Not really. Since none of what Q presented ended up coming true:
- Enterprise-D destroyed in Generations, negating the possibility of Riker's ridiculous upgraded flagship.
- Troi still alive in Star Trek Picard, negating the development that Deanna died.
- Hobus star destroyed Romulus in Star Trek, so no Romulus
- Data killed in Scimitar Explosion in Nemesis, so no Data at Cambridge
I mean...I guess anything is possible...but it's pretty clear to me that Q created (as he did on many, many other occasions) an elaborate fantasy scenario for Picard.
I'm not sure why fans struggle with this so much. Nobody thinks that Q really sent Picard back in time to the age of Sherwood Forrest in "QPid." I don't think anyone believes that Picard actually travels back in time during "Tapestry." Q didn't bring Yar, Troi, Data and Picard back to 2079 to try them in an actual post-atomic courtroom in "Encounter at Farpoint." He's a frigging trickster. It's the equivalent of an elaborate, highly realistic holodeck game. I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that AGT isn't the "real future."
And people always throw out the "well, it's a possible future" excuse. Ok. What the hell does that even mean? A
possible future? So, it's like, one of any
infinite number of futures (say that three times) that MIGHT have happened, but clearly did not? Ok. That's virtually meaningless, then. It's no different than being a fantasy. Where is the power behind that? I could write a bold prediction of a "possible future" on some pink construction paper with neon green crayons...but it doesn't make it any more (or less) real than this. It would be just as valuable, just as valid and just as "possible" as whatever Q concocted to confuse and "teach" Picard in AGT.
It's nonsense. The AGT scenarios were all stuff that Q made up to put the crew, and Picard in particular, through their paces. It's the same thing Q always does.