When the hell did Tapion go to?

[Dayspring]

Er... As we keep talking about this, I get more and more confident that I'm right and that you simply don't get it (sorry, but that is how I feel). I did try to explain this to you a couple of times already, and I really don't know if I could make myself any clearer. So I'll try to keep it short, get to the point, and then leave it at that... Go ahead and call that a "cop-out", Jerseymilk. I tried.

Except that that makes no sense. And it's not a limitation of the time machine, it's simply an impossibility. You can not go to what doesn't exist. If time didn't continue to flow after he left he would appear exactly at the time he left when he returned because there's nothing after it.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any kind of sense. Trunks' timeline had not future yet? How the hell did Cell manage to get in that time machine and into the past if the future where he killed Trunks didn't exist yet? Or are you actually arguing that Cell, not Trunks, is the one guy who was living "at the end of times"?

And most (if not all?) fiction works dealing with time travels assume that you can use a time machine to go into the future. That that future does exist. That you're not living "at the end of times", but simply at some point in time, surrounded by past and future events (all possible destinations for your time machine), and slowly making your way forward in your timeline. I don't see any reason to believe "Dragon Ball" is any different.

I think I see the problem. DB-time travel never used one single timeline. That's why Cell came from a future of his own and why Trunks said everything he was doing in the past wouldn't affect his own time. Think of them as seperate universes (the manga's, Trunks', and Cell's, etc) and now re-read our arguments. Also, the seperate timeline argument is not up for debate: it's stated in the manga + confirmed by the daizenshuu.

[Olivier Hague]

(I added some stuff to my post while you were replying, if you're interested...)

DB-time travel never used one single timeline. That's why Cell came from a future of his own and why Trunks said everything he was doing in the past wouldn't affect his own time. Think of them as seperate universes (the manga's, Trunks', and Cell's, etc) and now re-read our arguments.

Still, you're arguing that there's a direct correlation between the time that passes in one timeline (Trunks' "future" timeline) and the time that passes in another timeline (the one where Trunks fights against the androids and Cell alongside his dad), and that's what would explain the lapse of time between Trunks's departure and his return in his future, according to you.
Logically, that correlation should apply to all timelines. How does that even work?

Anyway, I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy the whole thing. I've never seen a work of fiction use such "rules" when dealing with time travels (rules that actually forbid travels into the future... unless that future already exists because you were actually living in the past, not in the "real present", "at the current end of the times"? whuh??), and I just don't think that theory holds any water... It's overly complicated (too many ramifications and limitations... so many, in fact, that I doubt it's even viable) and, from what I can see, it only serves to justify the lapse of time between Trunks' departure and his return in his timeline, a lapse of time that could be explained away much more easily (Trunks simply set a later date, the Time Machine simply isn't that accurate, etc).

the seperate timeline argument is not up for debate

Again, I'm obviously not disagreeing about that.

(sorry about the multiple edits, if you spotted them, but I sometimes get new ideas (so I add more stuff), and some other times, I end up getting carried away with these new ideas and simply confusing the issue further (so I delete some stuff))

[desirecampbell]

I think I see the problem. DB-time travel never used one single timeline. That's why Cell came from a future of his own and why Trunks said everything he was doing in the past wouldn't affect his own time. Think of them as seperate universes (the manga's, Trunks', and Cell's, etc) and now re-read our arguments. Also, the seperate timeline argument is not up for debate: it's stated in the manga + confirmed by the daizenshuu.

That's what I've been wanting to see. Does anyone actually have the daizenshuu that's in? I think the most important part here is to gather all the relevant information: what does the manga say? What does the daizenshuu say? What do we know for sure? After we have established the 'what', we can speculate about the 'how'.

[Olivier Hague]

I think the most important part here is to gather all the relevant information: what does the manga say? What does the daizenshuu say? What do we know for sure?

Not much, as the Daizenshû and "Dragon Ball Forever" offer two different explanations for the whole "multiple timelines" thing. And both explanations are flawed/incomplete, if I remember well.
I have yet to see an explanation that ties up all the loose ends (assuming that's possible at all, naturally).

[Xyex]

Er... As we keep talking about this, I get more and more confident that I'm right and that you simply don't get it (sorry, but that is how I feel). I did try to explain this to you a couple of times already, and I really don't know if I could make myself any clearer.

As we talk I get more and more confident I'm right and you're just not grasping it. I've explained this as clearly as I can.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any kind of sense. Trunks' timeline had not future yet? How the hell did Cell manage to get in that time machine and into the past if the future where he killed Trunks didn't exist yet? Or are you actually arguing that Cell, not Trunks, is the one guy who was living "at the end of times"?

Both were, actually. See, you have to remember, the Trunks we see in the series is not the first one to go back in time. Trunks went back, created a time-line we don't see, then returned to the future. Time went onward, Cell came along, killed Trunks, and then he went back.

And if "you can't go to what doesn't exist", and Trunks created a new "parallel present" by going into the past to warn the heroes, how could he use the time machine to reappear on the day the Androids first showed up, three years later? Are you arguing that he spent three years in the future in-between his first trip (when he killed Freeza and Cold) and his second one (when he fought against the Androids and Cell alongside the others)? Are you arguing that Trunks was three years older when he showed up for the second time? He didn't really seem any older to me, especially considering spending one year in the Room of Spirit and Time did change him quite a bit, in contrast. He wouldn't change much from 17 to 20, and then suddenly grow up from 20 to 21?

While I do think him staying in his own time for 3 years would have made more sense than the apparant six or so months, that's not what the manga says. And aside from that, I never said that time flows at the same speed in ever time-line. Three days in one could be three centuries in another, or three seconds. No way to tell.

And most (if not all?) fiction works dealing with time travels assume that you can use a time machine to go into the future. That that future does exist. That you're not living "at the end of times", but simply at some point in time, surrounded by past and future events (all possible destinations for your time machine), and slowly making your way forward in your timeline. I don't see any reason to believe "Dragon Ball" is any different.

Say what? 95% of fiction follows the 'the future hasn't happened yet' system. Most stories are not fatalistic.

[Olivier Hague]

Trunks' timeline had not future yet? How the hell did Cell manage to get in that time machine and into the past if the future where he killed Trunks didn't exist yet? Or are you actually arguing that Cell, not Trunks, is the one guy who was living "at the end of times"?

Both were, actually. See, you have to remember, the Trunks we see in the series is not the first one to go back in time. Trunks went back, created a time-line we don't see, then returned to the future. Time went onward, Cell came along, killed Trunks, and then he went back.

So who's "in charge of the time passing", during the series? Cell? Trunks v2.0? Both? How does that work? Do you add up all the time they both spend in the past to decide by how much all the other timelines in existence are "growing"/"moving forward in time"? Does that count simple or double, when they're both in the same timeline? And what about Trunks v1.0? Does he still "count"?
I'm sorry, but this is just... Huh.

And if "you can't go to what doesn't exist", and Trunks created a new "parallel present" by going into the past to warn the heroes, how could he use the time machine to reappear on the day the Androids first showed up, three years later? Are you arguing that he spent three years in the future in-between his first trip (when he killed Freeza and Cold) and his second one (when he fought against the Androids and Cell alongside the others)? Are you arguing that Trunks was three years older when he showed up for the second time? He didn't really seem any older to me, especially considering spending one year in the Room of Spirit and Time did change him quite a bit, in contrast. He wouldn't change much from 17 to 20, and then suddenly grow up from 20 to 21?

While I do think him staying in his own time for 3 years would have made more sense than the apparant six or so months, that's not what the manga says.

Yes, "it would have made more sense". Because as it is, your theory simply doesn't work.
If Trunks only spent 6 months in his timeline, only 6 months should have passed in the new timeline he created. There would still be 2.5 years until the day of the Androids' arrival. According to your theory, that day doesn't exist yet, and you can't go to a point in time that doesn't exist yet.
And yet, he does manage to appear on that date, as we've seen in the manga.
What gives?

I never said that time flows at the same speed in ever time-line.

Oh, come on! Now, that's what I'd call a cop out!

Dayspring did say so:

the fact that Trunks spent two weeks in the past means two weeks would have gone by in the future as well.

... and you said stuff like:

Occurent time is the actual flow of time which is constant and consistent.

So it would be constant and consistent... except when we're talking about two different timelines? Eventhough all these timelines have the same "source", ultimately? A fact that would imply that the speed of time did change for at least some of these timelines (i.e. before and after the "branching points")?
And that's how you intend to explain away the 6 months / 3 years inconsistency?

Look, please put yourself in my shoes for a moment...
You come up with a fairly complex set of rules (the sort of which I've never seen applied in another time-travel story before) that is entirely based on your interpretation of one detail in the manga: the lapse of time between Trunks' departure and his return in his own timeline (a detail that, like I said, could be explained away rather easily by other, simpler means).
I point out a problem with that set of rules. A contradiction (the thing about Trunks being able to show up 3 years later in the past, when he hasn't spent 3 years in his timeline).
And how do you react? You just come up with yet another rule. A new rule that isn't implied by anything in the series, but was simply inspired by the very contradiction I just pointed out. A new rule that opens some new cans of worms (see above, about the speed of time changing before and after the "branching points").
I'm sorry, but you really can't expect to convince me like that...

Say what? 95% of fiction follows the 'the future hasn't happened yet' system.

I'm talking about fiction works that deal with time travels.
I can't think of one that specifically states that you can't use your time machine to go to the future "because there's nothing there yet", for example.
And could you find one that goes as far as to imply a correlation between the passing of time in one timeline and another (note that I'm talking about timelines created/discovered by time travellers, not generic parallel dimensions)?

Most stories are not fatalistic.

Fatalistic stories are basically set in a deterministic universe where there's one future that can't be changed/avoided.
You don't have to follow a "there is no future at all so far" rule to avoid fatalism. You could simply have a bunch of possible/parallel futures.

[Dayspring]

I think I see the problem. DB-time travel never used one single timeline. That's why Cell came from a future of his own and why Trunks said everything he was doing in the past wouldn't affect his own time. Think of them as seperate universes (the manga's, Trunks', and Cell's, etc) and now re-read our arguments. Also, the seperate timeline argument is not up for debate: it's stated in the manga + confirmed by the daizenshuu.

That's what I've been wanting to see. Does anyone actually have the daizenshuu that's in? I think the most important part here is to gather all the relevant information: what does the manga say? What does the daizenshuu say? What do we know for sure? After we have established the 'what', we can speculate about the 'how'.

http://www.bxg.com/x18999/time.htmlThis, found at the ToT, is essentially a carbon copy of the 4 timelines explanation of Daizenshuu 7. The only difference is the image is fan-made and modelled (perfectly) after the diagram instead of a scanslation. The blurb at the bottom is a translation of the blurb in the daizenshuu as well.

The only problem with the 4 timeline explanation is they mention that the results of the Cell Games are unknown in TL4 since a future Trunks was no longer there (here returned to TL3, but got killed by Cell). That's bull since there shouldn't be a Future Cell in TL4, let alone a Perfect Cell. Another problem is that the diagram shows Trunks made numerous return trips to his own timeline. He only made: when he shows up 3 years later all he did was travel further down the TL1 timeline, not return to his own just so he could go to TL1 again. This is a monumental error since it would have created a fifth timeline.




Olivier: Look at the 4 timelines diagram and you'll understand. 4 seperate timelines do exist. There's numerous instances of irrefutable proof:

-Trunks mentions he can't alter his own timeline, indicating the one we see is seperate from his.
-Trunks returns to his timeline after changing the past and nothing's changed in his era. That's because the changes occured in another timeline.
-The Androids are stronger in the manga's timeline than in Trunks' timeline.
-#16 never appeared in Trunks' timeline. EVER.
-Trunks killed Cell before he could go back in time. If everything were one timeline, this would cause a temporal paradox.

[Xyex]

So who's "in charge of the time passing", during the series? Cell? Trunks v2.0? Both? How does that work? Do you add up all the time they both spend in the past to decide by how much all the other timelines in existence are "growing"/"moving forward in time"? Does that count simple or double, when they're both in the same timeline? And what about Trunks v1.0? Does he still "count"?
I'm sorry, but this is just... Huh.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Which seems to indicate you have no idea what I'm talking about in the entire thread. :x

Look, please put yourself in my shoes for a moment...
You come up with a fairly complex set of rules (the sort of which I've never seen applied in another time-travel story before) that is entirely based on your interpretation of one detail in the manga: the lapse of time between Trunks' departure and his return in his own timeline (a detail that, like I said, could be explained away rather easily by other, simpler means).

It's not based on that at all. That's merely one element that can be used as evidence. It's just basic common sense.

And how do you react? You just come up with yet another rule. A new rule that isn't implied by anything in the series, but was simply inspired by the very contradiction I just pointed out. A new rule that opens some new cans of worms (see above, about the speed of time changing before and after the "branching points").
I'm sorry, but you really can't expect to convince me like that...

And yet your ENTIRE theory is a contradiction in and of itself. If time worked as you say then there would only be a single, solitary, immutable time-line. The fact that there is not disproves your entire concept. Also, I didn't 'come up with another rule'. I never said that's how it was or how it wasn't. I just offered up an answer. Please, don't ask the question if you don't want the answer.

I'm talking about fiction works that deal with time travels.

So was I.

I can't think of one that specifically states that you can't use your time machine to go to the future "because there's nothing there yet", for example.

I've seen this a number of times. One that stands out in my mind is the Langoliers. The future only exists in so far as locations. But there's nothing there. No people or animals. I can think of another show and a book, though I can't remember their names. In the one a person couldn't go any further into the future than their original present before going back in time, even on the return trip they had to re-appear exactly when they left. And in the other a person attempts to travel into the future only to discover there's litterally nothing there, even if he goes forward in time by only a milisecond there's nothing, not even the universe.

And could you find one that goes as far as to imply a correlation between the passing of time in one timeline and another (note that I'm talking about timelines created/discovered by time travellers, not generic parallel dimensions)?

DB is the only thing I can think of, off the top of my head, that uses the alternate time-line system with the exception of one book where they sent messages back in time. And the events of the 'future' world and the 'past' world progessed at identicle speeds.

Fatalistic stories are basically set in a deterministic universe where there's one future that can't be changed/avoided.
You don't have to follow a "there is no future at all so far" rule to avoid fatalism. You could simply have a bunch of possible/parallel futures.

Contradiction! In order to have a selection of varried possible futures you can not have a pre-existing future. The two do not mesh. Either the future exists and is set or the future does not exist and can be changed. It's one or the other, not both.

Anyway, I'm growing tired of this. It's going in circles and, as I mentioned earlier, you don't seem to grasp what I'm saying.

[Olivier Hague]

Olivier: Look at the 4 timelines diagram and you'll understand. 4 seperate timelines do exist.

Oh, come on! I never said otherwise! I do know that separate timelines exist! I'm not disagreeing about that!
How many times will I have to repeat myself about that? ^^;

And I know that diagram. I've read that Daizenshû, as well as "Dragon Ball Forever" (which includes yet another diagram, similar yet different).

You come up with a fairly complex set of rules (the sort of which I've never seen applied in another time-travel story before) that is entirely based on your interpretation of one detail in the manga: the lapse of time between Trunks' departure and his return in his own timeline (a detail that, like I said, could be explained away rather easily by other, simpler means).

It's not based on that at all. That's merely one element that can be used as evidence.

What else is there?

It's just basic common sense.

No, it's not. I'm sorry, but hey. You can't say it's "basic common sense" that you can't travel in the future "because there's nothing there yet", in a time travel story. Many time travel stories feature travels to the future.

And yet your ENTIRE theory is a contradiction in and of itself. If time worked as you say then there would only be a single, solitary, immutable time-line.

No, each timeline, taken separately, would be immutable. But using the time machine allows you to create/discover (it pretty much amounts to the same thing, it's just a matter of point of view) new timelines, with different futures.
Now, that's a theory commonly used in time travel stories. It's the "1.3.2" type, among the several ones listed here. And I'm afraid I can't find your type of time travel there, despite your claiming it's merely based on "basic common sense". Why do you think that is?

I'm talking about fiction works that deal with time travels.

So was I.

By all means, go ahead and give me some titles of time travel stories that follow your "there is no future at all yet" rules, then. That shouldn't be a problem, since you're claiming that's the case for "95%" of them (I doubt it).

Again, if you took a look at the Wikipedia page, you'd see that, on the contrary, they generally assume that there's always at least one future that's "already there" (presentism does go against that idea, I guess, but then again, presentism doesn't quite allow for time travel stories in the first place, now, does it? ^^;). Depending on the theories, it's a future that can be changed, a future that can't be changed, several futures in several timelines...

I've seen this a number of times. One that stands out in my mind is the Langoliers. The future only exists in so far as locations. But there's nothing there. No people or animals.

Yeah, I know that one, but that's a half-assed non-existent future, now, isn't it? What's the rationale behind dead matter being there and living beings not being there yet?

I can think of another show and a book, though I can't remember their names. In the one a person couldn't go any further into the future than their original present before going back in time, even on the return trip they had to re-appear exactly when they left. And in the other a person attempts to travel into the future only to discover there's litterally nothing there, even if he goes forward in time by only a milisecond there's nothing, not even the universe.

Well, I'd have preferred titles, but fine...
Still, that's really not the most common type of time travel, and definitely not one that would immediately come to mind based on "basic common sense".
Again, just take a look at the Wikipedia page. It's just not there, as far as I can tell. And I'm not surprised because I think it's quite a baffling view of time. I said earlier that it seemed a bit like anthropocentrism to me, but it borders on solipsism, actually. It assumes that there's no future after you. That you're the milestone. That you're standing at the ("current") "end of time". Baffling (unless we're talking about presentism... but again, we wouldn't be talking about time travels at all anymore, then).

I'll try to make myself as clear as possible about that last point...

Let's put ourselves in (the first) Trunks' shoes, as he's about to use his time machine for the very first time....
According to your view of time, Trunks is standing "at the end of time". There's no future at all in front of him. It doesn't exist yet. It's created as he's living it. In other words, there's no future, just the present that Trunks is experiencing as time passes.
But we're not talking presentism, here, as the past does exist. That's where Trunks is about to go.
So the past and the present do exist, but the future does not, from Trunks' perspective.
What about Gokû and the others in the past, though? Now, we do know they have a future, right? If Trunks was living in 2027 and they'd be living in 2007, they'd have 20 years worth of future, right?

And that's where the entire problem lies...
What should they and Trunks be any different? Why would they have "some future" and Trunks wouldn't? What makes Trunks so "special"? How can you be sure that Trunks is indeed "special"?

Of course, from Trunks' point of view, he's living in the present, so if the future doesn't exist, he has no future in front of him. But that's just his perception of time! Gokû could very well assume the exact same things! As far as he's concerned, he's living in the present. But Gokû would be wrong? And Trunks would "know better"? How could he (or you) be so sure about that? What guarantee does Trunks have that he won't, someday, see a time machine appear in front of him, and some kid inside will go "hey, my name's Trunks Jr., and there are things I should tell you!"?

Case in point: if you're going to accept the fact the past does actually exist (as a possible destination for your time machine, for example), you also have to accept the fact that you might just as well be part of somebody else's past. Disregarding that possibility pretty much amounts to assuming that you're "special" without any evidence.

And could you find one that goes as far as to imply a correlation between the passing of time in one timeline and another (note that I'm talking about timelines created/discovered by time travellers, not generic parallel dimensions)?

DB is the only thing I can think of, off the top of my head, that uses the alternate time-line system

Whuh? "Dragon Ball" is far from being the only time travel story that uses multiple timelines.
And that's not what I asked. I asked about time travel stories that would imply a correlation between the passing of time in each of these timelines. "If you spend some time in timeline A, some time passes in timeline B as well." That's your theory, and I'm asking for examples of stories that imply (or plain state, for that matter) such a thing.

with the exception of one book where they sent messages back in time. And the events of the 'future' world and the 'past' world progessed at identicle speeds.

All right, that's what I asked. Still no title though?

You don't have to follow a "there is no future at all so far" rule to avoid fatalism. You could simply have a bunch of possible/parallel futures.

Contradiction! In order to have a selection of varried possible futures you can not have a pre-existing future. The two do not mesh.

Yes, they do. You had one pre-existing and immutable future (the original timeline), and you created/discovered new timelines that have their own (different) immutable futures. It's the 1.3 type, as listed on Wikipedia.

Sorry, but like I said earlier, the more we talk about all this and the clearer it becomes that you're not that familiar with the concept of time travel, and the types of time travel commonly used in fiction...

Anyway, I'm growing tired of this. It's going in circles and, as I mentioned earlier, you don't seem to grasp what I'm saying.

Well, I'm pretty sure what you're saying simply doesn't make sense (sorry), so yes, I'm having a hard time "grasping" it.
(and be careful! Jerseymilk might call that a "convenient cop-out"! heh)

[Xyex]

Alright, I know I said I was done but... I do need to say a couple of things...

No, each timeline, taken separately, would be immutable. But using the time machine allows you to create/discover (it pretty much amounts to the same thing, it's just a matter of point of view) new timelines, with different futures.

This is not what you said. You said that a single time-line can have multiple possible futures, not that time can be altered to create new futures. Multiple possible futures = no set future = no existant future.

Let's put ourselves in (the first) Trunks' shoes, as he's about to use his time machine for the very first time....
According to your view of time, Trunks is standing "at the end of time". There's no future at all in front of him. It doesn't exist yet. It's created as he's living it. In other words, there's no future, just the present that Trunks is experiencing as time passes.
But we're not talking presentism, here, as the past does exist. That's where Trunks is about to go.
So the past and the present do exist, but the future does not, from Trunks' perspective.
What about Gokû and the others in the past, though? Now, we do know they have a future, right? If Trunks was living in 2027 and they'd be living in 2007, they'd have 20 years worth of future, right?

And that's where the entire problem lies...
What should they and Trunks be any different? Why would they have "some future" and Trunks wouldn't? What makes Trunks so "special"? How can you be sure that Trunks is indeed "special"?

This spells out your lack of understanding on the matter clearly enough for me, and proves my earlier point that continuing the discussion beyond this point is pointless. But... I'll adress a few points here anyway. You've completely disreguarded the alternate time-lines with this entire section. When Trunks goes back that makes a new time-line with no set future.

Of course, from Trunks' point of view, he's living in the present, so if the future doesn't exist, he has no future in front of him. But that's just his perception of time! Gokû could very well assume the exact same things! As far as he's concerned, he's living in the present. But Gokû would be wrong? And Trunks would "know better"? How could he (or you) be so sure about that? What guarantee does Trunks have that he won't, someday, see a time machine appear in front of him, and some kid inside will go "hey, my name's Trunks Jr., and there are things I should tell you!"?

Case in point: if you're going to accept the fact the past does actually exist (as a possible destination for your time machine, for example), you also have to accept the fact that you might just as well be part of somebody else's past. Disregarding that possibility pretty much amounts to assuming that you're "special" without any evidence.

Goku IS living in the present. And so is Trunks. And if any time-traveller were to appear before Trunks, just as Trunks appeared before Goku, he would STILL be in the present. What's so hard to grasp about that?

And... you know, you said earlier that you don't think of the past as a occuring right now, but you keep dictating that as occuring in your theory.

Yes, they do. You had one pre-existing and immutable future (the original timeline), and you created/discovered new timelines that have their own (different) immutable futures. It's the 1.3 type, as listed on Wikipedia.

Sorry, but like I said earlier, the more we talk about all this and the clearer it becomes that you're not that familiar with the concept of time travel, and the types of time travel commonly used in fiction...

As I stated earlier, that is far from the same thing. That's splitting the time-line. That's not possible futures. Splitting the time-line requires someone else to go into the past to alter time. Possible futures requires no time travel. And, again, Multiple possible futures = no set future = no existant future.

EDIT: Something I was thinking of just as I posted. A non-existant future doesn't necasarily mean you can't travel to the future. It would simply require you to pass outside the normal flow of time and allow time to pass forward to the point you want to be at and then re-enter.

Right. Done now.

[Olivier Hague]

No, each timeline, taken separately, would be immutable. But using the time machine allows you to create/discover (it pretty much amounts to the same thing, it's just a matter of point of view) new timelines, with different futures.

This is not what you said. You said that a single time-line can have multiple possible futures

Go ahead and quote me. I did not say such thing.

This spells out your lack of understanding on the matter clearly enough for me, and proves my earlier point that continuing the discussion beyond this point is pointless.

How so? Would you at least have the courtesy to explain/elaborate?

But... I'll adress a few points here anyway.

Er... "Thanks", I guess? Again, that should be basic courtesy, really.

You've completely disreguarded the alternate time-lines with this entire section.

I didn't talk about multiple timelines because Trunks is only about to go into the past, in the situation I evoked. We're still talking about the same timeline.

When Trunks goes back that makes a new time-line with no set future.

Well, the thing about the new timeline having no future is your theory, anyway. And again, it's based on the assumption that Trunks can't possibly be part of somebody else's past himself. Despite the fact it's a definite possibility in "Dragon Ball".
Yes, Trunks does create (or "discover", but that wouldn't work in your theory) a new timeline on arrival, but he wouldn't be able to leave in the first place if the past didn't actually (physically) exist as a possible destination for his time machine. And the people who live "there" do have several years worth of future. So for all Trunks knows, he could very well be part of somebody else's past himself.

Basic logic, really. You can't just assume that you're living at the end of times. There's no evidence.
And if you can travel to the past, that means that said past does physically exist somewhere in time (even before you went there to mess things up, as time traveller tradition dicates), that said past does have a future from its perpective, and that the same thing could very well be true for you. If you disregard that possibility, you're assuming that you're "special" without any evidence.

Goku IS living in the present.

Not from Trunks' perspective, when he's about to go into the past to meet him.

And... you know, you said earlier that you don't think of the past as a occuring right now, but you keep dictating that as occuring in your theory.

I see you didn't get what I was trying to tell you... ^^;

Yes, if you were to put yourself in the shoes of somebody living in the past (or in the future, for that matter), you could feel "time pass". Because they'd be living through the past (or the future). In other words, they'd be making their way in their timeline from one point in time to the next (and yes, I know you can't really divide a timeline, or any line for that matter, in points... I'm just trying to help you visualize what I mean). It's a matter of perspective.
It's just that it's redundantly redundant. You can feel time pass as long as time passes. Naturally.
And if you're not actually putting yourself in the place of people who are living through time, if you're just referring to past and future events as points in time (say, "June 15th, 2022 at 8 AM", for example), it simply doesn't make sense to talk about "time passing" in that context. That's what I meant.

That, and I simply disagreed about your notion that the timeline itself is "going forward", growing, creating itself from nothing as it goes. Now, that may fly in the context of the real world (presentists would agree, I'm sure), but in "Dragon Ball", we've seen that the past does exists (physically, not just as memories). So that doesn't work. See above.

As I stated earlier, that is far from the same thing. That's splitting the time-line. That's not possible futures.

When you're splitting the timeline, you're creating a new one, a different one... and that's a new future.
I think you should read that Wikipedia page, really...

Let's say I toss a coin. Heads or tails (let's ignore the other improbable outcomes for the sake of clarity, here). That's your two "possible futures", right?
But these futures won't both "happen". Only one of them will.
What happened to the other one, then? Did it ever actually exist?
A common theory would be that it does exist and did happen... in another timeline. A parallel timeline that was absolutely identical to the one you live in... up until the moment the coin touched the ground. Then, it went astray. Maybe only slightly. Maybe not.
The idea being that there would be an infinity of timelines, for an infinity of possibilities. And each timeline, taken separately, would still be determinist: only one future.

According to that theory, when you're time-travelling into the past, you wouldn't really be "splitting" your original timeline into a new one: you would merely end up in the (pre-existing) timeline that was identical to yours... up until the point you appeared in a time machine (and then, I would assume things would be slightly different ^^;).
But basically, creating a new timeline or discovering it among an infinity of them... well, that pretty much amounts to the same thing, really. It's just a matter of perpective.

In conclusion, yes, you can have a pre-existing, predetermined future as well as a selection of varied other possible futures. You just need multiple timelines. Then you get several predetermined futures. ;þ

Do you now understand what I meant when I said this?

You don't have to follow a "there is no future at all so far" rule to avoid fatalism. You could simply have a bunch of possible/parallel futures.

As long as you give your characters an infinity of timelines and the means to jump from one to another (a time machine will do), you can have pre-existing timelines that have a predetermined future and still avoid fatalism. Infinity of timelines smash fatalism!

Not sure why you didn't understand that... Maybe I should have left it as "a bunch of possible/parallel futures/timelines", as I originally typed, but I thought that was one "slash" too many, and I assumed you would understand what I meant, especially with a "parallel" thrown in.

A non-existant future doesn't necasarily mean you can't travel to the future. It would simply require you to pass outside the normal flow of time and allow time to pass forward to the point you want to be at and then re-enter.

'Still using that weird theory of yours, huh? ^^;
OK, I'll bite... How would you "pass outside the normal flow of time" to go and wait for time to catch up, exactly? ^^;

[Xyex]

GAH. You obviously STILL don't get it and I'm really getting tired of explaining this. I can't break it down much simplier than the 3rd grade level it's already at so I'm just going to point out a few the things that just irked me (read - made me want to bash my head in in frustration) while reading your last post. (Well, ok, a lot things. >>;)

Well, the thing about the new timeline having no future is your theory, anyway. And again, it's based on the assumption that Trunks can't possibly be part of somebody else's past himself.

Ok... What. The. Hell? Seriously. Everyone is eventually part of someone's past. That's just common sense. Hell, everyone's part of their own past if you want to get technical. So this entire thing here is just pointless nonsense....

Yes, Trunks does create (or "discover", but that wouldn't work in your theory) a new timeline on arrival, but he wouldn't be able to leave in the first place if the past didn't actually (physically) exist as a possible destination for his time machine.

First, you can't 'discover' something that doesn't exist until you created it. That'd be like saying that Einstien discovered the atomic bomb or that EX discovered this website. Secondly, I never said anything about the past ceasing to exist after it occured. Refer to my river analogy. Can you go back from the end of a river to the begining? Yes.

Basic logic, really. You can't just assume that you're living at the end of times. There's no evidence.

In which case you can't assume you're not since there's no evidence.

And if you can travel to the past, that means that said past does physically exist somewhere in time (even before you went there to mess things up, as time traveller tradition dicates), that said past does have a future from its perpective, and that the same thing could very well be true for you. If you disregard that possibility, you're assuming that you're "special" without any evidence.

1) I never said the past wasn't there to go to. It's happened, it's there. That's just common sense.

2) Make up your mind. Is the past occuring right now or not because you just said it WAS. In order for the past to have it's own 'perspective' it needs to be occuring.

3) Where the hell do you get this 'special' nonsense from? There's nothing 'special' with being in the present. That's like saying you're special because you got the first seat on the train or you're special because you happen to be first line. Seriously, WTF?

Not from Trunks' perspective, when he's about to go into the past to meet him.

And at that point, not from Goku's either. As I said, unless the past is occuring right now, something I you keep saying isn't happening/can't happen but then keep saying IS happening, Goku's only perspective is the same as Trunks. It is not until Trunks GOES BACK and creates a new present forging a new time-line that we now have a Goku who's present is Trunks' past.

Yes, if you were to put yourself in the shoes of somebody living in the past (or in the future, for that matter), you could feel "time pass". Because they'd be living through the past (or the future). In other words, they'd be making their way in their timeline from one point in time to the next (and yes, I know you can't really divide a timeline, or any line for that matter, in points... I'm just trying to help you visualize what I mean). It's a matter of perspective.

If you want to speak philosophically, yes. But if you're talking physically, no, because that is ptatently impossible. To be in the past or the future is to inately be in the present, especially when dealing with a split time-line system. And philosophically has no bearing on this matter.

When you're splitting the timeline, you're creating a new one, a different one... and that's a new future.
I think you should read that Wikipedia page, really...

Yes, you are. It's a new timeline, it is not an alternate possibility of an existing timeline as it cannot occur naturally. It requires outside intervertion and interference. It's a disruption to the flow.

Let's say I toss a coin. Heads or tails (let's ignore the other improbable outcomes for the sake of clarity, here). That's your two "possible futures", right?
But these futures won't both "happen". Only one of them will.
What happened to the other one, then? Did it ever actually exist?
A common theory would be that it does exist and did happen... in another timeline. A parallel timeline that was absolutely identical to the one you live in... up until the moment the coin touched the ground. Then, it went astray. Maybe only slightly. Maybe not.
The idea being that there would be an infinity of timelines, for an infinity of possibilities. And each timeline, taken separately, would still be determinist: only one future.

Yes, yes, yes. I know this. I'm big on time travel and I've spent a lot of time (probably more than most would consider healthy) working over the issue in relation to several series and stories and theories. That said, this particular theory has no bearing on this disccusion as we already know for a fact it doesn't apply to Dragonball.

I do get what you mean, but it just simply doesn't apply here.

And, beyond that, the infinite timelines concept where every possible decision or varriable outcome is represented in its own timeline is the most complex of them all. Makes mine, which you've complained about the complexity of, look like a child's play toy.

OK, I'll bite... How would you "pass outside the normal flow of time" to go and wait, exactly?

I'll answer this with the obvious question in return. How do you go back in time?

And, er, sorry if that comes off... badly at the start. Frustration needs release now and then. ^^;

[Olivier Hague]

GAH. You obviously STILL don't get it and I'm really getting tired of explaining this.

I feel the exact same way, you know?
(except I'm right, naturally ;þ)

Well, the thing about the new timeline having no future is your theory, anyway. And again, it's based on the assumption that Trunks can't possibly be part of somebody else's past himself.

Ok... What. The. Hell? Seriously. Everyone is eventually part of someone's past.

Remove the "eventually", and we may get somewhere.
I'm saying that Trunks could already be part of somebody's past himself. Just like 2007 Gokû is part of 2027 Trunks' past and can't possibly know that.
Now, if Trunks knows that there are people who actually exists in his past, he should also suspect that the same could very well be true for him. He has absolutely no evidence saying otherwise, and no reason to believe he should be any different, "special".

Yes, Trunks does create (or "discover", but that wouldn't work in your theory) a new timeline on arrival, but he wouldn't be able to leave in the first place if the past didn't actually (physically) exist as a possible destination for his time machine.

First, you can't 'discover' something that doesn't exist until you created it.

Wow. Let's calm down and take a better look at that sentence. ^_^;;

Then, let's consider the theory I just mentioned about an infinity of timelines. If there's an infinity of timeline, there's a timeline where Trunks appears in a time machine and kills Freza and Cold. It already existed, and Trunks simply went there. He didn't actually create it. He "discovered" it.
Now, I realize that sort of thinking simply doesn't mesh with your theory, and I pointed out as much. Still there?

I never said anything about the past ceasing to exist after it occured.

Whuh? I never said you did.

Refer to my river analogy. Can you go back from the end of a river to the begining? Yes.

And that's part of the problem with your "time might flow at different speeds depending on the timeline" excuse, actually.
Anyway.

Basic logic, really. You can't just assume that you're living at the end of times. There's no evidence.

In which case you can't assume you're not since there's no evidence.

Yes, that could fly in the real world, like I said.
But if you keep reading, you'll see that the following sentence begins with "and if you can travel to the past [...]". See, now, we're talking about "Dragon Ball", a world where we know that we can travel into the past. That the past actually exists (physically as a possible destination, not just as memories). And that changes everything.

1) I never said the past wasn't there to go to. It's happened, it's there. That's just common sense.

Well, in the real world, presentists would disagree... But yeah, in "Dragon Ball", we do know that.
Good.

2) Make up your mind. Is the past occuring right now or not because you just said it WAS.

No, it's not. Unless you put yourself in the perpective of somebody who does live in the past. And in which case that wouldn't quite be the past anymore.
You really can't grasp that, can you? ^^;;

In order for the past to have it's own 'perspective' it needs to be occuring.

You kinda have it backwards...
In order for past events to "flow", to "be occuring", you have to project yourself in that part of the timeline and experience them, live through them. In which case, you can't really call that the "past" anymore, since you're now experiencing it.

3) Where the hell do you get this 'special' nonsense from? There's nothing 'special' with being in the present.

There is when you have no set future, while other (past) people who are also convinced they're living in the present (and they are, from their perspective) do.
How can you tell you're not like them? If they'd be wrong in assuming they have no set future "because they're living in the present", how can you assume you know better? How can you tell that you are really in the real present and that you really have no set future? For real? Based on what?

Goku IS living in the present.

Not from Trunks' perspective, when he's about to go into the past to meet him.

And at that point, not from Goku's either.

Why would Gokû think he's not living in the present, from his own perspective?

if you were to put yourself in the shoes of somebody living in the past (or in the future, for that matter), you could feel "time pass". Because they'd be living through the past (or the future). In other words, they'd be making their way in their timeline from one point in time to the next (and yes, I know you can't really divide a timeline, or any line for that matter, in points... I'm just trying to help you visualize what I mean). It's a matter of perspective.

If you want to speak philosophically, yes. But if you're talking physically, no, because that is ptatently impossible.

Erk. Why? What would the difference be, here? What would be impossible? Setting your perspective to, say, "French revolution"? With a time machine, that would be possible.

It's a new timeline, it is not an alternate possibility of an existing timeline as it cannot occur naturally.

What the hell would a "real" "alternate possibility of an existing timeline" (so, within the same timeline, if I follow you?) be, then?
How would that work? In the end, you'll only get one result within that timeline, no matter what. So that "alternate possibility" never actually came to exist, except maybe in one's mind.
So what are you talking about? Concretely?

Yes, yes, yes. I know this. I'm big on time travel and I've spent a lot of time (probably more than most would consider healthy) working over the issue in relation to several series and stories and theories.

... Really?

That said, this particular theory has no bearing on this disccusion as we already know for a fact it doesn't apply to Dragonball.

I'd say it does, actually. I think the world of "Dragon Ball" consists of several (possibly an infinity, it doesn't really matter as only a few of them are explored in the series) of timelines, and I think each of these timelines, taken separately, has its own predetermined future.
That's the way I see things.
Of course, you disagree, since you have your own (apparently very personal) theory, but hey.

And, beyond that, the infinite timelines concept where every possible decision or varriable outcome is represented in its own timeline is the most complex of them all.

It's actually pretty simple, at its core. Don't let the "infinity" stuff fool you. ^^;

Makes mine, which you've complained about the complexity of, look like a child's play toy.

Far from it, since yours involves timelines that actually "grow" (???) at different speeds (and what's the referential for that speed of growth, anyway? is there an über-time?).

OK, I'll bite... How would you "pass outside the normal flow of time" to go and wait, exactly?

I'll answer this with the obvious question in return. How do you go back in time?

Oh, I see. So you'd go into the past and have some fun (killing your grandfather and whatnot) in order to allow your future to "grow" in the meantime, and then go there... Of course, that would be pointless unless time does flow at different speeds depending on the timeline. Otherwise, it would take you 20 years to go 20 years in the future.... and even I can do that (hopefully). ^_^;
But I'm afraid your theory is still based on the borderline-solipsistic assumption that you "naturally" exist at the end of times in the first place... ^^;

And, er, sorry if that comes off... badly at the start. Frustration needs release now and then. ^^;

Don't worry, I understand. Same here. ^^;

[Godo]

I think Xyex has some pretty good points there, and they are not hard to understand at all.

[Olivier Hague]

I think Xyex has some pretty good points there, and they are not hard to understand at all.

Of course you do.

[Jerseymilk]

(and be careful! Jerseymilk might call that a "convenient cop-out"! heh)

Well, I can lecture him personally about such things, except I stopped paying attention to this thread since the last time I posted. Otherwise I probably would have.XD Besides which, I see that he couldn't even stay away for a morning before posting again. Though that doesn't suprise me, since he's always been too stubborn for his own good.XD I guarantee neither of you guys will *never* find a resolution to this.XP

[Olivier Hague]

Well, I can lecture him personally about such things, except I stopped paying attention to this thread since the last time I posted. Otherwise I probably would have.XD

OK, then.
(something tells me I wouldn't have gotten any smileys though... ^^;)

I guarantee neither of you guys will *never* find a resolution to this.XP

That's funny... Last time I said that, that was a "cop-out"...
Speaking of which, how's that list of the times I "fobbed people off with cop-outs" coming?

[Conan the SSJ]

Well, I can lecture him personally about such things, except I stopped paying attention to this thread since the last time I posted. Otherwise I probably would have.XD

OK, then.
(something tells me I wouldn't have gotten any smileys though... ^^;)

I guarantee neither of you guys will *never* find a resolution to this.XP

That's funny... Last time I said that, that was a "cop-out"...
Speaking of which, how's that list of the times I "fobbed people off with cop-outs" coming?

Oliver, how about you seriously put an end to this endless barrage of passive-aggressive and schizophrenic sarcasm bullshit. Your attitude's no doubt pissing a lot of us off. I mean what was even the point of replying to Jers' comment, making some smart-ass remarks in a thread that really has no place for it? I swear it's like your neurotic mind has an obsession to always get the last word in, even if it has nothing to do with proper discussion in the thread. Get off your high horse and stop being a jackass, if you don't have the integrity to do so, there's other forums that have a couch waiting for ya'. I myself am not trying to get in any last word, hell I hate myself for even bothering to post in this mess of a timeline argument, but I'm getting royally sick of the crap you're pulling. I'm hoping this post doesn't put me in hot water with EX, because I really have no desires to get caught in one of his sudden ban decisions; but sometimes, I swear you deserve it.

If you have a problem with Jers, Xyex, me, or anyone else; don't take it out on public threads on a forum like this where it has no place, do it in a fucking PM.

[Olivier Hague]

what was even the point of replying to Jers' comment, making some smart-ass remarks in a thread that really has no place for it?

The point was to remind her of her own remarks, earlier in the thread:

whenever someone takes the time to make valid counterpoints that actually challenge your posts, you either disregard what they've said or fob them off with cop outs such as "oh well, this is just going to get us nowhere and it's pointless".

I think that was uncalled for, and I don't appreciate this kind of "hit and run" approach. Let's just go and publicly accuse people without bothering to back these accusations up?
I think people should have the decency to stand by what they write, even on message boards. When they don't and I'm the "target", I hope you can understand how that can piss me off.
So... well, sorry about pissing you off by being pissed off.

If you have a problem with Jers, Xyex, me, or anyone else; don't take it out on public threads on a forum like this where it has no place, do it in a fucking PM.

That's the problem when things start off with public accusations... Ideally, they should end with either public backed-up accusations or public apologies...
And what you're telling me about using PMs instead of going off-topic should also apply to Jerseymilk's first remarks, logically, right?

[Mr.Piccolo]

Well if the initial question was answered, anything after would be off-topic, even reminding someone of their remarks. PMing would be the way to go if there's anything left to say..-__-