The future causing itself to exist in fiction; huge plothole?

[RJ 17]

there are an infinite amount of universes but in the end Elizabeth works on all of them. Or, at least on a subset of the those[footnote]still infinite, however, just for the record[/footnote].

Pretty sure that's wrong. If you're claiming she's working with a subset of infinity, that by definition means a smaller section of infinity which in turn means that it's finite, not infinite. If you're claiming that the subset of infinity that she's working with contains infinity then you run into Russel's Paradox (the "Set of All Sets" paradox).

Furthermore, you are applying the wrong set of infinity to the universes in Bioshock Infinite. They don't actually work on the multiverse theory where every possible universe ever exists (e.g., take movie The One which uses that model), the Bioshock Infinite universes are merely variations.

Indeed, one such variation is where Rapture exists rather than Columbia, that's a pretty drastic variation seeing as how both cities are pretty much direct polar opposites of each other in every possible way.

Elizabeth mentions the "constants and variables" and that's distinctly different from having every action branch off into a new universe - it is very definitely stated that this is NOT what happens in Bioshock Infinite, as there are constants, thus the universes bear a lot of similarity with a lot of shared structure to one another. The coin toss in the beginning is an example, every Booker ever always got the same result from it - this is a constant.

Indeed the coin-toss is always constant, however the outcome of Booker's adventure never is. This is because the "constants" that she's referring to are matters left up to chance - such as a coin toss - while the variables are matters of personal choice - such as helping the revolution and dying a martyr vs simply dealing with them so that Booker can get himself access to an airship.

OK, a constant shared in this subset of universes, but a constant nonetheless illustrating that it's not like everything ever possible exists.

Which again inserts limits into infinity, thus making the game Bioshock Finite.

So, back to Booker being willing/unwilling - what Elizabeth does is tweaking one of the variables only, across all of the instances where it occurs, thus it works. The assumption that she requires every Booker to go through with it is simply incorrect

You've failed to explain to me how this is incorrect, and as such...

and, as I pointed out, simply impossible to begin with.

...this remains the basis of my point.

The game implies that by taking Booker back to the baptism and drowning him - even assuming that Elizabeth has the power to make this crucial point in time some sort of cosmic nexus to which every possible Booker is bound (which is the only way you could erase all Comstocks by drowning a single Booker) - all Comstocks will die with him. This would indicate that she doesn't just "tweak" a variable, but rather she has taken what was a variable - Booker's choice to accept the baptism or reject it - and turned it into a constant: all Bookers at all baptisms decide to accept being drown.

Beyond all that, I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer as to what others - and you as well - have been trying to say about the ending: that the choice to accept the drowning doesn't count and doesn't spawn a new universe. Why not? Why is that choice exempt when we've seen plenty of other instances in which choices did create an alternate universe? For example: the choice to accept the baptism or reject it. Why does that choice create two universes yet the choice to accept being drown or refuse to be drown doesn't? Why are some choices apparently "constants" which implies a denial of free will while other choices are "variables" which implies the existence of free will?

 

[happyninja42]

See, and this is why trying to make time travel stories make sense is futile.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

there are an infinite amount of universes but in the end Elizabeth works on all of them. Or, at least on a subset of the those[footnote]still infinite, however, just for the record[/footnote].

Pretty sure that's wrong. If you're claiming she's working with a subset of infinity, that by definition means a smaller section of infinity which in turn means that it's finite, not infinite. If you're claiming that the subset of infinity that she's working with contains infinity then you run into Russel's Paradox (the "Set of All Sets" paradox).

Ah no. Real example would be the set of real numbers and the set of integers. Both are infinite and the set of all integers is a subset of the set of all real numbers.

Or another example of how its possible: Imagine the set of all integers. Infinite yes? Now take out 0. Would you then claim the set is no longer infinite?

 

[CrystalShadow]

But specifically, 'Free will' in a 'deterministic universe' is by definition a logical paradox.

Not necessarily, as I am talking about deterministic events in the universe, not the universe itself being set. A deterministic event would be: given the exact same set of circumstances, everything would progress the same way. So, for example, if I flipped a coin on the 20th of January 2015 at 10:16:41 and it came up as tails, any time I repeat that exact coin throw, it would come up as tails. It's a very naive example, I know, but it's just to illustrate the point that the event is deterministic. Of course, if at that point in time I had bet that the outcome would be heads, then I would also always bet on heads, thus losing the bet every time. Unless the initial parameters shift, in which case, so if I were made to throw the coin a little higher or something and it may come up as heads thus making me win the bet.

Yes, that is a deterministic set of events. But since your behaviour is part of the deterministic events, and not independent of it, there is no possible means for you to shift your behaviour.

I'll actually use a second example as it's much better and it much better illustrates what is it for the events to be deterministic. It's even much better fitting for this forum, as I'm going to use games: pick any game with a RNG sequencer persistence between save states and you're done. The first example that comes to mind is XCOM: Enemy Unknown [footnote]make sure that the "Save scumming" option is disabled - if turned on, it reseeds the pRNG on load. Also, make sure you're not playing Ironman mode, so you can "go back in time" by loading[/footnote] and Heroes 3[footnote]something that was actually changed in WoG, I believe, but in the base game (+expansions, I think), the random sequence is predetermined even after loading[/footnote], so let's take XCOM - if you're on a mission the sequence that the pRNG produces cannot be changed. Here is an example
1. You have 99% chance to hit
2. You save just before you take the shot
3. You take the shot
4. You happen to miss

Now, any time you reload do step 3., you would ALWAYS end up on step 4. No amount of game loads would make your soldier hit. This is true AS LONG AS you keep doing that, as you would always be fed the exact same result from the pRNG, thus making this action entirely deterministic. However, if you ever do something different, the starting conditions are now different - if you took a shot with a different soldier, the sequence has now moved along, thus if you retry the shot now, you most likely would succeed. You would, succeed deterministically, as no amount of reloads would make you miss. No amount of reloads would make you have a critical shot, either, provided you didn't get one. Since the sequence is "known"[footnote]not to us but if anybody was bored enough and felt like it, they can map it out[/footnote] every action throughout the mission is predetermined and if you replay the mission using the EXACT SAME steps you took before, the outcome would be EXACTLY the same.

Thus this is a really good simulation of a universe where the events are deterministic. You would find out that even the AI would respond in the exact same way given the exact same circumstances, simulating what would people do in this universe. However, the AI is not robbed of decision making. Sure, that's not me calling the AI having "free will" but for the purposes of our little universe simulation, it is close enough. So, let's say you did one mission and your soldier called...dunno, Chuck Norris, for example, was never once attacked during the mission, yet everybody else had their asses handed to them. You decide to replay the mission and knowing Chuck Norris was never attacked, you rush him over straight into the middle of a room full of aliens. What would happen now is you would have one less Chuck Norris on your team.

See, here's where you're creating a problem. 'You' in this example is an outside force. In terms of what qualifies as deterministic in this example, you, and your thought processes exist outside of the deterministic universe you are influencing.

If you were an actual xcom general, you wouldn't have the freedom of thought to change the orders you gave, and the mission would play out the same way unless something else happened to first influence your thought process, and thus change the orders given]

So this is an illustration of why exactly free will doesn't clash with determinism. You've changed the parameters, you now get a different outcome. A completely predictable outcome - more than "I told you you shouldn't do that", it's an absolutely repeatable experiment yielding the exact same results any time it's reran with the same input. Change the input, that changes the outcome but, again, you can repeat with the changed input and get the same (changed) outcome.

Yes, but your example is non-deterministic, because you are including elements that exist outside of the universe you are using for your example.

That is the basic problem with the very idea of free will. To have any in a deterministic universe, you must have some influence on the universe that exists outside of the universe itself. The deterministic universe itself is incapable of changing itself.

With this in mind, it's entirely reasonable that somebody can bork the timeline. They could examine it, see how it works, find out it works in this fashion, then go back and kill their grandfather. Let's call this theoretical person "Pandora" after...well, you know, that Pandora. So, to come back to 12 Monkeys, Pandora can be somewhere further in the future and she could look through the events, then try to stop Bruce Willis from going back in time. Pandora's free will is not impacted - they can make that decision, given the right set of parameters.

Except it's not. Pandora's actions are constrained by the exact state of the universe at the moment they decide to travel back in time. The choice she makes is deterministic, and has only one possible outcome.

However, because time travel involves loops and non-linear time, this outcome is potentially very chaotic.

If the first time she travels back, she makes one choice, she could change the state of the future, which would potentially change her future decision. However, both the first and second decision she makes are not 'free will' they are dependent on the state of the universe at the time she makes the choice. And in fact, her second choice, is directly dependent on her first, because it is her first choice that changed the universe. - Except it can't change the universe as such, because if it could the universe is no longer deterministic. Rather, such an event would mean to understand the universe in a deterministic sense you must understand that ALL time travel events, and every alternate sequence of events that are implied must ALL happen, because otherwise the universe is not deterministic anymore.
This of course inherently implies the existence of parallel realities for any section of the universe which exists after a time travel event. There is no other way to resolve the situation without making the universe non-deterministic, because if you were to actually be capable of re-writing a single section of the timeline, you put every part of time that happens after that in a state of flux. Which would by definition be a non-deterministic state.

So, by introducing time travel into a deterministic universe, you either render it non-deterministic, or you force it by definition to contain sections of parallel reality to maintain it's deterministic state.
This isn't random parallel realities however, because you can unwind all the parallel sections of such a a universe into a single linear arrangement, and know which reality came 'first'. The first reality is what creates the second, which creates the third, and so on. Anything else is non-deterministic in nature.

There is nothing in the universe to prevent Pandora from doing so - hence free will. Yes, you can claim it's a similarly predictable outcome to the XCOM scenario and if you feed people the same things, they would produce the same behaviour[footnote]yet, that's pretty much already a thing - social engineers, for example, exploit it to a great degree.[/footnote] however, they are free, as in, the range of output their thought process produces is unbound.

Incorrect, you are simply cutting out bits of the universe, and ignoring them, turning a deterministic universe into a non-deterministic one.

At no point does Pandora have an actual choice in what decision she makes. It is a direct, an immutable consequence of prior events. It's just that 'prior events' includes every previous time she has made the decision to go back in time already.

I can use XCOM again as an example of decisions NOT being unbound because 1. I already talked at some length about XCOM and 2. it's to show that XCOM was just an example to illustrate how a deterministic events would behave, not the whole thing[footnote]because this is the Escapist and people are really fond of pointing out how an example doesn't have 1:1 mapping with reality...when really it's pedanticity to such a level I tend to either not use them or make sure I clarify that IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO MAP 1:1 WITH REALITY[/footnote]: it's simple really, no matter how much you play, no matter how much you replay, the aliens would never surrender. Nor would Exalt members. Civillians would never pick up weapons and fight (not during the mission, anyway). All these entities are entirely incapable of doing those actions. Thus a universe without free will would could make some logical conclusions impossible - nobody would ever be able to decide to cause a paradox, ever, for example, no matter how you tweak the circumstances. One extreme end of no free will can be people literally unable to change their minds about anything - one example is the Discworld novel Mort, where, in short, for...well, reasons, one person who was supposed to die, didn't actually die. This however, clashed with how history works[footnote]or "works", if you will. History/fate/destiny in the Discworld is, erm, not really exact. History in particular is more of a patchwork of histories crudely brought together.[/footnote] and everybody else in the world continued acting as if that person had died.

But by definition 'replaying' x-com creates a non-deterministic universe, because you the player are not part of the universe, and can make decisions about what happens in it without constraint. (Whether your thoughts are deterministic or not in this universe is irrelevant to that, because either way you exist outside of the simulated universe of Xcom.)
Similarly, while we could replace you with a computer replaying a deterministic set of instructions to the game, that may not have an identical outcome because the game may have started with a different RNG state. (because that is set by your computer, again as an event outside the game universe itself, when a new game is started)

The problem with your examples is you are invoking 'out of universe' sources of information in your decision making for what you claim to be 'free will'. That breaks the very basic premise of a deterministic universe, since events in it are being influenced and altered from sources which you do not count as being part of the universe (and which we know to have a non-deterministic relationship with the events in that universe.)

Your decision making in xcom may be still be deterministic (or not. We don't really have any way to know.), but it is influenced by many many events from this universe which have nothing whatsoever to do with the xcom universe alone. So within the constraints of the xcom universe itself, your existence renders the universe non-deterministic, breaking your own premise.

 

[RJ 17]

there are an infinite amount of universes but in the end Elizabeth works on all of them. Or, at least on a subset of the those[footnote]still infinite, however, just for the record[/footnote].

Pretty sure that's wrong. If you're claiming she's working with a subset of infinity, that by definition means a smaller section of infinity which in turn means that it's finite, not infinite. If you're claiming that the subset of infinity that she's working with contains infinity then you run into Russel's Paradox (the "Set of All Sets" paradox).

Ah no. Real example would be the set of real numbers and the set of integers. Both are infinite and the set of all integers is a subset of the set of all real numbers.

Unfortunately we're not dealing with math here, we're dealing with possible realities.

Edit: Beyond that, integers are a subset of real numbers, but they do not contain everything that's defined as a real number. Real numbers and integers are two completely different sets of infinity.

Or another example of how its possible: Imagine the set of all integers. Infinite yes? Now take out 0. Would you then claim the set is no longer infinite?

Indeed, because it's missing the value between -1 and 1

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

there are an infinite amount of universes but in the end Elizabeth works on all of them. Or, at least on a subset of the those[footnote]still infinite, however, just for the record[/footnote].

Pretty sure that's wrong. If you're claiming she's working with a subset of infinity, that by definition means a smaller section of infinity which in turn means that it's finite, not infinite. If you're claiming that the subset of infinity that she's working with contains infinity then you run into Russel's Paradox (the "Set of All Sets" paradox).

Ah no. Real example would be the set of real numbers and the set of integers. Both are infinite and the set of all integers is a subset of the set of all real numbers.

Unfortunately we're not dealing with math here, we're dealing with possible realities.

Or another example of how its possible: Imagine the set of all integers. Infinite yes? Now take out 0. Would you then claim the set is no longer infinite?

Indeed, because it's missing the value between -1 and 1

It makes no difference whether its math or not though.

And can you then tell me how many numbers would be in that set? The answer is an infinite amount of numbwrs, thus making it an infinite set.

Taking one out of an infinite amount leaves an infinite amount. That's how infinity works. If infinity-1 were countable then the number after it would be as well

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Edit: Beyond that, integers are a subset of real numbers, but they do not contain everything that's defined as a real number. Real numbers and integers are two completely different sets of infinity.

The point stands they can still both be infinite.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

That assumes that the protagonists know how time travel works in their universe, and I'm betting they dont.

So? That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense, like you said in the OP.

If they can time travel (which they can), they should know how it works. We would know exactly how time travel works (or at least does not work) if we could time travel.

I'm merely just basing it off simple logic that the future can't beget itself more than trying to prove with physics that it can't happen. I very much doubt future us can save us, I think we'll be seeing that rather soon (not in this lifetime but not that many generations from now).

 

[RJ 17]

And can you then tell me how many numbers would be in that set? The answer is an infinite amount of numbwrs, thus making it an infinite set.

Taking one out of an infinite amount leaves an infinite amount. That's how infinity works. If infinity-1 were countable then the number after it would be as well

You know what? I really don't care enough about this to argue it, though I did type up a point to show how you're wrong (at least in the terms of the discussion I was having with DoPo) before typing this. Suffice to say that if I posted my point, I already know what your counter would be (or at least what it would most likely be) and then we'd officially be delving into all sorts of mathematical theory and I'm way too tired to put forth the effort.

So instead I'll simply ask you to have a pleasant evening.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

If they can time travel (which they can), they should know how it works. We would know exactly how time travel works (or at least does not work) if we could time travel.

Knowing how to operate a device that works using a specific principle does not imply knowing the principle by which it works.

And knowing how to basically teleport things through the space-time continuum doesn't necessarily imply that you know how your universe works in regards to temporal paradox resolution.


Except that I and other posters have shown that it's entirely possible to construct a universe in which the future ends up creating itself without any kind of error or logical paradox.

"I cannot understand it" =/= "It cannot be understood."

Uhh... If you have a time travel device, you can, I don't know, experiment and perform tests. The very reason we don't know the effects of time travel is because we can't time travel.

I can and do understand the theories, it doesn't mean I buy them. The current theory says you can't go back in time and change things, and yes, that doesn't make that true either. Time travel (at least backwards) may not even be possible.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I agree that it's a pretty cop out way of explaining things, but I don't really search for or care about inconsistencies in movies. Put it in front of me and if it has even one redeeming feature I'll probably like it.

On another note you actually spoiled the first terminator for me as I have never seen it. I don't really plan on seeing it anyway but you are bad and you should feel bad.

 

[Kerric]

Oh, I hate time travel stuff. With a burning passion. Because I over-think it and thus my brain explodes. The example I shall use is from Harry Potter.

(Potter example elided).

I hate time travel stories because they rarely make any sense. Take the "Star Trek" reboot: BadGuy uses advanced technology to go back in time to destroy Vulcan because his home planet had gotten munched. Why doesn't FutureSpock use this technology to go back further and save Vulcan? Or why doesn't BadGuy just go back and save his home planet?

The *only* good time travel story that I know is "Stitch in Time," in the New Outer Limits. Now *that* was excellent and thought-provoking science fiction.

 

[RJ 17]

You have an extremely inaccurate understanding of the word "infinity."

As I've already said this once, I don't feel like saying it again. Instead, please see the quote below:

And can you then tell me how many numbers would be in that set? The answer is an infinite amount of numbwrs, thus making it an infinite set.

Taking one out of an infinite amount leaves an infinite amount. That's how infinity works. If infinity-1 were countable then the number after it would be as well

You know what? I really don't care enough about this to argue it, though I did type up a point to show how you're wrong (at least in the terms of the discussion I was having with DoPo) before typing this. Suffice to say that if I posted my point, I already know what your counter would be (or at least what it would most likely be) and then we'd officially be delving into all sorts of mathematical theory and I'm way too tired to put forth the effort.

So instead I'll simply ask you to have a pleasant evening.

So yeah, believe whatever you want about whatever I was talking about, I quite honestly don't care. I'm just some random jackass on the internet, anyways, so you really shouldn't care about what I have to say in the first place either.

And with that, I wish you a pleasant evening as well.

 

[Kyrian007]

What about the plotholes that are simply in-universe logical errors? That is, plotholes where an author contradicts the laws/rules of their own fictional universe after said laws/rules were clearly explained?

That's just it, an author cannot contradict the laws of their own created universe... they created that universe. Things may get a little murkier when you are talking about design by committee like most television and video games, a little less so in movies, rarer in books. And those examples are where your continuity errors mostly fall. But I'm reading a series of books right now that have been around for 10 or so years. Most readers have been noticing a large "plothole" or continuity error in the 4th book of the series. It is something that happens that blatantly contradicts a rule he had earlier established. And yet even several years later when asked about it all you get in response is a raised eyebrow, a little evil smile, and the answer, "oh, you noticed that did you? Subtle, wasn't it?" Or something along those lines.

No one in the world knows if he's really going to go back and explain what happened, if he had a plan for that, or if he's just screwing with the readers because it's fun. But nothing's STOPPING him from going back to that bit. And That's my point. There's no such thing as an in-universe logical error in fiction. Because the author creates the SYSTEM of logic that universe exists within. If someone equates reality's rules of logic with those of a fictional universe, that person does not adequately understand the meaning of the word fiction.

 

[immortalfrieza]

The game implies that by taking Booker back to the baptism and drowning him - even assuming that Elizabeth has the power to make this crucial point in time some sort of cosmic nexus to which every possible Booker is bound (which is the only way you could erase all Comstocks by drowning a single Booker) - all Comstocks will die with him. This would indicate that she doesn't just "tweak" a variable, but rather she has taken what was a variable - Booker's choice to accept the baptism or reject it - and turned it into a constant: all Bookers at all baptisms decide to accept being drown.

Beyond all that, I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer as to what others - and you as well - have been trying to say about the ending: that the choice to accept the drowning doesn't count and doesn't spawn a new universe. Why not? Why is that choice exempt when we've seen plenty of other instances in which choices did create an alternate universe? For example: the choice to accept the baptism or reject it. Why does that choice create two universes yet the choice to accept being drown or refuse to be drown doesn't? Why are some choices apparently "constants" which implies a denial of free will while other choices are "variables" which implies the existence of free will?

The problem is you, and the others that have a problem with Bioshock Infinite's ending weren't really paying any attention. You believe that the infinite Dewitts actually CHOSE to be drowned, they didn't and I don't see where anyone gets that idea. What happened was Elizabeth used the future Dewitt as an medium to drown ALL the Dewitts that chose to go through with the baptism without any input on their part, they never had a choice in the matter. The ONLY Booker Dewitts that would survive where the ones that chose against having the baptism at all.

Oh, and one more thing, any fraction no matter how small of infinite is still infinite. If Elizabeth drowns all the infinite Dewitts that choose the baptism then it doesn't make the Dewitts that don't choose the baptism any less infinite nor does it make the Dewitts that did choose the baptism any less infinite either.

 

[FalloutJack]

The problem with this discussion is that Stable Time Loop is just in reference to the future going into the past to preserve the future. I don't believe it means that the actual action itself is necessarily stable. You see, it's a distortion in time, a warp in the fourth dimension, which history and causality as we know it answers to. The reason so many people have headaches with it is because it's assumed that the act of time travel isn't distorting certain accepted laws.

When time travel occurs - insofar as is witnessed in fiction - whatever force and physical laws governing time, events, duration, and so on is being bent, folded, wrinkled, distorted, or what-have-you to allow you to end up at a point which is not connected normally to your lifetime's history. This is a thing which is as strange as any confusion we have with physical laws in the real world, which we struggle to understand more and more. When they warm up the Large Hadron Collider, we end up creating particles and whatnot that we would not normally be able to access or study, via this powerful machine altering normal matter and energy the way it does. Time travel would do the same to whatever makes time work.

All of our theories about time travel, casaulity, fate and destiny, and so on are very good, very logical, but depend largely on the operation of whatever time runs on without much error. Since the Stable Time Loop may not necessarily make sense to any normal mode of thought, it seems to me that when this happens in a show, the flow of time has been disrupted - splashed, like water - before going back to normal. I can't say that this answers all the problems, but 'time distortion' is a whole lot better than massive headaches.