ortega004:


You're basing this assumption on a "block universe THEORY"... A parallel universe is "self contained".
It is NOLAN'S world.. He gets to make his own rules.. Neil said it doesn't mean it's written in stone.. That's his own understanding of inversion as a PHYSICIST in this universe.. But most of it is theoretical.. That's why at the end of the day he tells the protagonist it's a paradox as long as those in the future believe they can change things, that's what matters to them... A paradox can both be true and untrue at the same time..
In this case, true is whatever Nolan wants it to be...
Same was in maybe Avengers endgame Loki survives by lifting the cube and disappearing thereby creating an alternate reality for himself.. It's the MCU's world.. They get to create their own fantasies of how time manipulation works.. Or Thanos time travels and dies in 2019..
Bottom line is, all of time travel and inversion is fictional.. You can manipulate it as much as you want to suit your own narrative with whatever scientific theories you want.. There's nothing g proven in real life so anything goes.

A parallel universe might be "self contained" but a parallel universe is not a "closed system", if it were, it simply means such a possibility of going back to your past doesn't exist in the first place. The fact that we assume such a there's a possibility to go back to alter the past, means the past too can alter the future, they work together. Parallel universes are just parallel states of consciousness.
All parallel universes are simultaneous equations syncing to achieve a common reality. Once different realities exist, that's an entirely different case, perhaps a universe with clones or body doubles. Your past or future are not your clones, they're just you in different consciousness on the timeline.
I never watched all time travel movies, nor all the time travel school of thoughts, but one thing I know is, they always say the same thing in different ways. TENET isn't an exception to this.
In TENET's concept, only one reality exists even though different state of consciousness exist.
Depending on the school of thoughts, the 'universe' or 'consciousness' may differ or be the same, those are not constant, but one thing is always constant, that is the reality. It's the same no matter the concept or school of thoughts.
Fictions or not, there's only one reality. TENET movie never did otherwise. "What's happened's happened."

ortega004:

That's the entire point.. The movie doesn't say explicitly.. Wheeler is only offering up her own or the Tenet organization's understanding of particle collision... Point is we never get to see it happen in Canon cos they always wear protective suits.. For all they know that annihilation itself might lead to an alternate reality..
Only one side getting destroyed is just one of many possibilities.. I only said that as an example cos it was closer to your reply.. Not like I'm saying that's what would happen definitively..
Nolan's world, Nolan's rules...

Nah!
The movie clearly said annihilation, based on annihilation theory, both versions die. If one version survives, we would have been told.
If the movie was trying to be inexplicit, it shouldn't have mentioned annihilation.
Like you rightly said, body contact might even lead to an alternate reality, I also thought the same. The possibilities are many while annihilation is the least on the list, of all those possibilities.

light099:


Nah!
The movie clearly said annihilation, based on annihilation theory, both versions die. If one version survives, we would have been told.
If the movie was trying to be inexplicit, it shouldn't have mentioned annihilation.
Like you rightly said, body contact might even lead to an alternate reality, I also thought the same. The possibilities are many while annihilation is the least on the list, of all those possibilities.

The movie doesn't state it as canon cos it never actually happens.. Agent wheeler states it.. They are two different things.. She's talking based on her understanding or what she's been told, not necessarily from experience.. Don't forget even the very organization she works for suppresses information as much as possible..

light099:



I never watched all time travel movies, nor all the time travel school of thoughts, but one thing I know is, they always say the same thing in different ways. TENET isn't an exception to this.
In TENET's concept, only one reality exists even though different state of consciousness exist.
Depending on the school of thoughts, the 'universe' or 'consciousness' may differ or be the same, those are not constant, but one thing is always constant, that is the reality. It's the same no matter the concept or school of thoughts.
Fictions or not, there's only one reality. TENET movie never did otherwise. "What's happened's happened."

You haven't watched all and you're confident they all say the same thing?? I'm even giving you actual examples.
The MCU (avengers universe) doesn't say the same thing. Alternate realities have different events and outcomes.
Flash point and DC comics also have alternate universes with different events and outcomes.
There's an old TV series "Fringe".. Alternate realities/universes have different events and outcomes.


It's their universe.. They can do whatever they want!

ortega004:


You're focusing too much on time.. Think of it in terms of perspectives..
E.G.. In the car chase Sator was inverted but Kat wasn't.. He didn't need to invert Kat to interact with her.. She just gets to experience his interactions in the reverse order.. When he's pushing her out of the warehouse and towards the Benz, she and the rest of the linear world experiences it as him pulling her out of the Benz and into the warehouse .. But it doesn't change the fact that Sator is pushing from his perspective.
Same with a car, you'll drive but the car and the world would see a car reversing.. But you're just driving normally from your POV.

"Think of it in terms of perspectives.." Cool, this statement shows you know what you're talking about here.
But if you pay attention to my previous posts, I'm thinking in terms of both the 'sight perspective' and the 'timeline perspective.'
A car moving relative to linear time observer is doing two things - it appears to be reversing backwards, but it's also moving back in time.
Since you're inverted, the world isn't, the linear motion produced by the un-inverted car is negative on your body, same way fire turns to ice on your inverted body. Your body and the car don't sync. It's the car producing the motion and a passenger uses the motion of a moving car. Except your drive in reverse gear to balance the effect or invert the car.

ortega004:

The movie doesn't state it as canon cos it never actually happens.. Agent wheeler states it.. They are two different things.. She's talking based on her understanding or what she's been told, not necessarily from experience.. Don't forget even the very organization she works for suppresses information as much as possible..

You can put the blame on Wheeler or whoever passed such information to them, they even already had inversion suits to prevent body contact.

Seems it doesn't really matter though, because the contention is that such annihilation theory is a flop. It's not really about who invented the theory or if it was generally believed in by everyone the movie or not.

light099:


"Think of it in terms of perspectives.." Cool, this statement shows you know what you're talking about here.
But if you pay attention to my previous posts, I'm thinking in terms of both the 'sight perspective' and the 'timeline perspective.'
A car moving relative to linear time observer is doing two things - it appears to be reversing backwards, but it's also moving back in time.
Since you're inverted, the world isn't, the linear motion produced by the un-inverted car is negative on your body, same way fire turns to ice on your inverted body. Your body and the car don't sync. It's the car producing the motion and a passenger uses the motion of a moving car. Except your drive in reverse gear to balance the effect or invert the car.

The car isn't moving backwards in time.. It's moving forward.. The only difference is that it's experience would start from the end of yours to the beginning of yours..
Eg. If you're inverted and you pick up a car at 3pm from point A and drive it to point B and leave it by 2pm..
The car would experience it as being picked up at 2pm from point B and driven in reverse to point A and being left at 3pm..
Literally the same event but different perspectives from the car and the inverted driver.

ortega004:


You haven't watched all and you're confident they all say the same thing?? I'm even giving you actual examples.
The MCU (avengers universe) doesn't say the same thing. Alternate realities have different events and outcomes.
Flash point and DC comics also have alternate universes with different events and outcomes.
There's an old TV series "Fringe".. Alternate realities/universes have different events and outcomes.
It's their universe.. They can do whatever they want!

If MCU thinks otherwise, TENET doesn't and fortunately, this is all about TENET.
Perhaps if I watch MCU, I can debate in that line.

light099:


You can put the blame on Wheeler or whoever passed such information to them, they even already had inversion suits to prevent body contact.

Seems it doesn't really matter though, because the contention is that such annihilation theory is a flop. It's not really about who invented the theory or if it was generally believed in by everyone the movie or not.

Sigh.. Not blaming anyone.. I've been saying it all along.. Annihilation theory is just physics.. They're not necessarily talking from experience.. They know what physics states would happen.. So they take the necessary precautions to even avoid finding out by wearing protective suits and putting up barriers in the turnstile room...

light099:


If MCU thinks otherwise, TENET doesn't and fortunately, this is all about TENET.
Perhaps if I watch MCU, I can debate in that line.

That's what I keep trying to tell you.. Even the TENET people do not know. Many things remain unknowable.... This dialogue in the screenshot below further cements that.. Neil optimistically hopes that being here means they have succeeded.. But he also makes room for the possibility of multiple realities where if they fail to act it leads to another reality different from theirs.

ortega004:


The car isn't moving backwards in time.. It's moving forward.. The only difference is that it's experience would start from the end of yours to the beginning of yours..
Eg. If you're inverted and you pick up a car at 3pm from point A and drive it to point B and leave it by 2pm..
The car would experience it as being picked up at 2pm from point B and driven in reverse to point A and being left at 3pm..
Literally the same event but different perspectives from the car and the inverted driver.

You're only focusing on the sight perspective.
If at 2pm, you walk backwards from A to B for 1 hour. Does it mean you're now back in 1pm? No, you're now in 3pm forward time. But if another person goes into the turnstile before doing so, the result is different.
The car is not just reversing in sight perspective, it must also be moving back in 'timeline perspective' and since the car is your motion back in time, it must be inverted too. If not, you're still on the same forward/linear timeline.
Time/motion are important in time travel and the car is the object producing your motion back in time. At that moment you're in the car, the car is in charge of your movement back in time.

light099:


You're only focusing on the sight perspective.
If at 2pm, you walk backwards from A to B for 1 hour. Does it mean you're now back in 1pm? No, you're now in 3pm forward time. But if another person goes into the turnstile before doing so, the result is different.
The car is not just reversing in sight perspective, it must also be moving back in 'timeline perspective' and since the car is your motion back in time, it must be inverted too. If not, you're still on the same forward/linear timeline.
Time/motion are important in time travel and the car is the object producing your motion back in time. At that moment you're in the car, the car is in charge of your movement back in time.

You're still not getting it.. You are inverted and the car is not! Your entropy is reversed so you alone keep moving backwards... Every other thing moves forward.. Whatever you interact with would simply experience effect before cause...
So from the car's perspective you're Undriving (not a real word, lol) it from 2pm to 3pm...

The Kat-Sator car chase scene is where you can find proper understanding.. Sator is inverted but Kat isn't inverted.. So while Sator experiences unshooting Kat and taking her through the car chase then leaving her back on the floor of the warehouse where he initially kicked her.. She would experience being picked up from the floor, taken through the chase and then being shot and left for dead. She would only just be perceiving his movements as weird... Sator's movement continues backwards after leaving her on the floor.. Her own movement continues forward after being shot.. I don't know how else to explain to you

ortega004:


Sigh.. Not blaming anyone.. I've been saying it all along.. Annihilation theory is just physics.. They're not necessarily talking from experience.. They know what physics states would happen.. So they take the necessary precautions to even avoid finding out by wearing protective suits and putting up barriers in the turnstile room...

They might have accepted such theory as a myth or precaution, that's not my point.. My point is that's there isn't going to be annihilation mentioned in the movie, so whoever said that was wrong.

ortega004:

That's what I keep trying to tell you.. Even the TENET people do not know. Many things remain unknowable.... This dialogue in the screenshot below further cements that.. Neil optimistically hopes that being here means they have succeeded.. But he also makes room for the possibility of multiple realities where if they fail to act it leads to another reality different from theirs.

No, TENET people do know, Neil said it many times "What's happened's happened", everything in the movie proved this golden line. All the inversion scenes did not alter anything. They only went back in time to fulfill what had happened in forward scenes, nothing changed.
That screenshot somehow contradicted the golden line, but it's necessary to backup the plot of the movie. If the director didn't introduce a scene like that, the whole movie would have been a big flop. That was put in place to justify the plot.

light099:


No, TENET people do know, Neil said it many times "What's happened's happened", everything in the movie proved this golden line. All the inversion scenes did not alter anything. They only went back in time to fulfill what had happened in forward scenes, nothing changed.
That screenshot somehow contradicted the golden line, but it's necessary to backup the plot of the movie. If the director didn't introduce a scene like that, the whole movie would have been a big flop. That was put in place to justify the plot.

They know that being alive means that they succeed.. But that faint possibility of an alternate reality is why they must always go through the motions regardless... Neil still maintained this at the end of the movie when he's inverting despite knowing that he dies down there.. He told the protagonist "we just saved the world, can't leave anything to chance"..
As for nothing being altered.. They're literally operating a giant pincer movement that's why they always succeed because they know what they hope to achieve and how to achieve it that's why nothing changes..
Nevertheless the possibility of an alternate reality still exists.. Now ask yourself.. If you were in the future in a dying world with nowhere else to go but backwards, won't you pin your hopes on that faint possibility of success??

ortega004:


You're still not getting it.. You are inverted and the car is not! Your entropy is reversed so you alone keep moving backwards... Every other thing moves forward.. Whatever you interact with would simply experience effect before cause...
So from the car's perspective you're Undriving (not a real word, lol) it from 2pm to 3pm...

The Kat-Sator car chase scene is where you can find proper understanding.. Sator is inverted but Kat isn't inverted.. So while Sator experiences unshooting Kat and taking her through the car chase then leaving her back on the floor of the warehouse where he initially kicked her.. She would experience being picked up from the floor, taken through the chase and then being shot and left for dead. She would only just be perceiving his movements as weird... Sator's movement continues backwards after leaving her on the floor.. Her own movement continues forward after being shot.. I don't know how else to explain to you

This car part is tricky, that's why I said the other time that you're somehow right, except that the movie makes it hard for your point to be right.
If I get a free time, I'll try to give a comprehensive explanation about it.
Note that due to the nature of the movie, the car inversion or not is right if you say it shouldn't be inverted or i say it should be. Any of the two opinions are right based on the movie. Except if we consider different grounds from the movie, it is still more valid to agree the car should be inverted than otherwise.

ortega004:

They know that being alive means that they succeed.. But that faint possibility of an alternate reality is why they must always go through the motions regardless... Neil still maintained this at the end of the movie when he's inverting despite knowing that he dies down there.. He told the protagonist "we just saved the world, can't leave anything to chance"..
As for nothing being altered.. They're literally operating a giant pincer movement that's why they always succeed because they know what they hope to achieve and how to achieve it that's why nothing changes..
Nevertheless the possibility of an alternate reality still exists.. Now ask yourself.. If you were in the future in a dying world with nowhere else to go but backwards, won't you pin your hopes on that faint possibility of success??

Being alive is just one of the results of an event, so being alive doesn't mean they succeed. X gets a bucket load of 'F's. He's alive doesn't mean he'd succeed if he goes back in time to rewrite the exam. He would get the same bucket load of 'F's and still be alive. Nothing changed. It all depends on the result desired, not just being alive.
That faint possibility doesn't exist, nothing changes, 'future Neil' and posterity already know this, even 'present Washington' already embraced this sad truth too.

Nevertheless the possibility of an alternate reality still exists.. Now ask yourself.. If you were in the future in a dying world with nowhere else to go but backwards, won't you pin your hopes on that faint possibility of success??

Good thought but it still depends.
If I already know I can't change nothing, then I can take my future to the past to live it there, when the climate was still favorable.

But if I have the mind of going there to fight or change things when I already know I can't change nothing, then that's like appealing the case of an accused who's already been executed by hanging, even if the case is won, that can't undo the execution.

light099:

Being alive is just one of the results of an event, so being alive doesn't mean they succeed. X gets a bucket load of 'F's. He's alive doesn't mean he'd succeed if he goes back in time to rewrite the exam. He would get the same bucket load of 'F's and still be alive. Nothing changed. It all depends on the result desired, not just being alive.
That faint possibility doesn't exist, nothing changes, 'future Neil' and posterity already know this, even 'present Washington' already embraced this sad truth too.

What are you going on about exams and F's for?? They believe if the future uses the algorithm to invert the world that would mean the end for them and they would all die instantly.. So being alive means that never happens and the future doesn't or hasn't succeeded in using the algorithm.. Isn't the direct opposite of being dead, being alive?? Abi how else can they succeed the future's attempt to destroy them?

If you think the possibility doesn't exist despite all that's in the movie then that's your own understanding.. This conversation would just go back and forth in vain.. Cheers �

ortega004:

What are you going on about exams and F's for?? They believe if the future uses the algorithm to invert the world that would mean the end for them and they would all die instantly.. So being alive means that never happens and the future doesn't or hasn't succeeded in using the algorithm.. Isn't the direct opposite of being dead, being alive?? Abi how else can they succeed the future's attempt to destroy them?
If you think the possibility doesn't exist despite all that's in the movie then that's your own understanding.. This conversation would just go back and forth in vain.. Cheers �

Alright, I misinterpreted 'being alive means they succeed" was referring to the present. Now I get you.
From the beginning the answer to this is quite simple. Chance is different from Certainty.

If we in a future world finally get's to a wall, but we can all go back to our past except that, we can't change anything. What would I do?
I'll go back to my remarkable and memorable past events and relive them.

But if I decide to go back to initiate a battle to change things I know can't change, do we call that taking a good shot at chance or making a huge waste of time?

light099:


Alright, I misinterpreted 'being alive means they succeed" was referring to the present. Now I get you.
From the beginning the answer to this is quite simple. Chance is different from Certainty.

If we in a future world finally get's to a wall, but we can all go back to our past except that, we can't change anything. What would I do?
I'll go back to my remarkable and memorable past events and relive them.

But if I decide to go back to initiate a battle to change things I know can't change, do we call that taking a good shot at chance or making a huge waste of time?

First off.. Tenet isn't even time travel.. It's inversion.. When you invert yourself. You're not going to your past, that's literally your new future.. The only thing is you're living it an a sort of closed loop (a block universe) where people have already existed/lived, so your inverted future would have been experienced by some people already in the same uninverted world..
Inverting the entropy of the world is a different ball game entirely with lots of unknowns.. The scientist who built the algorithm believes if they invert the entropy of the world, the past would be destroyed and also they in the future would be destroyed along with them which is why she inverts the algorithm and hides it to continue traveling to the past.. Keyword is "believes".. Even she doesn't know this for sure.. Some others in the future don't share that sentiment and they believe using the algorithm is their only shot at survival... So all of it is still relatively unknown..

Nothing is certain or set in stone.. That point is pretty much made clear through the movie.

Here's question though.. We see the BMW's side mirror self-repair after it collides with Sator's Audi in the talin car chase, and we also see the proving window in the Oslo freeport with bullet holes self repair after the inverted protagonist unshoots the glass at the scene where the protagonist fights himself..
The question is how did the side mirror get broken or how did the proving window get the bullet hole initially.. And how long were they both there for.. Does it date back to the manufacturing date of both the window and the side mirror?? They were both manufactured with the defects and ignored by the manufactures and installers.. Lol

ortega004:

First off.. Tenet isn't even time travel..

Very cool. I think this your post just made the whole explanation easier for me. You're still mixing things up, that is why it's been taking too long.
To start with, what's time travel? Travel through time into the past or future. As simple as that.
There might be additions or subtractions, you might add some other effects to your own time travel, but as long as you go into the past or future, it's time travel. Simple.

It's inversion.. When you invert yourself. You're not going to your past, that's literally your new future.. The only thing is you're living it an a sort of closed loop (a block universe) where people have already existed/lived, so your inverted future would have been experienced by some people already in the same uninverted world..

With a unique timeT concept like inversion, it's now possible to live your future in the past if you wanted. Sounds cool.
Except that each timeline in TENET's universe is a 'final summation' of all what happened, happening or yet to happen in that timeline. You referred to it as 'closed loop'. Cool.
This 'closed looping' is what made TENET universe certain/definitive or calculable and not uncertain like you've been making it all look like. Each timeline presents a 'final result'.
More interestingly, you can even simulate your moves. It's 5 pm, you're to travel back in time to 12 pm noon and you have 10 hours for this mission. How do you do this? You simply continue forward 5 hours more in time till 10 pm and you go into the turnstile at that exact time, that gives you a 10 hours journey back in time to 12 pm noon. It's all simple stuff, not as difficult or uncertain as you're making it look like.

Inverting the entropy of the world is a different ball game entirely with lots of unknowns.. The scientist who built the algorithm believes if they invert the entropy of the world, the past would be destroyed and also they in the future would be destroyed along with them which is why she inverts the algorithm and hides it to continue traveling to the past..

Nope! Inverting the entropy of the world isn't so different. You've been inverting just bullets and yourselves but now you want to invert the whole world i.e 'everything'. The objects you'll be inverting just became a whole lot, way larger, but fortunately it still didn't change nothing, it's a 'closed loop' universe, so what we focus on is the 'final result' each timeline presents.
An antagonist with an evil time travel tech went back to my past to destroy me and the universe by inverting the whole world in my past. Luckily for me, my universe is a 'closed loop' universe. Now that I'm alive at the present and the environment or world around me is also soundly alive. What does it mean? It simply means we all survived because this present moment presents an 'end result'. We might not know the 'process' of how it all happened but that's not important. What's more important is that we got what finally resulted. As for the 'process', perhaps the antagonist changed his mind, or he died in the course of the whole thing or he was intercepted, whatever way it happened. We already got the 'end result' on the present timeline.

Keyword is "believes".. Even she doesn't know this for sure.. Some others in the future don't share that sentiment and they believe using the algorithm is their only shot at survival... So all of it is still relatively unknown..
Nothing is certain or set in stone.. That point is pretty much made clear through the movie.

Nope! You keep putting words in mouth of TENET characters. You make the whole movie look so uncertain.
TENET is scientific and logical. It's 100% predictable and calculable and the movie strongly portrayed this certainty.
If there were slight mood of uncertainty portrayed in the movie, it was only to justify the plot like I said earlier.
If I know exactly how TENET universe and tech works, you mean the smart future dwellers who invented these whole tech and processes no longer know how things operate? Or I know their inventions more than they do? Certainly not.
They do understand their tech, they understand their pincer movements, they definitely even know more not portrayed in the movie.

"What's happened's happened." You're not going back to the past to change the present or future, you're only inverting into the past to relive or be conscious of a portion of your life some uninverted people in the past have already witnessed/experienced which you're yet to. So you're going into the past to fulfill what had already happened.
You going back into the past to run the 'process' of an event which already has a 'end result' on a timeline.
It's a 'closed loop' universe where each timeline presents a 'final result' or 'end result'.

Jeez, I'm having a headache

that movie can turn someone's brain upside down

light099:






"What's happened's happened." You're not going back to the past to change the present or future, you're only inverting into the past to relive or be conscious of a portion of your life some uninverted people in the past have already witnessed/experienced which you're yet to. So you're going into the past to fulfill what had already happened.
You going back into the past to run the 'process' of an event which already has a 'end result' on a timeline.
It's a 'closed loop' universe where each timeline presents a 'final result' or 'end result'.

I don't even get the distinction you're trying to explain.. What I'm saying is time travel involves flying through loops to a specific point in the past or future.. Inversion isn't that.. The movie pretty much makes that clear in a dialogue between Neil and the protagonist... You can research the distinction yourself.

Getting to your point of what's happened will happen... What you don't seem to understand is that the Entire Tenet organization is running a temporal pincer movement!! They aren't trying to change anything.. Infact they're going out of their way to ensure nothing changes that's literally why nothing changes..
Even the fin stalsk12 battle.. Sir Micheal already told the Protagonist earlier in the movie about an explosion during the day of the opera heist.. So they even try to work around that but making their mission "failing to stop the explosion because they know it already happened but just lifting the algorithm alone from the dead drop instead...

Secondly.. The algorithm isn't inverting objects in large scale or people.. That is specifically stated (I'll post the script screenshot) .. It is inverting the entropy of the environment.. Note that this has never been done before.. So Neil saying it would spell the end of the world is simply what he believes will happen...
And this is what you're still not getting.. The effects of using the Algorithm remains an unknown because it hasn't been used... For all we know the future actually eventually succeeded in getting it and the result didn't even alter the events of the past like Neil and the scientist expected in to.. That is what this entire debate is about.. Justifying the futures attempt to get the algorithm even though it appears that they've failed from our perspective of a closed loop world..

Bottom line.. Tenet organization's perspective is they believe the algorithm will destroy them in the present along with the future..
Futures perspective.. It won't destroy them so they're willing to keep trying.

*Not time travel but inversion..
* Inversion not of objects but the environment.

As for uncertainty.. I'm not putting words in any body's mouth.. I'm literally quoting the movie itself... If the two different dialogue posted below doesn't give you any hint of uncertainty in Neil's words.. Then this debate definitely won't do it.

ortega004:
*Not time travel but inversion..
* Inversion not of objects but the environment.

What's time travel? Let's start all over from there.

I downloaded Tenet sometime ago but I haven't been able to watch it yet because I want to download the srt file first.

Inception didn't confuse me much except the final scene of course.

Christopher Nolan's movies are mind bleeps.

ortega004:
As for uncertainty.. I'm not putting words in any body's mouth.. I'm literally quoting the movie itself... If the two different dialogue posted below doesn't give you any hint of uncertainty in Neil's words.. Then this debate definitely won't do it.

You're getting this all wrong. A movie is not a universal truth, people only act movies to conform with reality as much as possible but there are always flops and shortcomings. We don't watch a movie as sheeples, rather we watch movies as spectators and 'critics' to judge the movie if it's logic, realistic or a fail.
They can say anything in a movie, that's not our problem. Did what was said conform with logic and reality? That's the point.
And that's what we're doing here. So, quoting screenshots of flops and wrong claims made in the movie in order to justify the plot doesn't prove anything right here.

Hintona:
I downloaded Tenet sometime ago but I haven't been able to watch it yet because I want to download the srt file first.
Inception didn't confuse me much except the final scene of course.
Christopher Nolan's movies are mind bleeps.

Yea, Inception is a complex movie but once you understand the plot, you already solved the complex movie.
TENET is not like every other movies, it's just some crazy homework. Understanding the plot is just the beginning.
The movie is like an algorithm or some calculations. The moment you step in to verify the steps of the algorithm or the steps of the calculation is where the real shiit starts. You can already see a lot of debates going in here.

Best thing is just to watch it and understand the plot, when you try to prove the movie, the concept, the plot, the scenes etc. that's where it starts heating up your head.

light099 This is for you and others

No one is saying that a movie is a universal truth. All the guy that have been arguing with you have been saying is that it is a movie, a sci fi movie at that. The 'fi' there stands for fiction. It is fictional. Yes we know that most of these guys do consult physicists and the rest to try to make it as accurate as possible but at the end the writer still has the final say. It is his movie and so he makes the rules. What we as viewers and critics are just trying to do, the whole purpose of this argument, is to make sure that Nolan did not break his own rules. I'll still state it again, his own rules not the rules of science, quantum physics, or whatever.

Just like you said, there are always flops and shortcomings but not in the rules of Science but in the rules of the movie itself. Let me give an example, in a movie where the main character have the ability to teleport in the blink of an eye. If towards the end of the movie he is killed by a bomb in a room after he watches the bomb count down from 10 to 0 seconds, we can say there was a flop. Not because the guy can teleport and it is not scientifically proven that humans can teleport but rather the flop is why should a guy that have been teleporting through out the start of the movie not be able to teleport to safety in the final battle. So we point out flops based on the rules of each movie and not on the rules of Science which is universal.

rather we watch movies as spectators and 'critics' to judge the movie if it's logic, realistic or a fail.

I think this is the major problem of your whole argument, you're judging the movie outside the rules of the movie. How can you judge a sci-fi movie on the bases of whether it is realistic . A fictional movie can never be realistic, even a sci-fi movie, it can't follow all the rules of Science most especially when it comes to concepts like time travel where even the experts do not agree.

They can say anything in a movie, that's not our problem. Did what was said conform with logic and reality?

Your first sentence here is right. They can say anything because they make the rules. Your second sentence is where you're getting it wrong. It doesn't have to be logical or follow reality. It just have to follow the movie's own rules. Now let me tell you another important thing you seem to be missing. The writer, Nolan, himself is not the one talking in the movie, it is actually each character that is talking. I kept saying the rules of the movie but the truth of the matter is that there were no rules stated in the movie . Take a look at the movie very well all you and I have been calling rules are just the opinions, whether educated or not, of the various characters. That is why even the 'major rule' you're basing your whole argument on, What's happened has happened, was first started by probably the most confused guy in the movie, who as the movie went on kept on contradicting his statement (I'll explain the contradictions). Yes he is a physicist, yet he was very much as confused as the rest.

So, quoting screenshots of flops and wrong claims made in the movie in order to justify the plot doesn't prove anything right here.

How can you claim that what Neil said at one point of the movie is the rule of the movie and what he said at a later time, which ortega004 screenshoted is a flop and wrong claim? Even if Nolan himself was the one that said it was a flop and wrong claim, maybe at a press conference after the movie, I'll find it hard to agree with him. You cannot accept one evidence from a source and reject other evidences (whether contradicting or not) from that same source and make a valid argument. It just goes to show that you're biased and have already made up your mind to pick the statements that you like and nothing anyone else says can convince you otherwise. I believe this is true so I won't even waste my time or your time trying to convince you.

Sorry for the long post, just two more things I have left to say.

I can't claim to understand the concept of inversion. Which is the major reason I started following this thread and enjoyed your argument with the other guy on whether oxygen and other things need to be inverted or not. I still do not understand it even at this point because the both of you kept giving it different meaning and going into the physics of it. I'm not a physicist although I did take it in secondary school and year one in the University. My point: I know nothing about inversion and you guys argument is not helping matters but I still read and enjoyed everything.

One thing I do know is time travel, not the real life physics version of it, but the movies Science fiction type. This is because unlike you I've seen so many time travel movies. From all the movies I've seen, I've come to the conclusion that there are two major types;

1. The one where you can't change anything: This is the one where if you go back to the past to stop something from happening, you soon find out that nothing was changed. In fact, your going back is what might even cause that thing you try to prevent from happening. Just like when the Protagonist went back despite Neil's warning only to end up handing over the device to the bad guy. You might be tempted to think that this means the Tenet movie falls under this category especially since the protagonist finally agreed with Neil that "What's happened has happened" but I'll soon explain why we can't conclude just like that.

2. The one where you can change things: This is the one where you can go back in time to kill Hitler and be successful. The funny thing is that this is actually the most common one yet half of your argument is based on it not being possible because of that famous quote from Neil. ortega004 have already tried to explain this to you. The Flash, Heroes, Heroes reborn, Legends of tomorrow are examples of series that fall under this type.

Now for the explanation why Tenet could be in any of the two categories and not necessarily the first one like you thought. In fact by the time I'm done explaining this last part, if you are truthful to yourself and open your mind, you will come to the same conclusion as I have that Tenet actually falls under the second category where What's happened has not happened or put in a different way, What's happened did not happen. Confusing right? I'll explain.

First I'll start from the future. Let me ask you a question, please try to answer it honestly. Who do you think is smarter, the future or the past? By smarter here I mean who have more knowledge about the doomsday device. Let me even assume that the past is smarter what about the scientist that invented the device. Shouldn't she know better that what's happened has happened? Why will she invent a device, the future which she belongs to, will try to use it to destroy the past and she will be so scared that she will have to convert it to a physical form so it cannot be copied. Still that was not enough, she went on to split it into various parts, hide them in the past and still killed her self so she will not be forced to make another one. Now why will such a smart scientist go to such extremes if Neil (a physicists from the past) was right about What's happened has happened? Why will she do all this. Try to answer this question honestly without bias.
The best we can actually assume is that she doesn't know for sure which is why she did all this just to be on the safe side. This is exactly what ortega004 have been trying to say. The people from the future will not also have tried to use the doomsday device if they believed Neil's statement. They would have just done what you said in one of your replies here that they will go back to the past and live the rest of their lives. This shows that they believed that the past and therefore the future can be changed.

Lets even assume all the people from the future are mad and know nothing about physics or time travel including the brilliant scientist that invented the device. Lets assume they all just panicked and decided to try the impossible despite knowing that what's happened has happened. Even if we take this blind leap of faith, what do we say about Neil and the whole Tenet organization whose mission statement is to prevent what might have been. Why will such an organization even exist in the first place if Neil was right about not being able to change the past? Why will they prevent what might have been if what has been will always be? Why will Neil later state that it is not a reason to do nothing? Why will he say at the end of the movie that 'we have just saved the world now we can't leave anything to chance'? Why will he say this and leave to go back knowing fully well he was going to die if he goes back? This means despite everything that has happened, even Neil himself did not believe his own statement that what's happened has happened. No one in the movie believed that and they all showed it in the way they acted at different times including the first person to make that statement that you're taking as the rule of the movie.

They had a whole organization specially formed that proved your fundamental argument wrong ie the past and future can be changed but the organization does not want that so they do everything to stop anyone trying to change anything. This is similar to either season 3 or 4 of DC's Legends of tomorrow where the Legends go back in time to restore history back to default.

I do hope I've been able to convince you because I don't know what else to say. The only conclusion we can draw from the movie is that while the future believe that they can change the past, the past and the Tenet organization believed that they cannot and that was what they taught Neil who is one of their agents. The only flaw in this and the movie at large (which you did not even point out) is that if the organization really believed that, then why create the organization in the first place to stop something that can never happen? Now who is the mad one, the future that are trying to change things because they believe they can or the past and the whole Tenet organization (that you claim based on Neil's first statement alone believe that what's happened has happened) that are trying to stop something that they believe cannot happen in the first place? It is either the future is wrong with their we can change things mentality or the past with their they cannot change things mentality. The truth is non of them know whose theory is right because it has not been done before. The future are willing to try just in case they are right while the past and Tenet organization which you claim know better do not actually know. That's the whole point of the organization, they can't leave anything to the chance that what they taught Neil which you've been arguing is the rule of the movie is right. If they were so sure, they won't need to form the organization.

In conclusion, if you study the movie very well, the real idea/concept of the movie is that they all, both the future, the brilliant scientist, the past, the Tenet organization, Neil the physicist, the protagonist and even Nolan himself do not know if it is possible to change the future by changing the past Now if all these people do not know how can you claim to know and not only that but claim to come to that conclusion by watching the movie? It just goes to show that you're actually talking based on your own believe and not from the movie. The whole movie is based on the idea that no one knows for sure, everyone of the characters including the writer just have their own believe. That's why the movie and the organization is called Tenet. Tenet means An opinion, belief, or principle that is held as absolute truth by someone or especially an organization.

The only thing we know for sure based on the movie is that we never get to find out who was right about changing things being possible, whether the future or the past because the organization was good at their job which is preventing anyone from changing the past. As far as I'm concerned everyone in the movie believed it was possible that's why the future tried it and that's why there's even a Tenet organization created just to stop such from happening and in a larger sense that is why the movie even existed in the first place. It is just like Terminator all over again only that in this case they always succeed in stoping the future hence nothing ever change giving us the impression that whats happened has happened. I would have gone further to explain how changing the past works but I've already typed too much. I even forgot to recommend the Terminator movie franchise for you to know how changing the past works. My favorite is The Flash series, they explain a lot in the series.

At the end of the day the movie is titled Tenets which literally means unproven beliefs. So you're entitled to your beliefs but if you're going to analyze the movie on a public platform, you have to keep your Tenets aside and only say things that the movie mentioned without ignoring anyone in the guise of flops or wrong claims especially since it was not stated anywhere in the movie that they were false claims and also because it was stated by the same guy you took the so called 'rules of the movie' from.

[b]In summary
- It is a sci-fi movie and they make their own rules which do not have to agree with the rules of Science or any other movie that have been or will be produced.

- The movie it self have no rules. What we call rules are actually the opinions of the various characters and it is clear that the future and the present have different opinions on whether what's happened has happened. If this was not true there will be no point of the movie in the first place. If any of them was even wrong it would be the past because while the future acted according to their Tenets, the past acted contrary which we can say mean that they also agree with the future.

- The whole point of the Tenet movie is that non of them (both past and future) are sure if they can change the past or the future. That was why when the Protagonist asked that won't the future destroying the past cause the future to be destroyed as well? Neil replied that they don't believe that. Neil himself was not sure (that's why he kept contradicting himself both in words and actions) cos he worked for an organization that prevents people from changing the past. Its like someone that doesn't believe that ghost exist should now be willing to die trying to prevent ghosts from taking over. It is either he is lying to himself or just confused and like I said, Neil was the most confused person in the film and I think the reason is because he was a physicist but the movie doesn't follow the proven laws of physics neither does his job. He was torn between two worlds so he kept on contradicting himself.

- You cannot take one or two words that Neil said and make it the rule of the movie while you ignore the rest of his contradicting words (in the name of flops and wrong claims). You can't do that and make a valid argument. What makes one statement a rule and the other a flop/wrong claims?

- You need to watch other simple time travel movies. You cannot skip nursery, primary and secondary school and expect to go to the university without having problems. You can't skip addition, subtraction, division and multiplication and start performing integration and differentiation without mixing things up or getting confused. Start from the less confusing movies.

- Why will the future try to do the impossible unless they believe it is possible? Why will the past and the Tenet organization try to stop them if they believed it was impossible unless they don't know for sure what's possible? Think about these things and draw your own conclusions after all this is Tenet.

---

Please note that I'm not one to argue or exchange words with someone online because it is tiring, my phone is not good, I'm a slow typist and I prefer to just type everything once like I've done. I hope you're able to read it all and draw your own conclusions and please check out other less confusing movies on time travel in other to broaden your database. I highly recommend The Flash Tv series as a starting point because it is my favorite. To end this long epistle, I'm going to quote the first thing that was said in the Tv series, yes I still remember it despite watching it in 2015 because like I said it is my favorite.
"To understand what I'm about to tell you, you have to believe in the impossible." - The Flash s1e1.

This is the only way to watch any sci-fi movie, you must believe in the impossible and know that the only rules are the ones the movie state as the rule and even at that, most of them are just the opinions of the characters and can change at anytime.

Tenet - Believe in the impossible and quoting Neil himself, 'don't try to understand it' because he doesn't understand it as well.

Thank you for your time.