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

[Maze1125]

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

You are factually wrong.
If you have an infinite set of values, and you remove a finite number from that set, then the set you get is still infinite.
That has been mathematically proven in multiple ways.

And, yes, I read your post about you "not caring" any more, but that's just the cry of someone who has realised they know nothing about the subject they're talking about but still refuses to admit it.

 

[DoPo]

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.

1. How many numbers are there?
Answer: Infinite
2. How many integers are there?
Answer: Infinite
3. How many even integers are there?
Answer: Infinite.

I can't fathom how you can claim there is a finite amount of odd, or even, or prime, or rational or whatever numbers are a finite amount. They aren't. They simply are different sets all containing infinite members.

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

...this remains the basis of my point.

The basis of your point is incorrect. It requires ALL BOOKERS EVER to both succeed and be willing to go through with Elizabeth's plan. This is very simply not the case, given that all Bookers ever do NOT make it to begin with. Your point also relies on simply assuming that requirement with evidence pointing to the contrary about. And when faced with the contradiction, you don't deem the assumption incorrect and continue working with the model, you simply rule it out.

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.

Incorrect, only the (future) Comstocks die. So in some cases Booker refuses, in other, dies.

Why not? Why is that choice exempt when we've seen plenty of other instances in which choices did create an alternate universe?

Why would it create a new universe? Why do you assume each one is created at every variable? You simply have a whole bunch of universes with the different variables set differently.

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?

You, again, assume there was one universe that got split into two. First of all, that's wrong, as there is way more than two. Second, I'm pretty sure, it went more like this: there were 1000 universes[footnote]a random illustrative number[/footnote] to begin with. And in some of them, say, 400[footnote]non-even split chosen to simply have two differnt numbers for illustrative purposes, otherwise the two numbers are annoingly the same[/foootnote], Booker accepts the baptism and becomes Comstock. In another 600 universes, Booker rejects the baptism. Further variations ensue. I am fairly sure this was heavily alluded to in-game somewhere, but I can't recall the exact event/context to it.

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?

There are multiple answers. While still talking the game, free will doesn't need to be consistent everywhere. Lots of works do play with fate being present and some people/entities/events being exempt from that. Notably, there is Legacy of Kain, where Raziel is the only entity possessing free will in the world and as such, can influence history which is pre-written. Yet, at the same time, there is an "artificial" way to also alter it, which is to bring together two instances of the exact same item together - in Blood Omen, this was a major plot point that gave the start of the series and involved bringing two of the titular Soul Reaver from later games. More recent games that explored (or at least mentioned) something similar are Kingdoms of Amalur (the main hero is the Fateless one, who can do whatever he likes), and Divinity: Original Sin (the main heroes don't actually exist on the tapestry of time).

But from a more meta analysis, the significance of the "constants and variables" is an allusion to the game itself. And games themselves in general. Every player plays the same game, however, they all have "constants" which are usually plot events (end of missions, cinematics, etc) and variables (anything involving player choice, including gameplay) thus ending with, in theory, infinite different variations of the game. It is exploring exactly this idea and throwing into the mix differnt games still part of the same - "they all start with a man and a lighthouse and there is a city. Sometimes it's underwater, sometimes it's in the skies". Elizabeth says something to this effect which very clearly tied Bioshock Infinite with the first Bioshock. It's not only different instances of the same game played that form these "universes" - it's the variations of the same story, as story structure is really similar in a lot of cases.

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]

*bangs head into a wall*

I KNOW. I EVEN KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN. AND I KNOW YOU KNOW AS WELL. DID YOU DO IT ON PUPOSE?

Yes, this was just an example. It was used to illustrate the principle. No, things in real life would not turn out that way. Because that is an example, not real life. Furthermore, we sort of don't have the ability to travel back in time in real life, if you haven't noticed. Not yet, anyway.

So, with this in mind, would you mind using the example as one, not drilling into the non-possibilities of implementing it in real life.

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.

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.

Again, I don't know if you didn't understand it, or you're doing it on purpose. As I said, Pandora's actions are not constrained in the sense that they can NEVER do something. If we use the 12 Monkeys scenario - Pandora is free to choose to go and stop Bruce Willis from going back in time. Yes, her decisions are based on the set of inputs, however, she can reach that decision. Unbound decision. On the other hand, we could have Pandora absolutely never ever be able to take that course of action, even if we were someshow able to feed all possible inputs. This would mean that the decision reached is ruled out on some form of meta level. My initial question was, why, and how - what is the force responsible for that, were that the case? Because, otherwise, what happens if she was to stop Bruce Willis?

 

[CrystalShadow]

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.

Again, I don't know if you didn't understand it, or you're doing it on purpose. As I said, Pandora's actions are not constrained in the sense that they can NEVER do something. If we use the 12 Monkeys scenario - Pandora is free to choose to go and stop Bruce Willis from going back in time. Yes, her decisions are based on the set of inputs, however, she can reach that decision. Unbound decision. On the other hand, we could have Pandora absolutely never ever be able to take that course of action, even if we were someshow able to feed all possible inputs. This would mean that the decision reached is ruled out on some form of meta level. My initial question was, why, and how - what is the force responsible for that, were that the case? Because, otherwise, what happens if she was to stop Bruce Willis?

~facepalm~ I can see this is a wasted effort. But, Let me be as clear as I can be. there is NO SUCH THING AS AN UNBOUND DECISION IN A DETERMINISTIC UNIVERSE!!!

Doesn't exist. Logically impossible. Is a paradox in it's own right, defies it's own definition, redefines the premise. Breaks the concept of determinism. Whetever!

If you insist on arguing your false premise, the point should be obvious. The universe in question is deterministic. Pandora, by virtue of deterministic thoughts is constrained to make one specific choice.

Which choice she makes is defined entirely by the starting condition of the universe. If this initial choice (defined by the starting parameters of the universe) leads to a temporal loop that modifies the apparent starting conditions of the temporal loop, you must understand that this is merely the deterministic outcome of all the prior iterations of the loop. This loop may be infinite, depending in the circumstances, but it is still deterministic.

There is no unbound decision involved, because there cannot be. The existence of such an unbound decision violates the premise.

You are creating a paradox by inserting something into the question that violates it's own premise.

The reason your question cannot be answered is not because people are deliberately misunderstanding you, or that the answer creates a paradox, but rather that your question itself contains the paradox you are looking for, and as such is an invalid question that has no answer, because the premise of your question contradicts itself.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I don't mind time travel in fiction, as long as it's consistent and well-written. In Chrono Trigger, it's not consistent. The rules change all the time. For example,

Spoiler: Spoilers for Chrono Trigger

Lucca goes back in time to prevent her mother from having the accident that caused her to lose her leg. She does that, but that Lucca never gets erased from existence, even though this is what happens to locations when you do the very same thing. So, are there now two Luccas wandering around? Is the, for lack of a better term, party Lucca literally just a walking paradox? Is the non-party Lucca also going on the same adventure with the non-party Marle and Chrono?

God damn it Lucca. What the fuck are the doing. You are being very careless with your loops here; you've effectively become a figure displaced in time because the writers are stupid.

This is one of the reasons why I think Chrono Trigger is sort of stupid. The rules of time travel change every time it comes up in the story. By this point in the game, Lucca has basically become the lancer-of sorts to Chrono, so they obviously didn't want to do anything with the character regarding timelines or anything because she's one of the major characters.

So why introduce these story elements in the first place? Why not just leave her mother alone? She was a minor character; you didn't have to go fuck everything up because of her.

Chrono Trigger is literally one of the worst examples of time travel in any fiction ever, at least in my opinion.

 

[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.

1. How many numbers are there?
Answer: Infinite
2. How many integers are there?
Answer: Infinite
3. How many even integers are there?
Answer: Infinite.

I can't fathom how you can claim there is a finite amount of odd, or even, or prime, or rational or whatever numbers are a finite amount. They aren't. They simply are different sets all containing infinite members.

I'm not, what I'm essentially saying is that they're two completely separate forms of infinity, and one contains the other. I realize this will likely make no sense, but since they're different forms of infinity then one - the subset - is a "smaller" form of infinity.

To be clear: all integers are real numbers, but not all real numbers are integers. Fractions and Decimals are real numbers which are not integers.

There are infinite integers.
There are infinite real numbers.
As real numbers contain all integers as well as all fractions and decimals, its infinity encompasses more (as a set) than the infinity that is integers. This is what I mean by them being two separate infinities.

It's very likely that I'm failing at expressing myself properly here as even I don't think what I'm saying makes any sense. But to the point of Bioshock Infinite's ending, all of the above is completely irrelevant.

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

...this remains the basis of my point.

The basis of your point is incorrect. It requires ALL BOOKERS EVER to both succeed and be willing to go through with Elizabeth's plan.

No it doesn't, it requires a single Booker succeeding and Elizabeth using her Time-Space-Goddess powers to - as I mentioned previously - create some form of cosmic nexus. Her objective isn't to kill Comstock, they already succeeded in doing that, her objective - which I'm arguing is impossible due to Booker's free will - is to ensure that Comstock never exists in the first place. That's the only way to prevent all the suffering and madness that Comstock caused. The fact that multiple versions of Elizabeth start appearing is the implication of this nexus. The only way to ensure that Comstock never exists is to change the variable of "will Booker get baptized or will he run away" into the constant of "Booker drowns at the baptism."

This is very simply not the case, given that all Bookers ever do NOT make it to begin with. Your point also relies on simply assuming that requirement with evidence pointing to the contrary about. And when faced with the contradiction, you don't deem the assumption incorrect and continue working with the model, you simply rule it out.

Any chance you could reword this bit? As I have no idea what you're talking about here.

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.

Incorrect, only the (future) Comstocks die. So in some cases Booker refuses,

Which does not prevent future Comstocks from being "born". That's the entire point of going back to the baptism in the first place: to ensure that Comstock never exists, past, present, or future.

in other, dies.

Which would therefor ensure that an infinite number of Comstocks never come into existence. Yet as mentioned above: there's an infinite number of Bookers that refuse the sacrifice, thus creating an infinite number of Comstocks that will still continue to be "born".

"But not every Booker makes it to that point." Indeed, this is why it's necessary to form the nexus. By doing so and killing Booker at the baptism, Elizabeth would ensure that every Booker that ever ended up at the baptism scenario neither was baptized nor rejected the baptism, but rather they die. That's why I say she's not tweaking a variable, but rather turning a variable into a constant.

Why not? Why is that choice exempt when we've seen plenty of other instances in which choices did create an alternate universe?

Why would it create a new universe? Why do you assume each one is created at every variable? You simply have a whole bunch of universes with the different variables set differently.

Because the variables are, themselves, what distinguish one universe from another. Comstock himself is the result of one of those variables, the variable being "will Booker be baptized or will he reject it?" Sometimes he goes through with it and becomes Comstock, sometimes he refuses it and remains Booker. That right there is proof that the variable of the baptism is a split in the universe(s).

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?

You, again, assume there was one universe that got split into two. First of all, that's wrong, as there is way more than two.

I'm working with one universe being split into two for the sake of simplification. I do realize that an infinite number of Bookers make it to the baptism while another infinite number of Bookers never even go to the baptism in the first place.

However the game makes it quite clear: the existence of Comstock is born from every Booker that goes to the baptism and is baptized.

Second, I'm pretty sure, it went more like this: there were 1000 universes[footnote]a random illustrative number[/footnote] to begin with. And in some of them, say, 400[footnote]non-even split chosen to simply have two differnt numbers for illustrative purposes, otherwise the two numbers are annoingly the same[/foootnote], Booker accepts the baptism and becomes Comstock. In another 600 universes, Booker rejects the baptism. Further variations ensue. I am fairly sure this was heavily alluded to in-game somewhere, but I can't recall the exact event/context to it.

Exactly...and that's where the universe(s) are shown to split, giving rise to an infinite number of Comstocks as well as an infinite number of I'm Still Bookers.

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?

There are multiple answers. While still talking the game, free will doesn't need to be consistent everywhere.

Care to specify some of those other possible answers? Otherwise I'll be needing a citation/quote/something from the game that specifically says "not all choices create a new universe. Because I'm pretty sure the game actually says the exact opposite.

Lots of works do play with fate being present and some people/entities/events being exempt from that.

With the exception of LoK, I haven't played any of those games. There is a difference between LoK and Bioshock Infinite, however: it's actually explained in-game why Raziel is the only person capable of altering fate. In BS:I there is absolutely no indication that the Booker you're playing as (which some people have argued actually changes a couple times throughout the game) is some kind of cosmic anomaly that makes him the only one capable of altering fate. "No, Elizabeth is the one who can alter fate" That's exactly the point that I'm arguing against here, saying that the logic of the game is inconsistent in it's attempt to show that Elizabeth can definitively ensure that Comstock never exists.

Furthermore, it's never established in-game that some matters of free will will always turn out the same way (as LoK asserts is true for everyone except for Raziel). In fact, I'd say one of the main points of the game argues for the exact opposite. For instance, some Bookers decide to fully support the rebellion, some of those Bookers even die as martyrs for the cause. Other Bookers - such as the one you play as - didn't.

But from a more meta analysis, the significance of the "constants and variables" is an allusion to the game itself. And games themselves in general. Every player plays the same game, however, they all have "constants" which are usually plot events (end of missions, cinematics, etc) and variables (anything involving player choice, including gameplay) thus ending with, in theory, infinite different variations of the game. It is exploring exactly this idea and throwing into the mix differnt games still part of the same - "they all start with a man and a lighthouse and there is a city. Sometimes it's underwater, sometimes it's in the skies". Elizabeth says something to this effect which very clearly tied Bioshock Infinite with the first Bioshock. It's not only different instances of the same game played that form these "universes" - it's the variations of the same story, as story structure is really similar in a lot of cases.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with an argument of a plot-hole as it's simply an explanation of what the game designers were intending.

This does bring up something that I actually really enjoyed about BS:I. A lot of people give BS2 a lot of crap because of it's story and the fact that Levine had nothing to do with it. However when you look at every major plot point in BS:I, it's almost exactly the same as every major plot point in BS2. Both games have...

-Father figure with a marked hand searching for a daughter figure.
-The daughter figure is being held in isolation by the "ruler" of the city.
-The ruler forcibly takes the daughter from the father figure.
-The ruler intends to use the daughter - which is in some way super-powered - as a weapon/leader in an assault against the surface world.
-Said ruler has a fanatical, cult-like following.

I believe the mirrored plot points is a nifty way of both giving a nod to BS2 (which I really enjoyed, personally) as well as helping to underline the whole theme of "constants and variables".

 

[Maze1125]

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.

1. How many numbers are there?
Answer: Infinite
2. How many integers are there?
Answer: Infinite
3. How many even integers are there?
Answer: Infinite.

I can't fathom how you can claim there is a finite amount of odd, or even, or prime, or rational or whatever numbers are a finite amount. They aren't. They simply are different sets all containing infinite members.

I'm not, what I'm essentially saying is that they're two completely separate forms of infinity, and one contains the other. I realize this will likely make no sense, but since they're different forms of infinity then one - the subset - is a "smaller" form of infinity.

To be clear: all integers are real numbers, but not all real numbers are integers. Fractions and Decimals are real numbers which are not integers.

There are infinite integers.
There are infinite real numbers.
As real numbers contain all integers as well as all fractions and decimals, its infinity encompasses more (as a set) than the infinity that is integers. This is what I mean by them being two separate infinities.

In regards to that specific example. You are correct. The real numbers form a larger infinite set than the integers.
But that's not always true.

Again, taking the example of the integers compared to the even integers. There are exactly the same number of even numbers as there are integers. Even though one is a clear sub-set of the other. Infinity is not a simple concept.

You have to do someone extreme to change the size of an infinite set and simply removing part of it isn't enough.

 

[Casual Shinji]

X-Men: Days of Future Past is the most recent example, I can think of. OK, it's partially explained there with Wolverine having to be "maintained" in the past.

It starts to get a bit iffy when you realize Wolverine is in the past for atleast a couple of days. That would mean Kitty is staying awake for days beaming his mind into the past.

OT: Time travel makes no sense in general. The least you can do is have a little fun with it, and time loops are fun if they have an interesting theme to them. I always loved the the first Terminator time loop. Kyle had Sarah's picture for ages wondering what she was thinking at that exact moment. And then by the end you find out she was thinking how much she loved him. It's bleak and at the same time touching.

 

[Maze1125]

The problem with this is that you defeated your own argument. Infinity-1 is still infinity specifically because by the definition of infinity, it is impossible to subtract 1 from it in the first place. In much the same way that you cannot divide by 0 because there is nothing to divide it among, anything dealing with infinity becomes impossible to solve because you cannot alter the value of infinity as the value of infinity is unquantifiable.

Which is to say, you cannot remove a number from an infinite set of numbers, all you can do is ignore that the number is there within the infinite set of numbers, because if it were possible to reduce or increase something that is infinite, it would not be infinite.

You're thinking mostly correct, but there is no need to fudge the idea of removing a number from an infinite set.
N\{1} is perfectly well defined where N\{1} =/= N but |N\{1}| = |N| = infinity.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Did the rebels have the opportunity to do tests, or did they just throw the first guy into the machine once they figured out what the machines were doing? Did they even have their own time machine, or did they steal one from the machines?

Actually, now that I think about it, how could they do any tests? There's no time machine on the other end to send them back. Am I supposed to buy that everyone they sent back to test managed to survive long enough to get the data back?

You don't need a time machine on the other end to do tests. Even in that show Terra Nova, they did basic tests to ensure it wasn't "their" earth. It wasn't a time machine but a wormhole if IIRC. A simple test would be to bury something in a very specific place in the past to see if it's there in the present.

If someone doesn't exist in the future unless they go back in time in order to create/save themself, then they do not exist in the future and therefore cannot go back in time unless someone/something creates/saves them first, in which case, there is no point in going back in time to create/save themself. It is either impossible or pointless, and either way, a very bad and unnecessary plot device.

Yeah, that's my exact issue with it. I don't really care if there is a physics theory out there that somehow makes it work, it just makes no logical sense whatsoever. If this is possible we can never worry about going extinct because future us will save us.

 

[Maze1125]

it just makes no logical sense whatsoever.

You have clearly never studied formal logic, because it works perfectly in logic.
Let F be event that the future goes back to cause the past and let P be the event that the past causes the future.
Then the time-loop is:
1)If F then P
2)If P then F

So if F is true, then P is true by 1 and if P is true then F is true by 2.
This is perfectly logically valid and consistent.

It even works if F is false.
If F is false then P is false by 2 and if P is false then F is false by 1.
Again, perfect consistency.

If this is possible we can never worry about going extinct because future us will save us.

No, there is absolutely no guarantee of that.
Look at the logic options. The first example (where F is true) is where the future saves us. The second example (where F is false) is where the future fails to save us.

BOTH are valid, hence there is no way to know which will occur until it actually happens.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You have clearly never studied formal logic, because it works perfectly in logic.

The future can't exist without the past surviving. Future us would've already been back at this point.

 

[FalloutJack]

If this is possible we can never worry about going extinct because future us will save us.

No, there is absolutely no guarantee of that.
Look at the logic options. The first example (where F is true) is where the future saves us. The second example (where F is false) is where the future fails to save us.

BOTH are valid, hence there is no way to know which will occur until it actually happens.

Schroedinger's Temporal Phenomenon, thereby proving what Terry Pratchett has said all along[footnote]Read 'The Unadulterated Cat'.[/footnote], that all cats are quantum in nature.

 

[Maze1125]

You have clearly never studied formal logic, because it works perfectly in logic.

The future can't exist without the past surviving. Future us would've already been back at this point.

Yes, exactly, a stable loop.
Whichever event you consider, it appears that the other event has already happened first; but that's not inconsistent, merely potentially confusing.