Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

[Plain Simple]

^Now you're just misrepresenting what others have said. It's a straw man argument. Edit: reply to 3D Master's post, not number6's. Another edit: well, actually it could also refer to number6's post, but I understand his/her post to be meant sarcastically.

No one ever claimed that you must forget about the real world when describing the real world. The claim is that logic has a priori nothing to do with the real world. Science does, logic doesn't. That doesn't mean that you cannot use logic to describe the real world (in science), but a priori it doesn't have anything to do with it.

Logic is just one of the tools science uses, just like experimentation for example. But still you can analyse each of these tools by themselves. You can use a hammer to hit whatever you like, but only when you're determined to get that nail into your shelf, you better use it to hit the nail, instead of that pot of yoghurt (or whatever).

Edit: I fell again for the temptation to continue this discussion. Apologies, I'll stick to the topic from here on.

 

[Captain Robert April]

And now, back to "Two and a Half Spocks", already in progress:

TOS Spock would have no clue what Nero did in the past because he did it in an alternate past, so there is apparently no logical reason for the old Spock we see to be TOS Spock. So, in all likelihood, old Spock is Old JJ Spock (whereas Quinto is Young JJ Spock).

As for why Old JJ Spock would suspect his timeline is wonky, well, some basic historical research would show this Nero character showing up without explanation with highly advanced technology and causing all sorts of mayhem, so it's a pretty short leap to conclude that he's come back from the future to muck things up, and Old JJ Spock comes back to set things right at least as best as he knows.

This would also account for not completely resetting everything, because Old JJ Spock might not be aware of just how extensive Nero's damage goes and, besides, Old JJ Spock is primarily interested in just stopping the rampage (this would especially hold true if Nero wound up in an alternate timeline to begin with, like one where the Temporal Cold War wasn't wrapped up as neatly and had more lingering, albeit subtle, after effects, like the design of the Kelvin looking more TMP than pre-TOS).

 

[xortex]

Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

I don't think a monkey in the room would be typing shakespeare, maybe star Trek.

 

[Therin of Andor]

TOS Spock would have no clue what Nero did in the past because he did it in an alternate past, so there is apparently no logical reason for the old Spock we see to be TOS Spock.

TOS Spock hasn't been TOS Spock ever since TAS Spock impersonated Cousin Selek in "Yesteryear", wherein his pet sehlat died earlier than in the regular timeline.

 

[ancient]

Part of the problem here, is that philosophy is being discussed in scienfic terms. Philosophy relies on logic, but by its nature does not rely on facts.

Things like the kill-and-become-your-own-father scenario or Creationism, or temporal mechanics involving going back in history are all pretty much pure philosophy. They don't rely on the scientific method, or empirical evidence, and they may not even be possible. But they are constructed in a logical manner.

Now, Mr. Orci's philosophy is: both timelines exist. He can't pull out a ruler and prove it by measuring the speed of light, but he can still construct a pretty convincing argument for it.

And if you dream about cigars, you need a bigger penis. Oh wait, that's psychology.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

Spock comes back at the same time as Nero, WITH him, perhaps with his ship hidden within Nero's in some way.

In this way, future spock need not have been changed by the alternate timeline.

This is the exact plot of "Star Trek: First Contact." Picard and crew were aware of the changing timeline, because they were caught in the same phenomenon that took the Borg back in time.

Also, in "The City on the Edge of Forever," Kirk and the landing party were immune to the changes McCoy had made to the timeline, because they were shielded within the Guardian's time vortex.

Knowing nothing about the plot of "Star Trek XI," I suspect that this would also be the premise of that movie, since "fixing the timeline" seems to be a popular motivation in time travel stories.

As for the debate over the word "logic," I think 3D Master was arguing from the false premise that "everything that is logical must be true," which prompted others to point out that "truth" and "logic" are two different words that mean different things, and then attempt to illustrate that with examples that were logical but not true; 3D Master rejected those examples because they violated his original premise that "logical" always means "true."

Not getting into the examples used in the "logic" vs. "truth" debate, here's my example of a statement that is true, but not logical:

1. "Richmond is a state capital."
2. "Richmond is a city in California."
3. "Sacramento is the capital of California."
​

Those three statements are each true, but they do not logically follow from each other. In order for it to be logical, each statement must be supported by another statement.

So, assuming we agree that the words "true" and "logical" do not mean the same thing, I challenge 3D Master to come up with a premise that is "logical," but not "true."

As for this entire thread, I think Yogi Berra summed it up best:

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

-- Yogi Berra​

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

3D Master --

Trekbuide is right..."truth" and "logic" are two totally different concepts.

Logic is abosolute. What humans believe to be "The Truth" is always changing.

No matter how much I personally believe some sort of evolution to be "true", I can imagine a scenario where another person may believe that since a "God" is all powerful, that God could make our natural world look like it was created through an evolutionary process.

Do I personally believe this? No.

Does it fit with the scientific facts we know today about our physical world? No.

Can a person who believes in an all powerful God make a logical argument for a version of creationism that can logically ignore those scientific facts? Absolutely.

There are some people in this world who believe so deeply in an all powerful God that the burden of proof becomes YOURS and MINE to prove that their God is NOT all powerful enough to make creationism look like evolution.

That's how "the 'truths' we know today" are irrelevant when we are talking about logic. The only 'truths' that should be considered are the truths that are part of the logical argument. And my above example shows that even what some people call "truth" can be subjective.

 

[Plain Simple]

TOS Spock would have no clue what Nero did in the past because he did it in an alternate past, so there is apparently no logical reason for the old Spock we see to be TOS Spock. So, in all likelihood, old Spock is Old JJ Spock (whereas Quinto is Young JJ Spock).

Unless Old Spock travelled in the same time travel event as Nero. Is there anything that excludes that possibility?

As for why Old JJ Spock would suspect his timeline is wonky, well, some basic historical research would show this Nero character showing up without explanation with highly advanced technology and causing all sorts of mayhem, so it's a pretty short leap to conclude that he's come back from the future to muck things up, and Old JJ Spock comes back to set things right at least as best as he knows.

Two things seem off here:

-Since the JJ timeline is only created by original timeline Nero going back in time, why would 'original timeline 24th century technology' be an anomaly in JJ timeline's 23rd century? In other words, there is no reason for 24th century JJ timeliners to consider Nero's 23rd century tech advanced for its time, is there?

-If Old JJ Spock goes back in time, wouldn't he created another new timeline instead of going back to the 23rd century in the JJ timeline?

3D Master --

Trekbuide is right..."truth" and "logic" are two totally different concepts.

...snip...

That's how "the 'truths' we know today" are irrelevant when we are talking about logic. The only 'truths' that should be considered are the truths that are part of the logical argument.

Since we seem to be running in circles in this discussion and it threatens to overtake this thread, I created a new thread called logic over in Misc. I propose that if we want to continue this discussion about logic and truth and all that, we do so in that thread.

 

[xortex]

Hey I got it going again. Can you guys figure out who built the pyramids? We already know who killed Kennedy - Spock!

 

[3D Master]

3D Master --

Trekbuide is right..."truth" and "logic" are two totally different concepts.

UnFFING BELIEVABLE!?

Are you all INCAPABLE of READING!? What the F is WRONG with you people!?

Where have I even USED the word "truth", as in "the truth", let alone claim it and logic are the same!? I NEVER have.

What I have claimed, and this is TRUE - not to mention logical - is the following:

I wish to examine A and B, and I already know the following about A and B:

1. A > B

2. B = 5

Then to go on, and claim the following:

C = -100, D > C and E < C, and thus A < 4 and A > -100.

The above is illogical. That is what I have claimed. The above is illogical and always will be. The above does not compute, folks! It is utter illogic! This is the most ridiculous illogic ever bothered to be written down!

Is this so ffing hard to grasp?

THAT is what I've been saying from the get go, with in a scientific theory being about the real world: A and B being the real world, and ID/Creationism being the C D and E stuff which Creationists claim describes the real world ( A < 4, A > -100). And therefor it can never be logical.

I've done the same with a more elaborate example of Lassie, Pig, Dog, because something similar was already used and I wanted to stay in the same vein, and yet for some reason, having made that example, having referred back to that example several times, and that example being quoted several times, you people STILL don't get it, and even try to refute the above, even if you try to claim the same thing in the same post but somehow don't seem to understand the consequences of the above fact when it applies to a scientific theory that describes the real world. (Aka, see all the way down.)

Logic is abosolute. What humans believe to be "The Truth" is always changing.

YES! Logic is ABSOLUTE. And one things in the rules of logic is, that if you don't like your premises because they don't allow you to get you where you like to go, you do NOT get to toss your premises out the window and pull some new ones out of your ass. You start with your premises and you go on untill your logical deduction is over.

You can create some new premises, but you don't get to claim these new premises somehow describe your previous logic problem whose premises you didn't like, not without another bout of logic to prove it first.

No matter how much I personally believe some sort of evolution to be "true", I can imagine a scenario where another person may believe that since a "God" is all powerful, that God could make our natural world look like it was created through an evolutionary process.

Do I personally believe this? No.

Does it fit with the scientific facts we know today about our physical world? No.

Can a person who believes in an all powerful God make a logical argument for a version of creationism that can logically ignore those scientific facts? Absolutely.

But that isn't Creationism! You don't get to decide what is Creationism on a whim, Creationism is a clearly defined "theory": there is no evolution and god made the world exactly as claimed in the bible, literally.

There's a slightly softer ID, but ultimately it's just a lie. ID basically says; well, most of the evolution was there, but that isn't really evolution, because somewhere at the beginning there are a few things that are indivisibly complex so those beginning forms were created by god (well intelligent being and you can fill in what that intelligent being is to sound more scientific); literally: poof.

But it ultimately is a lie, because it's funded by the same people who are busy funding creationism; ID is nothing but a way to get a foot in the door to try and make something seem scientifically valid that says evolution isn't really true completely, and once that is done, they can worm their way about until they can freely teach the hard line creationism to children in school and of course, ignore evolution.

What you describe above, is just a person's personal belief in how god did it; NOT Creationism, and even LESS so ID. In fact, everything that ID and Creationism is, is REJECTED by your person.

YOUR guy says: all that science says is TRUE about evolution, including all the facts and everything piece of evidence uncovered, it's just that god steered it.

A Creationist/ID says: no, science is wrong, the evidence isn't true, I deny facts: there is no evolution AT ALL, and god did NOT make his creation look like evolution.

There are some people in this world who believe so deeply in an all powerful God that the burden of proof becomes YOURS and MINE to prove that their God is NOT all powerful enough to make creationism look like evolution.

NO. That is illogical.

You cannot logically prove a negative, unless you have a mutually exclusive positive that you can prove.

Only if there is a premise: [If A then not P], can you prove [not P] by proving [A]. If such a line does not exist, it is impossible to prove [not P].

Therefor, the burden of prove is always on the person making the claim, not on the people telling that person, "Prove it."

That's how "the 'truths' we know today" are irrelevant when we are talking about logic. The only 'truths' that should be considered are the truths that are part of the logical argument. And my above example shows that even what some people call "truth" can be subjective.

Exactly, that's what I've saying all this time: the only truths that should be considered are the truths that are part of the logical argument: aka THE PREMISES, and THE PARAMETERS.

And in a scientific theory, THE PARAMETERS and the PREMISES are the world out there and all the facts and pieces evidence we have about that real world. The real world, and the facts we know about them, are A and B, and if you wish make a scientific theory, you'll have to stick to A and B, and not pull C, D, and E out of your ass.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Plain and Simple is right...I'm done here. I don't want M'Sharak to get pissed off at me and make me sit in the corner.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I keep waiting for 3D Master's head to explode in a fit of nerd rage. He keeps getting closer to the brink, but still no explosion.

 

[EnderAKH]

I keep waiting for 3D Master's head to explode in a fit of nerd rage. He keeps getting closer to the brink, but still no explosion.

If a Trek fan's head explodes but it isn't on screen, is it canon?

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I keep waiting for 3D Master's head to explode in a fit of nerd rage. He keeps getting closer to the brink, but still no explosion.

If a Trek fan's head explodes but it isn't on screen, is it canon?

Only if pieces of the splattered head end up on your screen.

 

[M'Sharak]

3D Master --

Trekbuide is right..."truth" and "logic" are two totally different concepts.

UnFFING BELIEVABLE!?

Are you all INCAPABLE of READING!? What the F is WRONG with you people!?

Where have I even USED the word "truth", as in "the truth", let alone claim it and logic are the same!? I NEVER have.

What I have claimed, and this is TRUE - not to mention logical - is the following:

I wish to examine A and B, and I already know the following about A and B:

1. A > B

2. B = 5

Then to go on, and claim the following:

C = -100, D > C and E < C, and thus A < 4 and A > -100.

The above is illogical. That is what I have claimed. The above is illogical and always will be. The above does not compute, folks! It is utter illogic! This is the most ridiculous illogic ever bothered to be written down!

Is this so ffing hard to grasp?

THAT is what I've been saying from the get go, with in a scientific theory being about the real world: A and B being the real world, and ID/Creationism being the C D and E stuff which Creationists claim describes the real world ( A < 4, A > -100). And therefor it can never be logical.

I've done the same with a more elaborate example of Lassie, Pig, Dog, because something similar was already used and I wanted to stay in the same vein, and yet for some reason, having made that example, having referred back to that example several times, and that example being quoted several times, you people STILL don't get it, and even try to refute the above, even if you try to claim the same thing in the same post but somehow don't seem to understand the consequences of the above fact when it applies to a scientific theory that describes the real world. (Aka, see all the way down.)

Logic is abosolute. What humans believe to be "The Truth" is always changing.

YES! Logic is ABSOLUTE. And one things in the rules of logic is, that if you don't like your premises because they don't allow you to get you where you like to go, you do NOT get to toss your premises out the window and pull some new ones out of your ass. You start with your premises and you go on untill your logical deduction is over.

You can create some new premises, but you don't get to claim these new premises somehow describe your previous logic problem whose premises you didn't like, not without another bout of logic to prove it first.

But that isn't Creationism! You don't get to decide what is Creationism on a whim, Creationism is a clearly defined "theory": there is no evolution and god made the world exactly as claimed in the bible, literally.

There's a slightly softer ID, but ultimately it's just a lie. ID basically says; well, most of the evolution was there, but that isn't really evolution, because somewhere at the beginning there are a few things that are indivisibly complex so those beginning forms were created by god (well intelligent being and you can fill in what that intelligent being is to sound more scientific); literally: poof.

But it ultimately is a lie, because it's funded by the same people who are busy funding creationism; ID is nothing but a way to get a foot in the door to try and make something seem scientifically valid that says evolution isn't really true completely, and once that is done, they can worm their way about until they can freely teach the hard line creationism to children in school and of course, ignore evolution.

What you describe above, is just a person's personal belief in how god did it; NOT Creationism, and even LESS so ID. In fact, everything that ID and Creationism is, is REJECTED by your person.

YOUR guy says: all that science says is TRUE about evolution, including all the facts and everything piece of evidence uncovered, it's just that god steered it.

A Creationist/ID says: no, science is wrong, the evidence isn't true, I deny facts: there is no evolution AT ALL, and god did NOT make his creation look like evolution.

There are some people in this world who believe so deeply in an all powerful God that the burden of proof becomes YOURS and MINE to prove that their God is NOT all powerful enough to make creationism look like evolution.

NO. That is illogical.

You cannot logically prove a negative, unless you have a mutually exclusive positive that you can prove.

Only if there is a premise: [If A then not P], can you prove [not P] by proving [A]. If such a line does not exist, it is impossible to prove [not P].

Therefor, the burden of prove is always on the person making the claim, not on the people telling that person, "Prove it."

That's how "the 'truths' we know today" are irrelevant when we are talking about logic. The only 'truths' that should be considered are the truths that are part of the logical argument. And my above example shows that even what some people call "truth" can be subjective.

Exactly, that's what I've saying all this time: the only truths that should be considered are the truths that are part of the logical argument: aka THE PREMISES, and THE PARAMETERS.

And in a scientific theory, THE PARAMETERS and the PREMISES are the world out there and all the facts and pieces evidence we have about that real world. The real world, and the facts we know about them, are A and B, and if you wish make a scientific theory, you'll have to stick to A and B, and not pull C, D, and E out of your ass.

After I said first, generally, that the subjects of Creationism and Intelligent Design (introduced into the discussion by you, I believe) were properly subjects for a separate topic, and after I later said the same thing again to you directly that neither this thread nor this forum were appropriate places for that argument and asked you to drop it, further instructing that, if you wished to have a debate about rules of logic, you should start a separate thread about that, you clearly ignored everything I've said and kept hammering away at it, becoming even more abusive and unpleasant than before. I said at that time that I would close the thread if this did not stop, and this thread is now closed.

You also have a warning for willfully continuing to derail the thread after being instructed more than once to desist. If you have this much trouble conducting yourself in a civil manner and in observing the board rules and directions of staff, you may wish to consider avoiding this forum entirely in the future, as it plainly does not agree with you.