Yeah, this circular loop happens in most sci-fi flicks where people go back in time to do something (such as Terminator 2). To clarify 'neatly', all we have to do is say Person goes back in time to change something. That change in something consequently negates the need to send Person back in the first place.Cactus said:did this strike anyone else:
Ok so we are told that the humans of the future need to correct mistakes from the past to ensure their survival. So they go into the past, and make it so that the mistakes don't occur again and civilisation is saved.
But this begins an illogical cycle; the future humans go back into the past and assemble the 4400, who then prevent all the world's problems. But because all the problems were stopped by the 4400 in the past, the future humans who sent the 4400 no longer have any problems to solve, so they would never send the 4400.................
its so hard to explain, if anyone undestands what Im trying to say can you help me clarify it lol?
But a simple counter-argument for that is, all the timelines in the future depends on ones before it, so after the 4400 is sent, the present timeline is changed, and hence all the timelines of the future are then completely altered. So really, all they had to do was send the 4400 back in time once. For example, Son goes back in time to kill Father, immediately the entire timeline of that future is changed where the Son doesn't exist anymore.. there's no 'but then there would be no son to send back in time in the first place', because the son effectively got rid of himself for all the timelines of the future. Gah, this shit is bloody hard to explain.