Questions on the Captain's Logs

[FormerLurker]

In my own fiction (not published yet - though I'm getting closer) I have come up with an explanation for the same people showing up in alternate and/or parallel universes.

To wit, there are two kinds of what I call extra-dimensional avatars: hereditary avatars; people that, through some manner have ended up as the same people because their parents, grandparents, etc somehow managed to come together and reproduce at the same time, resulting in the same people being born, with the same DNA and appearance; and incidental avatars, people that, while appearing to be the same people, have different parents, are a different age, perhaps by as little as hours, and are not quite the same height or proportion.

This makes as much sense to me as I can make, and when I finally get such a story published, you can rest assured I'll make the explanation make as much sense as I can.

 

[Captain Rob]

How many would like to see "Mirror ,Mirror' where Kirk and company materialize aboard the JJPrize?

 

[Sgt_G]

Here's a fiction piece I wrote back in 2004 that speaks of parallel universes: http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/short-story-set-in-st-tos-era-timelines.221197/ Enjoy!!!

 

[UnknownSample]

It doesn't follow that if there's a universe #2, then there must be an infinite number. There really isn't much of any basis for speculation since we don't know much of anything about whether such places exist, what they're like, anything.

ST has always felt free to recreate the other-universe idea from scratch each time. I don't really know why, but as a kid I always felt they were telling us all these different kinds of other universes existed.

First, there were only two universes, matter and anti-matter, not allowing for any more, unless there could be another variation on matter besides "anti"...

Then there were two universes, on e naughty and one nice, as if physic s cares how we behave in our lives .. . The whole point and essence of it was , again , opposite, not "alternative " implying choices. A whole society won 't just happen to choose as individuals to go nasty rather than nice, too much of a coincidence , so choice has nothing to do with it. Another black-white, two way situation .

"Parallels", Next Gen.. Finally we get to the infinite multiverse idea. Different universes, different choices, and they all exist. I don't think they addressed the part about choices actually creating the universes... good thing too, 'cause that part's silly. It's my feeling that creation of a universe requires more of a substantial cause than this or that action or choice of a humble human being, or even a whole lot of human beings.

 

[Sgt_G]

Finally we get to the infinite multiverse idea. Different universes, different choices, and they all exist. I don't think they addressed the part about choices actually creating the universes... good thing too, 'cause that part's silly. It's my feeling that creation of a universe requires more of a substantial cause than this or that action or choice of a humble human being, or even a whole lot of human beings.

I speak of this in the story I wrote, link posted above. If you haven't yet, please read it, especially part 12, paragraphs 7-14.

 

[Neopeius]

Timo, you seem to be alluding to the infinite monkey theorem to justify an MU with duplicates of all cast members, together and doing mostly the same jobs, despite their forefathers living and reproducing under different social conditions for generations. This monkey begs to differ.

Instead of saying that all alternate universes are "equally probable," shouldn't you say that such a near-duplicate Enterprise crew is vastly, exponentially improbable?

If there are an infinite number of parallel universes, then I don't deny the "technically non-zero" possibility of the "Mirror Mirror" MU. But its probability is so small that the "flash-creation of an imperfect copy" universe seems pretty reasonable by comparison.

Perhaps the mirror universe, as improbable as it is, was the only universe that the Enterprise crew could have beamed into. i.e. Swapping universes required the unique circumstances of an ion storm and a parallel universe that so closely mirrored that of the original Trek.

Thus, it'd be pretty much impossible to ever visit that universe again, kind of like how the Tholian interphase universe was a one-time event (with a few cross-over opportunities).

 

[Timo]

New It doesn't follow that if there's a universe #2, then there must be an infinite number.

But if parallel universes sprout from choices, then it does follow that there are an infinite number of them. OTOH, if they don't, and there are just two universes, then both are equally likely anyway - except by the rules of the other one, perhaps, but then both of those are equally likely to be "wrong".

....choice of a humble human being

Nobody specified human beings there, though. A choice made by an ant or a proton would be equally universe-shaking, and infinite choices would be made by a vast and in itself near-infinite number of players - hence the infinite results.

Perhaps the mirror universe, as improbable as it is, was the only universe that the Enterprise crew could have beamed into.

There certainly seem to be laws of attraction that pair the travelers from universe A with a universe B where the circumstances are a close match, involving the same people (but evil). Those aren't particularly rigid laws, sometimes pairing people with dead rather than live counterparts, but there's statistical attraction there nevertheless.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Sgt_G]

But if parallel universes sprout from choices, then it does follow that there are an infinite number of them.

Yes.

Perhaps the mirror universe, as improbable as it is, was the only universe that the Enterprise crew could have beamed into. i.e. Swapping universes required the unique circumstances of an ion storm and a parallel universe that so closely mirrored that of the original Trek.

Or, perhaps, there is a risk of beaming to a parallel universe every time you use the transporter. But usually you beam to one that is so close to the one you left you can't tell the difference between them The ion storm in this case caused them to beam a "little farther" than normal when swapping universes.

 

[Timo]

I really like that one! Why, it solves all our continuity problems once and for all...

Plus it's creepy. And transporters ought to be creepy.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[UnknownSample]

I do not create a universe by clenching or unclenching my hand, or throwing a wad of paper into a waste basket, and ants don't create new universes either. I could almost buy a cosmos where universes are naturally splitting off all the time on their own, providing countless opportunities for different choices. The choices themselves birthing universes? No.

 

[FormerLurker]

How about a cosmos where potential universes naturally split off and rejoin the core universe all the time, and each choice you make channels you down one or another depending on how that choice affects what happens next?

 

[Timo]

The choices themselves birthing universes? No.

It's just that you have fixated on a specific meaning of "choice". The parallel multiverse model requires no freedom of choice: every action and every moment is a choice unto itself, in retrospect. All that is required is that actions and events can happen in at least two different ways - something far from ascertained by today's science but readily postulated by it.

As for splitting off and rejoining, obviously that happens: out of an infinite number of universes, an infinite number have to degenerate into each other.

Yet how you steer through that messy spaghetti of connections through conscious choices is qualitatively different from just letting events happen, because what we consider a conscious choice is macroscopic in comparison with most random events. In the simplest terms, we will notice the effect of a conscious choice - and if technology or the wonders of outer space somehow provide us with a means of exploring the multiplicity of it all, we can compare, and evaluate, and ultimately "navigate timelines" in the Trek or BTTF fashion.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Sgt_G]

How about a cosmos where potential universes naturally split off and rejoin the core universe all the time, and each choice you make channels you down one or another depending on how that choice affects what happens next?

Have you read this: http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/short-story-set-in-st-tos-era-timelines.221197/

 

[FormerLurker]

Just read it now. Interesting story.

 

[Sgt_G]

Fits this discussion well, yes?

 

[FormerLurker]

Yes it does.

 

[UnknownSample]

This whole splitting universes business started with a particular conference amongst physicists years ago, that was recorded and widely seen. Many of you probably know more about it than I do. It was enjoyable speculation that was taken as fact by many people because it came from physicists. As I understand it, it was on the order of a bunch of knowledgeable science fiction fans shooting the breeze in the con suite, nothing more serious than that. But there are people roaming the Earth now swearing it's practically solid, known physics, the universe-splitting.

Perhaps I'm naive and relatively uninformed on physics, but I'm going to guess that the creation of a universe, for Chrissakes, is a bigger deal and requires a bigger cause than what we're talking about.

Why am I going on about it? I don't really know. Don't mind me.

We're talking about Star Trek, not reality , I realize. Any theory can be used. Maybe I just think we go for the splitting universe thing too often.

 

[David Strickhouser]

Question for the group: When you're rewatching TOS episodes, how do you interpret the Captain's Logs coming out of the commercial breaks? Do you think of them as verbatim excerpts of what Kirk recorded and sent to Starfleet Command, or do you think of them as just a dramatic convention of TOS the television show, and only vaguely representative of what Kirk's logs actually would have been?

And do you ever get hung up on questions like exactly when over the course of the story Kirk recorded them, or wonder why Kirk the narrator is privy to information that Kirk the character is not at that point in the story? Take for instance the first two logs from "The Enemy Within":

It shifts from past to present tense. The first one sounds like Kirk is recounting the entire story after the fact, but the second one is right in the thick of the action.

And where do you think Kirk typically recorded his logs? On the bridge, where everyone could hear? ("Hey, Captain, why'd you say that Gary Mitchell died in the line of duty and not talk about how he killed Kelso and tried to bury you alive?") In his quarters, where he could talk about potentially sensitive or classified information more freely? Or did he just excuse himself to go to the loo every time he had a thought to put down?

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts!

New to this thread. Very interesting.

Inside Star Trek by Solow and Justman briefly recounts Desilu VP Herb Solow's recollection of how the log lines were born.
Solow and Roddenberry felt too much extrapolative dialogue would slow an episode; therefore the “Captain’s Log: Stardate…” was a way to (1) let viewers know the series was set in the far future, and (2) place that “long-winded” extrapolation into a vocal narrative.

The opening log (either in the teaser, or after the first commercial break) usually (not always) established in the narrative that week’s adventure. In the early installments the log did seem to be formatted post-episode (which would tie in to Solow’s statement to Roddenberry in their concept meetings in 1964 that all Star Trek stories “have already taken place.” They were already history, and that each story was a flashback).

That idea seemed to go away as the series went on; log entries made past the initial opening log seemed to happen mid-adventure. Therefore, the captain (or officer) was making a log in the “moment”.

How, you may ask?

Some speculate the communicator doubles as a log entry device, recording logs “on the fly” for later decoding. Also the tricorder is capable of receiving log entries for later decoding and storing.

There appeared to be no hard and fast rules for log entries.

Are they “verbatim” excerpts?

I conjecture that longer, detailed logs, supplemental entries and appended reports, et al, would be submitted via subspace to Starfleet Command at a later time when the adventure was over.

So what we the audience were treated to were concise “mini-logs” to orient us to the action of “tonight’s episode”.

My thoughts.

 

[Kor]

In-universe, how exactly was Kirk recording his log entry of ""the people of this time believe in witches" in All Our Yesterdays?

Kor

 

[BeatleJWOL]

how exactly was Kirk recording his log entry of ""the people of this time believe in witches" in All Our Yesterdays?

Perhaps Kirk had William Shatner's flair for the dramatic and recorded some later logs as such.