Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Lord Garth, Jul 6, 2018.
I going for at least 4.
Does a person need to be in the real estate business to know that renovating a 10th Century castle doesn't make it a 21st century castle then?
Straw men. Fire hazard. Great work!
I'm only slightly disappointed that this discussion about whether the Discovery is the same ship or a completely new one has been going on for three pages now and no one bothered to mention the Ship of Theseus at all. I mean, it's literally about this exact same issue, and philosophers have been trying to answer it since all the way back to Plato.
I have enough gray hair.
Remember when Scotty was rematerialized seventy years after having been put in "transporter stasis"?
He was completely baffled by the changes made to the technology. Every suggestion he made was off the mark. He tried to contribute in engineering but didn't understand what was going on. Yet it was only SEVENTY YEARS LATER!!!
Only one 13th of the time elapsed with the Discovery crew!!
Plus to add insult to injury, when Scotty was put in stasis it was fifty years in the future of Discovery.
Now imagine how much more different the technology from the 32nd century must be!!!
Discovery has become a 32nd-century ship with a 23rd-century flavor... like these PVC windows that look wooden.
Ordinary matter has been replaced with programmable matter... That means that the only thing left is the LOOK!!
It's likely that every circuit, every piece of technology has been replaced by another one. Just as we do now. I mean we don't repair old defective circuits, we replace them with new ones.
Well, you can lead a horse to water...
Don't forget the best upgrade the turbolift funhouse..
But people don't have to conclude the same thing.
Hey guys, how’s it go... oh... nevermind!
I think I won the bet.
On the contrary - the Discovery is a 23rd century starship with a 32nd century flavour.
And a funhouse, don't forget the funhouse
Who could forget the funhouse?
For the record, while this whole discussion of how much of a thing you can replace before it stops being that thing is all very philosophical, it's entirely beside the point of where this conversation came from.
I said Discovery wasn't a 23rd century ship anymore as a response to Angry Fanboy's claim that the spore drive was too ridiculously powerful not because of what it could do but because it existed too early (Relativity's even more powerful system is apparently considered ok just because it was from the 29th century).
The point is not that Discovery wasn't built in the 23rd century, it's that the spore drive was a one-off, super-powerful breakthrough that ultimately proved completely unrepeatable in the 23rd century and was never heard from again by anyone who stayed behind in that time. It's only in the 32nd century that it's actually being fully developed to a reproduceable technology.
Superpowerful unique techonological achievements that no-one seems able to reproduce are a staple of Trek, so the idea that the Spore Drive is bad because 'it's 23rd century' is just dumb, imo. Now- the fact that it could use a few more limitations, just for good storytellings' sake, that I can agree with, although the descriptions of its abilities in this thread have not been entirely accurate, either. Ie, accuracy is in fact at least somewhat an issue because their original time travel trip was not intended to be a time travel trip at all, and the whole 'you can jump 130 times with no cooldown' claim completely ignores that that little plan nearly killed Stamets, which would've rendered the drive forever useless afterward had it happened.
All the clowns back in their cars of indeterminate age please.
No more personal sniping over this.
One time when I was over at the USS Constitution, I asked a maintenance worker just how much of the original ship is really still here? He said "about 4%- maybe". But we still call her an 18th century warship and she's still considered the oldest commissioned ship still afloat in the world. 4%. Maybe.
HMS Victory is in dry dock in Portsmouth, England, and, I believe is still in active service. It was commissioned in 1778, 19 years before "Old Ironsides in 1797. I got to visit her in October 1980 when my ship made a port call in Portsmouth.
The UK let the USS Nimitz use HMNB Portsmouth as out fleet landing. I was stationed at Fleet Landing on temporary duty to take care of USN liberty launches during our port call.
Well, truth be told, there are objects that we give names to that don't even have a substance of their own. Like a river for example, whose water is never the same or worse yet a hurricane. Not to mention the things that don't even exist like fabulous creatures...
So this is all a matter of convention rather than something based on rationality...
Humans are not always rational, no matter what we would like to believe. We have to work within the limits of our hardware.
Is Osyraa space Karen? 56:00 in
Separate names with a comma.