Re: It's not quite so simple. by
Outhra
on 2013-08-15 02:51:00 UTC
Reply
Stable from what? Collapsing? Vanishing from existence? The past selves should be able to hold on to existence if only due to the ontological inertia that means they would inevitably have to become their future selves. I suppose that it could be stretched to say that the "present" version could be adversely affected by his own past selves, but since he would have future selves that he would also need to become, which would make the "present" self a past self, that doesn't really work, either.
Though I knew that the extent a past and future self would be unavoidably affected by the continuum's rules, which would include the Blinovitch Effect you mentioned, I've not seen past selves of anyone, Time Lord or otherwise, averse to physical contact with future selves, or any memory-erasing wave of dangerous energy coming out of such contact. Maybe it's just one of those concepts the writers forget about most of the time. That can happen with long-running shows.
Well, the Reapers were already there when Rose held herself as a baby. The timeline was impossible anyway, because the presence of one Rose's actions interrupted the timeline of her recent past self and the past self of the timeline that would have now grown up with a living parent, which compounded on the existing vulnerabilities in time and made it something the Reapers had to deal with. I'd say more on this variation on the subject, but it would start overlapping with my fan-speculation on what the Reapers do in the context of the Doctor Who universe, and thus is a bit off-topic.
Still, though, Rule of Funny is Rule of Funny, and if things need to get all paradoxy to get a few good jokes in, they might as well. The WhOFU's going to have several experienced world-savers on staff if things get rocky.