Time Traveling Question

I'm working on a time traveling story and I'm trying to avoid writing a time paradox. So I was curious if the situation listed below would avoid a time paradox.

A person leaves their home universe and goes to an alternate universe while in the alternate universe. This person uses a machine to reverse time in their home universe by decades. After reversing time in their home universe by decades, this person goes back to their home universe. When the person finds their grandfather and kills him.

So I'm curious if this situation would cause a paradox if yes why and if not why not?

The answer is: it's up to you.

Generally, if you de-grandfather yourself in the past, it means that you will get a paradox unless you write your time travel in a way that stops this from happening. So really, it's up to you.

@Kazeto

Do you think that I wrote the time traveling in such a way that there would no paradoxes and it would make sense/be logical?

edited 11th Jun '15 10:17:03 AM by warrior93

I don't know, can you?

I think that's for you to figure out yourself. You can write in a reason how a paradox couldn't happen and be logical, but it's up to you since you know your story best.

edited 10th Jun '15 2:34:17 PM by electronic-tragedy

I think that I did write time traveling in such a way that logically there would be no paradoxes if the character kills their grandfather.

However just because something seems logical to me doesn't it mean that others would view it as logical. So that's why I'm asking if my time traveling situation makes sense to them and not just me.

Mainly because if the time traveling only makes sense to me that means I have to revise my story.

Considering all the info you gave us, considering it as much as I could with how little of that info there was, the best answer I can give you is what I gave you. There is a possibility of it both being and not being a paradox, but it's up to you.

Really, I've seen enough time travel plots with weird explanations that actually made it all fit that I don't have issues with something potentially being a paradox. Sure, potentially, what you have, can be a paradox. So write it in a way that makes it not one; there are enough ways to approach it to make that happen.

Well, when does he kill his grandfather? He could've been killed after his mother/father has been seeded and that wouldn't effect his birth. Argo, no paradox-at least none that concerns him being born, potentially.

@Hydra

The character kills their grandfather before their parents are born.

@Kazeto

I figure that the character leaves their home universe and re-enter their home universe so that the character would no longer be bound to the causality/cause and effect of time in their home universe.

edited 11th Jun '15 10:17:25 AM by warrior93

Then that's that, the character is out of sync with time itself, and no changes done to the past affect the character. Ergo, his grandfather dies and thus he won't exist in the future, but now, out of time, he does exist. Thus, doesn't count as a paradox in the way you'd asked if it is.

Your story, your explanation of it. But I've seen that particular justification a few times and I don't have issues with it.

edited 10th Jun '15 3:25:27 PM by Kazeto

Oh, that's why he went to another universe. See, to me, "Leaving The Universe" did not lead intuitively to "Leaving Causality Behind".

What you're asking is that if a character who no longer requires any cause or lead-up to exist can cause a paradox by making it so that they wouldn't be able to exist.

So they can't really, as far as I can see, cause a paradox in that particular way.

But YMMV.

It causes a paradox because he kills his grandfather, therefore he has broken the chain of causation that led to his existence.

edit

Well, without an explanation as to why they're removed from causality by leaving their home universe.

edited 11th Jun '15 4:38:23 AM by editerguy

@editer

So does it makes sense why the character would not be affect by casuality because they leave their home universe before re-entering their home universe?

Also the tvtropes page says Mental Time Travel avoids paradoxs and I was curious how Mental Time Travel avoid paradoxes?

I mean personally it wouldn't ruin my enjoyment of a story, but I see it as a paradox if there is no explanation for why leaving their home universe removes them from causality. It's too much of a Hand Wave to me.

edited 11th Jun '15 6:39:57 AM by editerguy

@editor

Can you give me an explanation that would remove someone from casuality that isn't handwavey at all. Because I don't want any explanations for avoiding casuality that is handwavey.

Well, a non-handwavey example would be, for example, that every single change in the past simply leads to creation of an alternate future, a split time-line or something like that. This way the character would not be affected by the changes because of the very fact that he is in the past, as that means it is the version from a certain time-line and whatever changes this person causes do not change this time-line but simply cause another one to happen.

edited 11th Jun '15 8:09:24 AM by Kazeto

@editor

What if I say that a natural consequence of leaving their home universe going into another universe. Is that whatever causality that affects their home universe won't affect them, but only causality that occurs in the alternate universe will affect them now would that work?

@Kazeto

Is there a way of doing time traveling when it creates an alternate timeline and at the same time allow the alternate timeline to be the only timeline without implied genocide for other timelines?

edited 11th Jun '15 10:17:44 AM by warrior93

Timey-wimey, wibbly-wobbily. Even professionals try to avoid having too many hard and fast rules in these stories.

Sure, why wouldn't it be possible? The exact specifics of getting to particular time-lines are something you'd have to work out for yourself, so if it's not possible in your story then it is only because you chose to make it so.

Also, not being able to get to a particular time-line does not equal it not existing.

Also also, could you please be consistent in how you misspell my nickname? I don't particularly care about it nor mind it because it's just a nickname and I still know whom you are replying to, but it's making you appear stupid and lazy which other people might care about. And that doesn't help you.

The bottom line is, when writing a story with time travel in it, that it's much more important to establish the rules of your universe early in the story, and remain consistent to them, than it is to avoid logical fallacies or whatnot. So-

First you have to decide how time and causality work in your universe, then you have to communicate that to your readers in a way that doesnt come across as an Info Dump, and then you can send your main character back in time or wherever, and most readers should accept that with few problems.

edited 11th Jun '15 10:17:48 AM by DeMarquis

You're right I'm just a philosophical guy at nature so I always try to avoid logical fallacies whenever I can. Also the story I'm writing is philosophical in nature that why avoiding logical fallacies is important to me.

@Kazeto

For my story, I'm trying to ultimately have only one timeline existing at the end. So I wonder if the final alternate timeline could rewrite and merge the present state of all the other timelines. So that there would be only one timeline without killing countless life forms?

Instead there being only one timeline that exist due to changing and combining countless life forms.

edited 11th Jun '15 12:15:05 PM by warrior93

Like I said, it causes a paradox because he has broken the chain of causation that led to his existence.

Maybe he kills a guy who seems to be his grandfather, but actually this creates two timelines. In one his grandfather is still alive but in the other he's dead. That's not a paradox because he's created a different universe or something I suppose. Maybe the original timeline then collapses - as in, it doesn't change, it just is destroyed somehow. So the effect is the timeline has been replaced by one where his grandfather was killed by him.

Well I don't know how helpful this is, that's just how I see it.

What you're attempting is most likely impossible. No matter how many ways you try to force it, there's no way that this makes logical sense. How can you exist if your grandparent died before your parent could be conceived? It CAN'T make any logical sense. Now, fiction doesn't necessarily require logic, only consistency (as has been pointed out to you more than once), but you seem unwilling to accept that. Are you trolling (or am I just that jaded)?

@editer

That's pretty helpful and according to the tropes page Mental Time Travel there usually no paradoxes associated with mental time travel and I was wondering do you have any ideas for why that would be the case?

@Neko

I'm not trolling I'm just super obsessed with logic and having things make logical sense. However, I don't see much of a difference between logical and consistency if there is a difference between the two could you explain them to me, please.

Also does mental time travel avoid paradoxes if so how?

edited 12th Jun '15 11:02:03 AM by warrior93

Logic: 1 + 2 = 3

Consistency: 1 + 2 = 12, so 2 + 1 = 21

Logic is about observing patterns of cause and effect, or at least APPARENT patterns of cause and effect. Example: because the sun, moon, and stars appear to encircle the world, it is perfectly logical to conclude that the universe is geocentric. That doesn't make it TRUE, but it's still logical. It makes sense.

Consistency is about CREATING patterns of cause and effect. Example: in your setting, the universe IS geocentric; as a result, the core of the planet is the source of gravity throughout the cosmos. Sense this is so, there must be something keeping outer space "up there". Consistency is an artifice, a conceit of fictionists (has that term been coined yet?).

In your particular case, there can be no logical explanation as to how you can kill your grandfather before your parent was conceived and continue to exist IN THE SAME TIMELINE. However, should you decide that physically traveling through time somehow "insulates" you from the normal rules of causation, then that should ALWAYS be the case (unless you introduce a reason why that ISN'T always the case (and if you do this too much you still run the risk of breaking the reader's suspension of disbelief)). So, again, what you'e going for is logically impossible but if you present it consistently, a reader will brush it off as a conceit (which it is).

@Neko

Thanks for your feedback and what's your thoughts about Mental Time Travel?