Time Lapse temporal analysis posted
Temporal Anomalies in Time Travel Movies has posted an analysis of Time Lapse http://www.mjyoung.net/time/lapse.html.
--M. J. Young
Time Travel Movie Examiner
As always, a very insightful analysis.
One thing I didn't entirely get though was your objection to a 'fixed time' explanation for the film-
It is like the moment when Callie is posing nude for Finn to paint, and they both wonder what it was he said or did to persuade her to do this. We actually know the answer to that, but it shows the problem here: why did Finn paint the things he painted? In fixed time we have a simple causal loop, that Finn sees what he is going to paint and so he paints it; but then, when he does not see the picture he does not paint anything, and the picture shows that he did not paint anything. Thus there is no inspiration for the picture other than its own existence, but it does not exist if it does not inspire itself. Anything that does not happen unless it happens does not happen. Finn never sees a painting in fixed time, because he has no intention to paint that which will appear until he sees it in the photo. It is different in kind from Jasper's race results: Jasper fully intends to copy the race results from the paper and post them in the window; Finn hopes that he will see something in the window which will tell him what he was inspired to paint, but the inspiration never exists.
How exactly are the paintings different from the race results in this regard? In a purely fixed time explanation, the paintings do not NEED an explanation...they simply come out of nowhere. Its the kind of fallacy which leads many to dismiss the fixed time theory and predestination paradoxes, but it fits in well with common uses of the trope.
Formerly sn939 share
I agree. The explanation of why "fixed time" doesn't work doesn't work.
shareThank you for that, Sanddragon (and also thank you, Carl). Let me see if I can clarify what I mean; I admit that there are people who disagree with me, but I find this particular problem fatal to these types of paradoxes. I also want to apologize for the delay; I don't check e-mail so often, and only just received notice of this post.
We'll begin with Jasper.
There are going to be races, and the results are going to be published in the paper. Whether or not Jasper posts them to the window is irrelevant; even if Jasper were killed, the races would still run and the results would still appear in the paper. The only thing Jasper does is obtain information that must exist in the present and send it to the past, where his past self receives it and acts on it.
Finn's situation is different.
It appears on the surface that Finn is doing the same thing: he is in effect sending information to the past, where his past self is acting on it. However, the information Finn is sending is essentially dependent on Finn receiving it. We know this is so, because whenever Finn does not receive the image of the picture he does not paint a picture. Therefore the information does not exist unless he creates it, and he does not create it unless it exists.
In the one photo of which we were made aware which Finn did not get to see, there was no painting. That's significant. That is, if the paintings are going to exist in the future without Finn seeing them first (as is the case with the race results) then they are going to exist whether or not he sees them. All the evidence in the film tells us otherwise, that Finn paints nothing unless he sees it first--but he sees nothing unless he paints it first.
In essence, if Finn does not see the painting, he does not paint the painting, and if he does not paint the painting he does not see the painting. The cause of him painting is ultimately that he painted, and he will not paint unless he paints. If he causes his own action and there is no outside cause to induce it otherwise, the action never occurs.
The paintings do not "come out of nowhere", even in a fixed time explanation. Fixed time tells us that Finn had no choice but to paint these images, and nothing would change the fact that he was going to do so. Yet Finn was not going to paint any images unless he saw them first.
I'm starting to repeat myself trying to clarify it. Is that clearer?
Thanks again for your input.
--M. J. Young
Time Travel Movie Examiner
Aren't they perfect examples of a Bootstrap Paradox? Something that seeming has no origin, that "comes out of nowhere"?
The bootstrap paradox is a time travel paradox in which an object or information can exist without ever being created. The object or piece of information is sent back in time where it is retrieved and to become the very object or piece of information that was brought back in the beginning.
Jun 13, 2014
Continuum and the Bootstrap Paradox - The Quantum Tunnel
http://thequantumtunnel.com/continuum-bootstrap-paradox/
Wikipedia's combined their "Bootstrap Paradox" and "Predestination Paradox" pages in the last year into one page here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_loop
A causal loop, in the context of time travel or retrocausality, is a sequence of events (actions, information, objects, people)[1][2] in which an event is among the causes of another event, which in turn is among the causes of the first-mentioned event.[3][4] Such causally-looped events then exist in spacetime, but their origin cannot be determined
It seems a fixed timeline trope to allow objects and events without origins, things that cause themselves to be. share
Sorry for the delay--I just got the notice that there were posts here.
Carl, not all predestination/bootstrap paradoxes are plausible. For example, the watch in http://www.mjyoung.net/time/somewher.html Somewhere in Time has to be about sixty years older every time Richard gives it to Elise, and will eventually crumble to dust; but when Mr. Scott gives the formula for transparent aluminum to Dr. Nichols in http://www.mjyoung.net/time/stvoyage.html Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, he doesn't alter the fact that he is going to learn that formula in the future and can bring it back to Dr. Nichols. (It's risky, but under the circumstances it will probably stabilize.)
The problem here is pretty much as WhoAteMyCookie describes it: the picture should show what Finn is going to paint, whether or not Finn ever sees the picture. That means if Finn doesn't see the picture, the picture will still show a painting and he'll think of something to paint and it will be in the picture. What we have, though, is that if Finn does not see the picture, there is no painting in it. Why not? If there were no painting and Finn saw the picture, then we could understand him not painting anything; but it seems that seeing the picture causes him to paint the painting, and that means that the idea does not come from him originally but from the photograph, and it can't be in the photograph unless he imagined it and painted it at some point.
As observed, WhoAteMyCookie, the race results are not so much of a problem because the races will be run even if Jasper is dead. Once Jasper lives to put the results in the window, he'll see them in the photo. He has to put them there, but he doesn't have to do anything to bring them into existence.
I hope this helps.
--M. J. Young
Time Travel Movie Examiner
I think you're letting your Replacement Theory bias impact your view of Fixed Time. There's no "original timeline" where an object or event would eventually happen without the causality loop, so it can then enter the loop and appear to cause itself. There's nothing need for loops to "stabilize" in what appears to be Fixed Time.
Per the Bootstrap Paradox quote I included "Such causally-looped events then exist in spacetime, but their origin cannot be determined". You seem to be trying to find an origin either from an external source (race results) or something independently derived (transparent glass). But that's the essence of the Paradox. Finn's paintings have no origin. They explicitly cause themselves.
And they seem completely arbitrary. Finn could have received a photo showing the Clock Spiral painting going around counter-clockwise, and that's how he would have painted it. Or using green paint, instead of black. Or red. Anything goes, as long as the events are self-consistent. See Novikov self-consistency principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle).
The possibilities are endless, but only one is selected. The camera appears to determine which future is selected, though with Fixed Time, its selection is also predetermined.
Certainly, Bootstrap Paradoxes/Causal Loops appear in other Fixed Time movies. And while it's an interesting mental exercise to try and suss out an "original" cause from previous timelines, it's not necessary with Fixed Time. Some things can simply(!) cause themselves to be.
Thank you, Carl. I understand the conception of the paradox, and of Novikov, in Fixed Time. I just find it untenable.
Let's take the watch in Somewhere in Time, and forget for a moment the problem of it aging infinitely. On June 27th, 1912, maybe a quarter pound of metal and other materials comes into existence. That's not a problem, because it moved from the future. Seventy years later, on an unspecified date in 1982, it ceases to exist. Thus we account for the increase in the total mass of the universe by its displacement from the future, that in essence it was simply moved from one point to another.
That works in replacement theory, but it doesn't work in fixed time theory. The problem is that for those seventy years there is a quarter pound of mass in the universe that did not exist prior to that and does not exist after that. In replacement theory it is simply duplicating itself; in fixed time, it is coming into existence from nothing and returning to nothing.
O.K., the paintings aren't like that. They are only information, and we can allow that information can form a loop in which it travels from the future to the past such that it is available to travel from the future to the past. We permitted that in two Star Trek movies, with transparent aluminum and transwarp teleportation. As long as the information is going to exist in the future, it can be transmitted to the past.
However, in Time Lapse, the information will not exist in the future unless it is received in the past. We have a dependency. Finn paints the painting because he sees the painting; he sees the painting because he paints the painting. If Finn does not see a painting, he will not paint a painting, and if he does not paint a painting he will not see a painting. This is confirmed for us, because when other people see the picture but Finn does not, there is no painting--and that's the problem I have. In order for the painting to exist under fixed time, it must be inevitable that Finn would paint it; and that means he would have to paint something whether he saw it or not. The inevitability seems to be that he will not paint a painting, and he only does so because he sees it. The existence of the image in the future is not inevitable; it is caused by its appearance in the past.
I thus can't escape the conclusion that the paintings are an "uncaused cause", something that only happens if it happens, and that nothing happens that only happens if it happens.
I know that fixed time theorists say that this is possible under fixed time. I think they are wrong. In any case, if they are right, it should be that Finn will inevitably paint something, whether or not he sees what he is going to paint before he paints it.
And Novikov really only says that it's mathematically possible to have a world in which fixed time rules apply. I believe that; I think it is inconsistent with what I know of the world we actually have.
Time Travel Movie Examiner
I thus can't escape the conclusion that the paintings are an "uncaused cause", something that only happens if it happens, and that nothing happens that only happens if it happens.Finn's paintings are indeed "uncaused causes". And whether or not they're possible in reality, they're certainly possible in fiction. :)
I know that fixed time theorists say that this is possible under fixed time. I think they are wrong. In any case, if they are right, it should be that Finn will inevitably paint something, whether or not he sees what he is going to paint before he paints it.
And if they're possible in reality, nothing would be iterated. Fixed time would not have a "Finn will inevitably paint something" scenario. Original == Final.
Quantum Mechanics may explain some of it. There will be timelines were Finn paints nothing, a timeline where Finn paints A because he saw A in the photo, a timeline where Finn paints B because he saw B in the photo, and so on. Each has a probability, and Novikov's principle eliminates timelines with probability zero (e.g. the timeline where Finn paints B after seeing A in a photo). QM just randomly(?!) settles on a timeline based on the probabilities.
That seemingly arbitrary events and objects might be uncaused would be fun for physicists to tackle. We may determine the Big Bang was caused by a future time-travel event, making EVERYTHING in our universe uncaused. It makes some sense. share
OMG I am even more confused now than when I tried to make sense of the movie.
I thought they were seeing pictures of the future. So maybe I don't make sense but:
Jasper -
How is he posting the races on the window to be photographed with winning results if he is posting them today for a photograph that will depict tomorrow? I guess what I am asking is this -
If Friday 8pm I get a picture of what will happen at 8pm on Saturday, the how on Friday can I write down 1-2-3-4-5 as winning numbers? Wouldn't I have to choose those numbers and then see in the picture if I actually won or not? How would the picture change my numbers to winning numbers?
Finn -
Isn't the photo supposed to portray what he will be doing at 8pm 24 hours later. So if he saw the picture or not, wouldn't at 8pm that same picture be painted regardless. It was a photograph of his action at 8pm the next day in the future.
Or maybe like this - I want to paint something but I have a block, if my future shows me that I will paint a tree then wouldn't I paint a tree regardless if I saw the photo or not. I mean that is supposed to be a reflection of my actions or the results of my actions over the 24 hour period.
So if it is my future, whether I see it or not that is my future. Wouldn't I get inspired to paint the tree anyways? Maybe seeing the picture created an alternate universe because 1. he and the others used the future for financial gain so he altered his activities and 2. he no longer thought creatively because his creative side was manipulated by assuming it would be handed to him?
I still don't get how the notes in the window would change what already happened in the past. I get you could hang a note saying "don't get caught at the window" and alter your future but she was already caught at the window. How could seeing a picture of your future to not get caught change that he already caught her and had the conversation. If you could change it, then the money was real couldn't they have kept the money and put a note up to warn the man who owned the camera and change his death?
Sorry, you seem to understand this movie. So was this not actually 24 hours in the future they were seeing or was this some kind of "if you pose this way" this will be your future?
Jasper holds up the results of that days races at 8pm. The camera takes the picture and sends it back in time 24 hours. So Jasper gets the results of the next days races ahead of time, can bet on them, and win. He then just has to remember to holds up the results of that days races at 8pm.
But he clearly did remember to hold them up, since he got them the day before. :)
Finn never painted anything unless he saw it in a photo. So he wouldn't paint a tree if he got a photo showing a blank canvas. He only paints a tree if the photo shows that he had painted a tree.
The notes don't change the past. Nothing changes in this film, and changing the past is impossible. The photos always show what will happen, because it already has happened from the point of view of when the photo is taken.
My head is burning !!!
Alex Vojacek