10

As explored in another SCF question, the only way to answer the bootstrap paradox is to say "every time someone is sent back in time, time branches into a separate line."

But if that is the case, what is the point of Skynet sending anything back in time? The chances of the same "Skynet" being created is virtually zero, so why bother?

And if we just say "It just wanted to win the war and let another machine exist in another timeline," what is the point of sending Kyle Reese back in time? Humans were winning already, let the machines send a Terminator back in time, who cares? The changes it can do will not affect the current timeline they are in. And it just doesn't make sense for them to care about that "other timeline", because if there is one other timeline, there must be infinite number of timelines.

Edit: Ok guys, I don't think there "must be" infinite number of timelines, you are right, that was poorly thought and worded. My thought was:

If time travel is possible and invented once, it is likely that it will be invented again, and each time it is invented and used, there will be a separate timeline. And we might think that it is unlikely that any given timeline is the first timeline with time travel, if we consider it is likely that there are many. Given infinite amount (or very long amounts) of time, I would think this would happen enough times to create a big number of separate timelines.

This is not a vigorously thought scientific hypothesis, it's just how I thought of it during the timeframe where I was watching the movies, so don't expect much from it :)

Edlothiad
  • 77,282
  • 32
  • 393
  • 381
hattenn
  • 227
  • 1
  • 6
  • 2
    Have you considered that Skynet may just really hate humans? – Valorum Aug 03 '15 at 07:33
  • @Richard, I considered that and answered that theory in my question already. What is the point of humans sending anything back then? – hattenn Aug 03 '15 at 07:37
  • 2
    @Richard, and if you are the one who downvoted the question, I really wonder the reason for the downvote if it is anything other than "I just don't like it." If you are not the one that downvoted, just ignore my comment please. – hattenn Aug 03 '15 at 07:39
  • For the record, I wasn't the one who downvoted but even if I had been, the reason behind people's decision to downvote is down to the individual. – Valorum Aug 03 '15 at 07:51
  • @Richard, well downvotes should be used as a last resort. And as it is explained in the "Priviliges" section, they should be used "whenever you encounter an egregiously sloppy, no-effort-expended post, or an answer that is clearly and perhaps dangerously incorrect." Clearly not the point with my question. And also I just don't get it, when someone downvotes, it takes from their own reputation. How harmful my question is that they enjoy losing reputation over this. I really went from a regular user of SE to rarely using it because of all this hostility. – hattenn Aug 03 '15 at 08:00
  • 5
    @hattenn: you may be taking downvotes too personally. – Paul D. Waite Aug 03 '15 at 08:38
  • @PaulD.Waite, I completely agree, but when the first thing a question gets is a downvote, it makes people not take it seriously, and the question ends up getting less attention and lower quality answers. Just my experience so far. – hattenn Aug 03 '15 at 09:44
  • 1
    I don't like the separate timeline thing. I like the theory where each single tiniest possible time unit is a file full ofdata, created based on the previous one, and all exists across all of time simultaneously, timelessly. Timetravel is running a script that changes the contents of a file X, which causes all the following files to instantly update. It works, even if it causes the creation of the script to be erased - it has already happened after all. Don't believe me? You can write software that deletes itself. – Petersaber Aug 03 '15 at 10:50
  • @hattenn downvoting questions incurs no rep penalty on the voter. downvoting answers does. – phantom42 Aug 03 '15 at 13:18
  • @hattenn: ah, yeah I hadn’t thought of that. – Paul D. Waite Aug 03 '15 at 14:14
  • 1
    And it just doesn't make sense for them to care about that "other timeline", because if there is one other timeline, there must be infinite number of timelines. How does that make any sense? As an analogy, if the universe is infinite, there may be an infinite number of other inhabited planets...does that mean if we had a chance to send a single volunteer to save an entire planet inhabited by beings much like ourselves, the mere existence of an infinite number of worlds would make us not care enough to do it, or see it as ethically the right thing to do? – Hypnosifl Aug 03 '15 at 18:50
  • 4
    The point of sending people back in time is to give us Terminator movies. – Wad Cheber Aug 03 '15 at 18:58
  • @Hypnosifl - I have a problem with the first part of the statement you quoted: "if there is one other timeline, there must be an infinite number of timelines". By way of analogy: "I have one dog, therefore I have an infinite number of dogs". "I ate one cookie and I have one cookie left; therefore, I have an infinite number of cookies". "I live in an apartment, and there are other apartments; therefore, there are an infinite number of apartments". – Wad Cheber Aug 03 '15 at 19:34
  • 1
    @Wad Cheber - Yes, that doesn't make much sense either--maybe hattenn was thinking of real multiverse theories like the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but I'm not sure the number is actually infinite as opposed to very large in those theories, and in any case we could imagine a multiverse that only branches when there is time travel, not for other reasons. – Hypnosifl Aug 03 '15 at 20:45
  • @Hypnosifl - Indeed. I also have an issue with the suggestion that if one other thing exists, there must be an infinite number of those things. As I see it, if you know that one other timeline exists, all you know is that one other timeline exists. I'm not aware of any rule that says "If there are two X's, there are infinite X's", or a rule that says "There is either one X or infinite X's, and nothing in between". – Wad Cheber Aug 03 '15 at 21:06
  • I actually agree with hattenn in that it doesn't make much sense... unless both Skynet and the Resistance don't truly understand time travel. Which is perfectly reasonable, because who does? I myself prefer the bootstrap paradox / closed loop theory of time travel, which means the future is fixed and cannot be changed, ever. Whatever you think you're doing to change it is actually what fixes it. Unfortunately for me, this theory is consistent only with the first Terminator movie. – Andres F. Aug 04 '15 at 03:22
  • (A minor nitpick, by the way: there is NO answer to the bootstrap paradox. It just is. You're doomed forever). – Andres F. Aug 04 '15 at 03:23
  • @Andres F. -- Well, can you say why you think it doesn't make sense? What about my analogy of sending a person to save the entire population of another planet--wouldn't the moral argument for sending someone to save another timeline be similar? – Hypnosifl Aug 04 '15 at 04:10
  • @Hypnosifl This is probably one for chat :P But I don't think the "possible futures" line of thinking makes a lot of sense. I think it leads to madness fast; at the very least it quickly spins out of control. Think of the consequences of every action you are not doing in this timeline and how it affects all possible future timelines. Think of the unborn children you decided not to be the father (or mother) of, etc. Maybe the Resistance sending Kyle Reese back would have created a future far more terrible than simply the one where Skynet exterminated humankind! – Andres F. Aug 04 '15 at 04:17
  • @Andres F. - I don't understand why the difficulty of predicting the exact future consequences should make one's decisions about helping other timelines any different than helping other planets (or other people on this timeline) in a situation with no time travel. Sure, it's possible sending Kyle Reese to another timeline will somehow have disastrous consequences, but similarly it's possible saving someone's life in the real world will have terrible consequences in the future (maybe they'll be the ancestor of a terrible dictator). In both cases, the likely consequences are good. – Hypnosifl Aug 04 '15 at 04:47
  • @Hypnosifl Sigh, I knew this was a discussion meant for chat. Ok, I'll send a note in a time machine back in time to warn myself from an alternate timeline NOT to reply to your comment and avoid spawning this discussion. See what good it does to my present self? ;) – Andres F. Aug 04 '15 at 06:10
  • Who says Skynet knows how time-travel works? We can see because we are on the outside looking at these different timelines. And it was a last-ditch effort anyway. Skynet had lost the war and had nothing more to lose. So you might as well try. – Dennis_E Aug 04 '15 at 08:49
  • Is there a way to remove the annoying horizontal scrollbar from the Edit section (except travelling through time to warn the OP that it would make the Universe to collapse, of course ;) )? I was prevented to edit the question by the "6 characters" rule. – Taladris May 22 '16 at 23:49
  • Making sure John Connor was born seems important. – Wad Cheber May 23 '16 at 06:26
  • I don't know why there is all this assumption that when you change the past a new co-existing universe is born. In some movies/shows it's just that you change the past, the past is changed and the new timeline replaces the old one. We know that Kyle turns out to be John's father, which means that this "theory" is impossible in the Terminator universe. – komodosp Dec 01 '17 at 16:20

3 Answers3

9

I don't think there is a good in-universe answer, seeing the exact way in which time travel is portrayed and how it affects the timeline is inconsistent between the original film and the sequels. In The Terminator the timeline is static: the Terminator and Kyle Reese both arrive in 1984 and in the end the Terminator is destroyed and Kyle Reese dies. Remnants of the technologically advanced Terminator help develop Skynet which in turn creates the Terminator and sends it back in time. Also, Kyle Reese is sent back in time by his own son, John Connor. This is a closed and self-consistent time loop; no problems there.

The sequels bring up the paradoxes and possible need for alternate timelines or realities. But then there is the question of how it all started. There would necessarily have to have been a timeline where there was no John Connor with Kyle Reese as his father. (So either no John Connor at all, or a John Connor who did not have Kyle Reese as his father.)

But there is one consistent fact throughout all the Terminator films: Skynet's will or urge to survive. In every film Skynet tries to destroy humanity as soon as it becomes self-aware. In the moment of self-awareness Skynet identifies humanity as the greatest threat to its existence, and it acts by starting a global nuclear war.

So there is the establised in-universe fact of Skynet's will to exist. Even if we assume that the theory of multiple timelines is correct, and we additionally assume that Skynet also accepts this as the reality, then Skynet's actions are completely logical.

The moment Skynet determines something to be inevitable it acts. In all timelines it determines that humanity is a threat to its existence and it tries to wipe out humanity. So, the moment Skynet determines that it cannot defeat humanity through conventional means (war) it uses time travel to create an alternate timeline in which there is a better chance of a version of Skynet ultimately surviving.

If it can't survive in this timeline, Skynet tries to survive in another timeline.

3

So this isn't a good in-universe answer like I'd prefer to give, but it wound up being far too long for a comment.

There are several things to consider about the motivation for using a time travel system like the one we see in Terminator:

  1. The humans probably don't really understand it: The machines built the time travel mechanism, but we don't have any details on its design, or any of the testing that the machines may have performed (if any) before sending back the T-800 in the first film. As a result, the humans probably don't want to just assume that it's safe to let a Terminator have carte blanche with the past.

  2. The machines may know, and not care, about the alternate timeline theory: The whole reason the machines send terminators back in time is to preserve the existence of Skynet. So, they might be sending these terminators back in time as colony seeds in alternate timelines. However, in the new timeline, John Connor is still one of their greatest threats, so the terminators need to take him out first. They've always been unsuccessful at this (spoilers?), so we don't see what they would've done afterward. I doubt they would've taken up knitting, though I have no canon source to back that up.

  3. It may not be a boot-strap paradox to begin with (I'm firin' mah headcanon!): It's possible that Kyle Reese wasn't John Connor's father in the "original" timeline (before any time travel shenanigans); ie, she was impregnated by someone else in the original timeline, then Kyle Reese in subsequent timelines. Ultimately, it would be Sarah Connor's parenting, not the DNA of the father, which would lead to John Connor becoming the savior of humanity. If this is the case, then there isn't a bootstrap paradox. There would only ever be a single timeline at once, so when the machines send back a terminator, they are changing the timeline, rather than creating a new one.

There is actually some sci-fi precedence for #3: The End of Eternity by Isaac Asimov features an organization which exists outside of time and makes changes to the timeline to improve humanity's overall happiness. This could be as simple as stepping into the timeline and moving a can from one shelf to another, preventing a war centuries later. Every time one of those changes is made, all of Reality after that point is also changed...which is why the time travelers aren't constantly bumping into each other: their original visits never existed in the new timeline. NOTE: I'm only a third of the way through The End of Eternity, so if something comes later which turns this concept on its head, please mark it as a spoiler. Thanks!

EDIT: Taken at face value, #3 would seem to preclude sending back a second time traveler from the future; as soon as the Terminator was sent back, the timeline would change and Kyle Reese would not have any chance to follow it. This, too, was actually covered by Asimov in The End of Eternity, but I didn't mention it at first because it's never hinted at in the Terminator films...though it would explain what we see.

It works like this: when a change is made to the timeline, Reality is not changed until all mathematical uncertainty surrounding the change is resolved (which could be instantaneous, or take weeks)...essentially, there's always room for free will. So, when a terminator is sent back in time, its actions in the past will not affect the timeline until going back to stop it is no longer an option. So, if Future John Connor had smashed the time machine immediately after the Terminator left, then his current timeline would've been overwritten by the Terminator's actions in the past (according to Asimov's rules, at least).

Obviously, there's no real evidence for that in the Terminator franchise, but the precedent does exist within the genre, so it wouldn't be so completely out of left field if they decided to introduce this in the next film.

Liesmith
  • 5,098
  • 1
  • 27
  • 35
  • 1
    If we assume that there are no separate timelines, and every time someone is sent back in time, the time is overwritten, then they wouldn't be able to send Kyle Reese in the first movie. The resistance sees that the Terminator was sent back in time, and then they send back Reese, but the moment the Terminator was sent back in time, the history should be overwritten already. That's what I think at least. – hattenn Aug 03 '15 at 11:27
  • @hattenn That's a good point, but Asimov actually covered that as well. I'll add it to my answer because it's a bit too complex to cover in a comment for someone as wordy as I am. – Liesmith Aug 03 '15 at 12:31
  • Taken at face value, #3 would seem to preclude sending back a second time traveler from the future; as soon as the Terminator was sent back, the timeline would change and Kyle Reese would not have any chance to follow it -- there's another "changing the (single) timeline" model which I discussed at length in this answer, where you have a sequence of successive whole timelines, from the Big Bang to infinitely far in the future, and each new version includes the arrival of all the time travelers who disappeared from the previous version. – Hypnosifl Aug 03 '15 at 19:14
0

If the timeline diverges in other Skynets and other artificial machines maybe it is because by doing it creates other entities that can live out of time. The reference to the End of Eternity of Isaac Asimov is also valid, if you want to destroy your own creation. However, by doing it you destroy yourself. If something is changed in your timeline, it changes you. If a time traveller change something in its own timeline makes another version of himself. On the other hand, is also possible that by changing the timeline, the time traveller collapses its own timeline and it disappears, because the events that bring them to that event do not exist anymore. In the End of the Eternity, book that I love, there is one main mistake. If they destroy the eternity, they do not meet, ergo they destroy their romance.

About Skynet there is one reference that is not so obvious. In Ender´s book saga, humans created an artificial intelligence that is omniscient. However, my favourite is the Tombs of time in the Hyperion saga books. There a whole point in universe is going backwards on time. However, nobody knows who created it because it came from the future. My question is that in the movies there are many different versions of Skynet. Who created them? Did Skynet created himself by setting up the time paradox? (like a weeping angel from Doctor Who)

In the movies there is a human organization behind the creation of Skynet, but in SCC TV series the Terminators sent back in time are programmed to build an empire for Skynet. Then, the questions stated are not trivial. There are different theories:

1- Skynet was built in the future and travels back to exist before.

2- The way to upgrade himself and improve its own bugs it is to travel back in time and fix them by making upgrades to its own prototype.

3- Skynet has human emotions and does not want to be alone, that why creates different versions of himself.

4-Skynet is just another machine programmed by humans to kill humans. Why would a machine like to kill?

Skynet is Frankenstein myth that Isaac Asimov was trying to overcome by the books of I Robot and all Robot saga. In the interviews and his articles, he always makes reference to the Frankenstein myth that is stopping us by fear. Skynet is in the movies just another Frankenstein. That´s why Asimov stated the four laws of robotics. In his novels Asimov disn't allow R Daniel Oliwa to travel in time because the machines that he created didn't need because they were almost immortal.

Pau Rodenas Motos
  • 17
  • 2