• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Burn and Time Travel Ban are incompatible

Well, time travel usually introduces more problems.

Traveling forward in time is functionally no different from being in suspended animation. It's just a way to move in the normal direction through time but skip over part of it. It doesn't pose any of the problems associated with "time travel" as we think of it.

Someone above mentioned how it would "change" the timeline, but the only way that can happen is if someone or something reaches back from the future and takes someone/something that wasn't removed from the original timeline -- and that is backward time travel. If it's strictly forward, then it was part of the original timeline anyway, in keeping with the normal progression of cause and effect.
 
That's an argument it's not enforceable. But I get the impression that prior to the Burn, local governments were brought around enough to the Federation way of thinking to self-enforce knowing how dangerous time travel was, also all the time travel capable ships were probably decommissioned and all the information either destroyed or highly classified.
 
The Burn - An event that caused Dilithium to become a scarce resource and broke apart all large centralized governing bodies.

Time Travel Ban - A generalized agreement that bans the use of time travel.

These two things are in fact completely incompatible.

Something like the Time Travel Ban requires large centralized governing bodies to enforce it. But The Burn not only destroyed those, it also created a resource scarcity based situation that would encourage separate parties to use Time Travel to solve it.

I think one happened before the other. Once the Burn hit, it would be harder to travel around to get the materials/knowledge necessary to make time travel happen. Especially after that knowledge has been suppressed/destroyed for a long time.
 
Yeah, they ban time travel as a result of the Temporal Wars. Then sometime later the Burn happens, but since no one can move around or communicate easily, plus the knowledge is illegal to access, no one can go back and undo it. Some people were probably thinking it would be nice to have a time machine, but there isn't much you can do about it at that point.

They aren't connected in any way and could be separated by decades.
 
Not if that was the way it "always" happened. And from the perspective of people in the future they arrive in, that is how it happened. Naturally they'd want to preserve their own timeline, including any past time travels that shaped it.
You are forgetting to take into account timeline change immunity.

To preserve the history that she already knew had happened. Again, any temporal enforcers in this version of the timeline would want to allow any time travels that created this version of the timeline.
Actually she didn't know that final signal happened, remember, it was the one that happened after she left.

After all, remember why Discovery and Burnham came to the future in the first place: because Gabrielle Burnham found a future where all life in the galaxy was destroyed, and the only way to prevent that future was for Discovery to travel forward in time. So the only futures where life in the galaxy continues to exist are futures where Discovery went forward in time, and that requires the Red Angel suit going back in time to establish the seven signals. Therefore, no temporal enforcers were going to interfere with that particular time travel, since doing so would wipe out their own existence.
That's highly debatable since part of being a temporal enforcer would be being immune to timeline changes.

Also it's highly debatable that that was Discovery's only option given their access to the Spore drive.
 
You are forgetting to take into account timeline change immunity.

No, I'm saying there is no timeline change if the time travel is purely forward, because then it was part of events "all along." The timeline only changes if there's travel from the future back into the past, causing events to happen differently than they did the "first" time (subjectively speaking).



Actually she didn't know that final signal happened, remember, it was the one that happened after she left.

The whole reason she sent the suit back was to make sure that it sent the signal to let Spock know she was okay. So yes, of course it happened after she left -- that's why she sent the suit back through the wormhole and ordered it to do that.


That's highly debatable since part of being a temporal enforcer would be being immune to timeline changes.

Good grief, way to miss the point. Obviously someone whose job is to protect the entire timeline is not going to care only about their own personal survival. Come on! You wouldn't look at a firefighter and say "Well, I'm sure she doesn't care about all the people trapped in that burning building because she's safely outside of it."
 
No, I'm saying there is no timeline change if the time travel is purely forward, because then it was part of events "all along." The timeline only changes if there's travel from the future back into the past, causing events to happen differently than they did the "first" time (subjectively speaking).
Actually there is a timeline change when people travel forward through non-entropy means.

It's just only noticeable to things that are immune to timeline changes because when the time traveler arrives in that time they are arriving in a timeline where their time travel always happened.

The whole reason she sent the suit back was to make sure that it sent the signal to let Spock know she was okay. So yes, of course it happened after she left -- that's why she sent the suit back through the wormhole and ordered it to do that.
Yes, but that signal arrived personal timeline wise after she left, so it wasn't a predestination paradox.

Good grief, way to miss the point. Obviously someone whose job is to protect the entire timeline is not going to care only about their own personal survival. Come on! You wouldn't look at a firefighter and say "Well, I'm sure she doesn't care about all the people trapped in that burning building because she's safely outside of it."
That's not what I meant.

I was talking about the Temporal Enforcers from before Burnham's mother changed the timeline and caused Control to destroy all life in the Galaxy.
 
Actually there is a timeline change when people travel forward through non-entropy means.

No, there isn't. Presume a fixed timeline model like H.G. Wells's The Time Machine. The Time Traveler going forward in time does not "change" anything, because there is only one version of history, the one in which he builds the time machine and goes forward. There is no alternate version where he doesn't.

With purely forward time travel, there is only normal causality, a cause followed by an effect. Someone traveling forward in time ten years is functionally no different from someone being in cryogenic stasis for ten years -- they're gone for a while and then they're back. There is no mechanism for altering previous events when you only go forward.



Yes, but that signal arrived personal timeline wise after she left, so it wasn't a predestination paradox.

That wasn't the issue. You claimed she wasn't aware of the signal. She obviously was, because she was the one who arranged to send it. Changing the goalposts does not erase the fact that you were in error.


That's not what I meant.

I was talking about the Temporal Enforcers from before Burnham's mother changed the timeline and caused Control to destroy all life in the Galaxy.

Uhhhhhhhh.... There were none, because there was no life in the Galaxy. By definition, they only exist in timelines where Discovery did go forward in time to prevent all life from being destroyed.
 
No, there isn't. Presume a fixed timeline model like H.G. Wells's The Time Machine. The Time Traveler going forward in time does not "change" anything, because there is only one version of history, the one in which he builds the time machine and goes forward. There is no alternate version where he doesn't.

With purely forward time travel, there is only normal causality, a cause followed by an effect. Someone traveling forward in time ten years is functionally no different from someone being in cryogenic stasis for ten years -- they're gone for a while and then they're back. There is no mechanism for altering previous events when you only go forward.
That's presuming a fixed timeline cosmological model, but Star Trek doesn't have that.

That wasn't the issue. You claimed she wasn't aware of the signal. She obviously was, because she was the one who arranged to send it. Changing the goalposts does not erase the fact that you were in error.
No, I claimed in context of my reply to your statement, that she wasn't aware of the signal's success.

Uhhhhhhhh.... There were none, because there was no life in the Galaxy. By definition, they only exist in timelines where Discovery did go forward in time to prevent all life from being destroyed.
Three important things you are forgetting.

The first, the first timeline change was Michael's Mother going into the future, you need to calculate the effects of that on the timeline before anything else.

The second, that was Michael's Mother using Hyperbole, we know this since she found a planet with living stuff on it in the galaxy.

The third, multiple groups in the galaxy would have been multi-galactic.
 
I see the ban on Time Travel the way I see the ban on developing Cloaking Technology and Augmentation research: it's self-imposed. It's not going to stop anyone not part of the Federation from creating a means to travel through time. The caveat I see is that only the likes of Section 31 would have anything to do with time travel, as a precaution. BTW? Time travel is still possible, via sling-shot effect.

And the Burn is a separate thing. You know, apples and oranges.
 
That's presuming a fixed timeline cosmological model, but Star Trek doesn't have that.

There is as far as we can the viewer are concerned; because even after a timeline is changed; We the audience only see the changed timeline, until one of two things happen:

- The "original timeline" is restored.

- The new timeline continues and is now the "prime timeline" going forward.
 
Whether ban or impossibility, it's going to get a kicking tomorrow, isn't it...? They need to get Empress Gorgeous back to the 23rd Century for her spinoff show, it's going to have to be time travel in some form... [In fact since she's back on the 23rd Century ISS Discovery, it's already happened, Accord be damned]
 
Well it happened, and we learned for sure there is nothing actively stopping people from going back in time.
 
Anyone who decided to build it since it's been a hundred years since the Burn.
Right but how available are the resources is the question for me. I don't think everyone is going to have access to the resources and those who operate under Ban won't employ it.
 
Given the way it's described, the effects of the Temporal Wars could be so bad that most people don't even consider using time travel out of fear of what could happen.
 
Given the way it's described, the effects of the Temporal Wars could be so bad that most people don't even consider using time travel out of fear of what could happen.
That would be consistent with the Federation in the past, for sure. Also, even if people had the capability it could be such small powers that their influence is largely negligible.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top