View Single Post
Old January 2 2013, 06:43 PM   #381
Fleet Captain
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Well, we don't have to see that in mystical terms. One could just say that disrupted timestreams tend to correct themselves by making small course corrections.
Course correction implies agency, purpose, which takes us right back to mysticism.

How would the universe know who was important or which ice cave they should be in? How did the universe intervene? What did it do to make sure this happened? What laws of physics were involved here?

The Kelvin was destroyed.

I guess the universe didn't care to stop that from happening.

Vulcan was destroyed.

I guess the universe didn't care to stop that from happening.

The fleet that arrived at Vulcan was wiped out.

I guess the universe didn't care to stop that from happening.

And yet for some reason the universe will cheat so that Kirk gets to be captain of the Enterprise? Maybe the word isn't mysticism. Maybe it's something more like narcissism?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Think of it as a purely natural phenomenon. Like a river that returns to its original course even if its path is temporarily diverted . . ..
Because nothing fits better with a progressive technological utopian vision of the future, than good old-fashioned fatalism?

Life forms make up a very very small amount of the mass and history of the universe. We're specks on the cosmic river. Rivers don't care which way they flow. They only flow (via gravity) in the easiest channel downhill. In fact, that is the only "purpose" water has -- to get level.

Coins (like rivers) don't have memories. Flip a coin twenty times - if it comes up heads 20 times, what are your odds of getting heads on the 21st flip? It's 50/50 because the universe does not remember or care about the prior coin tosses. The universe only cares that the laws have physics have been obeyed. The coin must land, that is all that matters to the coin. The river must keep moving forward and downward, that is all that matters to the river.

Your metaphor includes both water and a channel (or river bed), but deterministic changes to a causal sequence result in a different "channel" or directing of movement. What guides the sequence are cause and effect, that's it. You seem to want to sneak in some idea that cause and effect don't matter so much as the shape that results from cause and effect, the pattern. But unless that pattern itself is part of a cause and effect process, then it makes no sense as to why the universe would be inclined to revert back to that picture or arrangement.

Yours is an equivocal metaphor. Is the river bed itself part of the cause and effect story? If so, then changes in the cause and effect sequence in the universe results in a different riverbed (since it is part of it). But if this is the case, if we have changed the conditions that influence the flow of the river, why would it attempt to snap back to a prior arrangement? On the other hand, if this is not the case, there is no explanation as to why this river would attempt to do anything but flow downhill.

Last edited by YARN; January 2 2013 at 07:06 PM.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote