Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter SalvorHardin
- Start date
- Status
More sensible, in a fictional universe?
We have had several possible explanations; some of them sounded quite sensible. I'm not even sure TrekGuide was the one claiming his proposed explanation was the only one, but I'm not planning on digging back through many pages of lengthy posts to check it, just now. Why don't we just say that it's one of them and leave it at that, okay?
number6
Vice Admiral
Thank you. Well said.
I'm still in the process of reading through this at times very interesting thread, but at this point I want to react to some posts. If these arguments have been made already in a part of the thread which I haven't read yet, I apologise.
Edit: in retrospect I see that this has become a very long post, perhaps too long for something that is quite off topic. However, since the matters of logic and science and how to interpret these things have caused some controversy in this thread, also in the discussion about time travel, I hope you allow me this long off topic post.
The whole problem with allowing ID into science classes is that as far as I can see ID is not a science. Below I will expand a bit on what the scientific method is (in condensed form), but here it suffices to say that ID is not falsifiable and as such can hardly be considered science.
As other's have said, you seem to confuse 'reasoning according to logical rules' with 'stating the truth' or 'the scientific method'. What you seem to call logic resembles actually what Star Trek seems to tell us logic is, via Spock, but that has little to nothing to do with what a logician or (closer to home for me) a mathematician calls logic.
Logic is basically a set of rules that allow you to start from a bunch of premisses and combine them to form new statements. The most common set of these rules (but there is room for other choices of rules, there is not just one logic) is created in such a way that it reflects the way we think the world works. Or more specifically, they are such that we believe that when we start out with premisses that are true in the real world (whatever that exactly might mean) and follow the rules of (that particular) logic, we end up with statements that are also true in the real world. But for the argument to be logically sound, the starting premisses do not have to be 'true'. Consider the following analogy. We start out with a chess board with all the pieces in the correct starting position (a true premisse) and then we proceed to make a couple of moves according to the rules (the logic), then we end up with a board position that is an allowed board position in chess (a true statement). But if we start with a different starting position, for example with all the bishops on white squares (false premisse), then we can still proceed to move the pieces according to the rules (logic), but we will not necessarily end up with a board position that could occur in a real game of chess.
Now if logic is just a set of made up rules, what is all the hubbub about and why do scientists care about logic (in practice usually just up to some degree...)? Here comes in the scientific method (I do need to stress that the things I'm saying here about logic and the scientific method are all just in condensed form and there is much more that can and is said about them). The key word (thanks to the philosopher Karl Popper) here is 'falsification'. Science wants to describe nature, which basically means come up with a theory which 'explains' the things we see happening in nature (that word 'explains' over that might again lead to many discussions---let's not get into that here). A theory is basically a bunch of premisses together with all the statements that can logically be deduced from it, as described above. It does not matter much as such where these premisses come from, but as a rule observant people distill them from what they see around them (or in experiments) in nature. But for the scientific method it doesn't matter much whether the premisses are the result of painstaking experimental work or if they are dreamed up by a scientist on a lsd trip. But now comes the crucial part, once you start using the logical rules to draw conclusions from the premises, you can make predictions about the future, based on the theory. If these predictions can be tested, that is, if we can do experiments to check whether or not these predictions are true, then the theory is called 'falsifiable'. This is a main feature we tend to value in scientific theories, since it gives us a way to decide if a scientific theory is wrong (but not if it is right!). If to many predictions don't pan out (well, actually one is enough, but in practice experiments are never clean enough to discard a theory based on only one falsification), the theory should be discarded and replaced by another one, which can be similar (perhaps just one premisse needs to be discarded or replaced) or completely different.
Now, since all the theories about time travel in Star Trek can never be tested (since we're talking about a fictional universe here) they can never be considered to be scientific in any way, but that doesn't mean they cannot be logical. Most of the reasoning that Trekguide provided seems to be logically sound (btw, very interesting stuff, I'm impressed with the way you thought this through!), but that doesn't mean that they are 'true' within the Star Trek universe --- whatever that means, it's hard enough to come to a satisfying idea of truth in the real world, let alone in a fictional world. And with real world science it has very little to do anyway.
One more example to illustrate the difference between logic and truth. Both of the following lines of reasoning are logically sound (according to the rules of logic that are used by most people), but obviously the second one, when interpreted in terms of real world objects and qualities, is complete gibberish.
If my cup contains milk and milk is a white fluid, then my cup contains a white fluid.
If roses smell like a Beatle song and all Beatle songs smell like purple yiddidoo, then roses smell like purple yiddidoo.
Well, I guess you could come up with some definition of 'true' and 'false' that makes it possible to arrive at a false conclusion from true premisses, but in the way 'true' is usually used by logicians, mathematicians, and also scientists, this is not possible. Your example is not a counter example, since it is not a logically sound reasoning. Your reasoning follows these lines:
Object x (Lassie) belongs to set A (mammals).
All elements in set B (pigs) belong to set A (mammals).
Therefore object x belongs to set B.
That conclusion is not one that logically follows from the previous two statements. If your second statement had been "All elements in set A (mammals) belong to set B (pigs)", then your conclusion had been a logically valid one. Of course by most interpretations of 'true' the statement that all mammals are pigs is not true, but as I hopefully explained clearly enough above that is irrelevant for the argument to be 'logical'.
Not necessarily. Just think about this simple example. We take an infinite amount of numbers, let's say all even numbers (2, 4, 6, 8, etc on and on into infinity), that doesn't mean that every number is contained in that set, for example the odd number 1 is not in there. So even if there exist an infinite number of universes, that doesn't mean that every conceivable (or inconceivable) universe does exist. The term 'infinite' is too inconclusive to conclude that.
Again, you seem to be using a different concept of logic than the other's around here. You seem to adhere to a meaning of the word 'logic' that is probably shared by many people outside the community of those who encounter 'logic' on a professional basis; most people outside this community use to word 'logic' to indicate a certain kind of 'common sense', which includes the kind of 'contradicting empirical observations is illogical' attitude towards logic you display. I think the logic of the Vulcans in Star Trek is this kind of 'common sense logic' if you will as well. I hope to have clarified above however that this is not what logic is in the strict definition of the word as used in the scientific community. Now of course you are free to imbue to word 'logic' with whatever meaning you want, but for the sake of discussion it is useful if people know the meaning of the words their discussion partners use. And there are good reasons to adhere to the stricter definition of logic when practising science or when debating. For one, it tends to keep arguments more transparent.
As far as I understand the arguments of intelligent design, they are more or less this: current scientific theories cannot explain everything around us in full detail so the universe must have been created (and possibly still be interfered with by this creator). And in the case of creationism an additional argument might be: and the bible says so. I'm not trying to attack these points of view here, but to the best of my knowledge that is what these theories say. If that is the case there is nothing inherently illogical in these theories, since you can basically use the creator as stop gap for every (currently) unexplainable phenomenon. But these theories (if my understanding of them is correct) are definitely not scientific, because they are not falsifiable. You can explain everything away by saying that the creator has made it to happen in this way. As long as ID or creationism do not give us predictions that can be tested via experiments, they are not science.
Edit: in retrospect I see that this has become a very long post, perhaps too long for something that is quite off topic. However, since the matters of logic and science and how to interpret these things have caused some controversy in this thread, also in the discussion about time travel, I hope you allow me this long off topic post.
The whole problem with allowing ID into science classes is that as far as I can see ID is not a science. Below I will expand a bit on what the scientific method is (in condensed form), but here it suffices to say that ID is not falsifiable and as such can hardly be considered science.
As other's have said, you seem to confuse 'reasoning according to logical rules' with 'stating the truth' or 'the scientific method'. What you seem to call logic resembles actually what Star Trek seems to tell us logic is, via Spock, but that has little to nothing to do with what a logician or (closer to home for me) a mathematician calls logic.
Logic is basically a set of rules that allow you to start from a bunch of premisses and combine them to form new statements. The most common set of these rules (but there is room for other choices of rules, there is not just one logic) is created in such a way that it reflects the way we think the world works. Or more specifically, they are such that we believe that when we start out with premisses that are true in the real world (whatever that exactly might mean) and follow the rules of (that particular) logic, we end up with statements that are also true in the real world. But for the argument to be logically sound, the starting premisses do not have to be 'true'. Consider the following analogy. We start out with a chess board with all the pieces in the correct starting position (a true premisse) and then we proceed to make a couple of moves according to the rules (the logic), then we end up with a board position that is an allowed board position in chess (a true statement). But if we start with a different starting position, for example with all the bishops on white squares (false premisse), then we can still proceed to move the pieces according to the rules (logic), but we will not necessarily end up with a board position that could occur in a real game of chess.
Now if logic is just a set of made up rules, what is all the hubbub about and why do scientists care about logic (in practice usually just up to some degree...)? Here comes in the scientific method (I do need to stress that the things I'm saying here about logic and the scientific method are all just in condensed form and there is much more that can and is said about them). The key word (thanks to the philosopher Karl Popper) here is 'falsification'. Science wants to describe nature, which basically means come up with a theory which 'explains' the things we see happening in nature (that word 'explains' over that might again lead to many discussions---let's not get into that here). A theory is basically a bunch of premisses together with all the statements that can logically be deduced from it, as described above. It does not matter much as such where these premisses come from, but as a rule observant people distill them from what they see around them (or in experiments) in nature. But for the scientific method it doesn't matter much whether the premisses are the result of painstaking experimental work or if they are dreamed up by a scientist on a lsd trip. But now comes the crucial part, once you start using the logical rules to draw conclusions from the premises, you can make predictions about the future, based on the theory. If these predictions can be tested, that is, if we can do experiments to check whether or not these predictions are true, then the theory is called 'falsifiable'. This is a main feature we tend to value in scientific theories, since it gives us a way to decide if a scientific theory is wrong (but not if it is right!). If to many predictions don't pan out (well, actually one is enough, but in practice experiments are never clean enough to discard a theory based on only one falsification), the theory should be discarded and replaced by another one, which can be similar (perhaps just one premisse needs to be discarded or replaced) or completely different.
Now, since all the theories about time travel in Star Trek can never be tested (since we're talking about a fictional universe here) they can never be considered to be scientific in any way, but that doesn't mean they cannot be logical. Most of the reasoning that Trekguide provided seems to be logically sound (btw, very interesting stuff, I'm impressed with the way you thought this through!), but that doesn't mean that they are 'true' within the Star Trek universe --- whatever that means, it's hard enough to come to a satisfying idea of truth in the real world, let alone in a fictional world. And with real world science it has very little to do anyway.
One more example to illustrate the difference between logic and truth. Both of the following lines of reasoning are logically sound (according to the rules of logic that are used by most people), but obviously the second one, when interpreted in terms of real world objects and qualities, is complete gibberish.
If my cup contains milk and milk is a white fluid, then my cup contains a white fluid.
If roses smell like a Beatle song and all Beatle songs smell like purple yiddidoo, then roses smell like purple yiddidoo.
Well, I guess you could come up with some definition of 'true' and 'false' that makes it possible to arrive at a false conclusion from true premisses, but in the way 'true' is usually used by logicians, mathematicians, and also scientists, this is not possible. Your example is not a counter example, since it is not a logically sound reasoning. Your reasoning follows these lines:
Object x (Lassie) belongs to set A (mammals).
All elements in set B (pigs) belong to set A (mammals).
Therefore object x belongs to set B.
That conclusion is not one that logically follows from the previous two statements. If your second statement had been "All elements in set A (mammals) belong to set B (pigs)", then your conclusion had been a logically valid one. Of course by most interpretations of 'true' the statement that all mammals are pigs is not true, but as I hopefully explained clearly enough above that is irrelevant for the argument to be 'logical'.
Not necessarily. Just think about this simple example. We take an infinite amount of numbers, let's say all even numbers (2, 4, 6, 8, etc on and on into infinity), that doesn't mean that every number is contained in that set, for example the odd number 1 is not in there. So even if there exist an infinite number of universes, that doesn't mean that every conceivable (or inconceivable) universe does exist. The term 'infinite' is too inconclusive to conclude that.
Again, you seem to be using a different concept of logic than the other's around here. You seem to adhere to a meaning of the word 'logic' that is probably shared by many people outside the community of those who encounter 'logic' on a professional basis; most people outside this community use to word 'logic' to indicate a certain kind of 'common sense', which includes the kind of 'contradicting empirical observations is illogical' attitude towards logic you display. I think the logic of the Vulcans in Star Trek is this kind of 'common sense logic' if you will as well. I hope to have clarified above however that this is not what logic is in the strict definition of the word as used in the scientific community. Now of course you are free to imbue to word 'logic' with whatever meaning you want, but for the sake of discussion it is useful if people know the meaning of the words their discussion partners use. And there are good reasons to adhere to the stricter definition of logic when practising science or when debating. For one, it tends to keep arguments more transparent.
Actually, I'm not sure either of these are valid. Proving there is no God is placing the burden of proof on the wrong side. I think the argument was that Creationism, more specifically a Young Earth or literal style of Creationism, is not logical, and this is true for many various reasons. I could get into all of them, but I think this thread was supposed to be about time travel.
As far as I understand the arguments of intelligent design, they are more or less this: current scientific theories cannot explain everything around us in full detail so the universe must have been created (and possibly still be interfered with by this creator). And in the case of creationism an additional argument might be: and the bible says so. I'm not trying to attack these points of view here, but to the best of my knowledge that is what these theories say. If that is the case there is nothing inherently illogical in these theories, since you can basically use the creator as stop gap for every (currently) unexplainable phenomenon. But these theories (if my understanding of them is correct) are definitely not scientific, because they are not falsifiable. You can explain everything away by saying that the creator has made it to happen in this way. As long as ID or creationism do not give us predictions that can be tested via experiments, they are not science.
While I'm tired of time travel being overused, I've come around to seeing this as possibly an excellent use in this movie and it appears to me to be totally within Trek canon while at the same time letting us have a clean break from canon as well.
The fact that episodes like "Parallels" exist (as well as all of the Mirror Universe episodes) and are in fact canon expressly means that this movie can have its cake and eat it too.
Ya know, I would personally have loved to see an entire series based around Shag-bearded Riker from "Parallels" and his quantum reality where the Borg overran the Alpha Quadrant. I would also have loved to see an entire series based around the Mirror Universe. I don't think anyone would have had problems with these ideas, in fact, including the Canonites.
Of those who have a real problem with the way canon is being handled here with the new movie, I would honestly be curious to know how they would feel about a Mirror Universe series or movie, or a series set in the quantum reality where Wesley (The Boy) is chief of security.
How is the mirror universe more canon that the Star Trek XI universe?
Yes, that is my point. We saw that in "Parallels," there's an infinite number of Universes where the Enterprise-D crew members look exactly like Worf and Riker and Data and Troi. Your argument about inifnite probabilities is what that episode was based on.
But with the Mirror Universe and the Federation Universe, we are talking about just TWO specific universes, not an infinite number. We keep seeing the same two universes in each Mirror Universe episode. These two specific universes are not just parallel timelines; they are linked together through some unique relationship that has nothing to do with probabilities or possibilities.
If you continue to cite infinite-universe probabilities to describe the Mirror Universe, then I will counter with another tenet of quantum physics -- the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. By observing an event, you change its future by interacting with its natural course. But since we don't observe infinite universes, the two principles don't apply at the same time. But characters in the Mirror Universe and Federation Universe HAVE observed each other, so the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would then override the infinite universe principle (if, in fact, the Mirror Universe had anything to do with quantum physics, which I contend it doesn't).
Going back to my earlier example of two guys standing at two craps tables rolling two pairs of dice: It's one thing if the two guys were in two of an infinite number of universes. But what if, like the Mirror Universe episodes, the two craps players actually met each other, and were rolling dice as they stood side-by-side? If you and I were standing in a casino watching these same two guys rolling dice and getting the same exact rolls every single time for four centuries, at some point it would start to push credibility. (Because they are not in two infinite universes; they are standing next to each other in just one universe, observing each other.) Just like if the same guy won the state lottery grand prize every week for 10 years, he would be thrown in jail for violating some law, if not the laws of physics.
Again, you don't need to cite infinite probabilities to explain why your mirror image is, coincidentally, always in the bathroom looking through the mirror when you are. Because it's not a coincidence. It's not random chance or dice rolls among infinite mirrors. Your reflection is always connected to you. Just like characters in the Federation Universe are always connected to their counterparts in the Mirror Universe.
The whole point of all the Mirror Universe episodes is that those two specific Universes are connected, or linked to each other. They're not just two random depictions of two random Universes among an infinite number of alternate realities. They are the only two that are connected in that way. Their histories are connected, even though their histories are different. Their "present" is connected, even though their futures are different.
There may be a fictional explanation for the link between the Mirror Universe and the Federation Universe, but that has never been made clear. The reason is not important to the stories.
The Mirror Universe episodes are like the DS9 episodes where Sisko was a 20th century writer who was making up the DS9 stories, so the entire series was just in his imagination. The episodes are not based on scientific theories, or quantum physics, or infinite universes. The writers just make up dramatic stories to explore different facets of the characters. They don't have to make scientific sense.
Even though "Star Trek" is called "science fiction," in most episodes the "science" part is optional. The Mirror Universe episodes are just "fiction."
Just because it's a fictional Universe doesn't mean things can't make sense,
or that one explaination can't make more sense than another, relative to the
Universe it's referencing.
Read my question again.
Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)
Time travel and changes in the timeline have been presented in contradicting ways in all of the series even within those series. I submit that both perspectives on how the "timeline" works are valid for the Star Trek multiverse/universe and a discussion on each of the specific circumstances would be in order. The reality is that Star Trek has always put forth both interpretations as to how the Star Trek timelines work (multiple timelines, or a 'prime' timeline) so therefore neither of them are invalid interpretations.
Commander Sela's mother is clearly from another parallel timeline.
Time travel and changes in the timeline have been presented in contradicting ways in all of the series even within those series. I submit that both perspectives on how the "timeline" works are valid for the Star Trek multiverse/universe and a discussion on each of the specific circumstances would be in order. The reality is that Star Trek has always put forth both interpretations as to how the Star Trek timelines work (multiple timelines, or a 'prime' timeline) so therefore neither of them are invalid interpretations.
Commander Sela's mother is clearly from another parallel timeline.
Except that it doesn't work that way. It isn't simply god controls evolution, mostly they deny evolution altogether, and whatever other claims about holes in evolutionary theory are false as well. To go back to the pig/lassie/mammal example, creationists and intelligent design (a. and b. above) is like thusly:
1. Lassie is a mammal.
2. Lassie has a snout filled with sharp teeth for eating meat.
3. Lassie can run very fast.
4. Lassie has thick fur.
5. Pigs are mammals.
6. Dogs are mammals.
7. Dogs have the following other characteristics: snout filled with sharp teeth for eating meat, can run very fast, has fur.
8. Pigs have the following other characteristics: can't run very fast, are fat, like to roll in the mud, have no thick fur just very thin hair, and a flat snout filled with gnawing teeth for eating plants.
And then the ID/Creationists claim: We don't know Lassie is a dog, because we don't have information on his paws, tail, its insides, and more. Therefor Lassie is a pig because only pigs are mammals.
Now your reaction should be:
If these are the sorts of arguments used in ID and Creationism, then you are right in your claim that it is illogical. However, not because the conclusion "Lassie is a pig and only pigs are mammals" is false or contradicts empirical observations (that would falsify their theory as a scientific theory), but because the conclusion contradicts the premisses ("only pigs are mammals" contradicts the premisse "dogs are mammals" unless dogs are pigs, but that possibility is ruled out by premisses 7 and 8).
Ah, this seems to strengthen my assumption that you are confusing logic and the scientific method. Science tries to describe the real world, that's absolutely true. And it uses logic to that end, but it is not the same as logic. Logic is a priori meaningless and has nothing to do with the real world (except in that it is constructed by humans in the real world of course, but the statements in logic don't need to be about the real world, that is a more accurate way of saying it).
Well, not "inevitably". Not in every physical system. There are many systems in which small changes in input just give small changes in output, also over large times. The atmosphere of the earth is usually mentioned as one of those examples where a small change in input can lead to a big difference in output though. This is were the name "butterfly effect" comes from: whether or not a butterfly wings it's wings here now can have a big effect on the state of the atmosphere (storm?) later (and possibly in some other place).
Not the exact same, the mirror universe ones seem to have a lot more facial hair.
And apparently a natural disposition towards 'evil'. 
How can any force that works in nature be supernatural?
Edit: apologies for the multiple posts. Let me edit more replies in here.
And M-theory can hardly be said to be an accepted theory. Not on the same footing as quantum mechanics or general relativity.
It's quite possible to predict the macroscopic behaviour of many atoms together (let's say the behaviour of the collection of atoms that make up your cup of coffee) without knowing the behaviour of each and every single atom. My guess is that Asimov envisioned a similar kind of social statistical mechanics if you want (what did he call it again, something-something-history?) predicting the course of empires, without predicting the course of the individuals in them.
[/quote]
And since there are no future experiments possible in the context of a fictional universe to distinguish between any theories (unless future episodes happen to describe such an experiment) there is no science to be done in the mirror universe (or the regular ST universe for that matter). All we can do is try to match it up with what we know of the physics in our world, and since we don't know about alternate realities and whatnot in our world (wild interpretations of mostly unchecked physical theories under construction not withstanding), I agree with 3D Master that discussions about whether or not they are physically possible are something of a moot point.
Please tell me where. I'm not saying that some of what he says doesn't have some very vague basis in physics (mostly on the outer edges of science and then not even in the theories themselves, but in the interpretations of them), but something like
Orci said:
is just not true. The theory of quantum mechanics says nothing about time travel as such (perhaps you can argue that the path integral formalism as employed in quantum field theories allows for an interpretation of particles travelling backwards in time...?), let alone something about killing your father. The many world interpretation of quantum mechanics might be used in combination with the purely fictional (at this point in time) concept of human time travel to make some nice stories, but that's about it.
Anyway, I don't have a problem with science fiction writers taking some of the more 'out there' interpretations of scientific theories (or 'theories under construction' like string theory) and basing a story on them, after all, that's why it's science fiction. What I do have a problem with is them going around telling people that what they've made up is in complete agreement with the most amazing, true, and tested scientific theory around.
Most people in this thread seem somehow convinced of that, but why would the existence of an infinite amount of universes imply that every possible (whatever that means) universe exist? I gave the even-odd number example above: there are an infinite number of even numbers, but still you'd be hard pressed to find the number 1 among them.
I'm not saying that the many world interpretation is either true or false or nonsense or not, but at the moment it's just that: a possible interpretation of the mathematics of quantum mechanics in terms of possibly easier to digest words. As far as I know (but please correct me and tell me a source if I'm wrong) there is no scientific evidence what so ever that elevates this particular interpretation over any other. This doesn't need to prevent science fiction writers from using the interpretation, but it would be nice it they would go around proclaiming that this interpretation and their additions to it concerning time travel are the be-all end-all of science.
Last edited:
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Except that it doesn't work that way. It isn't simply god controls evolution, mostly they deny evolution altogether, and whatever other claims about holes in evolutionary theory are false as well. To go back to the pig/lassie/mammal example, creationists and intelligent design (a. and b. above) is like thusly:
1. Lassie is a mammal.
2. Lassie has a snout filled with sharp teeth for eating meat.
3. Lassie can run very fast.
4. Lassie has thick fur.
5. Pigs are mammals.
6. Dogs are mammals.
7. Dogs have the following other characteristics: snout filled with sharp teeth for eating meat, can run very fast, has fur.
8. Pigs have the following other characteristics: can't run very fast, are fat, like to roll in the mud, have no thick fur just very thin hair, and a flat snout filled with gnawing teeth for eating plants.
And then the ID/Creationists claim: We don't know Lassie is a dog, because we don't have information on his paws, tail, its insides, and more. Therefor Lassie is a pig because only pigs are mammals.
Now your reaction should be:
If these are the sorts of arguments used in ID and Creationism, then you are right in your claim that it is illogical. However, not because the conclusion "Lassie is a pig and only pigs are mammals" is false or contradicts empirical observations (that would falsify their theory as a scientific theory), but because the conclusion contradicts the premisses ("only pigs are mammals" contradicts the premisse "dogs are mammals" unless dogs are pigs, but that possibility is ruled out by premisses 7 and 8).
Ah, this seems to strengthen my assumption that you are confusing logic and the scientific method. Science tries to describe the real world, that's absolutely true. And it uses logic to that end, but it is not the same as logic. Logic is a priori meaningless and has nothing to do with the real world (except in that it is constructed by humans in the real world of course, but the statements in logic don't need to be about the real world, that is a more accurate way of saying it).
:sighs:
No, I do NOT confuse logic with the scientific method. We are talking about logic or illogic in relation to a scientific theory (or what ID folks claim is a scientific theory). The moment you enter in the realm of science, the theories you set up have to describe or at least attempt to describe the real world.
As a result; I will say this again: every single fact about the real world is automatically PART of your premises.
Every single statement or theory that describes the real world, that ignores those facts of the real world, those premises, or outright refuses to use them because they would go against your theory, IS ILLOGICAL.
Except that it doesn't work that way. It isn't simply god controls evolution, mostly they deny evolution altogether, and whatever other claims about holes in evolutionary theory are false as well. To go back to the pig/lassie/mammal example, creationists and intelligent design (a. and b. above) is like thusly:
1. Lassie is a mammal.
2. Lassie has a snout filled with sharp teeth for eating meat.
3. Lassie can run very fast.
4. Lassie has thick fur.
5. Pigs are mammals.
6. Dogs are mammals.
7. Dogs have the following other characteristics: snout filled with sharp teeth for eating meat, can run very fast, has fur.
8. Pigs have the following other characteristics: can't run very fast, are fat, like to roll in the mud, have no thick fur just very thin hair, and a flat snout filled with gnawing teeth for eating plants.
And then the ID/Creationists claim: We don't know Lassie is a dog, because we don't have information on his paws, tail, its insides, and more. Therefor Lassie is a pig because only pigs are mammals.
Now your reaction should be:
If these are the sorts of arguments used in ID and Creationism, then you are right in your claim that it is illogical. However, not because the conclusion "Lassie is a pig and only pigs are mammals" is false or contradicts empirical observations (that would falsify their theory as a scientific theory), but because the conclusion contradicts the premisses ("only pigs are mammals" contradicts the premisse "dogs are mammals" unless dogs are pigs, but that possibility is ruled out by premisses 7 and 8).
Ah, this seems to strengthen my assumption that you are confusing logic and the scientific method. Science tries to describe the real world, that's absolutely true. And it uses logic to that end, but it is not the same as logic. Logic is a priori meaningless and has nothing to do with the real world (except in that it is constructed by humans in the real world of course, but the statements in logic don't need to be about the real world, that is a more accurate way of saying it).
:sighs:
Well, sigh all you want, but you only seem to reinforce my earlier statement about where the core of the disagreement lies. Let's try one last time to see if we can find an agreement on this, if not, let's leave this off topic path.
You're statements still seem to indicate that though. Let's go through them.
Okay, agreed, although I don't think it matters much in what context we discuss logic. Logic is just the set of rules to draw conclusions from premises, no matter what these premises deal with. It's just the rules of reasoning. I think that's where the discrepancies in this discussion arise, the people who disagree with you on this point all seem to be talking about logic, not in any particular context, just logic. When you use logic in a scientific theory you might demand extra things on whatever you put into your logic, but that is not part of the logic itself.
Definitely. That is what I said too in one of my posts above. We have no disagreement here.
Well, theories might get quite cluttered if that was so, but I agree that you would like at least that your premises do not contradict any facts (the meaning of 'facts' is also debatable, but let's agree on the usual every day 'common sense' meaning this word usually conveys) about the world. At least not about that part of the world that you're trying to describe (for example, QM and GR are not completely compatible, but there are good reasons to at least for the time being both accept them as good scientific theories; but if we adhere to a strict 'non-contradiction' condition we cannot accept both as 'fact'). But now we are talking about scientific theories and all that they contain (premisses, logic, predictions), not only the logic part.
Well, it might be false, but it doesn't necessarily need to be illogical as I and others have tried to explain above.
Again, I think the conclusion here is that you use a broader definition of logic than is usual in which you incorporate conditions a scientific theory should satisfy.
That's a better way of expressing the point I was trying to make about the Mirror Universe. Even in an infinite number of Mirror Universes (of which we have only seen one, multiple times), there is only a finite number of people on Earth or any other planet (say, 10 billion).
And each one of those people has a unique genetic pattern, determined by the genetic pattern of the parents.
So you could argue, mathematically, that if you started with an infinite gene pool in two universes, eventually you would have the genetic code for Spock existing in two universes at the same moment. But since neither the Mirror Universe nor the Federation Universe has an infinite Vulcan or Terran gene pool, there is only a limited number of genetic combinations possible at any given time.
And since we have seen both of these specific universes over a period of four centuries, with genetically identical people in each century in each universe, interacting with their counterparts in the other universe, there is just not an infinite gene pool in either universe to explain away the repeated doubles in each century as random groupings of DNA in an infinite pool of DNA.
The analogy of an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters, eventually typing the complete works of Shakespeare at random after an infinite amount of time, does not apply to the Mirror Universe, since it is only one Universe that we see repeatedly in multiple episodes, and there are only 10 billion Terrans and 10 billion Vulcans in each Universe, so there are not infinite genetic combinations possible.
Given Spock's genetic make-up, he can only have exactly two parents in any Universe -- Sarek and Amanda -- and each of them in turn could only have exactly two parents in any universe. Ditto with Kirk, and Worf, and Kira, and Tuvok, and Sisko.
In the four-century period depicted in the Mirror Universe and the Federation Universe, there are only a finite number of people in either universe, and each of those people has only a finite number of ancestors in that four-century period.
The monumental coincidence that the same people conceive the same children at the same second with the same sperm and same egg with the same DNA, in both universes, repeatedly for more than 10 generations, despite the fact that the past, present, and future are always different in both universes, cannot be explained away as random chance, because DNA in any pair of universes is NOT infinite, even if one stipulates that there could be an infinite number of universes.
But aside from the issue of passing on the same DNA over many generations in two universes, I think the point of the Mirror Universe episodes is not that these people were similar, or looked alike, or were even clones or "evil twins" -- but that the counterparts in the Mirror Universe were literally the same people, with the same fingerprints. (Genetically identical clones or twins do not have the same fingerprints as each other.)
And I don't think it's just a coincidence that there were identical people in both universes just in the four centuries that have been depicted on screen -- I think it is implicit that the same people have ALWAYS existed in both universes, and always will in the future. There was a Mirror-Caesar, a Mirror-Napoleon, a Mirror-George Washington, a Mirror-George W. Bush, a Mirror-Zefram Cochrane, a Mirror-Jonathan Archer, and even a Mirror-Daniels from the 31st Century fighting a Mirror-temporal cold war (we saw in "In a Mirror, Darkly" that the I.S.S. Enterprise NX-01 had a Suliban cloaking device, just like the one acquired by its counterpart in the other universe from agents from the future).
We haven't just witnessed a statistical fluke; there is an ongoing, permanent genetic synchronization between the Mirror Universe and the Federation Universe, counteracting the natural divergence in history that Chaos Theory would mandate.
What I'm trying to say is that the Mirror Universe is not just one of the infinite divergent timelines seen in "Parallels" -- there is something unique and special about it. Its history has always been different, and the future is always different, but in the "present" there are always identical people in the Mirror Universe and the Federation Universe. That relationship between these two specific universes goes beyond quantum physics and infinite-universe probabilities. You can call it creative license; I call it entertaining fiction; but none of us can call it "science."
Once more with feeling....
I'll translate for the people who can't understand the above graphics
Photo 1. Enterprise to Nemesis time line 2200 - 2500
( Roughly speaking I might have the dates wrong, I'm just guessing )
Photo 2. Kirk born at this end Nero gets idea to kill Kirk at this end.
( We all on the same page so far ? )
Photo 3. Well, not quite but close enough. Nero goes back in time to a point in time where the Feds don't Know what Roms look like, thus CREATING a new universe ( retro-actively even as seen from The Kelvin itself ) where not only does the Feds know what Roms look like but they have very advanced tech ( well duh it's from the late 24th century, natch ) this promts Star Fleet to get on the fast track to make more advanced tech.
( as seen by the new / old Enterprise ) Okay, everyone still with us ?
Photo 4. WE HAVE A WINNER ! Yes, both time lines go forward from this point but do not recross one anther again, just like Doc Brown showed us in Back To The Future Part 2 ! ( We all on the same page still ? )
Photo 5. Here's where it gets tricky, if you have been paying attention at all you can figure this out without the need of a collage degree in Quantum Mechanics ( I don't have one, yet even I can figure this out )
SPOCK from Nero's newly created alternate time line / reality FUTURE now goes back in time to fix what Nero has screwed up, however because he's from the same time line that Nero created in the first place he dosen't cross over or create a new time line / universe as he's only trying to fix Nero's mess. ( See, it's not rocket science folks, charts help a lot. )
Now, someone should come along and tell me if I got this right or missed the mark by several light years.
-W -
* Who feels like Riker from the photo above after all this mess *
Last edited by a moderator:
That was hardly the point I was making. I just wanted to say that even if there is an infinite number of something (universes or numbers) that doesn't mean that every possible one that you can think of exists.
Now the many worlds interpretation of QM is a bit more involved than just saying that there exist an infinite number of universes. It hypothesises that every time there are multiple possible outcomes of a (subatomic quantum) event, there exists (or comes into existence?) a world/universe for each possible outcome. That still means that no matter how often you throw your quantum die, you will never get a sequence of throws that has a 7, but apparently there exists a universe where the throw always ends up on 6 (which seems a bit odd to me, because apparently the people in that universe would need 'another' QM to explain the behaviour of their die, namely one where the probability distribution of the die throws is spiked around the value "6"; the idea is probably that we are living in one of the many universes somewhere in the bulk of the probability distribution and not in the tails?). However, there is nothing as far as I can see to suggest that the mirror universe in not quantum mechanically possible (if we assume that the normal Star Trek universe is), so according to the many worlds interpretation I suppose there is a mirror universe out there.
However, if I understood 3D Master correctly (and I'm sure he will correct me otherwise) that was not his point. His point is that you cannot use probability theory after the fact to declare something that clearly exists as impossible to exist, no matter how improbable its existence would seem. That seems to tie in nicely with one of the points in one of my previous posts: we cannot do science in the Star Trek universe since we cannot test things experimentally. We cannot hypothesise a theory about how the mirror universe came to be and then try to falsify that hypothesis, because it's fiction! So, and this is what all of you seem to be saying, we can only try to take for granted what the writers postulate as true, 'suspend our disbelieve' if necessary, and enjoy the story on other merits.
Now that doesn't mean that I give authors just free reign in what they make up, at least not if you want to consider their story science fiction. It must have at least some basis in 'science'. By 'science' in this instance I then mean the collective hypothesising and theorising done by scientists around the world, not necessarily 'accepted' scientific theories. And for a set of stories set in the same fictional world, like Star Trek, it would be very nice if they could keep their internal science consistent. But since the ideas within science itself have changed over the last 40 years, it's hardly a surprise that Star Trek has not propagated a self-consistent internal world view. And then I'm not even considering the fact that all the different writers have had their own dramatic reasons to take ideas from different scientific hypotheses.
Be careful with these generalisations, although I suppose most of us here can agree with that (can't we?).
Since we don't know the plot of the movie yet in all detail, there's no way of saying if you 'missed the mark', but I'd say your explanation is as plausible as any other internally consistent one. There's only one thing that remains unexplained in your theory: what reason does alternate!Spock (for lack of a better name) have to travel back in time? After all Nero hasn't screwed around with his timeline, if anything Nero has created it, so whatever the state of the 24th century is in NeoNeroVerse, it is the 'normal' state of affairs for alternate!Spock.
Exactly.
To be truly analytical, a person needs to ignore what they already know about things. If the rules (premises) state:
If Lassie is a mammal
And If only pigs are mammals
Therefore, Lassie is a pig,
Then, dammit -- Lassie is a pig, following those rules set down by the premises
What you already know about the real world (i.e., that there are other types of mammals besides pigs) is not all all relevant to deducing whether or not this 3-line bit of logic is valid. Imagine that the premises are both true. The fact that you personally already know something about mammals is not part of this particular bit of logic.
Logic does not necessarily deal with real world truths.
This is the same for a work of fiction -- especially science fiction. If you imagine that the premise told to you by the writer is true, then the rest of the film could logically follow, even if that premise is "absurd in the real world".
- Status
Similar threads
