All Things Star Trek — Page 162

DuracellEnergizer said:

Warbler said:

The thing is, it just doesn’t make sense that another universe was created. How would going back in time and changing history create a whole other universe? Sorry not buying it.

Read up on the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. Once you do, it’s not too hard to imagine how time travel may create a parallel universe.

hmm, I am not sure. Apparently there is an idea that there multiple parallel universes where all possible alternate histories and futures are real. But time travel creating a parallel universe? I am not sure of that. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Of course, obviously I have very little understanding of quantum physics and whatnot.

Tobar said:

Warbler said:

pretty sure Star Trek Online and comics are not canon.

*sigh*

Handman said:

Steven Hawking believes it, that’s good enough for me.

multiple universes? yes.

time traveling back in time and changing history creating a whole other universe? that doesn’t make to me.

If it didn’t create a new timeline/alternate universe, then it changes the future in such a way that going back could never have happened in the first place, creating a paradox. So basically, if one can go back in time and is able to change history, the change has to create a new alternate universe, because if it didn’t it would break the universe.

The only other alternative is that going back in time can’t change anything because attempting to change things ends up causing the thing you want to change to happen (closed loop), like Terminator 1.

So if you can change history, you must create an alternate timeline/universe.

If you can’t change history, then no alternate timeline can be created.

Any other version of time travel makes no logical sense (insofar as any version of time travel can make logical sense), because any other version breaks causality.

You demonstrate the problem of time travel in fiction. Cyberdyne sends a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner in order to prevent the existence of the guy that will eventually defeat Cyberdyne. But if the terminator were successful, John Conner would never exist and wouldn’t end up defeating Cyberdyne and therefore Cyberdyne would have no reason to send a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner.

That is not what Nero and Spock appeared to do in Star Trek 2009, at least not to me.

Frank your Majesty said:

It’s not that the act of travelling back in time creates a new universe, the time travellers simply go to a parallel universe that’s similar to the one they came from, up to the point where the time travellers appear.

I disagree on this point. I think the act of traveling through time is what creates the alternate universe, which diverges at the point The travelers arrive.

Though I’d argue that, based on the obvious pre-Kelvin differences in ST09, Spock was slightly mistaken and he and Nero traveled to an already-existing alternate universe in addition to traveling back in time. But that’s mostly head-canon.

Warbler said:

You demonstrate the problem of time travel in fiction. Cyberdyne sends a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner in order to prevent the existence of the guy that will eventually defeat Cyberdyne. But if the terminator were successful, John Conner would never exist and wouldn’t end up defeating Cyberdyne and therefore Cyberdyne would have no reason to send a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner.

Right. This is why I prefer T1, because the time travel makes sense - it’s single-timeline, closed-loop, no-paradox travel. Skynet was unaware that it worked like that and hoped they’d change the past rather than cause it to happen.

All the sequels (including T2, which I do love) fuck this up by implying (or outright stating) that time travel can change things, and it’s rarely clear if it creates new timelines/parallel universes or changes the existing timeline.

This is actually a problem I have with Looper, specifically the scene where the guy’s past self gets tortured and he starts losing body parts as it happens. It makes no goddamn sense and contradicts time travel rules established in the film itself. The guy should just wink out of existence (if it’s single-timeline), or nothing should happen to him at all (if it’s multiple-timeline).

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

You demonstrate the problem of time travel in fiction. Skynet sends a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner in order to prevent the existence of the guy that will eventually defeat Skynet. But if the terminator were successful, John Conner would never exist and wouldn’t end up defeating Skynet and therefore Skynet would have no reason to send a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner.

Right. This is why I prefer T1, because the time travel makes sense - it’s single-timeline, closed-loop, no-paradox travel. Skynet was unaware that it worked like that and hoped they’d change the past rather than cause it to happen.

But it doesn’t make sense. Skynet should have been smart enough to realize that if had succeeded in preventing the John Conner from existing, Skynet would then have no reason to send the Terminator back in time and then John Conner would exist, then he wouldn’t and then he would and then he wouldn’t . . . see the problem? Why didn’t didn’t Skynet?

Frank your Majesty said:

I’m not a Star Trek expert, but that is basically how travelling back in time and changing things works in a multiverse without throwing causality out of the window. If the existence of parallel universes is already established and that you can travel to them, why go through the hassle of having to explain a mechanism of how a universe us created by the act of travelling back in time? Where does the energy to create that universe come from?

Other franchises use other time travel mechanisms. Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban is one example of how time travel works without parallel universes, while keeping causality and making at least some sense.

I am not sure of your point, but the time travel in Prisoner Of Azkaban works perfectly imho. That is the way it should work.

Warbler said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

You demonstrate the problem of time travel in fiction. Skynet sends a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner in order to prevent the existence of the guy that will eventually defeat Skynet. But if the terminator were successful, John Conner would never exist and wouldn’t end up defeating Skynet and therefore Skynet would have no reason to send a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner.

Right. This is why I prefer T1, because the time travel makes sense - it’s single-timeline, closed-loop, no-paradox travel. Skynet was unaware that it worked like that and hoped they’d change the past rather than cause it to happen.

But it doesn’t make sense. Skynet should have been smart enough to realize that if had succeeded in preventing the John Conner from existing, Skynet would then have no reason to send the Terminator back in time and then John Conner would exist, then he wouldn’t and then he would and then he wouldn’t . . . see the problem? Why didn’t didn’t Skynet?

I almost see it as an experiment on Skynet’s part - they didn’t know how time travel would work until they tried it, and since they were already losing, why not try? It’s not like they would care if it ended up breaking the universe, at least that way the humans don’t win.

Turned out (at least in T1) time travel worked the same way it does in Prisoner of Azkaban - no alternate timelines, no disruption of causality or paradoxes, and free will probably doesn’t exist because it always happened that way.

Frank your Majesty said:

Then there is the closed loop, like in Harry Potter, which makes lots of sense, but allows for some paradoxes and negates free will. Also, alternate timelines can’t exist.

What paradoxes does it create?

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Holy fucking shit warb this is insane, even for you.

what?

Reading your responses here makes me want to smash my head into a brick wall until my head isn’t there anymore.

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Holy fucking shit warb this is insane, even for you.

what?

Reading your responses here makes me want to smash my head into a brick wall until my head isn’t there anymore.

But why?

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Holy fucking shit warb this is insane, even for you.

what?

Reading your responses here makes me want to smash my head into a brick wall until my head isn’t there anymore.

But why?

Your staunch refusal to accept plain facts.

But what facts have I refused to accept?

That the Kelvin timeline is an alternate universe and doesn’t overwrite the prime timeline.

Official canon says it, the movie says it, Abrams and the writers say it, but you continue to assert that it’s not the case even while arguing that official canon trumps everything else in other cases.

ChainsawAsh said:

That the Kelvin timeline is an alternate universe and doesn’t overwrite the prime timeline.

Official canon says it, the movie says it, Abrams and the writers say it, but you continue to assert that it’s not the case even while arguing that official canon trumps everything else in other cases.

All of this, plus you refuse to accept the possibility in general that time travel can create an alternate universe (which, might actually the most likely scenario, were time travel to actually exist).

ChainsawAsh said:

That the Kelvin timeline is an alternate universe and doesn’t overwrite the prime timeline.

That is not fact, that is opinion.

Official canon says it,

That depends on how one interprets the events of Star Trek 2009, when it part of official canon.

the movie says it,

That depends on how one interprets the events of Star Trek 2009.

Abrams and the writers say it,

I will accept as fact that Abrams and the writers say it.

but you continue to assert that it’s not the case even while arguing that official canon trumps everything else in other cases.

Official canon does Trump everything else. We just disagree on whether or not official canon says that the Kelvin timeline overwrites Prime Timeline. It comes down to interpretation of events of Star Trek (2009).

DominicCobb said:

ChainsawAsh said:

That the Kelvin timeline is an alternate universe and doesn’t overwrite the prime timeline.

Official canon says it, the movie says it, Abrams and the writers say it, but you continue to assert that it’s not the case even while arguing that official canon trumps everything else in other cases.

All of this, plus you refuse to accept the possibility in general that time travel can create an alternate universe

I do that because the idea doesn’t make sense to me.

(which, might actually the most likely scenario, were time travel to actually exist).

It is? I disagree. I think if time travel were to actually exist, it would work like we see in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

ChainsawAsh said:

That the Kelvin timeline is an alternate universe and doesn’t overwrite the prime timeline.

Official canon says it, the movie says it, Abrams and the writers say it, but you continue to assert that it’s not the case even while arguing that official canon trumps everything else in other cases.

All of this, plus you refuse to accept the possibility in general that time travel can create an alternate universe

I do that because the idea doesn’t make sense to me.

(which, might actually the most likely scenario, were time travel to actually exist).

It is? I disagree. I think if time travel were to actually exist, it would work like we see in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

I think that is also very possible. What certainly is not possible is that time travel would just overwrite an existing timeline, which is what you are suggesting.