Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26838855-20190803131136/@comment-26838855-20190811031056

Shabook wrote: They are, by definition, alternate universes. Alternate universes created through splitting a universe in two, as opposed to simply two completely separate universes. Like monozygotic vs. dizygotic twins.

Shabook wrote: That brings you to a different point in time in a parallel universe, just like the time machine in endgame. The writers have explained that the time machine does not create alternate universes, but I'm not going to into Endgame now.

This doesn't address the point of why a stone purely linked with time would send you to an alternate reality when that's not its power. They even say it moves you purely in time when Fitz explains why they haven't moved location.

Shabook wrote: That means that the future of the current universe was going as apocalyptic as the one in an alternate universe, until it was changed, and she saw the change. Time cannot be literally changed, only split. Fitz explains it in Spacetime, we are just experiencing the fourth dimension in three-dimensional moments. Time doesn't unspool and if you look into the future at one point you'll see one thing while if you look into the future at another point you'll see another. You'd just see the future.

Shabook wrote: The future of the current universe was going to be as apocalyptic as in the alternate universe, unless prevented and changed. But by this theory, it was never going to be.

Shabook wrote: The events of Rewind are exactly the same for every universe caught in the so-called loop, as Leo Fitz gets frozen in every one of them. Shabook wrote: The backstory of Leo Fitz is the same for every universe Doppelganger of him up until the events of The End. That means that both the 199999 currently alive Fitz, and the alternate currently deceased Fitz lived through the exact same events in their respective universes I understand that the events are identical, but that doesn't change the fact that the show presents it as the same Fitz, especially with the "74 years later' essentially telling you that.

My point is not to say that the theory does not make sense. As I mentioned, it's internally consistent. My point is, what is the motive to choose this theory over the much simpler one that the show presents? Why would you want it to be this way?

Shabook wrote: That means that not every universe is destined to live through the same outcome despite countless others did. Just like the alternate universes seen by Doctor Strange in Infinity War. "But he'll be so happy to know that time is not fixed. It's a fluid, ever-changing, beautiful thing." She is not saying, "He'll be so happy to know that while time can't be changed, in some universes, things turn out nicely."

Shabook wrote: Not every viewer is going to use their time to write essays about a TV series. The phrase "time loop" is easier to apply and understand by characters without scientific knowledge. Every iteration of Yo-yo perceived it as a loop, as she saw "her past self" in the Lighthouse. She came from an alternate universe where their lives had been identical up until that point. I understand, it's possible to fudge the show referring to a time loop. I think again, the main point I want to stress here is: OK, but why shouldn't it be a time loop when it can be and that's what the show says?

Shabook wrote: If one of them dies early and they're in a different universe to the one with the dystopian future, then that means that the outcome is going to be different. Whether that means that Earth will be destroyed or not, is unknown. Therefore, this point proves nothing in either case. A universe where May, Fitz, Simmons or Yo-Yo died earlier simply means that is going to be different than the one seen in The Last Day. I know that it only means the outcome is going to be different, and whether that means that the Earth will be destroyed or not is still unknown. However, the stress in the point was supposed to be that the reason an early death is important is because it means they have broken away from predestination. In this version of events, that type of predestination is not ever at play.

Shabook wrote: Again, this proves nothing at all. That Simmons is unaware of it doesn't mean it's not true. Which is fine from an in-universe character perspective, but not an out-of-universe writer perspective, where the writers are writing through Simmons to the audience.

This is the same as in-universe timeline errors, when you have to consider, "OK, from an in-universe perspective, yes, it's very human for someone to simply miscalculate slightly in their head or misremember. However, this is not just a human speaking, this is the writer putting, through that piece of dialogue, a timeline statement across." So when you have to take the former, it's fudging things. And that's my point here, this theory works well enough if you fudge things, but why would you want to when you don't have to?

Shabook wrote: Again, this proves nothing at all. Fitz, Simmons an Yo-yo don't die in Earth-199999, just like they didn't in other universes. Most characters have gone through various death-defying incidents and survive, whether they were involved in loops or just because the actors had a contract. Sure, it's possible they just didn't die out of luck. And it can be argued as well that in a time loop, they don't die because of luck, because it's a "chicken and the egg" situation: they can't die because they survive these events, they survive these events because they can't die, they can't die because they survive these events, etc.. But the reason Simmons knows she can do it is because they know they are stuck in a time loop. And I know the argument can again be made that, well, Simmons just isn't aware. But that doesn't change the fact that the writers are presenting a time loop.

Shabook wrote: That's exactly what happened, alternate versions of Yo-Yo trying to say something different, only to end up saying the same. Essentially, every alternate Yo-Yo caught in the loop has lived through the same, has the same personality, and ends up saying the same words. This is not, however, a matter of coincidence where you would end up saying the same thing in the same situation. This is a matter of actively trying with every syllable to deviate. She finds she cannot because essentially, time won't let her. It's a horrible, nightmare-ish scenario where she cannot say the conversation in any other way no matter how hard she tries because it can't be different from the conversation she heard, because it is that conversation. The only reason she is unable to deviate in any way is because she is bound by time, once you remove that, i.e. if it is not literally the same conversation, then there is no reason why she would not be able to say something even a tiny bit different. Shabook wrote: And where exactly says that the Monolith needs to return you to the point where it took you? Just like the exit point for the Black Monolith moved in space as both Maveth and Earth moved, the exit point for the White Monolith moved in time as time passed in both universes. Again, another point that proves nothing. My point was: Why would the White Monolith send them specifically back to their old reality and not just to another reality this time? Exactly, "Where exactly says that the Monolith needs to return you to the point where it took you?"

I then was addressing a possible counterpoint to that: They are not making another jump in time (and thus, by this theory, to another reality) to 2017, they are simply reversing the process that got them there. And saying that no, they aren't, because they don't go back to the same time they left, nor did the Monolith come with them on their journey for them to work off it.

I also feel that I should say I don't appreciate the belittling tone of a phrase like "Again, another point that proves nothing", Shabook. I am engaging you in fair, thorough conversation and trying to not use that sort of tone in my dismantling of points.

Shabook wrote: "Having no need" is the worst argument you may use, and the main one I dismantled with the explanation above. There are three Fitzes from three different universes actually seen in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., each and every one of them displaced to the past of an alternate universe, where they lived a life until their death. The only one who has not been displaced is the one native to Earth-199999 who was frozen like the rest, but didn't get to become Boshtok the Marauder. I am not using "having no need" as an argument in favour of a point. I am using it, in this context, to say that the argument for this theory seems to be "There is a need for there to be three universes for there to be three Fitzes" and "This is how Marvel Comics works". Then, in saying there is no need, that was me saying, "That first argument isn't valid, since it's not the case."