No, that's not strictly true - he can visit them, but he can't risk changing the events that lead to their death. Like how River kept ending up in the Doctor's past (from her point of view), and had to be careful not to let on anything that would mess up the future she'd already lived through.
Well yeah I suppose so, but if the Doctor finds out that they die and he knows they didn't see him anymore aka the brigadier, then it truly is game over.
As regards the Doctor visiting old companions in the past after he knows they have died, but before they have actually died, I still don't understand why he can never see Amy and Rory again. I know he can't visit New York by Tardis but he could either fly there, sail there or use some other means of transport. In aditiion to that, why can't he visit them at some other point in their timeline, after all, there were periods of several months when they wern't with him as long as he doesnt reveal their future, surely there is no problem ? .
As regards the Doctor visiting old companions in the past after he knows they have died, but before they have actually died, I still don't understand why he can never see Amy and Rory again. I know he can't visit New York by Tardis but he could either fly there, sail there or use some other means of transport. In aditiion to that, why can't he visit them at some other point in their timeline, after all, there were periods of several months when they wern't with him as long as he doesnt reveal their future, surely there is no problem ? .
I've never understood this either. In fact, I believe I mentioned it at the time. Call it artistic license, I guess :rolleyes:
As regards the Doctor visiting old companions in the past after he knows they have died, but before they have actually died, I still don't understand why he can never see Amy and Rory again. I know he can't visit New York by Tardis but he could either fly there, sail there or use some other means of transport. In aditiion to that, why can't he visit them at some other point in their timeline, after all, there were periods of several months when they wern't with him as long as he doesnt reveal their future, surely there is no problem ? .
Remember that Amy sent him a note from some unspecified point in her life stating that she'd never seen him again after she was sent back. Which means he can't.
Remember that Amy sent him a note from some unspecified point in her life stating that she'd never seen him again after she was sent back. Which means he can't.
Which I find to be nonsense. She could have just lied in the note!
Which I find to be nonsense. She could have just lied in the note!
Of course she could. But the Doctor would have to be pretty sure that she was lying to risk it. Besides, if he can 'feel' which events can and can't be changed, he must have some intuition for whether or not this is one of them.
He certainly knows that they lived out their lives in America and never came back to the UK.
Of course she could. But the Doctor would have to be pretty sure that she was lying to risk it. Besides, if he can 'feel' which events can and can't be changed, he must have some intuition for whether or not this is one of them.
He certainly knows that they lived out their lives in America and never came back to the UK.
The way I see it, you can't just assume you can't change something just because you see something written down in a note or a history book. If you want to change it, just go back and change it and then make sure that the history book or note gets written the way you remember it. No paradox, no problem!
If he wants to visit Amy, all he has to do is visit her and tell her to write a note to him later which says she never saw him!
If it really was something he couldn't change then he wouldn't be able to anyway so where's the harm?
The way I see it, you can't just assume you can't change something just because you see something written down in a note or a history book. If you want to change it, just go back and change it and then make sure that the history book or note gets written the way you remember it. No paradox, no problem!
If he wants to visit Amy, all he has to do is visit her and tell her to write a note to him later which says she never saw him!
If it really was something he couldn't change then he wouldn't be able to anyway so where's the harm?
The Wedding of River Song shows that you can change fixed points, and do it easily as well in some cases. But it breaks the universe, which is a bit of a problem. Adding to that the fact that Amy and Rory's situation was a lot more complicated and involved time travel from every party concerned, you can see why the Doctor would probably not think:
"Well they've gone, but I can go back and get them, but that would risk stopping time itself, and to even do that I'd have to time travel through a city that I can't time travel through anymore, work my way around time-travelling Angels, and that's all assuming that Amy and Rory are even in New York, and I have no idea what year they're in... and Amy has also directly told me that I will never manage to do this... let's get started!"
The way I see it, you can't just assume you can't change something just because you see something written down in a note or a history book. If you want to change it, just go back and change it and then make sure that the history book or note gets written the way you remember it. No paradox, no problem!
If he wants to visit Amy, all he has to do is visit her and tell her to write a note to him later which says she never saw him!
If it really was something he couldn't change then he wouldn't be able to anyway so where's the harm?
But from what I understand the Doctor doesn't see these kind of hings from being written down in history books, but he sees them himself as a Time Lord who can see time and fied points in time in a different way than humans, in a way that we can't comprehend.
The way I see it, you can't just assume you can't change something just because you see something written down in a note or a history book. If you want to change it, just go back and change it and then make sure that the history book or note gets written the way you remember it. No paradox, no problem!
If he wants to visit Amy, all he has to do is visit her and tell her to write a note to him later which says she never saw him!
If it really was something he couldn't change then he wouldn't be able to anyway so where's the harm?
That might be how you see it. But that goes against the established rules in Doctor Who (as they stand). Unless something else is written that changes what we have been told in the episodes, then what you're saying won't work.
To be more technical, by going back and changing something that you've already had documented, then you don't return to the same time with the paradox fixed, it is a parallel universe created solely from that act of changing an established documented event. This has also been explored on screen.
That might be how you see it. But that goes against the established rules in Doctor Who (as they stand). Unless something else is written that changes what we have been told in the episodes, then what you're saying won't work.
That "established rule" was only established in that episode, though, wasn't it? What I'm saying is that I think it's a stupid rule with no foundation. What you see written down shouldn't be that relevant because people can write anything down, it isn't necessarily what happened.
Now if the Doctor thinks there's some fixed point in time that he can't interfere with, with respect to Amy and Rory then fair enough but I find the fact that it was written down to be a flimsy reason for thinking it's fixed. Particularly if we're just talking about a social visit as opposed to taking them back to their own time or something.
It seems to me that the whole notion of the written word fixing things was just a plot device for that episode to make Amy and Rory's departure more permanent. A plot device I don't hold with but we seem to be now lumbered with!
As regards the Doctor visiting old companions in the past after he knows they have died, but before they have actually died, I still don't understand why he can never see Amy and Rory again. I know he can't visit New York by Tardis but he could either fly there, sail there or use some other means of transport. In aditiion to that, why can't he visit them at some other point in their timeline, after all, there were periods of several months when they wern't with him as long as he doesnt reveal their future, surely there is no problem ? .
Probably he "can't" go back because of timey-wimey stuff, because Moffat couldn't think of a more plausible reason for not letting them all meet again. It's still not very plausible.:D
The Wedding of River Song shows that you can change fixed points, and do it easily as well in some cases. But it breaks the universe, which is a bit of a problem. Adding to that the fact that Amy and Rory's situation was a lot more complicated and involved time travel from every party concerned, you can see why the Doctor would probably not think:
"Well they've gone, but I can go back and get them, but that would risk stopping time itself, and to even do that I'd have to time travel through a city that I can't time travel through anymore, work my way around time-travelling Angels, and that's all assuming that Amy and Rory are even in New York, and I have no idea what year they're in... and Amy has also directly told me that I will never manage to do this... let's get started!"
...and would be more likely to think:
"Well, I guess I've lost them then".
It was only that particular place and time that he couldn't travel to. There's nothing that says he can't travel to a few years later or a few thousand miles away in the same time period and ring them on the phone.
Plus I thought there were no Angels in New York any more. The whole paradox thing destroyed them.
Probably he "can't" go back because of timey-wimey stuff, because Moffat couldn't think of a more plausible reason for not letting them all meet again. It's still not very plausible.:D
That "established rule" was only established in that episode, though, wasn't it? What I'm saying is that I think it's a stupid rule with no foundation. What you see written down shouldn't be that relevant because people can write anything down, it isn't necessarily what happened.
Now if the Doctor thinks there's some fixed point in time that he can't interfere with, with respect to Amy and Rory then fair enough but I find the fact that it was written down to be a flimsy reason for thinking it's fixed. Particularly if we're just talking about a social visit as opposed to taking them back to their own time or something.
It seems to me that the whole notion of the written word fixing things was just a plot device for that episode to make Amy and Rory's departure more permanent. A plot device I don't hold with but we seem to be now lumbered with!
The fact it was written down isn't the reason it's fixed. It is that the writing has an audience after the fact that means it's fixed. You are entirely correct - anyone could write anything down. But as the Doctor pointed out, it isn't a definite event until it is read - like Schroëdinger's Cat. Until observed, the situation hasn't yet been fixed.
It's a pretty sound rule, with a basis in theoretical physics. If you think it's abitrary, fair enough. But a lot of scientists would probably disagree with you.
The fact it was written down isn't the reason it's fixed. It is that the writing has an audience after the fact that means it's fixed. You are entirely correct - anyone could write anything down. But as the Doctor pointed out, it isn't a definite event until it is read - like Schroëdinger's Cat. Until observed, the situation hasn't yet been fixed.
It's a pretty sound rule, with a basis in theoretical physics. If you think it's abitrary, fair enough. But a lot of scientists would probably disagree with you.
I understand the concept of something becoming fixed in reality only after it is observed. My point is that the only thing that was observed was the fact that it was written down, not the fact that it happened.
It was observed that someone wrote a note saying something happened but the thing that was supposed to have happened was not observed. So I don't think there is any concept in physics that would be violated by the notion that, maybe, what was written wasn't actually what happened.
Otherwise you could just write down what you want to happen, send the note to the future and it would then become incontrovertible fact!
Comments
That was not the Doctor crying, it was clearly a woman. Probaby River.
...it's probably in the next time trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KDRG1TNbFUM
Doctor on a comfy chair - tears in his eyes.
There was a woman first (looked like Clara and not River to me though) and then the next shot was of the Doctor tearing up.
Well yeah I suppose so, but if the Doctor finds out that they die and he knows they didn't see him anymore aka the brigadier, then it truly is game over.
I've never understood this either. In fact, I believe I mentioned it at the time. Call it artistic license, I guess :rolleyes:
And visiting a house infested with Angels isn't exactly something the Doctor should walk into.
I guess at the end of the day the Doctor decided the best thing was to let it go.
Remember that Amy sent him a note from some unspecified point in her life stating that she'd never seen him again after she was sent back. Which means he can't.
Which I find to be nonsense. She could have just lied in the note!
Of course she could. But the Doctor would have to be pretty sure that she was lying to risk it. Besides, if he can 'feel' which events can and can't be changed, he must have some intuition for whether or not this is one of them.
He certainly knows that they lived out their lives in America and never came back to the UK.
The way I see it, you can't just assume you can't change something just because you see something written down in a note or a history book. If you want to change it, just go back and change it and then make sure that the history book or note gets written the way you remember it. No paradox, no problem!
If he wants to visit Amy, all he has to do is visit her and tell her to write a note to him later which says she never saw him!
If it really was something he couldn't change then he wouldn't be able to anyway so where's the harm?
The Wedding of River Song shows that you can change fixed points, and do it easily as well in some cases. But it breaks the universe, which is a bit of a problem. Adding to that the fact that Amy and Rory's situation was a lot more complicated and involved time travel from every party concerned, you can see why the Doctor would probably not think:
"Well they've gone, but I can go back and get them, but that would risk stopping time itself, and to even do that I'd have to time travel through a city that I can't time travel through anymore, work my way around time-travelling Angels, and that's all assuming that Amy and Rory are even in New York, and I have no idea what year they're in... and Amy has also directly told me that I will never manage to do this... let's get started!"
...and would be more likely to think:
"Well, I guess I've lost them then".
But from what I understand the Doctor doesn't see these kind of hings from being written down in history books, but he sees them himself as a Time Lord who can see time and fied points in time in a different way than humans, in a way that we can't comprehend.
That might be how you see it. But that goes against the established rules in Doctor Who (as they stand). Unless something else is written that changes what we have been told in the episodes, then what you're saying won't work.
To be more technical, by going back and changing something that you've already had documented, then you don't return to the same time with the paradox fixed, it is a parallel universe created solely from that act of changing an established documented event. This has also been explored on screen.
That "established rule" was only established in that episode, though, wasn't it? What I'm saying is that I think it's a stupid rule with no foundation. What you see written down shouldn't be that relevant because people can write anything down, it isn't necessarily what happened.
Now if the Doctor thinks there's some fixed point in time that he can't interfere with, with respect to Amy and Rory then fair enough but I find the fact that it was written down to be a flimsy reason for thinking it's fixed. Particularly if we're just talking about a social visit as opposed to taking them back to their own time or something.
It seems to me that the whole notion of the written word fixing things was just a plot device for that episode to make Amy and Rory's departure more permanent. A plot device I don't hold with but we seem to be now lumbered with!
Probably he "can't" go back because of timey-wimey stuff, because Moffat couldn't think of a more plausible reason for not letting them all meet again. It's still not very plausible.:D
It was only that particular place and time that he couldn't travel to. There's nothing that says he can't travel to a few years later or a few thousand miles away in the same time period and ring them on the phone.
Plus I thought there were no Angels in New York any more. The whole paradox thing destroyed them.
My thoughts exactly!
The fact it was written down isn't the reason it's fixed. It is that the writing has an audience after the fact that means it's fixed. You are entirely correct - anyone could write anything down. But as the Doctor pointed out, it isn't a definite event until it is read - like Schroëdinger's Cat. Until observed, the situation hasn't yet been fixed.
It's a pretty sound rule, with a basis in theoretical physics. If you think it's abitrary, fair enough. But a lot of scientists would probably disagree with you.
But even in fiction that's not true...
I understand the concept of something becoming fixed in reality only after it is observed. My point is that the only thing that was observed was the fact that it was written down, not the fact that it happened.
It was observed that someone wrote a note saying something happened but the thing that was supposed to have happened was not observed. So I don't think there is any concept in physics that would be violated by the notion that, maybe, what was written wasn't actually what happened.
Otherwise you could just write down what you want to happen, send the note to the future and it would then become incontrovertible fact!