Old Spock and new Spock. Is it an alternate universe?

[Mudd]

Yes, in fact it does.

From Star Trek (2009):

KIRK: There won't be a next engagement. By the time we've gathered, it'll be too late. But you say he's from the future, knows what's going to happen, then the logical thing is to be unpredictable.
SPOCK: You are assuming that Nero knows how events are predicted to unfold. To the contrary, Nero's very presence has altered the flow of history, beginning with the attack on the USS Kelvin, culminating in the events of today, thereby creating an entire new chain of incidents that cannot be anticipated by either party.
UHURA: An alternate reality?
SPOCK: Precisely. Whatever our lives might have been, if the time continuum was disrupted, our destinies have changed.

Which would be just as true of a parallel universe.

It's an alternate reality/universe - not "altered," not "mirror," not "parallel."

The characters state this explicitly, in-universe.

In-universe, we know of only two such alternate universes.

This is not ambiguous. This is what is established as fact, in-universe and on screen.

 

[Tarek71]

At the risk of being dragged back into this silly, rather pointless discussion, I will repeat that there would be no point in having Spock Prime from TOS travel back in time to create this new alternate universe if it was already an alternate universe. They could have just done a straight reboot if that were the case. Furthermore, there'd be no point in having Leonard Nimoy in the film if he wasn't going to play the same Spock we all know and love from TOS. If you want to believe that it wasn't explicitly stated "in-universe," fine, But that's probably because the writers felt that they didn't have to spoon-feed the audience something that was pretty much common sense. At least to everyone except you.

But again, seeing as how you've already made up your mind no matter what anyone tells you (or you're just being deliberately stubborn, which is the more likely scenario), there doesn't seem to be a point to furthering this discussion.

Dukhat, it's fun and interesting to consider the possibilities. Nothing more to it than that.

 

[Tarek71]

From Star Trek (2009):

Which would be just as true of a parallel universe.

It's an alternate reality/universe - not "altered," not "mirror," not "parallel."

The characters state this explicitly, in-universe.

In-universe, we know of only two such alternate universes.

This is not ambiguous. This is what is established as fact, in-universe and on screen.

Nope! Spock makes no distinction between altered and alternate, and uses "altered" to describe what Nero did. In any parallel universe it would look the same.

The characters, on screen, in universe behave exactly as someone in a parallel universe would and describe it the same way with the same language. No such discussion occurs about an unchanged "prime" timeline or comparisons between altered, alternate, mirror, or parallel.

 

[stardream]

I have been doing my best to follow this discussion and I admit I can be a bit dense at times so please bear with me.

What exactly is the difference between an 'alternate' reality and a 'parallel' reality?

 

[Mudd]

I have been doing my best to follow this discussion and I admit I can be a bit dense at times so please bear with me.

What exactly is the difference between an 'alternate' reality and a 'parallel' reality?

It's primarily this:

Parallel universes are timelines which happen to closely resemble one another. They're like, for example, elm trees in a grove: all very similar and yet each different in detail.

Alternate universes are universes which branch out from a shared "root" - they multiply.

Parallel universes have never been part of one another. Hence, "parallel."

No mechanism or explanation for why such universes might exist has really been proposed on screen. They just do.

The two alternate universes that we know to exist in Star Trek continuity exist because the time-traveling actions of Nero caused the branch to occur. The writers of the movie say that this has its basis in quantum mechanics, but no such explanation appears in the movie.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I have been doing my best to follow this discussion and I admit I can be a bit dense at times so please bear with me.

What exactly is the difference between an 'alternate' reality and a 'parallel' reality?

Parallel ll

Alternate Y

 

[stardream]

I have been doing my best to follow this discussion and I admit I can be a bit dense at times so please bear with me.

What exactly is the difference between an 'alternate' reality and a 'parallel' reality?

It's primarily this:

Parallel universes are timelines which happen to closely resemble one another. They're like, for example, elm trees in a grove: all very similar and yet each different in detail.

Alternate universes are universes which branch out from a shared "root" - they multiply.

Parallel universes have never been part of one another. Hence, "parallel."

No mechanism or explanation for why such universes might exist has really been proposed on screen. They just do.

The two alternate universes that we know to exist in Star Trek continuity exist because the time-traveling actions of Nero caused the branch to occur. The writers of the movie say that this has its basis in quantum mechanics, but no such explanation appears in the movie.

I have been doing my best to follow this discussion and I admit I can be a bit dense at times so please bear with me.

What exactly is the difference between an 'alternate' reality and a 'parallel' reality?

Parallel ll

Alternate Y

Thank you. This helps.

 

[Tarek71]

I have been doing my best to follow this discussion and I admit I can be a bit dense at times so please bear with me.

What exactly is the difference between an 'alternate' reality and a 'parallel' reality?

One level we can imagine a universe that is not ours, but which is very, very similar to ours. But it had its own Big Bang, it's own separate existence. It just so happens to be nearly identical to ours.

It's gets difficult because you then have to contrast that with the idea that there could be different/alternate/parallel/whatchamacallit timelines that branch off from an existing universe.

JJ and Orci specifically reference the TNG episode "Parallels" and Datas dialogue from that episode to explain the NuTrek timeline. Contrary to what you hear from others on this thread, there is no clear distinction between altered, alternate, parallel or mirror. Or which term is used for what type.

If there is any, we could say that there are universes that are nearly identical, but were always separate and then there are different variations that branch off of an existing universe that then continue existing in parallel to all the other branches. Ie "parallel". A term which could be used for either kind.

 

[Mudd]

Thank you. This helps.

Sure. This is how it works:

This is made explicit in the movie. There is no argument of any consequence to be made to the contrary.

 

[Tarek71]

This is made explicit in the movie. There is no argument of any consequence to be made to the contrary.

On the contrary, no such discussion ever occurs. They dont mention the mirror universe, its origin, or how it differs from any of millions of other parallel/alternate universes and timelines. They don't discuss an unchanged "prime" timeline that continues to exist in parallel to their own.

Only that events were altered by Nero. Which would be true of any already existing parallel universe or timeline.

 

[Tarek71]

Thank you. This helps.

That distinction is not from Star Trek. That's Leatherface fanon. Which is fine. But it should not be characterized as in-universe.

For instance, we do not know that the "mirror" universe was always separate from the "prime" universe. It may have branched off from the Primeverse.

Also, in dialogue, the "mirror universe" is referred to onscreen as an "alternate universe", an "alternate reality" and as a "parallel universe".

Thats because, contrary to what others are saying in this thread, there is no clear, on screen, in-universe distinctions in the use of terminology like alternate, altered or parallel.

 

[Mudd]

Thank you. This helps.

That distinction is not from Star Trek.

In fact it is, as stardream can determine by reading through the last couple of pages.

This is unambiguous in the movie. There's not another credible interpretation of what's said and done in the movie.

Just as it's made entirely clear by what the characters say and do in the film that in-universe Pine and Shatner look alike and Nimoy and Quinto look alike. When Pine looks at Nimoy he sees an older version of Quinto, and when Nimoy looks at Pine he sees a younger version of Shatner.

Any attempt to rationalize otherwise is "fanon."

 

[F. King Daniel]

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzUEu7Gb7Cg[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMK0qLVt0UU[/yt]

And just because, Rodney from Stargate Atlantis (which basically treats time travel the same as the majority of Trek) spelling it out:
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQjZ2FkXMhM[/yt]

 

[Tarek71]

Thank you. This helps.

That distinction is not from Star Trek.

In fact it is, as stardream can determine by reading through the last couple of pages.

This is unambiguous in the movie. There's not another credible interpretation of what's said and done in the movie.

Just as it's made entirely clear by what the characters say and do in the film that in-universe Pine and Shatner look alike and Nimoy and Quinto look alike. When Pine looks at Nimoy he sees an older version of Quinto, and when Nimoy looks at Pine he sees a younger version of Shatner.

Any attempt to rationalize otherwise is "fanon."

Nope. No such distinction. Indeed, the characters in dialogue use "parallel universe", "alternate universe" and "alternate reality" depending on which mirror universe episode you watch.

1. No clear distinction exists in ST as too "parallel" vs. "Alternate".

2. Elder Spock and Nero could be from any number of alternate/parallel universes.

3. In ST 09 no discussion of alternate vs parallel or altered occurs.

4. There is also no discussion in ST 09 of a prime timeline that continues to exist unchanged by Nero's actions.

5. The characters look obviously different. Elder Spock and Nero could simply be from a universe where that is what Kirk and Co look like. Easy breezy.

 

[Dukhat]

Dukhat, it's fun and interesting to consider the possibilities. Nothing more to it than that.

But there's your problem. You're not "considering the possibilities." You're doing the exact opposite. It's either your way or the highway. And it's getting really old, really fast. There's nothing fun and interesting to be the only one stubbornly holding onto an erroneous opinion while continually telling the rest of us that our opinions are wrong. Which is what you're doing with. Every. Single. Post. You. Write. Unless of course this is your own special definition of "fun and interesting."

So please, feel free to continue believing your erroneous opinion. An opinion that you're not convincing us of in the slightest. And I look forward to your reply in which you tell me, "Nope, no such erroneous opinion."

 

[Tarek71]

Dukhat, it's fun and interesting to consider the possibilities. Nothing more to it than that.

But there's your problem. You're not "considering the possibilities." You're doing the exact opposite. It's either your way or the highway. And it's getting really old, really fast. There's nothing fun and interesting to be the only one stubbornly holding onto an erroneous opinion while continually telling the rest of us that our opinions are wrong. Which is what you're doing with. Every. Single. Post. You. Write. Unless of course this is your own special definition of "fun and interesting."

So please, feel free to continue believing your erroneous opinion. An opinion that you're not convincing us of in the slightest. And I look forward to your reply in which you tell me, "Nope, no such erroneous opinion."

Well do you get to call it "erroneous" and I can't disagree? Hahaha! Is that how this works?

 

[Dukhat]

Well do you get to call it "erroneous" and I can't disagree? Hahaha! Is that how this works?

Of course you can disagree. You've already been doing that in every single one of your posts. That doesn't make your opinion any less incorrect.

 

[Tarek71]

Well do you get to call it "erroneous" and I can't disagree? Hahaha! Is that how this works?

Of course you can disagree. You've already been doing that in every single one of your posts. That doesn't make your opinion any less incorrect.

I think I've demonstrated in each case, through reasons, logic, facts and evidence given that they are not "incorrect".

Take for instance the Leatherface fanon that the Mirror universe is parallel but not alternate and that in Star Trek it's a clear distinction in what those terms mean.

I ask you, is it not fair to point out that in the various mirror universe episodes the characters in onscreen dialogue variously refer to the "mirror" universe as an "alternate universe", an "alternate reality" or as a "parallel universe" depending on the episode?

That's fair of me isn't it? There is no such clarity on the terms in-universe is there? You can say that what I am saying is "erroneous" or "incorrect" but I think I demonstrating otherwise.

 

[Dukhat]

I think I've demonstrated in each case, through reasons, logic, facts and evidence given that they are not "incorrect".

And everyone else here has demonstrated in each case, through reasons, logic, facts and evidence given that you are "incorrect."

I can play this game too.

 

[Tarek71]

I think I've demonstrated in each case, through reasons, logic, facts and evidence given that they are not "incorrect".

And everyone else here has demonstrated in each case, through reasons, logic, facts and evidence given that you are "incorrect."

I can play this game too.

No game. And I think Ive shown that they have not. Indeed, I gave just one example which you didn't address in this comment. It's not unlike all the other examples.