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

[Plain Simple]

...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...

Exactly.

To be truly analytical, a person needs to ignore what they already know about things. If the rules (premises) state:

The intention of your post is the same as mine, but for the clarity of the discussion I just want to remark that I don't include the premisses in the rules. The rules are the logic, the premisses are what you start with. If you want to do science, then these premisses better make sense in the real world, but if you want to just play around with logic than that's not necessary. Your premisses don't even need to have an interpretation in the 'real world', after all logic is just symbolic manipulation when you get down to it.

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".

Indeed, and usually if you take just one sf story, the premise is something like "in this world all the familiar rules of physics hold except for this one exception". However, in Star Trek we have 750 premisses like that that all add at least one exception to the 'familiar laws of physics' thereby creating something that's not necessarily internally consistent anymore.

 

[3D Master]

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.)

Prove it.

More sensible, in a fictional universe?

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.

Has anyone else put forward a more sensible one?

I've been giving multiple explanations all throughout my discussion with him!

Read my question again.

Yeah, maybe you should take your own advice, and read my post you answered to: the question was not which is the most reasonable explanation, the question was whether his was THE ONLY ONE.

Let's see if this helps things make sense, along with getting things back on track....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/CaptApril/timeline01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/CaptApril/timeline02.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/CaptApril/timeline03.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/CaptApril/timeline04.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/CaptApril/timeline05.jpg

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.

You missed the mark my several light years.

You see, the point is, that the Spock at 5, is from the timeline that Nero created by him "screwing up", that means, that to Spock from that timeline, Nero did NOT "screw anything up", Nero's actions CREATED THE PROPER TIMELINE. Therefor, there is no reason for Spock to go back in time.

Also, if Spock goes back in time and changes what Nero did, he WOULD be creating a new timeline, one where Nero "screwed up" less.

...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...

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".

That's nice, but AGAIN: FOR THE UMPTEENTH time, ID/Creationism is CLAIMED to be a scientific theory that describes THE REAL WORLD or rather UNIVERSE. THEREFOR everything we know to be true for biology, geology, cosmology, astronomy and anything else that impacts a theory dealing with it, must be considered premises with which your theory has to deal.

ID/Creationism COMPLETELY IGNORES massive amounts of those facts/premises, and people even outright refuse to learn of them. (See again my analogy of Lassie, dogs, and pigs and how an ID/Creationist deals with all those premises.)

Therefor, my original statement remains true: ID/Creationism is illogical and always will be.

 

[Plain Simple]

That's nice, but AGAIN: FOR THE UMPTEENTH time, ID/Creationism is CLAIMED to be a scientific theory that describes THE REAL WORLD or rather UNIVERSE. THEREFOR everything we know to be true for biology, geology, cosmology, astronomy and anything else that impacts a theory dealing with it, must be considered premises with which your theory has to deal.

ID/Creationism COMPLETELY IGNORES massive amounts of those facts/premises, and people even outright refuse to learn of them. (See again my analogy of Lassie, dogs, and pigs and how an ID/Creationist deals with all those premises.)

Therefor, my original statement remains true: ID/Creationism is illogical and always will be.

You imply that others do not read your posts ("for the upmteenth time"), but you also seem not to understand what I and the other posters on this subject have said.

I don't think anyone has ever tried to defend ID or creationism in this thread, since that has nothing to do with the original topic. I don't think anyone here claimed that ID uses either true or false premises. The only point that I (and I think others as well) wanted to make was regarding your use of the term 'logic'.

If ID either uses premises or reaches conclusions that contradict well established empirical 'facts' then it is a falsified theory and as such will/should not be further considered as a scientifically acceptable theory for describing nature. However, that does not mean that the process by which it arrives at the conclusions starting from the premises cannot comply with logical rules.

Again, it comes down to this: 'logic' refers only to the rules of reasoning by which you can turn 'true' premises into 'true' conclusions. The reasoning

1. If 'A' holds then 'B' holds
2. 'A' holds
3. therefore 'B' holds

is logically valid no matter if 'A' or 'B' are true statements or false statements or even statements that have no interpretation and so no 'truth value'. The role of logic is to ensure that if you start with true premisses you end up with true conclusions, no matter how complicated your reasoning, as long as you strictly follow the rules of logic. So if in the above example you pick specific statements 'A' and 'B' such that the premisses 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion 3 is true. However, choosing 'A' or 'B' such that 1 and/or 2 are false does not turn the reasoning into an illogical one, it 'only' has the effect that we cannot determine anymore (without further information) if 3 is true or false.

Now you might like this definition of logic or not, but to the best of my knowledge (and the other's around here it seems) this is what logic is. If you do not agree with that, then I see two options:

-Accept that you have your own definition of 'logic' that does not agree with anybody else's around here (or with that that's used in for example mathematics);

-or specifically give arguments that tackle this point, that is, give arguments that show that 'our' definition of logic is not the standard one and the 'truth value' of the premisses is indeed relevant for the logical validity of an argument.

Unless you do one of these two things or come up with a creative third option that I overlooked I don't think there's much sense in continuing this particular part of the discussion in this thread.

So, to be perfectly clear, the statement that I disagree with is not "ID is illogical", that could be true or not, and if ID indeed uses logically invalid lines of reasoning like the dog-pig example you gave before, than I agree with that statement. I also do not disagree with the statement "ID uses premises that are false". Actually I was under the impression that the basic premise of ID is "the universe is created" and neither I nor you (I suppose) knows whether or not that is true. But perhaps ID has more premises that are factually false, I do not know and neither is that the discussion here. The statement that I do disagree with is "ID is illogical because it uses false premises". An alternative formulation could be "ID would be a falsified theory if it uses false premises", or if you prefer a stronger statement "ID is a falsified theory because it uses false premises".

Again, this whole discussion would be completely out of place here if ID was the issue. It's just that we are trying to make sense here of time travel, a concept often riddled with paradoxes, so it would be good to at least agree to some degree about what we call logical.

Hope this helps! (Btw, your repeated use of capital only words comes across as quite aggressive when reading your arguments. I don't know if that's your intention, but your posts would be a lot friendlier without it --- to me at least.)

 

[Captain Robert April]

My logic professor would be proud.

 

[The]

Man...hardcore Trek Fans (Trekkers/-ies) seem to have a lot of time on their hands. And this is NOT a disparaging insult or anything. I'm serious. You guys get so into analyzing and meticulously debating details. I wish there was a way to harness the dedication, loyalty, and perseverance of Trek fans, and directing it en masse towards a real-world goal that could actually improve society and culture. Rather than just arguing the finer plot points of a fictional television show/movie. Again, not an insult. Just an observation. Maybe we could replace the UN with the combined global might of Trek Fans. They could lead us into the golden age of Rodenberry's future.

That is....if they could ever come to a consensus as to what exactly that was...

 

[3D Master]

That's nice, but AGAIN: FOR THE UMPTEENTH time, ID/Creationism is CLAIMED to be a scientific theory that describes THE REAL WORLD or rather UNIVERSE. THEREFOR everything we know to be true for biology, geology, cosmology, astronomy and anything else that impacts a theory dealing with it, must be considered premises with which your theory has to deal.

ID/Creationism COMPLETELY IGNORES massive amounts of those facts/premises, and people even outright refuse to learn of them. (See again my analogy of Lassie, dogs, and pigs and how an ID/Creationist deals with all those premises.)

Therefor, my original statement remains true: ID/Creationism is illogical and always will be.

You imply that others do not read your posts ("for the upmteenth time"), but you also seem not to understand what I and the other posters on this subject have said.

I don't think anyone has ever tried to defend ID or creationism in this thread, since that has nothing to do with the original topic. I don't think anyone here claimed that ID uses either true or false premises. The only point that I (and I think others as well) wanted to make was regarding your use of the term 'logic'.

Wrong, they did defend it. I said it was illogical and always would be, and suddenly all types of people came out of woodwork claiming it was logical.

If ID either uses premises or reaches conclusions that contradict well established empirical 'facts' then it is a falsified theory and as such will/should not be further considered as a scientifically acceptable theory for describing nature. However, that does not mean that the process by which it arrives at the conclusions starting from the premises cannot comply with logical rules.

If those who support it, continue to do so by bullheadedly ignoring known facts it does not comply with logical rules.

is logically valid no matter if 'A' or 'B' are true statements or false statements or even statements that have no interpretation and so no 'truth value'. The role of logic is to ensure that if you start with true premisses you end up with true conclusions, no matter how complicated your reasoning, as long as you strictly follow the rules of logic. So if in the above example you pick specific statements 'A' and 'B' such that the premisses 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion 3 is true. However, choosing 'A' or 'B' such that 1 and/or 2 are false does not turn the reasoning into an illogical one, it 'only' has the effect that we cannot determine anymore (without further information) if 3 is true or false.

Now you might like this definition of logic or not, but to the best of my knowledge (and the other's around here it seems) this is what logic is. If you do not agree with that, then I see two options:

-Accept that you have your own definition of 'logic' that does not agree with anybody else's around here (or with that that's used in for example mathematics);

-or specifically give arguments that tackle this point, that is, give arguments that show that 'our' definition of logic is not the standard one and the 'truth value' of the premisses is indeed relevant for the logical validity of an argument.

Unffing believable!

Tell me where that I wrote your little definition abstract mathematical logic is not right, hmm?

Nowhere!

In fact, I've agreed with it over and over again.

Now, let me repeat it AGAIN! The moment you start applying logic to the real world, as in a scientific theory, all known facts touching upon your theory become part of your premises, and ignoring them or denying them, is illogical. Which makes ID/Creationism, among other reasons, illogical.

Again, this whole discussion would be completely out of place here if ID was the issue. It's just that we are trying to make sense here of time travel, a concept often riddled with paradoxes, so it would be good to at least agree to some degree about what we call logical.

:sighs: ID IS the issue. It became an issue the moment I used it as an example of faulty, illogical reasoning, and people then turned it into an issue when claiming it wasn't faulty, illogical reasoning.

Hope this helps! (Btw, your repeated use of capital only words comes across as quite aggressive when reading your arguments. I don't know if that's your intention, but your posts would be a lot friendlier without it --- to me at least.)

More like annoyed. Seriously, I wonder often whether people are incapable of reading as they argue things as if I wrote the exact opposite of what I wrote, forcing me to repeat the same words over and over again for them to get it through the thick skulls, and after a while, having to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, I resort to highlighting more relevant parts hoping it finally sticks, so I don't have repeat myself AGAIN.

 

[trekkerguy]

^^^ If it isn't a very good point in the first place it's not going to
stick no matter how many times you say it in bold.
It's still the same message.

Man...hardcore Trek Fans (Trekkers/-ies) seem to have a lot of time on their hands. And this is NOT a disparaging insult or anything. I'm serious. You guys get so into analyzing and meticulously debating details. I wish there was a way to harness the dedication, loyalty, and perseverance of Trek fans, and directing it en masse towards a real-world goal that could actually improve society and culture. Rather than just arguing the finer plot points of a fictional television show/movie. Again, not an insult. Just an observation. Maybe we could replace the UN with the combined global might of Trek Fans. They could lead us into the golden age of Rodenberry's future.

That is....if they could ever come to a consensus as to what exactly that was...

It really doesn't take all that much time or effort.
We all work, play, have families and friends.
And if you're multitasking anyways it doesn't
matter much.

 

[The]

It really doesn't take all that much time or effort.
We all work, play, have families and friends.
And if you're multitasking anyways it doesn't
matter much.

Ahh...but the amount of thought and consideration and passion! That comes from somewhere worthy of effort, attention, and focus. If we could funnel these things into sincerely worthy causes, a lot could be accomplished...

 

[Plain Simple]

Wrong, they did defend it. I said it was illogical and always would be, and suddenly all types of people came out of woodwork claiming it was logical.

To me it seemed the people who wrote that had a problem with your use of the term 'logical', and were not defending ID. 'Logical' is not a subjective judgement, something either is or is not logical, so it hardly makes sense to argue about that if both parties in the discussion use the same definition of 'logical'.

Tell me where that I wrote your little definition abstract mathematical logic is not right, hmm?

Nowhere!

You nowhere explicitly said it was wrong, but the fact that you keep insisting something is illogical where I don't see any reason for it to be, implies that we're both using a different definition of logical (since I don't disagree with your arguments per se, but only with your conclusion that ID is illogical based on some of these arguments). That is why I said that I saw only two ways out of this discussion: either we basically agree to disagree over what logic is or you show me where my idea of what logic is disagrees with the 'standard' idea.

Now, let me repeat it AGAIN! The moment you start applying logic to the real world, as in a scientific theory, all known facts touching upon your theory become part of your premises, and ignoring them or denying them, is illogical. Which makes ID/Creationism, among other reasons, illogical.

Since we indeed are repeating ourselves over and over (even without the capitals, believe me, my thick skull can handle it), I think we should just settle for not seeing eye to eye on this (or perhaps we do and just express it in different words).

:sighs: ID IS the issue. It became an issue the moment I used it as an example of faulty, illogical reasoning, and people then turned it into an issue when claiming it wasn't faulty, illogical reasoning.

As a last word from me on this issue: as I said above, I don't think ID was/is the issue for those people, but the use of the word 'illogical' was. At least, that was what triggered me into this particular part of the discussion, I can't speak for the others, but that's the impression I got from their posts.

More like annoyed. Seriously, I wonder often whether people are incapable of reading as they argue things as if I wrote the exact opposite of what I wrote, forcing me to repeat the same words over and over again for them to get it through the thick skulls, and after a while, having to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, I resort to highlighting more relevant parts hoping it finally sticks, so I don't have repeat myself AGAIN.

I find that repeating oneself is usually not very useful in situations like that and prefer to (at least try) rephrase the things I want to say. Add different examples to the mix, use different words or ways to phrase your point where possible. I'm not saying you don't ever do that (nor do I say that I always manage to do that), but getting annoyed and trying to "get it through the thick skulls" certainly is not going to help. I hope for you that you come to this bbs to be entertained by the discussions, not annoyed?

Man...hardcore Trek Fans (Trekkers/-ies) seem to have a lot of time on their hands. And this is NOT a disparaging insult or anything. I'm serious. You guys get so into analyzing and meticulously debating details. I wish there was a way to harness the dedication, loyalty, and perseverance of Trek fans, and directing it en masse towards a real-world goal that could actually improve society and culture. Rather than just arguing the finer plot points of a fictional television show/movie. Again, not an insult. Just an observation. Maybe we could replace the UN with the combined global might of Trek Fans. They could lead us into the golden age of Rodenberry's future.

That is....if they could ever come to a consensus as to what exactly that was...

Well for me it's just that now around the holidays I have a bit more time on my hands, I started reading this thread and got inspired by the discussion. But then, I don't think I would call myself a hardcore Trek fan anyway. I like Trek, that's for sure, why else would I come to this bbs, but watching the shows and now and again visiting this bbs is about as far as my 'fan dom' goes (but perhaps that's enough to be considered a Trekker or Trekkie or whatever ).

Let's see if this helps things make sense, along with getting things back on track....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/CaptApril/timeline01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/CaptApril/timeline02.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/CaptApril/timeline03.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/CaptApril/timeline04.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/CaptApril/timeline05.jpg

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 *

So how can we adapt this so that Spock actually has a reason to go back in time? The only way I can think of (assuming that every time travel creates a new timeline, as that's what Orci seems to be saying) is for Spock to be from the same timeline as Nero, since if he's from any other timeline, how would he know something's wrong (unless they technobabble that away). Furthermore, Nero and Spock need to time travel in the same 'time trip', otherwise Spock would end up in another timeline as Nero. So for the pictures above that means we have Spock travel together with Nero in picture 3 and we delete picture 5.

For example, Spock might figure out what Nero's up to and follow him onto his time ship of whatever his mode of time travel is. Why would Spock do this, if Nero only can affect another timeline and not his own? Perhaps because out of altruistic motives --- Spock might care just as much whether all the people that will suffer because of Nero's actions are in his or Nero's timeline. Perhaps because Spock is not familiar enough with Orci's temporal rules to realise that they will end up in a different timeline. Or perhaps Spock's time travel is not a conscious decision on his part to stop Nero, but an accident or undertaken for a completely different reason than to thwart Nero's plans. A final option that I think is not completely unlikely, is that Orci's whole explanation from the interview is just ignored in the film and time travel is just treated in the First Contact way, i.e. they have Spock (without specifying in which time line he is) noticing something is wrong with the time line (without caring about whether or not that makes sense according to Orci's theory) and he travels back in time trying to correct it.

Now I'm just basing this speculation on the interview that the OP linked to. I'm not familiar with any other plot points that might have leaked and be relevant for this.

Now

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Wrong, they did defend it. I said it was illogical and always would be, and suddenly all types of people came out of woodwork claiming it was logical.

I hope your not talking about me, because I never defended creationism or ID -- nor did I say they are logical. If you must know, I don't believe in literal creationism of your definition of ID...but that doesn't prevent me from seeing that a logical argument -- from a purely analytical standpoint -- saying that it is possible to make a logical argument for creationism and ID, given the proper premises.

Your confusing the ability to defend the logic of an argument with actually believing in the argument...these are two totally didfferent things.

There is a logical argument that could be made for literal creationism -- in fact 250 years ago logical arguments were always made for creationism, and literal biblical creationism was considered by most people to be "The Truth". The people who belived this did not have "bad logic", they just had different information than we have.

Their premises were their "known facts" -- that is: the bible is literal, Adam and Eve were real people, and the Earth is 6,000 years old. These were "facts" to them. Thus their logical was valid.

It is rather arrogant to think that you now know "all of the facts" regarding evolution, thus evolution is infallible. We may one day find out that your "facts" are just as absurd as people 250 years ago believing that Adam and Eve were real people who started the human race 6,000 years ago.

That's why logic as an analytical tool does not -- and should not -- relay on "real world facts", because a "fact" could be a fleeting thing. If Yesterday's facts are today's absurdities, what could become of today's facts in the future?

To be a true logician is to imagine that you know nothing of the outside world. The whole validity or invalidty of a logical phrase is all self-contained within that phrase. No outside knowledge shall be used.

For the purpose of a logical argument, what you know about the subject matter is irrelevant. Everything you need to know to deem an argument as valid or not is contained in the premise(s).

 

[OneBuckFilms]

So how can we adapt this so that Spock actually has a reason to go back in time? The only way I can think of (assuming that every time travel creates a new timeline, as that's what Orci seems to be saying) is for Spock to be from the same timeline as Nero, since if he's from any other timeline, how would he know something's wrong (unless they technobabble that away). Furthermore, Nero and Spock need to time travel in the same 'time trip', otherwise Spock would end up in another timeline as Nero. So for the pictures above that means we have Spock travel together with Nero in picture 3 and we delete picture 5.

For example, Spock might figure out what Nero's up to and follow him onto his time ship of whatever his mode of time travel is. Why would Spock do this, if Nero only can affect another timeline and not his own? Perhaps because out of altruistic motives --- Spock might care just as much whether all the people that will suffer because of Nero's actions are in his or Nero's timeline. Perhaps because Spock is not familiar enough with Orci's temporal rules to realise that they will end up in a different timeline. Or perhaps Spock's time travel is not a conscious decision on his part to stop Nero, but an accident or undertaken for a completely different reason than to thwart Nero's plans. A final option that I think is not completely unlikely, is that Orci's whole explanation from the interview is just ignored in the film and time travel is just treated in the First Contact way, i.e. they have Spock (without specifying in which time line he is) noticing something is wrong with the time line (without caring about whether or not that makes sense according to Orci's theory) and he travels back in time trying to correct it.

Now I'm just basing this speculation on the interview that the OP linked too. I'm not familiar with any other plot points that might have leaked and be relevant for this.

Now

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.

 

[Plain Simple]

So how can we adapt this so that Spock actually has a reason to go back in time? The only way I can think of (assuming that every time travel creates a new timeline, as that's what Orci seems to be saying) is for Spock to be from the same timeline as Nero, since if he's from any other timeline, how would he know something's wrong (unless they technobabble that away). Furthermore, Nero and Spock need to time travel in the same 'time trip', otherwise Spock would end up in another timeline as Nero. So for the pictures above that means we have Spock travel together with Nero in picture 3 and we delete picture 5.

For example, Spock might figure out what Nero's up to and follow him onto his time ship of whatever his mode of time travel is. Why would Spock do this, if Nero only can affect another timeline and not his own? Perhaps because out of altruistic motives --- Spock might care just as much whether all the people that will suffer because of Nero's actions are in his or Nero's timeline. Perhaps because Spock is not familiar enough with Orci's temporal rules to realise that they will end up in a different timeline. Or perhaps Spock's time travel is not a conscious decision on his part to stop Nero, but an accident or undertaken for a completely different reason than to thwart Nero's plans. A final option that I think is not completely unlikely, is that Orci's whole explanation from the interview is just ignored in the film and time travel is just treated in the First Contact way, i.e. they have Spock (without specifying in which time line he is) noticing something is wrong with the time line (without caring about whether or not that makes sense according to Orci's theory) and he travels back in time trying to correct it.

Now I'm just basing this speculation on the interview that the OP linked too. I'm not familiar with any other plot points that might have leaked and be relevant for this.

Now

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.

That is indeed one of the options I mentioned and perhaps the most likely one based on what we know from this interview only. Wasn't there someone pages and pages ago in this thread who claimed that in another article or interview it was claimed that Spock followed Nero later in his own ship?

 

[Franklin]

That is indeed one of the options I gave and perhaps the most likely one based on what we know from this interview only. Wasn't there someone pages and pages ago in this thread who claimed that in another article or interview it was claimed that Spock followed Nero later in his own ship?

But Nero apparently makes a couple of jumps in time, the time of Kirk's birth, and about twenty-five years later when he tries to destroy Vulcan. Now, we don't know if Nero goes directly from the time of destroying the Kelvin to the time he tries to destroy Vulcan, or if he bides any time in between. We also don't know why he "jumps ahead" twenty-five years from one incident to the next.

Somehow, I don't think old Spock follows Nero back to the time of destroying the Kelvin. Otherwise, wouldn't he try to set things straight from there? From what we've seen so far, it seems as if it's Pike who gets Kirk on track to entering Stafleet, not old Spock.
Old Spock is around at the time of Nero trying to destroy Vulcan, and is responsible for telling Kirk he must become captain of the Enterprise.
So if Spock "followed" Nero, it must be on Nero's trip to destroy Vulcan. Apparently, old Spock can (or will) do nothing to change what happened before that.

 

[3D Master]

Wrong, they did defend it. I said it was illogical and always would be, and suddenly all types of people came out of woodwork claiming it was logical.

I hope your not talking about me, because I never defended creationism or ID -- nor did I say they are logical. If you must know, I don't believe in literal creationism of your definition of ID...but that doesn't prevent me from seeing that a logical argument -- from a purely analytical standpoint -- saying that it is possible to make a logical argument for creationism and ID, given the proper premises.

Your confusing the ability to defend the logic of an argument with actually believing in the argument...these are two totally didfferent things.

UnFFing believable.

NO, for the UMPTEENTH TIME, you can NOT make a logical argument for creationism and ID, because the only way to do so, would be to DENY all your premises. As I've described above with the Lassie, Dog, Pig example.

There is a logical argument that could be made for literal creationism -- in fact 250 years ago logical arguments were always made for creationism, and literal biblical creationism was considered by most people to be "The Truth". The people who belived this did not have "bad logic", they just had different information than we have.

Their premises were their "known facts" -- that is: the bible is literal, Adam and Eve were real people, and the Earth is 6,000 years old. These were "facts" to them. Thus their logical was valid.

That was then, this is now.

It is rather arrogant to think that you now know "all of the facts" regarding evolution, thus evolution is infallible. We may one day find out that your "facts" are just as absurd as people 250 years ago believing that Adam and Eve were real people who started the human race 6,000 years ago.

Please point me to the place where I claimed to know all of the facts regarding evolution, or that it is infallible? Evolution, in fact, was barely even mentioned anywhere.

That's why logic as an analytical tool does not -- and should not -- relay on "real world facts", because a "fact" could be a fleeting thing. If Yesterday's facts are today's absurdities, what could become of today's facts in the future?

NOOO!!!!!!

THAT is illogical. You're not allowed to use real world facts when describing the real world? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess according to logic, when can fly now unaided, and there are pink elephants with two trunks walking about, and cars when slamming into walls don't get damaged at all.

You can't describe the real world, without the real world facts. It is not possible. And anyone who claims differently, is illogical.

To be a true logician is to imagine that you know nothing of the outside world. The whole validity or invalidty of a logical phrase is all self-contained within that phrase. No outside knowledge shall be used.

Noooo.

If you're a MATHEMATICIAN you can forget the outside world and only work with the numbers.

The moment you go about describing the real world, the real world and all the facts pertaining to it, are part of your premises.

For the purpose of a logical argument, what you know about the subject matter is irrelevant. Everything you need to know to deem an argument as valid or not is contained in the premise(s).

And when you get to describe the real world: EVERY GOD-DAMNED FACT ABOUT THAT WORLD IS PART OF YOUR PREMISES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[shapeshifter]

So how can we adapt this so that Spock actually has a reason to go back in time? The only way I can think of (assuming that every time travel creates a new timeline, as that's what Orci seems to be saying) is for Spock to be from the same timeline as Nero, since if he's from any other timeline, how would he know something's wrong (unless they technobabble that away). Furthermore, Nero and Spock need to time travel in the same 'time trip', otherwise Spock would end up in another timeline as Nero. So for the pictures above that means we have Spock travel together with Nero in picture 3 and we delete picture 5.

For example, Spock might figure out what Nero's up to and follow him onto his time ship of whatever his mode of time travel is. Why would Spock do this, if Nero only can affect another timeline and not his own? Perhaps because out of altruistic motives --- Spock might care just as much whether all the people that will suffer because of Nero's actions are in his or Nero's timeline. Perhaps because Spock is not familiar enough with Orci's temporal rules to realise that they will end up in a different timeline. Or perhaps Spock's time travel is not a conscious decision on his part to stop Nero, but an accident or undertaken for a completely different reason than to thwart Nero's plans. A final option that I think is not completely unlikely, is that Orci's whole explanation from the interview is just ignored in the film and time travel is just treated in the First Contact way, i.e. they have Spock (without specifying in which time line he is) noticing something is wrong with the time line (without caring about whether or not that makes sense according to Orci's theory) and he travels back in time trying to correct it.

Now I'm just basing this speculation on the interview that the OP linked too. I'm not familiar with any other plot points that might have leaked and be relevant for this.

Now

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 may be implied in a trailer scene, Spock's ship appears to be emerging out of and away from Neros. Let me get a cap from that scene from the high res thread...

http://www.joseralat.com/uploads/screen-capture-47.jpg

 

[Ovation]

Wrong, they did defend it. I said it was illogical and always would be, and suddenly all types of people came out of woodwork claiming it was logical.

I hope your not talking about me, because I never defended creationism or ID -- nor did I say they are logical. If you must know, I don't believe in literal creationism of your definition of ID...but that doesn't prevent me from seeing that a logical argument -- from a purely analytical standpoint -- saying that it is possible to make a logical argument for creationism and ID, given the proper premises.

Your confusing the ability to defend the logic of an argument with actually believing in the argument...these are two totally didfferent things.

UnFFing believable.

NO, for the UMPTEENTH TIME, you can NOT make a logical argument for creationism and ID, because the only way to do so, would be to DENY all your premises. As I've described above with the Lassie, Dog, Pig example.

That was then, this is now.

Please point me to the place where I claimed to know all of the facts regarding evolution, or that it is infallible? Evolution, in fact, was barely even mentioned anywhere.

NOOO!!!!!!

THAT is illogical. You're not allowed to use real world facts when describing the real world? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess according to logic, when can fly now unaided, and there are pink elephants with two trunks walking about, and cars when slamming into walls don't get damaged at all.

You can't describe the real world, without the real world facts. It is not possible. And anyone who claims differently, is illogical.

To be a true logician is to imagine that you know nothing of the outside world. The whole validity or invalidty of a logical phrase is all self-contained within that phrase. No outside knowledge shall be used.

Noooo.

If you're a MATHEMATICIAN you can forget the outside world and only work with the numbers.

The moment you go about describing the real world, the real world and all the facts pertaining to it, are part of your premises.

For the purpose of a logical argument, what you know about the subject matter is irrelevant. Everything you need to know to deem an argument as valid or not is contained in the premise(s).

And when you get to describe the real world: EVERY GOD-DAMNED FACT ABOUT THAT WORLD IS PART OF YOUR PREMISES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What is astonishing is the depth of your cognitive dissonance. Logic does NOT equal truth. It is not anymore complicated than that. It doesn't matter one whit if the argument is about the 'real world' or not (leaving aside the conundrum of "proving something to be real" as an absolute). It is INCORRECT to throw out "real world facts" when discussing "the real world". It is NOT automatically ILLOGICAL. Moreover, as you are remarkably consistent in your misapplication of the term "logic" to what should be properly labeled "common sense", one can argue your mistaken use of the term to be logically applied when measured by the dissonant rules you've chosen to apply to its use. So your own mistake is "logical"--it is, however, still mistaken.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

...

UnFFing believable.

NO, for the UMPTEENTH TIME, you can NOT make a logical argument for creationism and ID, because the only way to do so, would be to DENY all your premises. As I've described above with the Lassie, Dog, Pig example.

[...]

I said before that this is neither the proper thread nor the proper forum for a debate about creationism and ID and I meant it. Please drop it now and 3D Master, you need to dial it way back. If you want to have a debate about rules of logic, then start your own thread about it in an appropriate forum, but you will not derail this one any further.

This discussion will continue to be about Star Trek timelines and canon and subjects related to these as pertains to the movie, or it will be closed.

 

[Plain Simple]

This may be implied in a trailer scene, Spock's ship appears to be emerging out of and away from Neros. Let me get a cap from that scene from the high res thread...

http://www.joseralat.com/uploads/screen-capture-47.jpg

It's a nice picture, but I'm afraid I have no clue what I'm exactly looking at. Anyone care to elaborate?

 

[3D Master]

What is astonishing is the depth of your cognitive dissonance. Logic does NOT equal truth. It is not anymore complicated than that. It doesn't matter one whit if the argument is about the 'real world' or not (leaving aside the conundrum of "proving something to be real" as an absolute). It is INCORRECT to throw out "real world facts" when discussing "the real world". It is NOT automatically ILLOGICAL. Moreover, as you are remarkably consistent in your misapplication of the term "logic" to what should be properly labeled "common sense", one can argue your mistaken use of the term to be logically applied when measured by the dissonant rules you've chosen to apply to its use. So your own mistake is "logical"--it is, however, still mistaken.

I'm the one with the cognitive dissonance? UnFFing believable. Brilliant:

We're going describe the real world, but first, we're going to toss out the real world as useless!

It's like saying:

We're going to describe yoghurt, first, forget about yoghurt, toss it out the window, and all I'm going to use, is a shovel.

That's sooo useful! To describe yoghurt without ever touching, feeling, or using yoghurt. And if something doesn't fit with yoghurt, to hell with yoghurt, I like a shovel better.

Or in mathematical logic terms:

I'm going to describe A and B, the whole point of the following logical deductions is A and B.

First thing we'll do, is toss out A and B, and work only with C, D, and E. We'll not use A and B anywhere. And at the end of the line, I will just claim I've analyzed A and B. And if what I came up with, doesn't fit A and B, even contradicts it, to hell with it, my logic is right, I've described A and B, I like C, D, and E better anyway.

I would like you to try and find any scientist, mathematician or logician to agree with you on the logic of that one.

 

[number6]

I'm the one with the cognitive dissonance.

Now that's the first thing that's made sense in days.