|
|
Post by speedwell on Aug 29, 2020 12:28:41 GMT
I can see the point for the two Annies really being separate. After one of them had six months more experience than the other, it's hard to say they're still "the same person". More so than anyone else, yes, but not in such a way that they could seamlessly and comfortably be integrated. In fact I don't even *want* that to happen anymore. It would mean intolerable stress and terror to the "integrated" Annie.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Aug 29, 2020 18:27:14 GMT
I can see the point for the two Annies really being separate. After one of them had six months more experience than the other, it's hard to say they're still "the same person". More so than anyone else, yes, but not in such a way that they could seamlessly and comfortably be integrated. In fact I don't even *want* that to happen anymore. It would mean intolerable stress and terror to the "integrated" Annie. I don't think that would happen. There are two timelines now, and the only way to sort of fix what Loup did would be to bring the version of Annie he took from one timeline and put her back there. |
|
|
|
Post by verrenox on Aug 29, 2020 23:17:49 GMT
Hm. Maybe this is ‘first loop’ Antimony. She didn’t really die when she fell - this loop’s, uh, Loup plucked her from the timestream before she died and then gave her this Antimony’s memories. The Court would assume her body was carried away by the river. We’d need a second hand-wave for the age difference, I suppose. But this way, none of the Annies have to have died. As early as the second loop, they could be saved by the Tic-Toc. Everyone here is talking about the time looping. Since when is that a thing, anyway? Why should time loop? How long would one iteration be? Why should the universe be reset and restarted? Worse, it is not even reset. If it is a loop, its end will also be its beginning - "just by itself". How, when, why would this happen? This is where I'm at. As far as I remember, there hasn't been any real explanation as to how time travel in this universe works. The closest we got was Kat theorizing about their being a universe without any Annie, which started the Tic-Toc chain, as a possible explanation to no Annie being "supposed to exist" in this universe. It could very much just be the case that its a bootstrap paradox entirely enclosed in a single universe. Annie is alive because this Kat, the one we are currently seeing, invented the Tic-Toc and sent it back in time to save Annie. There doesn't NEED to be a start to it, and the Norn's so far have not explained HOW time travel works, just that it does.
This would make sense with them saying that they "only deal in temporal affairs", which implies that the issue with Annie^2 is not temporal, but the saving of Annie's life is. Which would make sense with what I've said above. Annie is not supposed to be alive, according to Clippie, because she should have died by falling off the bridge but was saved by Tic-Tocs (temporal anomaly). There are two Annies, one who was shifted into this universe by Loup when she entered the forest (spatial anomaly) (side note, I'm not sure if we are explicitly told which Annie was shifted, but I'm pretty sure Courtnie was shifted in to allow Loup and Fannie to have their conversation). Now Kat and Co are visiting the Norn's to create the temporal anomaly that saved Annie's life from way back.
In short, I do not believe that there is a "looping universe" as all the talk and speculation have been about. There is no "first time", and Annie IN THIS CONTAINED UNIVERSE has always and will always be saved by the Tic-Tocs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dvandaemon on Aug 30, 2020 0:27:22 GMT
Well the norns aparently deal in "forwards and backwards" on the Timestream. Getting the annies sorted back to the timeline they belong to (and maybe getting the annie that belongs here back) is _sideways_ to the Timestream. Not that sideways is the correct term, but it helps my brain to sort this kind of stuff out  There are the relative terms "upstream" and "downstream". The overall future is "upstream from here", but your individual future is "upstream from you". A time-traveling friend you meet for the first time, might introduce themselves with, "Oh, we had a grand Minoan adventure downstream from here, upstream from you" I suppose, you could use "cross-stream", or some variation of tributary and distributary?... I think the real brain-melting will start, when we have to figure out verb tenses. Seems slightly less confusing than using Ana or Kata. |
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Aug 30, 2020 20:56:35 GMT
Everyone here is talking about the time looping. Since when is that a thing, anyway? Why should time loop? How long would one iteration be? Why should the universe be reset and restarted? Worse, it is not even reset. If it is a loop, its end will also be its beginning - "just by itself". How, when, why would this happen? In this view, time is like a piece of string. Without time travel shenanigans, events occur in a straight line, beginning to end. In this model, when something or someone is sent back in time, a bundle of threads are broken off from the main string. That bundle ‘loops back’ to an earlier point and knot on. The remaining inhabitants from the first bundle live out that thread, but a new string is also created at the knot point. Now there are two strings running in parallel. On those strings, events are similar, but not identical, due to the actions of the time traveller(s). If events again lead to someone being sent back in time, a new bundle is split off and tied back earlier, at or near the same spot. And so on. If this happens many times, the string would have a bundle of loops that split off at various points but all tie back at or near the same point in the past. It’s not a perfect metaphor, because we don’t know how time travel works. I’ve found that this is a common way of explaining away paradoxes, though. Since the events of the original string continue to their historical conclusion, there is no contradiction (at the low low cost of splitting time or creating another universe, depending on your view). It’s speculation. There’s no reason to think that this is what’s going on except that I find it has verisimilitude. I also find it emotionally pleasing both as a reader and in empathy with the characters to consider that Antimony didn’t have to die in order to set these events in motion. That I find it pleasing doesn’t make it more or less likely to be the real resolution of the story, but I find it comforting to consider. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Aug 31, 2020 10:25:36 GMT
Everyone here is talking about the time looping. Since when is that a thing, anyway? Why should time loop? How long would one iteration be? Why should the universe be reset and restarted? Worse, it is not even reset. If it is a loop, its end will also be its beginning - "just by itself". How, when, why would this happen? In this view, time is like a piece of string. Without time travel shenanigans, events occur in a straight line, beginning to end. In this model, when something or someone is sent back in time, a bundle of threads are broken off from the main string. That bundle ‘loops back’ to an earlier point and knot on. The remaining inhabitants from the first bundle live out that thread, but a new string is also created at the knot point. Now there are two strings running in parallel. On those strings, events are similar, but not identical, due to the actions of the time traveller(s). If events again lead to someone being sent back in time, a new bundle is split off and tied back earlier, at or near the same spot. And so on. If this happens many times, the string would have a bundle of loops that split off at various points but all tie back at or near the same point in the past. It’s not a perfect metaphor, because we don’t know how time travel works. I’ve found that this is a common way of explaining away paradoxes, though. Since the events of the original string continue to their historical conclusion, there is no contradiction (at the low low cost of splitting time or creating another universe, depending on your view). It’s speculation. There’s no reason to think that this is what’s going on except that I find it has verisimilitude. I also find it emotionally pleasing both as a reader and in empathy with the characters to consider that Antimony didn’t have to die in order to set these events in motion. That I find it pleasing doesn’t make it more or less likely to be the real resolution of the story, but I find it comforting to consider. That's an understandable explanation... I still don't think it is the correct one. I mean, it makes sense for an explanation how actual time-travel might be possible, but it would lead to many timelines, and that contradicts Clippy's statement that normally there is no need for more than one. |
|
|
|
Post by blazingstar on Aug 31, 2020 19:52:39 GMT
Profound changes to the world? Dang. First time the scope of the comic expanded beyond the Court and the Forest, I think. depends if people in the world can see the thumb print on the moon or not . They can. |
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Aug 31, 2020 19:54:12 GMT
They're usually not needed, but some beings can create them if they wish.
Given that Tom has suggested that either retroactive causality or subjective history are in play, I also doubt that time loops are entirely what's going on - but they're a construct that I understand, so they're fun to play with until we get the next piece of information that contradicts them.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Aug 31, 2020 22:20:11 GMT
That's an understandable explanation... I still don't think it is the correct one. I mean, it makes sense for an explanation how actual time-travel might be possible, but it would lead to many timelines, and that contradicts Clippy's statement that normally there is no need for more than one. If it's a correct explanation, but normally there are no time travellers... I've also seen a version where every event that could go two ways goes both ways, splitting time in two, but threads that are sufficiently similar to each other eventually merge. |
|
|
|
Post by blahzor on Sept 1, 2020 2:26:13 GMT
depends if people in the world can see the thumb print on the moon or not . They can. well that's because she lives there |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Sept 1, 2020 12:05:14 GMT
well that's because she lives there Kat saw it thru a telescope as well... |
|
