Doctor Who paradox *spoilers*

[PTeppic]

Originally Posted by Princess Ivy

i've just had another thought (i'm working on very little sleep here, bare with me) the doctor from our universe only met vicky because he was trying to take rose to that music festival.

I'm staying out of the argument proper and just sticking to sci-fi/fantasy: what about the "momentum of parallel alternatives" theory, that certain key points in the parallel universe model will happen via any one of several alternative routes through the causality of choice, so not having a Rose to take to the festival would not necessarily prevent an incident occuring whereby the Doctor caused Queen Victoria (or indeed another monarch/leader) to create The Torchwood Institute...

[Dave]

That sounds a little like those Final Destination movies - the teenagers were meant to die, so they ARE still going to die in some equally horrible way.

You may be correct that our FATE is pre-determined and cannot be changed, but I'm with Princess Ivy, when she said "i've always been more of a fan of freewill and being able to change things." I mean, what's the point of life if you cannot aspire to anything greater than the lot you were born with? Or, what is the point of trying harder, if you will get given it on a silver platter anyway?

I guess that is a philosophical question though, and as such we are never going to come to a definitive answer.

[zorcarepublic]

So does two wrongs make a right? No.



If you'd like some more help into time, I can easily help...

In fact, I've got just the thing...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zorcarepublic

If you'd like some more help into time, I can easily help...

Go ahead! I'm quite open to suggestions for further reading, especially if they will prove your case!

For you own further study, may I suggest:

The Man Who Folded Himself by David Gerrold
The Science of Doctor Who by Paul Parsons
The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence M. Krauss
Is Data Human? The Metaphysics of Star Trek by Richard Hanley
The Time Traveller's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
The Technicolour Time Machine by Harry Harrison
The Sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury
Up the Line by Robert Silverberg
The Flight of the Horse, There's a Wolf in my Time Machine & Death in a Cage by Larry Niven
The Time Machine by HG Wells
Timeline by Michael Crichton
By His Bootstraps, The Number of the Beast & The Door into Summer by Robert A Heinlein
The Time Ships by Stephen Baxter
Bid Time Return by Richard Matheson
Slaughter-House-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
The Secret Shelter by Sandi LeFaucheur
The Forever War by Joe Haldeman
Timescape by Gregory Benford
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain
The Man in the High Castle & Time Out of Joint by Philip K Dick

I'm currently reading Time Out of Joint.

[taylorl3]

Yeah Ray Bradbury, I reccomend anything by him. Perhaps my all time favorite author in any genre.

[zorcarepublic]

Originally Posted by Dave

Go ahead! I'm quite open to suggestions for further reading, especially if they will prove your case!

For you own further study, may I suggest:

The Man Who Folded Himself by David Gerrold
The Science of Doctor Who by Paul Parsons
The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence M. Krauss
Is Data Human? The Metaphysics of Star Trek by Richard Hanley
The Time Traveller's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
The Technicolour Time Machine by Harry Harrison
The Sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury
Up the Line by Robert Silverberg
The Flight of the Horse, There's a Wolf in my Time Machine & Death in a Cage by Larry Niven
The Time Machine by HG Wells
Timeline by Michael Crichton
By His Bootstraps, The Number of the Beast & The Door into Summer by Robert A Heinlein
The Time Ships by Stephen Baxter
Bid Time Return by Richard Matheson
Slaughter-House-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
The Secret Shelter by Sandi LeFaucheur
The Forever War by Joe Haldeman
Timescape by Gregory Benford
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain
The Man in the High Castle & Time Out of Joint by Philip K Dick

I'm currently reading Time Out of Joint.

Well, at least I've got some reading to do.

I heard of the premise of The Man who Folded Himself. Its where a man becomes his own father, mother and mentor. I read the premise in Michio Kaku's Hyperspace which is also a good read.

The main thing I think can be said about time travel--it aint easy to understand.

Regarding Hawkings books, do you think there is such a thing as a built-in 'policeman' in order to prevent time travel? It would certainly be a bit of a problem for those of us who'd like to murder their grandfather, wouldn't it?

[taylorl3]

Hawkings, wish I could say I understood his writings. It's brilliant stuff but it may just be over my head.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zorcarepublic

Regarding Hawkings books, do you think there is such a thing as a built-in 'policeman' in order to prevent time travel? It would certainly be a bit of a problem for those of us who'd like to murder their grandfather, wouldn't it?

Actually, I believe that idea is not Hawkings but Igor Novikov's. He published his 'self-consistency theory' in 1983.

But interestingly, 10 years earlier, in 1972, in Day of the Daleks, Jon Pertwee's Doctor mentioned the Blinovitch limitation effect - that a time traveller cannot "redo" an act that they have previously committed - essentially the same thing. Ecclestone's Doctor mentioned the same thing in Father's Day.

I really rate The Man Who Folded Himself but it was a difficult book to get hold of. It is out of print. I got an Inter-Library Loan and it actually came from the BBC Library.

[zorcarepublic]

Originally Posted by Dave

Actually, I believe that idea is not Hawkings but Igor Novikov's. He published his 'self-consistency theory' in 1983.

But interestingly, 10 years earlier, in 1972, in Day of the Daleks, Jon Pertwee's Doctor mentioned the Blinovitch limitation effect - that a time traveller cannot "redo" an act that they have previously committed - essentially the same thing. Ecclestone's Doctor mentioned the same thing in Father's Day.

I really rate The Man Who Folded Himself but it was a difficult book to get hold of. It is out of print. I got an Inter-Library Loan and it actually came from the BBC Library.

Ah, I didn't know that. To be honest, I've never heard of Novikov. Did he publish the hypothesis in a journal?

(note: I get really riled up when people mis-use the word theory. Even scientists. Theory, in science, should mean a model of something that has withstood many tests over the years and is an accepted part of the body of science. The Theory of Evolution, for example. But there has been no such tests with regards to time travel, so anything to do with this branch should be hypothesis. Yes, I know Im being pedantic)

I'll see if Im able to get hold of it.

[Princess Ivy]

Originally Posted by zorcarepublic

Ah, I didn't know that. To be honest, I've never heard of Novikov. Did he publish the hypothesis in a journal?

(note: I get really riled up when people mis-use the word theory. Even scientists. Theory, in science, should mean a model of something that has withstood many tests over the years and is an accepted part of the body of science. The Theory of Evolution, for example. But there has been no such tests with regards to time travel, so anything to do with this branch should be hypothesis. Yes, I know Im being pedantic)

I'll see if Im able to get hold of it.

sorry babe, but to my understanding, a theory is just that, a theory. a model is then built or constructed in order to test out this theory and prove or disprove it's effectiveness. eg: a social theory such as that envorionment is key to understaznding of a persons motivations and actions. a model will then be used to prove this theory and its place within our knowledge of the entire social system.

something came up in re-watching a doctor who last night. i'd love some clarification on it. the doctor was the last survivor of the time war, and makes refference to having commited some act which wiped out both sides. should he not therefore have known about the ark? if in fact the ark was from our universe. it did after all come through the void in the void ship which the doctor himself says is beyond known technology. so, those daleks, were they from our universe? or from some parallel universe in which the time war didn't go as well?

[Princess Ivy]

Originally Posted by zorcarepublic

No, the episode with Queen Victoria took place BEFORE the episode with the Cybermen.

New Earth was first, followed by Queen Victoria, then another few episodes during which Mickey signs up on the TARDIS, then we get to the Cybermen episode, which is taking place at the same time as this Earth. Therefore, the POD took place AFTER the formation of the Torchwood Institute and BEFORE the present day.

Ergo, there wouldn't need to be a parrallel Earth Doctor.

Okay?

ah, but historically, looking at time in a linear sense, vicky happened first. back to dave's point here that they are mixing up the linear and lateral theories of time/ universe. grr. my head is starting to hurt.

[taylorl3]

my head hurts too trying to understand this. Everything I need to know about Science I learned from watching Sci-Fi shows on TV

[Dave]

Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Dmitrievich_Novikov

I actually first wrote 'principle' rather than 'theory' but I dropped that post and lost it somewhere! When I rewrote it I wrote too quickly.

Principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov...ency_principle

I already made my point about Queen Victoria, I can't really say any more on that, but on the subject of the Doctor being the cause of the anihilation of both sides of the Time War, I don't remember it that way - do you have a quote? I just thought he said that he stood by and did nothing to prevent it - my memory is not that good though.

The Dalek's said that the Ark was a prison. I think that as the Doctor never went to Gallifrey much, it is possible for the Time Lords to have developed it without his knowledge while he was away.

The Void Ship being an alien machine beyond known technology is more difficult to reconcile. However, the Daleks have always stolen technology and could have passed into parallel worlds and stolen this too.

[zorcarepublic]

Originally Posted by Princess Ivy

sorry babe, but to my understanding, a theory is just that, a theory. a model is then built or constructed in order to test out this theory and prove or disprove it's effectiveness. eg: a social theory such as that envorionment is key to understaznding of a persons motivations and actions. a model will then be used to prove this theory and its place within our knowledge of the entire social system.

something came up in re-watching a doctor who last night. i'd love some clarification on it. the doctor was the last survivor of the time war, and makes refference to having commited some act which wiped out both sides. should he not therefore have known about the ark? if in fact the ark was from our universe. it did after all come through the void in the void ship which the doctor himself says is beyond known technology. so, those daleks, were they from our universe? or from some parallel universe in which the time war didn't go as well?

Princess Ivy, in science the word theory is different to the standard world's definition of theory. In science, a theory is a prediction of how a certain aspect of physics, chemistry etc works, and that has withstood all potential challenges. Unfortunately, even scientists tend to mis-use the word theory in its scientific meaning.

Lets take the Theory of Relativity. Before it was tested, it was a hypothesis, with little or no evidence to support it. Then various tests (most notably the test in West Africa when a team took readings of how much the light from distant stars was diverted by the sun's gravity) supported this theory, and no other tests, as of yet, has disproved the theory.

And as to linear and lateral time, its true that the writers have indeed messed it up. Im offering up a hypothesis that tries to explain away the inconsistencies while keeping the egg off the writers' collective face. In a way, Im trying to be charitable, while you and Dave are nitpickers.

Well, I'm not arguing about the Time War, but since you brought it up...

This confuses me too. Christopher Ecclestone's Doctor seems to imply in Dalek that he didn't help in the war, or that he was too young to fight. Yet in the double-parter at the end of the second series, Tennant's Doctor says he fought, and mentions that he was there "...at the Fall of Arcadia. Soon I may be able to come to terms with that" when rescuing Rose and Mickey from the Cult of Skaro.

As for the Ark, it is possible that, if he is indeed too young by Time Lord standards, he might not have been a very important member to know about it.

The Void Ship...well, its probably an offshoot of time-travel tech? The Time Lords might know how to do it--the Doctor seems to know a bit about it--but with their time travel tech they don't need to.

Got to go now, got some printing to do.

[Robertbert]

Eccleston's Doctor says to the Dalek that he "Watched the Dalek fleet burn"...When the Dalek says "You lie"...Eccleston says "I watched it happen...I MADE it happen..."...He was there...

Fercrap'ssake...It's a programme...It doesn't matter...