Ugh, Quantum states.
Is "Yesterday's Enterprise" the proper timeline?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
It's totally okay if I cry now, right?
Because that's what time travel makes me want to do, generally without exception, whenever I think about it.
BTW, are the Prophets the beings that live inside the Bajoran wormhole featured in DS9? This is a TNG thread and I'm not nearly as familar with DS9, so this is why I ask for confirmation.
...
Star Trek has had many time travel stories, and many of them are inconsistent with each other. Some time travel stories in Trek are clearly intended by the writers to be cases of "predestination" time travel. "Time's Arrow" is a good example of predestination time travel.
They find Data's future head that had been buried in the past before Data's head had been sent back in time. So, it was predestination, or "fate" that at least Data's head would eventually go back in time. It had to eventually happen or they couldn't have dug it up. Data indicates to Picard that it is irrational to attempt to cheat fate. Data's future time travel is destined to happen or they couldn't have found he head buried in the past.
Also, Samual Clemens comes to the future, but that doesn't change history. From a chronological perpective, he disappeared from the timeline in 1893 and reappeared in 2368. But history didn't change to a reality that Samual Clemens diappeared in 1893. They make mention that they have to eventually return him to the past to not change history, but since his leaving didn't change history that means that his future backward time travel was always predestined to happen whether Riker "chose" to do it or not.
The problem with predestination time travel is not only the paradox that events have no discernable cause, but that there is no freedom of will. Free will is only an illusion. No matter how hard Picard tried, he could not cheat fate. From a chronological point of view, time travellers from the future just appear in the past, and the timeline's course of events must lead to the their eventual travel back to the past to become of a part of history. History can never be changed no matter how hard you try or think you can. If they always had to travel back in time, that means that they never really chose to do so, even if they believe that they did.
Whether you believe in free will or fate, many Trek time travel stories are pointedly not predestination time travel. In predestination time travel, there is only ever one timeline and things cannot be changed. Some stories may be debatable as to which kind they are, but other stories are not.
"Yesterday's Enterprise" cannot be predestination time travel, because things do change. Alt-Tasha was not "always" in that battle in 2344, and the two timelines have two different outcomes for the Enterprise-C. In the "Klingon War" timeline, Enterprise-C just dissappeared from the battle and never returned. In the timeline leading to TNG, Enteprise-C reappeared in the battle with Alt-Tasha, fought bravely and was eventually destroyed, but that act inspired the Klingons to continue the peace process and a better outcome.
First Contact cannot be predestination time travel. The Borg and the Enterprise-E were not "always" behind the scenes of Cochrane's first warp flight and Earth's first contact with the Vulcans. When the Borg were creating the time vortext to travel back to 2063, the Enterprise was caught in the Borg ship's temporal wake and that allowed the Enterprise to see the result of the alternate timeline created by the Borg by going back in time. That temporal wake also allowed the Enteprise to go back in time with the Borg to attempt to prevent that alternate timeline from occuring, which of course they did. If they were always pre-destined to go back in time, then that would mean there could only ever be one timeline which means it would have been impossible to see that alternate Borg-succeed timeline. Picard saw the outcome of the Borg's time travel, and then chose to go back in time with them to prevent that timeline. Things change by human free will to change them. That movie is pointedly not predestination time travel like "Time's Arrow."
So the last two stories above are both examples of time travel that is definitely not predestination time travel. That kind of time travel does exist in Trek, but it is defintely true that some of them aren't. "Yesterday's Enterprise" is not. Sela did not exist in the "Klingon War" timeline, but does exist in the final timeline after Enterprise-C goes back.
...
If anyone is interested in reading my entire "essay" with other examples concerning time travel in Star Trek, here it is.
...
Star Trek has had many time travel stories, and many of them are inconsistent with each other. Some time travel stories in Trek are clearly intended by the writers to be cases of "predestination" time travel. "Time's Arrow" is a good example of predestination time travel.
They find Data's future head that had been buried in the past before Data's head had been sent back in time. So, it was predestination, or "fate" that at least Data's head would eventually go back in time. It had to eventually happen or they couldn't have dug it up. Data indicates to Picard that it is irrational to attempt to cheat fate. Data's future time travel is destined to happen or they couldn't have found he head buried in the past.
Also, Samual Clemens comes to the future, but that doesn't change history. From a chronological perpective, he disappeared from the timeline in 1893 and reappeared in 2368. But history didn't change to a reality that Samual Clemens diappeared in 1893. They make mention that they have to eventually return him to the past to not change history, but since his leaving didn't change history that means that his future backward time travel was always predestined to happen whether Riker "chose" to do it or not.
The problem with predestination time travel is not only the paradox that events have no discernable cause, but that there is no freedom of will. Free will is only an illusion. No matter how hard Picard tried, he could not cheat fate. From a chronological point of view, time travellers from the future just appear in the past, and the timeline's course of events must lead to the their eventual travel back to the past to become of a part of history. History can never be changed no matter how hard you try or think you can. If they always had to travel back in time, that means that they never really chose to do so, even if they believe that they did.
Whether you believe in free will or fate, many Trek time travel stories are pointedly not predestination time travel. In predestination time travel, there is only ever one timeline and things cannot be changed. Some stories may be debatable as to which kind they are, but other stories are not.
"Yesterday's Enterprise" cannot be predestination time travel, because things do change. Alt-Tasha was not "always" in that battle in 2344, and the two timelines have two different outcomes for the Enterprise-C. In the "Klingon War" timeline, Enterprise-C just dissappeared from the battle and never returned. In the timeline leading to TNG, Enteprise-C reappeared in the battle with Alt-Tasha, fought bravely and was eventually destroyed, but that act inspired the Klingons to continue the peace process and a better outcome.
First Contact cannot be predestination time travel. The Borg and the Enterprise-E were not "always" behind the scenes of Cochrane's first warp flight and Earth's first contact with the Vulcans. When the Borg were creating the time vortext to travel back to 2063, the Enterprise was caught in the Borg ship's temporal wake and that allowed the Enterprise to see the result of the alternate timeline created by the Borg by going back in time. That temporal wake also allowed the Enteprise to go back in time with the Borg to attempt to prevent that alternate timeline from occuring, which of course they did. If they were always pre-destined to go back in time, then that would mean there could only ever be one timeline which means it would have been impossible to see that alternate Borg-succeed timeline. Picard saw the outcome of the Borg's time travel, and then chose to go back in time with them to prevent that timeline. Things change by human free will to change them. That movie is pointedly not predestination time travel like "Time's Arrow."
So the last two stories above are both examples of time travel that is definitely not predestination time travel. That kind of time travel does exist in Trek, but it is defintely true that some of them aren't. "Yesterday's Enterprise" is not. Sela did not exist in the "Klingon War" timeline, but does exist in the final timeline after Enterprise-C goes back.
...
If anyone is interested in reading my entire "essay" with other examples concerning time travel in Star Trek, here it is.
Last edited:
Sorry I'm not making myself clear. I'm a fan of the pre-destination theory. If time isn't linear which, according to the Prophets, it doesn't have to be (they exist in all time zones at once and are possibly omniscient, although they obviously spend much of their time just chilling and only occasionally possess agents to go to certain places. They also read the past and future of beings that visit them).
Beings that are stuck in linear time view it as pre-destination because the past has already happened for them (as opposed to it's happening right now for non-linear beings) so they are locked into the actions that led to their present. As long as you accept time as non-linear, you always have a choice but whatever choice you make is carried forward in your timeline, thus giving the impression that you don't have a choice. For whatever reason, your choice led to your present but you still chose whatever led to the present, even if your choice was to try and change the outcome (and failing).
So in the Gabriel Bell story, there should never be a picture of Bell OR there should always be a picture of Bell. Sisko may have usurped his position but the photograph should never have changed because the past had already happened for linear beings and was happening right now at all times for non-linear beings. Either way, it never 'changed' in fact it's as impossible to change the past as it is to change the present or the future as far as non-linear beings are concerned - all they need to is point the linear beings in the right direction. So I guess if they can see every choice they made and are going to make maybe non-linear beings don't have a choice then...? No wonder they spend their time chilling.
I'm happy for intervening forces, like the Guardian of Forever or the Krenim to change the rules but I'm not a fan of time travel 'accidents' like NuTrek doing so.
Logically speaking the YE War timeline would have to precede the TNG "normal" timeline, yes.
Please forgive my ignorance here, but how does this Prophets and Gabriel Bell stuff tie into the time-travel in "Yesterday's Enterprise"? I'm sorry but I'm a bit lost in all this DS9 stuff in a TNG thread. I'm interested though!
Chrono-logically speaking, yes! Thank you. Hey, I like this guy!
Now that I think about it, it was her introduction that ruined the episode wasn't it?
Picard probably let Tasha go back because he figured the temporal mechanics out, & realized that if all was set right back 22 years in the past, there'd be no Tasha there, because she's already dead
You people are ruining this episode for me
You aren't ignorant - it doesn't tie in! That's the point I'm making. An overarching theme in DS9 was the machinations of a group of non-linear aliens and yet they still only portrayed time as non-linear when dealing with stories involving the prophets.
Yesterday's Enterprise came before the Prophets and represents the most common form of time travel but it's so linear in approach that it makes little sense, especially if you consider that any other time travellers in the time stream would retrospectivley overwrite time every time they step on an ant, with the ripples carried forward. Time would constantly be in a state of flux. Predestination is much neater.
Last edited:
Star Trek 2009 rather changed the concept of how time travel is to be perceived by introducing the multiverse theory (actually supported by TNG episode Pegasus):
The original ENT-D timeline continues to exist
By ENT-C travelling to future (thus being removed from the past) temporal incursion occured, creating new universe, where Federation and Klingons are at war. This timeline continues to exist
By ENT-C travelling back into the past, temporal incursionoccured, creating new universe, which seems very similar to original ENT-D timeline. This timeline continues to exist.
Point being, timelines are not restored / nullified by corrective time travel, all still keep to exist. But new universes are spawned that look very similar like original ones. So, ALL timelines are proper. There is no telling that one is more proper than another.
When we look at this from our limited 3D perspective it seems rather crazy - infinite number of universes taking up infinite number of space and matter etc. Well...maybe not, maybe there is only one multiverse, and each of the "universes" is just different state / plane of existence (quantum state).
What was it that Q said? Exploring new ways and possibilities of existence?...
The original ENT-D timeline continues to exist
By ENT-C travelling to future (thus being removed from the past) temporal incursion occured, creating new universe, where Federation and Klingons are at war. This timeline continues to exist
By ENT-C travelling back into the past, temporal incursionoccured, creating new universe, which seems very similar to original ENT-D timeline. This timeline continues to exist.
Point being, timelines are not restored / nullified by corrective time travel, all still keep to exist. But new universes are spawned that look very similar like original ones. So, ALL timelines are proper. There is no telling that one is more proper than another.
When we look at this from our limited 3D perspective it seems rather crazy - infinite number of universes taking up infinite number of space and matter etc. Well...maybe not, maybe there is only one multiverse, and each of the "universes" is just different state / plane of existence (quantum state).
What was it that Q said? Exploring new ways and possibilities of existence?...
Your theory is sound. I like it.
To support the theory of single unified multiverse, let's have a look at this pic:
http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4x09/yearofhellPT2_094.jpg
It is from Krenim (experts in temporal mechanics) computer screen and represents a "timeline".
It has been never explained what exactly all those lines mean, but I suspect they can be representing the various timelines (as we got to know them - alternate timelines).
They all exist at the same time, and represent one continuum - temporal continuum.
By temporal incursions you can change how the individual lines look like, but they still all exist.
This also brings the potential theory that there are 2 ways of time travel:
The theory of multiple timelines coexisting in single temporal continuum is supported also by the notion that there are species who can examine alternate timelines (e.g. Spherebuilders). This means that they must exist, otherwise there would be nothing to examine.
To conclude, let's have a look at the representation of timestream from 31st century time fleet:
http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x11/coldfront_244.jpg
Again, multiple lines twisting and crossing each other etc.
Very similar representation to Krenim one.
Btw. it may be worth mentioning that by 31st century humans have perfected their understanding of temporal continuum, so this is supposed to be a very professional and accurate representation.
http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4x09/yearofhellPT2_094.jpg
It is from Krenim (experts in temporal mechanics) computer screen and represents a "timeline".
It has been never explained what exactly all those lines mean, but I suspect they can be representing the various timelines (as we got to know them - alternate timelines).
They all exist at the same time, and represent one continuum - temporal continuum.
By temporal incursions you can change how the individual lines look like, but they still all exist.
This also brings the potential theory that there are 2 ways of time travel:
- disruptive - changing the "shape" of the individual line
- non disruptive - moving between various lines or creating new ones
The theory of multiple timelines coexisting in single temporal continuum is supported also by the notion that there are species who can examine alternate timelines (e.g. Spherebuilders). This means that they must exist, otherwise there would be nothing to examine.
To conclude, let's have a look at the representation of timestream from 31st century time fleet:
http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x11/coldfront_244.jpg
Again, multiple lines twisting and crossing each other etc.
Very similar representation to Krenim one.
Btw. it may be worth mentioning that by 31st century humans have perfected their understanding of temporal continuum, so this is supposed to be a very professional and accurate representation.
Both are visualizations of timestreams after people messed with the timeline. On the Krenim ship, they displayed possible outcomes of their own interventions in the timeline (they ran various simulations all the time, some of them turned out to be wrong because they didn't know all the variables). And Daniels was essentially a Timecop, which means he saw several versions of the timeline, because it was changed at several points in the past. And even Daniels messed up once in a while.
Don't you mean Parallels?
Not really.
Parallels were talking about infinite number of universes, created for every quantum possibility.
So whatever CAN happen WILL happen in one of those universes.
Parallels did not tie this together with time travel in any way.
It was ST'09 which connected history altering with travel between those multiple universes - implying that changing history in some cases means travelling to different alternate universe (creating alternate universe).
But if time travel exists then the possibility of a time traveller also exists and forms part of the 'whatever can happen will happen' tapestry. So do temporal police. In other words, they've given themselves jobs for something to do but we don't need temporal police at all because they can't change anything, they're just one (or rather a finite number) of a near infinite number of possibilities and they should know that.
The Krenim might be an exception if their shielding allows them to eradicate timelines rather than just jumping tracks.
The Krenim might be an exception if their shielding allows them to eradicate timelines rather than just jumping tracks.
In "Yesterday's Enterprise", there decidedly were three different ways the universe moved on after 2344.
1) The "leading up to the episode" timeline, the one where the preceding episodes of TNG happened. In that timeline, the E-C fought bravely and prevented war, but the Federation never learned of her fate - she just "went missing".
2) The war timeline. In that timeline, the E-C didn't fight bravely and Klingons got angry.
3) The final timeline. In that timeline, the E-C fought bravely and the Federation learned of her fate, as Picard later indicates in "Redemption" - she was quoted as a battle casualty.
All "final timelines" would view all courses of action as "predestined", because otherwise there wouldn't be a final timeline to do any viewing. Perhaps the predestination would not take the form of a single trip to the past (and possibly back), but rather a series of iterative trips. If the cycle of iteration were ever broken, the "final timeline" would be the one the observers ended up with, and the iterations would then become predestined for that observing timeline...
Both "Yesterday's Enterprise" and ST:FC would be iteratively predestined time loops, then - from the POV of the timeline valid for the end credits...
Timo Saloniemi
1) The "leading up to the episode" timeline, the one where the preceding episodes of TNG happened. In that timeline, the E-C fought bravely and prevented war, but the Federation never learned of her fate - she just "went missing".
2) The war timeline. In that timeline, the E-C didn't fight bravely and Klingons got angry.
3) The final timeline. In that timeline, the E-C fought bravely and the Federation learned of her fate, as Picard later indicates in "Redemption" - she was quoted as a battle casualty.
All "final timelines" would view all courses of action as "predestined", because otherwise there wouldn't be a final timeline to do any viewing. Perhaps the predestination would not take the form of a single trip to the past (and possibly back), but rather a series of iterative trips. If the cycle of iteration were ever broken, the "final timeline" would be the one the observers ended up with, and the iterations would then become predestined for that observing timeline...
Both "Yesterday's Enterprise" and ST:FC would be iteratively predestined time loops, then - from the POV of the timeline valid for the end credits...
Timo Saloniemi
So how does The Pegasus support the multiuniverse theory?
Because it was a time loop within the paradox. Odd thing about "Yesterdays Enterprise" is while we see it from the view of the E-D, it really was a story of a time loop experienced solely by the E-C.
Or, Sela already existed before the E-D scanned the E-C time rift, because it was a predestination paradox. Picard & Co just weren't aware of it, and Sela herself had no interest in interacting with any of them (especially her mother), and possibly wasn't in a position to reach out even if she wanted to. Recall, the only reason Sela beamed aboard the E-D was because she was trying to throw Picard off balance so she could continue her job of propping up the Duras.
I'm not saying that all time travel episodes are predestination paradoxes, in fact the shows themselves make distinctions (time cops for Trials and Tribble-ations), just that this one can be most easily described as a predestination paradox that featured a self-correcting time loop.
Similar threads
