Time travel conundrum

[luriantimetraveler]

I've been chewing on a time travel conundrum in a story I'm working on and I just can't seem to figure it out (and am feeling a bit like either it's a brick wall or I've lost all perspective):

Imagine a scientist in the year 2000* whose community is suffering from a deadly disease.
The scientist has part of the answer to a cure, but the only other person who knows the rest of the answer lived (and died) in 1600.
The scientist can travel backwards in time, but not forwards, so she's on a one-way mission, and she comes to accept that.
She travels backwards in time, meets with the other person, and puts together their knowledge in a way that will survive until 2000, when her future self can access the cure.

But now her 2000 self won't have any reason to go back in time, because she would have already cured the disease?!

—> this is probably a really obvious and well-trod problem that time travel-writing sci fi creators have been solving for ages and I'm just dense, but any perspective on writing this/figuring it out would be appreciated!


*dates are totally arbitrary and not that important except in relation to each other

 

[Boneman]

I love time travel conundrums... the simplest (ha ha) way, is for her to somehow (I did say ha ha...) leave a time capsule with a message for herself, explaining. Bank of England vault, addressed to her to be opened on a certain date? Summat like that, anyway. At least the writer and the reader get closure... your mc won't need it.

 

[Venusian Broon]

There is an 'obvious' solution, but 1) it will not help your plot at all 2) it's my solution for my time loop space opera magna opus, and as it's not fully written so I'm not going to tell you

However, being a bit more helpful...

Perhaps you have a multiverse of infinite universes in your fiction: you could have it that she doesn't go back in time in her particular universe, but that she (without knowing it) 'hops' over into one that was identical to hers, up until 1600 when she appears. Therefore this removes the paradox.

If you can't do that, then taking Boneman's idea further (as I don't think it would work) - if she is aware of the paradox and the need to beat it, she would need a colleague that is working on cure the same as her. She would then tell him/her that after she has left/vanished they might get a message from her about a possible cure. She would then drop back in time, work on the cure and try and ensure the information is kept locked up and safe - say with a legal firm or institution (she'll be able to see what firms and institutions have longevity and have survived in the modern period, so she could try and find the precusor firms in the 1600s...?) The instructions to that firm will be to deliver the message to the colleague at the correct time - after she has gone, so as to beat the paradox. The colleague goes on to hopefully defeat the disease.

 

[Pyan]

puts together their knowledge in a way that will survive until 2000, when her future self can access the cure.

If the two of them can work out the cure in 1600, then it won't matter, as long as they jointly leave the details to be found in 2000. What's happened in 1600 has already happened - so there won't be any need for her to travel back anyway. The 2000 version of her will just stop the second she jumps back, whereas the 1600 version will live out her life then.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Wayne Mack]

Maybe the scientist travels back in time after discovering the cure. It is the ultimate sacrifice to travel back in time towards the end of his or her life to put in place the clues that he or she as already discovered and used.

 

[HareBrain]

If it can't be cured until 2000 anyway, then VB's solution is very neat. But if she has the option of curing it in 1600, that opens up an interesting dilemma. She could avoid the paradox (with VB's method), but that would lead to the suffering of those who have the disease between 1600 and 2000. Or she could try to cure it in 1600 and see what happens. (I've no idea what would happen, but the dilemma might add an interesting element to the story.)

 

[Venusian Broon]

If it can't be cured until 2000 anyway, then VB's solution is very neat. But if she has the option of curing it in 1600, that opens up an interesting dilemma. She could avoid the paradox (with VB's method), but that would lead to the suffering of those who have the disease between 1600 and 2000. Or she could try to cure it in 1600 and see what happens. (I've no idea what would happen, but the dilemma might add an interesting element to the story.)

This is a great dynamic.

If, for sake of argument, a billion people had died of the illness by 2000 and our heroine goes back in time and has, in her hands, a cure in 1600. Would you not desperately try and think of a way to try and save these people? But the problem is that if any news or information about the cure 'leaks' out, the time loop will erase it. So now she is aware that, on paper, she has to let a billion people die to get the cure, that could make her feel like history's biggest mass murderer. What would that do to someones head?

In this case not only is she trying to defeat the disease, she is trying to defeat any paraodox.

And perhaps her 1600 'collaborator' will need to be 'controlled' by her, because they don't believe she is from the future and would, if not stopped, be spreading this fantastic new knowledge that they gained from the future, hence erasing this timeline...so perhaps her final act will be as their murderer?

EDIT (apologies...but when ideas get going, they just start to spill out and multiply!): So if the last part is true with regards to her actively murdering the 1600's person, maybe a big part the reason she has to go back in time to 1600 is because this person mysteriously dissappeared at the time and left frustratingly little notes - compelling her to make the journey to discover more. When she gets there, the reason they mysteriosly disappeared is then clear - it was her killing and disposing of them, and she deliberately destroyed much of his work and library to stop the time loop paradox.

 

[paranoid marvin]

You could always add in the irony that she (unknowingly) had the disease herself, and it was her travelling back in time to find a cure that caused it to start in the first place.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Perhaps she could go back in time with a medicine (penicillin?) that the 1600 person needs to survive. Having cured him, he goes on to complete his research and discover something that can help unlock the missing part of the jigsaw in 2000.

 

[luriantimetraveler]

This is a great dynamic.

If, for sake of argument, a billion people had died of the illness by 2000 and our heroine goes back in time and has, in her hands, a cure in 1600. Would you not desperately try and think of a way to try and save these people? But the problem is that if any news or information about the cure 'leaks' out, the time loop will erase it. So now she is aware that, on paper, she has to let a billion people die to get the cure, that could make her feel like history's biggest mass murderer. What would that do to someones head?

In this case not only is she trying to defeat the disease, she is trying to defeat any paraodox.

And perhaps her 1600 'collaborator' will need to be 'controlled' by her, because they don't believe she is from the future and would, if not stopped, be spreading this fantastic new knowledge that they gained from the future, hence erasing this timeline...so perhaps her final act will be as their murderer?

EDIT (apologies...but when ideas get going, they just start to spill out and multiply!): So if the last part is true with regards to her actively murdering the 1600's person, maybe a big part the reason she has to go back in time to 1600 is because this person mysteriously dissappeared at the time and left frustratingly little notes - compelling her to make the journey to discover more. When she gets there, the reason they mysteriosly disappeared is then clear - it was her killing and disposing of them, and she deliberately destroyed much of his work and library to stop the time loop paradox.

I love the direction you took this! I'm not quite sure it fits with the story I want to write — but so clever and interesting! (And maybe after a walk and some thinking this will feel right, who knows!)

Maybe the scientist travels back in time after discovering the cure. It is the ultimate sacrifice to travel back in time towards the end of his or her life to put in place the clues that he or she as already discovered and used.

This is definitely the most elegant solution to the problem — but when I start chewing on it, I come up against: where did the knowledge actually come from?!

I wonder if a solution could be telling the story out of order, e.g.:

• January 2000, lots of death, things are bad, scientist at a loss for how to help
• August 2000, scientist receives a mysterious message: "Come back in time, the world as you know it depends on it" (with no real explanation, and, you know, better written)
• July 1600, scientist hooks up with collaborator and sews the seeds of the cure (the disease doesn't exist until 2000) AND preps a message to herself
• June 2000, scientist has a miraculous breakthrough which audience knows are from the seeds scientist sewed in 1600; we know that she will soon get the message and her life in 2000 will be over — but she will have cured the disease

Does that make sense? Would that feel satisfying?

 

[Dave]

If the colleague goes back and cures the disease in 1600, then the cured disease will no longer require a cure in 2000. The researcher would never have studied it and probably would be working for Deliveroo instead.

 

[paranoid marvin]

How about the letter came from herself, so unless she goes back nothing will have changed?

An idea could be that she gets a letter with a package from herself. The letter includes personal details that no-one else would know to prove it is genuine. The letter says not to open the attached package. If she goes back in time (the letter says), the cure will be in the package. If she doesn't go back, the package could be empty.

 

[Wayne Mack]

If, for sake of argument, a billion people had died of the illness by 2000 and our heroine goes back in time and has, in her hands, a cure in 1600. Would you not desperately try and think of a way to try and save these people?

Given the technology and knowledge in the 1600s, it may be unlikely that the people of that era could be saved. Does the technology exist to create the vaccine exist? Does the technology to distribute the vaccine exist? Will people of the time be accepting of the cure? Would they be more likely to listen to some newly arrived stranger or their traditional local medicine man or priest?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Given the technology and knowledge in the 1600s, it may be unlikely that the people of that era could be saved. Does the technology exist to create the vaccine exist? Does the technology to distribute the vaccine exist? Will people of the time be accepting of the cure? Would they be more likely to listen to some newly arrived stranger or their traditional local medicine man or priest?

I think the idea is that the virus only comes in to being in 2000, so all that is required is a vital item that can only be got in 1600. Perhaps it's the seed of a plant that no longer exists or the venom of a snake that is now extinct?

 

[Venusian Broon]

Given the technology and knowledge in the 1600s, it may be unlikely that the people of that era could be saved. Does the technology exist to create the vaccine exist? Does the technology to distribute the vaccine exist? Will people of the time be accepting of the cure? Would they be more likely to listen to some newly arrived stranger or their traditional local medicine man or priest?

My understanding, or at least the way I interpreted it, is that these people died near 2000, and going back in time is to get the necessary info to make a cure. Because of some reason she can't discover the cure in time or doesn't have the info. The cure could then be made close to 2000 because the necessary knowledge would then be available. It is not about making the cure in the 1600s.

 

[Dave]

Perhaps it's the seed of a plant that no longer exists or the venom of a snake that is now extinct?

What if an influential society of natural scholars could be persuaded to create a botanical garden in 1600, and the plant was saved from extinction so that it still exists today? It almost becomes a green environmental story then.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I may have misunderstood the section I quoted. I assumed the 'these people' referenced were the people in the 1600s. Looking at it again, I see it cold also have been referencing the people in the 2000s.

 

[reiver33]

The issue is one of intent - providing the cure to the (potentially) 2nd timeline version of the 2000 researcher would have to include an instruction to travel back anyway. This presumes that causality would be 'satisfied' by the removal of the said researcher and thus prevent the timeline from diverging. If you were being hardcore then the researcher, after providing for the cure to travel into the future, would have to die - or risk creating a divergent 2000 from the one they came from (I'm assuming a personal tie to lives being saved).

Alternatively, you assume that any changes the researcher had on the past were an integral part of his past in 2000 - and thus he always has to go back, regardless.

 

[Daysman]

The simplest solution is that the historical character never existed and the records relate to the life of the time traveller in the 1600's.

Yup, corny, but hang on...

The traveller's message would already be a part of the historical record, but the researchers, possibly even the traveller, were looking for something a 17th century doctor / herbalist / whomever might have discovered... and nothing more.

After the traveller departs, they return to the same records in search of something sophisticated from a long dead colleague... and they find it.

Yeah... still corny.

Oh well, have good weekend!

 

[Vladd67]

This is definitely the most elegant solution to the problem — but when I start chewing on it, I come up against: where did the knowledge actually come from?!

The Bootstrap Paradox?