It only has the unrealized potential of happening because of Older Hector having stab wounds.
It's not unrealized potential. He has the stab wounds because it has happened in one event. If older Hector did not stab, then he wouldn't have the stab wounds.
So this statement, In other words, because older Hector has the stab wounds, younger Hector who has not yet been stabbed must get stabbed in his chronological future is not true? How exactly is it not true?
The "must get". There is no separate must get. It happened in one event, the stabbing/getting stabbed, no lingering "must get".
The fact that "it happened in the same event", doesn't make that statement untrue.
It absolutely does.
That event has not yet happened chronologically
Before it happened, it has not yet happened. Once it happens, then it has happened. The single time. Hector doesn't get stab wounds until he is stabbed. This doesn't change just because you get to see older Hector out of normal position in time due to time travel.
- it only has the unrealized potential to happen because of H2's stab wounds.
No, it happened in one event. When it happens, it's a done deal. No "unrealized potential", just happened.
The aberration is Hector being positioned at the same event at two different ages.
Timecrimes is a completed, finalized story. So it can not be "any thing" that happens, it has to be consistent with "what happens". So based on the reasoning we're using, H1 has to be consistent with H2.
Sure, but why are you debating this? All this does it highlight the fact that you are trivially equating "what happened" with "must happen".
I am not just saying, I saw this happen in the movie, so it must be what happened
I can't read your previous quote any other way.
That is not trivial, because it has logical implications.
It must happen because "Timecrimes is a completed, finalized story", to me, is a trivial truth, logical implications or not.
Remember that viewers can be omniscient;
I don't in any way agree with this. The viewer is captive to whatever the writer wants to reveal, at whatever order or pace the writer wants to reveal it, and in whatever form the writer chooses to present it. Even when the writer misleads, as is done in Timecrimes.
The rest of the paragraph, to me, is again the trivial "what happened, happened".
No, it is meaningless to your argument, or your rebuttal to my argument;
No, it is meaningless to the point that you are trying to make. That Hector "must do" anything.
Remember, I'm saying Hector has to do things in order for the story to be consistent with itself based on the explanations we're using.
I remember. You can remember, that from my perspective there is no "have to". It is done in one event, no matter how the writer decides to reveal it to you.
I am not just saying, I saw this happen in the movie, so it must be what happened.
But, of course, I think that you are saying exactly that. You referenced as one of your arguments that "Timecrimes is a completed, finalized story". You even reference that "they could have already seen the movie".
I'm using an explanation of the events and characters (one timeline/universe-unchanging series of events, definition of H1 and H2) to describe what must happen for the story to be consistent.
Consitency is not argued. What you have been trying to argue is that Hector "must do" something, and that there is some "unrealized potential" before the event takes place. Not simple consistency of writing, which no one has debated.
That is not trivial, because it has logical implications.
Of course, I disagree.
Before Hector stabs his earlier self, there is no "must do", no "unrealized potential". If he stabs his earlier self in the single event, then he will be carrying the stab wounds. If he didn't then he wouldn't. In Timecrimes, he did do the stabbing, so he does carry the wounds.
Rabbit has already said the stabbing is a paradox.
You are still a thoroughgoing liar, a complete incompetent, or some combination of the two. No other reasonable conclusion to be had.
Again, (but only for some poor soul who unfortunately stumbles upon this thread and for anything longer than a millisecond gives anything you post even a mote of credence):
The stabbing is one of the consequences of the paradox. It is not the paradox itself.
The paradox is how Hector was in position to be able to steer himself into the time machine, when getting into the time machine was necessary for him to be in the position to do the steering.
=============================================================
ZOK STRAWMAN IMMUNITY LIST
(i.e. previous answers for the slow-witted sophist "teacher")
=============================================================
And now you are claiming that
"For A to be true, B must be true; for B to be true, A must be true"
is a circular dependency.
And you are a most reprehensible, but transparent, amateur, wanna-be, sophist.
For A to be
come true, B must
first be true; for B to be
come true, A must
first be true.
Correct?
No, your slimy, incompetent additional attempt at sophism is
incorrect.
============================================
You were asked to provide an example of time travel which did not contain the error which you say exists in TimeCrimes.
You came up with BillyBob.
You lie and slime with the same breath.
1) Billy-bob was a trivial response to your incredulous challenge to describe time-travel without a paradox.
2) no one but you have spoken of "errors" in Timecrimes.
=============================================================
Re difference between "one universe, one timeline" and "unchanging set of events", you refuse to answer, despite these being JP and Rabbit phrases respectively, not mine?
Hmmn, let's see...
Again you are confused, this is not my claim. I maintain there are as single set of unchanging events. Hector experiences that one set of events in one order, and the world experiences that same set of events in a different order. If by "timeline", you mean order that one experiences the events, then there were two. If by timeline you mean the set of events that happened, there was one. In any case there was one set of events, no duplicates, no do-overs.
I was crystal clear that you have to define what you mean by timeline.
-and-
Or perhaps you could just specify which you mean, asked back in January:
"If by "timeline", you mean order that one experiences the events," (two in Timecrimes)
-or-
"If by timeline you mean the set of events that happened" (one in Timecrimes).
Posted multiple times.
Lying is just part of your nature, isn't it?
=============================================================
You take it as a personal insult if someone asks you if the events are impossible or not.
I call you out when you lie and misreperesent, as you are doing here.
You are a liar.
It is not a personal insult, it is a genuine question.
I am not insulted by the question, but it is a moronic one.
But it also is another example of you trying to pull your slime again. Trying to suggest that there is/was an issue with a question, when in fact, as you well know, the issues are with your reprehensible methods.
Again, see the list below in your honor.
=============================================================
Are you standing by the claim that the non time travel example of the apple story contains a Causal Loop?
Are you standing by the claim that you are an idiot that perpetually tries to attribute words to people who have never expressed them?
Is that a "yes" or a "no"?
It was a "Are you standing by the claim that you are an idiot that perpetually tries to attribute words to people who have never expressed them?"
=============================================================
It is you bringing up a suggestion, saying it is so, saying I said it, and being thoroughly rejected.
============================================
I am saying that you have simply defined something to be a contradiction or inconsistency despite the fact that
i) the story works perfectly well
No one but you has suggested it doesn't - more of your amateur strawmen that you, yourself construct so that you can argue against. Obnoxious behavior.
ii) the story does not contradict itself and
Your pathetic attempt to frame in a bad connotation what is a feature of the movie - the paradox of how Hector first entered the time machine.
============================================
Then why do you keep coming up with said daft imaginings?
I am not the one claiming the writers left something out, as perthe movie shows us it happens. It does not tell us how it happened. Yes, time-travel is a precondition, but time travel alone is not enough to explain it. It just does happen. The how is left unexplained.
I am not the one claiming anything was "left out" either, no matter how many times you try your low characterization to try to make headway each time it is clear your "logic" is so deeply flawed.
As I've stated many times, the paradox of how Hector first entered the time machine is a feature of the movie - not something "omitted", or "left out". But keep spewing your distorted slant to try to slither some ground here where you fail miserably elsewhere.
And anyone who has even a tenuous grasp of what the word "paradox" means, knows that, by definition, they are not "explainable" (without your "magic").
============================================
As per (one of) Rabbit's claims:
TimeCrimes is said to contain an omission. ie it is said to leave out the explanation of "how" it happened. However, the BB story is said not to exhibit the same omission.
Again, you do your slime. Is it an "omission" because there wasn't an asteroid hitting earth in the movie Timecrimes? Is it an "omission" because there wasn't a talking chipmonk?
I've said multiple times that the paradox of how Hector entered the time machine is a feature of the film. But yet you still get in your base mischaracterization.
And do you really not get, that by their very nature, paradoxes do not have explanations?
============================================
You/Rabbit can try to divert attention to whether a "paradox" is a negative thing or not.
Let's expand a little the list of your "objective phrasings that in no way attempt to equate the paradox with a negative":
"the writers left something out"
"said to contain an omission"
"Your rule is "Circularity is not allowed."
"So what is the objection to what the movie did show?"
"logical inconsistency or plothole"
"Yes, I know you think that TimeCrimes contains a paradox because you think there is no logical explanation for one or more aspects of the plot."
"Even after you have made dozens of posts in this thread (hundreds over all) saying that you dont understand how the events occurred,"
"You have said it omits something, and I disagree.
"J: I would use "paradox" instead of "contradiction."
Thoughout the thread, you have been arguing there is a logical contradiction in the movie.
Are you now withdrawing all those claims?"
"Are you saying that the author's 'vision of time travel in the movie' worked or did not work?"
"I, of course, am saying that it worked."
"i) the story works perfectly well"
"ii) the story does not contradict itself and"
"Timecrimes works fine for me."
"I am not the one claiming the writers left something out, as per"
"Where did it contradict itself?"
"TimeCrimes is said to contain an omission."
What a thorough and shameless liar you are.
============================================
If you now argue that later Hector was not the cause of earlier Hector getting into the time machine in the first place, then there is of course, an impasse. You can't even start considering the paradox.
So, if that is your position, then we just have to agree to disagree. You say no cause, I say cause.
============================================
Your demand:
If we swap the names Hector and Diego, do you make the same claim re Diego's story or not?
My reply:
Do you make a claim that older Diego was the cause of younger Diego getting into position to allow the older Diego to do the causing in the first place?
============================================
Yeah. Say I send my stopwatch back 30 years. I then go to the location where I sent it to. If I find it there, and the timer shows it has been running for 30 years, then how is that a paradox?
By itself it isn't a logical paradox. But it's also not analogous to what happened in TimeCrimes.
A more apt example would be that you turned on a time machine and your stopwatch came flying out and smacked you in the head. The impact causes you to bump the controls to set them back 10 seconds from the present, and then in anger, you hurl your watch at the time machine. Your watch disappears to travel 10 seconds in the past to whack your earlier self in the head...
============================================
There was nothing to add to the running track example. It was a valid analogy, in my opinion. You replied that there was no time travel in it, and so it was not a useful comment, in your opinion. What else is there to say?
Here's the exchange, pinocchio.
Imagine a runner who is out for a jog. On his jog, he comes across a 400m running track. He decides to run on the track. He does 400m, which brings him back where he started. He then does another 400m, which brings him back where he started again, he then leaves the track before completing another circuit. He continues his jog.
Your track example has no circular dependency, as in, it doesn't require that the runner already be on the track in order for him to be able to get onto the track in the first place.
Not a peep from you on it after that. Off instead to the next 2000+ word posts of irrelevant new stories, fatuous lists, gross mischarictarizations, bizarre naval gazing, panicked recruitment attempts, outright lying, and just plain reprehensible and amateur argumentation.
============================================
For Younger Hector, B happened at 0:30. A had not happened yet for Younger Hector. So it is not the case that A happened first for him.
For Clara, B happened at 0:30. A had not happened yet for Clara. So it is not the case that A happened first for her.
For Older Hector, B happened at 1:30. For him A happened at 0:59. So for him A first happens.
Hector is one person, not two. In order for the one Hector to be in the spot to be able to steer himself into the time machine, he would have had to already have (in his timeline) gotten in the time machine. Circular, paradoxical, and fun! on its face.
============================================
In order to start his journey, Hector had to have already started his journey. This is a logical paradox.
============================================
Absolutely not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the how the older Hector got into position to be able to influence the younger Hector is the paradox - the "got into position", not "the influence". Once he is in position, he absolutely does influence the younger version of himself - hence the "steering".
============================================
The point is the causality, which is distinct from the chronology. Earlier Hector getting into the machine (action A) is dependent on later Hector first (sequentially) steering earlier Hector to get into the time machine (action B). But action B (the steering) is dependent on Action A (the getting in the time machine) happening first (sequentially).
So, A cannot happen unless B first happens (sequentially, from Hector's perspective, not chronologically, from the world's perspective).
And B cannot happen unless A first happens (sequentially, from Hector's perspective, not chronologically, from the world's perspective).
It is a paradox of the most basic kind. The movie shows us it happens. It does not tell us how it happened. Yes, time-travel is a precondition, but time travel alone is not enough to explain it. It just does happen. The how is left unexplained.
============================================
If you accept (on a fictional basis) that time travel is possible, then time travel itself (in this fictional universe) does not have to create a paradox. It can allow paradoxes to be set up, but it does not require them.
Why not give an example of time travel with no paradox.
Here's one of an infinite number of examples.
"Billy-bob purchases a time machine from eBay, sets the dial back 5 billion years, hops in, fires it up, an promptly suffocates in empty space. Some time in the next half-billion years or so the time machine and Billy-Bob's remains are atomized by cosmic events."
============================================
Thread continued from -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480669/board/thread/200854732
reply
share