PDA

View Full Version : Time travel theory



Jesodoth
2nd Aug 2015, 10:20
Okay this idea is so far fetched that I can barely call it a theory. But what if instead of being the one who can rescue everyone, Max is actually given these powers to trigger the disaster? I find it very strange that even tho Max is given many options and can make many decisions, Chloe ends up dead and she ends up being captured by Jefferson no matter which path you went on. There is a theory in time travel called 'Novikov self-consistency principle', which states that the timeline is fixed and any decision made by a time traveler was a part of history all along, making it impossible to change history in any way. So the storm and all the disasters could have occurred in the initial timeline, because Max will later on discover her powers, go back in time and trigger everything. A bit hard to wrap your mind around it... The short story 'By His Bootstraps' by Robert A. Heinlein uses the same premise.

But I still can't figure out how the Prescotts know about all this unless they have some powers of their own or they are the cause of Max's time travel abilities, following experiments on her and other young girls. Any ideas?

Sneddonator
2nd Aug 2015, 10:54
I like the sound of this theory. Want to read about it now.

Xeva-q
2nd Aug 2015, 11:06
I find it very strange that even tho Max is given many options and can make many decisions, Chloe ends up dead and she ends up being captured by Jefferson no matter which path you went on.
And i find it only natural.

There is a theory in time travel called 'Novikov self-consistency principle', which states that the timeline is fixed and any decision made by a time traveler was a part of history all along, making it impossible to change history in any way.
But if we have Novikov self-consistency principle in action such thing as alternative really could not exist in any form. So it is clearly not the case.

Jesodoth
2nd Aug 2015, 11:12
Novikov self-consistency principle does not deny the possibility of time travel or alternate realities. Instead it suggests there are rules that eliminate the possibility of time paradoxes. It is based on two principles that can clearly be seen in the game and the way the alternate universes develop: self-consistency and self-adjustment. The first one states that the only changes that can occur in an Universe are those that are consistent globally, explaining why Max can sometimes rewind and change the past and sometimes can't. The second basically says that any change that you make will not influence history because the alternate universes will self-adjust. This is very obvious in the way Chloe keeps dying no matter how many times Max saves her and can also be seen more subtly when Max decides to save William. The changes she makes are so dramatic they prompt her to go back in time and kill William again- self adjustment

Sneddonator
2nd Aug 2015, 11:41
But if we have Novikov self-consistency principle in action such thing as alternative really could not exist in any form. So it is clearly not the case.
Maybe read a bit more on the principal because your statement is incorrect. Its a plausible theory in respect to the game. And a good observation by Jesodoth

Xeva-q
2nd Aug 2015, 11:42
Novikov self-consistency principle does not deny the possibility of time travel or alternate realities.
Novikov self-consistency principle does not deny the possibility of time travel, yes, but it pretty much deny any possibility of existence of alternative reality.

It literally have no sense if alternative reality could exist because very existence of such thing mean that principle had been broken.

Instead it suggests there are rules that eliminate the possibility of time paradoxes.
But we have plenty of paradoxes in our hands. For example, Max get hers time travel when she saw Cloe being shot. But in alternative reality she didn't witness this scene and, thus, have no time travel abilities. So she could not possibly save William.

But even if she had time-travel abilities, she would have no reason to save William because William in alternative reality never died.

So in alternative reality William was saved by something that have no way to exist. Clearly, a paradox.

Sneddonator
2nd Aug 2015, 11:47
For example, Max get hers time travel when she saw Cloe being shot. But in alternative reality she didn't witness this scene and, thus, have no time travel abilities. So she could not possibly save William.

But even if she had time-travel abilities, she would have no reason to save William because William in alternative reality never died.

So in alternative reality William was saved by something that have no way to exist. Clearly, a paradox.

Valid point. And so the brain-f&@k continues. :)

Jesodoth
2nd Aug 2015, 12:04
But we have plenty of paradoxes in our hands. For example, Max get hers time travel when she saw Cloe being shot. But in alternative reality she didn't witness this scene and, thus, have no time travel abilities. So she could not possibly save William.

But even if she had time-travel abilities, she would have no reason to save William because William in alternative reality never died.

So in alternative reality William was saved by something that have no way to exist. Clearly, a paradox.

Okay I do not quite understand your point, maybe you could clear it out a bit? I feel like you are speaking of alternative realities in general,while I am speaking strictly of those created as a result of Max using her powers. If you are speaking of the possibility of an infinite number of parallel universes and in some of them Max doesn't see certain things, or William is alive, then that is another theory and has nothing to do with time travel or paradoxes. A paradox would be if you went back in time and killed yourself as a baby thus never reaching adulthood and being able to go back in time. Max never manages to do something so radical, because her powers do not allow it.

And technically she did not get her powers when she sees Chloe being shot. The shock of that event causes her to discover said powers. But for what we know she could have had them since forever. And I do believe if in an alternative universe she wouldn't have witnessed the scene, something equally shocking would have occurred leading to her discovering her abilities. We know she ends up meeting Chloe anyway. In the first episode you can play either alternatives: telling the principal you saw Nathan in the bathroom or not, but he still comes to you in the parking lot and starts freaking out, leading to Chloe saving you. I found that very strange, because if you don't tell on him how on earth does he know you were in that bathroom?

I do agree this is probably not the way they will go with the game and the story line. But it is nice to speculate about it

Xeva-q
2nd Aug 2015, 12:29
Okay I do not quite understand your point, maybe you could clear it out a bit?
I just point out a paradox. And Novikov self-consistency principle do not allow any.

I found that very strange, because if you don't tell on him how on earth does he know you were in that bathroom?
By the torn picture on the floor, of course.

Jesodoth
2nd Aug 2015, 12:33
I just point out a paradox. And Novikov self-consistency principle do not allow any.

By the torn picture on the floor, of course.

That picture could have been there from any time before him entering the bathroom with Chloe. Max could have been in, threw the picture and out again. Seeing it on the floor was never proof enough that she was there at that exact moment

Xeva-q
2nd Aug 2015, 13:02
Seeing it on the floor was never proof enough that she was there at that exact moment
It is does not matter what you or i think about it. It had shown how Nathan found the picture. And he clearly heard sound of a broken glass, which means he knew that someone was in the bathroom besides him and Chloe. And he just added 2 to 2.

If you think this is stupid - that is your right and i can even agree with you. But the game itself clearly states that proof was good enough for Nathan.

Do not worry, there are plenty of inconsistencies in this game. For example, to not to go far away, the very fact that after classes not a single person went into the bathroom - it is a straight-up miracle.

Sneddonator
2nd Aug 2015, 13:22
the very fact that after classes not a single person went into the bathroom - it is a straight-up miracle.

Haha. So true.

Jesodoth
2nd Aug 2015, 13:47
Do not worry, there are plenty of inconsistencies in this game. For example, to not to go far away, the very fact that after classes not a single person went into the bathroom - it is a straight-up miracle.

Haha that actually made me laugh! I guess I am indeed giving them too much credit. But it's funny to see how things fit, especially when you know it was all probably just an accident.

Xeva-q
2nd Aug 2015, 14:12
I guess I am indeed giving them too much credit.
Well, i think your observation is correct. But it is correct for any game where choice is present. Simply because to create true choice, like in real life, it requires to much work and to much time. We can even formulate "Video Game self-consistency principle" - no matter what player choose the consequences of their actions would be look alike.

Like in Mass Effect, for example. You can kill Rachni queen in part one but in part three she will be alive anyway in one form or another.

But i never said that some form of self-consistency is not present in the plot of "Life is strange". It is really can be a case. As far as i can tell on this point, the message goes like this: "Timeline is damaged and it must be fixed". Well, it kinda looks like as self-consistency. But it can be only some fictional principle of self-consistency, and not exact Novikov self-consistency principle. Because according to it time line cannot be damaged to begin with.