Though I am still wondering if the Envoy is the same person as Future Guy. The Envoy doesn't have to deal with the limitations that Future Guy had to deal with like only being able to send images of themselves through time.
This is what I was wondering also.
Was The Envoy supposed to be future guy or not? He does the same shadow transmission thing as future guy, but the Suliban who worked for Future Guy worked against the Sphere builders and Na'Khul, while the Envoy works with them.
On top of what you mentioned.
Yeah, that bit is a bit confusing.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Because history says it happend, its that simple, the Temporal directive isn't there to change history its there to protect the time line from being interfered with by Temporal travellers.
The destruction of the Tholian fleet, and possibly the assasination of the Tellarite ambassador, are just a few examples of changes that were not corrected.
Were they not important enough? Perhaps a bit too convenient for the Federation and the time agents? Whatever the reasons, the temporal agents and the Federation should at least stop pretending that they're the good guys. They are as much doing things for selfish reasons as those they are currently fighting.
I've not seen those ToS episodes ina while but as far as I can remember the Tellerite ambassador died history said so, whatever you think they aren't changeing history and as for the Tholian web it would appear that the Nak'hul are the architects of their own destruction.
I'm even more convinced now that the self-proclaimed 'guardians' of the timeline (Daniels, Walker, the DTI) are little more than a bunch of hypocrites who think they have the right to decide what's right and what's wrong.
Taking just the Defiant or the space station in one of the latest episodes as an example: who is Daniels to decide that their fate is to die on board of those structures? Both the station and the ship were lost as a direct result of things done by the Na'kuhl. The loss of the Tholian fleet is just another example: just because it drives the Tholians back and encourages them to not expand outwards, thereby avoiding conflict with the Federation, Daniels and the like don't consider it necessary to correct this incursion.
But I guess we'll just have to believe him when he says 'trust that this is the right thing to do'. I feel that an option not to side with whoever you're forced to side with (in this case, some temporal agent who's doing much more than just watching history unfold as Vosk so rightly emphasised in his discussion with Archer) is needed, more than ever.
Daniels and the other temporal agents are not neutral: they are actively playing for god, pretending that it is up to them to decide on the fate of entire species while also pretending to be taking action in the best interest of all, while it is actually just the best interest of the Federation and the temporal agents themselves that is being defended here.
And I don't mean to defend the Na'kuhl, the Sphere Builders or any other 'Temporal Liberation Front' factions. But I do sometimes wonder what happened to the Federation of Picard, with its principles of non-interference (like in Insurrection) or the Federation where 'the needs of the many' wasn't abused in that 'the few', even when they were entire species, basically just had to suck it up.
Even a few more dialogue options that allow us to point out the NPC's hypocrisy would be much appreciated.
Oh and edit: by 'discontent' in the title I didn't necessarily mean that the episodes were not fun to play or anything. It's just that, imo, the story is too one-sided.
isn't all of this the basis of the temporal war in the first place?, on the one hand you have whoever it might be coming from the future to try and alter the time lines for their own ends and on the other hand you have Daniels & Co. either trying to stop them or at least trying to make it so things go the way they should in recorded history.
at least that's the line we are being fed, its not up to us to decide whether we are doing the right thing or not that is up to the story writer's to decide, sto is not dynamic in as much as we can make choices on what we do or don't do and who we choose to follow in this instance, all we are really doing is playing a character in the story and following a path that is pre designed by the writer's, you may find that you are right at some future point but again that is up to the story writer's to decide if the path they have laid out for us is the right one to follow or not, unfortunately we have no choice in the path we follow.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
Yeah but why did history got recorded as it did? Who's to say that the Tellarite ambassador didn't die as a result of factions tampering with the timeline?
It is true that we have little choice but to follow the storyline, but from an in-universe perspective: why should we believe that everything Daniels is deciding, is the right decision? Just because it's the way history unfolded? We know that that same unfolding of history is a result of many instances of time travel as well.
So is it even possible to adhere to some sort of 'ideal' timeline that should be defended at all costs? When that same timeline is the result of many incursions (that happen to be, ultimately, favourable to the Federation and its allies)? It seems to me that this paradox doesn't change anything about the fact that, by trying to maintain the paradox (as far as that is possible lol) - that came to be due to all our and others' time travel actions - we are doing the exact same thing that we are fighting against while trying to stop the Temporal Liberation Front: history isn't being treated as something neutral that should just have its way and develop without interference. It is actively changed by all parties, every moment they decide to change one thing and keep something else the same as was recorded in one version of the timeline.
More importantly, and this is another major flaw within the time travel story or at least the Temporal agents' logic: the timeline is treated as something lineair, something that happened and thus must happen again and cannot be changed. But it is far from lineair in STO since we can go back and change it. You can't really say 'this is how history developed so that's how things should be': it is just the timeline or version of history that we are most familiar with and that we like the most. This kind of judgement shows that the 'good guys' are as much taking decisions that benefit their own as the other parties are doing.
Given all the possible alternatives, the non-linearity of the timeline and the fact that this version of history is also a result of time travel, Vosk was, imo, still right when he said that the Temporal agents are not some group of neutral observers and cops who only correct incursions: they have an agenda of their own and they are far from neutral.
It seems our time cops are as much biased as the Temporal Liberation Front in that they both have their own preferred versions of history which is just one option among many other possibilities. One option that shouldn't even exist if the Time cops were consistent in their tasks of not allowing any incursions to take place indeed.
Time in Star Trek is a bit like Wikipedia. A lot of people with good intentions come to a consensus and maintain it as they see fit to ultimately pave a way to a perfectly united galaxy... then somebody comes in, edits it and sticks "Na'khul are TRIBBLE" in the middle of it and a massive temporal edit war breaks out.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
we should've just rammed the annorax at the end of ragnarok...that would've solved a lot of the issues that ended up causing the TCW
If by solving the Issues you mean creating an endless paradox of the Federation existing/not existing sure
The Federation existed before the Annorax, it wouldn't be a problem. This isn't changing time or setting up causal loops, this is literally tearing chunks out of history we are talking about.
Unless of course you mean the very real chance the Annorax would leak out or cause goodness knows what damage on ramming by misfiring during its destruction, in which case sure we don't know what the outcome would be.
the federation and the temporal agents that work for the federation are just making sure that events that have already happened in their past happens the way that is written in the history books. So something that has happened in the past will always happen unless an outside force tries to change it, well that's how I see it anyways.
The Federation existed before the Annorax, it wouldn't be a problem. This isn't changing time or setting up causal loops, this is literally tearing chunks out of history we are talking about.
Unless of course you mean the very real chance the Annorax would leak out or cause goodness knows what damage on ramming by misfiring during its destruction, in which case sure we don't know what the outcome would be.
I was speaking more along the lines of the fact that the Sphere builder's attacks on the Federation, which started because they foresaw their defeat at Procyon V in the future, were critical in helping found the Federation in the first place.
As we learn in STO, Procyon V happened because of Noye using the Annorax to recruit various temporal powers, and attacking the alliance over and over again at that point in time in hopes of destroying them.
Removing Noye and his Annorax means Procyon V doesn't happen, which means the Sphere Builders attacks on the past didn't happen, which means the Federation likely wouldn't come into existence in anything resembling the way we know it, if at all.
All of that means there would be no Temporal Accords, no reason for Noye to time travel in the first place, and no situation in which all of that stuff happens, which in turns creates something of a paradoxical loop.
It's like peeling an onion. you have to reconstruct several layers of temporal meddling to figure out what the original timeline was... but yeah probably unrecognizable.
we should've just rammed the annorax at the end of ragnarok...that would've solved a lot of the issues that ended up causing the TCW
If by solving the Issues you mean creating an endless paradox of the Federation existing/not existing sure
The Federation existed before the Annorax, it wouldn't be a problem. This isn't changing time or setting up causal loops, this is literally tearing chunks out of history we are talking about.
Unless of course you mean the very real chance the Annorax would leak out or cause goodness knows what damage on ramming by misfiring during its destruction, in which case sure we don't know what the outcome would be.
Erasing the Annorax would change the end of the Iconian War. Sure, Clauda would still be around and Noye wouldn't go omnicidally insane, but would anyone have survived the Iconian onslaught? They made it quite clear that they weren't gonna be taking prisoners in "Midnight."
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
we should've just rammed the annorax at the end of ragnarok...that would've solved a lot of the issues that ended up causing the TCW
If by solving the Issues you mean creating an endless paradox of the Federation existing/not existing sure
The Federation existed before the Annorax, it wouldn't be a problem. This isn't changing time or setting up causal loops, this is literally tearing chunks out of history we are talking about.
Unless of course you mean the very real chance the Annorax would leak out or cause goodness knows what damage on ramming by misfiring during its destruction, in which case sure we don't know what the outcome would be.
Erasing the Annorax would change the end of the Iconian War. Sure, Clauda would still be around and Noye wouldn't go omnicidally insane, but would anyone have survived the Iconian onslaught? They made it quite clear that they weren't gonna be taking prisoners in "Midnight."
if we didn't go back in time to try to kill them all they wouldn't have a reason to become what the did... in fact they could all be dead.
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
Before I get into my opinion of the Daniels situation, I'd like to state two things:
a) I really appreciate this expansion. There are parts of it that I really like. I like the graphics upgrade. I like the new voiceovers they've added to some of the existing missions. I especially love being able to meet and talk to some of the Original Series characters. As a kid who grew up with cds and, later, internet streaming of the Original Series, that is an incredible gift. To the people who made the decision to let that happen, thank you so much! I will always be grateful for that. But I just happen to dislike the Daniels situation.
b) Yes, I do realize what a few people have already said: that this isn't a game where we get to make meaningful choices. I may understand it but it doesn't mean I have to like it, especially when they make me do something stupid (a few missions) or wrong (Tangled Webs).
Ok, now that I've got that out of the way: my opinion of the Daniels situation. Particularly about the Defiant.
1. Daniels essentially tells me that I have to do something bad right now (leave the Defiant crew to die when I have some chance of saving some of them) so that good things will happen in the future. He is condoning an evil action on the grounds that it will cause good events. Since when have the ends ever justified the means? And please don't say that being a time traveler from the future changes things. Morality isn't different for different people. I'm there. I have a choice between saving innocent lives or not saving them. It doesn't matter whether I'm from the future or just a captain of that time who stumbled onto these events.
2. I've stated the moral position. Now let's examine Daniels' premise that good things will come from this wrong action. I think he's wrong. A couple other people have already pointed this out in this topic but I'd like to add to it: multiple times in STO, we've seen a person or people group attempt to change history and accidentally cause the thing they're trying to change. It seems like there's a pattern that people who try to alter history for their own ends cause their own destruction (or at least serious harm) and, sometimes, the destruction of their society, the society they're trying to save by their interference. We've seen it with Sela. We're seeing it again with the Na'kuhl. From what I've seen of Daniels, I'm worried about him and about the 29th century. I think they're in for hard times. My first (or second. I can't remember exactly) time through Midnight, Sela's similar argument that we should forget morality in order to save the future made me think of something: a quote from the Chronicles of Narnia (and, yes, I am fairly frequently reminded of quotes. Other people almost always say things better than I can so I pay attention).
“For the fruit always works - it must work - but it does not work happily for any who pluck it at their own will. If any Narnian, unbidden, had stolen an apple and planted it here to protect Narnia, it would have protected Narnia. But it would have done so by making Narnia into another strong and cruel empire like Charn, not the kindly land I mean it to be. And the Witch tempted you to do another thing, my son, did she not?”
“Yes, Aslan. She wanted me to take an apple home to Mother.”
“Understand, then, that it would have healed her; but not to your joy or hers. The day would have come when both you and she would have looked back and said it would have been better to die in that illness.” When people do wrong for the sake of a future good, the future doesn't look pretty. I'm concerned about the 29th century.
3. I noticed at least one person in this topic who was defending Daniels on the grounds that he's preventing me from causing a predestination paradox. I have to respectfully disagree. He's actually allowing me to cause one. If I've understood the situation, the Na'kuhl obsession with changing history (particularly Federation history) was caused by the Tholians stealing a piece of Federation tech and using it to destroy the Na'kuhl homeworld's sun. That's why the Na'kuhl travel back and attack the Tholians, causing the events of Tangled Webs. But I tell the Tholians the name of the species that attacked them. I, most likely, cause the Tholian destruction of the Na'kuhl homeworld. Which causes all the Na'kuhl attacks on history. Which cause my revelation to the Tholians. Which causes... It's a predestination paradox. In Midnight, Sela says "I am the cause for Hobus." Well, my original series character is the cause for the Na'kuhl problem. And Daniels allows that predestination paradox to be created right under his nose. Whatever his motivation is, it's not protecting the timeline from predestination paradoxes.
It's more like he's preventing you from breaking this particular paradox. The Na'kuhl, Noye, and everyone in the Temporal Cold War have, as we have been able to see on numerous occasions, had a tremendous impact on how the timeline was 'supposed' to unfold. In a way, the Temporal Accords actually need the Temporal Cold War breaking them in order to even become a reality.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Daniels and company are the Tal Shiar 2.0 - they are the agents of the Romulan Republic's greatest political coup: the Galactic Union. Aand like any Tal Shiar they treat murder, wholesale slaughter, and even outright genocide as just another tool in the box to preserve the state they serve.
A ) Why is changing history bad? All of human history has been the story of people changing their circumstances and trying to make things better. Why is it ok to alter the earth in the pursuit of better lives (Irrigating land to grow food, constructing cities to house people, roads to transport people etc) but not ok to change time for the same goal, betterment of life.
B ) Why are paradoxes bad? The narrative of many stories includes a warning against the world shattering consequences of a paradox, but the truth is that we have no scientific grounds to think this. Its just an idea some one had to tell a story, that's been passed around. No more a necessary truth then phlogiston. If a paradox could be created (assuming we aren't all already existing in one) Who is to say that the same means that allowed its creation could not be used to undo it if it was not desirable?
C ) If history can be changed, and some take it upon themselves to ensure that it is not, are they not also playing god? Evidently they have decided that one timeline is best and are acting to ensure its dominance over another, that's exactly what any one trying to change time is doing to, the only two differences are that those acting to preserve the timeline have firstly, already won, and secondly, lack imagination.
D ) Why should we believe that our history is static? We are all only capable of perceiving the present, how do we know that the timeline, if there is only one, isn't in a constant state of flux, ever changing and evolving naturally. If it were to be possible for history to be changed by unnatural means, such as mankind's future technology, why shouldn't it be possible for it to be changed by entirely natural means, which may or may not already be changing it? After all we do not have temporal shielding, a time war, or a time storm would be completely undetectable to us. Maybe our past and future right now, were not our past and future mear moments ago? Of course they were, because if they changed, then they have always been, see how difficult it is to think in multidimensional terms? how could we possibly know if its in flux, we don't even have to words to describe the possibility.
A. Butterfly effect. Changing one small thing in the past could change the future in unforeseeable ways, and possibly in such a way that the now worse future could never be changed back.
Quite so. While it is possible to change the future in favorable ways, it is equally possible to not only break it, horribly, but also prevent it from being fixed again. (Or exchange one evil for another... some of the characters in a story I wrote may eventually find this to be the case. )
B. Because, in theory, they could destroy existence if they aren't closed predestination paradoxes.
In theory. That theory does however completely disintegrate when exposed to multiverse theory or whatever variant thereof you want to use. (Coincidentally, justifying time travel in a universe where the characters are aware of said theory is slightly trickier... why change things if you're not improving your situation?)
C. No, one is not playing god by making sure history unfolds as it did because they are deciding nothing themselves, they are only making sure what was already decided by nature and the logical flow of events remains that way.
While I agree that they are making sure history unfolds as they remember it, your point is flawed.
Current history depends heavily on the beginning of the Temporal Cold War, and on its victory by the Temporal Integrity Commission - the Na'kuhl, and other factions in the war, have been key players in various events, inadvertently guiding everything towards the history that we now know. The Temporal Liberation Front by attempting to prevent the TIC from forming, and the TIC by responding in a way that guides the TLF-compromised timeline into assuming its current state - not undoing the act altogether.
D. No one in STO's Temporal Agencies believes history is static, nor has that argument been made.
They are, however, both knowingly and unknowingly attempting to keep it relatively static. It's mostly a 'broad strokes' thing, as
Delta Recruits are told back in Cold Storage ('It doesn't have to be exactly right - the timestream will right itself'), but it's still there.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
As far as Daniels and Walker, how do we not know they have already seen the possibilities of maybe saving the Defiants crew or saving the Tholians and the changes actually made a worse time line than what we currently have?
Be willing to bet there are reasons why time is flowing like it is.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
Well, I do like the new expansion, but there are things I do not understand. I am a captain of a space ship. I get killed, well, sh.t happens, as we say. However, I am alive in the 25th century. Great, but I have a wife and kids in the 23th who are crying because of me KIA. I would like to inform them, that I am not dead. It would mean a lot to me, but what am I going to say?
- I am in the 25th century ..
- Oh, can't you come back ..
- No, it would disturb the timeline ..
- And ... you getting there did not disturb the timeline .. did not disturb anything?
Honestly, the ONLY end to this relentless parade of idiot-ball encounters with Daniels that I want to see is my captain betray him at an opportune moment to set off the Temporal-Equivalent of an Omega Particle detonation that seals the entire galaxy off from any more chronal-shenanigans from the Big Bang up through the next three hundred years.
Done. Finito. No more incursions by anyone for any reason.
However, the Defiant had nothing but a negative impact thereafter, It showed up in the Mirror Universe (we now know this to be thanks to Noye) and gave the Terrans a huge advantage over everyone else which would eventually lead to them helping Noye's forces.
According to Temporal Reckoning,
that was Noye's plan all along (or at least, as all along as time traveling stories can allow it). Leeta mentioned there was a special "gift" left for her on the Defiant.
My guess is Temporal agents can't access the mirror universe (after all, to access it either requires a specific Orb or a very precise environment when a transporter is used or other complicated stuff), only quantum timelines and Daniels believed the Defiant was lost forever, not in the hands of the Mirror Universe forces. Which would explain why Daniels didn't know about the MU alliance with Noye until it's too late.
And the Defiant didn't give them a huge advantage on the long run, since in the 23rd century, they were still using the design (the empress probably didn't want to lose her technological dominance) and in the 24th, they were conquered by the Klingon Alliance. Only when their allies from the future started giving them future technologies did they become a very serious threat for the other universes.
Maybe the policy of TDI about the MU is: "protect the timelines from incursions, but seriously, TRIBBLE the MU".
@reyan01 Time is a frail thing. Really should watch the movie "a sound of thunder". Company comes up with tech in the early future that allows people to go back in time right before the extinction level event to get the chance to kill a T-Rex before the boom. They have a special path people must stay on to preserve the timeline.
Well 1 idiot falls of the path and stomps on a butterfly which RADICALLY alters time and it's felt as echos as time corrects for that one small event.
Think of it this way, it's the fact of a pebble in LA tossed in the ocean can cause a Tsunami half a world away.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
@reyan01 Time is a frail thing. Really should watch the movie "a sound of thunder". Company comes up with tech in the early future that allows people to go back in time right before the extinction level event to get the chance to kill a T-Rex before the boom. They have a special path people must stay on to preserve the timeline.
Well 1 idiot falls of the path and stomps on a butterfly which RADICALLY alters time and it's felt as echos as time corrects for that one small event.
Think of it this way, it's the fact of a pebble in LA tossed in the ocean can cause a Tsunami half a world away.
From the Anals of Improbable Research
The Travels of the Lorenz Butterfly
by Ron E. Hassner, University of California, Berkeley
Here is the most complete record yet compiled of the travels of the Lorenz butterfly.
The most famous butterfly in science made its first reported appearance in 1972, in a paper on chaos theory
presented by Edward Lorenz to the American Association for the Advancement of Science.1
In the paper,
Lorenz presented a cornerstone argument of chaos theory: very small differences in initial conditions can
lead to large effects in complex systems. He entitled the paper with an appropriate example, calling it, “Does
the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?”
Lorenz’s butterfly has since appeared in every conceivable reference to chaos theory. Yet despite its meteoric
rise to fame, chaos theorists soon lost track of the butterfly’s whereabouts.
Reported Sightings
In 1987, James Gleick rediscovered Lorenz’s butterfly and announced triumphantly that “a butterfly stirring
the air today in Peking can transform storm systems next month in New York.”2
Gleick could not explain
when or why the butterfly had moved to Peking, of all places, why it should suddenly shift its attention from tornadoes
in Texas to storm systems in New York, or where it had been in the intervening fifteen years. But in 1992, five years
after Gleick’s discovery, the butterfly returned to Brazil—specifically to Rio de Janeiro—where it was spotted by Denny
Gulick.3
At this point, the sightings grew more frequent. In 1993, the blockbuster movie Jurassic Park located the insect in
Beijing. Two years after that, several scientists reported, in this journal, seeing the subject in Lausanne, Switzerland.4
In 1996, Don Edward Beck and Christopher Cowan found it frolicking in France, and immediately pronounced that “a
butterfly flaps its wings in Paris… [which] results in a hurricane in Miamii.”5
The year after that, the butterfly returned to its previous haunt in
China. However, as David Campbell and Gottfried Mayer-Kress
were to document, it had focused its attention on the weather in
San Francisco.6
Peter Smith confirmed the butterfly’s Chinese
location in 1998, by which time its flapping was affecting the
climate of South England.7
John B. Arden spotted the butterfly in
Venezuela that same year.8
Despite its now advanced age, Lorenz’s butterfly continues to be
tracked by chaos theorists. In the year 2000, it was spotted in both
the Amazon rain forest and Harrisburg, Virginia.9
By 2001, it had
moved to California. From there, it flew to Japan, where Grove,
Ladas & Grove located it 2004.10 That same year it appeared once
more in Brazil and then returned to China in 2006.11
Discussion
The longevity and traveling speed of the famed butterfly have
occasioned some dispute about its identity. The butterfly is
possibly of the species Heliconius erato (also known as the “Red
Postman”), famed for its extraordinary longevity (see Figure 3).
Common in South America, it has an impressive tornado-inducing
wingspan of 2.25 inches.12
Curiously, the pattern of the butterfly’s movements, as plotted on
a world map, replicates a pattern that is characteristic of certain
systems that exhibit so-called “chaotic” behavior. The tracings in
Figure 1 compare easily with those in Figure 3, which shows a
mathematical pattern known as the Lorenz attractor. This pattern
was named after Edward Lorenz, the very man whose theory had Figure 2. Global movements of Lorenz’s butterfly.
Figure 1. A specimen of
Heliconius erato. The
Lorenz butterfly may be a
member of this species.
www.improbable.com January-February 2007 | Annals of Improbable Research | 17
first called attention to this novel branch of lepidoptery.
More curiously still, the butterfly shape of the Lorenz attractor resembles none other than the
Heliconius erato (compare Figure 3 with Figure 2).
The significance or meaning of any of this has yet to be determined.
References
1. The Essence of Chaos, Edward Lorenz, University of Washington Press, 1993, pp. 14–5 and
181–4.
2. Chaos: Making a New Science, James Gleick, Viking, 1987, p. 8.
3. Encounters with Chaos, Denny Gulick, McGraw Hill, 1992, p. 92.
4. “Experimental Evidence of the Butterfly Effect,” D. Inaudi1, X. Colonna de Lega, A. Di Tullio, C.
Forno, P. Jacquot, M. Lehmann, Max Monti, and S. Vurpillot, Annals of Improbable Research, vol. 1, no. 6, November–
December 1995.
5. Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change, Don Edward Beck and Christopher Cowan, Blackwell,
1996, pp. 156–7.
6. “Chaos and Politics: Application of Nonlinear Dynamics to Social-Political Issues,” David K. Campbell and Gottfried
Mayer-Kres, The Impact of Chaos on Science and Society (Celso Grebogi and James A. York, eds.), 1997, p. 41.
7. Explaining Chaos, Peter Smith, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 1.
8. Science, Theology and Consciousness: The Search for Unity, John Boghosian Arden, Praeger, 1998, p. 23.
9. Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos, Roger Lewin, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 11; Conscious Acts and
the Politics of Social Change, Robin L. Teske and Mary Ann Tetreault, University of South Carolina Press, 2000, p. 116.
10. Macroshift: Navigating the Transformation to a Sustainable World, Ervin Laszlo, Arthur Charles Clarke and Kay
Mikel, Berrett-Koehler, 2001, p. 10; Periodicities in Nonlinear Difference Equations, E. A. Grove, Chapman & Hall,
2004, p. 38.
11. The Heart of
Mathematics: An Invitation
to Effective Thinking,
Edward B. Burger and
Michael Starbird, Springer,
2004, p. xxi; Science and
Grace: God’s Reign in
the Natural Sciences, Tim
Morris and Don Petcher,
Crossway Books, 2006, p.
332, note 23.
12. “Longevity Studies in
a Tropical Conservatory:
Are You Getting Your
Money’s Worth?”, John R.
Watts, Butterfly Pavilion
of Westminster, CO, p. 8,
table 2; “Schmetterlinge
und Brustwarzen,” L. Arazi,
Annals of the German
Society for Entomology, vol.
8, no. 2, 1994; “Lifespan
of Butterflies,” J. A. Scott,
Journal of Research on the
Lepidoptera, vol. 12, 1973
It's more like he's preventing you from breaking this particular paradox. The Na'kuhl, Noye, and everyone in the Temporal Cold War have, as we have been able to see on numerous occasions, had a tremendous impact on how the timeline was 'supposed' to unfold. In a way, the Temporal Accords actually need the Temporal Cold War breaking them in order to even become a reality.
As noted at the Accords signing by Na'kuhl protestors in 'Time and Tide' - the extinguishing of their star is being specifically left uncorrected- despite being caused by time travel - as it's the object example of what time travel can do that gets everyone agreed to try and prevent people changing things by time travel and I've gone cross-eyed.
Fate - protects fools, small children, and ships named Enterprise Will Riker
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
B. Because no one has the right to go back and alter time, even if it makes yourself, or your people, end up in a better situation. Its morally and ethically wrong to play god like that,and while short term things may be better, longer term, like FAR longer term, things may end up even worse then had you not changed anything at all.
Oh, you misunderstand me - in the scenario I was facing, the issue was with justifying why they should go back to prevent their extinction if they're not really preventing their extinction in their reality, but instead essentially doing it to an alternate reality. (Which just so happens to be identical up to the arrival of the agents from the 'previous timeline', but is still otherwise separate from it.)
That being said, you are absolutely right about the short-term versus long-term gain thing. My own time travel incidents almost invariably have resulted (or will result), through voluntary or involuntary action causing instances of the butterfly effect, in 'prevent this bad thing from happening now at the cost of a worse thing happening later' scenarios.
C. And no one in the Temporal Agency is trying to prevent the Temporal Cold war from happening, they know it has to happen, and trying to stop it would only create a endless paradox where they are there to stop it, and stop it, thus erasing themselves from history, making them unable to have gone back in time to stop it, meaning it happens, causing the loop all over again. They are there simply to minimize damage.
My point was actually that 'nature' had already been thrown to the wind by the time we reach the TCW timeline, because it's already entered the predestination loop of the TCW causing itself to happen.
D. They are keeping it static because that is the morally right thing to do. No one has the right to change history, even if it means betterment to themselves. Daniels could have easily avoided his series of scars from the progressively more desperate battle of Procyon V if he had simply told the player what was happening at the beginning, but he didn't, because its not his right to change history like that.
I don't see how Daniels could have avoided anything, but okay.
I'm not going to go too deep into the morality of it, though, because given the fact that the 'nudge timeline towards favorable outcome' option from my above comments was pretty much presented as 'good guys win the day... for now', I'd risk being somewhat hypocritical by agreeing with you. And I do agree with it (at least in theory - in practice, if I had to use time travel to save a sentient species or something like that, I probably would).
It's more like he's preventing you from breaking this particular paradox. The Na'kuhl, Noye, and everyone in the Temporal Cold War have, as we have been able to see on numerous occasions, had a tremendous impact on how the timeline was 'supposed' to unfold. In a way, the Temporal Accords actually need the Temporal Cold War breaking them in order to even become a reality.
As noted at the Accords signing by Na'kuhl protestors in 'Time and Tide' - the extinguishing of their star is being specifically left uncorrected- despite being caused by time travel - as it's the object example of what time travel can do that gets everyone agreed to try and prevent people changing things by time travel and I've gone cross-eyed.
Actually, it's left uncorrected because of the beneficial effects the subsequent Temporal Cold War has on the timeline. What you said may have also had an influence, but in the bigger picture this is how it stands.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Taking just the Defiant or the space station in one of the latest episodes as an example: who is Daniels to decide that their fate is to die on board of those structures?
Fairly confident the fate of the latter was an homage to Babylon 4 from Babylon 5. I personally can't wait to see what happens when it comes out the other side of wherever it was going. Especially if there's an arboreal looking engineer running around clicking to himself and talking to himself in the third person.
D. They are keeping it static because that is the morally right thing to do.
Is it? Why is that morally right? In a single timeline scenario the existence of one timeline prevents the existence of others. In an ever changing timeline everything gets to exist, maybe only until the next change, but it gets to exist and the possibility to exist again.
In a static timeline that which exists and preserves its existence could be described as selfishly squandering time, allowing no other possibilities to have any. I really don't see this as a moral argument.
But our STO clearly doesn't see time as a single line. We use the multiple universe variety of time as evidenced by the existence of JJ trek. If we only had one time line then the line we exist in would have been ended with the origination of the kelvin timeline, but that didn't happen, we are all still playing.
This tells us that altering time dose not in fact cause anything to cease to be, nothing is destroyed, everything in the time that produced the time traveller continues to exists. In fact by crossing the JJtrek and ours we show that it is still accessible to the traveller as well.
This being the case changing time is either, non-consequential, the universe you create already existed, or an act of creation. How can either of these possibilities be morally bad?
Comments
Yeah, that bit is a bit confusing.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
I've not seen those ToS episodes ina while but as far as I can remember the Tellerite ambassador died history said so, whatever you think they aren't changeing history and as for the Tholian web it would appear that the Nak'hul are the architects of their own destruction.
isn't all of this the basis of the temporal war in the first place?, on the one hand you have whoever it might be coming from the future to try and alter the time lines for their own ends and on the other hand you have Daniels & Co. either trying to stop them or at least trying to make it so things go the way they should in recorded history.
at least that's the line we are being fed, its not up to us to decide whether we are doing the right thing or not that is up to the story writer's to decide, sto is not dynamic in as much as we can make choices on what we do or don't do and who we choose to follow in this instance, all we are really doing is playing a character in the story and following a path that is pre designed by the writer's, you may find that you are right at some future point but again that is up to the story writer's to decide if the path they have laid out for us is the right one to follow or not, unfortunately we have no choice in the path we follow.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
It is true that we have little choice but to follow the storyline, but from an in-universe perspective: why should we believe that everything Daniels is deciding, is the right decision? Just because it's the way history unfolded? We know that that same unfolding of history is a result of many instances of time travel as well.
So is it even possible to adhere to some sort of 'ideal' timeline that should be defended at all costs? When that same timeline is the result of many incursions (that happen to be, ultimately, favourable to the Federation and its allies)? It seems to me that this paradox doesn't change anything about the fact that, by trying to maintain the paradox (as far as that is possible lol) - that came to be due to all our and others' time travel actions - we are doing the exact same thing that we are fighting against while trying to stop the Temporal Liberation Front: history isn't being treated as something neutral that should just have its way and develop without interference. It is actively changed by all parties, every moment they decide to change one thing and keep something else the same as was recorded in one version of the timeline.
More importantly, and this is another major flaw within the time travel story or at least the Temporal agents' logic: the timeline is treated as something lineair, something that happened and thus must happen again and cannot be changed. But it is far from lineair in STO since we can go back and change it. You can't really say 'this is how history developed so that's how things should be': it is just the timeline or version of history that we are most familiar with and that we like the most. This kind of judgement shows that the 'good guys' are as much taking decisions that benefit their own as the other parties are doing.
Given all the possible alternatives, the non-linearity of the timeline and the fact that this version of history is also a result of time travel, Vosk was, imo, still right when he said that the Temporal agents are not some group of neutral observers and cops who only correct incursions: they have an agenda of their own and they are far from neutral.
It seems our time cops are as much biased as the Temporal Liberation Front in that they both have their own preferred versions of history which is just one option among many other possibilities. One option that shouldn't even exist if the Time cops were consistent in their tasks of not allowing any incursions to take place indeed.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
The Federation existed before the Annorax, it wouldn't be a problem. This isn't changing time or setting up causal loops, this is literally tearing chunks out of history we are talking about.
Unless of course you mean the very real chance the Annorax would leak out or cause goodness knows what damage on ramming by misfiring during its destruction, in which case sure we don't know what the outcome would be.
the federation and the temporal agents that work for the federation are just making sure that events that have already happened in their past happens the way that is written in the history books. So something that has happened in the past will always happen unless an outside force tries to change it, well that's how I see it anyways.
My character Tsin'xing
Erasing the Annorax would change the end of the Iconian War. Sure, Clauda would still be around and Noye wouldn't go omnicidally insane, but would anyone have survived the Iconian onslaught? They made it quite clear that they weren't gonna be taking prisoners in "Midnight."
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I dare you to do better.
if we didn't go back in time to try to kill them all they wouldn't have a reason to become what the did... in fact they could all be dead.
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
a) I really appreciate this expansion. There are parts of it that I really like. I like the graphics upgrade. I like the new voiceovers they've added to some of the existing missions. I especially love being able to meet and talk to some of the Original Series characters. As a kid who grew up with cds and, later, internet streaming of the Original Series, that is an incredible gift. To the people who made the decision to let that happen, thank you so much! I will always be grateful for that. But I just happen to dislike the Daniels situation.
b) Yes, I do realize what a few people have already said: that this isn't a game where we get to make meaningful choices. I may understand it but it doesn't mean I have to like it, especially when they make me do something stupid (a few missions) or wrong (Tangled Webs).
Ok, now that I've got that out of the way: my opinion of the Daniels situation. Particularly about the Defiant.
1. Daniels essentially tells me that I have to do something bad right now (leave the Defiant crew to die when I have some chance of saving some of them) so that good things will happen in the future. He is condoning an evil action on the grounds that it will cause good events. Since when have the ends ever justified the means? And please don't say that being a time traveler from the future changes things. Morality isn't different for different people. I'm there. I have a choice between saving innocent lives or not saving them. It doesn't matter whether I'm from the future or just a captain of that time who stumbled onto these events.
2. I've stated the moral position. Now let's examine Daniels' premise that good things will come from this wrong action. I think he's wrong. A couple other people have already pointed this out in this topic but I'd like to add to it: multiple times in STO, we've seen a person or people group attempt to change history and accidentally cause the thing they're trying to change. It seems like there's a pattern that people who try to alter history for their own ends cause their own destruction (or at least serious harm) and, sometimes, the destruction of their society, the society they're trying to save by their interference. We've seen it with Sela. We're seeing it again with the Na'kuhl. From what I've seen of Daniels, I'm worried about him and about the 29th century. I think they're in for hard times. My first (or second. I can't remember exactly) time through Midnight, Sela's similar argument that we should forget morality in order to save the future made me think of something: a quote from the Chronicles of Narnia (and, yes, I am fairly frequently reminded of quotes. Other people almost always say things better than I can so I pay attention).
“For the fruit always works - it must work - but it does not work happily for any who pluck it at their own will. If any Narnian, unbidden, had stolen an apple and planted it here to protect Narnia, it would have protected Narnia. But it would have done so by making Narnia into another strong and cruel empire like Charn, not the kindly land I mean it to be. And the Witch tempted you to do another thing, my son, did she not?”
“Yes, Aslan. She wanted me to take an apple home to Mother.”
“Understand, then, that it would have healed her; but not to your joy or hers. The day would have come when both you and she would have looked back and said it would have been better to die in that illness.” When people do wrong for the sake of a future good, the future doesn't look pretty. I'm concerned about the 29th century.
3. I noticed at least one person in this topic who was defending Daniels on the grounds that he's preventing me from causing a predestination paradox. I have to respectfully disagree. He's actually allowing me to cause one. If I've understood the situation, the Na'kuhl obsession with changing history (particularly Federation history) was caused by the Tholians stealing a piece of Federation tech and using it to destroy the Na'kuhl homeworld's sun. That's why the Na'kuhl travel back and attack the Tholians, causing the events of Tangled Webs. But I tell the Tholians the name of the species that attacked them. I, most likely, cause the Tholian destruction of the Na'kuhl homeworld. Which causes all the Na'kuhl attacks on history. Which cause my revelation to the Tholians. Which causes... It's a predestination paradox. In Midnight, Sela says "I am the cause for Hobus." Well, my original series character is the cause for the Na'kuhl problem. And Daniels allows that predestination paradox to be created right under his nose. Whatever his motivation is, it's not protecting the timeline from predestination paradoxes.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
There's really no ambiguity on this point.
A ) Why is changing history bad? All of human history has been the story of people changing their circumstances and trying to make things better. Why is it ok to alter the earth in the pursuit of better lives (Irrigating land to grow food, constructing cities to house people, roads to transport people etc) but not ok to change time for the same goal, betterment of life.
B ) Why are paradoxes bad? The narrative of many stories includes a warning against the world shattering consequences of a paradox, but the truth is that we have no scientific grounds to think this. Its just an idea some one had to tell a story, that's been passed around. No more a necessary truth then phlogiston. If a paradox could be created (assuming we aren't all already existing in one) Who is to say that the same means that allowed its creation could not be used to undo it if it was not desirable?
C ) If history can be changed, and some take it upon themselves to ensure that it is not, are they not also playing god? Evidently they have decided that one timeline is best and are acting to ensure its dominance over another, that's exactly what any one trying to change time is doing to, the only two differences are that those acting to preserve the timeline have firstly, already won, and secondly, lack imagination.
D ) Why should we believe that our history is static? We are all only capable of perceiving the present, how do we know that the timeline, if there is only one, isn't in a constant state of flux, ever changing and evolving naturally. If it were to be possible for history to be changed by unnatural means, such as mankind's future technology, why shouldn't it be possible for it to be changed by entirely natural means, which may or may not already be changing it? After all we do not have temporal shielding, a time war, or a time storm would be completely undetectable to us. Maybe our past and future right now, were not our past and future mear moments ago? Of course they were, because if they changed, then they have always been, see how difficult it is to think in multidimensional terms? how could we possibly know if its in flux, we don't even have to words to describe the possibility.
Quite so. While it is possible to change the future in favorable ways, it is equally possible to not only break it, horribly, but also prevent it from being fixed again. (Or exchange one evil for another... some of the characters in a story I wrote may eventually find this to be the case.
In theory. That theory does however completely disintegrate when exposed to multiverse theory or whatever variant thereof you want to use. (Coincidentally, justifying time travel in a universe where the characters are aware of said theory is slightly trickier... why change things if you're not improving your situation?)
While I agree that they are making sure history unfolds as they remember it, your point is flawed.
Current history depends heavily on the beginning of the Temporal Cold War, and on its victory by the Temporal Integrity Commission - the Na'kuhl, and other factions in the war, have been key players in various events, inadvertently guiding everything towards the history that we now know. The Temporal Liberation Front by attempting to prevent the TIC from forming, and the TIC by responding in a way that guides the TLF-compromised timeline into assuming its current state - not undoing the act altogether.
They are, however, both knowingly and unknowingly attempting to keep it relatively static. It's mostly a 'broad strokes' thing, as
Delta Recruits are told back in Cold Storage ('It doesn't have to be exactly right - the timestream will right itself'), but it's still there.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Be willing to bet there are reasons why time is flowing like it is.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
- I am in the 25th century ..
- Oh, can't you come back ..
- No, it would disturb the timeline ..
- And ... you getting there did not disturb the timeline .. did not disturb anything?
Done. Finito. No more incursions by anyone for any reason.
Temporal Accords THAT (^%$ers.
My guess is Temporal agents can't access the mirror universe (after all, to access it either requires a specific Orb or a very precise environment when a transporter is used or other complicated stuff), only quantum timelines and Daniels believed the Defiant was lost forever, not in the hands of the Mirror Universe forces. Which would explain why Daniels didn't know about the MU alliance with Noye until it's too late.
And the Defiant didn't give them a huge advantage on the long run, since in the 23rd century, they were still using the design (the empress probably didn't want to lose her technological dominance) and in the 24th, they were conquered by the Klingon Alliance. Only when their allies from the future started giving them future technologies did they become a very serious threat for the other universes.
Maybe the policy of TDI about the MU is: "protect the timelines from incursions, but seriously, TRIBBLE the MU".
Well 1 idiot falls of the path and stomps on a butterfly which RADICALLY alters time and it's felt as echos as time corrects for that one small event.
Think of it this way, it's the fact of a pebble in LA tossed in the ocean can cause a Tsunami half a world away.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
From the Anals of Improbable Research
As noted at the Accords signing by Na'kuhl protestors in 'Time and Tide' - the extinguishing of their star is being specifically left uncorrected- despite being caused by time travel - as it's the object example of what time travel can do that gets everyone agreed to try and prevent people changing things by time travel and I've gone cross-eyed.
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
Oh, you misunderstand me - in the scenario I was facing, the issue was with justifying why they should go back to prevent their extinction if they're not really preventing their extinction in their reality, but instead essentially doing it to an alternate reality. (Which just so happens to be identical up to the arrival of the agents from the 'previous timeline', but is still otherwise separate from it.)
That being said, you are absolutely right about the short-term versus long-term gain thing. My own time travel incidents almost invariably have resulted (or will result), through voluntary or involuntary action causing instances of the butterfly effect, in 'prevent this bad thing from happening now at the cost of a worse thing happening later' scenarios.
My point was actually that 'nature' had already been thrown to the wind by the time we reach the TCW timeline, because it's already entered the predestination loop of the TCW causing itself to happen.
I don't see how Daniels could have avoided anything, but okay.
I'm not going to go too deep into the morality of it, though, because given the fact that the 'nudge timeline towards favorable outcome' option from my above comments was pretty much presented as 'good guys win the day... for now', I'd risk being somewhat hypocritical by agreeing with you. And I do agree with it (at least in theory - in practice, if I had to use time travel to save a sentient species or something like that, I probably would).
Actually, it's left uncorrected because of the beneficial effects the subsequent Temporal Cold War has on the timeline. What you said may have also had an influence, but in the bigger picture this is how it stands.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Fairly confident the fate of the latter was an homage to Babylon 4 from Babylon 5. I personally can't wait to see what happens when it comes out the other side of wherever it was going. Especially if there's an arboreal looking engineer running around clicking to himself and talking to himself in the third person.
Is it? Why is that morally right? In a single timeline scenario the existence of one timeline prevents the existence of others. In an ever changing timeline everything gets to exist, maybe only until the next change, but it gets to exist and the possibility to exist again.
In a static timeline that which exists and preserves its existence could be described as selfishly squandering time, allowing no other possibilities to have any. I really don't see this as a moral argument.
But our STO clearly doesn't see time as a single line. We use the multiple universe variety of time as evidenced by the existence of JJ trek. If we only had one time line then the line we exist in would have been ended with the origination of the kelvin timeline, but that didn't happen, we are all still playing.
This tells us that altering time dose not in fact cause anything to cease to be, nothing is destroyed, everything in the time that produced the time traveller continues to exists. In fact by crossing the JJtrek and ours we show that it is still accessible to the traveller as well.
This being the case changing time is either, non-consequential, the universe you create already existed, or an act of creation. How can either of these possibilities be morally bad?