Talk:Khans of Tarkir block

Plot flaws in the Tarkir block

Hello.

I just recently got interested in the Tarkir story on MtGStory.com. I accidentally read on the last chapter (before reading the rest) that Sarkhan Vol changed the past. As far as I am concerned, this is a plot flaw. Wikipedia relates that this type of time paradox is called "grandfather paradox" and it violates the self-consistency of the story. In other words, "changing the past" is scientifically proven to be a plot flaw.

All of this is overthinking, I know, but if you overthink, too, you have to choose:

• either the authors of the Tarkir story took it very lightly;
• or the events in the Khans of Tarkir set are non-canon.

I wait for your comments. ---Abacos (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this may be “overthinking” things, but paradox-free time travel is not necessarily impossible according to recent research. There is an interesting NPR article from 2020 that discusses this in case you are interested: Paradox-Free Time Travel Is Theoretically Possible, Researchers Say. This raises other questions of course, but (pardon the pun) only time will tell. The bottom line is that the story (regardless of flaws) is indeed canon. Sarkhan Vol traveled through time to save Ugin which resulted in a new timeline in which Ugin’s descendants now reign.Nivmizzetreborn (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice article. I am surprised that someone published a scientific paper about this. I could have written the same paper myself 10 years ago (I am a professor of physics), but I always considered "time travel debate" just as a hobby.
I guess you read the article title only. According to what is written in the article you linked, the authors of the Tarkir storyline could have done paradox-free time travel by never writing anything included in the timeline on the right (labeled "False"). Therefore the storyline of the "Khans of Tarkir" set *is* false, indeed. The "True" timeline on the left is self-consistent and paradox-free on its own.
Therefore, my position still stands, unchallenged AND supported by the article you posted. ---Abacos (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)