aK

[email protected] (Ken Arromdee)

07/09/2011 5:30 AM

The way River Song won't be fixed

In "Turn Left" the bug creates an alternate timeline where the Doctor dies
in 2006.

If the Doctor dies in 2006, he doesn't die at the start of the 2011 series
(whether as flesh or real).

The Doctor's death at the start of the 2011 series is a fixed point.

Therefore, the bug *can change fixed points*.

I'm sure there's a way for the Doctor to sic that bug on the Silence and
change the timeline to fix the whole River Song mess.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."


This topic has 14 replies

JH

John Hall

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

08/09/2011 6:01 AM

In article
<[email protected]m>,
solar penguin <[email protected]> writes:
>
>IIRC in The Impossible Astronaut, we were also told specifically that
>it was the real Doctor who died, not a duplicate or copy - but that
>hasn't stopped fans ignoring that bit of exposition and speculating
>that it was a Flesh duplicate instead.

I don't recall that. Who was it who told us? Can we accept what they
said as certain to be correct?
--
John Hall
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
Winston S Churchill (1874-1965)

dT

[email protected] (The Doctor)

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

08/09/2011 8:34 AM

Flesh duplicate you say?

That specukation comes from just before a Good Man ges to War.
--
Member - Liberal International This is [email protected] Ici [email protected]
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!

sp

solar penguin

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

07/09/2011 6:57 PM

Ken Arromdee wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> solar penguin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >And here's a third theory: the time police were just plain wrong when
> >they said the Doctor's death was a fixed point.
>
> Whoops, in my last message I forgot they were the ones who said that, so
> obviously Amy and Rory telling them wouldn't unfix it. So replace the
> question with them telling Jack Harkness in 1938, or something.

Good question. But in practice, since they obviously believe that the
event's fixed and that Jack won't be able to stop it without letting
loose the Reapers, they'll never bother telling him, so it doesn't
make any difference what would happen.

>
> But anyway, that line was obviously there as a piece of exposition
> specifically to tell the audience "since it's a fixed point, we can't get
> around it by changing history", and we're supposed to treat it as reliable,
> even though you are correct that there's no real reason to believe them.

IIRC in The Impossible Astronaut, we were also told specifically that
it was the real Doctor who died, not a duplicate or copy - but that
hasn't stopped fans ignoring that bit of exposition and speculating
that it was a Flesh duplicate instead.

aK

[email protected] (Ken Arromdee)

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

07/09/2011 5:43 PM

In article <[email protected]m>,
solar penguin <[email protected]> wrote:
>If fixing points works in a Schroedinger-style way, then points become
>fixed when they (or their effects) are already known by time
>travellers who are going to have been affected by them. So in this
>case, the Doctor's death probably only became fixed when Amy and Rory
>witnessed it.

We are talking about time travel. Since Amy and Rory travelled to 1938,
would the fixed point now be fixed from 1938 on? Or is it only fixed
for them but not fixed for natives of 1938? Could the people in the Meet Dave
ship therefore change the "fixed" point? What if Amy and Rory left a
message for the natives of 1938; would they no longer be able to change the
fixed point? Or if they still could, why can't they just leave a message
for the natives of 2011?

>> I'm sure there's a way for the Doctor to sic that bug on the Silence and
>> change the timeline to fix the whole River Song mess.
>Nice idea, but the mess is to big to be fixed that easily.

What the bug can do is so incredibly big in scope that this isn't a farfetched
idea at all.

Of course it's never going to happen for the same reason that the Doctor is
never going to destroy a planet full of Daleks by going back in time a week,
saving one, and waiting for the Reapers to cleanse the planet.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."

aK

[email protected] (Ken Arromdee)

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

07/09/2011 5:47 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
solar penguin <[email protected]> wrote:
>And here's a third theory: the time police were just plain wrong when
>they said the Doctor's death was a fixed point.

Whoops, in my last message I forgot they were the ones who said that, so
obviously Amy and Rory telling them wouldn't unfix it. So replace the
question with them telling Jack Harkness in 1938, or something.

But anyway, that line was obviously there as a piece of exposition
specifically to tell the audience "since it's a fixed point, we can't get
around it by changing history", and we're supposed to treat it as reliable,
even though you are correct that there's no real reason to believe them.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."

GC

Guy Clapperton

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

09/09/2011 9:46 PM

On Sep 7, 10:47 pm, [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) wrote:

> But anyway, that line was obviously there as a piece of exposition
> specifically to tell the audience "since it's a fixed point, we can't get
> around it by changing history", and we're supposed to treat it as reliable,
> even though you are correct that there's no real reason to believe them.

I disagree. I think it was there to tell the audience "we want you to
believe this is a really big thing so when we wriggle out of it you'll
think it was more important than just blowing up a load of Daleks".

Followed by the production team telling each other "it's the 50th
anniversary in a couple of years, how are we going to top this..?

Regards
Guy

sp

solar penguin

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

07/09/2011 6:23 PM

Ken Arromdee wrote:

> In article <[email protected]m>,
> solar penguin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >If fixing points works in a Schroedinger-style way, then points become
> >fixed when they (or their effects) are already known by time
> >travellers who are going to have been affected by them. So in this
> >case, the Doctor's death probably only became fixed when Amy and Rory
> >witnessed it.
>
> We are talking about time travel. Since Amy and Rory travelled to 1938,
> would the fixed point now be fixed from 1938 on?

Good question. I suppose It would be fixed relative to the Doctor,
Amy and Rory's personal timelines (or more accurately the TARDIS's
personal timeline since its the TARDIS that actually travels though
time) not to absolute dates.

So yes, they would carry the fixing back to 1938 with them.

(In theory it should also be fixed relative to River's timeline as
well, but since she's a Mary Sue, all bets are off regarding what she
can or can't do!)

> Or is it only fixed
> for them but not fixed for natives of 1938?

Since the natives of 1938 can't time travel, there's no noticeable
difference between fixed and non-fixed points for them.

> Could the people in the Meet Dave
> ship therefore change the "fixed" point?

I don't see the connection. The Meet Dave people aren't natives of
1938. Normal rules for time travellers apply to them.

> What if Amy and Rory left a
> message for the natives of 1938; would they no longer be able to change the
> fixed point? Or if they still could, why can't they just leave a message
> for the natives of 2011?

If Amy and Rory, and their travels through time, are part of what's
fixing the event, their note either wouldn't succeed at all, or would
succeed but then summon the Reapers.

>
> >> I'm sure there's a way for the Doctor to sic that bug on the Silence and
> >> change the timeline to fix the whole River Song mess.
> >Nice idea, but the mess is to big to be fixed that easily.
>
> What the bug can do is so incredibly big in scope that this isn't a farfetched
> idea at all.

But that's only assuming the bug doesn't need help from the godlike
powers of the Trickster to manager something on that scale. We have
no idea what its own, unaided scope is, but it's probably much, much
smaller.

GC

Guy Clapperton

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

09/09/2011 9:46 PM

On Sep 7, 11:57 pm, solar penguin <[email protected]> wrote:

> IIRC in The Impossible Astronaut, we were also told specifically that
> it was the real Doctor who died, not a duplicate or copy - but that
> hasn't stopped fans ignoring that bit of exposition and speculating
> that it was a Flesh duplicate instead.

we were, but not necessarily by someone who'd know for certain. Rule
One, the Doctor lies. So, if the agent (whose name escapes me) who
gave the information that this was the real Doctor had the Doctor as
his source of info, the whole thing's suspect.

sp

solar penguin

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

07/09/2011 4:52 PM

solar penguin wrote:

> Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> >
> > Therefore, the bug *can change fixed points*.
>
> But can it change them _after_ they've become fixed? What if it can
> only change not-yet-fixed points?
>
> Alternatively, ... The bug might only be capable of changing
> fixed points with the Trickster's help.

And here's a third theory: the time police were just plain wrong when
they said the Doctor's death was a fixed point. After all, look what
a mess these idiots made about the time and place of Hitler's death.
Why should they be any more reliable about the Doctor's?

sp

solar penguin

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

07/09/2011 4:34 PM

Ken Arromdee wrote:

> In "Turn Left" the bug creates an alternate timeline where the Doctor dies
> in 2006.
>
> If the Doctor dies in 2006, he doesn't die at the start of the 2011 series
> (whether as flesh or real).
>
> The Doctor's death at the start of the 2011 series is a fixed point.
>
> Therefore, the bug *can change fixed points*.

But can it change them _after_ they've become fixed? What if it can
only change not-yet-fixed points?

If fixing points works in a Schroedinger-style way, then points become
fixed when they (or their effects) are already known by time
travellers who are going to have been affected by them. So in this
case, the Doctor's death probably only became fixed when Amy and Rory
witnessed it.

Alternatively, if you don't like that theory, remember that the bug
was working for the Trickster, an evil, powerful, god-like alien from
the Sarah Jane Adventures. The bug might only be capable of changing
fixed points with the Trickster's help. And since the Trickster wants
the Doctor dead, he's not very likely to offer that help!

>
> I'm sure there's a way for the Doctor to sic that bug on the Silence and
> change the timeline to fix the whole River Song mess.

Nice idea, but the mess is to big to be fixed that easily.

sp

solar penguin

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

08/09/2011 9:11 AM

The Doctor wrote:

> Flesh duplicate you say?

Me? I'm not saying anything for definite either way. Just throwing
around some possibilities and seeing where they can take me.

>
> That specukation comes from just before a Good Man ges to War.

That's when it started, but people have continued "specukating" about
it afterwards.

sp

solar penguin

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

08/09/2011 8:12 AM

John Hall wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]m>,
> solar penguin <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >IIRC in The Impossible Astronaut, we were also told specifically that
> >it was the real Doctor who died, not a duplicate or copy - but that
> >hasn't stopped fans ignoring that bit of exposition and speculating
> >that it was a Flesh duplicate instead.
>
> I don't recall that. Who was it who told us?

Old Canton. His first words in the episode, said very, very
ominously.

AMY: Maybe he's a clone or a duplicate or something?

CANTON: I believe I can save you some time. (*Pauses and removes hat
out of respect*) That most certainly _is_ the Doctor. And he most
certainly is dead.

> Can we accept what they
> said as certain to be correct?

Personally, I'd trust Canton more than I'd trust the world's stupidest
time police.

dT

[email protected] (The Doctor)

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

08/09/2011 3:09 AM

So far it seems to be fixed.

Mels attempts to kill the Doctor until she discovers she is
River Song.
--
Member - Liberal International This is [email protected] Ici [email protected]
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!

DC

Daibhid Ceanaideach

in reply to [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) on 07/09/2011 5:30 AM

10/09/2011 8:40 AM

On 10 Sep 2011, Guy Clapperton <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sep 7, 11:57 pm, solar penguin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> IIRC in The Impossible Astronaut, we were also told specifically that
>> it was the real Doctor who died, not a duplicate or copy - but that
>> hasn't stopped fans ignoring that bit of exposition and speculating
>> that it was a Flesh duplicate instead.
>
> we were, but not necessarily by someone who'd know for certain. Rule
> One, the Doctor lies. So, if the agent (whose name escapes me) who
> gave the information that this was the real Doctor had the Doctor as
> his source of info, the whole thing's suspect.

Even taking him at his word, IIRC, we weren't told "not a duplicate or
copy" we were just told "this *is* the real Doctor".

And what were we *continually* told about the Ganger Doctor?


--
Dave
Demons run, when a good man goes to war...


You’ve reached the end of replies