Wright refers to "The Men Who Murdered Mohammed" by Alfred Bester, which I have not read. If you change the past, then you become insubstantial and unable to change anything. Why?
Wright writes:
"...you can change the past, but if you do, the only thing you can do is eliminate yourself."
I find this contradictory. If you can change the past, then you do more that eliminate yourself. Also, to become insubstantial is not to be eliminated.
There was an idea that, from the moment of arriving in the past, you would be an insubstantial observer as in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol or in Superman's first Kryptonite story - although not in subsequent Superman stories. However, insubstantial viewing of the past is not time travel.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteIf I understand Mr. Wright correctly, he argues that if you or I physically travel to the past and change something so that history changes, then we would have to become insubstantial, mere ghosts. Anderson's view seems to have been that we would become uncaused epiphenomena, bits of flotsam flung up by chaos.
No wonder Mr. Stirling said time traveling hurts one's head!
Sean