Perhaps not a science notion, but in make-believe science-fiction why not?
Poll If we were to get a new series called Star Trek: Destiny, how would you abbreviate Discovery?
- Thread starter Borg
- Start date
It's a TV show. I hope it's written in advance. Improv Star Trek is a terrible idea.
More seriously, science doesn't preclude predestination. It just determines the impossibility of us observing anything beyond our event horizon. Just because we can't see beyond the event horizon does not mean there isn't something there.
That extends to seemingly probabilistic events at the quantum scale. Holographic universe theories, etc. Something may be random simply because we lack the ability to observe underlying mechanics. Anything at the micro level, like mutations, can be treated probabilistically for the sake of convenience, but isn't actually random. Event horizon applies here too. Was that atom supposed to decay? Maybe. You can't re-run the universe to test.
Last edited:
Underneath Star Trek Canon, the future does exist. The Prophets experience time all at once and can go anywhere and anywhen. They don't have a linear existence. The Prophets repeatedly beat Sisko over the head with the concept of destiny in DS9's seventh season. And they send him warnings in "Rapture" during S5 to not have Bajor join the Federation. And, indeed, if Bajor did join, the planet probably would've been taken over by the Dominion in "Call to Arms".
They've also shown the 29th Century on Voyager, the 33rd Century in "Calypso", and who knows what else in Enterprise (the 26th and 31st Centuries?). So the future in Star Trek is something that does exist and is something the main characters haven't experienced yet.
They can change the future, once they become aware of it, but I'm guessing that from the perspective of Captain Braxton and the USS Relativity, whatever would happen in Destiny already has.
They've also shown the 29th Century on Voyager, the 33rd Century in "Calypso", and who knows what else in Enterprise (the 26th and 31st Centuries?). So the future in Star Trek is something that does exist and is something the main characters haven't experienced yet.
They can change the future, once they become aware of it, but I'm guessing that from the perspective of Captain Braxton and the USS Relativity, whatever would happen in Destiny already has.
Last edited:
Which Braxton?
Ezri was on the USS Destiny prior to joining Deep Space Nine.
I really would hope it's not just the tedious Star Trek: Shipname naming convention again.
Star Trek: Shipname is the next spinoff after that.
Now look up the documentaries involving Studio 54. It was more gross than awe-inspiring. Like Woodstock just with fewer people. :P
Are you kidding? Woodstock was hyper-cool!!!
I usually refer to it as Disco, but in keeping with the 3 letter format, DSC.
TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC.
No one uses STTNG. STD is similarly silly.
TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC.
No one uses STTNG. STD is similarly silly.
I completely agree with that. I don't get what all the fuss is about.
Plus Star Trek: Destiny is centered around Picard. The same Picard who spent the final episode of TNG zooming back-and-forth through the timeline and dealing then with the concept of predestination and whether he can change the timeline (and what happens when he does). He could very well be observing the contrasts between the real 2399 and the one he experienced decades ago and wonder if he had made the right call or not.
STD is just dumb and a childish attempt to insult the show. We don't label TNG STT or VOY STV. Why change up the usual naming scheme? Oh yeah, the hivemind is supposed to hate Discovery.
Call it DIS, DSC or DISCO for fun. If we were to get a show called Destiny, call it DES or whatever. Just don't like like children giggling at a naughty word.
Call it DIS, DSC or DISCO for fun. If we were to get a show called Destiny, call it DES or whatever. Just don't like like children giggling at a naughty word.
Ugh, not this again. STD is a perfectly valid abbreviation, supposedly a joke once used by Bryan Fuller himself, and just because the majority of detractors use it for their own reasons, doesn't mean we can't overwhelmingly use it and take it back from their clutches.
Or what I wrote last time this topic came up:
Please, please stop demonizing people, treating them like monsters or trolls because of an initialism they used.
Look at the context of the post, the overall tone, and make a judgment from there. Three letters does not give you access to one's soul.
Similar threads
