Unpopular DB opinions

[Cetra]

But he's alive TO send him back. And if The Terminator succeeded, that creates a paradox because he stopped the reason for him going back to begin with.

He's alive because he sent someone back. Think of it this way, if someone were to put a million dollars in a safe twenty years ago that I find and open, I now have a million dollars. I then use that money, make twenty million dollars, build a time machine, go back twenty years ago, and put a million dollars in the safe that I would one day find in the future. It's a causal loop. Whatever happened in the past, happened (as in the Terminator never succeeded and never would succeed), and only John Connor's inaction would be able to change that, but because we know he is one to act, him sending Kyle to the past is exactly what happened. By going back in time, Kyle Reese fulfills his role in history. It's the Novikov Principle.

Exactly. It is the so-called bootstrap-paradox. Everyone who has ever played Zelda, Final Fantasy or Chrono Trigger knows what it is because at least one of them appears in certain games of them. Just like Harry in Harry Potter 3 saw his future self casting the patronus, mistook his future self for his dad, travelled to the past and then, as he knew it would work, ran to save Sirius just so past Harry could confuse him with his dad once more.

[Dbzfan94]

How about Brian Dobson's Boo?

I haven't heard it actually. He's the Westwood Boo right?

Yeah, I quite liked him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4rUysFkf3A

Now to me THAT sounded like a generic villain.
Drummond did great as Vegetto though still prefer the two voices

[ABED]

That's not changing the rules. Thecausal loop is the terminator arm and chip being the basis for Cyberdyne's research, that and Reese being John's father. Sarah and John making different choice and changing the future wasn't a change in the rules. And you aren't helping your case because a paradox is inherently contradictory.

If John were to not act then he would be erased and thus erase the Terminator's reason for going into the past. See, paradox. There are almost always problems with time travel stories.

[Cetra]

And you aren't helping your case because a paradox is inherently contradictory.

That is not true. Most paradoxical phenomenons are contradictory but not all of them. That is why a bootstrap paradox is called bootstrap paradox even though it is not contradictory. It is called paradox because it is something that is involved in the cause of its own existence, therefore dependent on its own future existence. The egg and the chicken.

[ABED]

And you aren't helping your case because a paradox is inherently contradictory.

That is not true. Most paradoxical phenomenons are contradictory but not all of them. That is why a bootstrap paradox is called bootstrap paradox even though it is not contradictory. It is called paradox because it something is the involved cause of its own existence.

That's a contradiction. you can't be the cause of your own existence. If you go back in time to prevent something and succeed, then the very reason for you going back doesn't exist. It's just one of those things you have to accept in time travel stories.

While the multiple timelines idea solves those problems, it creates others, such as how does Trunks get back to his own timeline after creating a new one?

[Wizard Sesame]

That's a contradiction. you can't be the cause of your own existence. If you go back in time to prevent something and succeed, then the very reason for you going back doesn't exist. It's just one of those things you have to accept in time travel stories.

No, that's the Novikov Principle. Whatever happened, happened, and the only way to change things is if you do not act in the future. It's not a paradox.

[Cetra]

That's a contradiction. you can't be the cause of your own existence. If you go back in time to prevent something and succeed, then the very reason for you going back doesn't exist. It's just one of those things you have to accept in time travel stories.

Except you are wrong with this. A bootstrap paradox uses a fully closed cycle. You do not "prevent anything from happenening thus erasing something that has happened before". You do something that has already happened in the past. The bootstrap paradox works in a way where it always has happened. It works because there is no beginning and no end.

What you describe is the contradiction of Back to the Future. What I describe is something like the Song of Storms in Legend of Zelda. TOTALLY different things. So, don't get me wrong - it is true that you cannot erase the reason to change things. It is just not what a bootstrap paradox is.

It's not a paradox.

Well, technically it is called bootstrap paradox nonetheless.

While the multiple timelines idea solves those problems, it creates others, such as how does Trunks get back to his own timeline after creating a new one?

Trunks already had this problem with his first travelling because he was not the one who made the split. It was Cell. So he had to jump to another branch anyway. It is just how the story is writtem. Not ideal, yes. But that's what it is.

[8000 Saiyan]

There are some objectively bad actors.
His Super Buu just sounds like Generic Loud Cartoon Villain.

It's pretty arrogant of you to say that Cook is objectively terrible as an actor.

[ABED]

That's a contradiction. you can't be the cause of your own existence. If you go back in time to prevent something and succeed, then the very reason for you going back doesn't exist. It's just one of those things you have to accept in time travel stories.

No, that's the Nobikov Principle. Whatever happened, happened, and the only way to change things is if you do not act in the future. It's not a paradox.

Call it whatever you want, it's a paradox. I don't get what you don't get about the idea that if John doesn't have himself saved then the reason The Terminator going back in time never existed. How is that not paradoxical?

You do something that has already happened in the past. The bootstrap paradox works in a way where it always has happened.

But it CAN'T have always happened. It's a ridiculous idea that Reese was always John's father or the Terminator remains were always the reason Cyberdyne created Skynet, or Dean was always the reason John bought Baby.

It's pretty arrogant of you to say that Cook is objectively terrible as an actor.

Call me whatever you want, but there are some very evident cases of terrible acting. This is one of them, just like the early inhouse dub was objectively awful.

[Cetra]

But it CAN'T have always happened. It's a ridiculous idea that Reese was always John's father or the Terminator remains were always the reason Cyberdyne created Skynet, or Dean was always the reason John bought Baby.

I don't know Terminator except one of those movies so I cannot tell you if there is an inconsistency but that is how bootstrap paradoxes work nonetheless. It could very well be that in the specific case of Terminator they left out one factor. Nevertheless, just because you think something is ridiculous does not make it impossible. A bootstrap paradox is consistent and closed. The "changing stuff" thing would be an open and therefore actually impossible paradoxical situation. Which Dragon Ball by the way also has and is just massively defended by fans. By now Dragon Ball uses a lot of concepts.

[ABED]

But it CAN'T have always happened. It's a ridiculous idea that Reese was always John's father or the Terminator remains were always the reason Cyberdyne created Skynet, or Dean was always the reason John bought Baby.

I don't know Terminator except one of those movies so I cannot tell you if there is an inconsistency but that is how bootstrap paradoxes work nonetheless. It could very well be that in the specific case of Terminator they left out one factor. Nevertheless, just because you think something is ridiculous does not make it impossible. A bootstrap paradox is consistent and closed. The "changing stuff" thing would be an open and therefore actually impossible paradoxical situation. Which Dragon Ball by the way also has and is just massively defended by fans. By now Dragon Ball uses a lot of concepts.

But they don't work, just in fiction. It's not consistent. The closed loop thing makes NO sense. It only makes sense if there's no free will, and the ultimate point of T1 and T2 is that we do have free will. Fry can't be his own grandpa, but I can accept the story because it's just a funny story.

It's times like this I'm reminded of the scene in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me -
Austin: (about to travel back to 1969) Wait a tick. Basil, if I travel back to 1969, and I was frozen in 1967, presumably, I could go visit my frozen self. But, if I'm still frozen in 1967, how could I have been unthawed in the 90's and traveled back to... (cross-eyed) Oh, no. I've gone cross-eyed.
Basil: I suggest you don't worry about this sort of thing, and just enjoy yourself. (to the home audience) That goes for you all, too.
Austin: (to the home audience) Yes.

[8000 Saiyan]

Call me whatever you want, but there are some very evident cases of terrible acting. This is one of them, just like the early inhouse dub was objectively awful.

So, who do you think they should have cast for Raditz and Super Buu?

[VDenter]

There are some objectively bad actors.

His Super Buu just sounds like Generic Loud Cartoon Villain.

Well, Super Buu is a loud cartoon villain, is he not?

But not generic.

None of those things i mentioned are butterfly effects.
Regardless having Time Travel is no excuse for sloppy storytelling. Saying that other Time travel story's have potholes so DB should get a free pass is a flimsy defense. Especially since the characters in the arc do things that make no sense.

Yes, yes they are. Another cyborg that wasn't in Trunks' timeline is a classic case of the butterfly effect.

Time travel is inherently problematic storywise. Even the best stories with timetravel are paradoxical. If John Connor exists in the future, why does he need to send anyone/anything to the past to save him? Isn't the fact that he's alive to send them prove that he doesn't need to send anything to the past?

Is Time Travel problematic storywise sure but my point was more that even if time travel in a story can create problems it does not mean it should be used as a crutch to create a convenient excuse for the author to botch the execution completely. Especially if he is going to introduce a new Villain out of left field in the middle of the arc. So basically what you are saying is that just because Dragon ball now has time travel for some reason, people should not question the messy plot? The arc in question comes after several much more well executed arcs that had characters act more logically in every single situation they were placed in.

Heck even if the example of the Cyborgs being different is a butterfly effect. The arc has so many other, well calling them anything other than plot holes would be a complete lie moments. Like how can the main characters possibly be still dead in Future Trunks timeline even though Dragon balls do still exist on New Namek in the future. Or why does Trunks not just take the Dragon Balls from the past to his timeline and fix all the problems in his timeline these are such simple questions that hang over the entire Cell arc but the fact that the characters never even knowledge it as a possibility or explain why it cant be done creates questionable character motivation and plot holes. Its impossible to believe that Goku,Gohan or anybody else are just enjoying themselves On King Kais planet in the Future while the Cyborgs destroy the earth and are doing nothing about it!?

This alone does not even have anything to do with time travel its just bad story telling that immediately kills all suspension of disbelief. Call me picky if you want but if the arc is going to introduce not only Time travel but a air of
mystery to the arc as well than its not unreasonable to expect that the arc follows at least some well laid out rules or any semblance of logic.

Also The Room of Spirit and Time alone is the single worst piece of writing in the entire DB manga.
That whole thing is basically a series of "wow isn't this convenient" plot device that comes out of nowhere i am pretty sure it alone brings tons of potholes to the Cell arc and not just butterfly effects!

The Terminator example is also bad because nothing in the Terminator comes even close to the mess that is the Cell arc in terms of plot...Well Terminator 1 and 2 to be precise.

[Cetra]

But they don't work, just in fiction. It's not consistent. The closed loop thing makes NO sense.

Listen, you are massively struggling against an absolutely consistent concept of causality. It does not matter if we are talking about fiction or not here. Of course we have to give you fictional examples because we have never actually experienced something in real life. That does not change that it is consistent within itself.
Zelda:
Links learns the Song of Storms, travels back and teaches it to the Man who is going to teach it to Link in the future.
Causality Paradox that used a closed cycle. No problem involved.
Chrono Trigger:
Janus is being thrown through time while his adult self is a hooded consultant of his mother. Later then he returns back in time to be the consultant of his mother just so the event where young Janus is being thrown threw time happens.
The heroes think the see Chrono die so they want to save him, find the Chrono Trigger and get a real-looking dool, the Chrono Trigger opens a time rift, they save Chrono and replace him with the doll so the past heroes think they see him die and want to save him.
Final Fantasy VIII:
Ultimecia knows she is about to be defeated by the SEEDs because she knows it from the powers her already defeated future self has given to Edea. She wants to prevent it from happening, thus initiating Time Compression, is defeated in the final battle, goes back in time, gives her power to Edea and the new Ultimecia who can control this power tries what her future self already failed to do.

And before you actually think paradoxes do not exist in nature. They do. One example would be the so called self-fulfilling prophecy of communication psychology. It is also a paradoxical situation.

Anyways. A bootstrap paradox is closed and consistent. Other than your constant claim about actors being objectively bad which can only be true if we compare them in a certain system where we define certain things as good and bad via consensus, which of couse is not even obligatory.

And about the Fry thing: Yes, Fry cannot be his own grandfather. That is just a satirical situation though. It cannot be because of genetics, not because a bootstrap paradox makes no sense.

[Sailor Haumea]

Doesn't DBZ have a paradox with Bardock's time-travel? It's an infinite loop.

[ABED]

Call me whatever you want, but there are some very evident cases of terrible acting. This is one of them, just like the early inhouse dub was objectively awful.

So, who do you think they should have cast for Raditz and Super Buu?

I don't have anyone specifically in mind. It's not my job to cast the show. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Listen, you are massively struggling against an absolutely consistent concept of causality. It does not matter if we are talking about fiction or not here. Of course we have to give you fictional examples because we have never actually experienced something in real life.
I'm not struggling. I've heard of these concepts, maybe not the names, but I'm well aware and the only way the closed loop can work is if there is no free will and even then it still doesn't make much sense.

And before you actually think paradoxes do not exist in nature. They do. One example would be the so called self-fulfilling prophecy of communication psychology. It is also a paradoxical situation.

Not remotely the same thing as what we're talking about.

You don't have to give me examples. I understand it, but and this may surprise you, I consider it complete bullcrap.

Especially if he is going to introduce a new Villain out of left field in the middle of the arc. So basically what you are saying is that just because Dragon ball now has time travel for some reason, people should not question the messy plot?

Time travel is ALWAYS messy. Should we not have time travel stories? And the only reason people say Cell came out of left field was because they know the story behind it. If they didn't, I don't think anyone would say that. Cell works because there's an air of mystery surrounding the very beginning of the arc. He's not out of left field at all.

[Cetra]

I'm not struggling. I've heard of these concepts, maybe not the names, but I'm well aware and the only way the closed loop can work is if there is no free will and even then it still doesn't make much sense.

You don't have to give me examples. I understand it, but and this may surprise you, I consider it complete bullcrap.

Yes, you are absolutely struggling here. You are calling it "bullcrap" and "not consistent" for no reason even though it can be shown to you how it is part of a closed system. It is one thing to say "I don't believe in that" and another one to say "It is not". From someone of your intelligence I expect a lot more and not things like that or that it is a fact that xy is bad.

Not remotely the same thing as what we're talking about.

Actually it is. Maybe I should PM you about communication psychology one day because it is gonna show you about an example where your own intention leads to just what you forecasted exactly because of your own action.

Doesn't DBZ have a paradox with Bardock's time-travel? It's an infinite loop.

Yes, Episode of Bardock (that was it, right?) is supposed to show a bootstrap paradox.

EDIT: Anyway, forget it. I am done.

[ABED]

Actually it is. Maybe I should PM you about communication psychology one day because it is gonna show you about an example where your own intention leads to just what you forecasted exactly because of your own action.

Human behavior and metaphysics aren't the same thing. And I know what a self fulfilling prophecy is. People can have contradictions, the universe can't. A is A. If you want to PM me, feel free.

Anyway, here's an unpopular opinion: I think the driving episode is HIGHLY overrated. It's a fun little episode, but I don't think it's funny.

[rereboy]

Listen, you are massively struggling against an absolutely consistent concept of causality.

No, he is not. He is right that it forms a logical paradox pretty much all the time. You talk about causality but you forget that in cases like the one in Harry Potter, there is no cause for the first time-travel intervention by Harry.

Specifically, in Harry Potter book 3, in an unaltered timeline with no time-travel intervention by Harry, Harry would just be killed/devoured by the Dementors. So, how exactly did the first time-travel intervention by Harry occurred to actually form a sequence of causality that makes him go back and save himself and then go back again? There is no discernible cause in an unaltered timeline for Harry to go back in time and intervene because he would just be dead, so how exactly did that sequence/loop of causality come to exist in the first place? Everything works once the loop comes into existence, sure, but what causes the loop? Time-travel. And since the loop only exists because of time-travel, there has to be a time-travel cause for it to come into existence or, in other words, a cause in the unaltered timeline for the loop to come into existence, and if that cause isn't discernible or not possible, then there's no doubt that there's a logical paradox.

The issue here is that cases like Harry Potter base themselves in a circular logic, in a loop of effect, but that loop has to have a beginning and an end because time flows forward and time existed before the loop and it exists after the loop, with the time-travels being interventions that changed the course and that created that loop along the way. Without time-travel, there is no loop and, therefore, there has to be a time-travel in the unaltered timeline causing the change and the loop.

[Wizard Sesame]

Specifically, in Harry Potter book 3, in an unaltered timeline with no time-travel intervention by Harry, Harry would just be killed/devoured by the Dementors. So, how exactly did the first time-travel intervention by Harry occurred to actually form a sequence of causality that makes him go back and save himself and then go back again?

That's...literally the point of a causality loop. There IS no "first time". There is no time where Harry did not go back in time, because Harry was always back in time. That's what he is not, and I guess by proxy you, do not understand. Whatever happened, happened. There doesn't need to be a time where "Harry needed a reason", why? Because he was always there.

The real problem here is that people use the word paradox as a synonym for impossible. The word paradox, in scientific terms, is more akin to "problem." Just like theory in scientific terms is not something to be solved, but rather, has already been solved and is law under the present understanding of physics. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Light is a theory. All of those are immutable fact, but yet, still called a theory. There is nothing inherently contradictory or impossible in the Fermi Paradox, but it's still labeled a paradox.

Here, it's a paradox as in "needs to be solved," not the layman term paradox, as in "something that is impossible." The Novikov Principle holds that things in history are immutable, as in they cannot be changed, so whatever did happen, happened because of the actions that one took in the future.

The Terminator was sent back as a last ditch effort by Skynet. Whether it succeeded or not, Skynet still was going to send it back. If John did not act and did not send someone back to the past to save him, it would have created a paradox and potentially, another timeline where he never existed. However, because he did send someone back, it happened exactly as it had already happened in his past. The reason that Skynet sent someone in the first place was because it was a last ditch effort, the war was over as stated in the dialogue: Skynet was just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping that it stuck. Skynet wasn't all the sudden going to hold its hands up and say, "you got us. We lost." No, it was going to fight and fight until it was destroyed utterly.

And, plus, in regards to the Harry Potter one, the point of Harry going back into the past was to save Buckbeak and Sirius, not to save himself. So...that was the start of the loop.