I don't necessarily mean information. Given that we don't know the how the mystery is happening, what if the Doctor's investigation affects it happening? He's part of events now - if he does anything to affect the mechanism, then perhaps Dalek Oswald won't exist in the future to set him on the path of investigating the mystery.
The Doctor isn't generally affected by changing time streams. The TARDIS insulates him while he is in the Vortex. So, even if history changed to the point where he would never be able to meet Clara in Asylum he would still remember the encounter. Remember when Amy forgot Rory after he was removed from existence by the crack, the Doctor still remembered.
Generally time is pretty resilient to the Doctor's interference. If it weren't he'd be too afraid to do anything in case it potentially altered the future. I don't think the butterfly affect is a part of the Doctor Who theory of time travel!
The Doctor isn't generally affected by changing time streams. The TARDIS insulates him while he is in the Vortex. So, even if history changed to the point where he would never be able to meet Clara in Asylum he would still remember the encounter. Remember when Amy forgot Rory after he was removed from existence by the crack, the Doctor still remembered.
That's a bit of a different situation, that was the timestream itself having bits removed without affecting anything else, not being changed to be self-contradictory.
Generally time is pretty resilient to the Doctor's interference. If it weren't he'd be too afraid to do anything in case it potentially altered the future. I don't think the butterfly affect is a part of the Doctor Who theory of time travel!
It very much is, it's just conveniently ignored when an imaginative plot requires it. (See "A Christmas Carol".)
RIVER: We've told him all we can. We can't even tell him we've seen his future self. He's interacted with his own past. It could rip a hole in the universe.
AMY: Except he's done it before.
RORY: And, in fairness, the universe did blow up.
The standard get-out is that the Doctor is clever enough and in tune enough with Time that he knows what he can get away with changing without breaking anything. But in this case, we don't know if he knows what he's dealing with yet.
That's a bit of a different situation, that was the timestream itself having bits removed without affecting anything else, not being changed to be self-contradictory.
That's just one example. There have been numerous examples in past episodes, including the Classic ones. The Doctor has never been affected by changes to the time stream even when those around him have been.
It very much is, it's just conveniently ignored when an imaginative plot requires it. (See "A Christmas Carol".)
Not at all. The butterfly affect basically suggests that the slightest change in the past will cause huge changes to the future. Simply stepping on a butterfly produces radical and unpredictable changes to the timeline. If that were the case, every time the Doctor went anywhere his very presence would completely rewrite the future history of that world.
Clearly that is not the case.
Time in Doctor Who is more elastic than that. It can withstand a lot of minor changes and still snap back into pretty much the same state further down the line.
The standard get-out is that the Doctor is clever enough and in tune enough with Time that he knows what he can get away with changing without breaking anything. But in this case, we don't know if he knows what he's dealing with yet.
I really don't see the issue. Both Clara's so far were totally self-contained in their own time periods with no memory of him or their previous existences (at least not initially).
I don't see anything he could do in search of another Clara that would make the slightest difference to any of the others.
That's just one example. There have been numerous examples in past episodes, including the Classic ones. The Doctor has never been affected by changes to the time stream even when those around him have been.
Not changes to the time stream, changes to his own personal causality. They've had to be pretty strict with the Doctor not being able to change events that he's been involved in, otherwise any available plot point can be undone by a quick trip back in the TARDIS.
If the Doctor, by poking around in various Oswald lives, makes it so that one version of her never goes aboard the spaceliner that crashes, how would he ever find out about her?
Not at all. The butterfly affect basically suggests that the slightest change in the past will cause huge changes to the future. Simply stepping on a butterfly produces radical and unpredictable changes to the timeline. If that were the case, every time the Doctor went anywhere his very presence would completely rewrite the future history of that world.
Clearly that is not the case.
I had assumed you meant butterfly effect in the sense of a general example of time-changing wotsits, rather than being specific. Yes, the butterfly effect is dampened down - things can happen in different ways, but generally they happen (Waters of Mars). There have been clear examples of changes having huge side-effects, such as the Daleks (or possibly the Doctor himself) subverting the Great and Bountiful Human Empire, or Harriet Jones' golden age.
But again, even the butterfly effect produces timelines that are self-consistent. The Doctor changing his own actions produces a timeline that is completely paradoxical.
I don't see anything he could do in search of another Clara that would make the slightest difference to any of the others.
But equally we don't know the slightest thing about how the Claras relate to each other.
Not changes to the time stream, changes to his own personal causality. They've had to be pretty strict with the Doctor not being able to change events that he's been involved in, otherwise any available plot point can be undone by a quick trip back in the TARDIS.
Yes, he's not allowed to change certain points in time but, my point is, if he does change things his memory of events does not change to match. As a Time Lord he is immune to that sort of thing. He is outside of Time and remembers all the events as they happened to him regardless of how events may now be different due to his (or others') interference.
I can't remember specifics but I've seen this time and again.
If the Doctor, by poking around in various Oswald lives, makes it so that one version of her never goes aboard the spaceliner that crashes, how would he ever find out about her?
Since his memories would be unaffected he would still remember the events of Asylum regardless of whether they are rewritten or not. Besides, if he could rewrite Asylum I expect he would probably want to. If he could find a way to prevent Clara from being turned into a Dalek in her far future (and he was allowed to interfere to change it) then I'm sure he'd want to. He's hardly going to worry about accidentally saving Clara from such a fate!
But again, even the butterfly effect produces timelines that are self-consistent. The Doctor changing his own actions produces a timeline that is completely paradoical.
Probably why Time Lords are immune to such things. Otherwise they'd all be walking paradoxes! Besides, doesn't the TARDIS have a built in Paradox inhibitor?
Not so sure about that. River clearly says in Let's Kill Hitler that the last time she regenerated was in New York into a toddler, as we saw in Day of The Moon.
Sure she could have regenerated between being a baby in A Good Man Goes To War and being a child in The Impossible Astronaut, and The Doctor has said regeneration is fairly random. But would a baby or child regenerate into a young woman of Clara's age and then back into a child again?
Ok, the little girl in Day of The Moon doesn't seem to be surprised by her on coming regeneration, so could suggest she has done it before. But I took it that as a Time Lord (or part Time Lord) she had an innate knowledge of what regeneration is.
Anyway, bit long winded and kind of off track. I agree with you that I don't think Clara is River. I think Moffat would want to do something new with Clara.
The reason people think that there may be a regeneration between the Little Girl in New York and Mels is that there is a 20 plus year gap between the two events though Mels seemingly only ages 5 or 6 years if she was the incarnation that appeared in Day of the Moon.
So unless we are to conclude that Time Lord Children age very slowly for 20 years, then age at the same rate as humans for the next 10 years or so and then go back to aging very slowly there must be another explanation as to how Mels got from a Toddler in 1970 New York to a young child in 1990's Ledworth.
Not that I think Clara is River but like I said there is still something about Rivers early life that needs explaining.
Since his memories would be unaffected he would still remember the events of Asylum regardless of whether they are rewritten or not. Besides, if he could rewrite Asylum I expect he would probably want to. If he could find a way to prevent Clara from being turned into a Dalek in her far future (and he was allowed to interfere to change it) then I'm sure he'd want to. He's hardly going to worry about accidentally saving Clara from such a fate!
If he did rewrite histroy so Clara never ended up in the Asylum then corrected he would still remember her but then himself in a different timeline would never meet Clara and wouldn't know her
Anyone thought that Clara Oswin Osward might be a anagram for The Doctor's real name?
If he did rewrite histroy so Clara never ended up in the Asylum then corrected he would still remember her but then himself in a different timeline would never meet Clara and wouldn't know her
The point is, there is no other self in a different time line. He visited Asylum and met Clara. If he changes things so that Clara never goes to the Asylum he doesn't create a new alternate timeline Doctor. He just goes on as before still remembering when he met Clara in Asylum. No paradox, no fuss.
If he goes to a world which historically experienced a war but he averts that war he doesn't suddenly create a new Doctor in a new timeline who has no memory of the war ever happening. He still knows all about how history was originally supposed to play out even though nobody else does.
Even if he had previously had adventures in the future of that world after it had been ravaged by war he would still remember those adventures even though they, technically, could not have happened now.
The time war essentially removed all the other Time Lords from existence. Not just now but from all points in time throughout the universe. Theoretically, if there is no Gallifrey and never was, how can he exist? How can he remember the Time War at all if the Time Lords no longer exist to have participated in it?
He has to be immune to such things otherwise his memories and experience would be constantly changing. Every time he made a change to a timeline he would think that this was how it always was and not even realise he had changed it!
A Time Lord has to be the master of Time, not slaved to its whims
But Thrombin, that runs completely contrary to everything he's said. He's always been careful to point out that he can't change events that he's been a part of. Regardless of whether he remembers the altered timeline or not, the events of the revised timeline need to be at least a little bit consistent. Or at least, as consistent as things ever are in Doctor Who - changing the events of a few episodes ago have to be out, at least. That sort of thing is a major plot point, if it happens at all (like Rory's erasure).
For example, if he changes things so that Oswald never lands on the Asylum planet, she will be unable to erase his presence from the Dalek hive mind and take down the forcefield to let them escape. At the very least, the Daleks will still know who the Doctor is, which undoes something they've been clearly working hard on. But if they get blown up on the planet, then who was it who came to Oswald and stopped her from travelling to the Asylum planet in the first place?
It's not the butterfly accumulation of unpredictable effects that's the problem, it's the flat-out contradictions.
But Thrombin, that runs completely contrary to everything he's said. He's always been careful to point out that he can't change events that he's been a part of. Regardless of whether he remembers the altered timeline or not, the events of the revised timeline need to be at least a little bit consistent. Or at least, as consistent as things ever are in Doctor Who - changing the events of a few episodes ago have to be out, at least. That sort of thing is a major plot point, if it happens at all (like Rory's erasure).
For example, if he changes things so that Oswald never lands on the Asylum planet, she will be unable to erase his presence from the Dalek hive mind and take down the forcefield to let them escape. At the very least, the Daleks will still know who the Doctor is, which undoes something they've been clearly working hard on. But if they get blown up on the planet, then who was it who came to Oswald and stopped her from travelling to the Asylum planet in the first place?
It's not the butterfly accumulation of unpredictable effects that's the problem, it's the flat-out contradictions.
The Only reason the Doctor was taken to the Asylum by the Daleks was because Oswin was sending out her Music.
If the Doctor stops her going there in the first place he will not be taken there by the Daleks so in the altered Timeline the Asylum survives and the Daleks remember the Doctor but he and the Ponds would not be blown up.
What are the odds that Clara would be back home helping her dad in the pub instead of being a governess, then stepping out of the pub just as a Snowman is created AND The Doctor passes by?
What are the odds that Clara would be back home helping her dad in the pub instead of being a governess, then stepping out of the pub just as a Snowman is created AND The Doctor passes by?
Her Uncle.
And you could probably say the same for most companions first meeting with the Doctor.
The reason people think that there may be a regeneration between the Little Girl in New York and Mels is that there is a 20 plus year gap between the two events though Mels seemingly only ages 5 or 6 years if she was the incarnation that appeared in Day of the Moon.
So unless we are to conclude that Time Lord Children age very slowly for 20 years, then age at the same rate as humans for the next 10 years or so and then go back to aging very slowly there must be another explanation as to how Mels got from a Toddler in 1970 New York to a young child in 1990's Ledworth.
Not that I think Clara is River but like I said there is still something about Rivers early life that needs explaining.
Who knows about Time Lord aging within any one incarnation. Quite possibly Mels did age slowly over more than 20 years then age at the human rate. After all the First Doctor was hundreds of years old, but looked like a human man in his late 60s/70s.
Personally I take what I see and hear on screen as evidence, despite any inconsistencies. Mels says she hasn't regenerated since New York in 1969/70 so that's good enough for me.:-)
What are the odds that Clara would be back home helping her dad in the pub instead of being a governess, then stepping out of the pub just as a Snowman is created AND The Doctor passes by?
Indeed. On the other hand, he had been skulking around in the area for quite a while.
If the Doctor stops her going there in the first place he will not be taken there by the Daleks so in the altered Timeline the Asylum survives and the Daleks remember the Doctor but he and the Ponds would not be blown up.
Fair enough - even though the Doctor still knows about Clara, the change would have consequences on the rest of his life. I still say he should tread carefully!
But Thrombin, that runs completely contrary to everything he's said. He's always been careful to point out that he can't change events that he's been a part of. Regardless of whether he remembers the altered timeline or not, the events of the revised timeline need to be at least a little bit consistent. Or at least, as consistent as things ever are in Doctor Who - changing the events of a few episodes ago have to be out, at least. That sort of thing is a major plot point, if it happens at all (like Rory's erasure).
Hmm, fair point. Still, I think Time is more resilient than that. He'd have to deliberately set out to change things in order to change them. I don't think he needs to worry about accidentally messing things up, otherwise he'd be too paralysed with fear of consequences to go anywhere or do anything!
The way I see it, since the event has been established he can't accidentally change it from happening because his actions stem directly from the event happening. If the event happening caused him to accidentally stop it happening then it would never have happened in the first place
And you could probably say the same for most companions first meeting with the Doctor.
Except that this is the second encounter with Clara/Oswin and it looks like there will be at least a third encounter, if not more. This is highly unlikely to be coincidence and was planned by someone (and I don't just mean by the Moff). Some character/entity within the narrative.
Except that this is the second encounter with Clara/Oswin and it looks like there will be at least a third encounter, if not more. This is highly unlikely to be coincidence and was planned by someone (and I don't just mean by the Moff). Some character/entity within the narrative.
Presumably, whoever wrote "We shall meet again" on her gravestone!
Sometimes all this timey whimey science stuff gives me a headache.
For example we have Doctor saying at the end of LKH foreknowledge of future events can be dangerous. Then two episodes later TGWW he tells older Amy knowing the future can help you change it. Which is it ? it can't be both.Personally I think you should try and make the future better if you can.Otherwise what is the point of traveling through time trying to help people or add to their lives in the first place.
Sometimes all this timey whimey science stuff gives me a headache.
For example we have Doctor saying at the end of LKH foreknowledge of future events can be dangerous. Then two episodes later TGWW he tells older Amy knowing the future can help you change it. Which is it ? it can't be both.Personally I think you should try and make the future better if you can.Otherwise what is the point of traveling through time trying to help people or add to their lives in the first place.
Actually it can be both:
1. foreknowledge of the future can be dangerous
2. foreknowledge of the future allows you to change it
Having foreknowledge of the future is dangerous because it allows you to change it and changing the future is dangerous
Comments
The Doctor isn't generally affected by changing time streams. The TARDIS insulates him while he is in the Vortex. So, even if history changed to the point where he would never be able to meet Clara in Asylum he would still remember the encounter. Remember when Amy forgot Rory after he was removed from existence by the crack, the Doctor still remembered.
Generally time is pretty resilient to the Doctor's interference. If it weren't he'd be too afraid to do anything in case it potentially altered the future. I don't think the butterfly affect is a part of the Doctor Who theory of time travel!
It very much is, it's just conveniently ignored when an imaginative plot requires it. (See "A Christmas Carol".)
The standard get-out is that the Doctor is clever enough and in tune enough with Time that he knows what he can get away with changing without breaking anything. But in this case, we don't know if he knows what he's dealing with yet.
That's just one example. There have been numerous examples in past episodes, including the Classic ones. The Doctor has never been affected by changes to the time stream even when those around him have been.
Not at all. The butterfly affect basically suggests that the slightest change in the past will cause huge changes to the future. Simply stepping on a butterfly produces radical and unpredictable changes to the timeline. If that were the case, every time the Doctor went anywhere his very presence would completely rewrite the future history of that world.
Clearly that is not the case.
Time in Doctor Who is more elastic than that. It can withstand a lot of minor changes and still snap back into pretty much the same state further down the line.
I really don't see the issue. Both Clara's so far were totally self-contained in their own time periods with no memory of him or their previous existences (at least not initially).
I don't see anything he could do in search of another Clara that would make the slightest difference to any of the others.
If the Doctor, by poking around in various Oswald lives, makes it so that one version of her never goes aboard the spaceliner that crashes, how would he ever find out about her?
I had assumed you meant butterfly effect in the sense of a general example of time-changing wotsits, rather than being specific. Yes, the butterfly effect is dampened down - things can happen in different ways, but generally they happen (Waters of Mars). There have been clear examples of changes having huge side-effects, such as the Daleks (or possibly the Doctor himself) subverting the Great and Bountiful Human Empire, or Harriet Jones' golden age.
But again, even the butterfly effect produces timelines that are self-consistent. The Doctor changing his own actions produces a timeline that is completely paradoxical.
But equally we don't know the slightest thing about how the Claras relate to each other.
Yes, he's not allowed to change certain points in time but, my point is, if he does change things his memory of events does not change to match. As a Time Lord he is immune to that sort of thing. He is outside of Time and remembers all the events as they happened to him regardless of how events may now be different due to his (or others') interference.
I can't remember specifics but I've seen this time and again.
Since his memories would be unaffected he would still remember the events of Asylum regardless of whether they are rewritten or not. Besides, if he could rewrite Asylum I expect he would probably want to. If he could find a way to prevent Clara from being turned into a Dalek in her far future (and he was allowed to interfere to change it) then I'm sure he'd want to. He's hardly going to worry about accidentally saving Clara from such a fate!
Probably why Time Lords are immune to such things. Otherwise they'd all be walking paradoxes! Besides, doesn't the TARDIS have a built in Paradox inhibitor?
The reason people think that there may be a regeneration between the Little Girl in New York and Mels is that there is a 20 plus year gap between the two events though Mels seemingly only ages 5 or 6 years if she was the incarnation that appeared in Day of the Moon.
So unless we are to conclude that Time Lord Children age very slowly for 20 years, then age at the same rate as humans for the next 10 years or so and then go back to aging very slowly there must be another explanation as to how Mels got from a Toddler in 1970 New York to a young child in 1990's Ledworth.
Not that I think Clara is River but like I said there is still something about Rivers early life that needs explaining.
If he did rewrite histroy so Clara never ended up in the Asylum then corrected he would still remember her but then himself in a different timeline would never meet Clara and wouldn't know her
Anyone thought that Clara Oswin Osward might be a anagram for The Doctor's real name?
*shakes head sadly*
P.S. I doubt she's the bloody Rani either!
Romana 111 now
ax
The point is, there is no other self in a different time line. He visited Asylum and met Clara. If he changes things so that Clara never goes to the Asylum he doesn't create a new alternate timeline Doctor. He just goes on as before still remembering when he met Clara in Asylum. No paradox, no fuss.
If he goes to a world which historically experienced a war but he averts that war he doesn't suddenly create a new Doctor in a new timeline who has no memory of the war ever happening. He still knows all about how history was originally supposed to play out even though nobody else does.
Even if he had previously had adventures in the future of that world after it had been ravaged by war he would still remember those adventures even though they, technically, could not have happened now.
The time war essentially removed all the other Time Lords from existence. Not just now but from all points in time throughout the universe. Theoretically, if there is no Gallifrey and never was, how can he exist? How can he remember the Time War at all if the Time Lords no longer exist to have participated in it?
He has to be immune to such things otherwise his memories and experience would be constantly changing. Every time he made a change to a timeline he would think that this was how it always was and not even realise he had changed it!
A Time Lord has to be the master of Time, not slaved to its whims
For example, if he changes things so that Oswald never lands on the Asylum planet, she will be unable to erase his presence from the Dalek hive mind and take down the forcefield to let them escape. At the very least, the Daleks will still know who the Doctor is, which undoes something they've been clearly working hard on. But if they get blown up on the planet, then who was it who came to Oswald and stopped her from travelling to the Asylum planet in the first place?
It's not the butterfly accumulation of unpredictable effects that's the problem, it's the flat-out contradictions.
If the Doctor stops her going there in the first place he will not be taken there by the Daleks so in the altered Timeline the Asylum survives and the Daleks remember the Doctor but he and the Ponds would not be blown up.
Her Uncle.
And you could probably say the same for most companions first meeting with the Doctor.
Who knows about Time Lord aging within any one incarnation. Quite possibly Mels did age slowly over more than 20 years then age at the human rate. After all the First Doctor was hundreds of years old, but looked like a human man in his late 60s/70s.
Personally I take what I see and hear on screen as evidence, despite any inconsistencies. Mels says she hasn't regenerated since New York in 1969/70 so that's good enough for me.:-)
All other companions, except Donna, were random choices
And Rose
Fair enough - even though the Doctor still knows about Clara, the change would have consequences on the rest of his life. I still say he should tread carefully!
Hmm, fair point. Still, I think Time is more resilient than that. He'd have to deliberately set out to change things in order to change them. I don't think he needs to worry about accidentally messing things up, otherwise he'd be too paralysed with fear of consequences to go anywhere or do anything!
The way I see it, since the event has been established he can't accidentally change it from happening because his actions stem directly from the event happening. If the event happening caused him to accidentally stop it happening then it would never have happened in the first place
Except that this is the second encounter with Clara/Oswin and it looks like there will be at least a third encounter, if not more. This is highly unlikely to be coincidence and was planned by someone (and I don't just mean by the Moff). Some character/entity within the narrative.
Presumably, whoever wrote "We shall meet again" on her gravestone!
For example we have Doctor saying at the end of LKH foreknowledge of future events can be dangerous. Then two episodes later TGWW he tells older Amy knowing the future can help you change it. Which is it ? it can't be both.Personally I think you should try and make the future better if you can.Otherwise what is the point of traveling through time trying to help people or add to their lives in the first place.
Actually it can be both:
1. foreknowledge of the future can be dangerous
2. foreknowledge of the future allows you to change it
Having foreknowledge of the future is dangerous because it allows you to change it and changing the future is dangerous