|
Boris Galerkin posted:What I meant by saying I’m talking about moving in the -t direction is that I’m seeing it as nothing more than moving in the -x direction vs +x direction. To continue with the example of a living thing. No the person wouldn't be 40, but they would appear to you to begin the backwards journey at 40, and by the time your forward time counted up to 2021, they would have reversed back to 30 at the point where they inverted. 
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
gregday posted:To continue with the example of a living thing. No the person wouldn't be 40, but they would appear to you to begin the backwards journey at 40, and by the time your forward time counted up to 2021, they would have reversed back to 30 at the point where they inverted. That's what Boris means y'all are just looking at it from different perspectives. But Boris is wrong about the gold.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
This brings up another paradox the movie rules create. If you, in normal forward time, see an inverted person walking around backwards, doing backwards things, it sort of implies that at some point they must have reverted, because otherwise they'd have no 'starting point' to come from, for your POV. Sure, eventually they'll back into a turnstile, but where did they originate? The answer seems to be that they originated from the turnstile when they inverted (much like the answer to: how'd the inverted bullet get into the wall? P fired it. Just inverted.) The answer involves realizing that it's actually our perception that is subjective, and asking "where'd they come from?" is based on our linear thinking and brains hopelessly mapping cause/effect onto our perception of time. Or, things just materialize when they need to just because.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:That's what Boris means y'all are just looking at it from different perspectives. I mean the movie explicitly shows you're wrong about the gold. Time travel isn't real, the idea of it working one way is perfectly logical but another is a paradox doesn't make sense. This is the way the movie says time travel works, so in Tenet's universe, it isn't impossible. It Just Works (TM). Thread's moving fast, my post got missed. But the movie shows this is the way it works. No other explanation. stratdax posted:Such linear thinking. Ps the movie is bad and self contradictory to the point where they literally tell you not to think about it. Just do what the movie suggests. The Calvinball approach to time travel. stratdax fucked around with this message at 20:28 on May 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:That's what Boris means y'all are just looking at it from different perspectives. I don’t know. You’re telling me that something the film explicitly shows is impossible despite the fact that the film explicitly showed it happening in a scene that was in the movie of which we’re talking about. But yeah, I must be wrong? I’ll concede I’m wrong if the movie supports that but the movie doesn’t. Sator is rich, and presumably the future antagonists help him become rich by telling him what to do and sending him gold from the future. This is a thing that happened in a scene in the movie. And we can safely assume he is able to trade the gold for cash because having bars of gold is useless. stratdax posted:Such linear thinking. Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 20:32 on May 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
gregday posted:This brings up another paradox the movie rules create. If you, in normal forward time, see an inverted person walking around backwards, doing backwards things, it sort of implies that at some point they must have reverted, because otherwise they'd have no 'starting point' to come from, for your POV. Sure, eventually they'll back into a turnstile, but where did they originate? There was the "past" version of them walking around normally at the same time doing whatever they wanted to do. This is what they meant in the movie when, after the Tenet team busts in and rescues the Protagonist after he sees Kat shot through the proofing window, they say that Sator "escaped into the past". From the perspective of someone experiencing regular time, watching someone walk into a turnstile to be inverted means that they have no future. As in, they would appear to just walk in at the same time the inverted version of themselves walked backwards into the inverted side, and they would vanish. They did not actually disappear, but have merely been existing inverted in your past. Likewise, an inverted person using the turnstile effectively has no past. Again, from our "normal" perspective, the turnstile would appear to activate on its own and out would pop a regular version and an inverted version. The inverted version would walk away backwards and do whatever they did up until it entered the turnstile the first time. The regular version would just live their life normally. Nothing is created or destroyed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAg2cvR9OwE&t=12s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zBotcenHb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItL_kEXMtXM
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:From the perspective of someone experiencing regular time, watching someone walk into a turnstile to be inverted means that they have no future. Thanks, that's a more eloquent way to put it. Thinking about this movie is like doing math. edit: In Tallinn, P asks Ives about Sator: "Where did he go?" Answer: "The past." You could also flip that for asking of an inverted person: "Where did he come from?" A: "The future." gregday fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
gregday posted:Thanks, that's a more eloquent way to put it. Thinking about this movie is like doing math. I actually have a lot of fun with these scenarios and goofing around with the idea of this movie. It's a fascinating idea and famously, Feynman diagrams that describe quantum interactions have no directional time component in them, they can be run either way. What frustrates me is that even though they clearly did a lot of work and came up with some fascinating scenarios (the Inverted Man sequence is an all-timer to me) they also dropped the ball in really strange ways. I think my next post is going to be talking about Kat's Cell Phone and the two ways that you could send yourself information from the future.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I actually have a lot of fun with these scenarios and goofing around with the idea of this movie. It's a fascinating idea and famously, Feynman diagrams that describe quantum interactions have no directional time component in them, they can be run either way. What frustrates me is that even though they clearly did a lot of work and came up with some fascinating scenarios (the Inverted Man sequence is an all-timer to me) they also dropped the ball in really strange ways. Yeah, it's tremendous fun to think about even though it kind of hurts. I think the way you put things really satisfies some paradoxical issues I had. Of course it's all completely nonsense impossible poo poo, but it holds together a little better now. If inversion technology can just make things "disappear" by sending them into the past, then the corollary is also true. It can make things just appear out of nowhere by bringing them to us from the future.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
When does the scene where P meets the scientist take place?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:When does the scene where P meets the scientist take place? I don't think they ever say. Again the entire feeling of that scene is a sort of free-form exercise in the movie's central conceit, but it ends with them telling you not to worry about it. Very frustrating.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
gregday posted:Thanks, that's a more eloquent way to put it. Thinking about this movie is like doing math. The way I think of how the movie works, from my one time watching it last night, is not unlike doing math. When you do numerical simulations you have to keep track of multiple concepts of “time.” The most obvious one is the “wall time,” ie the time it takes for the simulation to run its course given by the clock on the wall, eg, if you started it at 08:00 and it finishes at 18:00 then it took 12 hours to run the simulation, or another way to put is is 12 hours elapsed. This time has absolutely gently caress all to do with the simulation and doesn’t affect it in any way, but the important thing is that 12 hours elapsed. As the simulation runs it does a certain number of iterations, eg every 1 hour on the wall the program simulates 60 iterations. You, the simulator, get to decide how much time passes for each iteration (well, it’s not freely decidable but that’s a math problem not a physics problem) called a timestep (dt). If you chose a dt of 1 second, then after 60 iterations you would have simulated 60 seconds but 60 minutes of real time would have elapsed. But, you don’t need to have a constant timestep either. If you’re looking at a phenomena that happens in milliseconds then your dt of 1 second won’t ever “see” it because it’s too big, so you can reduce that down to say dt = 0.01 s for those interesting points in time, and increase it to 1 s or higher for other boring points in time to skip ahead faster. Either way, no matter what timestep you choose, no matter how fast your computer is the time on the clock on the wall still elapses at the same rate. Which is how I think the “time travel” works in the movie because they tell us that the protagonists have to wait in a box and wait for 1 “wall clock” week to pass for them to go back in time. It’s just that their timestep is now -dt. There is some time counter that is always incrementing, and you’re either going +dt or -dt at every increment.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
stratdax posted:I mean the movie explicitly shows you're wrong about the gold. Time travel isn't real, the idea of it working one way is perfectly logical but another is a paradox doesn't make sense. This is the way the movie says time travel works, so in Tenet's universe, it isn't impossible. It Just Works (TM). I mean, yeah, but that's sorta missing the point? The movie sets rules and contradicts them, so we're analyzing the discrepancy. Of course you're free to throw your hands up and say "whatever, its dumb, who cares" But we care 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:I don’t know. You’re telling me that something the film explicitly shows is impossible despite the fact that the film explicitly showed it happening in a scene that was in the movie of which we’re talking about. The point of all this is the movie contradicts itself. I can believe in a movie with dragons or time travel but it needs to be internally consistent (oh my god am I sick of this argument) You're saying that doublethink is fine because the movie itself has doublethink. I mean, nobody is doubting that is what happens in the film. We're just saying it contradicts itself.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I actually have a lot of fun with these scenarios and goofing around with the idea of this movie. It's a fascinating idea and famously, Feynman diagrams that describe quantum interactions have no directional time component in them, they can be run either way. What frustrates me is that even though they clearly did a lot of work and came up with some fascinating scenarios (the Inverted Man sequence is an all-timer to me) they also dropped the ball in really strange ways. This is also how I feel about Interstellar
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Either way, no matter what timestep you choose, no matter how fast your computer is the time on the clock on the wall still elapses at the same rate. Which is how I think the “time travel” works in the movie because they tell us that the protagonists have to wait in a box and wait for 1 “wall clock” week to pass for them to go back in time. It’s just that their timestep is now -dt. There is some time counter that is always incrementing, and you’re either going +dt or -dt at every increment. Once again, this is obviously true and something we all agree on, but irrelevant to the issue of the paradoxes being discussed.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
Rare triple post in the wild. Love it. So the two ways you could send yourself information from the future in Tenet: 1) The boring way: You have a regular notepad. You write down something noteworthy on it as well as the day it occurs. You invert it and leave it somewhere along with your name and the day and time you left it written in it. At some point in the past someone from Tenet reads the notepad (they don't need to be inverted) and sees whatever is written on it. Now they know the noteworthy event and as a bonus, where it came from. How they dispose of the inverted notepad is irrelevant. 2) The cool way: Your turnstile activates and there is a notepad on either side. You take the "normal" version and destroy it. You keep the inverted version. Inside the inverted notepad is a noteworthy event and a date. After the event occurs, you trace over the letters in the notebook and they disappear. You then buy a notepad of the same type you've been using. You put the inverted notepad and the new notepad in a turnstile and activate it. They disappear into the past. Note that you can do that with a cell phone or anything else, it basically works the same way. Notepad is easiest to understand though. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 22:25 on May 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Rare triple post in the wild. Love it. Yeah sorry, but I'm half phone posting and its too much of a pain to format. Plus this is a deep dive discussion, and anybody who isn't interested has left the thread long ago. So gently caress it Maybe I'm not actually triple posting, but a future version of myself who is inverted sent the other message 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Once again, this is obviously true and something we all agree on, but irrelevant to the issue of the paradoxes being discussed. If this is obvious and true then it absolutely matters because there is no paradox. The gold bar was put into the box in say 2121 at a location of Sator’s choosing. The gold in the box has a -dt timestep. It ages 100 years in the box until Sator takes it out and inverts it back to +dt timesteps. What happens to the gold now does not matter anymore. It doesn’t need to still be in the box in 2122. “What’s happened happened” or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:If this is obvious and true then it absolutely matters because there is no paradox. The gold bar was put into the box in say 2121 at a location of Sator’s choosing. The gold in the box has a -dt timestep. It ages 100 years in the box until Sator takes it out and inverts it back to +dt timesteps. What happens to the gold now does not matter anymore. It doesn’t need to still be in the box in 2122. “What’s happened happened” or whatever. The thing is inverting it back to +dt timesteps doesn't erase its history. It seems consistent to you (I've fallen in this trap myself before, this poo poo is counter-intuitive) but you're effectively erasing the bar's past. Lets say the bar is in the box at time T+2, moving backwards at -dt. You are at T-2 and walk towards the box, arriving at T-1, then (moving forwards at +dt) grab the bar at T. You put it in your pocket, moving at +dt. You now walk away, and since you are moving +dt you are now at T+1. The bar is now in your pocket. The bar is now therefor NOT in the box at T+1. But, how did the bar get from T+2 to T if it wasn't in the box at T+1 for you to grab at T? "What's happened happened" doesn't mean you get to have multiple timelines. Everything has to be simultaneously true. If it works the way you think, there either needs to be some Back To The Future style "multiple-timelines" (but there isn't in TENET) OR grabbing the gold bar would duplicate it and there'd still be a second gold bar in the box, which makes no sense. At T+1 there is only one gold bar, and it is in the box, so it cannot possibly be in your pocket. (note that, if you do a full loop using a turnstile, you CAN have two of something, but that's different) It shouldn't be possible to move the bar unless you are inverted. If you're moving +dt the second you touch the bar you invalidate the bar's past (your future) where the bar wasn't moving. Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 23:16 on May 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
Protagonist: "Dead drops. He buries his time capsule, transmits the location, and digs it up to collect the inverted materials they sent." Neil: "Seemingly instantaneous. Where's he bury it?" Protagonist: "Some place that won't be discovered for centuries." If this actually happening, we know how the gold gets into the time capsule: from its perspective, it's put there by the people who believe themselves to be recovering it. The issue is that, as it keeps travelling through time after—from its inverted perspective—being buried in the capsule, it should still be in it when the capsule is unburied (the capsule's initial burying, from the perspective of those moving forward in time). So it's less a question of where the gold comes from than where it goes as it moves backwards in time. But of course, that's just the Protagonist's theory. The flashback we see from Sator's perspective works fine. He sees himself unbury a crate and take some gold and a note out. The inverted gold and note would therefore see him put them in the crate and then bury it. No paradoxes. Protagonist may just be wrong about how it works.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
Android Apocalypse posted:Remember how I mentioned Tenet was on HBO last night so I decided to watch it? Apparently yesterday was also the movie's premiere in HBO MAX. To commemorate it The Ringer's The Big Picture podcast did a live watch podcast Rifftrax-style. I may watch it again with the podcast commentary this weekend. Finally got around to watching this with The Big Picture podcast Rifftrax'ing. Doesn't help explain that much that I already learned from this thread. Then again I don't get too hung up on the plot holes in this movie.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 04:44
|
|
|
Honestly, the inverted bullets in the glass bug me way more than the reverse dead-drops
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 04:51
|
|
|
Kazzah posted:Honestly, the inverted bullets in the glass bug me way more than the reverse dead-drops Yeah, I questioned the full logic of the bullets myself after just watching the movie, but it wasn't until I joined the thread discussion that I realized the gold doesn't work. There's a lot of problems really. Anything that gets inverted needs to either end up in a turnstile at some point in the past, or otherwise will travel through the past forever back to the dawn of time. And then you need a good explanation for how that object wasn't ever seen in past years. (Being sufficiently buried could work though) Like why has nobody in the year 1800 ever found an inverted object? It requires the TENET group to collect and un-invert everything sent back. Is that plausible? Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 05:33 on May 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Yeah, I questioned the full logic of the bullets myself after just watching the movie, but it wasn't until I joined the thread discussion that I realized the gold doesn't work. I think most people wouldn't recognize an inverted object and most of the fancy tricks require knowledge that you can do those tricks, otherwise you'd just pick them up and move them without real notice.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 06:27
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:The thing is inverting it back to +dt timesteps doesn't erase its history. If you walk forward 10 steps and then walk backwards 20 steps then you’ve walked a total of 30 steps. The act of walking backwards doesn’t erase the fact that you walked forward. The fact that you’ve ended up 10 steps behind where you started doesn’t invalidate the fact that you’ve also been 10 steps ahead of where you started. If a bus were to hit you at some point during the time you were walking backwards (thereby removing you from the equation) that doesn’t change the fact that you’ve walked forward 10 steps before that point in the past, all it does is make you unable to continue walking backwards. No history gets erased. Do you have the same issue with the premise of the inverted characters sitting in a non-inverted shipping container for 7 days to go back in time? They take themselves out of the box after 7 days and invert again and their history doesn’t get erased. That 7 days inverted in a shipping container is part of their history. The fact that they removed themselves from the container after 7 days doesn’t create a paradox like you keep insisting taking the gold out of the box would. How is it any different? You can say that the gold bar thing was a throwaway line that an insignificant amount of time was spent thinking about but the entire principle of “invert yourself, stow away somewhere for 1 day/week/year to go back backwards in time for 1 day/week/year” is established in the movie as a pretty significant thing. I highly doubt that Nolan got that part wrong since it’s a main principle of the movie. So the only logical conclusion is that you are wrong about your understanding of the gold bar. Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 11:35 on May 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 11:26
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:One theory I read that actually makes the motivations of future people make sense is that the device they sent back is part of a thing that would invert the earth itself which would reverse ecological collapse but would seriously gently caress things up coherence-wise so they have to erase the past to rewind the earth. I mean, the movie literally has a scene where the characters discuss how the unseen future people's plan makes no sense, has probably by definition already failed since the universe is still here, and wouldn't work even if they were destined to succeed because it relies on a different theory of time travel than the one the entire movie works on. They ultimately conclude by saying that none of it actually matters and everyone just takes poo poo on faith, which is also reinforced by the bit where characters interact with inverted objects by believing hard enough that they'll unfall into their hand. This isn't a very satisfying answer, because you have this intricate puzzlebox plot that tells you at the halfway mark that the puzzlebox aspect is broken and can't be solved and you need to just roll with it, and then keeps going through the motions anyways. It'd be an interesting metaphor if the film were more interested in Protagonist's death wish / desire for meaning and how they distort his perspective, but it's emphatically not interested in that. If anything in a couple of places it seems more like he already knows things he couldn't possibly be aware of -- remember that the movie portrays predestination as something that responds to faith or expectation, not a purely impersonal force. And of course the ending implies that he ultimately gains such a perfect understanding of the timeline that he can outwit people with foreknowledge of the future as well as engineer his own recruitment. His blind faith is either a source of superior revelation, or superior control, or both. So you end up with a story that's, what -- The Secret, except with the superficial aesthetics of time travel? Which is both pretty lame and also really weird coming from the guy who also wrote and directed The Prestige, to the point where I feel like I have to have misunderstood something, but whatever it is I don't see it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 12:04
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Protagonist may just be wrong about how it works. This is the trick. Interstellar provides a puzzle that’s ‘solveable’. Spaceman McConaughey believes that he’s contacted humans from the future, but everything in the logic of the film hints that they’re actually robots working to undo humanity’s extinction. This is important, because - although that film also has apocalyptic stakes in a “closed” time-loop - humanity may not survive unless the loop is modified to include them. There is a a no fate except the one we make for ourselves, as per Terminator. Tenet does the same thing with Protag’s belief that he’s in control of everything, contrasted with all the bizarre murkiness around the actual details. (Who was Arepo working for? Does he even exist? Was Sator set up? Stuff like that.) The unspoken fact is that nobody is in control and nobody knows what’s going on. Consequently, Tenet is very similar to Memento in that the protagonist can only follow obscure messages that he appears to have left for himself - and he doesn’t really account for the possibility that he is a liar.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 12:29
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Do you have the same issue with the premise of the inverted characters sitting in a non-inverted shipping container for 7 days to go back in time? They take themselves out of the box after 7 days and invert again and their history doesn’t get erased. That 7 days inverted in a shipping container is part of their history. The fact that they removed themselves from the container after 7 days doesn’t create a paradox like you keep insisting taking the gold out of the box would. How is it any different? Because when they walk out of the shipping container, they're walking out of the shipping container from the perspective of someone moving into the past, because they're inverted. If you were to watch them in regular time, they would walk backwards into the shipping container and then sit there for a week, doing everything in reverse. So there's nothing paradoxical about believing they travelled into the past using the shipping container: you can literally watch them do it. In contrast, think about forward-moving Sator removing an inverted gold bar from the box. He's moving forward in time, so when he carries the gold bar out of the box, he's moving it away from the box in his future, moving forward in time. But his future is the bar's past, because it's inverted. Therefore, the bar's past must have been to be with Sator, not to be in the box. I went ahead and made a diagram:  Note the path of the gold bar, and think of it from the perspective of each of the two parties that interact with it. For Sator to pick up the gold bar and drive away with it while he is personally uninverted, the inverted gold bar must leave into his future with him, meanings its personal past must have been with him. But the claim is that the future people put the inverted bar in the box in the future and it got to the pick-up point from the future in the time capsule: so, its personal past must also have been in the time capsule. So, as described, the bar has two pasts from its own perspective, which doesn't work. This doesn't happen with the people in the shipping container. At every point, they have one personal past and one personal future. A pair of people might spring out of a turnstile seemingly as if from nothing, but it always makes sense from their perspective:  The basic problem is that, in the Protagonist's incorrect theory, the gold bar has to do a turnaround without a turnstile. So, Protagonist is wrong about where the gold bars come from. But, we don't see his theory play out on-screen, so it's not the movie being wrong, just one character who is still trying to get his head around time travel making a mistake.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:If you walk forward 10 steps and then walk backwards 20 steps then you’ve walked a total of 30 steps. The act of walking backwards doesn’t erase the fact that you walked forward. The fact that you’ve ended up 10 steps behind where you started doesn’t invalidate the fact that you’ve also been 10 steps ahead of where you started. If a bus were to hit you at some point during the time you were walking backwards (thereby removing you from the equation) that doesn’t change the fact that you’ve walked forward 10 steps before that point in the past, all it does is make you unable to continue walking backwards. No history gets erased. No history gets erased because there's no time travel in that scenario! Lmao you just told me "that's completely different" and now you're inventing a scenario where you're running, in constant time, and you're saying that disproves a time paradox that involves travelling back in time and stopping yourself from doing something? No! That's a complete non-sequitur! Consider this, on the other hand: You walk forward 10 steps. Then you travel back in time, and place yourself 5 steps ahead of yourself before you start walking. Now past you can't walk 10 steps because you're standing in the way. So your past was erased. There has to be a PARADOX. The gold has a paradox. Other things don't. It requires a careful scenario which creates a contradiction. Not everything is a contradiction. Boris Galerkin posted:Do you have the same issue with the premise of the inverted characters sitting in a non-inverted shipping container for 7 days to go back in time? They take themselves out of the box after 7 days and invert again and their history doesn’t get erased. That 7 days inverted in a shipping container is part of their history. The fact that they removed themselves from the container after 7 days doesn’t create a paradox like you keep insisting taking the gold out of the box would. How is it any different? No, why would I? You really really aren't getting the issue here, are you. Time inversion is not an inherent paradox. Picking up an inverted object whose past (your future) you already know while you are not inverted is the paradox. Other things that don't involve those exact steps will not invoke a paradox. I really don't know how else to explain this to you. You're just not grokking the concept at all. You would have to have somebody who is not-inverted interact with you while inside the shipping container to even remotely come close to the same scenario. If somebody who is not-inverted opens the shipping container and sees that you are not inside it, after seeing you leave the shipping container while inverted earlier, then we have a problem. Boris Galerkin posted:You can say that the gold bar thing was a throwaway line that an insignificant amount of time was spent thinking about but the entire principle of “invert yourself, stow away somewhere for 1 day/week/year to go back backwards in time for 1 day/week/year” is established in the movie as a pretty significant thing. I highly doubt that Nolan got that part wrong since it’s a main principle of the movie. So the only logical conclusion is that you are wrong about your understanding of the gold bar. You're seriously making the argument "There can't be a conflict in TENET because Nolan is smart" ? Dude comeon, all kinds of amazing movies have plot holes. That's just silly. And again, there is ZERO problem with being inverted in a shipping container. You're just not getting it, dude. Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 18:26 on May 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Because when they walk out of the shipping container, they're walking out of the shipping container from the perspective of someone moving into the past, because they're inverted. If you were to watch them in regular time, they would walk backwards into the shipping container and then sit there for a week, doing everything in reverse. So there's nothing paradoxical about believing they travelled into the past using the shipping container: you can literally watch them do it. Precisely correct. Nice diagrams. Sir Kodiak posted:The basic problem is that, in the Protagonist's incorrect theory, the gold bar has to do a turnaround without a turnstile. Exactly. Also why I keep saying that if you are inverted when you collect the gold bar, it works fine, because then you go into a turnstile with the bar and everything is consistent. But if you aren't inverted, then you've created a gold bar with two pasts and no future. That's wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The unspoken fact is that nobody is in control and nobody knows what’s going on. Michael Heinrich, An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital posted:In Capital, it is in no way the case that social relations in capitalism are regarded as transparent. Quite the contrary, central passages of the work deal with the “mystification” of these social relations. That which Marx describes in Capital as fetishism and mystification are inversions that do not arise from the manipulation of the ruling class, but rather from the structure of bourgeois society and the activity that constantly reproduces this structure. The fact that Marx speaks of fetishism is a pointed barb against the enlightened-rationalist self-confidence of bourgeois society, as well as against the empirical self-conception of political economy, which rests upon this fetishism.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
It's no surprise that the complete loving dullards in CD can't work out the intricate puzzlebox that Nolan constructed, but I'll spell it out for you, with as many small words as possible: Sator puts the box in the ground, sends a signal. Future people get signal location, dig up box, put inverted gold in inverted box five feet deeper. This is called The Pledge Inverted box travels backwards through time. Inverted box reaches Sator's time, keeps going back in time. Box reaches 1890s, keeps going into distant past Simultaneously, Nikolai Tesla activates his duplication machine and makes a duplicate of the Box, but the Box moves forward in time. This is called The Turn Tesla places the new Box in a time-locked, spring-loaded, false-bottom container that sits above the inverted Box, which is where it's always been. New Box moves forward in time Sator buries box inside the false-bottom container that he doesn't know about, but the future does. False-bottom activates, drops empty Box into the space above inverted box, dirt falls too covering the Sator Box. Springs simultaneously push the new Box a couple feet foward into the Sator Box space Sator digs up regular gold, gets rich. This is called The Illusionist.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
That post is the real Prestige!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
I think the important thing to understand is that you don't negotiate with a tiger, you admire a tiger until it turns on you and you feel its TRUE. loving. NATURE!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Zachack posted:It's no surprise that the complete loving dullards in CD can't work out the intricate puzzlebox that Nolan constructed, but I'll spell it out for you, with as many small words as possible: poo poo you got me there Tesla inventing the turnstiles honestly makes way too much sense 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Exactly. Also why I keep saying that if you are inverted when you collect the gold bar, it works fine, because then you go into a turnstile with the bar and everything is consistent. Yes, that works:  Note that this basically matches Protagonist's description: Protagonist: "Dead drops. He buries his time capsule, transmits the location, and digs it up to collect the inverted materials they sent." Neil: "Seemingly instantaneous. Where's he bury it?" Protagonist: "Some place that won't be discovered for centuries." He just leaves out an inversion step. So it's not even so much wrong as incomplete. Of course, this assumes he has a turnstile, which he wouldn't early on (presumably).
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:He just leaves out an inversion step. So it's not even so much wrong as incomplete. Of course, this assumes he has a turnstile, which he wouldn't early on (presumably). Yeah I was thinking the same thing earlier, the movie doesn't demonstrate definitively that he isn't inverted when getting the gold, so he very well could be. (and with a non-inverted note he wouldn't even have to come back later) However; there's still a problem there when it comes to the future sending him instructions the first time. That originates in the future, so must be inverted, and we see him take it out of the box I'm pretty sure. You could kinda make it work if Sator simply opened the box, read the note, then closed the box and sealed it underground, leaving it still in there. BTW your charts are on point.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
To me the gold is the same as the bullet in the wall. Bullet gets shot by an inverted person with an inverted gun in the future (presumably during the final battle in the movie, where they shoot a lot of walls. Let's say 2022 for simplicity). Bullet is chillin' in the wall to some point in the past (Let's say 2015, why not). The lady scientist (I guess the Tenet organization?) finds the wall and cuts it out and brings it to the lab (in 2020). Well now it's in two places at once. They keep screwing around with it while they're not inverted but the bullet is. From the bullet's perspective, in 2020 it's in a wall in a lab, and in a wall in a quarry. No? Am I wrong? I saw the movie once, in what seems like ages ago.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
stratdax posted:To me the gold is the same as the bullet in the wall. Bullet gets shot by an inverted person with an inverted gun in the future (presumably during the final battle in the movie, where they shoot a lot of walls. Let's say 2022 for simplicity). Bullet is chillin' in the wall to some point in the past (Let's say 2015, why not). The lady scientist (I guess the Tenet organization?) finds the wall and cuts it out and brings it to the lab (in 2020). Well now it's in two places at once. They keep screwing around with it while they're not inverted but the bullet is. From the bullet's perspective, in 2020 it's in a wall in a lab, and in a wall in a quarry. Its not exactly the same, and the bullet is inverted in the future as a complete bullet and then sent back to be fired once. not fired, found, and unfired. But you're right that if you think about it the bullets have issues too. Unfortunately lots of science gets complicated to the point where these things shouldn't probably work, like does the inverted car use inverted air? IDK.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 00:38
|
|