More actions
Howling:After someone's been absorbed by the Crack... (view source)
Revision as of 06:44, 14 September 2011
, 14 September 2011no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
Even though evidence of a person's existence remains, they still never did exist. It's a complicated paradox, but if, before ''The Big Bang'' but after ''Cold Blood'', the Doctor and Amy had decided to travel back to Leadworth during Amy's childhood, Rory still wouldn't be there because he never existed. Still, despite the fact that he never eisted, there is a photograph of him at Amy's house, the Doctor still has his engagement ring, and River Song still exists. It doesn't quite make sense, but its a paradox and paradoxes never make sense.[[User:Icecreamdif|Icecreamdif]] 22:43, September 13, 2011 (UTC) | Even though evidence of a person's existence remains, they still never did exist. It's a complicated paradox, but if, before ''The Big Bang'' but after ''Cold Blood'', the Doctor and Amy had decided to travel back to Leadworth during Amy's childhood, Rory still wouldn't be there because he never existed. Still, despite the fact that he never eisted, there is a photograph of him at Amy's house, the Doctor still has his engagement ring, and River Song still exists. It doesn't quite make sense, but its a paradox and paradoxes never make sense.[[User:Icecreamdif|Icecreamdif]] 22:43, September 13, 2011 (UTC) | ||
: Icecreamdif is exactly right here. You're demanding an explanation for history-changing paradoxes that doesn't include any paradoxes. You might as well demand an explanation for Amy walking around 400 years before she was born that doesn't include any time travel. Of course you're going to be disappointed. If you can't accept that paradoxes exist in the Whoniverse, you're going to fail to understand a good fraction of the episodes, but that's not the writers' fault. | |||
: And if you think of the alternative given by 89, how is it any better? If you edit someone out of everyone's memory, they would act exactly the same as if you edited that person out of history. Either way, they'd act as if that person never existed. The only real differences are that: (a) editing history could be a very simple physical process, but editing everyone's memory would be a tremendously complicated biochemical process that would have to involve some intelligent agent, and (b) editing history makes some sense of the time traveler exception, but editing memory doesn't. So, it's a strictly weaker explanation: exactly as good for the main facts, and worse for the secondary facts. --[[Special:Contributions/70.36.140.19|70.36.140.19]] 05:14, September 14, 2011 (UTC) | |||
: 89 was asking a question, not offering an all-embracing answer. --[[Special:Contributions/89.241.76.198|89.241.76.198]] 06:44, September 14, 2011 (UTC) | |||