Re:Kip Thorne: The science of Interstellar
by mindcrime on Monday December 01, 2014 @01:26PM
(#8682710)
The thing is, you don't really have to explain that, exactly because we don't know what the "rules" of time-travel are, IF it were even possible. We talk about "grandfather paradoxes" and "ontological paradox" in sci-fi, and speculate about what would happen in "real life" if some of these things happened, but the paradox might be completely irrelevant for all we know.
Anyway, for my money, this issue falls well into the "willful suspension of disbelief" category - and didn't affect my appreciation of the movie at all.
I mean, yeah, it was billed as a "scientifically accurate' movie, but it's still science fiction at the end of the day, with the emphasis on "fiction".
Re:Kip Thorne: The science of Interstellar
by Tycho on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @02:35PM
(#8689294)
I think you do if it comes across as a fundamental breach of logic.
I'll just link you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_princ...
It's by far my favorite way to explain time travel system like the one we see in Interstellar, and it's rooted in real science rather than Paradox Philosophy.
Re:Kip Thorne: The science of Interstellar
by hansjorg on Monday December 01, 2014 @02:08PM
(#8682986)
One resolution I've seen mentioned is that if Brand succeeded with Plan B then maybe "they" are the ancestors of the Edmunds-planet. That would resolve the paradox at least.
Re:Kip Thorne: The science of Interstellar
by ceejayoz on Monday December 01, 2014 @09:23AM
(#8681056)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve
> in a CTC, causality breaks down, because an event can be "simultaneous" with its cause—in some sense an event may be able to cause itself.
Re:Kip Thorne: The science of Interstellar
by eyevinx on Monday December 01, 2014 @05:43PM
(#8684476)
There is no paradox: http://www.reddit.com/r/interstellar/comments/2mmh71/spoiler...
Someone said it is permissible as a 'closed timelike curve' but smells like BS to me.