Jump to content

Which theory is James Cameron pushing??


Guest Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

As you probarbly already know, The Terminator and Terminator 2 propose two different quantum mechanics theories..

I.e..The Terminator proposes 'predeterminancy' or a single circular universe. Everything that happens is pre determined. This grand scheme can not be altered by time travel..Any time travel that occurs has already effected the flow of history as it was always going to..blah blah..

This makes pretty good sense, as when Skynet tries to alter the past, it instead succeeds in maintaining it..single universe no way of changing 'fate'.

The 'single reality' theory is actually 'proved' right at the beginning of the film..

There are two separate time incursions, the Terminator and then a little later Reece. They both arrive however, in the same reality. If the alternate reality theory was in effect, an incursion is not pre ordained, thus creates a paradox - hence an alternate reality is formed.

Two separate incursions = Two SEPARATE realities skewing off from the origainal timeline. The Terminator and Reece are no longer in the same reality and could never meet..They could only end up in the SAME reality, by utilising the SAME incursion..

Terminator 2 however, proposes the 'alternate reality' theory. This is 'proved' when the team manage to successfully prevent the creation of Skynet, thus preventing the nuclear holocaust..

I refuse to believe that it is possible to change the past of your own native reality as this is paradoxical and nonsensical. The 'tool' or person of change must first exist in order to attempt the change.

Both films present reasonably plausible theories, but they cannot BOTH be correct. I'm afraid that each negates the other.

Time travel is either paradoxical or an integral part of a single reality. Some films/tv shows seem to think that you can travel into your own reality's past and only create a paradox when you interact with someone. This is irrelevent. You either arrive in your native reality and carry out the actions that you are predestined to, hence making time travel part of the original history of your SINGLE universe.

...Or, the process of time travel itself is a change to your original history, thus creating a paradox, straight away, as soon as you arrive.

Your actions would then be followed through in the new reality that you have created and you could never return to your original native reality.

Every further incursion would create a new reality....No back tracking.

So as I said, Time travel is either an integral part of history..hence one reality only = The Terminator. Or it is not integral, any incursion immediately creates a paradox, hence multiple realities = Terminator 2.

One does not allow the possibility of the other..

I think that it is very important to realise that to begin to understand the possibilities of temporal mechanics, you have to think of time from beyond human perspective. Time is a whole. There is no question of it being complete or not. From our linear perspective, we can only see part of it and that's our problem. Tommorrow we can see a bit more and on and on. But the universe and time are really one and the same thing. From our perspective we can't see the whole of either, yet they do exist as whole entities.

Time travel into your past, if physically possible has already happened which means that it is not paradoxical, but part of your universe/reality. You are where you are today, partly because of it.

Or time travel into our past has not already happened and so if phsically possible, would immediately cause a paradox and a parallel reality that skews off from the original universe at the point of incursion.

It is either part of our past or future history, or it isn't. It can't be anywhere in between.

Don't get me wrong, I am fond of both films and it only adds to their enjoyment to scrutinize them in this way. It is a blunder though..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Hi Simon.

What did Arnie Swarzenegger say the T-1000 was made of???

They were on the bike and John asked him is the T-1000 was more advanced.

Arnie said something like 'epimedley polyalloy'. It came up when I put on subtitles.

Im sure the typists at Page 888 arn't scientists, so I was wondering what 'epimedley polyalloy' actually is. The T-1000 was some kind of liquid metal so maybe it has somehting to do with that.

Do you know what he said, SimonB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...