Discovery crew saved whole universe?

[GeneralMartok12]

Since I just rewatched last week episode, I`ve noticed that Burnham again said that "Discovery crew saved Universe" in season two.

How is this possible, is life in the other, distant galaxies are threatned by Control?
Does Control pose a threat to, say, the Kelvan Empire in the Andromeda galaxy?

When I hear such statements, I have the feeling that at any moment the Doctor and TARDIS will jump into the frame....

 

[dinzy]

I forget. Did they save the universe in season 1? Regardless, AI could easily spread from galaxy to galaxy. Why would it stop at wiping out life in just one?

 

[jackoverfull]

I think she meant galaxy but exaggerated.

 

[1001001]

She should have said "Multiverse".

She saved "All the things".

ALL THE THINGS!!

 

[eschaton]

She should have said "Multiverse".

She saved "All the things".

ALL THE THINGS!!

The problem is of course this is a logical impossibility.

Since the mycelial network contained the entire multiverse, everything that could happen was happening somewhere. Therefore, someone would have already constructed a ship which destroyed the multiverse. Or there would be alternative universes where Discovery failed. Or really, all of the above.

Honestly the best way to look at it was Stamets was engaging in some "colorful metaphors" in the first season, and it really wasn't the entire multiverse.

 

[Tim Thomason]

The problem is of course this is a logical impossibility.

Since the mycelial network contained the entire multiverse, everything that could happen was happening somewhere. Therefore, someone would have already constructed a ship which destroyed the multiverse. Or there would be alternative universes where Discovery failed. Or really, all of the above.

Honestly the best way to look at it was Stamets was engaging in some "colorful metaphors" in the first season, and it really wasn't the entire multiverse.

Yeah, our Stamets saved the multiverse (the greatest hero in Starfleet history, it seems), but a large number of Stametses did not save the multiverse. And a large number did. And they're doing it all the time. And a large number of non-Stamets are involved as well. So the destruction and saving of the multiverse is a constant process, canceling each other out, destroying random parts of the multiverse randomly. If we assume a "point of origin" that "radiates" out, as evidence from Kovich's explanation of the Mirror Universe "moving" further away, then we have to imagine the destructive forces destroying universes in a predictable pattern, being halted by universes either moving too far from the destruction or into a zone of salvation from one of the "We saved the multiverse" regions.

 

[Deks]

Since I just rewatched last week episode, I`ve noticed that Burnham again said that "Discovery crew saved Universe" in season two.

How is this possible, is life in the other, distant galaxies are threatned by Control?
Does Control pose a threat to, say, the Kelvan Empire in the Andromeda galaxy?

When I hear such statements, I have the feeling that at any moment the Doctor and TARDIS will jump into the frame....

Trek has this idiotic flaw where the characters say the Galaxy for example, when in fact they meant 'The Federation' (or, 'in this part of the galaxy).

With Control though... having the universe stripped of all sentient life is not far fetched... albeit, In Season 2, Control wiped out life in all of Milky Way in an alternate timeline (not the universe - at least, not that I recall).
Exponential construction combined with advanced building techniques (such as replicators, etc.) would result in Control spreading very quickly through the Milky Way alone and destroying it in the process (wouldn't take it very long - maybe 100 to 200 years... and the more of itself builds and sends out away from the galaxy, its like endless multiplication (same idea on how you would build a Dyson Swarm in reality... only the Dyson Swarm bots would stop once the entire swarm is complete... Control on the other hand wouldn't stop until all sentient life was destroyed).

Also, because Control had the benefit of all knowledge of the Federation (which was already huge) and Sphere Data in that future, it would also have access to advanced propulsion techniques, or ability to make Warp drives so fast and powerful that nothing would be beyond its reach.

This is one of the things I don't like about Trek... the writers refuse to use computers and algorithms for automated R&D (which we saw them use sporadically at best and one time only.. after which the said technology would usually become forgotten) which would create vastly superior technologies in a blink of an eye.... but alas.

 

[fireproof78]

How is this possible, is life in the other, distant galaxies are threatned by Control?
Does Control pose a threat to, say, the Kelvan Empire in the Andromeda galaxy?

Yes.

 

[GeneralMartok12]

Trek has this idiotic flaw where the characters say the Galaxy for example, when in fact they meant 'The Federation' (or, 'in this part of the galaxy).

I agree, but with objection that such kind of stupidity is seen only in TOS (and to some extent in TOS movies, and TNG beginings), where Roddenberry have big creative control over it. And we know that he haven't been such creative guy when we talked about screenplays for specific episodes. He was only visionary regarding general premise of the show.

And that kind of writing transfered to the new Trek, from 2009.onwards.

On the other hand, Berman-Braga Trek had some share of stupidity, but to a much lesser extent.

For example, in TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, much more attention was paid to, so to speak, the "geography of the Milky Way." For example, I have no idea where Terralysium is - is it in the Delta Quadrant, Alpha Quadrant, etc. The same goes for the planet where Burnham crashes in 3x01, etc ...

 

[Deks]

I agree, but with objection that such kind of stupidity is seen only in TOS (and to some extent in TOS movies, and TNG beginings), where Roddenberry have big creative control over it. And we know that he haven't been such creative guy when we talked about screenplays for specific episodes. He was only visionary regarding general premise of the show.

And that kind of writing transfered to the new Trek, from 2009.onwards.

On the other hand, Berman-Braga Trek had some share of stupidity, but to a much lesser extent.

For example, in TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, much more attention was paid to, so to speak, the "geography of the Milky Way." For example, I have no idea where Terralysium is - is it in the Delta Quadrant, Alpha Quadrant, etc. The same goes for the planet where Burnham crashes in 3x01, etc ...

Actually, Terralysium was mentioned to be in the Beta Quadrant... about 51 000 Ly's away from Earth.

Oh and both Voyager and Discovery have the 'stupidity' written into them.
On Voyager there is 1 mention of when Kim and Chakotay got back to Earth in Timeless episode in an alternate timeline in which Voyager tested version 2 of Quantum Slipstream drive which ended in the ships icy demise because Kim made a mistake.

Long story short, Kim and Chakotay stole the Delta Flyer out of a Federation shipyard and a Borg temporal transmitter and were charged for conspiring to break the Temporal prime directive... Kim specifically mentioned they became 'Galaxy's most wanted'... lol.

Discovery as you know also has such mistakes... though to be fair, we don't know how far into the Galaxy the Federation spread before the Burn.
Could be all over the place and in this instance 'the galaxy' could literally mean the whole galaxy... but alas, the Federation only had 350 species at its peak... so its very doubtful that its the whole galaxy.

The Burn was mentioned by the characters to have affected dilithium in the whole Galaxy... again, we don't know if its the actual Milky Way or just known part of the galaxy.

 

[seigezunt]

Well, she is from the TOS-adjacent era, and they did seem to have problems with the whole definition of galaxy/universe then ...

 

[Deks]

Well, she is from the TOS-adjacent era, and they did seem to have problems with the whole definition of galaxy/universe then ...

Yes, but that doesn't mean the writers had to carry on that particular notion... it creates ridiculous amounts of confusion/obfuscation (though maybe not to the general public whose understanding of the words 'galaxy' and 'universe' is virtually non-existent).
Unless it was intentional and threw it in for comedic effect.

 

[fireproof78]

I mean, hyperbole is so common, especially around the Internet, I don't see the need to take it literally.

 

[Deks]

I mean, hyperbole is so common, especially around the Internet, I don't see the need to take it literally.

Problem is that it also doesn't mesh with the show's internal canon at all (flimsy as it is) when doing a season long arc.

 

[fireproof78]

Problem is that it also doesn't mesh with the show's internal canon at all (flimsy as it is) when doing a season long arc.

Not sure how an exaggerated statement doesn't mesh with internal canon? I mean, Kirk states that his crew has "once again saved civilization as we know it." It strikes me as being in the same vein.

 

[Timo]

Indeed, it's pretty seldom that the word "world" gets used in the actual all-encompassing sense today: it basically invariably just means "people like us". And it would be unthinkable for the words "galaxy", "civilization" or "universe" to be used any differently, since we only ever really care about people like us. "Galaxy" is just a more spacey way of saying "world", and to be expected from the mouths of spacemen.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nerys Myk]

Since I just rewatched last week episode, I`ve noticed that Burnham again said that "Discovery crew saved Universe" in season two.

How is this possible, is life in the other, distant galaxies are threatned by Control?
Does Control pose a threat to, say, the Kelvan Empire in the Andromeda galaxy?

When I hear such statements, I have the feeling that at any moment the Doctor and TARDIS will jump into the frame....

Sometime people engage in hyperbole, exaggeration and figurative speech.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Didn't they save the whole multiverse by stopping the big Mirror Universe ship in season one? That's like, infinite infinities.

And Control probably never would have stopped. They stopped something that probably would have wanted to wipe out the universe.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

But saving the Multiverse was Stamets and the rest of the crew working as a team to make that happen.

Michael Burnham saved Organic Life within the Milkway Galaxy as far as she's concerned, which is the most important Galaxy to her =D.

 

[dinzy]

Yeah, our Stamets saved the multiverse (the greatest hero in Starfleet history, it seems), but a large number of Stametses did not save the multiverse. And a large number did. And they're doing it all the time. And a large number of non-Stamets are involved as well. So the destruction and saving of the multiverse is a constant process, canceling each other out, destroying random parts of the multiverse randomly. If we assume a "point of origin" that "radiates" out, as evidence from Kovich's explanation of the Mirror Universe "moving" further away, then we have to imagine the destructive forces destroying universes in a predictable pattern, being halted by universes either moving too far from the destruction or into a zone of salvation from one of the "We saved the multiverse" regions.

Why does it need to be a continuous process? It would just be a fraction of saved multiverses, a fraction of destroyed multiverses and a fraction of multiverses that were not susceptible to that particular destruction mode, some of which get destroyed via some other mechanism.

The MU "moving out" could be anything. It could be just time causing greater separation from the initial event in terms of some overlap. Or the MU might be a different kind of multiverse member, not a divergence based on outcome B vs outcome A of a probabilistic event, but some string theory membrane thing and actually be separating on some spatial dimensions.