What's the recommended way of watching Star Trek?

[Maxternal]

The time travel thing is all Q's fault.

/argument

 

[smf]

Boldly asserting so doesn't demonstrate how.

I have, you're ignoring it.

Without a multiple realities approach or a self-contingency principle, you have a paradox because you can't have Tasha experience A and B. You're arguing that it's past, present, and future. She either does X or she doesn't. If you can resolve the Grandfather Paradox without a multiple realities approach or a self-contingency approach, please share. I understand that no one's asking me to, but if all you're going to do is repeat yourself and argue against strawmen without adding anything new or resolving your paradoxes, then I'm probably not going to continue this conversation.

I'm repeating myself because you keep ignoring the paradox that is only produced with multiple time lines.

With a single time line you could argue that one person somehow retains knowledge of the previous events that have temporarily not happened when the universe flipped. But with multiple time lines this doesn't happen.

Reread my post dealing with the possible breakdowns of timelines in Yesterday's Enterprise. Ignoring the fact that saying "this timeline happened first" is a nonsensical statement, which you apparently didn't figure out when I had you mull over that statement, my breakdowns of the timelines actually show this to be a moot point because it doesn't happen like you're saying I said it did, particularly in my first breakdown. What you're doing is called a strawman fallacy.

It's not nonsensical for a timeline to happen first, you can't go back in time and create a new timeline until the events in the original time line have taken place. If you're saying that a time line is created before the events that caused it to be created, then that is a new theory as it involves a detachment of cause and effect. If you aren't assuming a linear cause and effect then multiple time lines aren't required to resolve the grandfather paradox. The way Star Trek 2009 is written assumes linear cause and effect. For Old Spock to have memories of his adventures with Old Kirk, they must have happened before he meets Young Kirk & it's his actions in the old time line that create the new time line. Therefore all the stories in the original cast movies happened first.

The Klingon war has to happen first for it to make any sense in a multiple time line universe. She can't die in the new time line until the Enterprise-C is sent back to stop the war. Knowing about those events is the opposite of the Grandfather paradox, because of that it's incompatible with any theory that resolves the Grandfather paradox.

See "Reverse Grandfather Paradox".

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TemporalParadox

You haven't accurately described a single paradox caused by a multiple timelines approach, nor have you reconciled the paradoxes without that approach.

I have, you're ignoring it. You can't resolve all the paradoxes because the writers have made it impossible. I don't think you've considered that & so you are convinced that it's actually possible to explain it paradox free. Pointing out the paradoxes in Star Trek with a retrofitted multiple time line theory doesn't require me to come up with a theory that resolves them, it's pointless anyway as the writers can keep on making mistakes that introduce paradoxes with any theory I come up with.

I'll let you think about why this statement is nonsensical. Regardless, I explained earlier how this isn't even the case. I refer you back to my breakdown of the timelines in Yesterday's Enterprise. For those two reasons, it is not a paradox. The only way it is a paradox is if you don't employ a multiple timelines approach.

You're mistaken & I've proved it enough. You either don't understand the multiple time line theory or you're not prepared to see the paradoxes caused by applying it to certain Star Trek stories. There is no theory that can be applied to both our universe and the Star Trek universe. While we can observe our universe and perform tests on it, the only evidence we have for the Star Trek universe is the flawed story lines we've inherited from decades of different writers.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TimeyWimeyBall
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Retcon

 

[xist]

By jove, Enterprise was randomly on and i caught 20 minutes of it yesterday....Linda Park is indeed foxy in the "In a Mirror, Darkly" episodes.

 

[ProtoKun7]

ITT: No one understands time travel as well as me.

@xist: Yes indeed; the Mirror Universe has that habit.

 

[Lacius]

I'm repeating myself because you keep ignoring the paradox that is only produced with multiple time lines.

With a single time line you could argue that one person somehow retains knowledge of the previous events that have temporarily not happened when the universe flipped. But with multiple time lines this doesn't happen.

You've neither a.) demonstrated a real paradox with the multiple timelines approach (see below), nor b.) reconciled the paradoxes with your single timeline approach.

The Klingon war has to happen first for it to make any sense in a multiple time line universe. She can't die in the new time line until the Enterprise-C is sent back to stop the war. Knowing about those events is the opposite of the Grandfather paradox, because of that it's incompatible with any theory that resolves the Grandfather paradox.

Right, and I've referred you numerous times to my breakdown of Yesterday's Enterprise in which the timeline in which Tasha is killed by the tar monster "happens first" as you define it. Stop attacking strawmen.

You can't resolve all the paradoxes because the writers have made it impossible.

Well, I've apparently resolved each one that has come my way. If you're going to argue that I can't resolve a paradox with the multiple timelines approach or that the writers made it impossible, you're going to have to demonstrate this.

Again, however, I'm not arguing that time travel in Star Trek is perfect. Some episodes require some bold assumptions for the paradoxes to be resolved at all, but we haven't talked about any of those episodes.

Pointing out the paradoxes in Star Trek with a retrofitted multiple time line theory doesn't require me to come up with a theory that resolves them

Arguing that there are paradoxes in a multiple timelines approach but not with a single timeline approach requires that you come up with a concept that resolves the paradoxes of a single timeline approach. It also requires that you demonstrate the paradoxes with a multiple timelines approach. Fake paradoxes you've made up for the purposes of strawman arguments don't count.

While we can observe our universe and perform tests on it, the only evidence we have for the Star Trek universe is the flawed story lines we've inherited from decades of different writers.

That doesn't mean the paradoxes can't be resolved.

 

[smf]

You've neither a.) demonstrated a real paradox with the multiple timelines approach (see below), nor b.) reconciled the paradoxes with your single timeline approach.

I don't need to reconcile it, only prove that the writers had previously used a single timeline theory when they wrote the episode.

Right, and I've referred you numerous times to my breakdown of Yesterday's Enterprise in which the timeline in which Tasha is killed by the tar monster "happens first" as you define it. Stop attacking strawmen.


Well, I've apparently resolved each one that has come my way. If you're going to argue that I can't resolve a paradox with the multiple timelines approach or that the writers made it impossible, you're going to have to demonstrate this.

Tar monster can't happen first. I'm not attacking a strawman, I'm attacking how you twist events to make them fit your theory.

You say:

Actually, Yesterday's Enterprise employs the multiple timelines concept. Natasha Yar's presence on the Enterprise-C in the prime timeline is analogous to elderly Spock's presence in the alternate timeline created in the 2009 movie.

This is not the same thing at all. Spock travelled backwards in time to get to the alternate timeline & it was his actions in the future that created the timeline. We have no evidence at all that Natasha manipulated time to arrive in the Klingon war.
If you have a better explanation of the timeline then please share it (or link to it as I've searched and can't find it).

Again, however, I'm not arguing that time travel in Star Trek is perfect. Some episodes require some bold assumptions for the paradoxes to be resolved at all, but we haven't talked about any of those episodes.

I hate to think how twisted your logic has to be to resolve those episodes within a multiple time line universe, when a simple episodes like this requires so much misinterpretation on your part.

Arguing that there are paradoxes in a multiple timelines approach but not with a single timeline approach requires that you come up with a concept that resolves the paradoxes of a single timeline approach. It also requires that you demonstrate the paradoxes with a multiple timelines approach. Fake paradoxes you've made up for the purposes of strawman arguments don't count.


That doesn't mean the paradoxes can't be resolved.

Again, I don't need to resolve any paradoxes to prove the multiple time line theory wrong. This is the whole point about theories, you can only ever disprove them.

You can't resolve the paradoxes because you cannot introduce anything into the Star Trek universe. To do that you need to get a job as a writer for the next movie.

 

[Lacius]

Tar monster can't happen first. I'm not attacking a strawman, I'm attacking how you twist events to make them fit your theory.

No, I'm afraid you aren't following what's possibly happening in the episode.

• Timeline 1: The Enterprise-C (TL1) isn't pulled into the future because no future exists to be pulled into. The ship is destroyed, and the events of the prime timeline take place as we've already seen. Sela doesn't exist.
• Timeline 2: The Enterprise-C (TL2) is pulled into the future of Timeline 1. There likely isn't any reason for the Enterprise-C (TL2) to return to this timeline. The war with the Klingons occurs. This is the alternate future depicted in Yesterday's Enterprise.
• Timeline 3: The Enterprise-C (TL3) is pulled into the future of Timeline 2. The events of the past shown in Yesterday's Enterprise happen here. The Enterprise-C (TL3) is sent back and is destroyed, and the rest of the timeline follows almost identically to Timeline 1. Sela exists.

Another possibility:

• Timeline 1: The Enterprise-C (Unified TL) is pulled into the future of Timeline 1 and skips over that amount of time. The war with the Klingons occurs. This is the alternate future depicted in Yesterday's Enterprise.
• Timeline 2: The Enterprise-C (Unified TL) returns from the future of Timeline 1. The events of the past shown in Yesterday's Enterprise happen here. The Enterprise-C (Unified TL) is sent back and is destroyed, and the rest of the prime timeline follows. Sela exists.

Talking about what happened first in regards to backwards time travel is as nonsensical as asking where the other realities are spatially. By definition, these timelines are concurrent, and that's not at all paradoxical, particularly when causality isn't being violated. Even if it weren't nonsensical, what you're claiming I said isn't at all what I said. Happy strawmanning.

 

[smf]

Talking about what happened first in regards to backwards time travel is as nonsensical as asking where the other realities are spatially.

You're getting confused between local time and causation, First refers to causation & it makes perfect sense.

By definition, these timelines are concurrent

Who's definition? Concurrent is pretty meaningless when time is only a local manifestation. I'm not aware of any Star Trek TV or movie that explains how the universe works in that level of detail. They tend to stick to how it's observed within the timeline, not the universe structure that supports it.

and that's not at all paradoxical, particularly when causality isn't being violated.

Your version of the timelines does actually violate causality. The Enterprise-C doesn't get pulled forward in time, a temporal rift is created by the battle and it travels 22 years into the future.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Temporal_rift

"In 2344, the USS Enterprise -C drifted through a symmetrical temporal rift, which itself was formed through the intense energy discharges of weapons fire as the ship defended the Klingon outpost at Narendra III from a Romulan attack."

It's the Enterprise-C getting destroyed in battle that prevents the Klingon war shown in Yesterday's Enterprise. Only when the Enterprise-C returns through the rift can it be destroyed. Even if it is sitting in the rift for 22 years waiting for the rest of the universe to catch up, it hasn't been destroyed in the battle.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Narendra_III

"In 2344, the outpost was attacked and destroyed by four Romulan warbirds, an assault which was later known as the Battle of Narendra III. The Federation starship USS Enterprise-C responded to the outpost's distress call, but was also lost in the battle. This course of action was considered as an act of honor by the Klingon Empire, which led to the signing of a new peace treaty. "

However if we continue reading.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Temporal_rift

"The Enterprise-C's actions in the past had the effect of returning the timeline to normal,"

It fundamentally violates multiple time line theory.

memory alpha could be misrepresenting events, but I'll let you take that up with them.

It seems to me that the writers were thinking of time travel in a single timeline universe, they might introduce paradoxes because they didn't do a good enough job but multiple time lines doesn't really fix it.

For instance, only one of your timelines can be prime, while you seem to be mixing between your timeline 1 & 3.

The only way I can see multiple time line working is if the episode starts and ends with prime and the bit in the middle is a previous timeline where the Klingon war occurred.

Even if it weren't nonsensical, what you're claiming I said isn't at all what I said.

I quoted you in context, can't do any better than that.

Happy strawmanning.

How is the Chewbacca defence working for you?

 

[Lacius]

You're getting confused between local time and causation

You don't seem to understand that causality is a temporal concept.

Who's definition? Concurrent is pretty meaningless when time is only a local manifestation. I'm not aware of any Star Trek TV or movie that explains how the universe works in that level of detail. They tend to stick to how it's observed within the timeline, not the universe structure that supports it.



Your version of the timelines does actually violate causality. The Enterprise-C doesn't get pulled forward in time, a temporal rift is created by the battle and it travels 22 years into the future.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Temporal_rift

"In 2344, the USS Enterprise -C drifted through a symmetrical temporal rift, which itself was formed through the intense energy discharges of weapons fire as the ship defended the Klingon outpost at Narendra III from a Romulan attack."

It's the Enterprise-C getting destroyed in battle that prevents the Klingon war shown in Yesterday's Enterprise. Only when the Enterprise-C returns through the rift can it be destroyed. Even if it is sitting in the rift for 22 years waiting for the rest of the universe to catch up, it hasn't been destroyed in the battle.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Narendra_III

"In 2344, the outpost was attacked and destroyed by four Romulan warbirds, an assault which was later known as the Battle of Narendra III. TheFederation starship USS Enterprise-C responded to the outpost's distress call, but was also lost in the battle. This course of action was considered as an act of honor by the Klingon Empire, which led to the signing of a new peace treaty. "

However if we continue reading.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Temporal_rift

"The Enterprise-C's actions in the past had the effect of returning the timeline to normal,"

It fundamentally violates multiple time line theory.

memory alpha could be misrepresenting events, but I'll let you take that up with them.

It seems to me that the writers were thinking of time travel in a single timeline universe, they might introduce paradoxes because they didn't do a good enough job but multiple time lines doesn't really fix it.

For instance, only one of your timelines can be prime, while you seem to be mixing between your timeline 1 & 3.

The only way I can see multiple time line working is if the episode starts and ends with prime and the bit in the middle is a previous timeline where the Klingon war occurred.



I quoted you in context, can't do any better than that.



How is the Chewbacca defence working for you?

I refer you back to my breakdown of Yesterday's Enterprise. It clearly doesn't violate causality at all how you describe, and that's a strawman.

 

[ProtoKun7]

• ENTERPRISE-C TURNS UP
• SHUNTS A NEW TIMELINE IN THAT GUINAN NOTICES
• ENTERPRISE-C NICKS ALTERNATE LIEUTENANT YAR
• ENTERPRISE-C RETURNS
• TIMELINE COLLAPSES
• GUINAN SPOTS THAT EVERYTHING IS FINE AGAIN
• TIMELINE RETROACTIVELY ALWAYS HAD ALTERNATE YAR IN IT
• GUINAN EXISTS ALONG AN EXTRA TEMPORAL PLANE MAKING HER SENSITIVE TO THIS SORT OF THING
• DON'T QUESTION THE TIME LORD
• I KNOW ALL

 

[Lacius]

• ENTERPRISE-C TURNS UP
• SHUNTS A NEW TIMELINE IN THAT GUINAN NOTICES
• ENTERPRISE-C NICKS ALTERNATE LIEUTENANT YAR
• ENTERPRISE-C RETURNS
• TIMELINE COLLAPSES
• GUINAN SPOTS THAT EVERYTHING IS FINE AGAIN
• TIMELINE RETROACTIVELY ALWAYS HAD ALTERNATE YAR IN IT
• GUINAN EXISTS ALONG AN EXTRA TEMPORAL PLANE MAKING HER SENSITIVE TO THIS SORT OF THING
• DON'T QUESTION THE TIME LORD
• I KNOW ALL

If sending the Enterprise-C back in time prevents Yar from traveling back in time with the Enterprise-C because she dies on Vagra II, then Yar shouldn't be on board the Enterprise-C. It's a paradox if you don't employ a multiple realities approach. It's a form of the grandfather paradox. The act of time travel has prevented the act of time travel. Without the act of time travel, the act of time travel happens. With the act of time travel, the act of time travel is prevented. Without the act of time travel, the act of time travel happens. With the act of time travel, the act of time travel is prevented. Without the act of time travel, the act of time travel happens...

 

[ProtoKun7]

No, multiple timelines are supported. Yar left that timeline aboard the Enterprise-C, so whatever became of that timeline didn't affect her as she was no longer in it.

 

[smf]

I refer you back to my breakdown of Yesterday's Enterprise. It clearly doesn't violate causality at all how you describe, and that's a strawman.

It clearly does violate causality. Causality is the relationship between the cause and the event. You changed the cause of why the Enterprise-C went into the future from what is described in the episode and what is accepted canon.

It's not a strawman to point out that your timeline has different causality than what happened in the episode.

If sending the Enterprise-C back in time prevents Yar from traveling back in time with the Enterprise-C because she dies on Vagra II, then Yar shouldn't be on board the Enterprise-C. It's a paradox if you don't employ a multiple realities approach. It's a form of the grandfather paradox. The act of time travel has prevented the act of time travel. Without the act of time travel, the act of time travel happens. With the act of time travel, the act of time travel is prevented. Without the act of time travel, the act of time travel happens. With the act of time travel, the act of time travel is prevented. Without the act of time travel, the act of time travel happens...

Can you explain how Yar's presence on the Enterprise-C changes whether it can go through the rift?

In a single time line universe the grandfather paradox would only be relevant if she existed after the Enterprise-C was destroyed, because this is the cause of the peace treaty being signed. Just going through the rift wasn't enough as they could have just warped out of the battle.

 

[Lacius]

No, multiple timelines are supported. Yar left that timeline aboard the Enterprise-C, so whatever became of that timeline didn't affect her as she was no longer in it.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. If you're arguing that there are not multiple concurrently existing realities/timelines, then you're arguing for:

a.) self-consistency, which by definition isn't happening in Yesterday's Enterprise

b.) a never-ending cycle of Yar either dying (and not going back in time) or living (and subsequently going back in time). I refer you to my previous painted wall example.

Since both of those things are paradoxes (and A wouldn't apply if it weren't), that only leaves concurrently existing realities.

It clearly does violate causality. Causality is the relationship between the cause and the event. You changed the cause of why the Enterprise-C went into the future from what is described in the episode and what is accepted canon.

It's not a strawman to point out that your timeline has different causality than what happened in the episode.

You haven't given a single example of causality being violated with a multiple timelines approach. Neither of my rundowns of the timelines in Yesterday's Enterprise violates causality, and only one includes an unsubstantiated presupposition. Regardless, my rundowns are irrelevant. Where's the paradox in any interpretation of a multiple timelines approach to Yesterday's Enterprise? What you described with Guinan being aware of the timeline in which Yar died isn't a violation of causality. I'd define causality here, but you've already done it.

Can you explain how Yar's presence on the Enterprise-C changes whether it can go through the rift?

I didn't claim that Yar's presence inherently changed anything. The Enterprise-C's actions in the past do, however, make a difference.

In a single time line universe the grandfather paradox would only be relevant if she existed after the Enterprise-C was destroyed, because this is the cause of the peace treaty being signed. Just going through the rift wasn't enough as they could have just warped out of the battle.

By going back in time, regardless of whether or not Yar is there, the Enterprise-C's presence creates a timeline in which the Enterprise-C doesn't arrive in a dystopian future and go back in time to prevent it. At the very least, it creates a timeline in which Yar does not go back in time.

The grandfather paradox, in short, is a very specific example of one's actions in the past preventing one taking those actions in the past. The Enterprise-C's actions in the past prevent Yar from going back in time. That's the paradox. For example:

March 1: I build a time machine.
March 2: I go back in time.

March 1: I arrive from the future and destroy the time machine.
March 2: I don't go back in time.

March 1: I build a time machine. No one travels back in time to destroy the time machine.
March 2: I go back in time.

...

That's a paradox. Backwards time travel has to be self-consistent or employ multiple concurrently existing realities for it to be paradox-free. I'm not sure why ya'll aren't getting this. Imagine a timeline is like a car that comes to a fork in the road. If you're arguing for a single timeline, then the car (in the end) ultimately goes right or left. Yar's death by the tar monster and Sela's existence are mutually exclusive in a single reality approach. Referring back to my previous examples, what color is the wall ultimately? What is the rope tied to?

 

[smf]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. If you're arguing that there are not multiple concurrently existing realities/timelines, then you're arguing for:

a.) self-consistency, which by definition isn't happening in Yesterday's Enterprise

b.) a never-ending cycle of Yar either dying (and not going back in time) or living (and subsequently going back in time). I refer you to my previous painted wall example.

Since both of those things are paradoxes (and A wouldn't apply if it weren't), that only leaves concurrently existing realities.

You haven't been reading what I have been saying. I am arguing for what the writers intended when they created the episode, whether that produces paradoxes or not. If they wrote it with self-consistency but made a mistake which meant it couldn't happen like that, then self-consistency still applies. Fans can't make changes or add events to resolve the paradoxes. If the franchise owners authorize officially authorise revising the episodes with then that would be ok, but they would have to admit it first. They could for example just say that all time travel episodes were training exercises that took place on the holodeck.

You haven't given a single example of causality being violated with a multiple timelines approach. Neither of my rundowns of the timelines in Yesterday's Enterprise violates causality, and only one includes an unsubstantiated presupposition.

Your unsubstantiated presupposition violates causality, because it affects the cause of the Enterprise-C going forward in time.

Regardless, my rundowns are irrelevant. Where's the paradox in any interpretation of a multiple timelines approach to Yesterday's Enterprise? What you described with Guinan being aware of the timeline in which Yar died isn't a violation of causality. I'd define causality here, but you've already done it.

If you only use events that happen in the episode but interpret them within a multiple time line universe, then the prime time line is created at the end of the episode when the Enterprise-C is sent back. Prime is the timeline where the tar monster kills Yar. Having this kind of knowledge is known as reverse grandfather paradox and is incompatible with multiple time line universes. Guinan would have to be able to predict the future to be sensitive to a time line that hadn't been created yet.

You seem to be suggesting that Yar dies because of the tar monster in two different time lines, but those timelines have 20 years to diverge. If there was a timeline where the Enterprise-C wasn't pulled forward in time then whatever caused that to happen is just as likely to stop Yar being killed by the tar monster.

By going back in time, regardless of whether or not Yar is there, the Enterprise-C's presence creates a timeline in which the Enterprise-C doesn't arrive in a dystopian future and go back in time to prevent it. At the very least, it creates a timeline in which Yar does not go back in time.

The timeline is only create by going back in time in a multiple time line universe, when switching between theories you need to adjust to this type of thing as well. The Klingon war timeline is only closed by the Enterprise-C being destroyed.

The Enterprise-C might go back in time anyway, grandfather paradox only covers specific things that can't happen anyway (like you being born because your grandfathers DNA is required). If we saw the battle then we might have more clues as to what the writers were thinking. Speculating on whether she was present in the canon of the prime time line after going back through the rift is pointless. But in terms of the dialogue in the episode the Klingon war timeline is a temporary timeline that only exists while the Enterprise-C is in the future.

I've noticed you apply causality with much greater rigidity in an opposition theory than you do in your own.

 

[Lacius]

You haven't been reading what I have been saying. I am arguing for what the writers intended when they created the episode, whether that produces paradoxes or not. If they wrote it with self-consistency but made a mistake which meant it couldn't happen like that, then self-consistency still applies. Fans can't make changes or add events to resolve the paradoxes. If the franchise owners authorize officially authorise revising the episodes with then that would be ok, but they would have to admit it first. They could for example just say that all time travel episodes were training exercises that took place on the holodeck.

I don't care what the writers intended. I'm merely resolving the existing paradoxes. Fortunately, the writers were vague enough about the implications of time travel that what I'm offering fits the canon.

Your unsubstantiated presupposition violates causality, because it affects the cause of the Enterprise-C going forward in time.

If you only use events that happen in the episode but interpret them within a multiple time line universe, then the prime time line is created at the end of the episode when the Enterprise-C is sent back. Prime is the timeline where the tar monster kills Yar. Having this kind of knowledge is known as reverse grandfather paradox and is incompatible with multiple time line universes. Guinan would have to be able to predict the future to be sensitive to a time line that hadn't been created yet.

First of all, that's only one interpretation of how the timelines are structured in a multiple realities approach; I posted two of them. Second, that's not a violation of causality as you defined it. As I already explained, Guinan's knowledge of the timeline in which Yar died isn't a violation of causality, with or without the existence of timelines that led up to the war timeline that were nearly identical to the prime one. I don't know how many times I have to tell you to reread my post.

You seem to be suggesting that Yar dies because of the tar monster in two different time lines, but those timelines have 20 years to diverge. If there was a timeline where the Enterprise-C wasn't pulled forward in time then whatever caused that to happen is just as likely to stop Yar being killed by the tar monster.

If the Enterprise-C hadn't been pulled into the future, it's unlikely the timeline would have been much different from the prime one in which the backwards time travel happened. Even if it were, that's irrelevant to the causality conversation we're having.

The Enterprise-C might go back in time anyway, grandfather paradox only covers specific things that can't happen anyway (like you being born because your grandfathers DNA is required).

I think you need to do some research on what the grandfather paradox broadly describes. If the Enterprise-C doesn't go back in time, Yar lives to go back in time. If the Enterprise-C does go back in time, Yar dies and the events leading to her time travel don't occur.

Speculating on whether she was present in the canon of the prime time line after going back through the rift is pointless.

I wasn't aware we were speculating that. Sela exists. This specific paradox is also the reason why a multiple timelines approach is required. You seem to have missed the entire point of this conversation.

But in terms of the dialogue in the episode the Klingon war timeline is a temporary timeline that only exists while the Enterprise-C is in the future.

First of all, no, the dialogue doesn't explicitly state that. Second, even if it had, that doesn't mean they weren't wrong. Third, if they had said that, that wouldn't resolve the paradoxes.

I've noticed you apply causality with much greater rigidity in an opposition theory than you do in your own.

I suggest you reread my descriptions of how a multiple timeline approach can lead to the illusion of self-consistency in regards to causality. You haven't given a single example of causality being violated in either of my multiple timelines approaches. With or without the catalyst timelines I described in my first breakdown, your points about Guinan and Yar don't necessarily have anything to do with causality.

 

[Engert]

I'd like to open a thread on people's interpretations on movie endings. Inception for example.

 

[Tuddles]

first series is campy but perfect 60s show watch it, all other st series are turds long live the 60s

btw i got a borg lady bot

 

[smf]

I don't care what the writers intended. I'm merely resolving the existing paradoxes. Fortunately, the writers were vague enough about the implications of time travel that what I'm offering fits the canon.

The writers weren't vague on this though, what you're saying doesn't fit the canon. It's like you've rewritten history and made your mind up on it. Nothing I say is going to change it, because you're blind to criticism.

First of all, that's only one interpretation of how the timelines are structured in a multiple realities approach; I posted two of them. Second, that's not a violation of causality as you defined it. As I already explained, Guinan's knowledge of the timeline in which Yar died isn't a violation of causality, with or without the existence of timelines that led up to the war timeline that were nearly identical to the prime one. I don't know how many times I have to tell you to reread my post.

I have, read it. I've repeatedly pointed you towards Reverse Grandfather paradox as to why Guinan cannot know about Yar at that point in the time line, you're just not accepting it. Your extra timeline violates causality & you need that to resolve Guinan.

If the Enterprise-C hadn't been pulled into the future, it's unlikely the timeline would have been much different from the prime one in which the backwards time travel happened. Even if it were, that's irrelevant to the causality conversation we're having.

It's very relevant. Making up events to force the onscreen events to fit a multi time line universe are likely to create a butterfly effect that we can't predict.

I think you need to do some research on what the grandfather paradox broadly describes. If the Enterprise-C doesn't go back in time, Yar lives to go back in time. If the Enterprise-C does go back in time, Yar dies and the events leading to her time travel don't occur.

Again you're arguing that there is any significance to Yar being on the Enterprise-C when it goes back through the rift. Grandfather paradox is only relevant when an event can only happen if you're not there because what you're doing would prevent you from being there. Her time travel has no bearing on the Enterprise-C going back through the rift.

I wasn't aware we were speculating that. Sela exists. This specific paradox is also the reason why a multiple timelines approach is required. You seem to have missed the entire point of this conversation.

The entire point of this conversation is that I say that the stories should be left alone and we can discuss the writers mistakes, while you want to make up paradoxes that don't exist to justify a multi time line universe that introduces paradoxes that you then deny. When I point them out you change your story and then say I'm building strawmen. I think that covers it.

Your whole point about needing multiple time lines because yar needs to be on the Enterprise-C when it goes back, relies on the assumption that yar is on the Enterprise-C when it gets back to the battle and the timeline doesn't just repair itself. I wouldn't expect you to speculate that because it doesn't fit in with your blinkered view that Star Trek can be explained with multiple time lines if you rewrite events enough. You can also rewrite events enough that multiple time lines aren't required, but what is the point in rewriting anything? Are you really just trying to win the No-Prize? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-Prize

With or without the catalyst timelines I described in my first breakdown, your points about Guinan and Yar don't necessarily have anything to do with causality.

Without a made up timeline that introduces paradoxes itself, then the problem with Guinan is reverse grandfather paradox as she knows about events that haven't happened in any of the time lines that have currently been created. I assume you've not bothered to research that.