test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Discovery 2x14: Such Sweet Sorrow p2 (spoilers)

245

Comments

  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 9,034 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    starkaos wrote: »
    Doesn't change the fact that it is an extremely idiotic paradox. Everything must have an origin even if it is beyond our limited understanding. If something is trapped in an endless paradox, then it will get older and older the longer it is trapped. So a pair of glasses would eventually turn from an antique to scrap and a Kirk would end up with a pair of 18th Century glasses that are thousands of years old. Of course, this is based on the assumption that the glasses that Kirk pawns are the same glasses that Bones gave to him.
    Uh... no. Nowhere is it actually stated that the pair of glasses Kirk sells will go on to be the ones McCoy gives him in ST2. That's not quite what his "and they will be again" line means.
    The origin is itself in this case. A fairly classic time travel trope.

    It doesn't have to be actually stated. Narrative design isn't just people blurting out everything directly. Even STO harps on the glasses paradox in a Doff mission you cab get from one of the lockboxes where you sent some of your crew back in time to replace the glasses with an identical pair in order to break the paradox.
    szim wrote: »
    But the most obvious blunder was the death of admiral Cornwell. She has to sacrifice herself and 5 minutes later Enterprise beams Spock back aboard. They couldn't let her close the blastdoor from the inside and beam her out? Pike must have really wanted to get rid of her.
    valoreah wrote: »
    Cornwell's death was totally unnecessary and makes all of them - Pike included - look like idiots. They couldn't beam her out after she pulled the lever? Why couldn't they send in one of those repair R2D2s to pull the manual release? Absolutely horrible, horrible writing.
    Go back and rewatch TOS, the Connie doesn't have intra-ship beaming capabilities. Also, the drones are for the outside of the ship, and even if they were inside the ship they are too big to fit under the stuck blast door.
    valoreah wrote: »
    If magnets could kill Leland's nanites, why bother shooting him with phasers or punching him? Use the magnet gun thing Tilly used to grab the dark matter from that asteroid on him.
    The magnet gun Tilly used to grab onto the dark matter was of limited power. To destroy the nanites you need a significantly more high powered magnet that can pull hard enough to undo their cohesion, and presumably crush the nanties entirely.
    Something I'm not clear on: if they knew they had defeated Control why did they still go to the future?
    Also, why did they go to the future since the threat originated from it and they don't know when it starts or ended (if it ended in this bad timeline) and there is no way to know if by killing Leland in the present its existence has been negated.

    For all we know, the crew may (will) have made things even worse or even will have created the threat in the first place, and may have saved the present but doomed the future.
    A. Defeating Leland robbed Control of its CPU, but that doesn't prevent the dozens of other parts of Control, which existed in all the Section 31 ships, and other Federation computer systems, from reactivating, getting a hold of the data, and starting itself back up. And, as Spock notes in the end, Discovery being around, or even knowledge of what they found, being kept around just leads to the possibility of this happening again, even if Control is dead. Going into the future ensures it can't.
    B. The threat didn't originate from the future, its originated from Control in the present day. The future version of Control sent the probe back in time to jump start its own existence sooner, but even if it hadn't, it would have still come around regardless.
    C. They went to Terralysium, a planet that Burnham's mom notes is outside of Controls influence because it had no pre-existing technology. The whole point of them going there is that its a place Control can't find, and there is no technology there for the data to infect and make into Not-Control. The data will forever be stuck on the ship, and presumably evolve into Zora from Calypso.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 4,529 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    Go back and rewatch TOS, the Connie doesn't have intra-ship beaming capabilities. Also, the drones are for the outside of the ship, and even if they were inside the ship they are too big to fit under the stuck blast door.

    I find this answer hilarious. "Go rewatch TOS to see they didn't have something" Immediately followed by talking about something we just saw in discovery that they didn't have in TOS. Clearly the writers will invent something that wasn't seen in TOS if they want to, to tell whatever plot point they want to. If they had wanted to invent intra-ship beaming to save Cornwell they would have, regardless of whether it was seen in TOS or not (just like those R2D2s not seen in TOS).

    A. Defeating Leland robbed Control of its CPU, but that doesn't prevent the dozens of other parts of Control, which existed in all the Section 31 ships, and other Federation computer systems, from reactivating, getting a hold of the data, and starting itself back up.

    Kurtzman said that is incorrect.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • kekvinkekvin Member Posts: 633 Arc User
    Doesn't Controll have to exist in the future to alter the probe and send it back? Even if Control has Been neutralised it doesn't meant its not dorment in the background of tos, tmp, tng ect waiting for the probe to appear. How many subspace relays, mothballed ships does sfc have?
  • mirrorchaosmirrorchaos Member Posts: 9,817 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    officially neutralised doesn't mean control is dead, it simply means control is no longer a threat... for now.

    how long before someone plays around with those nanoprobes and re-programmes them and inadvertly creates the borg?

    so that is a massive loose end i have a problem with until it is sorted out in season 3.
    T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW.
    Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,295 Arc User
    Georgiou anyone? Hard to do a Section 31 show with her in the future.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!
    Judge Dan Haywood
  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 9,034 Arc User
    ltminns wrote: »
    Georgiou anyone? Hard to do a Section 31 show with her in the future.
    Well, who says the Section 31 show takes after Discovery? For all we know it takes place in that several month gap between the end of S1, and the beginning of S2.
    I find this answer hilarious. "Go rewatch TOS to see they didn't have something" Immediately followed by talking about something we just saw in discovery that they didn't have in TOS. Clearly the writers will invent something that wasn't seen in TOS if they want to, to tell whatever plot point they want to. If they had wanted to invent intra-ship beaming to save Cornwell they would have, regardless of whether it was seen in TOS or not (just like those R2D2s not seen in TOS).
    The "R2D2" things are actually based off of EV suit bots that were talked about in some of the technical manuals.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 4,529 Arc User

    ltminns wrote: »
    Georgiou anyone? Hard to do a Section 31 show with her in the future.
    Well, who says the Section 31 show takes after Discovery? For all we know it takes place in that several month gap between the end of S1, and the beginning of S2.
    I find this answer hilarious. "Go rewatch TOS to see they didn't have something" Immediately followed by talking about something we just saw in discovery that they didn't have in TOS. Clearly the writers will invent something that wasn't seen in TOS if they want to, to tell whatever plot point they want to. If they had wanted to invent intra-ship beaming to save Cornwell they would have, regardless of whether it was seen in TOS or not (just like those R2D2s not seen in TOS).
    The "R2D2" things are actually based off of EV suit bots that were talked about in some of the technical manuals.

    You are talking about something that would have been written after TOS, and not seen on the show. Yet you told someone else to "go rewatch TOS" for proof that something wasn't on the show. That's funny B)

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 35,805 Arc User
    ltminns wrote: »
    Georgiou anyone? Hard to do a Section 31 show with her in the future.
    Well, who says the Section 31 show takes after Discovery? For all we know it takes place in that several month gap between the end of S1, and the beginning of S2.
    I find this answer hilarious. "Go rewatch TOS to see they didn't have something" Immediately followed by talking about something we just saw in discovery that they didn't have in TOS. Clearly the writers will invent something that wasn't seen in TOS if they want to, to tell whatever plot point they want to. If they had wanted to invent intra-ship beaming to save Cornwell they would have, regardless of whether it was seen in TOS or not (just like those R2D2s not seen in TOS).
    The "R2D2" things are actually based off of EV suit bots that were talked about in some of the technical manuals.

    You are talking about something that would have been written after TOS, and not seen on the show. Yet you told someone else to "go rewatch TOS" for proof that something wasn't on the show. That's funny B)

    Not to mention I can guarantee you that someone (No names) will dismiss the technical manuals as 'non-canon' and refute the existence of everything therein.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,473 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    Doesn't change the fact that it is an extremely idiotic paradox. Everything must have an origin even if it is beyond our limited understanding. If something is trapped in an endless paradox, then it will get older and older the longer it is trapped. So a pair of glasses would eventually turn from an antique to scrap and a Kirk would end up with a pair of 18th Century glasses that are thousands of years old. Of course, this is based on the assumption that the glasses that Kirk pawns are the same glasses that Bones gave to him.
    Uh... no. Nowhere is it actually stated that the pair of glasses Kirk sells will go on to be the ones McCoy gives him in ST2. That's not quite what his "and they will be again" line means.
    The origin is itself in this case. A fairly classic time travel trope.

    It doesn't have to be actually stated. Narrative design isn't just people blurting out everything directly. Even STO harps on the glasses paradox in a Doff mission you cab get from one of the lockboxes where you sent some of your crew back in time to replace the glasses with an identical pair in order to break the paradox.

    The origin is not itself, it just comes from a previous timeline where the time loop never existed. So if someone from a possible future accidentally leaves a book behind, then their timeline no longer exists. A person finds the book, uses it to their advantage, and then the book gets sent back in time so that their previous self would find it without realizing it was temporal garbage from some careless time traveler. As far as the person that found the book is concerned, the book had no origin since their older self gave their younger self the book, but the origin of the book was from a timeline that no longer exists.

    Every single bootstrap paradox story is explained by a previous timeline creating a temporal loop until it eventually becomes stable where the origin of an object or knowledge becomes unknown to future iterations of the temporal loop.

  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 9,034 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    You are talking about something that would have been written after TOS, and not seen on the show. Yet you told someone else to "go rewatch TOS" for proof that something wasn't on the show. That's funny B)
    I said go rewatch TOS for the intra-ship beaming thing, I never said jack about going back to rewatch TOS about the bots.

    Don't lie about what I said when its right there for everyone to read.
    starkaos wrote: »
    The origin is not itself, it just comes from a previous timeline where the time loop never existed.
    That isn't how time travel, much less bootstrap paradoxes, work. In a bootstrap paradox there is no such thing as a timeline where the time loop never existed, because the time loop always existed. If the time loop never existed the paradox would have never happened.

    Its the same with with Sela and the Iconians in STO. There was never a timeline where Sela didn't go back in time and attack the Iconians, causing the Iconians to get revenge on Sela and all Romulans by causing Hobus to destory Romulus, which is what caused Sela to go back in time and attack the Iconians, because if there was a time where one of these things didn't happen, then the other wouldn't have happened, meaning neither would have ever happened. But they clearly do happen meaning both always happened.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 4,529 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    I said go rewatch TOS for the intra-ship beaming thing, I never said jack about going back to rewatch TOS about the bots.

    Don't lie about what I said when its right there for everyone to read.

    You are completely missing the point. I'm not saying you were talking about the bots when you told someone to go re-watch. The point is on the one hand you shoot down someone's point about saving Cornwell because there was no intra-ship beaming in TOS, then you turn right around and talk about something else that was also NOT in TOS, but was seen in last night's episode.

    If they can add one thing not seen in TOS, they also could have added the other (if they wanted to). So it really has nothing to do with whether something was in TOS or not.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    The magnet gun Tilly used to grab onto the dark matter was of limited power. To destroy the nanites you need a significantly more high powered magnet that can pull hard enough to undo their cohesion, and presumably crush the nanties entirely.
    This is nonsense. Mostly because, how Star Trek: Discovery handles "dark matter", "nano constructs" and even "power and energy" has only the tiniest fraction of basis in real science.

    Since it is all made up gobblety-g0ok, the writer does, in fact, need to say why a plot device from a previous episode will not work as a plot device in this episode.
  • nrobbiecnrobbiec Member Posts: 887 Arc User
    Tyler explicitly stated during his debrief that all traces of Control were now gone and that Section 31 must never be allowed to do that again. Starting them on the path to being the underground organisation we know and love. They had to still jump into the future because they already did. The sixth and seventh signals still had to be made because they already happened, plus that Sphere Builder data is still a bit dangerous.

    Cornwell's death genuinely made me sad, I liked her and she went out like a badass hero.

    Canon synched up enough for my taste, though I am curious about the where/when/how of the Section 31 spinoff.

    Michelle Yeoh stole the show, again, she remains the best thing about DSC. Her giggling while Leland was screaming his nanites out gave me life. Her series is going to rock.

    Also Reno, she needs to be a regular, or whatever their equivalent of a regular is since they for some reason only put like 5 names in the opening credits despite other characters appearing just as much.

    The battle was great, it looked great and phaser beams! My god how I've missed phaser beams since the reboot turned them into pewpews. I'm glad we've debooted back to the Primeverse. Apparently contrary to popular opinion I was very happy for an hour of constant space battle. It wasn't quite a DS9 battle scene but it most definitely satisfied.

    Fortunately this episode will have put to rest the argument that this series was secretly Kelvinverse.

    Compared to the first half of season one which was abysmal this show has come such a long way. But then half of the shows have cursed first seasons (looking at you TNG and VOY)
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,473 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    The origin is not itself, it just comes from a previous timeline where the time loop never existed.
    That isn't how time travel, much less bootstrap paradoxes, work. In a bootstrap paradox there is no such thing as a timeline where the time loop never existed, because the time loop always existed. If the time loop never existed the paradox would have never happened.

    Its the same with with Sela and the Iconians in STO. There was never a timeline where Sela didn't go back in time and attack the Iconians, causing the Iconians to get revenge on Sela and all Romulans by causing Hobus to destory Romulus, which is what caused Sela to go back in time and attack the Iconians, because if there was a time where one of these things didn't happen, then the other wouldn't have happened, meaning neither would have ever happened. But they clearly do happen meaning both always happened.

    Sela is the creation of time travel so there was a timeline where Sela didn't go back in time and attack the Iconians because she didn't exist in that timeline.

    You need to go back to Temporal Mechanics 101. It is impossible for there to not be an origin or the creation of its origin is itself. It is only a character's limited understanding of the temporal loop that creates the illusion of the Bootstrap paradox. Anyone with a Fourth Dimensional understanding of the universe knows that the Bootstrap Paradox doesn't exist and is only an issue for people with a Three Dimensional understanding of the universe.

    There always has to be an initial timeline that creates the temporal loop. The illusion of the Bootstrap paradox simply requires an object creating a temporal loop where a person with limited understanding of temporal mechanics doesn't know the origin of the object. If an object from the future is sent back in time to create a temporal loop, then there is a previous timeline where the temporal loop never existed since the temporal loop and the origin of the object can't exist in the same timeline.
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 53,036 Community Moderator
    I think Kirk was interpreting the situation as a timeline. From his perspective, pawning off the glasses was not part of some time loop. From that particular point in time, Kirk would get those glasses in the future, as he already had recieved them in HIS past. So basically he was saying that yes, he will get his glasses in the future, from the perspective of them being in 20th Century San Fransisco.

    If that makes any sense. Timeline Future, Personal Past.
    66998372863950ee98cf7da9786e2ea9-db80k0m.png
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out a Delta Pack, Temporal Pack, and Gamma Pack
    The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • shadowfang240shadowfang240 Member Posts: 35,849 Arc User
    so has anyone put up a youtube clip of the fight with control's fleet yet? i went looking for one last night, but it wasn't there...so either no one had done so yet or i was using the wrong search term​​
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!

    RIP Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks & Calvin Munerlyn

    blacklivesmatter.png

    #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."

    "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.
  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 9,034 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    starkaos wrote: »
    Sela is the creation of time travel so there was a timeline where Sela didn't go back in time and attack the Iconians because she didn't exist in that timeline.
    A timeline that only existed due to the Iconians influence, which only happened because Sela went back in time to TRIBBLE with them, which in turn necessitates her existence, meaning she always existed. Its a multi-layered paradox.
    starkaos wrote: »
    You need to go back to Temporal Mechanics 101. It is impossible for there to not be an origin or the creation of its origin is itself.
    Except in all the sci-fi plotlines where something ends up creating itself. Which is a lot of them. It's like Fry being his own grandfather in Futurama. He was always his own grandfather, meaning he had to be born to go back in time to do his grandmother to become his grandfather.
    redvenge wrote: »
    This is nonsense. Mostly because, how Star Trek: Discovery handles "dark matter", "nano constructs" and even "power and energy" has only the tiniest fraction of basis in real science.

    Since it is all made up gobblety-g0ok, the writer does, in fact, need to say why a plot device from a previous episode will not work as a plot device in this episode.
    Its nonsense that a small, handheld, gravity gun isn't as powerful as transforming an entire room into a giant magnet?

    Also, by this logic, one could argue anything. Well Star Trek isn't hard scifi so anything is possible! That could be used against the situations encountered in every show. One does not need to explicitly state every little thing, that's poor writing.
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 53,036 Community Moderator
    Temporal Mechanics makes my head hurt...
    66998372863950ee98cf7da9786e2ea9-db80k0m.png
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out a Delta Pack, Temporal Pack, and Gamma Pack
    The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 35,805 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    Temporal Mechanics makes my head hurt...

    In the immortal words of Miles Edward O'Brien...

    "I hate temporal mechanics!"
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    Its nonsense that a small, handheld, gravity gun isn't as powerful as transforming an entire room into a giant magnet?
    Or, how about a suit that can go anywhere, anywhen, anytime the operator wants. Star Trek:Discovery (actually, maybe it is just Alex Kurtzman) need to dial it way back on "everything, everywhere has ALL THE POWER". From human-sized transporters that have enough power to transport a human from Earth to Qo'nos, to the ridiculous unlimited nonsense of the Red Angel Suit.

    Energy is finite. Stuff needs energy to do work. Put some limits on the space magic. Bring things back into the realm of the "sorta, kinda, maybe plausible" instead of "full blown Vulcans-are-space-elves fantasy".
    Also, by this logic, one could argue anything. Well Star Trek isn't hard scifi so anything is possible! That could be used against the situations encountered in every show. One does not need to explicitly state every little thing, that's poor writing.
    The rules were not every little thing.

    The rules are simple: If your space magic works in one scenario, then explain why does it not work in a nearly identical scenario. It helps maintain verisimilitude. It shows the creators care about the work they are producing. This, in turn, helps build audience investment, so they buy your gimmicky funko pops.

    Yes, other episodes of Trek use technobable to solve a plot. Then the writers forget that particular technobable exists the next time they encounter a similar situation. This is an ongoing criticism of Trek and IT NEEDS TO STOP. Trek needs to GET BETTER not mire itself in mediocrity.
  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 9,034 Arc User
    redvenge wrote: »
    The rules are simple: If your space magic works in one scenario, then explain why does it not work in a nearly identical scenario. It helps maintain verisimilitude. It shows the creators care about the work they are producing. This, in turn, helps build audience investment, so they buy your gimmicky funko pops.
    It was neither a similar nor nearly identical scenario. One held a small piece of rock, the other crunched a bunch of nanites.

  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 4,529 Arc User
    About the Tilygun, I will admit that did not occur to me as a weapon against Leland. And without knowing technical stuffs, it seemed like it was designed to suck out some kind of organism, not nanites. That said, they probably could have made a version that would work on nanites, but were probably distracted by other things (like building the suit). As far as I know they weren't actually expecting to come face to face with Leland again.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,473 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    starkaos wrote: »
    You need to go back to Temporal Mechanics 101. It is impossible for there to not be an origin or the creation of its origin is itself.
    Except in all the sci-fi plotlines where something ends up creating itself. Which is a lot of them. It's like Fry being his own grandfather in Futurama. He was always his own grandfather, meaning he had to be born to go back in time to do his grandmother to become his grandfather.

    Actually, that is really easy to explain. The original Philip J. Fry had Enos and Mildred Fry as his biological grandparents, then he accidentally killed his grandfather and slept with his grandmother resulting in original Philip J. Fry being the next Philip J. Fry's grandfather. With each iteration of the temporal loop, Philip J. Fry has less and less of Enos Fry's DNA until there is no real difference between each iteration of Fry's DNA since 99.9999999999999% of Fry's paternal DNA comes from Mildred's DNA.
  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 9,034 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    Actually, that is really easy to explain. The original Philip J. Fry had Enos and Mildred Fry as his biological grandparents, then he accidentally killed his grandfather and slept with his grandmother resulting in original Philip J. Fry being the next Philip J. Fry's grandfather. With each iteration of the temporal loop, Philip J. Fry has less and less of Enos Fry's DNA until there is no real difference between each iteration of Fry's DNA since 99.9999999999999% of Fry's paternal DNA comes from Mildred's DNA.
    This is neither what happened on the show, or is what was stated to have happened on the show, and thus, wrong.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 35,805 Arc User
    Can we not argue about what is canon for a comedy cartoon which is a satire of sci-fi and, let's be real here, doesn't care what is or isn't in continuity with itself? That way madness lies.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,295 Arc User
    'The contrarionism is strong with this one'.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!
    Judge Dan Haywood
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,462 Arc User
    Picard:
    It's like the chicken and the egg, Will, the chicken and the egg! We-we think it started in the past, but it didn't. It started right here, in the future! That's why it's getting larger in the past.
    eUqtjfY.jpg
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,462 Arc User
    On another note...soooo we are gonna ignore the Klingon on L'rell's ship? the one that looks like a Klingon Klingon
    eUqtjfY.jpg
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 53,036 Community Moderator
    There was a Klingon Klingon?
    66998372863950ee98cf7da9786e2ea9-db80k0m.png
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out a Delta Pack, Temporal Pack, and Gamma Pack
    The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 5,837 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    And this is the worst part of Season 2. There is absolutely no explanation how Burnham would know about the location of the USS Hiawatha or Terralysium or figure out the secret behind the Kelpiens, time crystals, and the power of Po without the Red Bursts. Burnham's mother as the cause of the Red Bursts would make more sense since she spent years in the future. Knowledge has to be learnt from somewhere and can't be created out of nothing
    This is incorrect, and the whole reason why bootstrap paradox exists.

    Its exactly the same as the TOS era movie "glasses paradox" where Bones gives Kirk a pair of glasses that Kirk takes back to the past and sells off, ultimately ensuring they are obtained by Bone in the future so he can give them to Kirk, so Kirk can take them back into the past and sell them. The glasses have no origin, they just exist in an endless paradox.

    Doesn't change the fact that it is an extremely idiotic paradox. Everything must have an origin even if it is beyond our limited understanding.
    The origin was probably information from the sphere data.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    QIBp95C.png
Sign In or Register to comment.