Crazy Eight wrote:Yeah, sure. But Murph and Tom don't "represent" plan A and B like you initially suggested. If plan B was living on Earth and being a bunch caretakers, then absolutely. But plan B hardly reflects Tom as a character, literally or philosophically.
I still think they do. Not super literally, but it is very clear that Murph is trying to better the world much more than Tom. Plan B leaves the world to die and turn into dust. Plan A allows the entire species to move forward into space. I think this a very clear reflection of Tom and Murphy.
You should probably read and respond to the post above you since JesseM basically made the point I'm about to make, but-
Plan B saves the species all the same, the only difference being that a generation of humanity dies earlier on Earth. It's a shitty scenario, but an objective one that saves humanity as a species. Plan B reflects humanity's best attempt to save not themselves or their families, but their species as a whole, and up until Coop gives Murph the formula, it's literally the only possible way.
Tom doesn't reflect that at all. In no way does he embody the same properties of plan B... one could argue the opposite, since he's insanely and blindly protective of his own personal family to the point of harming them. Plan B's cold, calculated, but also necessary to human survival on a large scale. Tom's personality isn't reflective of that.
gotta agree with crazy eight on this. in general, i actually find adult tom much more sympathetic than adult murph, and i don't think that's just because casey affleck > jessica chastain (though he is). i don't think any parallel exists between the children and the plans. presumably, for cooper, getting plan a to work is about saving both of his children--and, as he says, millions of others like them.
I really hate to post off topic but i'd rather do that than start a new thread for this question.
Can anyone point me to a thorough discussion on the paradox/no paradox explanation on this forum (or anywhere else). All i can find is this one: http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtop ... ead#unread which doesn't thoroughly explain the idea.
For the record, i know of Novikov's self consistency theory (in my mind the movie breaks this theory) and the idea that in the movie the timeline is non-linear therefore there is no paradox. I'll save you all my reasoning why this isn't a sufficient explanation for me. I've had extensive discussions with a few people on various forums but no one has explained it to my liking yet.
If there isn't an in depth discussion here, my only other option is to possibly buy the book that explains the science of Interstellar and hope there is something in there.
Thanks in advance for any replies. (Thanks for moving this post )
I really hate to post off topic but i'd rather do that than start a new thread for this question.
Can anyone point me to a thorough discussion on the paradox/no paradox explanation on this forum (or anywhere else). All i can find is this one: http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtop ... ead#unread which doesn't thoroughly explain the idea.
For the record, i know of Novikov's self consistency theory (in my mind the movie breaks this theory) and the idea that in the movie the timeline is non-linear therefore there is no paradox. I'll save you all my reasoning why this isn't a sufficient explanation for me. I've had extensive discussions with a few people on various forums but no one has explained it to my liking yet.
Check out the two links I just posted to that thread in this post, especially the second one if your problem is more intuitive and less about just not understanding the basic idea of self-consistent time loops.
stevearico wrote:If there isn't an in depth discussion here, my only other option is to possibly buy the book that explains the science of Interstellar and hope there is something in there.
Unfortunately Kip Thorne's The Science of Interstellar doesn't really go into this, but he did write another book explaining some of his physics work for non-specialists, titled Black Holes and Time Warps, which does have an extended discussion of how time travel would work given the self-consistency assumption. The book Time Travel and Warp Drives by physicists Allen Everett and Thomas Roman is also good if you're looking for a discussion of scientific theories that might allow for time travel, and the book Time Machines: Time Travel in Physics, Metaphysics, and Science Fiction by Paul Nahin has more discussion of analysis of self-consistent time travel by philosophers, along with a lot of examples from science fiction of this model of time travel.
)
