Paradox 5.5 | Meta-time 4.5 | Cumulative concept of time, 13.5 | Two dimensional time 4.4 | 二次元時間 4.4

To be logically consistent WITHIN the movie’s story, Young Joe (in the year 2044) should not be able to influence Old Joe, who had time-travelled to the year 2044 from the year 2074，because that Old Joe is from another timeline. The proof is that Young Joe’s experience in the year 2044 is different from Old Joe’s experience in the year 2044 when he was young.

They are not the same person, nor the same person at different ages within the same timeline. At most, they are different versions of the “same” person from two different timelines (aka “parallel universes” or “histories”).

Young Joe’s changes should affect the same-timeline-Old-Joe, but not any Old Joe’s from any other timelines. So the Old Joe within the movie should not have been affected when Young Joe hurt himself.

Also, the changes of the same-timeline-Old-Joe due to the actions of Young Joe should be seen only by the author (meta-time), but not by Young Joe until he has become that Old Joe 30 years later. 

The author unintentionally, or intentionally, has confused two story timelines. Moreover, the author unintentionally, or intentionally, has confused the story-time and its meta-time.

— Me@2013-07-05 10:32 PM

2013.07.11 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Paradox 5.4 | Meta-time 4.4 | Cumulative concept of time, 13.4 | Two dimensional time 4.3 | 二次元時間 4.3

In a single-mutable-timeline time travel story, the two dimensional time is not due to the internal causal structure of the story. Instead, it is due to the author’s timeline (aka meta-time). The author’s timeline is the second time dimension (aka independent direction).

The single-mutable-timeline model of time travel is not logically consistent within the story. If it is “mutable”, it is not “single”.

The single-mutable-timeline model of time travel is logically consistent only outside the story, from the perspective of the story’s author.

— Me@2013-07-02 3:47 PM 

2013.07.09 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Paradox 5.3 | Meta-time 4.3 | Cumulative concept of time, 13.3 | Two dimensional time 4.2 | 二次元時間 4.2

In the movie Looper, Young Joe (in the year 2044) influences Old Joe (in the year 2074) in the sense that Young Joe’s every action affects the state of Old Joe, because Old Joe is Young Joe’s future self.

For example, after Young Joe had hurt his own arm, the corresponding wound also appeared on Old Joe’s arm, even though Old Joe had already time-travelled back to the year 2044. 

All of Young Joe’s actions are the causes of Old Joe’s state. Young Joe is in the past of Old Joe.

Old Joe (2074-Joe) = [ …, Young Joe (2044-Joe), … ]

B = [ …, A, … ]

However, Old Joe (2074-Joe) had time-travelled back to the year 2044, meeting the Young Joe.

So, some of Old Joe’s actions would affect Young Joe’s decisions on his own actions. In this sense, Old Joe also influences Young Joe indirectly. Some of Old Joe’s actions are the causes of Young Joe’s state. Part of Old Joe is also in the past of Young Joe.

Young Joe (2044-Joe) = [ …, Old Joe (2074-Joe), … ]

A = [ …, B, … ]

However, it is logically impossible to have both

B is in the past of A 

and

A is in the past of B

just as it is logically almost impossible to have both

D is a part of C

and

C is a part of D

If you insist that it is the case, the only possibility is that

C = D

In this analogy, neither C nor D is really a “part” of another. In the time travel case, neither A nor B is really in the past of another. In other words, A (Young Joe) and B (Old Joe) have no time relationship. Neither’s actions are the causes of the state of another.

The real causes of Young Joe or Old Joe’s states are actually not within the movie story’s timeline. The real causes are the decisions of the author of the story.

— Me@2013-07-03 6:19 PM

2013.07.08 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Paradox 5.2 | Meta-time 4.2 | Cumulative concept of time, 13.2 | Two dimensional time 4.1 | 二次元時間 4.1

In a “if and only if” case, there is no time. 

If A is a necessary condition of B, we say “A is a cause of B“. In other words, A is in the past of B.

However, in some time travel story, it is “possible” to have both

A is a cause of B

(A is a necessary condition of B)

(B -> A)

and

B is a cause of A

(B is also a necessary condition of A)

(A -> B)

In this case, A and B are just equivalent.

(A B)

Neither is in the past of another. A and B have no causal relationship. In this sense, there is no time.

— Me@2013-07-03 6:19 PM

2013.07.05 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK