MovieChat Forums > Outlander (2014) Discussion > They didn't think of the further implica...

They didn't think of the further implications of the time travel paradox

posted 4 years ago by Erland (30)
12 replies | jump to latest

(Spoiler for Episode 6, Season 2)

Claire persuades Jamie to cancel the duel against Black Jack Randall, and wait at least a year to kill him, until his child, Frank's ancestor, is conceived, in order for Frank to be born.
She justifies this by saying that she doesn't want to kill an innocent man, Frank, by preventing him from being born, and she has a hard time to convince Jamie about that.

But she didn't think of a much better argument, at least by Jamie's point of view: If Frank is never born, then he can't marry Claire, and not take her to Scotland and she would never go to the rocks and pass through time and never meet Jamie. So she could tell Jamie that if Jack Randall doesn't get a son, then she wouldn't be with him.
This would have been a much more persuasive argument for Jamie, don't you think so?

[–] strntz (12454) 4 years ago

Stop thinking fourth-dimensionally!!!

Since time travel is impossible, we can only go either on our imaginations, *or*, what the writers have decided what actual physical laws control time travel.

Let's say that Jamie does create a paradox by preventing Frank's ancestor to be born by killing Black Jack. Will Cleh fade away like Marty McFly did when his parents were prevented from meeting or would she be "protected" and just stay where she was since she was actually transported back in time?

[–] Ziggy (1802) 4 years ago

They were both just being emotional. Jamie wanted revenge. Claire wanted him to wait, so she just spouted out the first reason she thought of. Your reason is more convincing, but you never know. Fate might have found a different reason for her to be in the right place at the right time to find a Jamie.

[–] Erland (30) 4 years ago

No, Claire was really determined that Frank should be born. Recall that she also tried to prevent Mary Hawkins from marrying Alex Randall, since she must be married to Jack Randall for Frank to be born (so she totally sacrificed this poor girls happiness in allowing her to marry that beast).

[–] Ziggy (1802) 4 years ago

I don't think what you said and what i said are mutually exclusive.

You can Claire are both working under the premise that what already happened in history (the history that Claire read about before she knew about the stones) could be changed or altered by Claire having traveled back through the stones. What if the history she read about included her? What if everything that she did had already happened by the time she was born?

[–] strntz (12454) 4 years ago

What if the history she read about included her? What if everything that she did had already happened by the time she was born?

Excellent point, and many sci-fi writers have used those "laws of physics" in their stories. Again, depends on the writer's perspective of what time travel would entail.

There was an original series Star Trek that used that premise. I don't know the name of the episode but it was about the Enterprise going back in time by accident and stumbling upon a plot to destroy a U.S. nuclear missile launch in the late 60s. There they run into a human with technology that was not only not from the 60s, but was superior to the Enterprise technology. Was this human a time traveler or alien trying to change Earth history or help the Earth? Turns out that the way it played out was the way it was supposed to: the Enterprise going back in time was already part of the past.

[–] moviechatterer (15777) 4 years ago

I think Claire wanted Frank to be born not only because she might not have gone back in time , but because she didnt want Frank to be "killed" (not born)

Also , if the history she already knew included herself in it , it would have been impossible for Jamie or her to kill black jack , which is where paradoxes get weird.

Its something they think about later when they find out how Jamie dies

[–] strntz (12454) 4 years ago

Did you also notice that nothing Jamie and Cleh did to change the future had any effect at all?

[–] moviechatterer (15777) 4 years ago

maybe thats because the history they remembered was already a result of them being in the past messing around ..
like Strntz said

[–] strntz (12454) 4 years ago

maybe thats because the history they remembered was already a result of them being in the past messing around ..

Exactly. How would anyone know what to do when anything does immediately changes your memory?

That's why time travel stories are both fun and frustrating. Different writers treat things differently. In Back To The Future, Marty remembers his original timeline and doesn't remember his dad being an executive or his mother not being a drunk after he changed the past..

[–] Keelai (34972) 4 years ago

I just watched an episode in which Claire said she couldn't change the main event like preventing the Jacobites losing the war, but was able to save some people who originally died.

[–] Erland (30) 4 years ago

After watching all of seasons 1 and 2, it is now clear to me that the type of time travel intended by the film makers is "causal loops" (or "closed loops"), which means that it is impossible to change the past. All types of interventions which may cause a a paradox fail, events seem to conspire to eliminate the paradox. Claire and Jamie tried in lots and lots of ways to prevent the battle of Culloden from happening, or to change its outcome, but they failed whatever they did.

But what philosophy of time travel did Claire and Jamie subscribe to? They probably were not aware of all the intricacies of time travel, most of these were explored in science fiction and theoretical physics after 1945, but it seems that they intuitively believed, or hoped, that they could make some changes of the past, without changing the entire course of history and events which seem unrelated to the change: They tried to prevent the battle of Culloden, but they didn't think this would prevent Claire and Frank to be born in the 20th century, for example.
This means that they didn't believe in the "butterfly effect" (if they would ever think along these lines): that e.g. the wingbeats of butterfly in Australia may cause a storm in Sweden a month later.

[–] Tinkse7en (64) 4 years ago

The "they" you speak of is actually Diana Gabaldon, the author of the source books. In Book 1, the time travel bit was but a small part: it was a literary device meant to bring the interesting 'fish out of water' theme to the story. Did she paint herself into a corner for future books? Perhaps a bit, but also opened up fascinating avenues of thought about destiny, pre determination, & fate.
Reliance on logic & strict obedience to science is a futile occupation in reading/watching tales like this: just sit back, suspend disbelief, & go with the flow!