We do not know what will unfold ahead as the future is dependant upon our actions. However, once our moment has unraveled, there is no going back.

The future is determined by our decisions and random occurrences. If we make that wrong turn at Albuquerque, we do not know what the future would bring. If we purposely take that right turn instead of the left, we change which part of the future comes our way and is set on that string the trails behind us. Steven Hawking proposes a sort of Heissenburg uncertainty principle into time. Thus, the future is always uncertain.  We can guess with a level of confidence, a probability if you will, of what is going to happen in the future.

Now, just because there is a string that trails behind us that we call the past, does not mean that there are not other strings. This could be the building blocks for a multiverse. It should be our foundation for any time travelling based stories.

Instead of travelling back in time to kill Hitler, we travel across the multiverse to a timeline where Hitler never becomes chancellor or is never born. In this way, our characters appear in that timeline in whatever technology that is used. We do not change things -- since it is impossible. Further, we do not travel to their past. We appear in their present, but can look into their past. We can observe the differences in this part of the multiverse.

Currently, there are theories that indicate their are other dimensions. Thus, this type of travel could theoretically be possible. At our current level of technology, we do not know if this is impossible like we know that traveling back in time is impossible. Thus, this is much more acceptable to me than the old time travel scenario.

In an effort to facilitate this technology, I would propose some sort of infinite improbability drive to get to these dimensions. The future is unknowable, as I stated. However, there are probabilities for things to occur. For instance, it is highly improbable that I will be enjoying the beaches of Barbados tomorrow. Thus, if we use some probability type device to go to a time and place where I would be at the beach, we have our hook. This is our way into that dimension. Getting back is another issue.

In any event, this is a much more acceptable view of time and exploring differing timelines. It rids us of the grandfather paradox. It is vastly more probable than the completely impossible old science fiction time travel paradigm. It is time to retire the old view, and start using a more updated model of time. Thanks!