The scene is definitely there to imply some sort of pre-destination
Or it's just another red herring in a film with many red herrings.
A looper always running his loop is not nearly enough to cause such a coincidence in Sid's fate two times around. This needs almost identical reality with only minor alterations, not the case here.
The butterfly effect is extremely overrated in a Many Worlds system. If there are infinite timelines, they are always happening and "change" is simply an illusion caused by conflicting reference points. A bias brought by the Traveler (prescient observer; audience(film))
Let us imagine three persons Alice, Bob and Carol. They independently decide to go for a drive to a secluded location. Their paths intersect in the location in such a way that Carol, driving her bike gets cornered between Bob's and Alice's SUV's and she dies in a tragic and one of a kind accident. Had Alice or Bob took just a couple of seconds more to get there it wouldn't have happened.
I agree. Now expand that to an infinite matrix of A(s), B(s), and C(s). There would be the unfolding you describe along with an infinite amount of near- and far-neighboring realities that break every notion of sameness.
In Many Worlds, there isn't any time-traveling at all. Per se. The traveler is simply moving to a timeline that lags theirs AND is still near-neighboring enough in that their data-set from prior-timeline still applies.
Now, a time traveler named David emerges several days prior the accident with the sole intention to beat the crap out of Bob, putting him in hospital (because reasons). He succeeds.
Now we expect Carol to survive, right? Wrong!
"Looper" claims a reality in which the Universe (being the bitch she is) alters the events following David's arrival in such a way, that even though Bob no longer goes for a drive (his past has changed from his POV) Carol still dies.
David substitutes Bob as a catalyst for Carol's death and (for reason's unknown, method unknown, physical explanation unknown) somehow ends up on the exact same location, in the exact same time with very similar vehicle to cause Carol's death.
That smells like pre-destination (and not Many Worlds) re-Carol, but not re-Bob? It doesn't make sense, they are both local to that Universe. David can not possibly cause Carol's death (in a very, very similar way no less) with odds any greater than one in googleplex.
Yet "Looper" claims that reality.
Self-consistency interferes and the MACRO(death) is still met even after the MICRO(catalyst) is changed. How ever impossible, The Self-consistency Principle is a framework for explaining the impossible/paradoxical.
monotubular timeflow (no micro or macro change, ever. pristine arrow of time.)
polytubular timeflow (all change allowed, big and small. infinite arrow(s).)
I don't think 'Looper' claims anything other than providing us patchwork of clues to investigate.
1. OLD SETH killed OLD OLD SETH, why? because he exits the fold with all his limbs and that suggests he closed his loop on time (but we don't learn of this until ABE's mutilation contingency and the tethering between two SETH(s)).
2. YOUNG SETH fails to kill OLD SETH, first confirmed flux in our Audience_Now relative to an unfilmed OLD OLD SETH loop (that we can safely assume was closed).
3. Nothing new was created. There were always these (2) Timelines and in many ways, they were always going to intersect precisely at the OLD/YOUNG SETH running loop scenario we see play out, but only in this Audience_Now. And still within the Parent Loop, controlled by OLD ABE.
4. There doesn't seem to be ANY Free Will within the Open Loop. Kill your prescient double or else OLD ABE kills it for you. But given response theory testing on subconscious minds, we're close to proving Free Will is an illusion in our Real Life (only observable Temporal Reality) as well.
5. It appears OLD ABE has Free Will, but this too might be an illusion.
Many Worlds may be linear from local POV, but since the past can and do change in "Looper", we as an audience (non local) see a repetition of an outcome that has no base to arise from, given the rules of "Looper"'s universe.
[quote]
Change is only relative (useful) to Prescient Observers from conflicting timelines. And in the sheer beauty that is time-travel cinema, the Audience itself becomes Prescient upon rewatch. It's way you MUST watch 'Primer' more than once. Or even 'Looper.'
[quote]
"The past can be changed" say the rules.
Then " The past can't be changed for some entities (Sid), even though they face the same if not bigger disturbance in circumstances and are located within the same reality"
Well, the truth of Cid getting shot in the jaw (or worse) gave rise to the legacy of The Rainmaker in a future left behind. "I heard he has a synthetic jaw!" Well, yes, because often Loopers and even Gatmen(jessie) are shooting at him. With so many bullets in his life and a violent blood-sprinkler super-power, how is Cid's jaw injury (butterfly effect or not) even coincidental given this framework?
I think you're saying it's impossible for Cid's jaw to still be damaged by bullets. I think it's more highly unlikely it ISN'T at some point damaged by bullets.
Enjoy these words, for one day they'll be gone... All of them.
reply
share
osualdo
8 years ago
Whether it's a red herring or not doesn't make that much of a difference in that instance.
If it's not a red herring that's bad - inconsistent rules.
If it is a red herring that's bad too - illogical stuff thrown out there for no reason and with no basis in the film's reality.
Self-consistency and being able to change past (some sort of Many Worlds) in the same Universe/Multiverse is a contradiction. You either can or can not alter the timeline.
If it's Many Worlds of some sort, then everything that could happen, would happen and is always happening. But that leaves out the (non)branches that could not possibly happen - something some theorists tend to forget.
If it's a single timeline then Self-consistency must apply to avoid paradoxes. And you can't change the past. It always happens the only way it does happen.
If you try and combine both for some sort of new time-travel interpretation it just doesn't work on basic logical level.
In "Looper" you kind of have both because of lazy writing and that ought to be pointed out and not justified by all means.
Free will seems to exist quite obviously in "Looper". OJ changes his loop and YJ annihilates it after we get to see a completely different outcome in the previous iteration. So their free will changes stuff. One iteration plays one way - done. Next iteration plays differently - done. The next iteration will play even more differently. And so on. We are in a Many Worlds of some sort or an ever changing single flow without Self-consistency Principle (unlikely, paradoxes occur all the time, but hey it's a movie and not very well written after all).
Cid getting shot in the jaw only "confirms" the info OJ have about the RM from his own future - the previous iteration only(the one when OOJ is killed on schedule).
It doesn't confirm anything beyond that. No legacy from iterations before that can lead to rumors about RM in that specific iteration.
Yes, I'm saying it's impossible for Cid's jaw to still be damaged by bullets the exact same way as the previous iteration and previous iteration only. Not all iterations (all possible worlds)
We are talking about those two iterations only, because nothing that has happened beyond that is relevant in the context of the film.
We (the audience)are the prescient, sentient non-local observer and we get to judge everything from that POV.
And from that point of view the self-consistency implied in the end makes no sense at all.
The circumstances (or the two worlds if you like) are vastly different in regards to Sid. The likelihood of him getting shot the same way is exceptionally small to the point where including that scene has to be viewed as either plain ridiculous ignorance in both law of probability (by the way, The Butterfly Effect is only the Law of probabilities and physical laws at work, nothing dramatic or exaggerated about it) and rules that govern a physical reality close to our own, or lazy writing.
It was lazy writing. The writer just goes ahead and writes this scene to make a "cool" ending and draw a parallel between two branches which can't possibly have those specifics (Sid's fate) in common, because he's heard/seen other movies about Self-consistency and totally forgets(doesn't understand/doesn't care) this breaks his own rules established earlier.
It's like a branch in Many Worlds which has reality in which when you perform a real Schrödinger's cat experiment, every time you open the box instead of a cat you find a bowl of petunias and a note which reads:
"HhhhhhrrrrrraaaaaaHHHHHH!
You know what you've done?
You've only gone and killed me again!"
I mean, it probably can be justified in some magical world of Many Worlds, but who cares?
Including that scene undermines the rules established before, whether a red herring or not.
__________________
C0ntinue the joke.
reply
share
rainofwalrus
8 years ago
Whether it's a red herring or not doesn't make that much of a difference in that instance.
If it's not a red herring that's bad - inconsistent rules.
If it is a red herring that's bad too - illogical stuff thrown out there for no reason and with no basis in the film's reality.
A red herring's purpose is to confuse, befuddle. Nesting a recursive red herring within not one but two (ABE+Looper()) Temporal Folds is a good thing on principle alone. It provides clues and false clues long after the credits roll. To each his own I suppose.
Self-consistency and being able to change past (some sort of Many Worlds) in the same Universe/Multiverse is a contradiction. You either can or can not alter the timeline.
Or, the timeline is organic to tell. And like our wounds heal, rips in the timeline heal. And by "rip" I mean the causal cul de sac that is a Running Loop. Maybe "healing" is nothing more than
time and
pressure anyway. So Looper is trying to show how what you say is unlikely would be regulated.
Or Looper could just fade to black when SETH runs as the paradoxical defeats all of time and life. Poof. Roll credits on this short-film.
If it's Many Worlds of some sort, then everything that could happen, would happen and is always happening. But that leaves out the (non)branches that could not possibly happen - something some theorists tend to forget.
Agreed. There would be frequency of "running loops." And if the majority of loops are closed. One might posit that a running Now() is the ONLY true Now(). That of free will.
But the trouble with Many Worlds is proof within such an abstract system of systems.
Even if you and I travel back and cannot changed the past, that isn't entirely proof against Many Worlds as we could be in a brane where we always exit before we entered and made said changes and still get in later, pristine. Closed Loop. One in a million other closed loops in our Many Worlds.
If it's a single timeline then Self-consistency must apply to avoid paradoxes. And you can't change the past. It always happens the only way it does happen.
If you try and combine both for some sort of new time-travel interpretation it just doesn't work on basic logical level.
Self-consistency requires some basic logic work-arounds (aka. magic) as well. It's a theory of nesting your alibis. How can we make it Now() possible. And we're back to running or closed loops.
In "Looper" you kind of have both because of lazy writing and that ought to be pointed out and not justified by all means.
Lazy writing? Maybe only when Old Joe goes Rambo I on that ass. That scene practically writes itself, no?
But seriously, time travel fiction's internal logic, which is fuzzy, cannot be weaponized and used to strike down poor 'Looper' like some three legged dog. IMO, Looper doesn't even fly all that loose with its rules, your rules, and hell, BTTF's rules.
Lazy writing is "oh, maybe it's all a dream?"
Looper exceeded all my expectations so color me an apologist.
Enjoy these words, for one day they'll be gone... All of them.
reply
share