So why doesn't Spock save Vulcan?

[Nerys Myk]

Our responses are now down to

"It's just a movie!" (genre pleading)

"The same question applies to other Trek stories!" (Tu Quoque)

"Only weirdos who like old Trek would care" (Ad Hominem).

Strange that one is shamed for getting one's geek on at a geek board.

You asked a question in the original post. Respondents are under no obligation to furnish answers that support your point of view.

I love responses like this, because they are evidence that members of the opposition can do no better than appeal to fallacies. No one is going to admit they're out of ammo, but when they start lobbing mud, you know they're running short.

Your question's been answered. You just don't like the answers.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Our responses are now down to

"It's just a movie!" (genre pleading)

"The same question applies to other Trek stories!" (Tu Quoque)

"Only weirdos who like old Trek would care" (Ad Hominem).

Strange that one is shamed for getting one's geek on at a geek board.

Your example of the Tu Quoque fallacy really isn't a fallacy in this case, because Star Trek does not need to follow what you think should happen in the real world. It only needs to follow what usually happens in the Star Trek world.

I don't care what real world logic applies to time travel and alternate universes. All that matters is the logic that Star Trek says applies to time travel and alternate universe...

...and, by the way, that Star Trek logic is not always overtly consistent with itself, and reconciling that inconsistent logic requires the fans to fill in the blanks/rationalize the inconsistencies (i.e., make some shit up).

 

[Nerys Myk]

His question isn't quite the "gotcha" moment he thinks it is.

 

[Franklin]

I don't think it should ever be on the table. You could never, in good conscious, move forward after any and all tragedies. What makes the Vulcans more special than the crew of the Kelvin or those aboard the forty-seven Klingon ships that were destroyed? Pure numbers?

In that case, how could Kirk and Spock risk going back in time to save the Earth in Star Trek IV? What makes Earthlings so special? Maybe it has something to do with losing an entire planet? Your own planet?

Shouldn't the crew have been punished even more? Instead they gave Kirk his command back and the crew a new Enterprise.

The destruction of Vuclan and what Kirk did to prevent Earth from being destroyed in TVH are not the same thing at all.

In TVH Kirk faced an unfolding disaster on Earth. He cleverly used time travel to find the whales, then come back to his time to stop the disaster as it was happening and before Earth was destroyed. That's totally different from using time travel to change something that already happened (like if the probe had destroyed Earth before Kirk could do anything).

 

[YARN]

Your example of the Tu Quoque fallacy really isn't a fallacy in this case, because Star Trek does not need to follow what you think should happen in the real world. It only needs to follow what usually happens in the Star Trek world.

You are not understanding how the Tu Quoque operates as a response. A TNG fan says Kirk was fat. A TOS fan says Riker was fat too. The rejoinder, even if it is correct, does nothing to repudiate the claim that Kirk is fat. In fact, it concedes the point in the hopes of leveling both shows in terms of quality.

If you wish to say that this aspect of nu-Trek is no less questionable, then I am happy to agree with you.

My question, in this case, however, is why Spock does not attempt to save Vulcan, since this instance appears similar to other temporal alterations the Trek crew has made to save their respective homeworlds. I agree that they had a reset button to save countless colonies destroyed by rubber lizards, corn chip-shaped death machines, and flying boogers that hijack minds. They'll pull all the stops to save Earth or Spock, but not so much love for everyone else.

I don't care what real world logic applies to time travel and alternate universes. All that matters is the logic that Star Trek says applies to time travel and alternate universe...

And that is why we are testing Trek via coherence, in terms of its own rules. And Trek's rules include both closed-loop and branching time-travel.

When Trek is not consistent with itself, it fails its own test.

...and, by the way, that Star Trek logic is not always overtly consistent with itself, and reconciling that inconsistent logic requires the fans to fill in the blanks/rationalize the inconsistencies (i.e., make some shit up).

Of course it isn't. Indeed, we've had some interesting posits already offered in this thread in response to my question!

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

You would think that in The Immunity Syndrome, after they figured out how to stop the giant space amoeba that they would slingshot themselves back in time and save the billions of inhabitants Gamma Seven-A.

Heck, they could do the same to save almost anyone who dies -- although I suppose there would be an ROI (Return on Investment) factor to consider -- i.e., the amount of resources expended to save the life of someone -versus- the importance of that life. I would think saving a redshirt is not important, but preventing Kirk from being crushed by a metal bridge might be something to consider.


Seriously though, nuTrek is an alternate universe, not a change to the prime timeline.

 

[Franklin]

Let's just cut straight to Orci's response to the same question you asked, YARN.

Robogeek: Why doesn’t Spock Prime try (or even want) to fix/restore the timeline, and save Vulcan?”

Bob Orci: Two reasons: The RED MATTER Device is destroyed, so even if he wanted to go back in time, he can’t. Secondly, our story is not based on the linear timeline of Einstein’s General Theory of relativity upon which most movies about time travel are based (like say, BACK TO THE FUTURE, or TERMINATOR, both of which I LOVE). The idea of a fixable timeline has been a wonderful staple of sci-fi since the 50’s, but in reading about the most current thinking in theoretical physics regarding time travel (Quantum Mechanics), we learned about the speculative theories that suggest that if time travel is possible, then the act of time travel itself creates a new universe that exists in PARALLEL to the one left by the time traveler.

This is the preferred theory these days because it resolves the GRANDFATHER PARADOX, which wonders how a time traveler who kills his own younger grandfather would logically then cease to exist, but then he’d never be around to time travel and kill his grandfather in the first place. Quantum Mechanically based theories resolve this paradox by arguing that the time traveler, in killing his grandfather, would merely split a previously identical universe into a new one in which a man who is his grandfather in another universe is killed in the new one. The time traveler does not cease to exist, although he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing). Or something.

To summarize above on the time travel issue, going back in time is the equivalent of stepping into a parallel universe, according to current speculations based on Quantum Mechanics. Starfleet and Spock, basing their decisions on this theory, would see that their is NO SUCH THING as “rectifying” the situation in a MULTIVERSE.
… and finally, my ace in the hole, a TEMPORAL PRIME DIRECTIVE.

M'Sharak also pointed this out to you in a post. These were the rules Orci and Kurtzman operated by. In this universe, you can't do what you're asking for.
If you don't like that answer, then you have to take it up with Orci and Kurtzman.

Source of where the question was asked:
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/18/orc...kmovie-transcript-of-last-weeks-impromptu-qa/

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

His question isn't quite the "gotcha" moment he thinks it is.

And that is what this is about.

 

[YARN]

If nothing else works, appeal to authority and claim the authority is the final word. Ad Verecundiam.

Let's just cut straight to Orci's response to the same question you asked, YARN.

Lets, indeed.

BobOrci: Two reasons: The RED MATTER Device is destroyed, so even if he wanted to go back in time, he can’t. Secondly, our story is not based on the linear timeline of Einstein’s General Theory of relativity upon which most movies about time travel are based (like say, BACK TO THE FUTURE, or TERMINATOR, both of which I LOVE). The idea of a fixable timeline has been a wonderful staple of sci-fi since the 50’s, but in reading about the most current thinking in theoretical physics regarding time travel (Quantum Mechanics), we learned about the speculative theories that suggest that if time travel is possible, then the act of time travel itself creates a new universe that exists in PARALLEL to the one left by the time traveler.

Orci is not a physicist. He's miles from being a physicist. He's a sci-fi writer. He has no more authority on these matters than you or I.

Lets' note a few things.

1. Relativity theory has not been overturned. It is in fact one of the most accurate and reliable physical theories ever produced. Relativity theory and Quantum Theory do not mesh well, which is why physicists have been chasing a grand theory of everything for many decades now.

2. If you want to see what scientists have to say, many would tell you that time-travel is impossible, full stop.

3. Speculative theories are just that, speculative. The Everrett/Wheeler "no-collapse" interpretation of quantum mechanics (which simply posits that the universe branches or splits every time a measurement like event occurs - which gives us a branching proliferation of universes) has been around for a half century. This isn't cutting edge speculation.

4. What is possible in Star Trek has nothing to do with what is possible in the real world. There is no such thing as Red Matter or phasers or Romulans. This is the point that really matters.

This is the preferred theory these days because it resolves the GRANDFATHER PARADOX,

The time travel is impossible view (i.e., Einstein's personal view) also resolves causal paradoxes.

Orci, however, has also claimed that the prime universe is still real and that it is still there. He brought Spock from the old universe into the new universe. He didn't do a hard reboot. Old and new are narratively connected. The old universe is not only real, but has overlapped with the new universe, and they are causally connected since events and agents from one universe have connected with the new universe.

You don't get to eat your cake and have it too. You don't get to do a soft reboot and use the ethos of Nimoy to confer legitimacy to the new regime, but then repudiate narrative facts that are part of that ethos.

To summarize above on the time travel issue, going back in time is the equivalent of stepping into a parallel universe, according to current speculations based on Quantum Mechanics. Starfleet and Spock, basing their decisions on this theory, would see that their is NO SUCH THING as “rectifying” the situation in a MULTIVERSE.

No, Old Spock would certainly know about sling-shotting and he would also know that it is closed-loop time travel. Seeing as how Old Spock had the secret formula for transwarp beaming, others would be inclined to respect his knowledge of the universe.

… and finally, my ace in the hole, a TEMPORAL PRIME DIRECTIVE.

I've already dealt with this one upthread. My analysis applies here too.

M'Sharak also pointed this out to you in a post. These were the rules Orci and Kurtzman operated by. In this universe, you can't do what you're asking for.

This has been dealt with upthread too.

If you don't like that answer, then you have to take it up with Orci and Kurtzman.

If I had wished to pose the question to them, I would have sent them an email. I didn't. I am, rather, asking the question of fellow Trekkies. If you don't have an answer besides that cut-and-paste, fine, stand aside then.

 

[BillJ]

At the end of the day, it's fiction. Each individual story is going to use the elements needed to tell the story the writer wants to tell.

We can go to every single Star Trek story and go "why didn't they do this? It was done in episode 'x'!"

 

[YARN]

At the end of the day, it's fiction. Each individual story is going to use the elements needed to tell the story the writer wants to tell.

We can go to every single Star Trek story and go "why didn't they do this? It was done in episode 'x'!"

This is true. And the narrative rot sets in all the way back in TOS. How many game changing technologies, tricks, and potions did they just simply leave on the table, never to be discussed again?

And this is why, in my personal opinion, if Orci really wanted to put Trek in a more realistic universe, the last film should have been a hard reboot.

But it wasn't a hard reboot. And the destruction of Vulcan is not a run-of-the-mill tragedy or set back. It certainly would not be for Spock, for whom the event was emotionally compromising. Ditto for other Vulcans. For Spock, this is like Earth being destroyed and he has (positive evidence on record) intervened in time to save Earth in the past. When the stakes are high enough and/or when there is interference in a timeline, Spock has been willing to hit the reset button. In this case, the stakes are high and Nero has altered the course of events.

It is not, therefore, a silly question, but a rather natural one. Why wouldn't Spock act to correct his mistake, his failure to save Vulcan?

 

[Kemaiku]

Because it's a fucking. Movie.

Ugh.

 

[BillJ]

At the end of the day, it's fiction. Each individual story is going to use the elements needed to tell the story the writer wants to tell.

We can go to every single Star Trek story and go "why didn't they do this? It was done in episode 'x'!"

This is true. And the narrative rot sets in all the way back in TOS. How many game changing technologies, tricks, and potions did they just simply leave on the table, never to be discussed again?

And this is why, in my personal opinion, if Orci really wanted to put Trek in a more realistic universe, the last film should have been a hard reboot.

But it wasn't a hard reboot. And the destruction of Vulcan is not a run-of-the-mill tragedy or set back. It certainly would not be for Spock, for whom the event was emotionally compromising. Ditto for other Vulcans. For Spock, this is like Earth being destroyed and he has (positive evidence on record) intervened in time to save Earth in the past. When the stakes are high enough and/or when there is interference in a timeline, Spock has been willing to hit the reset button. In this case, the stakes are high and Nero has altered the course of events.

It is not, therefore, a silly question, but a rather natural one. Why wouldn't Spock act to correct his mistake, his failure to save Vulcan?

I just chalk it up to Spock not wanting to destroy a younger version of himself.

 

[YARN]

I just chalk it up to Spock not wanting to destroy a younger version of himself.

How?

 

[BillJ]

I just chalk it up to Spock not wanting to destroy a younger version of himself.

How?

If he resets the timeline, then he essentially destroys the younger Spock that developed in the new timeline.

 

[YARN]

If he resets the timeline, then he essentially destroys the younger Spock that developed in the new timeline.

Well, he wouldn't be destroying his younger self. Young Spock was not really impacted by the loss of the Kelvin.

At any rate, Spock could make a minimal intervention move by simply preventing Nero from destroying Vulcan and leaving Kirk as more "Fonzi-fied" if he wishes.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...And this is why, in my personal opinion, if Orci really wanted to put Trek in a more realistic universe, the last film should have been a hard reboot....

Did they really want to put Trek in a more realistic universe, or simply create an updated version of the familiar Trek Universe in which their characters can play?
Was it updated for 21st century audiences? yeah. However, I don't think that necessarily means "more realistic".

...And for the record, I would have been OK with a hard reboot -- but still within the framework of what we come to know as an updated version of the good ol' Trek Universe.

 

[BillJ]

If he resets the timeline, then he essentially destroys the younger Spock that developed in the new timeline.

Well, he wouldn't be destroying his younger self. Young Spock was not really impacted by the loss of the Kelvin.

At any rate, Spock could make a minimal intervention move by simply preventing Nero from destroying Vulcan and leaving Kirk as more "Fonzi-fied" if he wishes.

If Vulcan isn't destroyed, Kirk gets drummed out of the service for cheating on the Kobayashi Maru, the Doomsday Machine eats the Rigel colonies, the Space Amoeba continues to grow, V'ger wipes out Earth and so on and so on.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why does a hard reboot equal a more realistic universe?

 

[BillJ]

Why does a hard reboot equal a more realistic universe?

Not more realistic but easier to tell the story without fans going "why?"

Like what we are seeing here...