Howling:If the doctor never existed...

when the doctor was errased in the big bang (tbb), how could there still be a universe for amy to live in to remember the doctor back into existance, since if he didn't timelock the last great time war (lgtw) then rassilon would have destroyed the universe, amoung other things the doctor will never have saved the universe from? Imamadmad talk to me 06:43, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Same reason Amy can still exist even though her parents never existed-when the cracks erase somebody, they don't erase that person's impact on the universe. If it did, then the Time Lords destroying the universe wouldn't be a huge problem. Look at Turn Left and see what the effect is on one planet, when the Doctor's only been dead for two seasons. Now, imagine if he was never born. His impact throughout history remained intact, even though he never existed. Just how that works is anybody's guess.Icecreamdif talk to me 06:52, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

It's arguable that, if the cracks had erased the Doctor's impact on the universe, they'd have erased themselves. Without the Doctor, no Doctor's TARDIS to explode, therefore no cracks caused by the explosion -- and, also, the universe wouldn't have been destroyed by the explosion. --89.240.241.19 14:08, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

What Doctor's impact? There have always been cracks in space. Boblipton talk to me 15:04, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

No there haven't. They only showed up in season 5. They were caused by the TARDIS explosion. The cracks may not have existed without the Doctor's impact, but the universe would have been destroyed by the reality bomb, or Rassilon, or whatever was supposed to be happening in Logopolis, and the Earth would have been destroyed about a thousand times. Still, we know that the cracks do not erase people's impact on the universe, because Amy still exists without her parents, because the Byzantium still crashed without the Angels, and because the clerics weren't replaced with other clerics when they went through the cracks.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:34, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Icecreamdif: All correct. Without the Doctor's impact, the universe would have been destroyed by something else, but not by the cracks. The (limited) point I was making above was that the cracks couldn't erase the Doctor's impact without causing a paradox, because they were part of his impact. If they'd erased the impact of those whose existence they erased, they couldn't have erased the Doctor at all. --2.101.58.9 (formerly 89.240.241.19) 21:22, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

And my point is what Doctor? He never existed. Just because we haven't figured out how all these things happened doesn't mean they don't have a logical explanation. Given any set of facts you can come up with a logical system to explain them. Boblipton talk to me 01:46, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

So then where did Amy come from? What caused the Byzantium to crash? Why was Amy left alone with no clerics guarding her? These things don't have logical explanations, because there cause was ripped out of existance. The effect of these causes, however, was not removed. After the explosion, the universe seems to have given up on logic altogether, with all the countless paradoxes involved in the ever shrinking history. If Earth is the only thing in the universe, then where did it come from? Why build a museum if there's nothing to put in it. If little Amelia never existed, then where did Amy come from. We know how these things happenned-they happenned due to the effects of people and events that never existed. This is very paradoxical, and it leaves open a lot of questions, such as what would happen if, pre Big Bang 2, the Doctor travelled to the date of Amy's birth? Would she just magically appear out of nowhere? When the cracks are involved, there is no logic behind anything.Icecreamdif talk to me 06:15, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

There would be a universe in which some children exist without ever having had parents. There wouldn't be many of them, likely, but they would exist. People would debate whether spontaneously generated children was proof that God exists, laws would be passed to deal with the legal issues of citizenship and guardianship and Cyril Burt would produce enormous numbers of studies about their development which fifty years later would turn out to be bogus. Boblipton talk to me 12:38, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

Not really. History doesn't change when somebody is erased, except for the obvious effect of removing that person, so there wouldn't be a new history where people had always wondered where it came from. Just look at Amy. It didn't even occur to her that it was weird that she didn't have parents until the Doctor pointed it out. We haven't seen much of her aunt Sharon, but it doesn't seem like she was concerned about the fact that she had a niece but didn't have any siblings. We know that Amy was sent to several psychiatrists, and none of them seem to have noticed that Amy somehow didn't have any parents. Apparently one of the effects of the cracks is that people don't notice these obvious indescrepencies. Icecreamdif talk to me 19:08, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

It goes beyond not noticing the discrepancies. To judge from Amy's conversation with the last surviving cleric in the forest on the Byzantium, they resist having the oddities pointed out to them. Aunt Sharon's reaction (in the dying universe) to Amelia's painting of stars wasn't to shrug it off as a child's imagination; she was seriously worried by it and acted as if a belief in stars were somehow harmful -- she was, in fact, actively hostile to the idea. --89.241.66.33 23:46, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

Well Aunt Sharon's reaction may not be a reaction to the cracks. She sent Amelia to a few therapists because of her "imaginary friend", but the Doctor was never sucked into a crack. Aunt Sharon is worried in general about Amelia's overactive imagination, and adding to that the fact that star believers were considered to be angry cultists, you can understand why Aunt Sharon was worrried even without intervention from the cracks. You are right about Amy's conversation with the clerics though. They do resist having information poined out to them.Icecreamdif talk to me 01:25, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

"star believers were considered to be angry cultists": Exactly so. Why? The point is that it wasn't only Aunt Sharon, it was general. Believers in (say) the Flower Faries are regarded with pity/derision but not with hostility, so why were believers in stars regarded with hostility? My guess (and it is only a guess) is that talk of stars made most people slightly uncomfortable -- they didn't want to go there, just as the clerics didn't want to go where Amy's information would have led them. --89.241.77.97 21:24, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I think about things like how Amy can still exist without parents, how the Byzantium can still crash, how the Doctor still avoided being shot by the Silurian at the end of THE/CB, the simplest explanation to me is that everything absorbed by the Cracks always exists UP UNTIL THE MOMENT A CRACK APPEARS AND EATS IT; the sequence of events prior to that moment is unchanged, as is evident from stuff like Amy's continued existence, etc. A lot of people seem to think that once eaten by the Crack, things LITERALLY never existed at any point in the timeline, but that would be like trying to build a house from the roof downwards - it just doesn't work, and doesn't make any sense. If that is the case, then you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to make the current scenario consistent with how it was before the Cracks showed up, which IMO makes it even more convoluted. Of course, there are still things like the Doctor specifically saying that every star will supernova at every moment in history if the TARDIS blows up in TPO, but maybe he just meant every moment in history in the future of where and when he and the Alliance currently were in that episode....maybe, I don't know. Why do people forget the things absorbed by the Crack afterwards? I don't know; perhaps it's linked somehow to the Silent's natural ability to cloud people's memories of them when they're not directly observing them, or perhaps it's just how the Cracks work. I realise my ideas aren't particularly popular, and no doubt a number of people will probably poo-poo them. But I'm a naturally logical person, and so like things to have logical explanations. Besides, it's inconsistent with how paradoxes work elsewhere in the mythos: When Rose Tyler saves her father's life in FD and distorts the timestream, the Reapers manifest to sterilise the breakdown. And when River Song doesn't kill the Doctor when she's supposed to in TWORS, all of history breaks down into a chaotic jumble. Thanks for reading. 82.2.136.93 15:08, November 5, 2011 (UTC) That's because it was stated, repeatedly, that things that were swallowed by the cracks never existed. We even see directly this is the case in The Big Bang, remember the cracks are pre/after-shock to the TARDIS exploding, and at the moment it does explode it erases most of the universe from ever existing like the cracks did it was the source of the cracks. Also I've mentioned before comparing the workings of the cracks to other paradoxes in the series is mostly useless because you have to look at circumstances: When Rose summoned the Reapers that was because of a simple paradox and the universe being slightly damaged, like cutting a finger. When the TARDIS exploded it was more like being hit by a truck, the universe was being blown away, all of it, regardless of position on the timeline because everything ever was ceasing to have ever existed in the first place. This is how we know the cracks do what it is said they do because they are part of that explosion. The Light6 talk to me 02:35, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * "A lot of people seem to think that once eaten by the Crack, things LITERALLY never existed at any point in the timeline"


 * But then you have to jump through hoops to explain how, if the Weeping Angels never existed, the Byzantium still crashed. How the Doctor survived getting shot at if Rory never existed. If Amy's parents never existed, where did Amy come from? If the Cyberarmy in AOG/DD never existed (as can be inferred from recent episodes), how did Torchwood 1 still fall? If the Dalek army in TSE/JE never existed, how did Harriet Jones die, and how did Donna end up being half-Time Lord? Etc, etc. 82.2.136.93 10:58, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you do, but those are the same loops you have to jump through to explain how anything in The Big Bang happened. Remember after the TARDIS exploded nothing had ever happened ever, except for the rapidly erasing history of Earth. If no stars ever existed, how did all the Hydrogen become the heavier atoms needed to form earth and the life that in habits it? Many alien races over the history of the show have been shown to have important parts in the history of earth and humanity, how was humanity still close to where it was in The Big Bang if none of those races ever existed? Here's the thing, as appealing as it is try to hop around the issue to avoid the hoops, the fact is that they are there and the only way to explain it is to hop through those hoops. The Light6 talk to me 11:45, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think what 82 is trying to argue is that the stars and hydrogen and everything else still existed before 101 CE, but it was after that point that every moment in history ceased to exist. I suppose that could explain where the legends of stars came from, but that theory also goes against every line of dialogue that has ever been utterred about the cracks. For one thing, that would mean that the Doctor co;uld use his vortex manipulator to travel to the year 100, and everything would be fine. THe implication of the episode was clearly that there was no universe anywhere or anywhen. The Doctor always says that people will have never existed, so when people are sucked up by the cracks they never existed. Simple as that.Icecreamdif talk to me 19:17, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well in that case, when it comes to stuff like Amy's continued existence without ever having had any parents, the Byzantium still crashing, the existence of CyberLisa in TW Cyberwoman, and what killed Harriet Jones, etc, etc....there is no rational explanation. They just happen, even though they make absolutely no sense as the things which cause them never exist. It just bugs me. 82.2.136.93 16:58, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

It just bugs a lot of people. The existence of this discussion is evidence of that! --2.101.57.89 22:21, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

It bugs me that I don't understand everything about everything. It makes me feel less than omniscient. But I'm starting to come to terms with it. Boblipton talk to me 22:32, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

It's probably beyond human understanding. None of us have the same natural understanding of time as the Time Lords.Icecreamdif talk to me 22:55, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

There's no way to rationalise what happens with the Cracks because the writers didn't really think that far ahead when they first came up with the concept. They just thought it sounded cool, and so did it. They probably didn't reckon on people such as myself noticing the inherant flaws in their storylines. As a result, we have a totally stupid concept that cannot be resolved. 194.168.208.42 15:30, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

194.168.208.42: It must be expensive having to have doorways widened so you can get your head through them. --78.146.182.86 22:33, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Well, first let's ignore the flaws within Series 4, since the entire series 4 is showing time in the process of being erased and the reprecussions/reactions have not gone in effect. Now the question is things like Byzantium and Cybermen invasions, we know that Byzantium still crashed but we don't know if the weeping angels were still erased in the new timeline, and we don't know if the Cybermen invasions are still erased either. I would be hesitant to say that there are flaws but more like we are uncertain about what happened and what didn't. --222.166.181.35 23:38, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

i agree that the timey wimeyness of the cracks might not have been thought about as much as we would have liked, but they suited the narative purpose at the time and i doubt the writers were expecting us fans to analyse them as much as we have. however, i dissagree with 194 that "They just thought it sounded cool, and so did it". they put the cracks in to suit a specific narative purpose: to return modern day earth in the whoniverse to a state in which it is more like modern day earth in our universe, as well as provide a theme to arch through the series similar to bad wolf, torchwood and mr saxon, only less subtle. the aim was well thought out, only the path to get to that aim could have been better thought through and/or explained better. however, now the writers are facing the consequences of that badly defined path with us posing questons like that which is the topic of our conversation. so, basically, i think the cracks were ok at the time, but now that the confusion has been revealed, the writers should include something to further explain and clarify the way and extent of the way the cracks erase objects or events from time itself while leaving there consequences. Imamadmad talk to me 23:57, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Imamadmad. 82.2.136.93 10:57, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

So do I -- and since the writers have been consistent about the effects of the cracks (consequences persist, etc.), they only have one set of effects to explain. --89.240.248.158 13:42, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

The Angels in TTOA/F&S were still erased, otherwise they would've killed the Doctor, Amy and River. Honestly, the whole thing is a monstrous pile of nonsense. Trying to get rid of all those alien attacks from Series 1 to 4 like this was a bad idea, because too many stories from those series were dependant on them. Without the Racnoss, how did Donna meet the Doctor? Without the Judoon, how did Martha meet the Doctor? Without the Cybermen, how did Rose get trapped in a parallel universe and Ianto's girlfriend Lisa get Cyberised? Without the Daleks, how did Donna become half-Time Lord and how did Mickey end up back on his own Earth? If the best explanation the writers can come up with is "Consequences still remain", I'm sorry, but that's a pretty poor explanation. 82.2.136.93 10:48, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

82.2.136.93, 'If the best explanation the writers can come up with is "Consequences still remain", I'm sorry, but that's a pretty poor explanation': It would be a poor explanation if it were an explanation but it isn't -- from an in-universe point of view, it's an effect that has not (yet) been explained. No definitive full explanation has been given, so far. Not too long ago, the notion that electrons (say) could behave sometimes as particles and sometimes as waves was regarded as "a monstrous pile of nonsense". Despite that, the machines we're using to conduct this discussion only work because the damned things do behave that way! I grant you that the writers have given themselves a difficult task in devising a satisfactory full explanation of the phenomena they've presented to us and I hope that the eventual explanation will (a) be devised with rather less delay than quantum theory was and (b) be somewhat easier to understand. Nevertheless, you ought to bear in mind that "I don't understand how it can be that way" is not the same as "It cannot be that way". If you dislike the situation the writers have created, that's fair enough -- and you're far from alone in disliking it. Please try, though, not to confuse a description of what happens, which "consequences still remain" is, with an explanation of what happens, which "consequences still remain" is not and is not intended to be. --78.146.181.237 14:30, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Boblipton talk to me 14:39, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with most people here and think that Steven Moffat is terrible with this new time-can-be-rewritten system he created. This is most evidenced in A Christmas Carol which I think makes no sense whatsoever seeing how Moffat made it explicit that the Doctor made Kazran the bitter man he is yet also showing a version of Kazran without the history with the Doctor also being the bitter man he is.

However, I believe a plausible explanation for the original question -- and I doubt it is the intention of Moffat -- is that a timeline is a tightly knitted system with each point building on another. Let's call the pre-Big Bang timeline Pt and the post-Big Bang timeline Pst. Assume the Pt is deleted and erased completely by the cracks. A point, Amy Pond, from Pt is copied or moved to Pst, and because of the existence of Amy Pond on Pst, the people associated with this state of Amy Pond must also exist on Pst, thus we have her parents and Rory and other people who shaped her and in turn, the people who shaped these people, and eventually the formation of Earth and Racnoss, and the other aliens associated with Racnoss and so on and so forth, and also the consequences of these, but the catch is only those that are related to the existence would be a part of the timeline, and certain details from Pt may be missed without affecting Pst. For whatever odd reason, the Doctor, which is so crucial to Amy's development since childhood, is not crucial in the timeline, however if Amy remembers him (not imagines him, but remembers him) then his existence would be undeniable.

The problem is of course why the Doctor is not crucial to Pst. There are some possible clues which does not fully resolve the issue:


 * 1) most of the adventures with Amy can be effectively nullified because the time from the Doctor's third visit to Amy's wedding is either one night or even shorter or even none. elimination of the Doctor's third visit has very little effect on Amy's timeline


 * 1) The Doctor appeared to Amy after the cracks appear and Amy's parents are erased and thus the Doctor's existence contradicts with her parents' existence. So if Amy doesn't remember or doesn't believe to remember the Doctor, a natural uncontradicting timeline would exclude him.
 * 2) To Amy, everything concerning the cracks have to do with the Doctor, thus no cracks, no Doctor.

--222.166.181.192 19:31, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I've always felt that chucking out so many elements of the past few series is deteriorating to the characters' backstories. It's like having a 100 page book and then ripping out the first 50 pages, and then reading it expecting everything to make sense. It simply doesn't work. 82.2.136.93 19:16, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

"It would be a poor explanation if it were an explanation but is isn't - it's an effect that has not (yet) been explained." Somehow, I can't see the writers explaining this conundrum any time in the foreseeable future, can you? It's most likely going to remain a huge narrative nightmare. 82.2.136.93 19:21, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, 82, that's just how Roger Zelazny turned out all those classic novellas. Left all the backstory alone and told what was happening at the moment. Boblipton talk to me 19:25, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Except they haven't left the backstories alone. They're ripped big chunks of them out so that their lives don't make sense. Now Ianto's girlfriend is Cyberised for no reason, Harriet Jones dies for no reason, and the Byzantium crashed for no reason. This is not good story-telling. 82.2.136.93 22:03, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, 82, these things didn't happen for no reason. We, the audience, were told what the reasons were. We have also been told why, to some characters within the story, these things might seem to have no reasons. It's the characters' pasts that have been affected, not ours. You're right, however, that there's a (potential) problem with the backstories -- it's just not that problem. The golden anniversary is only 2 years away. It's very likely that recent (i.e., revived series) former companions will return and that means the writer(s) involved will need to know what those characters' backstories now are, so far as the characters themselves know. --89.241.76.22 22:43, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

i think of the cracks this way if you were to write out a essay in pencil and then i came along with a rubber and rubbed out the intro or any part it would not make much sense just as the cracks dont make any sense (e.g. hello how are you my name is whooligist i live on skaro and so am likey to die soon becomes hello i whooligist i live to die soon) this sentense makes a sort of sense but seems a bit odd and that is probably what it was like with the cracks or its like saying "hitler was bad becuse he did stuff....." it just does not fit and that is the whole point the silence are a bunch of strange beins that are kinda like suicidal bombers and must find it funny but bake to the main question if the docter never existed time would compencate for instace the duck pond with no ducks why? becuse time just contiues as it would of forgeting those details (e.g. this is a duck pond becuse it has ... in it or the daleks got blown up becuse ... did it or iantos girlfriend is cyberised becuse ....) these thing just happen and yet enother example j.k rowling erased but harry potter still writen but with no writer "harry potter and the deathly hallows by ...." now you guys are probably sick of my examples so i will shut up and see what you think Whooligist talk to me 22:55, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Despite the catastrophic spelling, I think I follow what you're saying and, to the characters within the story, it must be rather like that. To the audience (us), it isn't. We know there were reasons for the events and we know what the reasons were. We also know why the characters don't know the reasons. The logic is defensible, as I've said (or tried to say) above. On the other hand, Steven Moffat is only justified in revising the backstory as he has if he gives us really good stories which depend on the revisions -- stories he couldn't otherwise tell. So far, I don't think he has. Series 5 was about how the revisions happened and was pretty good. Series 6, however, did not give us any stories that needed those revisions. Everything in Series 6 would have worked more-or-less the same if there had never been any cracks and the universe had never been rebooted. Series 6 was also a curate's egg -- good in parts. What it was not was a sufficient reward to the audience for the mental gymnastics involved in following how we got where we did get. Russell T. Davies made a very drastic change from the 20th-century run of the show by getting rid of the Time Lords and Gallifrey. He also gave us some superb stories that depended directly upon that change, as well as showing us in more low-key ways how it had affected the Doctor. He made a big change and then used that change well. To date, Steven Moffat has made a big change and then not really used it at all. I don't quarrel with the logic of the change or with how it was presented in Series 5; I do quarrel with the failure to capitalise on it. --89.241.76.22 00:06, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with any particular statement you have made -- chacun a son gout -- I think that Moffatt has made the changes known gradually rather than all at once to ease us into this new Whoniverse. He believes -- as do I -- that the Doctor needs a bit of mystery to keep the backstory interesting, and this new universe is interesting. Notice how Davies spent season one revealing the Doctor to us, including the final mystery when the Ninth Doctor regenerates; only the question of the details of the Doctor's motives for destroyin Gallfrey were left for his last story. With that, everything is gone and a reset was needed. Although there are undeniably issues for the fanatic -- and all of us here are fanatics -- in terms of continuity -- after all, we've spent a lot of time and effort understanding what was going on and it feels frustrating to be plunged back into the darkness -- the Doctor, after two seasons of Moffat's helming, is again a madman in a box with only hints to keep us interesting. It's hard on us, admittedly, but the show needs the madman in the box with the occasional revelation.... and that's what we've got. Would a clean reboot have been any more acceptable? I think not. This is a compromise. Like all compromises, it really satisfies no one, but it is necessary. Boblipton talk to me 02:44, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I did say "So far" and "To date". I recognise that Moffat may (and I hope he will) capitalise on the reboot eventually; I just wish he'd already started doing so. It is too soon to say with any certainty that he's taken a wrong turn but, unfortunately, we can't yet say with any certainty that he hasn't. I suppose my message to him would be: "Judgement suspended -- but please get a move on!" -- (formerly 89.241.76.22) 89.240.255.181 08:55, November 29, 2011 (UTC)