Well, time travel is an issue of theoretical physics, and then these works of fiction build on that. I don't think time travel is imaginary at all. Indeed, scientists have theoretically figured out ways to do it using two black holes connected by a wormhole. That's not exactly the same as proving that it is real, but it at least has the same status now as black holes themselves enjoyed a few decades ago: theoretical, but not yet proven.High Lord Tolkien wrote:So says someone who has all these hard and fast "rules" about imaginary time travel.
Yet, it doesn't take the reality time travel to point out "hard and fast rules" within a created work. Donaldson set those rules out himself. The Arch can be undermined if time travel results in significant alterations of the past. If crucial events depend upon interference from the future in order for them to happen in the first place, then we can't really take the importance of "linear time" too seriously, because the past would then be dependent upon the future. And that means that built into the very foundations of time's stability would be the very thing which threatens time's stability: nonlinear causality. That's not a paradox, that's a contradiction.
The danger of caesures and time travel isn't merely that the past might be changed. It isn't merely about the results, but also the process. In fact, the process of time and causation moving linearly is more important than the results, because it is the necessity of linear time which makes sense of events, not the other way around. Donaldson has said that linear time is necessary for there to be any meaning at all; causes can't follow their effects, or everything is jibberish.
Therefore, by the rules of his world, it can't make sense that the stability of time's linear nature is supported by looping causation. The past can't depend upon interference from the future in order for time to be stable (which is the whole point here).
My comment about taking the invented world too seriously was in response to: "You're apparently not familiar with Star Trek, then." I'm familiar with it. But just because someone knows more about the details of an expanded universe built up by hundreds of contributors doesn't mean I'm wrong about a continuity problem in that universe. Sometimes people invent these details to "cover up" those continuity problems.
And now I've officially taken this way too seriously.
