We know for certain only that the crew members loved Chekhov in the here and in the now. They lived with him day in and day out and shared many great adventures with him. But, to the best of my recollection, we are not apprised of what the relationships they had with the folks back on earth actually consisted of. For all we know none of them had been back there for years. And, thus, this being a Hollywood script, that sort of complex ambiguity was never going to be explored in depth.
Again, in my view, there is no unequivocally right answer here. But that can never be acknowledged in a Hollywood film. They must clearly be seen doing the right thing. But many folks no doubt were appalled with the choice they actually made. The friend I watched it with once was apoplectic. Not so much with the decision itself but at the manner in which it was crammed down the viewers throat. As though no sane and civilized person could have possibly considered abandoning Chekhov.
How close was Einstein to discovering how existence…works? A lot closer than Newton obviously. But do any of us actually imagine that, down the road, there will be no future Newtons or Einsteins to fling us into an entirely new paradigm shift?
All one need need ponder is the general consensus among astrophysicists today that Everything There Is bursts into existence out of Nothing At All in the big bang. But, really, what “either works or does not work” about that?
How do we get our minds wrapped around it without pondering the possibility of…alternate explanations?
If you watch the Science Channel as much as I do, you are never amazed when something brand spanking new is introduced into the cosmological mix. From dark matter and dark energy to parallel universes, string theory and M-theory [with its 11 dimensions] it doesn’t take long to figure out there are still many, many things we are profoundly ignorant of “out there”. Also, “in here” if you go in the other direction and ponder quantum mysteries.
So conveniently science will allows ut to go back in time by exceeding light speed and to travel distances. Interesting but probably a bit illogical.
the speed limit of the universe: c. It either can be broken and it causes some sort of time reversal or it can’t and can only be approached. If it causes time to run backwards of course you could travel further than before, but why not say we’re also going back in time. Time-space are the same thing but time is not exactly space.
We could but Star Trek is inconsistent. And wtf is dilithium anyway?
Quantum chips are the most interesting recent discovery I can think of, they built it in the US and it enabled the processor to flip quantum states to store information. Problem now is to get it up to the microprocessor stage where billions of these chips are working like in normal computers. Then power will be exponential 2^4 for each Qbit : 1,0,superposition of states: 1-0,0-1 , the sheer number crunching power would be enough to write your ticket to fame and riches.
But once you go out to the very edge of the cosmogenic limb, you ponder the fundamental nature of existence itself. And out there, logic as we know it today may or may not apply. Again, how else to explain the mind-boggling idea of everything there is exploding into existence out of nothing at all? How is that logical? Why is existence more logical than no existence? Why is this existence more logical than some other one? And how logical did Einstein’s theories first appear to those who embraced Newtonian physics? And what exactly is logical when you enter the event horizon of a black hole? Is what comes out the other end as logical as what goes into it?
If you don’t see these relationships as profoundly mysterious you just aren’t going far enough out on the limb.
Now, I’m not trying to suggest some “mystical” or religious explanation. I’m just pointing out what is surely an enormous gap between what we think we know about “reality” and all that can be known. Here we are back to Donald Rumsfeld’s things we don’t even know we don’t even know yet.
Star Trek was largely a cartoon, sure. But considering all the other crap that was on TV back then it was one of the few shows that actually challenged you to think a little bit about both scientific and philosophical questions.
Actually I think you can go so far out on a limb you fall off when your reach exceeds your grasp. I am a great believer in imagination and creative thinking, what I don’t think really helps is making contradictory statements. But then Star Trek is fiction.
True. I wasn’t alive when it started but I sure loved it in the 70s and 80s.
The limb is just a metaphor for the profound mystery of existence itself. And whatever that may or may not be may or may not accommodate contradictory thinking. That remains to be seen. If it can be seen at all. Or if it can be accessed and then assessed by the human mind at all.
Well, I have encountered any number of folks in venues like this who not only believe these things can be accessed but are quite convinced they have, in fact, already assessed what can be accessed objectively.
And because no one can assess what can be accessed objectively here there is no way to demonstrate that, in fact, he as not either accessed or assessed it objectively at all.
this is a rare post of high quality and I’m not being sarcastic.
It’s extremely rare to see people deal with such dilemmas, where most likes only easy rethorics with no critical thinking.
This is the kind of questions which doesn’t pose in any personallity test nor IQ test, but we have to deal with as leaders and specially politics.
It depends on the moral and motivation of the crew.
If the crew has low motivation and low moral they are usually selfish and put self before cause.
…but if they are highly motivated, and has high moral they wouldn’t be as selfish but put the cause before self.
this is a rare post of high quality and I’m not being sarcastic.