Star Trek

Ususally I don't point out mistakes on TNG but since the whole premise behind this episode and it's second part "Ship in a Bottle" is that nothing can leave the holodeck, I thought it interesting.

As Professor Moriarty learns more about where he is, he draws Data and Geordi a picture of the Enterprise and shows it to them so they know that he is aware of his exsistence and his whereabouts. But then, Data leaves the holodeck WITH the drawing and shows it to Geordi and the Captain.

Oooops!!!!

Yes, but nobody said "make this drawing permanent". And in "Ship in a Bottle" Picard throws a book through the holodeck door and it vanishes.

Quote (trekbuff @ Dec. 25 2008, 4:04 pm)

But, then, why couldn't they make Moriarty permanent - or the Doctor on Voyager? There's the oops.... Maybe there was some kind of directive prohibiting such things...????

I would imagine that's because a living, breathing, thinking person is a lot more complicated to create than simple inanimate objects.  Federation technology is advanced but not THAT advanced.  It would be rather odd (and disturbing) to just replicate a person out of thin air!  Just imagine all the moral/ethical implications associated with that.  Maybe that's an idea for an episode of a future Star Trek series.

As for things leaving the holodeck, it was established in "Encounter at Farpoint" that this is possible.  Remember Wesley leaving the holodeck with water dripping on the floor?

Quote (trekbuff @ Dec. 24 2008, 7:32 pm)

Quote (Ndirsch11 @ Dec. 25 2008, 5:29 pm) Quote (trekbuff @ Dec. 25 2008, 4:04 pm) But, then, why couldn't they make Moriarty permanent - or the Doctor on Voyager? There's the oops.... Maybe there was some kind of directive prohibiting such things...???? I would imagine that's because a living, breathing, thinking person is a lot more complicated to create than simple inanimate objects. ?Federation technology is advanced but not THAT advanced. ?It would be rather odd (and disturbing) to just replicate a person out of thin air! ?Just imagine all the moral/ethical implications associated with that. ?Maybe that's an idea for an episode of a future Star Trek series. You seem to have forgotten Tom Riker.

Tom wasn't replicated. He was rematerialized through an unusual set of circumstances created by unique environmental factors that caused the original beam to split into two while maintaining integrity.  Best analogy is a cable signal split into two: you get a 3db loss (signal degradation) for each split, which may render your sensitive cable modem inoperable; if successful, however, your signal reaches two points but it's still only coming off one feed.

To increase the 'realism' of the holodeck, some items are replicated rather than holographic (like the water Wesley fell into).  I would have to assume that the drawing in question was replicated.

This topic is getting over-complicated, the answer is simple:

- The piece of paper and the snow are replicated
- All food/water in the holodeck is replicated (for crew members)
- Holograms in the holodeck are created with force fields/holograms
- Holograms can't leave the holodeck without a mobile emitter

Nobody needs to say 'make this object permanent' because those parameters are built into the holoprogram.

Holograms can't leave the holodeck because they are created with force fields and holograms. The EMH on VOY needed a 'mobile emitter' in order to exist outside the sickbay or holodeck.

The example with Tom Riker was due to a transporter accident, and has nothing to do with a holodeck or a replicator. Don't get those confused.

Hope that clears things up! There are no errors.

You're correct that its a writers error. Since then, fans have 'ret-conned' the error by creating a plausible explanation. Sometimes the plausible explanation works so well, that it becomes generally accepted by the fanbase. A fan could explain the book/drawing by saying, yes the paper was replicated and the book was not.

In the case of transporting etc, sure it may relate in some way, but the OP is discussing the holodeck specifically. Perhaps transporters use the 'same Treknology' as you mention, but transporters are never used in regards to the holodeck. That is why I believe it was over-complicating this scenario.

If you believe the explanation, then there is no error (the paper and snowball were replicated and the book was not). People in the holodeck are never replicated. Perhaps transporters use a techology that relates to replication but it does not apply here IMO. You mention that it was an 'oops' by not allowing the holodeck to replicate real versions of Moriarty or the EMH. I don't agree, and there was no error.

Quote (jaksajak @ Dec. 28 2008, 2:32 pm)

This topic is getting over-complicated, the answer is simple: - The piece of paper and the snow are replicated - All food/water in the holodeck is replicated (for crew members) - Holograms in the holodeck are created with force fields/holograms - Holograms can't leave the holodeck without a mobile emitter Nobody needs to say 'make this object permanent' because those parameters are built into the holoprogram. Holograms can't leave the holodeck because they are created with force fields and holograms. The EMH on VOY needed a 'mobile emitter' in order to exist outside the sickbay or holodeck. The example with Tom Riker was due to a transporter accident, and has nothing to do with a holodeck or a replicator. Don't get those confused.

Well said and thanks for making it brief!  I was going to do a post essentially saying the same things but you beat me to it.  Also, I believe all of this is explained in the TNG technical manual, which I have lying around the house somewhere.  It explains in detail how the holodeck works.

Honestly, I don't see any error though, and no falling of the cards. The 'apparent' error of a hologram leaving the holodeck is no longer an error because of an explanation (it was replicated). Therefore, it is 'retro-actively' fixed, and it was never an error to begin with. The only thing I consider to be in error was me for not understanding all the possibilities.

Moriarty and the EMH don't apply, and there is no 'oops.' I believe Starfleet considers it unethical to 'replicate' life forms (especially ones that are dead). Why not replicate your own personal army of Kirks? I also believe they disagree with using the transporter as a 'fountain-of-youth,' except for in the situation with Pulaski. You are expanding this conversation to the ethics of replication, but we are only discussing how a holodeck functions.

The instance with Riker was a transporter malfunction, like with Tuvix or Kirk. They were already living when the transporter caused something strange to happen. These examples don't relate with the holodeck or the replicator, even though the technology may be similar.

From what we've seen, I believe there are probably regulations regarding the transporter and replicator, and these regulations probably change through time. Apparently, Starfleet allows people to create holoprograms of themselves, but not to replicate or copy themselves (as seen with the EMH).

I agree with mostly all your points. I believe its most important to view Star Trek as science-fiction (emphasis on fiction, here). Not everything is going to fit together perfectly. But as fans, we can help in the process to explain any 'apparent' mistakes or loose ends. Fans may choose to explain an inconsistency or just ignore/reject it. Doesn't make much difference!

But your first post was the second post of the thread lol! You are the one who opened up the moral ethic debate about replication, not anyone else lol! Also, you described Moriarty or the EMH as an 'oops,' which I don't agree with. How were they a mistake? We have never seen a life form replicated in the holodeck or with a transporter. Doesn't mean it's not possible, but we have never seen it on-screen.

We agree there is potential for a house of falling cards, but I have not reached a conclusion that it is a house of falling cards. I think we both agree that in the end it doesn't matter.

I maintain, the instance with Riker doesn't relate on the basis of 'technological similarity,' we're discussing the holodeck. It's like saying Tuvix relates to A Fistful of Data's IMO. The OP is not discussing the ethics of replication, you brought it up, and we discussed it. Other than that, I don't believe it relates to the OP, and I don't consider it to be on topic. No offense, but as you mention, its a deeper discussion.

You are correct, we can only presume that regulations may exist based on what is seen on-screen. There is no way to know for sure, since we have seen no replicated life forms, transporter 'fountain-of-youth,' etc, and we may presume it doesn't exist until otherwise seen. Perhaps it does exist, but there has been no story about it so far.

We both agree that not everything is going to fit together perfectly, which is the main point. There are some errors that perhaps cannot be fixed with a simple explanation (the distance to Qo'nos in ENT Broken Bow or the Kirk tombstone). Some fans make attempts to explain these things but the explanation can often be less believable than the error itself.

At any rate, this 'apparent' error of the TNG holodeck has a very believable explanation! Some things in the holodeck are replicated, others are not! Anyone may disagree with that explanation, but I think it makes sense. Hope that helps, quantum!

You knew the EMH on VOY had the mobile emitter, right tb? I'm not sure why you consider Moriarty or the EMH to be a mistake, which is the source of our disagreement here.

Sorry, but I still have a hard time following you. I'm going to end this discussion, because I don't get your meaning. Please don't assign this 'oops' to me, because I'm not confused, I'm only wondering why you called it an 'oops.' I'm not saying you are confused, but please don't include me in your 'oops.'

Drawing, snowball - not a life form, replicated
Moriarty, EMH - holographic life form, not replicated

I agree there are nitpick possibilities that can ruin the fun, but I don't consider this issue to be one of them. There is a simple explanation. I have not yet seen an inconsistency that would turn Trek in on itself, this included.

Once again RIKER DOES NOT RELATE, and you are the one who brought him into the mix. Riker IS the popcorn coming out of your tv IMO. Tom Riker, Tuvix, evil Kirk, etc, happened because of a transporter malfunction. This does not involve holodecks or replication. It seems to be generally accepted that Starfleet personnel can transport, which is not considered replication, even if it involves a similar process. It is ethically and fundamentally different. One implies moving an object through a process, while the other implies creating a new object from energy. The reason the transporter 'malfunctioned' is because it did more than just move an object.

Fans may ponder why Moriarty or the EMH are not made real. However, the fundamental point is they are NOT made real. I agree its an easy step to believe food and objects can be made real in the holodeck, but nowhere does it imply that complex living organisms are replicated in the holodeck. You may wonder about it, but I believe it over-complicates the discussion.

So you are retracting your statement that Moriarty and the EMH are not an error, and they are holopgrams for a reason? Do you still believe the two Rikers relate to the holodeck and the replicator, or do you believe this falls under the issue of 'transporter malfunction?' Sorry, but I've never liked the taste of popcorn out of a television set!

Cool, then I understand your meaning now, and agree. I believe many of these topics/issues could be explored in future Trek productions. If I was involved in story writing for Trek, I'd certainly address some of these deeper issues that haven't been fully explored before.

Quote (trekbuff @ Dec. 28 2008, 6:19 pm)

The nitpick of the drawing evidentally decreased the fun for quantumstring12.

I'm nitpicking?!?! If you read my post, I clearly stated that I normally don't point these things out because these little "mistakes" happen everywhere in Star Trek, and doesn't decrease my love of Star Trek at all. The ONLY reason I brought it up is that the WHOLE PREMISE of these two stories is that NOTHING can leave the holodeck!! It can't be transported off because it has no matter, only energy and the transporter transports matter by CONVERTING it to energy and BACK to matter. Sure it can be replicated, but it WASN'T. It went from Moriarty's hands to Data's, OUT the holodeck entrance and straight to Picard.

I'm not the one over-complicating this smart guy. So why don't you take your holier than thou attitude and shove it where the holodeck don't shine!!!!!!

Quote (quantumstring12 @ Dec. 28 2008, 9:37 pm)

Quote (trekbuff @ Dec. 28 2008, 6:19 pm) The nitpick of the drawing evidentally decreased the fun for quantumstring12. I'm nitpicking?!?! If you read my post, I clearly stated that I normally don't point these things out because these little "mistakes" happen everywhere in Star Trek. The ONLY reason I brought it up is that the WHOLE PREMISE of these two stories is that NOTHING can leave the holodeck!! It can't be transported off because it has no matter, only energy and the transporter transports matter by CONVERTING it to energy and BACK to matter. Sure it can be replicated, but it WASN'T. It went from Moriarty's hands to Data's, OUT the holodeck entrance and straight to Picard.

As quantum mentions, its quite funny they took the piece of paper out of the holodeck when the whole premise of the episode is how holograms can't leave the holodeck lol! As for trekbuff, we probably made him elaborate much further than he wanted. We are all in agreement that it was originally a writer's error as you pointed out. I don't think he meant his comment as an insult or anything. It's been an interesting discussion, anyways!