Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow5YA
There are flaws in both. If the changing the past affects the future, then there's no explanation for why the protagonist(s) are still intact with no changes to their history or personality.
In the "Stable Time Loop" case, you have a circular flow of causality. The future goes back to the past, which in turn affects the future and that makes them go back to the past. In this case, there is no clear beginning that sets these events into motion.
In both cases there are parts that require the suspension of disbelief, and without time travel being possible in the real world, it's hard to say which theory is closer to the truth than the others.
|
Multiple Worlds Interpretation would be able to solve this paradox, but if and only if this is an interaction (Keima) between 2 different universes, which seems to be Dokuro's explanation. Dokuro assumes that in this universe saving the goddesses would fail, and sends someone out to look for a universe where success occurred to recruit the factor that caused success. This would mean of course that this isn't Keima's "original" universe, he is being recruited to save create the "beginning" of another universe so that this universe will end up going along the same series of events as his own universe.
This of course begs the question if this event is a requirement for the original story timeline to exist. If indeed a certain Keima must go to an equivalent past of another universe to push it towards a desired timeline, and that Multiple Worlds Interpretation is the most viable solution to the paradoxes of time travel, then it stands to reason in the original story timeline a certain Keima intruded as well to create our story's timeline.