Talk:Q Continuum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Trelane's reliance on machines
The notion that Trelane relied on a machine to assist him with the use of his power, and the Q apparently didn't need machines could imply that we were seeing a partal manefestation of the Q Continuum, and not regular reality. In the Voyager episodes where the crew goes to the Q Continuum, the Q apparently use machines, even though it was established that everything we saw was an analogy of what was really happening there. --AnthonyMartin 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why Q isn't in on Star Trek: Enterprise
Since the filming of Star Trek, there has been all kinds of omnipotent Q-like beings (Trelane/TOS), and the Q Continuum (TNG thru Voyager), so why isn't a character made an appearance of omnipotence of Q in Jonathan Archer's time? --Seishirou Sakurazuka 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- There has... the Organians. It was fourth season, Observer Effect. The two Organians spent much of their time using Reed and Malcolm, while Trip and Hoshi were dying in quarantine. The Organians are powerful, perhaps not omnipotent, but very powerful. It would have been nice if one of the Organians had been referred to by name as a member of the Council of Elders that Kirk met a century later - either Claymare, Ayelborne or Trefayne. GBC 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What's in the Q Continuum?
There's nothing about the plane of existence that the Q live in. I heard that it's a farm with one Q pretending to be a scarecrow (they take turns). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.229.31 (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
Unless I am mistaken the Q Continuum's appearance is subjective to mortals and/or they merely disguise it as necessary so that said mortals can comprehend it.
[edit] Q originally evolved from humans?
the article suggests that the Q originally evolved from humans... I seriously doubt it, and it is only speculation, and I think Wikipedia has rules against speculation. Additionally, Didn't Q once tell Riker that one day, humans will evolve to a level beond the Q, and become even more powerful than them? If that's the case, then humanity won't evolve into the Q, but instead will evolve into somthing even more powerful. 141.154.162.11 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you watch the final episode in TNG "All Good Things..." the final conversation between Picard and Q are what sparks the idea that humans will evolve into the Q. Q points out that real exploration is that of expanding the mind into the unbelievable and humans were capable of that. It is Qs behavior in this episode that leads to this belief.
- But I think that in "Hide and Q", Q told Riker that humanity will evolve beyond the Q, and become somthing even more powerful. If that's true, then humanity won't evolve into the Q, but will evolve ito somthing far beyond them. In that case, Q's statments in "All Good Things..." could support the idea that humans will actually evolve beyond the Q. One way or the other, it's all speculation. and I am fairly certian that Wikipedia policy says that you can't have speculation in articles.. So I don't think such speculation should be in the article. perhaps someone should remove the speculation from the article. 70.17.152.69 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Q are apparent in all time lines, so why not be aware of their future evolution?
- But I think that in "Hide and Q", Q told Riker that humanity will evolve beyond the Q, and become somthing even more powerful. If that's true, then humanity won't evolve into the Q, but will evolve ito somthing far beyond them. In that case, Q's statments in "All Good Things..." could support the idea that humans will actually evolve beyond the Q. One way or the other, it's all speculation. and I am fairly certian that Wikipedia policy says that you can't have speculation in articles.. So I don't think such speculation should be in the article. perhaps someone should remove the speculation from the article. 70.17.152.69 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Omniscient?
Omnipotent, yes; but not omniscient, I think. Have they been described that way in published literature? I'm removing the adjective pending verification. —Angr 07:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merged
I merged this article with 0 (Star Trek) as per the discussion, located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0 (Star Trek). If you have any comments, feel free to leave a note on my talk page Z1720 (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)