Is Data's head still under San Francisco?

[Set Harth]

We know that Nero's presence led to events being different from the Prime universe. We have no way of knowing if, for whatever scientific or dramatic reason they so choose, the writers will determine that the consequences of those changes will affect the past as well as the future

Are we talking about hypothetical future writers inheriting the franchise after the Abrams era? Because writer intent as it currently stands has already been examined and discarded. I don't think it's useful to gamble on the writers changing their minds. We should focus on the information we already have instead of relying on speculation that it might be thrown out.

, particularly where the past is dependent upon a future that will not now occur.

However, it is not. Generally speaking, that concept is backwards. The past is not dependent on the future; the future is dependent on the past. You continue to make invalid assumptions regarding the branching time travel. The presence of PrimeHead is not in any way dependent on anything that happens with the eventual Abramsverse equivalent of TNG. Whatever happens in the future of the Abramsverse is irrelevant. The presence of PrimeHead is guaranteed by the branching nature of the Abramsverse. It was a component of the past of the Prime timeline during a certain historical period. Thus it is in the Abramsverse during that period as well ( unless discovered earlier in the new timeline due to the butterfly effect ). Its existence cannot somehow be dependent on the Abramsverse future, which would be a logical cul-de-sac. It is not a result of things that happen in the Abramsverse future. It was already there in Nero's past and Spock Prime's past before the Abramsverse timeline was created.

We can debate temporal mechanics v writer intent but we just don't know.

This presumes that so-called "temporal mechanics" and writer intent are in conflict. However, fictional ST time travel, in particular that version resulting from previously unseen red matter black holes, need not adhere to the "realities" of theories proposed by scientists not involved in the production or consulting with the franchise. From an in-universe perspective, the claim that writer intent violates temporal mechanics makes little sense. It seems clear that writer intent would dictate that the time travel of the film works the way they say it does.

 

[Pauln6]

Are we talking about hypothetical future writers inheriting the franchise after the Abrams era? Because writer intent as it currently stands has already been examined and discarded. I don't think it's useful to gamble on the writers changing their minds. We should focus on the information we already have instead of relying on speculation that it might be thrown out.

The writers have nothing to change right now. They haven't spend a single second considering whether Data Prime's head is there. However, writer intent could in the future clarify what seems to be the case right now.

The presence of PrimeHead is guaranteed by the branching nature of the Abramsverse. It was a component of the past of the Prime timeline during a certain historical period. Thus it is in the Abramsverse during that period as well ( unless discovered earlier in the new timeline due to the butterfly effect ). Its existence cannot somehow be dependent on the Abramsverse future, which would be a logical cul-de-sac. It is not a result of things that happen in the Abramsverse future. It was already there in Nero's past and Spock Prime's past before the Abramsverse timeline was created.

There is no clear definition of what a branching universe means in practice. There are several different possible theories with several different possible outcomes. Until they collapse into a single quantum reality we are just playing with probabilities.

We can debate temporal mechanics v writer intent but we just don't know.

It seems clear that writer intent would dictate that the time travel of the film works the way they say it does.

It may seem clear now but that cannot be guaranteed.

 

[Mr Silver]

It has nothing to do with what the hypothetical Enterprise D crew of the future of the Abramsverse timeline will or will not still do. The Enterprise D crew of the Prime already did it. From the POV of Prime 2387, everything that went on in Time's Arrow is a past event, and PrimeHead was there in the past of the timeline. Starting in Prime 2387, Nero goes back to a point in the middle of the period when PrimeHead was there. It doesn't magically disappear upon his arrival.

You still staunchly refuse to accept that the Abramsverse could be a seperate universe where things happen differently?

I can see your point nonetheless, but the head could also cease being there as soon as Nero opened fire upon the Kelvin. By destroying the Kelvin, Nero could have indirectly affected the normal flow of time and stopped Data from existing. If the Ent-D crew "already did it", as you say. How could they have done it if the android who left his head behind, wasn't there?

This would create a time paradox that would render everything unpredictable, Data not existing would change many key events in the late 24th Century, including his presence in the past. If he never went back to the past, then he never left his head, thus it ceased to stop being there when the timeline was altered (if it indeed was).

 

[Pauln6]

I think we have reached the stage where the two sides of the argument are very clear:

1. Yes: Writer intent is for the branch to bud from the stalk of the prime timeline leaving a paradox. It doesn't chime with the latest theoretical science but it's the writers' train set and they can make up whatever physics they like for their fictional world.

The main contra argument is that the writers (and scientists) are not clear on the small print of branching theory and writer intent now may be changed by writer intent in the future should this plot point ever arise. The science is based on the mathematics of quantum theory and you can't 'create' a whole new branch universe mathematically from a time travel event.


2. Maybe: Time travelling shunts the traveller into a new universe, representing a different but (almost) exact quantum reality to the Prime where the main difference is the time travel event. This new universe includes a self-contained past of its own. The past may be identical to the prime timeline but could only be affected by future time travel events that take place within its own history. Thus if Data's head exists it will only be if a different time travelling version of Data travelled back into this reality.

The contra argument is simply that this doesn't appear to be what the writers' intended albeit that they almost certainly gave no thought to whether Data's head would be there or not.

 

[F. King Daniel]

But there is NO paradox in the branching theory. All the different travellers from the different futures come down the tree and leave their junk (inc. Data's head) in the shared past.

The paradox exists if the universes are always seperate. Only then does the head being there make no sense.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Yes, and that different futures leaving their junk in the past... explains the Temporal Cold War on Enterprise.

Different branches of the tree fighting each other, going back to the root and trying to ensure their dominance.

 

[Pauln6]

But there is NO paradox in the branching theory. All the different travellers from the different futures come down the tree and leave their junk (inc. Data's head) in the shared past.

The paradox exists if the universes are always seperate. Only then does the head being there make no sense.

Right - because the act of 'branching' will occur when a paradox would otherwise be created. I'll edit the post.

 

[Set Harth]

The writers have nothing to change right now.

Yes they do. They never said anything about the head but they specified the nature of the time travel. You said it yourself: writer intent now may be changed by writer intent in the future should this plot point ever arise.

There is no clear definition of what a branching universe means in practice. There are several different possible theories with several different possible outcomes.

I'm not concerned with adherence to various popular OOU scientific theories ( and none of this is really "in practice" since it's all fictional ).

It may seem clear now but that cannot be guaranteed.

It can be guaranteed that the temporal mechanics of the film do not conflict with writer intent, by definition. It can't be guaranteed that future writers will not retcon away the intent of the current writers, which is a different issue. However, speculation of this nature does not seem like a very useful argument.

I can see your point nonetheless, but the head could also cease being there as soon as Nero opened fire upon the Kelvin. By destroying the Kelvin, Nero could have indirectly affected the normal flow of time and stopped Data from existing. If the Ent-D crew "already did it", as you say. How could they have done it if the android who left his head behind, wasn't there?

I've said repeatedly that it makes no difference at all if the butterfly effect stops NuData from existing. Whatever does or does not happen with eventual NuData is irrelevant to the question of the presence of Data Prime's head. It makes no sense to ask "how could they have done it" because they already did it before the Abramsverse timeline was created. They were the Prime TNG crew observed in the TV show and films, not the "NuTNG" crew from the hypothetical future of the Abramsverse timeline. Any effect that the Prime TNG crew had on the Prime timeline is a done deal by the time the Abramsverse timeline is created.

If he never went back to the past, then he never left his head, thus it ceased to stop being there when the timeline was altered (if it indeed was).

Data Prime did go back; we saw it happen. To erase that event from ever having taken place at all ( if such a concept is even meaningful ) would certainly not be consistent with branching time travel. Again it seems that branching is being erroneously treated as though it is really non-branching. ( Also, "ceased to stop being there" is a double negative, but it never stopped being there. )

 

[DonIago]

You do realize that the very nature of a time paradox means that you -can't- say "It happened" or "It hasn't happened yet" unless you're either before the earliest event in the paradox or after the latest event in the paradox, right?

I seem to keep forgetting how non-fun it is to argue with people who refuse to consider other perspectives. And before anyone accuses me of doing the same I'd point out that I've consistently granted that they -may- be right.

 

[Set Harth]

You do realize that the very nature of a time paradox means that you -can't- say "It happened" or "It hasn't happened yet" unless you're either before the earliest event in the paradox or after the latest event in the paradox, right?

You do realize that 2387 was after the latest event in the paradox, right?

 

[Mr Silver]

I argue that the JJ-verse is naturally occuring verse within the Star Trek multiverse. No events that took place in the Prime caused it to be there. Nero and Spock were merely thrown into it after being sucked into the black hole.

 

[DonIago]

^That's pretty much what I've been maintaining. Nothing "created" the NuVerse, Spock and Nero just jumped tracks to it...but that was always "destined" to happen.

 

[Mr Silver]

I've been maintaining it through my entire participation in this thread. I've even been open to the idea that they are connected, despite the fact there isn't much evidence of that.

 

[Set Harth]

I've even been open to the idea that they are connected, despite the fact there isn't much evidence of that.

That's ridiculous. It's made clear that the Abramsverse is created from the past of the Prime.

but that was always "destined" to happen.

We've gone from predestination paradoxes to full-scale predestination?

 

[Mr Silver]

I've even been open to the idea that they are connected, despite the fact there isn't much evidence of that.

That's ridiculous. It's made clear that the Abramsverse is created from the past of the Prime.

By one throwaway line where NuSpock mentions "Whatever we were going to be, has been changed". That could easily suggest that Nero's attacks have altered the timeline in their particular universe and not the Prime. JJ and his team have constantly stated that this is an alternative universe where no events that occur here have any effect on the Prime.

 

[Set Harth]

JJ and his team have constantly stated that this is an alternative universe where no events that occur here have any effect on the Prime.

That's pretty funny - citing "JJ and his team" while simultaneously throwing out writer intent. See any problem there? Is it somehow possible that "JJ and his team" are promoting branching theory while contradicting it at the same time? "This is an alternative universe where no events that occur here have any effect on the Prime" describes a timeline branching from the Prime. No one said the events in the Abramsverse would have an effect on the Prime. The Abramsverse being dependent on the past of the Prime does not mean the Prime is dependent on the Abramsverse.

By one throwaway line where NuSpock mentions "Whatever we were going to be, has been changed".

It's more than that. This is indicated both IU and OOU.

That could easily suggest that Nero's attacks have altered the timeline in their particular universe and not the Prime.

Then they wouldn't be jumping tracks, as you claim to have maintained.

Nothing "created" the NuVerse, Spock and Nero just jumped tracks to it...

You can maintain that all you want, but it's just revisionism. There is no "jumping tracks". The condition of the Abramsverse at the moment of Nero's arrival is otherwise identical to the past of the Prime, because it is the past of the Prime. It's made clear that Spock and Nero went into the past of their universe of origin, which is understood to be the Prime the same way previous films in the franchise were understood to be taking place in the Prime.

 

[Pauln6]

The writers have nothing to change right now.

Yes they do. They never said anything about the head but they specified the nature of the time travel. You said it yourself: writer intent now may be changed by writer intent in the future should this plot point ever arise.

I'm not concerned with adherence to various popular OOU scientific theories ( and none of this is really "in practice" since it's all fictional ).

Blimey, try to bring a debate to a consensus acknowledging the merits of both sides is tough if people are so dogmatic that they can't acknowledge the contra arguments to their view!

The writers have nothing to change right now because they haven't decided to write Data into the plot or not. They specified the nature of the time travel in their story but simultaneously relying on the words they use while ignoring those who feel that the language used isn't definitive because the scientific definition of 'branching' and its consequences are so nebulous.

It can be guaranteed that the temporal mechanics of the film do not conflict with writer intent, by definition. It can't be guaranteed that future writers will not retcon away the intent of the current writers, which is a different issue. However, speculation of this nature does not seem like a very useful argument.

This kind of speculation IS the crux of the argument. You cannot know whether Data's head is there until somebody discovers it. Schrodinger's Cat is so clear on this point. There is no way you can guarantee the existence. The assumptions you are making are no different from somebody assuming that the cat in the box is alive. Your view is an assumption, not a guarantee.

Data Prime did go back; we saw it happen. To erase that event from ever having taken place at all ( if such a concept is even meaningful ) would certainly not be consistent with branching time travel. Again it seems that branching is being erroneously treated as though it is really non-branching.

Once again, use of the word branching isn't of as much help as you think since it can have more than one meaning, not all of which would lead to the result to propose. Time travel mechanics only appear to apply to the observer. Until somebody observes Data Prime in this universe you are making assumptions about the precise mechanics. There are points in your favour and in favour of the opposite view. Both arguments remain valid.

 

[Set Harth]

Blimey, try to bring a debate to a consensus acknowledging the merits of both sides is tough if people are so dogmatic that they can't acknowledge the contra arguments to their view!

That's because both sides of an issue are not always right. Sometimes one side is right and the other side is wrong.

The writers have nothing to change right now because they haven't decided to write Data into the plot or not.

It has nothing to do with whether or not they plan to do anything with Data. Given the timeframe they probably won't even get to the equivalent of the TNG era.

They specified the nature of the time travel in their story but simultaneously relying on the words they use while ignoring those who feel that the language used isn't definitive because the scientific definition of 'branching' and its consequences are so nebulous.

If they specified the nature of the time travel in their story, then saying "the language used isn't definitive" is nothing more than discarding writer/director intent in favor of the personal preference of a minority of the audience. The language can never be definitive enough to satisfy those determined to change the plot into something more to their liking. And again, the so-called "scientific definition" of branching is irrelevant. In-universe plot points are not subject to approval by the purveyors of speculative popular physics.

This kind of speculation IS the crux of the argument.

Then the "argument" is fundamentally useless, having become nothing more than wishful thinking predicated on the hope that future writers will retcon away the things you find distasteful about STXI.

You cannot know whether Data's head is there until somebody discovers it. Schrodinger's Cat is so clear on this point. There is no way you can guarantee the existence. The assumptions you are making are no different from somebody assuming that the cat in the box is alive.

Schrodinger's Cat does not support this type of willfully ignorant know-nothingism. Schrodinger's Cat does not question whether or not the cat is in the box at all. It concerns the question of whether the cat is alive or dead. It does not allow for the possibility that no cat, alive or dead, will be found in the box. If you want to argue that we cannot know for certain whether or not Data's head would be alive when found, knock yourself out.

Once again, use of the word branching isn't of as much help as you think since it can have more than one meaning, not all of which would lead to the result to propose.

Once again, the nature of the time travel has been made clear, as you admitted. The fact that words can have different meanings is totally irrelevant. When I say "branching" I use it as a shorthand for the situation detailed by Orci, not as an open door for whatever a revisionist might wish "branching" to mean.

Time travel mechanics only appear to apply to the observer.

I'm not concerned with what appears to be the case, but what is the case. Don't assume that reality is dictated by appearances. The time travel mechanics as specified by the writer and studio do not appear to apply; they do apply in a universal fashion.

Until somebody observes Data Prime in this universe you are making assumptions about the precise mechanics.

Wrong. Data's head was placed in the ground, therefore it is in the ground. Its existence is not dependent on observers ( and it was observed in Time's Arrow when it was placed there ).

 

[Mr Silver]

Blimey, try to bring a debate to a consensus acknowledging the merits of both sides is tough if people are so dogmatic that they can't acknowledge the contra arguments to their view!

That's because both sides of an issue are not always right. Sometimes one side is right and the other side is wrong.

The writers have nothing to change right now because they haven't decided to write Data into the plot or not.

It has nothing to do with whether or not they plan to do anything with Data. Given the timeframe they probably won't even get to the equivalent of the TNG era.



If they specified the nature of the time travel in their story, then saying "the language used isn't definitive" is nothing more than discarding writer/director intent in favor of the personal preference of a minority of the audience. The language can never be definitive enough to satisfy those determined to change the plot into something more to their liking. And again, the so-called "scientific definition" of branching is irrelevant. In-universe plot points are not subject to approval by the purveyors of speculative popular physics.



Then the "argument" is fundamentally useless, having become nothing more than wishful thinking predicated on the hope that future writers will retcon away the things you find distasteful about STXI.



Schrodinger's Cat does not support this type of willfully ignorant know-nothingism. Schrodinger's Cat does not question whether or not the cat is in the box at all. It concerns the question of whether the cat is alive or dead. It does not allow for the possibility that no cat, alive or dead, will be found in the box. If you want to argue that we cannot know for certain whether or not Data's head would be alive when found, knock yourself out.



Once again, the nature of the time travel has been made clear, as you admitted. The fact that words can have different meanings is totally irrelevant. When I say "branching" I use it as a shorthand for the situation detailed by Orci, not as an open door for whatever a revisionist might wish "branching" to mean.

Time travel mechanics only appear to apply to the observer.

I'm not concerned with what appears to be the case, but what is the case. Don't assume that reality is dictated by appearances. The time travel mechanics as specified by the writer and studio do not appear to apply; they do apply in a universal fashion.

Until somebody observes Data Prime in this universe you are making assumptions about the precise mechanics.

Wrong. Data's head was placed in the ground, therefore it is in the ground. Its existence is not dependent on observers ( and it was observed in Time's Arrow when it was placed there ).

I don't get why you are so passionate about being right...It seems as if you have accepted your own theory on this issue as being the truth and you cannot possibly come to a compromise on the ideas that myself and other posters have suggested.

I've noticed that your style of posting in this thread is consistent with that of someone playing an argument. I don't know whether you seek the satisfaction of people conceding and therefore forfeiting, or you simply have a problem with alternate ideas when you've made your mind up about something.

I didn't want to voice this up until now because everything was civil, however I cannot stand how you arrogantly reply with "wrong" to almost every post that contradicts your ideas. You'll probably reply to this with some remark about "how I'm reacting and now I've lost the argument", so there really isn't any point. But I'd like to suggest to you that politeness and the willingness to compromise goes a long way. I'm not in this thread to argue, I'm here to theorise and discuss the opinions with other fans of the show. That is what this message board is about after all.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Until somebody observes Data Prime in this universe you are making assumptions about the precise mechanics.

Wrong. Data's head was placed in the ground, therefore it is in the ground. Its existence is not dependent on observers ( and it was observed in Time's Arrow when it was placed there ).

I'm sorry, but even though I tend to think, as you do, that Data's head should be there, Pauln6 is entirely correct in this statement. The characters in the last movie seemed to believe they shared a common past and that the timeline was branched, but they were speculating and couldn't really know. It may also have been the writers' intent, but that does not matter unless it was made canon by being displayed onscreen in some way more definitive than character speculation. It is entirely in the hands of whomever writes a scene that is then filmed into canon that firmly establishes the situation - and they could decide to go with ANY of the possibilities discussed in this thread, however disappointing that might be to those of us that have a different preference to what they choose.