Why "Star Trek" is not right...

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Then what did Spock Prime admit to falsely implying?

That his meeting himself would cause a dangerous paradox of some kind.

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether he comes from an alternate universe or not. There's a difference between violating causality and asserting that there's some inherent danger in doing so. Spock already violated causality at least once by affecting his early life in "Yesteryear."

What Spock admits to implying is the danger of time travel. He says nothing about what whether he believes or is certain that he's traveled into an alternate past. He certainly doesn't suggest that he's lied to Kirk or anyone else about his point of origin. He says that Kirk inferred that there would be some terrible result from the paradox of Spock meeting nuSpock.

Except - who says that it's dangerous or "world ending" for a character to meet himself in the past? It's happened in the past in Star Trek without cataclysm, and happens all the time in other sf.

Spock at no point addresses or treats nuSpock as if they are not one and the same person at different points in their life. Quite the opposite: "But you can be in two places at the same time;" "My customary farewell would seem self-serving."

My purpose, Christopher,

Is to not simply avoid the destruction of the home that I love...

But to create a Romulus that exists, free of the Federation.

You see only then will she be truly saved.

129 years from now, a star will explode
and threaten to destroy the galaxy.

That is where I'm from Jim.

The future.

Someone who hasn't been briefed on the screenwriters carefully publicized "explanation" of events would have no reason to find anything in this movie other than a time-travel story. One passing use of the phrase "alternate reality" - which has no actual, fixed meaning with regard to the existence of multiple universes - is the only sop thrown to the whole "alternate universe" conceit. Even in the scene where nuSpock uses that phrase, he suggests that Nero is from the future, not "a" future.

MCCOY: Are you actually suggesting they're from the future?

SPOCK: If you eliminate the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable...

nuSpock's not at all clear on what's implied by an alternate reality, BTW. He says that "Whatever our lives might have been, if the time continuum was disrupted...our destinies have changed." Again, there's no suggestion there that Nero's from some other continuum or that other versions of Spock and friends are continuing along some other destiny somewhere else.

 

[Gojira]

Dennis, I just want to say that is an excellent post with which I agree 100%!

 

[Ryan8bit]

Except - who says that it's dangerous or "world ending" for a character to meet himself in the past? It's happened in the past in Star Trek without cataclysm, and happens all the time in other sf.

I'm just guessing it was going by the most popular time travel movie of all, Back to the Future. It was a fun gimmick in that movie, and it stuck in the popular subconscious to the point where they introduce it here.

Obviously you can't say it's inconsistent with previous Trek either, because old Trek is inconsistent with itself. Plus, the ideas of time travel have definitely changed.

This is why I wish they'd just done a straight reboot without trying to explain all this stuff, and not using time travel. It seldom makes sense in a movie.

 

[UFO]

That would explain why some seem willing have Spock find his "human" self, but perhaps they don't realise the implications of what they would be missing? If he "lost it" more often or became as, or more emotional than an average human, where's the point? Where is Spock?

Spock is Spock.

Whatever he eats for breakfast?

Avoiding being human while MOSTLY succeeding, striving to be logical and occasionally failing. Best summed up in one of my favorite Spock lines:

"Are you sure this isn't a good time for a colorful metaphor?"

As you also point out, Vulcans do have strong emotions that they control, for a reason. Telling even a half Vulcan that that's not really necessary seems problematic at best.

Nobody said it wasn't necessary. ...

Serak effectively did by mentioning what he thought Spock’s mother would have said. Then SpockP advises him to put aside logic on this occasion having just made a logical argument that should have clinched matters without resorting to emotion! It’s a human conspiracy I tell you!

I agree Spock’s character is a point on the human/vulcan spectrum. I just think he has gone too far toward the human end and this movie continues that slide. If it keeps up you won’t have much of an internal conflict because he will just operate like a human when he "feels" like it. Making him half human was obviously a double edged sword because it makes his character more vulnerable to changing social attitudes.

It is the PRESENCE of the conflict between emotion and logic that makes Spock who and what he is. Without that conflict he wouldn't be Spock, he'd by White Tuvok, and nobody would give a shit.

That’s a good point, but you can’t go too far the other way either.

Othertimes he lets it loose on purpose ("Tell her, 'I feel fine.'") because it seems appropriate.

I would see that as part of the slide. Albeit not as overt as in STXI. Maybe we just disagree on how human it is "OK" for him to be, or appear to be?

There's a little known but often used sci-fi trope in Star Trek called "Guesswork as fact."

You could be right and I am obviously biased but intentionally satirising that trope seems a little subtle for these guys. Your first example just seemed like one of their more successful jokes and not exactly an original concept. The second was actually as close to the mark as they could reasonably get. There was enough implausibility in the movie without Spock "guessing" that Nero accidentally fell into a black hole that had been created for some other reason, which is pretty ridiculous when you think about it (#8 Devon! ). Moreover it didn’t seem to make much difference and meeting the Kelvin was an accident either way.

NuSpock makes the assumption that a parallel universe exists …

We are still debating if he did make that assumption. "Alternate reality" makes it seem so, but a following line argues against that.

…or it could be that the black hole actually transplanted Nero to a completely different galaxy that just happens to be almost identical to the Milky Way for some reason (there's a Miri Earth, right? Why not a Miri Galaxy?)

Edit: My reply is deleted. It didn't make any sense!

... there's no suggestion there that Nero's from some other continuum or that other versions of Spock and friends are continuing along some other destiny somewhere else.

Comprehensive post Dennis. Certainly adds more fuel to the view that the much-publicised multiverse was a very late addition to the script and not very well integrated.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Then what did Spock Prime admit to falsely implying?

That his meeting himself would cause a dangerous paradox of some kind.

Lets look at this.

A Paradox has to be possible before it can be dangerous.

To be possible, time must be linear.

Is it your contention that cause and effect does not apply?

How did you come to that conclusion?

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether he comes from an alternate universe or not.

It speaks to a knowledge about how time travel and alternate realities work, and simple causality makes a Paradox impossible.

What viable, logical alternative is actually left?

There's a difference between violating causality and asserting that there's some inherent danger in doing so.

Violating causality causes a Paradox, which is aphysical impossibility.

If it is physically impossible, it simply cannot happen.

Therefore, time cannot be linear in nature.

This being the case, we have in-universe evidence of a Multiverse.

Spock already violated causality at least once by affecting his early life in "Yesteryear."

This is via the Guardian of Forever, and if time is linear, then the Guardian simply allowed him to create a predestination causality loop.

What Spock admits to implying is the danger of time travel.

Which leads to Time Travel not being dangerous, leading to a non-linear timestream; a multiverse then becomes the only explanation.

He says nothing about what whether he believes or is certain that he's traveled into an alternate past.

Remembering a different past for Kirk (where he knew his father) actually shows this in a self-evident way.

He certainly doesn't suggest that he's lied to Kirk or anyone else about his point of origin.

No. He implied that Time was linear, and that a Paradox was possible.

Therefore, he knew this not to be true.

Cause and effect would need to be broken before the movie can cause a linear timeline alteration.

He says that Kirk inferred that there would be some terrible result from the paradox of Spock meeting nuSpock.

The very Paradox that can only be possible in a linear time stream.

Except - who says that it's dangerous or "world ending" for a character to meet himself in the past? It's happened in the past in Star Trek without cataclysm, and happens all the time in other sf.

In those instances, things have generally been portrayed as being part of what must be.

Since Parallels shows that a Multiverse is Canon, we cannot discount it as a logically presented alternative to linear time.

Spock at no point addresses or treats nuSpock as if they are not one and the same person at different points in their life.

This implies that their past is presumably the same. The divergence in 2233 supports this.

Quite the opposite: "But you can be in two places at the same time;" "My customary farewell would seem self-serving."

He's talking on a personal level, not a scientific one.

My purpose, Christopher,

Is to not simply avoid the destruction of the home that I love...

But to create a Romulus that exists, free of the Federation.

You see only then will she be truly saved.

Nobody implied that a Miner, Nero, would have advanced multidimentional physics knowledge.

He is also quite mad.

129 years from now, a star will explode
and threaten to destroy the galaxy.

That is where I'm from Jim.

The future.

Again, a ruse on Spock Prime's part, or a simplification so that Kirk understands.

Someone who hasn't been briefed on the screenwriters carefully publicized "explanation" of events would have no reason to find anything in this movie other than a time-travel story. One passing use of the phrase "alternate reality" - which has no actual, fixed meaning with regard to the existence of multiple universes - is the only sop thrown to the whole "alternate universe" conceit. Even in the scene where nuSpock uses that phrase, he suggests that Nero is from the future, not "a" future.

MCCOY: Are you actually suggesting they're from the future?

SPOCK: If you eliminate the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable...

nuSpock's not at all clear on what's implied by an alternate reality, BTW. He says that "Whatever our lives might have been, if the time continuum was disrupted...our destinies have changed." Again, there's no suggestion there that Nero's from some other continuum or that other versions of Spock and friends are continuing along some other destiny somewhere else.

So, Uhura summizes an Alternate Reality upon hearing that destinies have changed, and that implies a simple random term?

No. She means something specific, and Spock responds "Precisely".

So, assuming they are both referring to related aspects of something, what something would have the following attributes?

- Changed Destinies
- Be termed "Alternate Reality"

Destiny change = non-linear events = time being non-linear in some way.

Therefore, causality has no effect here (physically impossible in a linear timeline), leading to either a Paradox or something else.

An "Alternate Reality" implies that there is more than one reality, otherwise Alternate to what?

She did not say Alternate Events, she said Alternate Reality.

This is a classic term for Different (Alternate) Universe (Physical Reality).

 

[Pauln6]

So to recap - in the many worlds' theory, paradoxes are not possible because alterations simply lead to alternate time streams? So the whole the concept of the Temporal Police becomes redundant - and as beings with an obvious understanding of the time stream, they should understand the pointlessness of their existence, shouldn't they? They're like bureaucrats in 'Brazil'. In the sequel they should all travel back on a rampage to destroy Spock Prime.

If time is infinite then time travel is potentially infinite, and an infinite number of time travellers from throughout infinity can travel to the same point in time on an infinite number of occasions creating an infinite number of 'fresh' alternate realities... Bonkers

I really hate many worlds theory. I much prefer pre-destination paradoxes, coupled with a restriction that only one temporal incursion is possible by anybody in a particular locality during any one time travel window (an hour, a day, whatever) as a convenient method of preventing time travelller saturation at the same localised moment in time.

 

[Gojira]

[
An "Alternate Reality" implies that there is more than one reality, otherwise Alternate to what?

She did not say Alternate Events, she said Alternate Reality.

This is a classic term for Different (Alternate) Universe (Physical Reality).

An alternate reality implies that the their physical reality has been altered from what it once had been.

This term can be applied to a linear time line that has been changed as well as to a reality altered by a parallel universe. The term is ambiguous and can be applied to several circumstances.

Other than Uhura's remarks and NuSpock and Spock Prime's muddied discussion there is not too much more in this movie that implies a parallel universe was created. So much of what we see and hear on the screen implies a typical linear Star Trek story.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Is it your contention that cause and effect does not apply?

How did you come to that conclusion?

Oh, by a lifetime of watching and reading science fiction including Star Trek.

What's "possible" in reality is irrelevant to this discussion. Time travel exists as a trope in sf/fantasy, it's been used thousands of times, and the possible violation of cause and effect is not only accepted as part of the premise but many of the best and most popular examples of the form rely upon it. See: "All You Zombies" and "By His Bootstraps" by Robert A. Heinlein as two obvious examples.

Trek has violated cause-and-effect in past time travel stories.

Therefore, the burden of proof here actually has to be met by the argument that we should suddenly accept that violations of causality are not only impossible but that they would result in "universe-ending" results.

Fortunately for oldSpock, of course, nuKirk knows nothing from experience about time travel so it's not particularly difficult to imply otherwise and let the kid accept the lie that someone meeting his future self would necessarily create a fuck-up of cosmic proportions.

How much does authorial intent matter here? Well, a whole lot less than some folks (often authors themselves) would like it to. Most readers of a book or viewers of a film, TV show etc. will inevitably experience it without access to or explanation of the thinking and intent of the people who created. Therefore, the work ought to stand on its own and be judged only by what it contains. This becomes even more true with the passage of time.

So yeah, I think I'm going to ditch the whole notion of "quantum realities" and treat the movie as a straight time travel story from now on. The alternate reality notion is simply a fig leaf to justifiy a reboot without terminally freaking out the entire established fan base anyway, and the story actually told in the movie is just a plain old garden variety skiffy time travel fantasy.

 

[Pauln6]

Is it your contention that cause and effect does not apply?

How did you come to that conclusion?

Oh, by a lifetime of watching and reading science fiction including Star Trek.

What's "possible" in reality is irrelevant to this discussion. Time travel exists as a trope in sf/fantasy, it's been used thousands of times, and the possible violation of cause and effect is not only accepted as part of the premise but many of the best and most popular examples of the form rely upon it. See: "All You Zombies" and "By His Bootstraps" by Robert A. Heinlein as two obvious examples.

Trek has violated cause-and-effect in past time travel stories.

Therefore, the burden of proof here actually has to be met by the argument that we should suddenly accept that violations of causality are not only impossible but that they would result in "universe-ending" results.

Fortunately for oldSpock, of course, nuKirk knows nothing from experience about time travel so it's not particularly difficult to imply otherwise and let the kid accept the lie that someone meeting his future self would necessarily create a fuck-up of cosmic proportions.

How much does authorial intent matter here? Well, a whole lot less than some folks (often authors themselves) would like it to. Most readers of a book or viewers of a film, TV show etc. will inevitably experience it without access to or explanation of the thinking and intent of the people who created. Therefore, the work ought to stand on its own and be judged only by what it contains. This becomes even more true with the passage of time.

So yeah, I think I'm going to ditch the whole notion of "quantum realities" and treat the movie as a straight time travel story from now on. The alternate reality notion is simply a fig leaf to justifiy a reboot without terminally freaking out the entire established fan base anyway, and the story actually told in the movie is just a plain old garden variety skiffy time travel fantasy.

I suppose we also have to accept that a practical method of time travel wasn't discovered for another 8 years in the prime universe and there are no guarantees that this method will ever be discovered now, unless Spock Prime steps in again.

 

[F. King Daniel]

An alternate reality implies thay their physical reality has been altered from what it had once been.

I agree. IMO Picard or Guinan could have said the exact same thing in "Yesterday's Enterprise" - but one could argue (despite Guinan's intuition) that the timeline seen in (regular) TNG was created in the same manner as the alternate universe in STXI was. In the original timeline, the Enterprise-C falls into the rift, the Federation and Klingon Empire go to war, the E-C reappears in the future, and when it's sent back it creates the TNG timeline we know. Since we never saw anything beyond a change in POV, the other universe may be persistant.

One could also argue that if Spock Prime's future still exists, then the future Old Janeway came from in "Endgame" does too.

What's "possible" in reality is irrelevant to this discussion.

While that is true, the Bad Robot bods have cited recent real-life "many worlds" theories when discussing Trek timelines.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

After watching this movie for 3 times I have noticed several discrepancies in the first 30 minutes alone. When the Narada first exits the "black hole" or " lightning storm", It attacks the Kelvin with no provocation let alone it being a vessel that it is closest to. Why is that? With all the 24th century sensors (And with all the gushers need to include Borg tech from the comic) It didn't know it was dealing with a Federation starship from almost 200 years ago?
2. In the TOS era, Spock's and Sarek's separation from each other was because Spock chose entering Starfleet rather than entering the Vulcan Science Academy, which is what Sarek wanted him to do. Why on gods green earth would Sarek tell him to follow his emotions?
3. I understand some of the "time" indomitableness and faves of the so-called director, but why the "Beastie Boys" and that annoying NOKIA ringtone. I for one WOULD NOT be listening to them 100 years for now...if I was still kicking..

Just three? Oh boy... you are far to generous...

The Kelvin sequence alone is filled with plot errors, mistakes and canon-issues.

One day, when I have plenty of time and nothing else to do, I plan to rip this film apart take by take. It's so filled with mistakes, plot-errors and inconsistancies... probably too obvious for some.

I am not saying that people who enjoy it are simple minded or stupid... in fact I envy them they can overlook tons of mistakes and just enjoy the film, but I prefere films with at least bits and pieces of logic and at least a degree of a coherent plot.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

While that is true, the Bad Robot bods have cited recent real-life "many worlds" theories when discussing Trek timelines.

We're completely justified in ignoring that if it's not actually in the movie. In shorthand form, it's not "canon" - future writers can treat this film as a straight time travel story, if they so choose, without contradicting anything that's on screen.

And no, accepting "alternate reality" as meaning something other than "there are two universes branching out from this point" is not contradicting the use of the phrase in this movie because the phrase has no actual, precise and literal meaning - it's "weasel words."

One day, when I have plenty of time and nothing else to do, I plan to rip this film apart take by take.

Being the 497th trek fan to attempt this to your own satisfaction will certainly be a worthy use of your time. JJTrek will still define the future of Star Trek as much or more than anything that's come before it.

 

[Gojira]

One day, when I have plenty of time and nothing else to do, I plan to rip this film apart take by take. It's so filled with mistakes, plot-errors and inconsistancies... probably too obvious for some.

I am not saying that people who enjoy it are simple minded or stupid... in fact I envy them they can overlook tons of mistakes and just enjoy the film, but I prefere films with at least bits and pieces of logic and at least a degree of a coherent plot.

It is certainly very easy to over analyze a film. Not just this film any film. I was on another message board when the movie came out and there were some people that had written pages of mistakes, plot-errors, canon violations and inconsistencies. But others were often able to give plausible explanations for those issues.

Movies are so subjective. So all of the things you see wrong with this movie are certainly wrong for you. That doesn't mean others will see it the same way. Also, the things I enjoy and like about the movie are right for me but they don't have to be right for others.

Neither camp will convince the other of the "rightness" of their views. That doesn't mean we cannot debate the finer points because we can and that can be rather enjoyable.

But to rip this film apart take by take will just be an effort in futility when your take on this will merely represent your opinion on a highly subjective topic. It really isn't worth the effort.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The Kelvin sequence alone is filled with plot errors, mistakes and canon issues.

Let me guess: It looks too advanced, they made the ship too big, the uniform emblem is wrong, and they used phasers instead of lasers, the warp engine glows instead of the impulse engine, the aliens aren't from TOS or Enterprise and the stardates actually mean something rarther than being a random string of numbers.

We've heard it all before.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

The Kelvin sequence alone is filled with plot errors, mistakes and canon issues.

Let me guess: It looks too advanced, they made the ship too big, the uniform emblem is wrong, and they used phasers instead of lasers, the warp engine glows instead of the impulse engine, the aliens aren't from TOS or Enterprise and the stardates actually mean something rarther than being a random string of numbers.

We've heard it all before.

Yeah for starters... but if it has been discussed before... no need to do it again

Again... it's cool the movie has it's fans, and I can accept that people like this film... and I will always treat them with respect.

As Space Therapist said: "Moves are so subjective".

For example: I like the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE film from 1987, eventhough I can fully understand why it is called trash...

And I am in the camp of people, who liked NEMESIS... so to each his/her own, I guess.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

[
An "Alternate Reality" implies that there is more than one reality, otherwise Alternate to what?

She did not say Alternate Events, she said Alternate Reality.

This is a classic term for Different (Alternate) Universe (Physical Reality).

An alternate reality implies that the their physical reality has been altered from what it once had been.

This term can be applied to a linear time line that has been changed as well as to a reality altered by a parallel universe. The term is ambiguous and can be applied to several circumstances.

Other than Uhura's remarks and NuSpock and Spock Prime's muddied discussion there is not too much more in this movie that implies a parallel universe was created. So much of what we see and hear on the screen implies a typical linear Star Trek story.

AGAIN, watch the end scene between Spock and Spock Prime.

Spock Prime admits to implying that a dangerous Paradox would occur were Kirk to reveal Spock Prime's existence to anyone.

For Spock Prime to know this implication to be false, a Paradox must be impossible.

The ONLY way a Paradox would be IMPOSSIBLE, is a Multiverse.

To argue that Cause and Effect does not apply due to past Trek stories being told, remember that an MWI scenario means that every instance of travelling to the past creates a split between realities, so this actually sheds light on the true nature of time travel.

If Spock simply altered the future of the linear timeline he came from, then his existence at that point then becomes impossible.

His presense would be due to a series of events that cannot occur, creating a Paradox.

According to the Dialog in the last scene, a Paradox is something Spock and Spock Prime KNOW not to be possible.

Therefore: A Linear Timeline is incompatible with what is presented on screen.

 

[Deckerd]

Trek has always taken liberties with time and timelines. The only show that takes more liberties is Doctor Who. It's part of the show, so I can never understand why it causes so much anguish.

 

[Gojira]

AGAIN, watch the end scene between Spock and Spock Prime.

Spock Prime admits to implying that a dangerous Paradox would occur were Kirk to reveal Spock Prime's existence to anyone.

For Spock Prime to know this implication to be false, a Paradox must be impossible.

The ONLY way a Paradox would be IMPOSSIBLE, is a Multiverse.

To argue that Cause and Effect does not apply due to past Trek stories being told, remember that an MWI scenario means that every instance of travelling to the past creates a split between realities, so this actually sheds light on the true nature of time travel.

If Spock simply altered the future of the linear timeline he came from, then his existence at that point then becomes impossible.

His presense would be due to a series of events that cannot occur, creating a Paradox.

According to the Dialog in the last scene, a Paradox is something Spock and Spock Prime KNOW not to be possible.

Therefore: A Linear Timeline is incompatible with what is presented on screen.

The Star Trek franchise has demonstrated that temporal paradoxes do occur and that a multiverse is not always the result. I just watched the Voyager episode "Timeless" last night and Harry Kim was able to send himself a message along with other information to 7-of-9 without creating a multiverse. It was a paradox as they said but it didn't create another universe. That was a linear time travel story.

So your claim that ONLY way a Paradox would be IMPOSSIBLE, is a Multiverse is refutable and is not true. There are many other instances within Trek lore where paradoxes occurred without the creation of a multiverse.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

newtype_alpha,

One flaw in this is that you are assuming that at the end, Spock and Spock Prime are incorrect.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply pointing out that IN THE REAL WORLD, just because a character makes a statement of fact does not mean he is correct, even if he happens to be incredibly intelligent. They could both be very wrong about what's happening with the timeline, or they could both be completely correct. Facts are independent of a character's knowledge of them.

Even the circumstantial evidence, setting aside dialogue directly related to theory, point to a Multiverse.

True, but at the end of the day it IS just circumstantial evidence. Plot alone determines fact, not exposition.

Time travel violates causality by its nature; happens all the time in these stories. So that's not an argument against this all being a single universe.

It's not clear from the movie that the characters know themselves to be moving between universes. There's no indication of it at all in the actual story; it could be any other time travel story in Trek's history. So if it weren't for one speculative line on nuSpock's part and the stated intent of the writers then this alternative timeline stuff could be discounted altogether.

As it is, there's no strong logical reason not to ignore it if one chooses until and unless some story is done "in canon" in which it actually becomes an issue - and that could probably happen only in the event of a "return to the future."

Then what did Spock Prime admit to falsely implying?

Spock Prime implied that a causality violation would cause the universe to collapse on itself. This is considered "false" for one of two reasons:
1) It's an alternate timeline and doesn't matter
2) Paradoxes don't work that way and causality violations are pre-destined to occur.

It's probable that they're in a parallel universe that abrogates the existence of the original, but again, there's no way to know for sure. Interestingly, if in the next movie or even in the novels George Kirk should be found alive in Rura Penthe or something, then it raises the possibility that Spock Prime isn't actually Spock Prime and that "He lives to see you become Captain of the Enterprise" is prophetic of events that Spock knows but dare not reveal to Kirk.

 

[Saquist]

newtype_alpha,

One flaw in this is that you are assuming that at the end, Spock and Spock Prime are incorrect.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply pointing out that IN THE REAL WORLD, just because a character makes a statement of fact does not mean he is correct, even if he happens to be incredibly intelligent. They could both be very wrong about what's happening with the timeline, or they could both be completely correct. Facts are independent of a character's knowledge of them.

Even the circumstantial evidence, setting aside dialogue directly related to theory, point to a Multiverse.

True, but at the end of the day it IS just circumstantial evidence. Plot alone determines fact, not exposition.

In the real world it's improper to come to a judgment that testimony is false based merely on the possibility in stead of the probability error.

That would be baseless speculation.
The possibility for error always exist as humans. We must define the probability of error to counter the eye witness or expert testimony.