1,805
edits
More actions
Howling:If the doctor never existed... (view source)
Revision as of 15:20, 2 February 2012
, 2 February 2012no edit summary
No edit summary |
Icecreamdif (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 421: | Line 421: | ||
I don't think he was either using an analogy or misstating the case. All the same, when he says that someone erased by the cracks will "never have existed at all", he has to be leaving something out -- not falsifying but omitting. If the "never have existed at all" part were all there is to it, the person's impact on the universe wouldn't persist. It does. The "never have existed at all" has to be taken as true. But "it isn't as simple as that" must also be true. The results are not at all what would happen if time were completely rewritten without the person's existence. If they were, this discussion (and others) would never have happened. We have what appears to be a contradiction. But it's a consistent one. It follows a pattern. We don't know what underlies that pattern but something must. A great deal of this discussion is taken up with attempts to get more of a grip on that something. To go back, for a moment, to the electron analogy: for some aspects of electron behaviour, the "little billiard balls" model works -- it's an accurate enough description; for other aspects of electron behaviour, it doesn't work. With the erasure of people by the cracks, the situation is similar. In some respects, "never have existed at all" is accurate. In others, it very obviously is not accurate. That's '''why '''Amy's life doesn't make sense. If "never have existed at all" were a '''complete '''description, there'd be no problem with Amy's life not making sense -- she wouldn't have a life at all. As soon as her parents had been erased, she'd have ceased to exist. She continued to exist and '''that '''is what doesn't make sense, because we can't see how she could. Maybe the Doctor doesn't either and that's why he's not given a better explanation. Nevertheless, my point (directed at 82) is that nobody in any of the episodes has said that Amy was born without parents, nobody in any of the episodes has said that people were killed by nothing. Nobody in any of the episodes has said what happened. 82 said "People being killed by nothing, and being born without parents has to be some of the biggest twaddle ever presented in DW" but that '''hasn't '''been "presented in DW". It's been presented '''here'''. 82 was blaming the show for something it didn't say. I don't buy the "born without parents" idea, either, and I was pointing out that '''it wasn't said by the show'''. What has been said by the show isn't (yet) enough for me to figure out how the thing works. Sometimes, it's necessary to say, "Insufficient data. I don't know," and leave it like that -- until/unless more data becomes available. If you're not willing to say, "I don't know," when you don't know, you end up asserting nonsense. --[[Special:Contributions/89.240.251.197|89.240.251.197]]<sup>[[User talk:89.240.251.197#top|talk to me]]</sup> 04:46, February 2, 2012 (UTC) | I don't think he was either using an analogy or misstating the case. All the same, when he says that someone erased by the cracks will "never have existed at all", he has to be leaving something out -- not falsifying but omitting. If the "never have existed at all" part were all there is to it, the person's impact on the universe wouldn't persist. It does. The "never have existed at all" has to be taken as true. But "it isn't as simple as that" must also be true. The results are not at all what would happen if time were completely rewritten without the person's existence. If they were, this discussion (and others) would never have happened. We have what appears to be a contradiction. But it's a consistent one. It follows a pattern. We don't know what underlies that pattern but something must. A great deal of this discussion is taken up with attempts to get more of a grip on that something. To go back, for a moment, to the electron analogy: for some aspects of electron behaviour, the "little billiard balls" model works -- it's an accurate enough description; for other aspects of electron behaviour, it doesn't work. With the erasure of people by the cracks, the situation is similar. In some respects, "never have existed at all" is accurate. In others, it very obviously is not accurate. That's '''why '''Amy's life doesn't make sense. If "never have existed at all" were a '''complete '''description, there'd be no problem with Amy's life not making sense -- she wouldn't have a life at all. As soon as her parents had been erased, she'd have ceased to exist. She continued to exist and '''that '''is what doesn't make sense, because we can't see how she could. Maybe the Doctor doesn't either and that's why he's not given a better explanation. Nevertheless, my point (directed at 82) is that nobody in any of the episodes has said that Amy was born without parents, nobody in any of the episodes has said that people were killed by nothing. Nobody in any of the episodes has said what happened. 82 said "People being killed by nothing, and being born without parents has to be some of the biggest twaddle ever presented in DW" but that '''hasn't '''been "presented in DW". It's been presented '''here'''. 82 was blaming the show for something it didn't say. I don't buy the "born without parents" idea, either, and I was pointing out that '''it wasn't said by the show'''. What has been said by the show isn't (yet) enough for me to figure out how the thing works. Sometimes, it's necessary to say, "Insufficient data. I don't know," and leave it like that -- until/unless more data becomes available. If you're not willing to say, "I don't know," when you don't know, you end up asserting nonsense. --[[Special:Contributions/89.240.251.197|89.240.251.197]]<sup>[[User talk:89.240.251.197#top|talk to me]]</sup> 04:46, February 2, 2012 (UTC) | ||
Baseed on what little we do know about the crackks, people who fall into them are erased from every point in space and time, but things like their children or photos are not. Rory's falling into the crack is not the same as what would have happenned if the Doctor had taken the TARDIS to Rory's birth and killed baby-Rory. Rory has never existed, but his enagement ring still exists and Amy's pphotograph of him still exists. Yes, it causes paradoxe which, by definition, don't make sense, but the cracks do seem to follow a certain pattern which have their own internal logic. [[User:Icecreamdif|Icecreamdif]] <sup>[[User talk:Icecreamdif|talk to me]]</sup> 15:20, February 2, 2012 (UTC) | |||