How would time travel affect a war between SW and ST?

[Batman]

How many times do I have to say it? he very fact that the events you want to prevent happened means you DID. NOT. PREVENT THEM.
Is this seriously that hard a concept to grasp?

[Bakustra]

How many times do I have to say it? he very fact that the events you want to prevent happened means you DID. NOT. PREVENT THEM.
Is this seriously that hard a concept to grasp?

*skraawk* *whistle*
So you're not responding to my posts at all. I wish I could say I was surprised. So what exactly are you doing in this thread, unless you're just desperate for a cracker? Trolling, like Stark suggests? Being an actual parrot that just failed the Turing Test?

But if you're dumber than the typical parrot, say about beetle-level, or if there's anybody reading this that's still confused, let me just say that in City on the Edge of Forever the future is altered by a change in the past. It is possible, using the Guardian of Forever or slingshotting around the Sun, to alter the past.

PS: Any more parroting will be replaced with parrot noises.

[Darth Tedious]

Has anyone actually thought about how stupid the idea of Temporal Police is?

If the timeline could actually be altered, they would never know, because it would appear to have always been that way. The only thing they would be able to do is look through recorded instances of time travel and speculate on what the effects were.

As for 'Mirror, mirror', the demonstrated ability to move horizontally between timelines probably shouldn't be brought up in an argument against the idea of alternate timelines...

[Bakustra]

Has anyone actually thought about how stupid the idea of Temporal Police is?

If the timeline could actually be altered, they would never know, because it would appear to have always been that way. The only thing they would be able to do is look through recorded instances of time travel and speculate on what the effects were.

As for 'Mirror, mirror', the demonstrated ability to move horizontally between timelines probably shouldn't be brought up in an argument against the idea of alternate timelines...

How do you know that things can't be tracked? In City on the Edge of Forever, Spock was building a machine to do just that with stuff lying around in interwar New York. I'm guess that future people might have more robust versions, or may keep in touch with alternate timelines to track down changes by swapping records.

I'm not arguing against alternate timelines. Read carefully.

[Darth Tedious]

If you can alter the original timeline, there won't be an alternate timeline to compare against. That's the whole problem. It suggests that the time-travellers are indeed moving universe, and not altering history.

[Bakustra]

Here, I'll outline my argument for you again. We know from City on the Edge of Forever, Star Trek IV, First Contact, and Trials and Tribble-lations that it is possible to alter the past meaningfully. There are two ways in which this can happen- alternate timelines that can't be visited, or actually changing the past. As Back to the Future shows us, the two are nearly indistinguishable, though City on the Edge of Forever and First Contact have problems with the simpler alternate timeline explanations.

But- we see in Mirror, Mirror that there are alternate timelines that can be visited. In order for there to be visitable alternate timelines and a meaningful way to alter the past, then the past must be alterable, regardless of whether this makes sense on first glance or not! In order to preserve the meme of "parallel lol", as Stark eloquently summed it up, one or the other sets of information must be declared inadmissible- but then which to kick out, and how to justify it without descending into picking whichever makes your preferred side win? Not to mention that doing so goes against the very spirit of sci-fi analysis!

Get what I'm arguing for now?

[Baffalo]

There is another theory that says it's impossible to go back in time due to the energy density of the universe.

The universe has a constant amount of energy. You cannot create energy, you cannot destroy energy. This is a basic fundamental of physics. Now, because the universe is expanding (or at least, expanding as we observe it to), that means that the energy density is constantly decreasing. If you open a portal to the past, the two energy densities mean that there is an exchange. This exchange can cause all sorts of hell, because the universe is actually UNSTABLE. That's bad, because at any point in time, the universe might just decide "fuck it, I'm going to become a bit more stable."

And that's just one of the problems. Space and time are intertwined, meaning that if you alter one, you alter the other as well. Gravity is usually seen to affect space by warping it, and it also happens to time. The GPS satellites vital to modern navigation have to account for time actually moving faster in orbit, because while the time may seem negligible to us, those fractions of a second make a hell of a different when you're moving at several thousand kilometers an hour. So what happens if you take a chunk of space and time... and move them to another point? How do you account for creating a literal hole in the universe? Does space and time close in around it? Does it just remain a hole of nothingness?

But let's assume you can work past the problems of actually moving to a point in the past. You're now looking forward, at the future. Either the future will be changed by your actions, or won't be. You don't know the answer to that. Do you risk causing more potential damage? What if your actions cause the initial problem? Or do your actions make your original time travel unnecessary? You just don't know what'll happen. So if you don't know what will happen, even if you're from the future, how do you proceed forward? If you're pursuing an enemy from your own time into the past, it's easy to make the call to kill them. But what if they're going to the past to reinforce their own side, and you know that soon your side will take a huge hit. What do you do? So many questions.

[Stark]

You guys know we're talking about fiction, right?

Since even ST temporal technology allows remote observation without travel, and even 23rd century Spock has some understanding of 'temporal sensors', tracking seems to be the least of their worries.

[Darth Tedious]

The theories of alternate timelines and alterable history are not mutually exclusive. As I said earlier, it would appear to vary depending on the method of time travel used.

[mr friendly guy]

@Stark - in Voyager we see the 29 th century feds able to pull 7 of 9 and Janeway out from their time lines by beaming them out. The limitation is they can't beam through time and shields at the same time, while we see from the episode with Henry Starling 29 th century technology can beam through 24 th century shields quite easily as long as we don't time travel at the same time. Why it should matter is most likely a plot device, but I am sure fans can come up with an answer that doesn't totally suck.
So going on, my suggested tactic would be limited in how far and accurate they can scan.

In answer to your original question, I still think it is worth debating even if only one side has interactive time travel because it doesn't always lead to instant win. Using examples (and I speaking broadly, not just Trek related time travel).

1. Can time travel but can't violate casuality - examples of using beneficial time travel at Kirk saving the whales in ST 4 and my Yoda example. The limitations of course relate to how well you can pin point your target, plus you have to do it in such a way that casuality isn't violated. I believe I have addressed the limitations of Trek trying to do this trick. Thus we have plenty to discuss, and arguably makes it interesting in how they can use time travel without violating casuality.

2. Can time travel and fuck with casuality - eg Back to Future. Some of the same limitations apply in the sense of how far you can travel back, pin point your target (even if you just use historical records instead of alleged 29 th century scanning tech). So even if the Feds can do this, they are limited to finding opportune points in history to alter. The most obvious one is to destroy whatever spatial anomaly of the week / wormhole connects the Wars galaxy to the Milky Way. Other seemingly obvious ones (but actually difficult to implement) is to destroy Palpatine earlier, but since Treknology is still pitifully weak against Wars, they should just stick to the first suggestion.
In this case if someone wants to try the assassinate Palpatine route, we can discuss how to find him and we go back to how the hell you use weaker Treknology to assassinate him.

3. Can time travel, screw casuality over and have sufficient scanning tech to find your target most of the time - eg Time Lords, possibly the temporal powers in the Trek temporal cold war.Generally the limitations thus would be cost of time travel as Bakustra suggests. However it doesn't appear to be that costly for these powers.

That being said, even if one side has time travel and the other has not, it still doesn't necessarily lead to instant win thus can still discuss (obviously not in this particular thread). Why you ask

i) the opponent has ALWAYS existed - in other words you can't wipe them out before they were born. Examples are the Photino Birds from Baxter's Xeeleeverse series. Of course it helped that the Birds were made of Dark matter so they will always out mass Baryonic (our type of matter) matter. So its like a chess game where you are handicapped at the start, minus your queen and some other pieces, but you can redo your move and the opponent can't.

ii) the opponent can somehow defend themselves against time travel even though they can't time travel. The usual sci fi cliche (and I have no idea whether this is accurate since its debatable whether time travel violates physics) is to have a very high gravitational field, like a black hole, since such fields dilate time and generally fuck with it. Off the top of my head this was a plot point in DC comics Legion of Super heroes for a time travelling Darkseid.
However the author can just create any plot device he needs. In the DW EU one side deployed bombs which could lure TARDISes and explode like how the Taliban uses IEDs against Western armour. See the novel "Sky Pirates."

iii) the opponent is in another universe - this is a more obvious one I would have thought. Various beings from other universes (besides the ones the heroes reside in) abound and I don't think I need to give you examples. The only specifically example I can think of in which a time travel side is stymied in this fashion is from the Doctor Who story "The Nightmare Fair", where the Doctor makes an off the cuff comment that the TL failed to locate the Celestial Toymaker's history (hence they couldn't erase him via the usual way even if they wanted to). Later on the Doctor discovers why - the Toymaker originated from another universe.

Obviously only time travel examples 1, and possibly 2 apply to Trek scenarios.

[Baffalo]

You guys know we're talking about fiction, right?

Since even ST temporal technology allows remote observation without travel, and even 23rd century Spock has some understanding of 'temporal sensors', tracking seems to be the least of their worries.

If you're referring to the episodes when Spock is sent back in time, remember that in both cases, there was a direct link between past and present. It's possible that his 'temporal sensors' are in fact normal sensors that use the existing temporal instability to break the barrier. If it were so easy to peer into the future, why doesn't Spock use it to peer into the future to get all his information? Hell, Starfleet Command would love to have a crystal ball to peer into the future. How easy would it be to shift military priorities if you knew that in the next five years, you'll be facing a war with the Klingons? Or the Romulans? If it takes you five years to build starships, by the time you had your new fleet of battleships ready, the Klingons would be coming in to attack only to face a prepared Federation that won't take any of their shit.

What would the situation have been like if their crystal ball had told them of the Borg almost a century before they became a threat? Would Starfleet have begun research into anti-Borg technology early such that, when the Borg did show up, they were able to roll out a century's worth of advancement to kick Borg ass? If you knew every move your enemy was going to make before he made it, you'd be able to beat almost anyone. And I say almost because there's still the problem of having tons of worlds to defend, and given a large enough or powerful enough force, the Federation would be screwed.

[TheHammer]

This doesn't explain the multiple times where they've gone back into the past to save their present from something. I laid it out for you in my post.

They don't save "their" present. They save a near equivalent of their present, that is almost identical - so close that they don't realize that they never actually returned to their original time line. That is why the people who actually participate in time travel remember historical events differently than how they turn out to be following said time travel. The history classes they attended were different from the ones attended by every other person in their new time line. IF they had changed their own history then they'd be like "Oh, so THAT's why I look just like that historical figure". Instead they remember a different face, different sequence of events.

As for their original timeline, well if they are lucky it is actually saved by yet another group of individuals (from another alternate timeline) who thinks that they also have returned to their "own time". But the skew gets wider through different variations until you start to reach universes that are not in fact saved. A univserse where the borg did in fact take over the federation. A universe where the whale probe from ST IV did in fact destroy the earth, a universe with the terran empire (Mirror universe) and an infinite number of other possibilities.

Congratulations, that's actually the entire plot of 'Yesterday's Enterprise'. None of the characters, except for Guinan (who has really a vague feeling of disquiet about her surroundings, she didn't actually remember things being different she just intuitively knew it), could tell the difference. If 'Parallels' were correct, this wouldn't even be possible. Picard and Enterprise would have been unaltered by the Enterprise-C going through the temporal rift. The reality where the Klingons went to war with the Federation would have continued on. All the events of this episode would have been rendered entirely meaningless.

It was meaningless to the universe of "yesterday's enterprise". As Picard noted, he had no idea what would happen when Yar went through the portal, that there was a very real likliehood that his universe would continue on without her. That's the point. If the "timeline were restored" Sela would not exist because her mother would not have existed. It is a paradox that can not be explained by simple time travel. The only explanation for Sela's existence is that her mother was an alternate universe Tasha Yar.

As for Guinan, my guess is her species is somewhat uniquely affected by dimension shifting. Or maybe its because she spent time in that cosmic ribbon thing from ST: Generations. So when it happens she is able to "sense something is wrong". Perhaps, catch a vibe from her alternate universe self.

Similarly 'City on the Edge of Forever' would not have resulted in the Enterprise being wiped from existence by McCoy's intervention in history. The only reason Kirk and co weren't wiped out in the same fashion was because of the Guardian of Forever. If McCoy had simply shifted into a parallel universe, then the existing universe Kirk and co inhabited would not have been affected. They would not have been able to go back in time to fix things because nothing would have been broken! Except that contradicts the entire plot of the episode, and of 'Yesterday's Enterprise', and of 'Star Trek IV' and of 'First Contact' and DS9's 'Past Tense' and 'Children of Time' and every other time travel episode in Star Trek.

What I'm saying is, their very existence would be a paradox in that case. They are given a glimpse of an alternate parallel reality, not of the reality from which they came.

The TNG timeline you watched in season one is not the same one you watch in season seven. Nor has any single trek series covered a single universe. Hell, the finale of TNG "All Good things" show's an alternate future with a refit Enterprise D, rather than crashed in "Generations", and a "professor Data" who died in the last TNG movie.

The Episode "parallels" is the only thing that explains the numerous contradictions and paradoxes we witness in TNG. The series "Enterprise" would seem to be in a divergent universe itself. It doesn't contradict the canon. It makes it make sense...

No, it doesn't. If it did, it would mean every action the heroes have made in the previously cited episodes ultimately pointless.

They aren't pointless. They have a very real consequences, but thoseconsequences are to other timelines, not to their original timeline. The episode parallels lays it all out for why changes to the time line are noticed by persons engaged in time travel. It also explains how paradoxes, such as Sela being born in the first place, the events we see in TNG "All good things", or Janeway being able to go back and change history on Voyager's return etc are able to exist. Any other theory on time travel does not explain these apparent contradictions.

Given all of that, why do people in the trekverse attempt "time travel"? Maybe they don't understand the concept that they are in fact NOT changing their own timeline, but rather changing a near equivalent parallel timeline. Maybe they simply do not care.

[TheHammer]

Yeah but you can say that with my theory as well. By following the sphere in it's 'wake' it was protected by the changes it made to the time line, as opposed to your theory that they went into another universe. The problem with the latter though, is that it's a major plot point that the Borg went up to mischief in the past, which has destroyed their present, forcing Picard to go back in time to prevent what they did. He would be well aware of the multi-verse, quantum realities schtick from 'Parallels' so it's not like Picard was clueless to that theory. He could have gone 'oh well, sucks to be the denizens of that reality, let's reverse course and chill out with the rest of the fleet because our time line isn't affected.' Except he, uh, didn't do that.

You don't see the massive paradox created by the idea of an individual time line? If the Borg assimilated the original timeline in the past, then they'd never have sent their borg spehere to disrupt first contact. Meaning that they never would have assimiliated it in the past in the first place. Meaning that the borg sphere would then go back in the original time line and wipe out first contact and assimliate earth in the past. rinse and repeat. You'd be stuck in an infinite loop.

And just because Picard is aware of the multi-verse doesn't mean he fully understands it. From his perspective it may appear that the Borg did in fact change history. Or maybe due to the "temporal wake" he was unable to get back to his original universe and had choice but to go forward as he did and hope for the best.

[TheHammer]

No I'm not. You are the ones that blithely assume that will have any effect on the original timeline. The very fact that timeline is there for you to want to change means you didn't get to change it.

City on the Edge of Forever. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Tomorrow is Yesterday. Trials and Tribble-lations. First Contact. It is possible to change the past in Star Trek. You lose.

Not to keep rehashing, but the contention is that You DONT change your past. You simply affect a parallel reality that is a near equivalent (save for the changes made by your supposed "time travel". Your originaniting universe continues on without you, or possible with another version of you who also made the decision to "time travel" and in fact shifted into your dimension.

Any time someone "remembers history being different" they have shifted into a parallel universe. Sometimes its plainly obvious, other times it's so close as to be indistinguishable to most observers.

[Bakustra]

No I'm not. You are the ones that blithely assume that will have any effect on the original timeline. The very fact that timeline is there for you to want to change means you didn't get to change it.

City on the Edge of Forever. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Tomorrow is Yesterday. Trials and Tribble-lations. First Contact. It is possible to change the past in Star Trek. You lose.

Not to keep rehashing, but the contention is that You DONT change your past. You simply affect a parallel reality that is a near equivalent (save for the changes made by your supposed "time travel". Your originaniting universe continues on without you, or possible with another version of you who also made the decision to "time travel" and in fact shifted into your dimension.

Any time someone "remembers history being different" they have shifted into a parallel universe. Sometimes its plainly obvious, other times it's so close as to be indistinguishable to most observers.

Wrong. It is possible to travel between alternate timelines, therefore in order for time travel to be meaningful, the past of a timeline must be capable of being changed. Time travel is meaningful, as demonstrated by a number of episodes and two movies, therefore you cannot presume that this is the case unless we wish to make everybody in Star Trek an idiot. There, we descend into ideology, in which case there is no point to further discussion. There's also the matter that they literally changed the past by removing objects from it in Star Trek IV and Trials and Tribble-lations.

If we go with what you're suggesting, then there would be no Temporal Prime Directive, and, indeed, no meaning for any action because all actions are taken within this infinite universe. Think Larry Niven's All The Myriad Ways- if there is no way to make meaningful decisions, what's the use of making decisions at all? But actions are meaningful, therefore the past must be able to be changed- and the number of alternate timelines must be finite.

[TheHammer]

Wrong. It is possible to travel between alternate timelines, therefore in order for time travel to be meaningful, the past of a timeline must be capable of being changed. Time travel is meaningful, as demonstrated by a number of episodes and two movies, therefore you cannot presume that this is the case unless we wish to make everybody in Star Trek an idiot. There, we descend into ideology, in which case there is no point to further discussion. There's also the matter that they literally changed the past by removing objects from it in Star Trek IV and Trials and Tribble-lations.

If we go with what you're suggesting, then there would be no Temporal Prime Directive, and, indeed, no meaning for any action because all actions are taken within this infinite universe. Think Larry Niven's All The Myriad Ways- if there is no way to make meaningful decisions, what's the use of making decisions at all? But actions are meaningful, therefore the past must be able to be changed- and the number of alternate timelines must be finite.

How do you explain paradoxes? You can't. As Batman noted, if it were possible to change history you would never have gone back to change it.

All you can do is alter another near equivalent universe. From your perspective, it may appear that you've changed time, but all you've done is shift into another parrallel. Again, most people might not care. Perhaps a near equivalent of their universe where "they've changed things for the better" is just fine with them. Maybe they simply do not understand.

As for the Temporal Prime direction as an extension of the Prime directive dictating non-interference. Mucking around with parallel universes is definitely an ethical dilema that you'd want to regulate. You might also have regulation not so much for protecting your own time line from itself, but because you don't want persons from other time lines interfering with yours.

IF you "remember things differently" then clearly you came from a different universe where things happened differently than the one you currently inhabit. I mean, really my only conclusion is that you haven't wrapped your head around the concept fully otherwise you'd see that its the only thing that makes sense.

[Bakustra]

Wrong. It is possible to travel between alternate timelines, therefore in order for time travel to be meaningful, the past of a timeline must be capable of being changed. Time travel is meaningful, as demonstrated by a number of episodes and two movies, therefore you cannot presume that this is the case unless we wish to make everybody in Star Trek an idiot. There, we descend into ideology, in which case there is no point to further discussion. There's also the matter that they literally changed the past by removing objects from it in Star Trek IV and Trials and Tribble-lations.

If we go with what you're suggesting, then there would be no Temporal Prime Directive, and, indeed, no meaning for any action because all actions are taken within this infinite universe. Think Larry Niven's All The Myriad Ways- if there is no way to make meaningful decisions, what's the use of making decisions at all? But actions are meaningful, therefore the past must be able to be changed- and the number of alternate timelines must be finite.

How do you explain paradoxes? You can't. As Batman noted, if it were possible to change history you would never have gone back to change it.

All you can do is alter another near equivalent universe. From your perspective, it may appear that you've changed time, but all you've done is shift into another parrallel. Again, most people might not care. Perhaps a near equivalent of their universe where "they've changed things for the better" is just fine with them. Maybe they simply do not understand.

As for the Temporal Prime direction as an extension of the Prime directive dictating non-interference. Mucking around with parallel universes is definitely an ethical dilema that you'd want to regulate. You might also have regulation not so much for protecting your own time line from itself, but because you don't want persons from other time lines interfering with yours.

IF you "remember things differently" then clearly you came from a different universe where things happened differently than the one you currently inhabit. I mean, really my only conclusion is that you haven't wrapped your head around the concept fully otherwise you'd see that its the only thing that makes sense.

So you've gone with "everybody in Star Trek is an idiot". Quite reasonable! It just fails to explain Star Trek IV, City on the Edge of Forever, etc. in conjunction with Mirror, Mirror

Here's how you resolve the paradox: the act of time travel must happen in such a way that the time-traveler is protected from the consequences of his or her actions. Impossible, you say. Well, traveling to a parallel universe is equally impossible. So that's no good as an objection, but apparently you think it's more plausible.

You're also not thinking about this. Time travel apparently means altering another timeline. Um. This doesn't really work, because you can still alter the past, you just pretend it makes more sense to alter the past of a different timeline. If we go by the full implications, it's impossible to alter the past, the perceptions of the time-traveler are simply shifted to a pre-existing timeline resulting from the exact changes that the time-traveler produced. But again, the established ability to travel between parallel universes makes time travel meaningless, but it is meaningful in Star Trek. Explain this without having the ability to change the past.

[TheHammer]

So you've gone with "everybody in Star Trek is an idiot". Quite reasonable! It just fails to explain Star Trek IV, City on the Edge of Forever, etc. in conjunction with Mirror, Mirror

No, they aren't idiots. They simply don't understand the complexities of their situation. And the notion of parallels quite easily explains all of the examples you cited.

Infinite realities also means infinite points in development. You don't actually travel to the same parallel universe that you altered, you travel to one than an alternate you altered.

STIV - They travel to an alternate past, grabbed some whales, and returned to a third alternate timeline.

CoteoF - The Guardian tried to explain things to Spock. It said that it is its own begining and own end - Infinite. What the people on the surface saw was the results to the parallel universe that McCoy altered. But the fact that they still existed means that their originating universe was just fine.

Mirror-Mirror - Clearly an alternate timeline, I don't know why you mentioned it.

Here's how you resolve the paradox: the act of time travel must happen in such a way that the time-traveler is protected from the consequences of his or her actions. Impossible, you say. Well, traveling to a parallel universe is equally impossible. So that's no good as an objection, but apparently you think it's more plausible.

It is more plausible. I find the notion that they travelled to alternate dimensions much more believable than your paradox avoidance scenario. After all, we know parallel dimensions exist and that travel to them is possible. Parallel dimensions quite neatly explains the existence of paradoxes, and why "time travelers" have alternate memories of history. Conversely, You have no explanation for how regular "time travel" protects someone from a paradox of destroying their own existence, or destroying the reason they would have attempted time travel in the first place.

You're also not thinking about this. Time travel apparently means altering another timeline. Um. This doesn't really work, because you can still alter the past, you just pretend it makes more sense to alter the past of a different timeline. If we go by the full implications, it's impossible to alter the past, the perceptions of the time-traveler are simply shifted to a pre-existing timeline resulting from the exact changes that the time-traveler produced. But again, the established ability to travel between parallel universes makes time travel meaningless, but it is meaningful in Star Trek. Explain this without having the ability to change the past.

"Time travel" or "dimension travel" is not meangingless. Your medling is VERY significant to denziens of that universe - Just look at the damage done via time travel in the Star Trek Reboot. But you do not alter your own history. You alter another parallel reality that is occuring at a different point in history. That might be tough to grasp, but then I don't think the human mind is capable of fully grasping the concept of infinite realities. When you look at the episode parallels and the 250,000 enterprises and realize that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

[Bakustra]

Again, your presumption relies on the people of Star Trek being idiots, which you disguise with egotism and about infinity.

You're not reading my posts. Alternate-universe time travel is meaningful if there is no independent way to exit a timeline, because you can't tell the difference between the timelines or transit back to the original. So, then, it makes sense for the Enterprise to go back and pick up some whales in the 1980s to save the day, because as far as anyone can tell, they are saving the day- they cannot interact with the original timeline anymore or tell that they aren't really saving the day. But the existence of traversable timelines means that they can go back to the husk of the world left after the Whale probe finished and realize that their actions were meaningless- they didn't take any actions at all- they just were acting out a planned script. In other words, this removes any element of agency or choice or decision from human life- and while incompatibilists might be able to live under the knowledge that they're a puppet without even the solace of a puppeteer (and most anti-free will people don't accept that as a valid description), you'd expect people to stop taking meaningless actions by time-traveling, and you'd expect a number of people committing suicides, or suffering nervous breakdowns, or acting like H.P. Lovecraft protagonists on the horrific realization that they don't ever do anything, nor are they capable of decisions.

But apart from the horror and nihilism inherent to infinite timelines, you're arguing that it is possible to change the past, but then tacking the rider of only being able to change alternate timelines. That's incompatible with infinite parallel universes, for all that you smug about the infinite. In a truly infinite set of timelines, nothing can change- all that happens is that you end up in a timeline where the events you carried out took place- but it existed before you! All sapient effort is ground to nothing by the wheel of infinite timelines- oh, sorry, I said apart from the horror and nihilism, didn't I?

PS: You're refusing to suspend your disbelief for time travel, but are willing to suspend it for FTL?

[TheHammer]

Again, your presumption relies on the people of Star Trek being idiots, which you disguise with egotism and about infinity.

You're not reading my posts. Alternate-universe time travel is meaningful if there is no independent way to exit a timeline, because you can't tell the difference between the timelines or transit back to the original. So, then, it makes sense for the Enterprise to go back and pick up some whales in the 1980s to save the day, because as far as anyone can tell, they are saving the day- they cannot interact with the original timeline anymore or tell that they aren't really saving the day. But the existence of traversable timelines means that they can go back to the husk of the world left after the Whale probe finished and realize that their actions were meaningless- they didn't take any actions at all- they just were acting out a planned script. In other words, this removes any element of agency or choice or decision from human life- and while incompatibilists might be able to live under the knowledge that they're a puppet without even the solace of a puppeteer (and most anti-free will people don't accept that as a valid description), you'd expect people to stop taking meaningless actions by time-traveling, and you'd expect a number of people committing suicides, or suffering nervous breakdowns, or acting like H.P. Lovecraft protagonists on the horrific realization that they don't ever do anything, nor are they capable of decisions.

I don't think everyone in the trek universe is an idiot. I just don't think they understand (just as you don't understand) that they aren't traveling within a single continous time line. Or perhaps they think that living in a near equivalent universe where things are "better" is still preferably to staying in whatever universe they originated in.

First of all, infite parallel universes is a documented fact in Star Trek. We've seen them in "Parallels" all of the "mirror" episodes, "All good things", "Yesterday's enterprise" etc. But that doesn't mean that life is meaningless to the people who live in those universes. Most of the time they can and are independent from each other. But every so often a visitor from one of the alternate realities (from any time and any place) pokes its way in for better or worse.

But apart from the horror and nihilism inherent to infinite timelines, you're arguing that it is possible to change the past, but then tacking the rider of only being able to change alternate timelines. That's incompatible with infinite parallel universes, for all that you smug about the infinite. In a truly infinite set of timelines, nothing can change- all that happens is that you end up in a timeline where the events you carried out took place- but it existed before you! All sapient effort is ground to nothing by the wheel of infinite timelines- oh, sorry, I said apart from the horror and nihilism, didn't I?

PS: You're refusing to suspend your disbelief for time travel, but are willing to suspend it for FTL?

That's just it. You NEVER actually "change history" rather you are part of the history of another time line. In that universe the history books all recorded your intervention. It was always a part of that time line. No one there ever knows it to have been anything different. YOU notice it because when you shifted into another universe, and thus it creates the illusion that you "changed something" and are the only one aware of it. You'd probably also find that history tests "you" took in school had different answers than you remembered giving. And yet you very clearly remember lecturers, text books, documentaries about the history you remember. The reason for that is "you" didn't take the test. The "you" that was native to that timeline took it, and making the same choice as yourself jumped into yet another time line where they themselves found certain differences.

Granted, all of these are "theories" but again, this theory is the only one that neatly explains the mis-matched memories, and apparent paradoxes created by the many examples of star trek time travel. You have no explanation whatsoever other than "its magic". The idea of a paradox itself is the biggest argument against "time travel" even being possible. As Batman noted, all recorded history should already have incorporated all incidents of time travel in it. Thus any attempt you make to go back and change history will fail. In some instances, you may actually cause other historical events to happen, but for whatever reason you will fail in your primary mission. Thus ensuring your future self will attempt to time travel, and fail yet again. I guess that's why I find time travel (to the past at least) to be less likely than FTL.

As to your notion about nihlism, well quite frankly I don't get it. Even if I had an infinite number of clones, that doesn't mean I'd value my own life any less.

[Purple]

As to your notion about nihlism, well quite frankly I don't get it. Even if I had an infinite number of clones, that doesn't mean I'd value my own life any less.

It has nothing to do with clones but with loosing free will. Just like you said moments ago:

Thus any attempt you make to go back and change history will fail. In some instances, you may actually cause other historical events to happen, but for whatever reason you will fail in your primary mission. Thus ensuring your future self will attempt to time travel, and fail yet again. I guess that's why I find time travel (to the past at least) to be less likely than FTL.

What this means is that the world you live in is already shaped by the action you have not yet taken. So in order for the world you live in to exist it must be your absolutely undeniable destiny to take said action. Therefore you have no free will in the mater. Worse yet, your entire life, every choice you made that has lead you to being the person you are were equally predestined to ensure you would become the person you are and commit that act of time travel ensuring the world you live in will exist ensuring you will be born to take that action. Nothing you do matters since things will always force you to act in the exact way you need to for the time line to exist.

[Bakustra]

So people in Star Trek know how to travel through time, but haven't figured out how it works? Uh-huh, this is clearly distinct from them being stupid, I'm sure.

The existence of parallel timelines does not mean that there are an infinite number of such timelines! Indeed, if they arise from might-have-beens, they are thankfully finite due to the limited number of permutations of sapient interactions.

What we have are three observations: 1) time travel is possible. 2) Time travel is meaningful- it can be used to create and solve problems, and alter the past and the future. 3) Parallel universes exist and can be traversed by repeatable methods. So, in order for these three things to work together, there has to be some means of altering the past that does not rely on alternate timelines, or else some reason to invalidate any of the three. Do you have some reason that doesn't rely on projecting your own prejudices into analysis? Do you?

Let me provide you with an example. You made choices today. But with infinite parallel universes that can be interacted with, you didn't, and can't. Every possible choice is made, and thus everything is rendered meaningless. There's no point in making decisions, because all the possible outcomes will occur anyway. Nothing can be prevented, or brought about, or delayed or accelerated, because those require action. Instead, things just happen. Sapients are reduced to passive marionettes whose strings pull themselves.

[Batman]

So people in Star Trek know how to travel through time, but haven't figured out how it works? Uh-huh, this is clearly distinct from them being stupid, I'm sure.

Err-yes? Them figuring out how to (apparently) travel through time requires them to understand the exact mechanics of it why exactly?

The existence of parallel timelines does not mean that there are an infinite number of such timelines!

As a matter of fact yes it does.

Indeed, if they arise from might-have-beens, they are thankfully finite due to the limited number of permutations of sapient interactions.

Except the available number of sapient interactions is infinite.

What we have are three observations: 1) time travel is possible. 2) Time travel is meaningful- it can be used to create and solve problems, and alter the past and the future.

Um-no. That's your contention. You have yet to present any evidence for that.

3) Parallel universes exist and can be traversed by repeatable methods. So, in order for these three things to work together, there has to be some means of altering the past that does not rely on alternate timelines, or else some reason to invalidate any of the three. Do you have some reason that doesn't rely on projecting your own prejudices into analysis? Do you?

That'd be the part where you have yet to show that time travel actually does alter your past.

[Darth Tedious]

So people in Star Trek know how to travel through time, but haven't figured out how it works? Uh-huh, this is clearly distinct from them being stupid, I'm sure.

They didn't fully understand how fucking warp drives worked! Remember towards the end of TNG (season 6, IIRC), when they realised that warp travel damages the space-time continuum, and had to impose the Warp 5 speed limit in non-urgent situations?

The theory: "Paradoxes don't occur because changes create an alternate timeline" is far more sensible than the counter-theory "Paradoxes don't occur because, um, they just don't".

I must second Batman's question. Do you have any meaningful argument to support what you're saying beyond pointing out that Star Trek IV would suck if they saved a different universe?

[Bakustra]

*skraawk* *whistle* *skraawk*

I haven't forgotten. Problems: explain how the existence of alternate universes requires an infinite number. The many-worlds theory doesn't work as an explanation because it declares that there are not an infinite number of parallel universes within the bounds of many-worlds theory. Similarly, explain how there are an infinite, as opposed to very large (the two are not functionally identical) potential interactions between sapients, keeping in mind that the variety of interactions and the number of sapients are constrained.

In City on the Edge of Forever, the survival of Edith Keeler in the 1920s causes the Enterprise to disappear from the sky above the Guardian's planet, because it was never built in the new timeline. This is an effective change to the past, which is undone when Keeler is hit by a truck. The presence of alternate timelines that can be visited means that if one is simply shifting to an alternate timeline, then clearly the goal should be to get back to your own, not to fix what has happened. But in Star Trek IV, after proof of the practicality of both, the Federation still considers time travel a practical means to fix the problem- so either they're somehow unaware of this argument against time travel- or they have reasons to consider it unconvincing. So why should we go with unaware instead of unconvincing, bearing in mind that the whales in STIV and the tribbles in Trials and Tribble-lations both were physically removed from the past and brought to the present-day of the movie/episode, a change in the past regardless? Because you're determined to make sure that Star Trek loses, or because you're ideologically opposed to time travel and impossible to watch Back to the Future or Time Bandits with? This applies to you too, Darth Ennui.