Howling:What crashed the Byzantium?: Difference between revisions

Howling:What crashed the Byzantium? (view source)

Revision as of 20:05, 9 June 2010

3,782 bytes added , 9 June 2010

no edit summary

Jack Chilli

131

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Forumheader|The Howling}}
+: {{Forumheader|The Howling}}
 <!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes: ~~~~ -->
@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 :::Finally, it's not so much that you're misusing strong-CI (which, by the way, Wigner was arguing _against_, not for, with his thought experiments)--I agree that the kind of misuse you're suggested is common and maybe even reasonable for pop sci-fi--as that you're trying to have strong-CI (observer-dependent collapse) and MWI (the combined state keeps developing forever because there is no collapse) at the same time, which to quote Pauli, is not even wrong. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 18:40, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
+:::
+:::Firstly let me say that I am not arguing with what everybody else has said in the past. I am not aware of their discussions at all; I am new here. I am merely trying to present an explanation of how the cracks work from what I have seen and what has been said ‘in show’. This is generally all I have knowledge of. I know that this site includes almost everything as ‘canon’. What is Moffat’s ‘canon’? If this is different then it could explain the changes and the difficulties.
+:: I am also not a quantum physicist so my idea does not match real science. It’s not supposed to; it’s meant to give a '''plausible''' explanation of the ‘Doctors reality’.
+:: Again I’m sorry if it was not clear the single collapse is not single; the whole history is changed and this requires all of the prior states to change. That’s what I mean be a new history; a complete new history. Someone erased is really really erased. I’m an arguing for the most drastic type of revisionism; the whole light cone changes as must every other that touches it so probably everything in the universe right back to the start. This may mean the “Big Bang” as the start.
+:: The Doctor is a time traveller and that’s why his history is a special case. He has separate rules and his state does not change when somebody is erased so his past is not changed. His time-travelly nature prevents the ripple back through his personal history. Note the exceptions though, when Rory got rubbed out there was a difference; one that seemed fairly arbitrary at the time. It might be worth looking at this later.
+:: My past is not changed by the absence of Frank. I anchor Bob in the pub; reducing his possible histories so that he has to end up with one where he is still with me. We can then spend plenty of time arguing about what happened to Frank and we are both right. The universe I have experienced does not need to match Bobs except to the extent that we are both in the pub at the time having an argument about Frank.
+:: I am saying the parallel universes are not needed for the erasing effect. They may exist independently or dependently of the main universe. I’m just saying they are not important to this discussion.
+:: I am also not arguing for multiple worlds at least not in the usual sense; just the possibility of consciousness selecting from multiple possibilities to ensure that it survives (only one word is ‘realised’ so there was only ever this one world; non split off). You might argue that this ends up in one world per consciousness that intersect when the consciousnesses interact.
+:: I think that it comes down to I’m not satisfied that false memories are OK so I’m looking for a pop-science explanation that is a little bit better. Remember, all of the expatiations for Doctor Who are just pop-science. Its central premise is time travel after all. How did the Weeping Angels operate originally? Moffat used some vague quantum stuff and an observer effect. He could be doing this again.
+:: I have not seen City of the Daleks. Is it part of the story designed by Moffat?
+:: Now, what would happen if the Doctor went back to look to see why Amy does not remember the Daleks. Isn’t this a rather obvious thing for him to do especially with all the crack in time? He would not need to go anywhere near where he had been before; lets say he goes to Austraila. Would he just find that everybody had forgotten? All evidence (TV footage damage) gone and everybody oblivious. Or, would he find that the world he experienced is not there; the events literally never happened? There is a real conflict between his past history and the reality that now exists. What would this do to him? [[User:Jack Chilli|Jack Chilli]] 20:05, June 9, 2010 (UTC)