On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:20:38 -0500, "KalElFan"
<kalelfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"Ian Galbraith" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:jn97zvz0zunv$.1b0vnu1fg63$.dlg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:40:00 -0500, KalElFan wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> And David's only response was that the machines thought they had no
>>> choice but to try. Obviously even they didn't buy into the "premise"
>>> David offered up as no substitute for proof.
>>
>> The machines didn't know, they were faced with destruction so of course
>> they tried. David is 100% correct, the 1 st movie was a closed loop,
all
>> actions predestined, the past being unchanging. The second changed this
as
>> it had to to make a second movie possible.
>
>None of what you're saying addresses David's failure to provide the proof
>I challenged him to upthread, nor what I said about his "premise" and it
>being no substitute for proof. My original challenge was to this
apparent
>myth in some parts of fandom that T2 is incompatible with T1, as in T1
>somehow established inviolable rules that T2 broke.
T1 established by experiment that events are predestined and attempts
to go back in time and change history simply cause the historical
event you want to change. If history is variable, then the T1 loop
will inevitably collapse. Somewhere, sometime, someone will do
something that will interfere with the split-second timing of the
events of T1, resulting Reese failing to be the one who is sent back,
or Sarah dying or John dying. If history can be changed, then what
keeps the loop from changing? And if the loop changes at all, how
can such a close-run thing never produce a result in which there is no
John?
|
