• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Discovery crew saved whole universe?

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.

If you're using multiverse in the sense that physicists do - which is what I thought they were saying at the time - it means it contains all possible universes, everywhere - whether that is a finite or infinite number. Hence, the multiverse can only be destroyed once. The logical conclusion of this then is if there are an infinite number of universes the multiverse cannot be destroyed, because there would have been an infinite number of chances earlier in chronological history than the present for it to be destroyed (if it even makes sense to talk about time flow when comparing individual universes).

That said, it does strike me that the writers might have been using "multiverse" in an inexact way, referring to Prime, the MU, and a relatively small number of other universes, not the whole shebang.
 
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.... :sigh:
Sometimes people say things. Sometimes I say the world is f****d and I actually just mean my home town or my life.

Not everything Burnham says has to be factually correct or perfect
 
Sometimes people say things. Sometimes I say the world is f****d and I actually just mean my home town or my life.

Not everything Burnham says has to be factually correct or perfect
Precisely so.

It amazes me how often fictional characters are expected to be 100% literal in their speech.
 
Precisely so.

It amazes me how often fictional characters are expected to be 100% literal in their speech.
Fair enough if they are reading something off the ships computer it should be accurate but if they are just making a remark then it is probably exaggerated or a little inaccurate just like when any of us say something
 
Fair enough if they are reading something off the ships computer it should be accurate but if they are just making a remark then it is probably exaggerated or a little inaccurate just like when any of us say something
What? You're not 100% literal all the time?
 
I didn't take it anything other than a bit of hyperbole myself. Why should we take anything a character says as factual and 100% accurate? Even if it's unintentional (which it probably is), I don't feel like making a fuss over it. Sci-fi writers have always had no sense of scale, just like when Kruge called the Federation a bunch of intergalactic criminals because of Genesis.
 
I didn't take it anything other than a bit of hyperbole myself. Why should we take anything a character says as factual and 100% accurate? Even if it's unintentional (which it probably is), I don't feel like making a fuss over it. Sci-fi writers have always had no sense of scale, just like when Kruge called the Federation a bunch of intergalactic criminals because of Genesis.
Or, when the Klingon Ambassador declares "There will be no peace as long as Kirk lives!"

Unless I watched the wrong edit of TUC and Kirk dies at the end? O_o
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top