Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    Re-Check/Weird Scenes    The Late Philip J. Fry Goof (SPOILERS, big 'uns) « previous next »
Author Topic: The Late Philip J. Fry Goof (SPOILERS, big 'uns)  (Read 14036 times)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 7 Print
Jezzem

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #40 on: 08-03-2010 23:04 »

Tnuk, I admire your spirit and I get that your cyclical time theory makes some sense there's not really a whole lot of evidence in TLPJF to support your theory or anyone else's theory of how many Universes or timelines or whatever there are. It's left pretty ambiguous, really. Too ambiguous for anyone to have as much angry confidence in their theory as you have in your's...

Just sayin'

TOTP small text!
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #41 on: 08-04-2010 00:30 »

It's left ambiguous only if you consider the episode in isolation. Take a look at the way way time travel works throughout the series.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #42 on: 08-04-2010 00:42 »

Still very ambiguous, I'd say.  Nor do I see its involvement with this, as those include backwards time travel.  In "Roswell that Ends Well", it clearly seems to be part of the timeline, as nothing has changed.  As if the timeline was already set in stone before people do anything.

Though, yeah, TLPJF also sort of suggests this; with the killing of Hitler (or Roosevelt) nothing has changed either way.  Sure it's different, but it seems the timeline just sort of evolves around it, and history may contain 'holes' and such.  Sort of, 'if you try to change it; it won't matter anyway'.  Or some such.

In BBS, it's the same deal.  It can only go backwards, and Bender has to stick around below the building.  But despite his changes, everything remains the same.

There is only one timeline in Futurama.  And regardless of your attempts to fuck it over; it always comes back to the version you left.  It's a bitchy timeline.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #43 on: 08-04-2010 00:58 »

There is only one timeline in Futurama.  And regardless of your attempts to fuck it over; it always comes back to the version you left.  It's a bitchy timeline.

Exactly. Time is a loop. You might have to spiral around it a couple of times to get back to where you left, but essentially time is a closed sequence of events that repeats once it has ended. You change it here, you change it there, but the jam leaks out and hardens over the hole you made. Time is a delicious doughnut.

I forget what I was saying.

Oh yeah, doughnuts aside, time in the Futuramaverse is a set series of events that may or may not appear in chronological order from the perspective of any one individual. Whatever happens, happens. Whatever else might happen instead can also happen, but it won't change what actually happened.

You go round and round with a time machine that can bridge that gap, and you'll see that it's all the same. Turtles Spirals all the way down. Delicious doughnut spirals. Rings with jam filling. Is that a paradox? I don't know. I'm tired.

But see, time is cyclical. It's not ambiguous when you think of it like a doughnut. And then eat it.

Om nom nom. Time is good with milkshake.

I want a doughnut. And a milkshake.
FemJesse

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #44 on: 08-04-2010 03:21 »

I can't believe we're still arguing about this. It doesn't even matter really. Time is stupid. The only thing that matters is matter...

and maybe inertia.

Sweet, sexy inertia.
Erdrik

Professor
*
« Reply #45 on: 08-04-2010 04:08 »

... Time is stupid. The only thing that matters is matter...

and maybe inertia.

Sweet, sexy inertia.
lol. I change my mind. I now support the "Time is Stupid" idea.
Maybe its related to Fry. laff
FemJesse

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #46 on: 08-04-2010 06:41 »

Time is stupid and Fry is sexy. Mmm yes.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #47 on: 08-04-2010 07:07 »

I didn't realize that we were arguing... it seemed that we'd all come to the conclusion that time was cyclical...

I interjected that throughout the entire timeline of existence, that Fry, Bender, and the Professor too were only squashed by past versions of themselves once and only once.

Then I discussed the fact that Fry is a genius... and also that his clavicle is shiny.
Fnord
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #48 on: 08-04-2010 08:55 »

Though, yeah, TLPJF also sort of suggests this; with the killing of Hitler (or Roosevelt) nothing has changed either way.  Sure it's different, but it seems the timeline just sort of evolves around it, and history may contain 'holes' and such.  Sort of, 'if you try to change it; it won't matter anyway'.  Or some such.

Near the end of the BBC radiocast of Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (which also features time-travel), the Professor -- Reg -- says that the universe is like badly-hung wallpaper: If you try to smooth out part of it, a bubble pops up somewhere else. In his case, he went back in time to save the Coelacanth, but as a result of that action, the dodo went extinct.

Reg also says that when the past is changed, that the holes "heal up" and people who weren't directly involved just "remember" a different version of events. (Some, but not all, DGHDA spoilers follow.)

FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #49 on: 08-05-2010 01:26 »

Well, I think I know what the real problem is, the one that started this whole debate between whether the timeline is cyclical or linear (A.K.A. One Universe vs Infinite Duplicate Universes): The resolution isn't left ambiguous, it is contradictory.

I'm going to go through relevant lines and bits starting at The Professor's line about The Big Bang/The Second Big Bang all the way to Fry leaving for his date, examine them while reasoning why either side could take the lines and bits to support their argument (or how it would be hard to). At the end of this I'll probably have proved nothing. Eh, at least I might inspire more pointless debate before everybody completely stops caring.

Unbelievable! It's a second Big Bang.

There is no way for this line to either cement cyclical time or linear time (I'll be using these terms to stand for One Universe Theory and the Infinite Identical Universes Theory, respectively) as the definite way time works in Futurama. The linear supporters might point out that if The Professor hunched that Time was cyclical, he would have said something to the effect of "Unbelievable! It's the Big Bang" over what he actually said. While true, in the strictest sense The Professor didn't see the universe being created yet, so all he knew is that he saw a Big Bang (the beginning of a universe) after he saw his universe ended. He was probably thinking the universe they'd see created would be a radically different one to the one they came from. It wasn't until a few moments later that he recognized the new or "new" universe was exactly like theirs.

Verdict: The line suggests linear time and fits that theory, but it doesn't deny cyclical time since The Professor didn't know what he was seeing yet and thus might have spoke early.

It appears that this universe is exactly like our old one. If so, then we just need to keep going forward in time to the point when we left.

This line, like the previous one, suggests The Professor thinks that time isn't cyclical, but instead that they (the time travelers) really are in a second universe that is exactly like their original one. Again, linear supporters would say that if he thought time was cyclical he would have said something to the effect of "It's our Universe. Time is cyclical and we've gone around in a full loop" instead of what he actually said. Yet, it's possible The Professor still wasn't completely sure that time was cyclical (if that's what he actually thinks) or that the universe they are in is the same as the previous one (if that's what he actually thinks) and wanted to go forward first before concretely deciding anything (jumping to conclusions is not classic scientist behavior). This is supported by him saying "It appears" and "If so" at the beginning of the two sentences above, denoting that he isn't sure yet.

Verdict: Once more, the line fits perfectly in linear theory and must be stretched in cyclical theory, but it can work in cyclical theory due to The Professor's unsureness. Still, that's two I'd say linear theorists have a slight edge over cyclical theorists.

B.C.

If The Professor built a Time Machine that could only go forward, why did he built it with a B.C. indicator? The only reason for it to have a B.C. indicator is if for whatever reason The Professor thinks time is cyclical and you can go to the past if you go far enough in the future. Of course, that contradicts the reason he built it in the first place, which is to not cause Time Travel Paradoxes (which only happen when the past is involved). In any case, it certainly doesn't make sense for a linear theory, since the machine should just keep calculating farther into A.D. (by the time they make their final stop, it should be over 1 x 10 to the 100th power A.D.), since by that theory it's not the same universe resetting but a new universe identical to the previous one.

Verdict: Probably something to go up in Cubert's Rants rather than actual evidence, but a slight edge to cyclical time theorists if we assume The Professor simply put it there just in case that theory was correct. Linear theorists could easily assume that the time machine's computer has a history of Earth and the Universe and just guessed at what was happening and set itself accordingly.

We'll have to bring her around again.

Yes, I'm counting this one. If The Professor thought time was linear (and he had plenty of time to think about that by now), shouldn't he have said something like "I guess we'll take the next one" rather than what he said? It also brings up a risk The Professor is taking (albeit a necessary one), which is that he can't know whether the new universe after that one is also going to be completely identical or a complete crapshoot (supported by the 10 foot height difference if you agree with the linear theory). This is unlike cyclical theory where he would know that he is just going around again.

Verdict: Pedantic.

Negative Mass Neutrino Fields

I've seen this one mentioned on other sites (mostly really long comment sections of reviews), but it's worth mentioning since it's a plot hole. If the Sexy, Intelligent Ladies Era existed in a second universe, then why didn't the travelers stop there? If time is linear, they'd have a reason to since they could travel back the span of a universe and 49,996,990 years to get back to their time/universe. If time is cyclical, then even though they could go back in this cycle of the universe's timeline, it would take longer to talk to the ladies then it would to simply go another round.

Verdict: Really just a minor plot hole, but enough of one to suggest the cyclical time model.

The Key

This seems like it should end the debate immediately. The key the Farnsworth of the third universe uses is completely different to the one that our Farnsworth used. Where as ours was more like a garage door opener, 3's is more like a regular key with a button on it. This fits perfectly in linear theory, since this would be a very similar but slightly different recreation of the first universe, thus this Farsnworth for whatever reason has a different key. The only way to explain this in cyclical theory is if killing Eleanor Roosevelt changed the course of events of this run enough that the later Paradox Farnsworth changed his key. Admittingly, since Eleanor was around Hitler's time (The Professor's original target) and The Professor knew enough about Hitler to stop at a Rally, it's possible that the Professor is a history buff, and thus by killing her his paradox copy's actions might have been subtly changed to allow for the different remote. That however, is a hell of a lot more complex than it just being a different, identical universe with its own Farnsworth.

Verdict: Simple in linear, a lot of assumptions in cyclical.

This universe is 10 feet lower than our old one.

This line is heavily reliant on The Professor thinking that they are in a new universe that is exactly like the previous two, except for a height difference. The only way it fits in cyclical theory is as an "old man" line where he flubbed what he meant to say. The height difference itself makes little difference to either theory. The Time Machine has had to adjust its position through every shift to not materialize in solid matter or be too far above where it would crash. Thus, it's position has never been on the exact same spot on Earth. I suppose I could give some credit to the height supporting cyclical theory, since it could have set itself too high only because it had to to correct a paradox (the other versions of our travelers).

Verdict: The line itself supports linear. The height difference doesn't really support either, but it does set up Paradox-Correcting in cyclical theory.

Pow! We took care of the Time Travel Paradox.

Where the key should have left cyclical theory in its dust, that line about taking care of a Time-Travel paradox gives it a second wind. That line makes no sense if time is linear and they are simply in a third universe that is mostly identical to the first. You can't cause a time paradox by going forward if forward is forever. The only way this line has sense in linear theory is if The Professor meant that in 40 years Fry's card could cause complications in their own relationships and that they could affect the fate of the other versions of themselves by changing the future as they knew it (of course, then you're assuming that The Professor has the quick reflexes to have caught a glimpse of the older Leela and the foresight to realize any changes they make might affect the other versions of themselves, since they could end up in wildly different futures than our group visited). But that doesn't even count as a misquote. That's completely wrong. On the other hand, in cyclical theory, by traveling past the future to the point that they enter the next cycle of the universe (thus they are in the past) they do cause a time paradox by existing before the other versions of themselves (plus killing Eleanor Roosevelt in the 3rd run), thus solving it when they crush them.

Verdict: Completely wrong in linear theory, explainable in cyclical.

Final Verdict

As I've said, the resolution of this episode is contradictory. For the most part, the episode supports the linear theory with the way the lines are phrased to the subtle changing of the key (something the writers would have had to want to hide). Yet, we have that line about solving a Time-Travel Paradox, when no paradox would have been present in a linear theory. That's more like cyclical time. Cyclical time even supports the universe not being drastically changed by The Professor's assassinations, since it plays into the Paradox-Correcting introduced in BBS (and that movie also shows us that Paradox clones are capable of acting independently to the originals (to explain the different key)) where in linear, at least Hitler's assassination should have changed some stuff.

Overall, if you support linear theory, every line up to the Paradox one makes sense for supporting the theory, but you have to completely disregard The Professor's final say on the matter (the Paradox line). If you believe in cyclical theory, The Professor poorly choose to misrepresent a new cycle in the universe as a new universe and you have to come up with a convoluted way to explain the key change, but you get The Professor identifying the Time Paradox without him being incorrect. Either theory causes you to disregard or heavily change opposing points.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #50 on: 08-05-2010 01:59 »

Nice analysis. Cyclical theory seems to come out ahead again for me after reading through it, since nothing that has been analysed actually contradicts cyclical theory, whilst there are a couple of items there that flat-out contradict linear theory.

You've put it a hell of a lot more eloquently than I've been doing. Well done, fistfull.

Hopefully, people will not immediately start to pick at small points again, and restart the argument (which appears to be every bit as cyclical as time at this point! tongue )
Erdrik

Professor
*
« Reply #51 on: 08-05-2010 03:50 »

Pow! We took care of the Time Travel Paradox.

Could he be refering to them appearing a smidge early, and the Fry Bender and Prof of that time/universe still being there and seeing them?

Not being nitpicky, just a thought.
Very nice analysis. big grin

Except for one thing... What about FemJesse's awsome "Time is Stupid" theory?? tongue lol
FemJesse

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #52 on: 08-05-2010 04:07 »
« Last Edit on: 08-05-2010 04:09 »

Infinite fractal repetition whereas "time" is not a factor at all. If something repeats forever then there will always be an instance within x,y,z (and any unforeseen dimensions) where you can technically be anywhere at once thus making "time travel" conceivable (assuming you're talking about a stationary object.) Like tiny invisible veins that cover everything and move inconceivably fast.

So fast you wouldn't notice it.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #53 on: 08-05-2010 18:01 »

On the B.C. remark, I still contest that the clock he used was designed by someone else; like an universal clock, that regardless of time and position would always show the right time.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #54 on: 08-05-2010 18:25 »

On the B.C. remark, I still contest that the clock he used was designed by someone else; like an universal clock, that regardless of time and position would always show the right time.

I'm fairly sure that Farnsworth would have built his own time indicator. He likes to build his own things. Albino shouting gorillas, intergalactic spaceships, sphere-o-booms, he's not an off-the-shelf guy.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #55 on: 08-05-2010 18:31 »

On the B.C. remark, I still contest that the clock he used was designed by someone else; like an universal clock, that regardless of time and position would always show the right time.

I'm fairly sure that Farnsworth would have built his own time indicator. He likes to build his own things. Albino shouting gorillas, intergalactic spaceships, sphere-o-booms, he's not an off-the-shelf guy.

Those you mention are 'whole products' or inventions.  The time indicator is just part of his time machine.  It just shows the current time; nothing less, nothing more.  Farnsworth isn't exactly the type to invent something twice.  And usually when something works 'perfectly' (as the time indicator does), it's usually not a Farnsworth invention.  Just sayin'.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #56 on: 08-05-2010 19:50 »

Farnsworth inventions shown to work reliably:

The sphere-o-boom, the PX ship, the mutant atomic supermen, the cyclone in a jar, the finglonger, the what-if-machine, the smell-o-scope, the rebirthing machine, the clone-o-mat, the F-Ray, the electronium hat, the pressure suppository, the miniature robots, the smog-blasting powerplants of robots, the forwards time machine, and the device for indicating that Fry is his uncle.
soylentOrange

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #57 on: 08-05-2010 20:48 »

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this, but cows took over the planet sometime between the year 3050 and the year 10000.  We know from A Fish Full of Dollars that cows are extinct.

Yes, I know its a throwaway joke.
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #58 on: 08-05-2010 23:14 »

Pow! We took care of the Time Travel Paradox.

Could he be revering to them appearing a smidge early, and the Fry Bender and Prof of that time/universe still being there and seeing them?

Not being nitpicky, just a thought.

There's nothing wrong with being nitpicky. That's all my post is.

That thought you have could be what The Professor meant. The problem with that is that it isn't really a line flubbing so much as completely wrong. If the universe we see is not ours, but rather a third universe identical to ours taking place after ours, then the crew we see are new people who happen to be identical to our crew. In this case, crushing that crew solves no Paradox because none is taking place. Letting that crew go would not cause a time paradox of any sort. It would cause some personal complications (like having to explain the other Fry's letter popping out in 40 years), but no paradox.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #59 on: 08-05-2010 23:16 »

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this, but cows took over the planet sometime between the year 3050 and the year 10000.  We know from A Fish Full of Dollars that cows are extinct.

Yes, I know its a throwaway joke.

With both backwards and forwards time travel being available before 10,000 it's possible the cows were brought from their pre-extinction era.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #60 on: 08-05-2010 23:36 »

Pow! We took care of the Time Travel Paradox.

Could he be revering to them appearing a smidge early, and the Fry Bender and Prof of that time/universe still being there and seeing them?

Not being nitpicky, just a thought.

There's nothing wrong with being nitpicky. That's all my post is.

That thought you have could be what The Professor meant. The problem with that is that it isn't really a line flubbing so much as completely wrong. If the universe we see is not ours, but rather a third universe identical to ours taking place after ours, then the crew we see are new people who happen to be identical to our crew. In this case, crushing that crew solves no Paradox because none is taking place. Letting that crew go would not cause a time paradox of any sort. It would cause some personal complications (like having to explain the other Fry's letter popping out in 40 years), but no paradox.
Whilst I agree that it's completely wrong, I think it's just a clumsy bit of writing -using 'paradox' to refer to a somewhat messy situation caused by time-travel. I can't wait for this episode's DVD commentary.
Jezzem

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #61 on: 08-06-2010 00:59 »

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this, but cows took over the planet sometime between the year 3050 and the year 10000.  We know from A Fish Full of Dollars that cows are extinct.

Yes, I know its a throwaway joke.

Cows were presumably brought back at the end of Into The Wild Green Yonder when The Ecyclopod was born.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #62 on: 08-06-2010 01:21 »

That's the 2nd continuity error the Encyclopod has completely obliterated. I love that thing.
Gopher

Fallback Guy
Space Pope
****
« Reply #63 on: 08-06-2010 09:09 »
« Last Edit on: 08-06-2010 09:10 »

since it's gone all pedantic in here, throwing in $.02

There is a difference, it seems to be, between time being cyclical, and the universe being cyclical. If time were cyclical, then going forward would eventually lead back to the same point in time - not a point that seemed the same, but a point that actually is the same moment of time you originally left. If it is just the universe that is cyclical (and everything in it deterministic), then you would come to a different point in time which contained an identical copy of the universe at the moment you started.

Which of these two was intended by the writers is anyone's guess, but for a paradox to be meaningful it seems to me it has to be the first. If they just landed in a new universe with new copies of themselves, there isn't really a paradox, just two groups from different cycles of the universe. The question of the fry, farns, and bender from the 2nd iteration (the one they overshot completely) goes away in this case. There aren't actually more than copy of the gang at all, just past and future versions of the gang, existing at different points in the timeline.

On the other hand, if it were just history and not actually time that was repeating, then the lonely leela we saw is still back there in the, uhm, iteration of earth that they left originally, paying alimony to Cubert, while the fry, farnsworth, and bender from that universe have killed off their duplicates from two iterations later. I assume this is the reasoning behind josh and weiner's original diagram, though I found the diagram a bit confusing myself.

Myself, I far prefer the first, looping time idea to the repeating history idea.
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #64 on: 08-06-2010 21:24 »

There is a difference, it seems to be, between time being cyclical, and the universe being cyclical. If time were cyclical, then going forward would eventually lead back to the same point in time - not a point that seemed the same, but a point that actually is the same moment of time you originally left. If it is just the universe that is cyclical (and everything in it deterministic), then you would come to a different point in time which contained an identical copy of the universe at the moment you started.

It's true that the terminology we've been using is a bit incorrect. Either theory we've been using could be called cyclical, with the Mobius Strip-like Time one being called Cyclical Time and the infinite duplicate universes one being called Cyclical Universe. We just use the other terms (cyclical for Mobius Time, linear for infinite duplicate universes) for more immediate differentiation.

Which of these two was intended by the writers is anyone's guess, but for a paradox to be meaningful it seems to me it has to be the first. If they just landed in a new universe with new copies of themselves, there isn't really a paradox, just two groups from different cycles of the universe. The question of the fry, farns, and bender from the 2nd iteration (the one they overshot completely) goes away in this case. There aren't actually more than copy of the gang at all, just past and future versions of the gang, existing at different points in the timeline.

It's not really a guess. The entire Big Bang sequence up to crushing the duplicates suggests the writers intended the cyclical universe theory to be taken. The only real reason the cyclical time theory lives is because of the paradox line, which itself could have just been an extremely poor choice of words (as Erdrik and cyber_turnip mentioned) meant to convey the solving of the messy problem of arriving early enough for their third universe duplicates having seen them rather than an actual Time Travel Paradox (even though that makes the usage of Paradox completely wrong).

The paradox line does make sense for the cyclical time theory, but only in a messy way that uses BBS introduced rules. In BBS, it's shown that something can have happened one way (Fry missing from his family's lives, Seymour dying on the sidewalk) but can also happen another way (Lars Fry is subbing for original Fry in both instances) while still being part of the same universe. This is a sort-of ripple effect where the events are changed (at least to a point) but the universe itself isn't (i.e. the pond is still a pond, even if the water's been stirred). It's even used earlier in The Why of Fry (though without that paradox double stuff shown in BBS (the time traveling Fry fades away rather than being killed)). In this way, Fry, Bender, and The Professor can travel forward in time, missing their lives as they were, allow the future without them to exist, and yet still come back around and change some stuff as long as the universe itself isn't altered. The only caveat is the paradox of their other selves, solved by crushing them so they can't go on and change the timeline again (tnuk, if I'm wrong on any part please correct me).

Aside from all that gibberish I wrote, I do like the way you explain away the "second" Fry, Bender, and The Professor for the cyclical time theory. It makes sense.

On the other hand, if it were just history and not actually time that was repeating, then the lonely leela we saw is still back there in the, uhm, iteration of earth that they left originally, paying alimony to Cubert, while the fry, farnsworth, and bender from that universe have killed off their duplicates from two iterations later. I assume this is the reasoning behind josh and weiner's original diagram, though I found the diagram a bit confusing myself.

That's completely correct as due josh and weiner's diagram. The diagram itself isn't too difficult to understand. The Universe 1 crew ends up replacing the Universe 3 crew and the Universe 2 crew ends up replacing the Universe 4 crew. The first two universes from July 29th 3010 onwards feature no Fry, Bender, and the Professor while the latter two universes feature them having replaced those universes versions of them before those guys would have traveled. 5 repeats 1 exactly, 6 repeats 2 exactly, ect.

Myself, I far prefer the first, looping time idea to the repeating history idea.

As do I. This is why even though my analysis post makes it fairly clear that the writers meant for the cyclical universe theory to be accepted (even though the paradox line makes little sense for it), I prefer to think in terms of the cyclical time theory (with ripples and paradox correcting to explain changes). Sure, my preference won't change what the writers meant (which I'm fairly positive will be confirmed on the DVD commentary or Animation Super-Con (if they're in attendance and someone asks)), but since I'm not hurting anyone by thinking differently nor really inserting any fanon into place (everything in the Futurama Canon is mostly the same either way so I won't be much of a whiny nerd if/when the cyclical universe theory is confirmed) nor making up something completely asinine (I'm pretty sure I explained how cyclical time can still work with the events portrayed in the episode), I'll do whatever makes me satisfied.

But by all means let's keep talking. After all, it's not like any of us have anything better to do.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #65 on: 08-06-2010 23:25 »

The only real reason the cyclical time theory lives is because of the paradox line,

No, the cyclical time theory lives because that's the best way to make sense of the episode and to preserve both canon and continuity.

Quote
his is why even though my analysis post makes it fairly clear that the writers meant for the cyclical universe theory to be accepted

Actually, it supports the cyclical time theory more. There's nothing that contradicts CT in it, but there are potential contradictions and problems for CU.

Quote
The paradox line does make sense for the cyclical time theory, but only in a messy way that uses BBS introduced rules. In BBS, it's shown that something can have happened one way (Fry missing from his family's lives, Seymour dying on the sidewalk) but can also happen another way (Lars Fry is subbing for original Fry in both instances) while still being part of the same universe. This is a sort-of ripple effect where the events are changed (at least to a point) but the universe itself isn't (i.e. the pond is still a pond, even if the water's been stirred). It's even used earlier in The Why of Fry (though without that paradox double stuff shown in BBS (the time traveling Fry fades away rather than being killed)). In this way, Fry, Bender, and The Professor can travel forward in time, missing their lives as they were, allow the future without them to exist, and yet still come back around and change some stuff as long as the universe itself isn't altered. The only caveat is the paradox of their other selves, solved by crushing them so they can't go on and change the timeline again (tnuk, if I'm wrong on any part please correct me).

Very nicely put actually, and again, this fits with the events in the episode, giving more weight and credence to the CT theory.

Quote
Sure, my preference won't change what the writers meant (which I'm fairly positive will be confirmed on the DVD commentary

I really hope so. And if it's not CT, then I'll be extremely disappointed. It'll drag down the awesomeness of the episode for me if they end up having it make less sense.
Erdrik

Professor
*
« Reply #66 on: 08-07-2010 01:52 »

... It'll drag down the awesomeness of the episode for me if they end up having it make less sense.
Less sense to you.

Besides everyone knows the real answer is that Time is Stupid.
(Yea, imma drag that out, baby! mwa ha ha ha!)
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #67 on: 08-07-2010 02:08 »

... It'll drag down the awesomeness of the episode for me if they end up having it make less sense.
Less sense to you.

No. Less sense. Look, the CT theory makes more sense than the CU one. CU has problems, and not just the ones that Fistfull analysed. There are potential continuity errors introduced by the CU model, which are accounted for within the CT framework.

If it turns out that CU is canon as opposed to CT, then established canon and continuity are suddenly worthless. Therefore it would drag down the entire show for me, as I like for there to be a solid and continuous model for things, which fits with established facts as time goes on... which is what we have if we consider CT as the base model for the Futuramaverse. CU, not so much. Or at all, really.

If you're determined to be stupid, please be stupid about another TV show.
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #68 on: 08-07-2010 02:31 »

... It'll drag down the awesomeness of the episode for me if they end up having it make less sense.
Less sense to you.

No. Less sense. Look, the CT theory makes more sense than the CU one. CU has problems, and not just the ones that Fistfull analysed. There are potential continuity errors introduced by the CU model, which are accounted for within the CT framework.

If it turns out that CU is canon as opposed to CT, then established canon and continuity are suddenly worthless. Therefore it would drag down the entire show for me, as I like for there to be a solid and continuous model for things, which fits with established facts as time goes on... which is what we have if we consider CT as the base model for the Futuramaverse. CU, not so much. Or at all, really.

The CT theory does make more sense, but mostly in the minds of sticklers like you and me. If you look at the TLPJF thread you'll find that most people are willing to accept the CU theory (even me at one point). It makes enough sense for them and they don't really care if it contradicts some other stuff, since it's "easier" to immediately accept than the CT theory, which takes a bit more thought and wrap-aroundness for most (I'm not claiming to be more intelligent here, just more obsessed). Remember Tnuk, Time Travel is often quite confusing to those that give it a cursory glance. Most aren't willing to heed Doc Brown's advice, which went something like "It all makes sense. You just have to think 4th dimensionally". It's a bit much to ask for most people, especially when everyone know that the overall narrative will remain unaffected. I say we live and let live, and remain satisfied that we managed to make some better sense out of it.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #69 on: 08-07-2010 02:34 »

I've already established that CU is the easiest explanation of the time travel in this episode, not necessarily the most thorough.
Fnord
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #70 on: 08-07-2010 02:45 »

I've already established that CU is the easiest explanation of the time travel in this episode, not necessarily the most thorough.

It's easier to pee in your pants than learn how to use a toilet. Which should you do?
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #71 on: 08-07-2010 02:49 »

Pee in my pants.  It's easier.
Fnord
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #72 on: 08-07-2010 02:57 »

I stand corrected: This is that kind of forum.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #73 on: 08-07-2010 02:58 »

Sorry Fistfull, but I can't let people get away with not getting how time travel works. I can't! I've spent too long listening to people thinking they're being smart about time travel, when actually they're babbling utter dogshit.

Personally, I've always been able to wrap my head around the way time travel works/would work/should work. Paradoxes? I've shit 'em! (10,000 points if you get the reference!)  -  there's no complication to my mind in perceiving things "fourth dimensionally". I remember when the concept of the Hypercube was explained to me, I instantly grasped it whilst others in my maths class were left with blank looks, having been mindfucked by the idea.

I dunno why I can think around corners and in loops like this about time travel and extra dimensions, but not be able to cope with things like small talk and the general notion of being polite to people, but it has enabled me to get a firm grasp of how time travel works whenever I see it portrayed with reasonable scientific accuracy.

Futurama is a very sciency show. I'd be very surprised if they hadn't thoroughly taken the time to understand what they're putting onscreen in the way of time travel... therefore it makes sense to me that a consistent in-universe model is capable of being applied. Working forwardsfrom the first time we see time travel (1947) , it's possible to extrapolate several of the rules as we move along the show's chronology and arrive at a consistent model.

This model disagrees with CU, and does not disagree with CT. Of course, it may as you say be a problem that people are having wrapping their heads around laying things out in an order or pattern that makes sense to them.

Pen and paper are their friends here. Constructing a single timeline with loops/bubbles for travel or alterations, even spirals, will allow everything to be laid out in a way that makes sense. Suddenly, (I'd like to hope), people will have their own personal "EUREKA!" moment, and see that the CT model is the one that fits.

I stand corrected: This is that kind of forum.


Not necessarily. The ones with their pants full of piss are easily identified chastized appropriately.
Erdrik

Professor
*
« Reply #74 on: 08-07-2010 04:37 »
« Last Edit on: 08-07-2010 04:39 »

Personaly I don't really have a problem with CT or CU or whatever.
My problem is with your constant assumtion that you are right.
About a TV show.
That you have no part in writing.
That has a future you have no real clue about how will turn out.

Yet you insist that you do. It irks me, so I wish to irk you back.

Irk!

Quote from: totalnerduk
...but not be able to cope with things like small talk and the general notion of being polite to people...
From this admition I can understand why you do it.
That, however, does not prevent the irk.
Thus I shall revenge irk.



I am a visual thinker, so I will engage in your suggestion of constructing a timeline.
I shall attempt to attain my Eureka moment.
But not tonite. Im tired and have to work in the morn.
Curse'd saterday shifts....
Oh, and Ill be stupid about any gall darn TV show I frakin' please, thank you very much.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #75 on: 08-07-2010 04:48 »

. It irks me, so I wish to irk you back.

Irk away. If I find you irksome, I shall attempt to return the irk.

Quote
Quote from: totalnerduk
...but not be able to cope with things like small talk and the general notion of being polite to people...
From this admition I can understand why you do it.
That, however, does not prevent the irk.
Thus I shall revenge irk.

I find that your understanding whilst not accepting this is mildly irksome to me. Congratulations. You've acheived a small part of your goal. Perhaps for an encore you'd like to prod me with a finger?

Quote
I am a visual thinker, so I will engage in your suggestion of constructing a timeline.
I shall attempt to attain my Eureka moment.

Scan and post it if you come up with anything pretty, won't you?

Quote
Oh, and Ill be stupid about any gall darn TV show I frakin' please, thank you very much.

Please don't be stupid about Futurama. Please. There are enough people on this forum who don't seem to have the luxury of being able to choose their stupidity. Why swell their numbers?
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #76 on: 08-08-2010 10:09 »

Circular time is evidenced against by the Professor's line that this Universe is 10 feet (or whatever he said) below ours.  That suggests a circular universe theory.  However, he also within the same minute says the paradox statement which contradicts the CU by suggesting a CT mechanism.

He says something contradictory in that very specific scene.  He could be wrong about either option though... Perhaps there was no time paradox and he thought there was... or perhaps there was another plausible explanation for why the time machine ended up right above the copy trio.  We don't seem to have enough data.


If this is what tnuk has been going on about though, I may just have to read his other posts on which he expounds the entire timeline of Futurama....  I was always under the impression of Circular Universe and hadn't yet even considered Circular Time.  The thought intrigues me though.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #77 on: 08-08-2010 14:52 »

He says that killing themselves resolves the time-travel paradox though, whereas if anything it's creating a time-travel paradox. This is, of course, if you believe time to be cyclical.

That's why I think it's just poorly worded. The 'paradox' he was referring to, being that there were duplicates of themselves now.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #78 on: 08-08-2010 15:00 »
« Last Edit on: 08-08-2010 15:02 »

Had he arrived just a little later, there would have been no issue, but then if time was cyclical, we would not have had the whole PE becoming successful plot, because Fry, Bender and Farnsworth would practically just have travelled that one minute.

So by arriving earlier, the writers maintain the possibility for cyclical time.  Had they not, then the CU would have been the only option.
Erdrik

Professor
*
« Reply #79 on: 08-08-2010 18:30 »

...
So by arriving earlier, the writers maintain the possibility for cyclical time.  Had they not, then the CU would have been the only option.
Im not sure I follow. By arriving early(assuming CT) they kill their past selves, preventing them for making the trip through time to begin with. Which is a paradox.
So how does arriving early maintain the possability for CT?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 7 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.24 seconds with 17 queries.