Okay, time for one more Clara theory.

What if all three Claras are perfectly normal girls, and it's just outstanding coincidence that they each ended up almost identical?

I know, I know, but just stick with me here.

The major theme of Rings of Akhaten was possible outcomes, the massive improbability of the many, many events that have to come to pass in order for a given individual to be standing in a given place at a given time. In that scale of things, isn't it possible that in all of time and space, three individuals appeared that happened to have all these characteristics in common? Like an extreme form of convergent evolution.

Okay, maybe that's too much of a stretch on its own. Maybe somebody has been tweaking the probabilities here and there. Any classic Who enemies have the ability to manipulate the probability of random events?


I guess what I'm saying is, maybe there is no genetic manipulation, no cloning, no robots, no chronological shattering, no genetic spatial multiplicity. The mystery of Clare is that it's all just a coincidence.

I have a limited knowledge of Biology but what you are saying is impossible in my opinion.

I like it. It's much more logical and plausible than some of the 'magical' resolutions to story arcs in recent years.

It isn't technically impossible. In an infinite universe, anything is 'technically' possible and indeed almost guaranteed given enough time - including a random mutation of DNA so that three individuals can end up being 'in essence' the same - but the odds are so infinitesimally small for it to be impossible in all practical sense of the word.

For example advocates of an infinite universe say that eventually enough time will pass that a chimpanzee randomly hitting keys on a typewriter could ultimately rattle off the complete works of Shakespeare. Technically this is possible, but the odds are so ludicrous that it would take far, far more time than the current age of the universe - in fact, the heat-death of the universe is likely to occur first, the odds are so extreme.

Same principle stands here. While technically possible, the odds of three people being exactly the same, with the same name, and existing within an extremely narrow window of space/time (a few hundreds years apart on the 'same' planet/galaxy) in an infinite universe, is so extreme as to be impossible in any day-to-day sense of the word.

I suppose, technically, in an infinite universe there is a 100% chance that there could be an alien out there identical in every way to someone who is on Earth, but they'd also likely have to be an infinite distance away. The odds of it happening three times on the same world when there is infinite space for this happenstance to occur, simply pushes credulity too far.

It's a nice theory but would stretch even a lay-man's credulity to breaking point - can't imagine the audience would buy it.

PS - Wow, I think I may have gone off on a wee tangent there

Clara is ordinary, it's The Doctor that is quite extraordinary.


If there were three Claras for three Doctors but only one River, where is the Rose?

I rather like this idea.
Leaving aside the mathematics of how incredibly improbable this is, I love the idea that the Doctor has become so monumentally obsessed with finding a connection that he's overlooked the fact that there is no connection whatsoever, and the only connection between all three Claras is the one that Doctor has himself made.

I can see how this would appeal to Moffat too - getting not only the Doctor all worked up over this apparent mystery, but also making the fans come up with ever more complex and convoluted theories as to how this all fits together... when in fact, it doesn't, it really doesn't at all.

Sadly, I doubt that this is the real background to Clara, and the real story will be something timey wimey and faintly irritating. I'm sure it will be quite clever, but probably not as much fun as half of the mad theories that we've been coming up with over the past few months.

Its more than just DNA, you need the same DNA and the same environment especially during early development. I doubt that the same combination can happen more than once no matter how much time you have it cannot happen.

I agree. Essentially, that's what I was saying. It is 'technically' possible in an infinite universe, but you'd need so much time to have passed before the 'one in a .............' chance actually came to pass that the heat-death of the universe would likely come and go long before the odds paid off. I probably went off on too much of a tangent, but that was what I was trying to get at with the chimpanzee/Shakespeare reference.... I think (although I may just have been tying myself up in knots)

What you doubt is that the same combination would happen. It obviously can happen.

Similarly, a completely fair coin could land on heads a thousand times in a row. However if you try it, it probably won't.

There's no such thing as 'cannot happen'. The Doctor's given speeches about 'miracles' before, things that shouldn't be possible.

I think the phrase we're all looking for is 'infinite improbability'.

Still, I like the idea of someone (the GI?) pulling the strings on a probabilistic level, pruning the branches of events so that things happen one way. This sort of thing was hinted at in Journey's End, with Caan claiming that he'd manipulated events to create a particular outcome, but without explaining how exactly he went about doing that.

There's no such thing as 'cannot happen'. The Doctor's given speeches about 'miracles' before, things that shouldn't be possible.

I think the phrase we're all looking for is 'infinite improbability'.

Still, I like the idea of someone (the GI?) pulling the strings on a probabilistic level, pruning the branches of events so that things happen one way. This sort of thing was hinted at in Journey's End, with Caan claiming that he'd manipulated events to create a particular outcome, but without explaining how exactly he went about doing that.

Hey Johnny, the same post but at different times.

My mind did run to Zaphod when I was thinking of the probabilities.

That is not the same, you say it obviously can happen but you give no description on how it can happen. Instead you talk about basic probability experiments and assume they are the same it is not. How can someone in the Victorian era have the same upbringing as someone in the late twentieth century?

But it would take several coincidences.

The coincidence that they look the same, have the same name, are the same weight (or appear to), speak the same, that all of them came across the Doctor, two of them died when he was involved etc etc.

There is such as thing as cannot happen. A very basic example is the event of two mutually exclusive events happening together. Also I am very aware of the uncertainty principle and the existence of very rare events. However it is impossible to have exactly the same upbringing in the late twentieth century as someone had in the Victorian era never mind the probability of having exactly the same DNA and the person in the future also having the same upbringing.

The programme has explicitly stated that their upbringing was not the same — one is amazing at science, one knows nothing about computers — and you've plucked from thin air the idea that nurture is the sole factor in personality.

Summary of your argument: "if I can't think of a way, it must be impossible"

The original comment was about nearly identical. In order for that to happen you must have virtually the same DNA and a very similar upbringing. It is very basic science, you can have identical twins ending up as very different people.

If you take some time to read into it, you'll find that nature versus nature is entirely unsettled. There's a spectrum of opinion and probably no objective answer — it's easy to imagine that some traits are innate rather than learnt and that which traits are innate varies.

From "well, identical DNA isn't sufficient" it does not follow that "therefore, nurture must be identical for people to behave in the same way".

The Pullitzer was awarded for a work on nature versus nurture as recently as 2009 with the usual equivocal answer. Everyone's going to feel pretty foolish that you've come up with a definitive answer.

That doesn't change anything though from the looks of it the debate is about which of those is more important. In fact it proves my point that both DNA and upbringing is important It doesn't say if you have a different upbringing you will have a virtually identical human being if they have the same DNA.

It doesn't say that and nobody here has said that.

Yes they have don't lie, why else did you respond to my comment essentially saying that attempting to prove me wrong when all your comment does is prove me right? It is impossible to have the same upbringing for all three Clara's therefore it is impossible they are virtually identical.

I suggest you read up on false dichotomies; you might also try thinking a little harder about what's been said here today. Civility lessons wouldn't go amiss either.

Your current position is: either people must have exactly the same upbringing to be identical or it is true that identical DNA negates upbringing as a factor.

Well that is the end of me replying to you. First of all you are making personal comments about me without knowing anything about me.

Second of all you haven't read a word I said. I never said what you are claiming. People must grow up in the same environment to be identical. Like I said it is basic science, yes scientists may argue over its importance but it doesn't mean environment and upbringing has no influence.

Why?

Different forms of upbringing can bring about similarities that on the face of it seem identical.

We know little more about Oswin and Victorian Clara than what she looks like, and how she acts.

If you delved deeper, there would obviously be differences - we already know there are between the three of them. Your argument is in no way conclusive.