5

Well, I see a clear contradiction between how the concept of time is considered in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D and how it is in the Doctor Strange and Avengers: Infinity War films.

In the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D TV series we find some inhumans with the power to glimpse the future, like Raina in S2 and Charles Hinton in S3. Apparently, the future events seen by these people cannot be changed, no matter how hard you try. When discussing these abilities in S3, Fitz says time is, in fact, a fourth dimension. This means the thought that we can affect the future with our actions is a mere illusion and this future is already determined since the beginning of times. Here is the explanation by Dr Fitz:

However, we all can remember the scene from Avengers: Infinity War when Doctor Strange sees 14,000,605 possible futures. That's not consistent with Fitz's explanation nor with the fact that inhumans can see an inexorable future.

How can this be explained? Are those glimpses seen by Raina or Charles present in all the possible futures? That sounds a bit strange, but I can't find any other logical explanation.

Edit: Even if we leave AoS out of the mix, there are some things regarding the Time Stone that don't fit. In Doctor Strange, when the doctor first gets the Stone and sends an apple to a future state, the half-eaten apple transforms into a full-eaten apple. So, I think the only possible future for the apple was being eaten or, otherwise, why would the Time Stone convert it to an eaten apple instead of to rotten apple, for example?

I guess other option would be that the Time Stone could convert the apple to any of its possible future forms. Maybe an apple tree could have just grow on the table? Sounds unlikely, but who knows.

  • 2
    Agents of SHIELD isn't canon as far as the movies are concerned (AoS references the movies, but there's no references the other way around), which may explain the discrepency (I'm not sure how the seasons of AoS line up with the release of the movies, but I'm pretty sure S2 and S3 are before Infinity War, and possibly before Doctor Strange as well). Also consider that Doctor Strange has - or at least had - the Time Stone, which may change what's possible. Or Fitz is wrong because he's basing his statements on things that are believed to be true, but aren't, in the MCU. – Anthony Grist Sep 7 '18 at 13:47
  • 2
    As of now, the timeline has been altered in AoS, with the prevention of the destruction of Earth by the Destroyer of Worlds, so early AoS comments on the immutability of the future were incorrect, even ignoring the larger MCU. – phantom42 Sep 7 '18 at 14:31
  • Then, what about Raina and Hinton's visions? – Seven Sep 7 '18 at 14:37
  • The fact that they came true means that they came true, not that it was the only possible future. It's possible that their abilities somehow focused on the most likely outcome, not the only possible outcome. – phantom42 Sep 7 '18 at 14:49
  • You may recall also that in Inhumans, Karnak sees multiple outcomes and chooses his actions based on what he sees. – phantom42 Sep 7 '18 at 14:57
6

Massive spoiler for agents of shield season 5, however it's made clear in that season that Fitz's interpretation of time was simply wrong since:

The agents of shield succeed in changing the timeline, after travelling through time.

Those inhumans who had seen unavoidable futures simple forsore the most likely future and lacked Dr. Stranges abilities and the time stone, which would be required to see so many possible alternate futures. The agents of shield then failed in changing the future in those instances due to their limited information.

  • Maybe we could say the death at the end of S3 was likely, but Charles and Daisy didn't only see that he will die: they saw the spaceship with all the floating objects, including the crucifix. Perhaps all those things were most likely to be there. However, if it was likely,but not certain, what would be the probability of the conjunction? Really, really low. And, despite that, the vision and what finally happened were exactly the same. We can say that's a coincidence. – Seven Sep 7 '18 at 16:42
  • 1
    OK smarty pants .. now go ahead and explain the time travel in DeadPool 2 :P (Although I'm tempted to ask this as an actual question) – Peter M Sep 7 '18 at 16:58
  • Or, they foresaw an "inevitable" future, which could only have been altered by the intervention of time travelers, perhaps. – RDFozz Sep 7 '18 at 17:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.