Temporal anomalies discussions inspire questions, and the e-mail bag and comments sections have been filling, so it's time to answer one. Somewhere around the fourth installment of our series on Primer, Tim E. Sham, author of The Primer Universe, sent an e-mail raising what he perceived as a significant question about the film, what he referred to as "the disappearing Abe", or "the Houdini Abe". In response to inquiry, he explained, "The Houdini Abe is the Abe that enters the U-Haul at 3 pm while Abe and Aaron watch with the binoculars. Essentially, he is said to 'disappear' from the timeline."
There actually is no problem with this "Houdini Abe"; his existence and disappearance as a temporal duplicate are completely necessary under the replacement theory of time, the theory which best explains most time travel stories, and also completely necessary under other theories of time.
Under replacement theory, Abe lived through the day and at the end of the day took his knowledge of the stock market closings and his air tank and traveled back to that morning. As he emerges from the time machine, it has just been started because he, Abe, was there fifteen minutes before to set the timer. The Abe who just started the time machine hopped into the car and headed for the hotel, and the Abe who just emerged from the time machine calls a cab and heads downtown, first to buy his stocks and then to find Aaron and tell him what he has discovered. All day there are two Abes in the world, one with Aaron and the other at the hotel. The one at the hotel leaves in time to get his oxygen tank and enter the time machine. He emerges in the morning, and becomes the "second" Abe. It is essential to the time travel story that he do so, or he cannot exist as the second Abe.
This is much the same for the fixed time theory: if time cannot be changed, then we must assume that Abe traveling to the past has always happened, and that while Abe was hiding in the hotel he was also downtown talking to Aaron. In this case there was no "original" version of history that Abe altered by traveling to the past, but simply two Abes in the world all day, one of whom leaves to become the other for what is for him the second run. He could not not do so.
Parallel dimension theory gives us a slightly different outcome in theory, but one that is the same in perception. In this case, when Abe left the future, he arrived in the past of another universe in which there was already another Abe, one who was exactly like him in every particular that morning and who was planning to do exactly what he did. Late that afternoon that Abe climbs into the time machine, which moves him in his turn to another dimension, where there is another Abe planning to do the same thing. In whatever we consider the prime universe, Abe climbed into a box and vanished from the world forever; but he created a cascading effect in which in every other universe an Abe arrives in the morning (from another universe) and another departs in the evening (to another universe), and so that other Abe is not a problem. It is more complicated in divergent dimension theory, because the Abe who leaves from the second universe ought to create a universe which diverges from the one from which he came, and in that universe there is already an Abe arriving from the future when he does; however, the first time traveler would not have this experience.
Although there may be other theories of time travel, these are the ones commonly referenced in time travel discussions. It would be much more difficult if there was not a second Abe who entered the storage unit and vanished forever.
There are more questions to come, but also more movie analyses, including Bender's Big Score, so stay with us.
Comments
Thanks for addressing this issue. I actually, did not ask a question. I stated that I thought you did not understand this issue fully and encouraged you to either examine this issue or read The Primer Universe.
You state, "(the) second Abe .. entered the storage unit and vanished forever." This statement could be true based on what we see in the film. However, you as well as Abe, are making an assumption that this Abe had exactly the identical experience as the Abe who exited the box at 9 am and is watching the U-Haul with Aaron. This issue is identified by Abe when Aaron has his cell phone. Should Aaron enter the box at 3 pm with the phone, if they believe that Aaron exited already at 9am with it? How can they possibly insure symmetry? The phone call also has them wondering how the timelines function. Are they sequential, parallel, or more of an overlap (the new timeline melds in with the previous)? The proof lies in the Granger day, where you drew the wrong conclusion.
Keep at it.
I disagree with your assertion that "Replacement Theory" is "the theory which best explains most time travel stories". Of all the theories I find that "Divergent dimension" to be the most general model and can be used to explain the events in a story created with any of the other models:
"Fixed-Time" becomes a Steady-state of the divergent dimensions in the multiverse, and replacement is just focusing on the current branch, ignoring the other branches.
The only "hurdle" in accepting the divergent dimensions is accepting the idea of the multiverse, where we accept that reality can and does create a new diverging dimension at every decision-point. If we accept the multiverse, then the time-travel does not create the branch, it just allows the traveler to leave his universe and re-enter at an earlier point in the timeline. Upon re-entry, it is the multiverse that creates the new timeline. One is changed with the addition of a duplicate and the other proceeding as before.
I want to thank both of you for your comments.
Tim, I have read your book and have found several problems with it; I am contemplating whether, when, and how to address those in a column which is properly about the time travel within the movies, and have resisted the temptation to do a full critique, but it is on my list of "questions" to answer in the future.
Steve, I'm also planning to write more about divergent dimension theory as an alternate explanation for Primer. Let me attempt a brief response here. Assuming Abe 1 initiated an alternate dimension at 9AM, and Abe 2 is headed for 9AM when he leaves that afternoon, logically Abe 2 must arrive at 9AM as it was in his universe--which is the universe in which Abe 1 already arrived at that time. Thus there would be two Abes popping out of the box at 9AM in that world. Arguably we are not looking at that world, but at some point divergent dimension theory leads to these conclusions.
Thanks again.
--M. J. Young
Mark,
Thanks for the comments. I don't see the issue with your example. As I see it, I see the universes differently than you seem to.
The initial Abe (Abe1) turns on the machine at 9AM. No one exits it as there are no future Abe that exist yet. At 2PM, Abe1 enters the machine and travels back in time and when he exits at 9AM, his exit creates the new timeline, identical to timeline1 up until this branch point.
Thus Abe2 turns on the machine, and at 9AM Abe1 exits the box into Timeline2. When Abe2 enters the box at 2PM he will create and exit in Timeline3.
There are no multiple exits in this theory, each one enters into the next divergent timeline. Timeline1 is missing its Abe, as each Abe goes into the next timeline in sequence and the "mass balance" of total Abes in the multiverse remains constant: there is 1 Abe for each timeline, though they will not always be in their own timeline
Mark,
BTW:
I have read Tim's blog and I think you claiming that you "have found several problems with it" to be putting it very kindly.
[If you are interested there is a review (though not really a "critique") of the book at the Primer fan board: primerfan.resisty.com/index.php?tid=42&pid=268]
Steve--
I will get back to this; but I'm starting another film this week, so it will be a while. Meanwhile, thank you for your comments. I think your view of the additional dimensions is more consistent with pure parallel dimension theory than with divergent dimension theory, but I'll cover them eventually.
--M. J. Young
Mark,
Thanks for the comments.
I see the difference in divergent dimension and the pure parallel dimensions are what creates the dimension and the limitations of the travel between the dimensions. In the pure parallel theory (I think of the old TV Series Sliders) there is no constraint on the travel per se and it is really not travel in time (unless for some reason the parallel dimensions are not progressing at the same rate).
In divergent dimentions the change is caused by the addition of the new person and any travel forward or backward is linked to this new timeline created.
Sorry I didn't see this sooner.
Exactly right; two quick points.
You note, "any travel forward or backward is linked to this new timeline created." Yes, and in that timeline traveler already arrived at the point of divergence, so another traveler going to that same time will duplicate himself.
And the purest form of parallel dimension theory is unlike Sliders (great show, great example) in that all the universes are identical until a traveler from one to another creates differences. As a time travel theory, it suggests that the traveler is moving both sideways and forwards/backwards. See the theory article on parallel dimension theory for more.
--M. J. Young
Oh--and the article on sideways time, too, I think.
--M. J. Young
You note: "in that timeline traveler already arrived at the point of divergence, so another traveler going to that same time will duplicate himself."
But my take on the divergent theory is that someone else went to a similar divergent point in a different dimension. I see the simplification of the model as a tree with branches, but the reality is that the new timelines are complete from beginning to end are are truly "parallel" (they do not cross at all).
You wrote: "And the purest form of parallel dimension theory is ...all the universes are identical until a traveler from one to another creates differences."
For me the multiverse exists whether time travel is possible or is not, they are just alternate quantum realities (a good example is the Star Trek Next Gen episode "Parallels" which seems to be a slight change in premise from the original, DS9, and Enterprise which suggest 1 Alternate "Mirror Univers") I see the differences as more than from time travel but of anything that is possible (flipping a coin to create 2 possibilities, folling a die to create 6, etc) [A way to eliminate the paradoxes of Quantum theory]
You wrote: "As a time travel theory, it suggests that the traveler is moving both sideways and forwards/backwards." I see the travel as all different. There is travel in time (forward/ backward) and there is travel between dimensions. There is travel in space, which is required as well for most time travel stories, but not required for travel between dimensions)
Anyway, thanks for the discussion as well as all your articles on this site and especially your time travel website!
[PS I hope I am not annoying you with this continued discussion]
You are certainly not annoying me; Internet writing shares a feature with radio (a previous occupation of mine), in that you wonder whether anyone is really "out there", and although I do get traffic reports, I'm only told how many are reading my articles generally, not which articles they're reading, so comments on particular articles is helpful. Of course, answering three posts in one is challenging, but maybe I can do it in two.
You seem to be blurring two distinct concepts. On the one hand, you have universes always existing in parallel; on the other, they diverge from each other at each point of possible divergence. As the divergent dimension theory article suggests, that's a very large number of universes. Notably, though, this vast number of universes must have existed, along with exponentially more for the divergences that will be created today (how many dice will be rolled?)
--M. J. Young
I certainly understand the concept of nearly infinite dimensions diverging from each other--I co-wrote Multiverser: The Game, in which that is a core concept of reality. However, when people put forward parallel dimensions as a theory of time travel, they generally require that all such dimensions must be identical until altered by an outside force or agent, thus a time traveler. Absent this restriction, you have Sliders, but you do not have anything like time travel. I think the parallel dimension theory of time travel is wrong, and am inclined to think that if there are multiple dimensions they are much more different than we think; but I also question whether there is genuine quantum randomness or merely causality outside our ability to observe. Genuine quantum randomness seems to be a problem for most time travel theories; but since time travel is still theoretical, perhaps it is impossible.
--M. J. Young
I am glad I am not annoying you (and I hope other readers feel the same way. And I appreciate the discussion.
you wrote: "You seem to be blurring two distinct concepts. On the one hand, you have universes always existing in parallel; on the other, they diverge from each other at each point of possible divergence."
I don't see them as blurred. I see the multiverse made up of parallel (non-intersecting dimensions). At some points they can be modeled (based on perspective) as a branch.
Picture a 2D model: a piece of paper with a Y-shaped path on it. An ant can go from the bottom of the Y and take the right or left fork.
In the multiverse theory I it akin to being parallel in the 3rd D. One one sheet of paper there is the bottom part of hte Y and the left fork. On another sheet of paper there is the bottom segment and the right fork.
Looking at the 3D you see the parallel edges of the paper. From the top they overlay to look like a Y instead of 2 "half-Ys".
I see the multiverse and the timetravel as different concepts. But I happen to accept multiverse and the exponentially high number of universes as part of "reality" so include it in the discussion.
I use that acceptance to explain timetravel partly to eliminate the mass/energy conservation paradox inherent in timetravel as well as the cause/effect issues.
I see nothing in timetravel to inherently require identical past, except that I presume the timetraveler travels along a timeline (in time and space) and thus stays on his "sheet of paper" (to use the allusion from earlier post) and a dimension-traveler travels across dimensions (but same time and same space, different sheets of paper). The dimensioner could find vastly different pasts and futures and alternate timelines.
The timetraveler can thus change the shape of the path on his sheet so in appearance it no longer looks like the sheet he was on and can not get back to it unless he can dimension travel.
An item on you website: You have the descriptions and Titles of the movies "Next" and "Premonition" reversed.
"Premonition" is "Sandra Bullock's other time travel movie". "Next" is where Nicolas Cage's character "can see a few seconds into the future and change what is about to happen"
As a fan of the movie and the book, I must say I disagree with your assesment of the film. You are entitled to an opinion, but when you claim to 'understand' events as impossible; then, you should question your depth of understanding not the writer's. As such, I feel your explanation is rather invalid. It comes across that you don't like the film because it doesn't fit your expectations and it seems you hated the whole Thomas Granger episode. The book answers that well.
If you dismiss the film, I doubt the book will make much sense to you since it harmonizes with what Carruth filmed and hid in the story itself. Some people question the origin of the fungus, but most fans agree with the explanation in the book. To me and many others, the controversy is over. The book has withstood all of its detracters barrages.
I wouldn't waste time with Next, its all a dream. Premonition involves an alternate universe more than time travel. Time Crimes is more of an action version of Primer.
Thanks for the points on Premonition and Next; I've not yet viewed either, so it's easy to confuse them.
Steve, if time travel involves changing the design on the present sheet of paper, then the fact that there are other dimensions becomes irrelevant and we're dealing with some form of replacement theory. This is why I think you're blurring distinctions: either we changed history in this universe, or we changed history in another pre-existing universe, or we created a new universe diverging from a point in our past. You seem to have all three happening simultaneously, and I can't quite grasp how that works.
--M. J. Young
Brian, thanks for your comment. If by "the book" you mean The Primer Universe by Tim Sham, my first impression is that quite a bit of it is devoted to bragging about how he solved the puzzle. I am very impressed with his marshaling of the clues, but considerably less so with the conclusions. Concerning the "Granger Incident", Sham says that the important point is that A&A realize that they are "in the past" because Granger had to have come from "the present"; this is silly. If time travel is possible, then "present", "past", and "future" are relative terms. The future must exist as much as the past, in some sense, and the present is wherever we are on the timeline "now". What matters about Granger is that there had to be a reason to reveal the boxes to him, and that tells us something about what happened in the boys' future.
--M. J. Young
I don't see the change occuring on the piece of paper, If it did I agree that would be replacement theory. I see the timetraveler entering the piece of paper as creating a new piece of paper (just like flipping a coin will create one). From the perspective of the traveler it may appear to be replacement time, but it is not from a more multi-dimensional perspective.
I don't see it as "blurring distinctions" but as having a consistent general model to explain "reality" which could include stories which seem to be fixed-time, replacement-time, parallel dimension time, or even just dimenstional travel. I prefer a general model over a specific model for specific stories.
Mark wrote: "either we changed history in this universe, or we changed history in another pre-existing universe, or we created a new universe diverging from a point in our past."
Or we create a new universe that is identical in its past to some universe and is different from that point in the future. From one limited perspective it looks like a universe that is diverging, from another it is a whole new sheet of paper.
It is like what I mentioned before. Imagine a coin flip. From the perspective of the man getting a "head" or the man getting the "tail" it is a straight line from past in the future. From another perspective (edge view) they are just 2 parallel sheets of paper, from still another it looks like an obtuse angle (bottom of Y and the left branch) on 1 sheet and the mirror image (bottom of Y and the left branch) on another sheet. From an overhead perspective the bottoms overlap and it appears as a "Y".
O.K., Steve, I understand what you are saying; but I think it comes to the same problem as a divergent dimension--the universe is created as it exists up to and including the instant of the arrival of the time traveler; that instant includes the arrival of a time traveler already, so we have two arrivals simultaneously.
At least, that's the way it looks to me. In order for the other traveler not to arrive, this one would have to arrive "first", and that means he has to get here sooner; but the concept says that they arrive at the same instant, and thus the second arrival cannot really undo the first.
--M. J. Young
But when I flip a coin I don't see another copy of me nor when I roll a die do I see 5 other copies.
The multi-verse takes care of this aspect of it...
I don't see the new person "undoing" anything: what happened in his past will still happen just as he remembers only on a separate sheet of paper (the future line on that sheet was already written). The paper he is now on, has no "future line" from where he was to where he now is, and he will be part of the creation of the line. It can be similar, but never identical (his very presence is a difference), to the line that has already been drawn or it can be dramatically different.
Sheet1 has no time traveler (the original timeline) in that original path. Sheet2 has the traveler and the original from that sheet.
I do get it, Steve. Here's the part I don't get.
Steve leaves from 2010 and arrives in 2000. There is another Steve already at 2000, so there are now two Steves existing at that moment in 2000, the older Steve who came from 2010 and the younger Steve who never left.
If when 2010 arrives the younger Steve does not leave for 2000, does that affect the past, or not? Now more difficult, if he does leave 2010 for 2000, presumably when he arrives he is on sheet 3--but is sheet 3 a copy of sheet 2 (from which he left) or sheet 1 (the presumed original)? If it's a copy of sheet 2, you have to explain why older Steve is not also arriving at that moment (which is part of sheet 2); if sheet 1, why it's not sheet 2.
--M. J. Young
I apologize. WIth the character limits this will take multiple posts.
Post1.
Imagine a line on sheet of paper representing Steve's life (the line being a 1 dimensional projection of a multidimension: location, time, etc). The line has a particular form on the sheet from his birth to the year 2000.
On Sheet1, Steve1 is living and his lifeline now extends from the birth to 2000 now until 2010. In 2010 he travels (by whatever means) back in time to 2000. I imagine that at this stage Steve1 has exited Sheet1 and now enters sheet2. Sheet2 is identical to Sheet1 from birth to 2000. From 2000 to 2010, sheet1 will always be what Steve1 remembers and Sheet1 will proceed with no more Steves (unless dimensional travel is discovered).
Continued in Part2
Part2
On Sheet2 there is Steve1 (the traveler) as well as a younger Steve2. Steve2 can travel a similar (but not identical path) from 2000 to 2010 as Steve1 did, depending on how much Steve1 interacts on sheet2 (whether the interaction is with Steve1 or not). Steve1 could even kill Steve2 and try to relive/improve the life he had.
Whether or not Steve2 travels in time or even what time he travels to is immaterial to Sheet1 or even Sheet2. If Steve2 travels to 2000, sheet3 will be created. Sheet3 will be identical to both sheet1 and sheet2 from steve's birth until 2000 and will then branch off from this point on sheet3. How much deviation will depend on Steve1's interaction with people and thins on Sheet2.
If we are discussing a timetravel means that entry is possible anywhere in time, it becomes complicated that multiple iterative versions can be created. In "Primer" there are limits based on which boxes are on and when they were turned on.
I hope I am explaining it clearly
Try this:
Steve 1 travels from 2010 to 2000; he is on sheet 2, and Steve 2 is already there, ten years younger.
In 2010, Steve 2 travels to 2001. He is on sheet 3. Is Steve 1 already there, having arrived in 2000?
Instead, Steve 2 leaves from 2010 to 1999. Does Steve 1 arrive in 2000, because he arrived in 2000 in Steve 2's history?
If Steve 1 arrives in 2000 in both of those scenarios, then it must be that he arrives in 2000 if Steve 2 also travels to 2000, and there will be three Steves on sheet three.
If Steve 1 does not arrive in 2000 in those scenarios, then why is Steve 2 copying sheet 1 instead of sheet 2 when he travels to the past? Sheet 2 is his history, and it includes the arrival of Steve 1 in 2000, so that event also should be preserved in the new history.
That's the problem. See it?
--M. J. Young
Mark: "In 2010, Steve 2 travels to 2001. He is on sheet 3. Is Steve 1 already there, having arrived in 2000?"
Yes, that is how I see it. The line from Birth to 2000 is identical on sheets 1,2,3. From 2000 to 2001 sheet1 has no avatars only Steve1, but both sheet2 and sheet3 have the originals (Steve2 and Steve3 resp) as well as each has an avatar of Steve1: the original Steve1 is on Sheet2 and a duplicate Steve1 (Steve1a) is created on Sheet3. Steve1a has an identical life to Steve1 from birth to 2010 on sheet1, and from 2000 to 2001 in sheet2. Their lives will deviate from 2001 onward. Sheet3 also has a Steve2 from 2001 onward, but the sheet2's steve2 is the original.
Mark: "Instead, Steve 2 leaves from 2010 to 1999. Does Steve 1 arrive in 2000, because he arrived in 2000 in Steve 2's history?
In this case, Sheet3 will only be identical to Sheets 1 and 2 from birth to 1999. From 1999 onward, Sheet3 will be different than sheets 1 and 2. Thus Steve1 will not be there since in his past from sheet1 there was no avatar arriving in 1999. In another timeline, this Steve2 on Sheet3 or the Steve3 from the sheet could travel to 2000 and they would create a new timeline different than this first sheet3.
Mark: "If Steve 1 does not arrive in 2000 in those scenarios, then why is Steve 2 copying sheet 1 instead of sheet 2 when he travels to the past?"
I see that he IS copying sheet2, but only from birth to 1999 (but this is also identical to sheet1 in this timeframe). The entire sheet is not copied so the time from 1999 to 2000 is not copied from either sheet. Only the events from the past are copied, not the future, since the new sheet will have a different future.
O.K., I see what you are thinking; I think it is inconsistent. I think that Steve 2 would be very surprised that Steve 1 does not arrive in 2000 on sheet 3, because he thought he was traveling to his own past, not the past of someone else, and in his own past Steve 1 arrives in 2000.
I don't think your construction is exactly logical, but I understand how it's supposed to work.
Thanks for explaining it.
--M. J. Young
Mark:I think it is inconsistent. I think that Steve 2 would be very surprised that Steve 1 does not arrive in 2000 on sheet 3, because he thought he was traveling to his own past, not the past of someone else, and in his own past Steve 1 arrives in 2000.
But he is traveling to his own past, his past until 1999. Once he travels to 1999 a new future begins and his existence in the past will alter things that happened from later than 1999.
Mark: "I don't think your construction is exactly logical"
But what is illogical? It is general and depending on the POV for the model it can be viewed to fit any of your timetravel theories as well as dimensional travel stores: they are all subsets of this one theory.
Certainly the traveler does not know what to expect, because he does not actually know how time works unless he has done this before. But suppose Traveler knows that something messed up his life in 2001, so he travels from 2010 to 2000 trying to get there before it happens. He does not know that it was a previous version of himself that caused the change. By your theory, if that previous version arrived in 1999, then this version will interact with his doppelganger in trying to prevent the changes, but if the previous version arrived in 2000 or 2001, this one will never find the cause of the problem.
That is what I find inconsistent: Traveler does not travel within his own history if within that history another traveler arrived; he is bounced to a different history in which that traveler does not arrive.
--M. J. Young
Footnote: it is only inconsistent because were he to travel to a point after the arrival of the other traveler, the other traveler would have arrived.
I understand why it happens that way under your model, but I don't think it would happen that way.
--M. J. Young
Mark:"suppose Traveler knows that something messed up his life in 2001, so he travels from 2010 to 2000 trying to get there before it happens. ... By your theory, if that previous version arrived in 1999, then this version will interact with his doppelganger"
Yes and I think this goes for most time travel theories.
Mark:"but if the previous version arrived in 2000 or 2001, this one will never find the cause of the problem."
This may or may not be true, it will depend on the iteration he is on (how close he is to the original timeline). The more iterations the more it can start to appear as "fixed time". His very presence may prevent the event from occuring or could help cause it.
Just like in "Primer", in some timelines Aaron used the failsafe and no one came out the box he brought along and other times they did. Sometimes Abe exited the box later sometimes he did not. It depends on the iteration.
Mark: "That is what I find inconsistent: Traveler does not travel within his own history if within that history another traveler arrived; he is bounced to a different history in which that traveler does not arrive."
That is not what is theorized. Once arriving in a timeline, one stays in that timeline, it is not "dimensional travel". An avatar of the orginal travel may be present in alternate timelines. It is like when one rolls a dice, there is copy of in each possibility the heads and the tail. Neither changes dimension.
Mark: "it is only inconsistent because were he to travel to a point after the arrival of the other traveler, the other traveler would have arrived."
I don't see how this is inconsistent with the theory I am presenting? What events do you see transpiring that are inconsistent with the model I present?
As far as I can see the movie "Primer" is inconsistent with "fixed time" (as many timetravel stories are) as well as "replacment time".
Thanks again for your thoughts, Steve. I'd like to see your theory explained in a coherent article; it's difficult to follow piecemeal like this. If you have a place to post such a thing, e-mail me the link (my address is in my profile); if not, let me recommend GamingOutpost.com as an available space; we discuss Multiverser concepts there regularly, and there are a couple of articles on time travel theory there.
More to come....
When A&A want to assault Platts, they say it will be all right as long as their doubles do not make the same trip but instead make their planned trip from the following afternoon to morning. If you are right, they are wrong: the assaulters will already be there, and will thus be duplicated. Of course, they could be wrong; we don't know what happens in the original future. But we do know that they both travel back to the party more than once, and that they do so from different future points. That makes them different people arriving at the same time and place, but there is only one pair at the party.
There's not enough space here to do this justice; I hope you see my confusion.
--M. J. Young
Mark: If you are right, they are wrong: the assaulters will already be there
I don't believe the assaulters will already be there. They would consider it if they had gotten awoken, but if they prevent it as they hope to, they would prevent it. I think my model matches what they claim: they need to get the originals to go back as they had originally planned to not have 2 sets of them.
Mark: But we do know that they both travel back to the party more than once, and that they do so from different future points.
We know Aaron goes back multiple times. I see nothing to indicate a "tandem trip". My impression is that Aaron keeps going back and keeps getting a new Abe avatar and this is how Aaron will be able to tell the narrator how Abe will respond.
The way the boxes work it does not matter where they come from in the future, once they travel into the past the "new future" in that timeline starts at that point and has not yet been written.
Mark:That makes them different people arriving at the same time and place, but there is only one pair at the party.
Exactly as my model would predict. Each travel results in a new timeline. My model allows travel so you can have an Aaron who has not timetraveled, a second who has only failsafed once, and a third who has failsafed once and near failsafed multiple times all in the same timeline. This is a "fact" from the film something that is inconsisten with replacement theory...
Mark: There's not enough space here to do this justice...I'd like to see your theory explained in a coherent article; it's difficult to follow piecemeal like this
I had been going to your site since seeing Primer to see your insights into it and so far none has been posted (from your writings here it seems that your "model" can not explain what we are shown). I have been working on one, but to get the timelines shown in the film require a fair amount of speculation and dozens of timelines and avatars. If I ever finish it I plan to post it at the primer fanboard...
I appreciate your time and discussion and if I ever find the time to pull it all together I will let you know. Thanks alot!
Thanks again for your comments. I look forward to reading whatever you produce.
--M. J. Young
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!