Timeline for Were the events of the Star Trek movie First Contact always a part of history?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2020 at 0:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/ with https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/
|
|
| Mar 5, 2016 at 2:25 | vote | accept | NeutronStar | ||
| Mar 5, 2016 at 0:42 | comment | added | NKCampbell | @Richard - I think I may disagree with the alternate timeline considering the script: "PICARD: They must have done it in the past. ...They went back and assimilated Earth. ...Changed history. CRUSHER: Then if they changed history why are we still here? DATA: The temporal wake must somehow have protected us from the changes in the time-line." This distinction may just be a question of semantics | |
| Mar 4, 2016 at 21:11 | comment | added | Valorum | @Axelrod - Yes, but with the added twist that your attempt to stop the bootstrap from occurring actually results in the bootstrap occurring. I bet that sort of thing really annoys time travelers. | |
| Mar 4, 2016 at 21:09 | comment | added | user40790 | Bootstrap paradox! | |
| Mar 4, 2016 at 20:39 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | I trust it too, I just think the in-universe meaning of "causal loop" could be a little different than the real-world way the term is used by philosophers and physicists. There is nothing in her description of what she means by "causal loop", or in the term itself, that's obviously inconsistent with the idea that you can have a causal loop even if history is changed slightly, as long as the event the time travelers were trying to alter still ends up happening in the new timeline. | |
| Mar 4, 2016 at 20:30 | comment | added | Valorum | @Hypnosifl - As I said in my commentary, the Borg clearly have a far better handle on this than the Federation. I trust her statement implicitly. | |
| Mar 4, 2016 at 20:26 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | Maybe, but Seven's statement doesn't prove that, since as I said it's perfectly possible that in a universe where the time travel can alter the timeline (unlike the usual assumption of philosophers and physicists who talk about causal loops), she would use "causal loop" to refer to situations where the timeline is altered somewhat by time travelers trying to prevent some event, but in a way that still ends up causing the event to occur anyway. That would be consistent with Seven's definition "interference to prevent an event actually triggers the same event". | |
| Mar 4, 2016 at 20:16 | comment | added | Valorum | @Hypnosifl - What the Enterprise was viewing was an alternate timeline, not an event in the prime universe. When they went back in time, they returned to the original timeline. | |
| Mar 4, 2016 at 20:13 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | Star Trek may not use "causal loop" in the same way that philosophers do though--usually it's presupposed that if you have a causal loop something like the Novikov self-consistency principle applies, but that can't be true in this case because we did briefly see an altered history where the Borg had taken over the planet by the 24th century. So it may be that if you go back in time to prevent some event E, and do change history but in a way that still ends up causing E to happen, Seven would call that a "causal loop". | |
| Mar 4, 2016 at 20:06 | history | answered | Valorum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |