Back to the future - let's try it one more time

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetvirgogirl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Future Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the time travel concepts presented in the "Back to the Future" film series, particularly focusing on the implications of parallel realities and branching timelines. Participants explore philosophical and scientific interpretations of the narrative, as well as the consistency of the time travel mechanics depicted in the films.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether Marty McFly slips into a parallel reality in the first film or if this concept is only clarified in the second film.
  • Others assert that the premise of the movie is based on a single universe with a linear timeline, suggesting that changes in the past must occur as they originally did.
  • A participant mentions that when Biff travels back in time, he creates a branched timeline, which diverges from the original one that Marty came from.
  • There is a discussion about the possibility of different characters existing in alternate realities, with some arguing that this is feasible while others question its relevance to the films.
  • Concerns are raised about the internal consistency of the series, with participants noting various problems in how time travel is portrayed.
  • One participant introduces the concept of hysteresis in the effects of time travel, suggesting that changes do not manifest immediately.
  • Another participant references a temporal paradox from a different work of fiction, drawing parallels to the time travel themes in "Back to the Future."
  • Some participants express skepticism about the feasibility of time travel itself, suggesting that nature would prevent successful interference with past events.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of viewpoints, with no clear consensus on the nature of time travel as depicted in the films. Disagreements persist regarding the interpretation of timelines, the existence of parallel realities, and the overall consistency of the series.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the films' portrayal of time travel, including unresolved questions about the mechanics of timelines and the implications of character changes across different realities.

sweetvirgogirl
Messages
116
Reaction score
0
so the discussion on the movie last time didnt go too well, coz i focused on scienctific concepts rather than the philosophy ... so i decided to make another thread



1)does back to the future at any point tell that marty actually slipped in parallel reality? or it doesn't become clear until II (i haven't seen II)? or was it something we were supposed to interpret?

2) also, at the end, marty runs away from the terrorists again in the time machine ... and he will apparently go to another universe ... so will it keep happening?

3) also, different situations can take place in different realities ... but is it possible NOT to have same characters?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sweetvirgogirl said:
so the discussion on the movie last time didnt go too well, coz i focused on scienctific concepts rather than the philosophy ... so i decided to make another thread
1)does back to the future at any point tell that marty actually slipped in parallel reality? or it doesn't become clear until II (i haven't seen II)? or was it something we were supposed to interpret?
2) also, at the end, marty runs away from the terrorists again in the time machine ... and he will apparently go to another universe ... so will it keep happening?
3) also, different situations can take place in different realities ... but is it possible NOT to have same characters?

1) no, the premiss of the movie was that there is one universe and Marty is traveling through the one universe's time line.

2) Yes, what happens in the past must happen, so Marty needs to travel back.

3) That has nothing to do with the movie.
 
^Dude, did you watch movie 2?

1) Yes, when Biff went back to give the magazine to himself, he changed the timeline, so the future was on a branched timeline, different from the one Marty came from. Doc explains it in-movie.

2)Yes, but nothing'll change because of it. Past happens, you know?

3)Um... Yes, you can have different people in different realities. But, then again, what's the movie have to do with this?
 
Blahness said:
^Dude, did you watch movie 2?
1) Yes, when Biff went back to give the magazine to himself, he changed the timeline, so the future was on a branched timeline, different from the one Marty came from. Doc explains it in-movie.
2)Yes, but nothing'll change because of it. Past happens, you know?
3)Um... Yes, you can have different people in different realities. But, then again, what's the movie have to do with this?

I think that the alternate time line was just an illustration of what the change did to the present, not that they are in an alternate reality.
 
The whole series uses a branching timeline that is independent of the characters. When Biff changes the timeline in II, marty's reality is changed, but not himself. He is still the samy marty that came from the original timeline, even though that no longer exists.
 
franznietzsche said:
The whole series uses a branching timeline that is independent of the characters. When Biff changes the timeline in II, marty's reality is changed, but not himself. He is still the samy marty that came from the original timeline, even though that no longer exists.

If that were true, Marty would not be disappearing from reality in BTF I.
 
ComputerGeek said:
If that were true, Marty would not be disappearing from reality in BTF I.


I never said the series was consistent. :biggrin:

There are a lot of problems with the way it portrays time travel. However, what I said is true of the second movie in the series, that's what happens.
 
franznietzsche said:
I never said the series was consistent. :biggrin:
There are a lot of problems with the way it portrays time travel. However, what I said is true of the second movie in the series, that's what happens.

While the series has it problems with how it deals with Time travel, I wouldn't say that it not self-consistent. One thing to keep in mind is that in the first movie there seems to be a type of hysteresis in the effects it causes. Marty arrives in 1955(the first time) on Nov 5th. Shortly after, he interferes with his Parent's getting together. Yet it isn't until the night of the storm, Nov, 12th, that the effects of this interference catch up with him and he starts to vanish.

When they return to 1985 in the second movie, they are only there for a few hrs and then return to 1955 on the 12th of Nov. This total time period is less than that apparently needed for the disruption of the time line to "catch up with them".
 
Janus said:
While the series has it problems with how it deals with Time travel, I wouldn't say that it not self-consistent. One thing to keep in mind is that in the first movie there seems to be a type of hysteresis in the effects it causes. Marty arrives in 1955(the first time) on Nov 5th. Shortly after, he interferes with his Parent's getting together. Yet it isn't until the night of the storm, Nov, 12th, that the effects of this interference catch up with him and he starts to vanish.
When they return to 1985 in the second movie, they are only there for a few hrs and then return to 1955 on the 12th of Nov. This total time period is less than that apparently needed for the disruption of the time line to "catch up with them".
In the first movie he almost kept his parents from getting together and that is why he was being effected. In the second movie with the "parallel time line" his parents had still gotten together though circumstances had changed. Because of this I guess there was no reason for his existence to be threatened.
 
  • #10
Lets talk about the Terminator movies now :biggrin:
 
  • #11
Aren't these homework questions?
 
  • #12
TheStatutoryApe said:
In the first movie he almost kept his parents from getting together and that is why he was being effected. In the second movie with the "parallel time line" his parents had still gotten together though circumstances had changed. Because of this I guess there was no reason for his existence to be threatened.

Ah, but in the second movie, old Biff goes back and creates a new timeline in which the Doc is commited. If this happens, then doc never invented a time machine and the verisons of Doc and Marty that traveled back from the future wouldn't be there.
 
  • #13
That's right. I had forgotten about that. I vaguely remember the impression of "tempral storm" or something like that traveling backwards from where Biff left in the future.


There's an interesting temporal paradox in a book called "Anubis Gates" by Tim Powers. The main character is a poetry scholar and goes back in time. He winds up being the one to write the poems that he was most intrigued by but he wrote them from the memory of having read them in the future. Powers didn't do that mistakenly though, he points out the paradox himself and leaves it hanging at the end.
 
  • #14
There have been other threads that talk about time travel on this forum. (Of course!) Time travel into the past seems to change something not only doesn't make sense, it just isn't possible. Something will always prevent you from succeeding. If you DID succeed then you wouldn't have had the motivation to time travel in the first place. You may have an unforseen delay on your way to whatever event is significant to the trip. It would almost be something out of Laurel and Hardy. Nothing EVER seems to go right. No matter how many trips you make you won't succeed. It seems that nature is toying with you keeping you from completing your task. But it is really a filter effect if you think about it. We go so far as to say that nature just plain won't let us interfere with anything that could have an effect on whether or not we attempt to time travel. For instance, suppose I go back in time one week and start walking down the street. I see a person I know about a block away and for some reason decide I want to punch him in the nose. Seems like a random enough of an event right? If I catch up with him and succeed in this and actually get him a bloody/broken nose, it means that this person and myself have no connection in the future that would relate my hitting him to dwindle my desire to time travel. Any connection we have in the future after I socked him could REINFORCE my desire to time travel though. Of course I wouldn't tell him that I traveled from a week in the future to hit him. Make sense?
 
  • #15
Averagesupernova said:
There have been other threads that talk about time travel on this forum. (Of course!) Time travel into the past seems to change something not only doesn't make sense, it just isn't possible. Something will always prevent you from succeeding. If you DID succeed then you wouldn't have had the motivation to time travel in the first place. You may have an unforseen delay on your way to whatever event is significant to the trip. It would almost be something out of Laurel and Hardy. Nothing EVER seems to go right. No matter how many trips you make you won't succeed. It seems that nature is toying with you keeping you from completing your task. But it is really a filter effect if you think about it. We go so far as to say that nature just plain won't let us interfere with anything that could have an effect on whether or not we attempt to time travel. For instance, suppose I go back in time one week and start walking down the street. I see a person I know about a block away and for some reason decide I want to punch him in the nose. Seems like a random enough of an event right? If I catch up with him and succeed in this and actually get him a bloody/broken nose, it means that this person and myself have no connection in the future that would relate my hitting him to dwindle my desire to time travel. Any connection we have in the future after I socked him could REINFORCE my desire to time travel though. Of course I wouldn't tell him that I traveled from a week in the future to hit him. Make sense?

I think I understand...

If your impetus to go back and fix a problem and you actually fix it, then there is no reason for you to travel back in time in the first place which would mean that you never go back and never change history.


BUT... if you go back and change history, that history has happened, and that fix will still exist as you travel forward in time.

That fact itself necessitates multiple quantum realities if time travel is possible, were you can change anything.
 
  • #16
loseyourname said:
Aren't these homework questions?
not really :)
 

Similar threads

Time travel -- Back to the Future
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
World-building done well
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Can a quantum state be thought of simply as one allowing bidirectional time travel?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
AlphaEvolve - The Future of Math?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
New Idea/Twist for a Time Travel-Like Story
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Undergrad Does the past of an observer still actually exist in their "now"?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
High School Trying to understand what "time" is (layperson)
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Why Does Back to the Future Require 88 MPH for Time Travel?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
Filmmakers lost in the world of 3D animation and special effects
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
8K
Is it silly to complain about being praised all the time?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K