Is The Casual Loop In Robert Heinlein's-All You Zombies

The purpose of this paper is to provide an explanation and analysis of the causal loop in Robert Heinlein’s “-All You Zombies-“. The loop and supporting storyline will be examined in terms of the framework that D.H. Mellor laid out in his piece “Real Time”; I will first describe the timeline of the main character and how it might be considered valid, then apply this timeline to a proof showing that it in fact isn’t valid and causal loops are impossible. Finally, I will critically evaluate the proof for any irregularities. I hold that the timeline of “-All You Zombies-“ is valid, and thus causal loops is possible; this is what I will approach later in the paper.
For the sake of brevity and avoiding confusion: I will refer to the main character (The Unmarried Mother) as “TUM” and with female pronouns, the occurrence of TUM stealing the baby and giving it to the orphanage as “Event X”, and the period of time where TUM grew up in the orphanage as “Event Y”.

In the story TUM grows up in an orphanage, then in adulthood has a baby girl who is stolen from her, then is recruited to become a Temporal Agent, then meets her younger self, then goes back in time and steals the baby, then returns to the present to continue life.

We will consider Event X and Event Y in the examination of the story, but the concepts apply to all parts of the causal loop in TUM’s timeline. To prove that this timeline is impossible, it must first be assumed that it is possible. That series of assumptions could follow this train of

thought:
First, we will suppose it is possible that TUM affected her life in the way that she did (eg. Stealing the baby version of herself, leaving it at the orphanage, having sex with the older version of herself, etc). In the timeline, stealing the baby causes the child to grow up in the orphanage, which then goes on to affect further parts of the story. So, if Event X is a cause and Event Y is an effect, there must be a correlation between the two. If this is the case, then there is a causal loop and thus the story is valid.
While on the surface this seems like a reasonable way to explain the validity, it can fall apart under scrutiny. The first assumption, that TUM affected her life in the way that she did, seems reasonable. If she did time travel to those different places and events, there seems to be no reason why she would be prevented from performing that set of actions. The final assumption, that if there is a correlation between Event X and Event Y causal loops are proven, is reasonable as well. The problem lies in the middle assumption: stealing the baby causes it to grow up in the orphanage.
The problem with the middle assumption is that it is impossible to prove correlation between Event X and Event Y. Given a random child in an orphanage, anyone could say they “went back in time and stole them from the hospital”, and given a random child not in an orphanage, anyone could say that they didn’t go back in time. The fact that TUM stepped into a metal net changes nothing about the fact that the baby grew up in an orphanage. An easy way for TUM to prove a correlation between events would be for her to do something radical to her own (currently messed up) timeline. For example, she could go back again and stop herself from obtaining a time machine; this event would then prevent her from ever receiving a time machine, which would then prevent her from going back and stopping herself from receiving the time machine…. This reasoning could go on to infinity, and is therefore obviously flawed in some manner. If TUM cannot prove a correlation between Event X and Event Y, then Event X cannot be the cause of Event Y, and therefore the timeline of the story is invalid and impossible.

THAT’S WRONG BITCHEZZ
The discussion above attempts to prove the timeline of “-All You Zombies-“ to be invalid by first creating an idea of how it could be possible, then refuting it. In this section what I hope to do is show that not only is the first idea on validity correct, but also that the refutation is wrong. As seen above, the first and third assumptions seem reasonable; there is no reason for us to think that they are not. The second assumption, that Event X caused Event Y, can also be shown to be acceptable. First, let us examine what cause really means. The dictionary defines a cause as “A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result”. Event X is our person or thing, and Event Y is the thing that happens as a result. So does Event X exist in such a way as to make Event Y happen? When the older version of TUM stole the baby, she caused it to be raised in an orphanage. If she hadn’t stolen the baby, the younger version would have cared for it, and it never would have grown up in an orphanage. Without the stealing of the baby, Event X, the orphanage life never would have occurred, Event Y. This leads to the conclusion that Event Y is caused by Event X.
The main point in the refutation above is that a correlation between Event X and Event Y cannot be proven, and therefore X cannot cause Y. I hold that whether a correlation can be proven or not is of no consequence, but that the entire idea of proven correlation relating to causation is absurd. Let us look at a simple example: throwing a baseball and breaking a window. If I did a study on randomly thrown baseballs and broken windows in a certain town, I very likely wouldn’t find a correlation. Some baseballs would break windows, but many more windows would be broken by things like storms, clumsy people, falling trees, etc. But say I take a baseball and throw it directly through my window. The baseball obviously caused the broken window, even though I can’t find a correlation between thrown baseballs and windows in general. The fact that the correlation can’t be proven says absolutely nothing about whether the one event causes the other or not. This is the same with Event X and Event Y; we may not be able to prove that they are correlated, but that has no bearing on the actual causation between the two.

In this paper, the story of TUM was examined for validity. The timeline was laid out, and argument against validity was proposed and examined. A counterargument was then brought up to show that the timeline is valid. While the events examined were just part of a story, the proofs relating to them point at something much bigger: causal loops. Even though the timeline of TUM is fictional, if it is truly valid then that means that given the right equipment, causal loops in time travel are a very real possibility.