Fringe is building to something good (spoilers)

[jazzyJack]

I finally had a chance to catch up with last week's post-Etta episode. The Observers' Borg-like nature could have been inserted into the show's continuity in any season. But I feel that saving the reveal for the last few episodes was nicely timed.

And having Peter desperately experiment on himself was entirely consistent with the behaviors Walter has often displayed. The experiment has to go wrong, but I hope it won't be in the now-cliched manner of Peter-loses-his-humanity-and-becomes-what-he-started-out-fighting. Peter becoming the "first Observer" would also be a tired development.

Still, the emotional core of the story remains strong.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Yeah, that was very Walter-like. I would predict that he becomes
the first Observer.

[David Barnett]

In article <k7h0l1$pij$1...@news.albasani.net>,
a...@chinet.com says...

I never thought of that either.

--
David Barnett

[Adam H. Kerman]

See, if Peter becomes Walter, he's got to break things. The mere act of
not inserting future tech into his brain would have made the Observers vanish.

This, of course, cannot be reconciled with how Peter was the key point
of the story based on Walter kidnapping him from the alternate universe
out of grief for the death of his own son.

[suzeeq]

Peter's important to the whole thing. By saving him as a boy, it threw a
monkey wrench in the Observers plans to take over earth. That's why
they've been trying to get rid of him - he's the key to their demise.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Well, yeah, but that happened to be due to the Machine that just happened
to be created to work with his body and no one else's, still yet to
be explained in a way that doesn't give me a headache.

I just can't see anything good coming from making use of future tech.
On this show, nothing good comes from things like this.

[suzeeq]

We've gone beyond that; The Machine was for saving the two universes
anyway, not destroying the Observers.

[Adam H. Kerman]

You don't see Peter's created a paradox?

I haven't seen "Through the Looking Glass and What Walter Found There",
so these comments apply to the previous episode. I'd ask anyone commenting
on the later episode to start an unrelated thread.

[suzeeq]

I wasn't commenting about any particular episode really. Peter's created
a paradox where? Last season or this one? Last season he disappeared
from both universes and didn't exist, so he couldn't have met himself
anywhere when he came back from between them or wherever he was. This
year, hard to say yet.

[Adam H. Kerman]

What do you think learning to use and then to recreate future tech is?
That makes Peter the creator of the technology that gives The Observers
their magical powers, tech he couldn't have created if he hadn't taken
it from a corpse.

[suzeeq]

That's a paradox?

[Adam H. Kerman]

The technology has no point of origin.

[suzeeq]

Hmmmm, will have to think on that. I always thought paradox was that a
person couldn't be in the same place at the same time.

[David Johnston]

On 11/10/2012 7:51 PM, suzeeq wrote:

>>> That's a paradox?
>>
>> The technology has no point of origin.
>
> Hmmmm, will have to think on that. I always thought paradox was that a
> person couldn't be in the same place at the same time.

Nope. That's only a paradox if the future self doesn't behave exactly
the way the past self remembers seeing him behave.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k7n3ri$8va$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>

I'm always in the same place at the same time!

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[Mason Barge]

I gotcha' beat! I'm sometimes in the same place at different times.

[William December Starr]

In article <k7n19p$7sd$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Yeah, but: is that a problem?

(Note: I don't mean that in a snarky way.)

-- wds

[suzeeq]

I meant two of oneself in the same place... silly boy.

[David Barnett]

In article <k7mqro$vhp$6...@news.albasani.net>,
a...@chinet.com says...

That doesn't make sense to me.
He takes tech from the future, presumably invented by
someone. which makes him the inventor of the tech?
Circular.

--
David Barnett

[David Barnett]

In article <k7n19p$7sd$1...@news.albasani.net>,
a...@chinet.com says...

The same could be said of God, or if you prefer the
Universe.

--
David Barnett

[David Barnett]

In article <k7n6t1$m9i$1...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net
says...

That is headache inducing.

--
David Barnett

[David Johnston]

It makes it a causeless effect. Strictly speaking that isn't a paradox.
A paradox is when something is self-contradicting. A thing that
happens for no reason isn't self-contradicting, but it does violate the
widespread expectation that every effect shall have a cause.

[David Barnett]

In article <k7p8tn$udo$1...@dont-email.me>, su...@imbris.com
says...

He's just trying to be funny.
Succeeds most of the time.

--
David Barnett

[David Johnston]

Well, you know. Paradox.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <MPG.2b0ad9d28...@news.bigpond.com>,

LOL, burn!

[Adam H. Kerman]

It's Peter. He stuck it in his own brain to learn how to use it. He's
reverse engineered plenty of tech on this show before. I'm assuming this
won't be an exception, although if it is, it'll be out of character.

Yeah. He'll "invent" it.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:06:14 -0700:

I'm usually beside myself.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN

[William December Starr]

In article <k7paqh$bk3$1...@dont-email.me>,

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> said:

>>>> That's a paradox?
>>>
>>> The technology has no point of origin.
>>
>> Yeah, but: is that a problem?
>>
>
> It makes it a causeless effect. Strictly speaking that isn't a
> paradox. A paradox is when something is self-contradicting. A
> thing that happens for no reason isn't self-contradicting, but it
> does violate the widespread expectation that every effect shall
> have a cause.

Whatever the terminology, is it a problem?

-- wds

[Mason Barge]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:20:51 -0600, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>
wrote:

>anim8rFSK sent the following on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:06:14 -0700:
>> In article <k7n3ri$8va$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> > > suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>> > >> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> What do you think learning to use and then to recreate future tech is?
>> > >>> That makes Peter the creator of the technology that gives The Observers
>> > >>> their magical powers, tech he couldn't have created if he hadn't taken
>> > >>> it from a corpse.
>> > >
>> > >> That's a paradox?
>> > >
>> > > The technology has no point of origin.
>> >
>> > Hmmmm, will have to think on that. I always thought paradox was that a
>> > person couldn't be in the same place at the same time.
>>
>> I'm always in the same place at the same time!
>
>I'm usually beside myself.

If I were beside myself, I'd be a black dachshund half the time.

[Adam H. Kerman]

As I raised the issue, what do you think? If you don't think it
hurts telling the story, that's fine.

[William December Starr]

In article <k7s232$3lq$3...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> said:

I figure that if an audience accepts time travel in a story at all,
they're by implication accepting all that it, er, implies, including
the possibilities of paradoxes and causality violation. Barring
storytelling that explicitly says "No, that can't happen," anyway.

-- wds

[Adam H. Kerman]

William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> said:
>>William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:

>>>Whatever the terminology, is it a problem?

>>As I raised the issue, what do you think? If you don't think it
>>hurts telling the story, that's fine.

>I figure that if an audience accepts time travel in a story at all,
>they're by implication accepting all that it, er, implies, including
>the possibilities of paradoxes and causality violation. Barring
>storytelling that explicitly says "No, that can't happen," anyway.

Well, we're all well passed "that can't happen" if we watched the pilot.

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:07:26 -0500:

Stubby Dobermans are pretty cool. :)

[Mason Barge]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:28:15 -0600, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>

wrote:

>Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:07:26 -0500:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:20:51 -0600, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >anim8rFSK sent the following on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:06:14 -0700:
>> >> In article <k7n3ri$8va$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> >> > > suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>> What do you think learning to use and then to recreate future tech is?
>> >> > >>> That makes Peter the creator of the technology that gives The Observers
>> >> > >>> their magical powers, tech he couldn't have created if he hadn't taken
>> >> > >>> it from a corpse.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> That's a paradox?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The technology has no point of origin.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hmmmm, will have to think on that. I always thought paradox was that a
>> >> > person couldn't be in the same place at the same time.
>> >>
>> >> I'm always in the same place at the same time!
>> >
>> >I'm usually beside myself.
>>
>> If I were beside myself, I'd be a black dachshund half the time.
>
>Stubby Dobermans are pretty cool. :)

He's actually solid black, which is quite rare. No tan points.

Which reminds me, a propos of absolutely nothing. I saw a huge Doberman
while walking a few weeks ago, really one of the most beautiful dogs I've
ever seen. I actually had trouble telling the breed because it was so big
and the ears had not been cut.

And . . . it was very friendly. Magnificent creature.