Messages

61

Time, Space, and Dimensions / Re: Refutation of the Time Bastard Theory, Part II

« on: May 01, 2005, 03:26:20 pm »

I cannot emphasize this point enough. Every event has to have a reason and a means, and the obliviation of an entire universe is no exception. But while the Time Bastard theory offers a reason, it does not offer a means. Without a means to explain the phenomenon, we cannot be sure that our observation of the phenomenon is complete, or even accurate, and of course we cannot be any more confident in the theory than in the observation. Is the problem observational or theoretical? We haven’t addressed that at this point, but it could be either. Perhaps the perspective is wrong. Perhaps the mechanics are incorrect. But something remains to keep the theory unsatisfied, and so long as that is the case, it is not a proven theory, merely a working one…and this topic has shown that it doesn’t work all that well.

Let me ask this, then: how much energy would be required to actually travel through time?  A fact we cannot know, of course, since it was never explicitly stated in the game: a limitation in our observations.  However, one thing is certain: it's going to take quite a lot of energy to do it.  Could it be that this very energy is what is required to cut off the universe?  If this is the case, I would be willing to concede that this must apply to forward travel, as well; however, the changes in forward travel are very different from those of backward travel.  With forward travel there is no danger of having a seperate duplicate entity which needs to be dealt with upon the original entity's return.

Think of it this way: Some lizards, as a defense mechanism, can shed their entire tails, and then slowly regrow them.  So long as the lizard remains alive, it can regrow the tail; not exactly the same as before, but a tail is still a tail.  This is similar to what happens with the universe according to this theory.  When X goes from time A to time B, where B<A, Timeline Y is cut off at point B.  However, the universe itself is still there, and it will regrow naturally, but it won't be the same as the original Timeline Y, but it will be close: Timeline Y'.  If the material is trivial, or Entity X simply sits in the woods and speaks to no one during his stay in Time B, then Timeline Y' will be nearly identical to Y, possibly even indistinguishble.  But it will still be different, because even if no one knew about it, you WERE there, something which most definitely did not occur in the original timeline.

Your very own words, “the universe itself is still there, and it will regrow naturally,” admit to the problem outlined above. It doesn’t matter if the new universe is remarkably similar or vastly different. The proverbial tail has been cut off. This cutting-off transformation must have a mechanism and energy to carry it out. And now the proverbial tail will regrow. Again, this regrowing transformation must have a mechanism and energy to carry it out.

The energy to cut off the universe, as I said above, could be one and the same as the energy to travel through time.  As for regrowth?  It's not as if it has to happen all at once, you know.  The remnant universe that is left behind from points prior to the time traveler's arrival would simply propogate out as it did originally, only this time with the time travelers present, as well.

For one thing, I’m still not satisfied that the observation is complete.

Forgive my bluntness, but you have played all three games, haven't you?  For the purposes of this, those three sources are the only observations we have for this phenomenon, besides those of our universe.  And for time travel, we have to rely merely upon these three games.  I can't speak for Radical Dreamers, as I haven't played that one in quite some time, but the only instances of meeting the exact duplicates of your characters that I can recall are in Chrono Cross, when you travel between dimensions.

I'll admit that the Time Bastard theory is very piecemeal.  It was created to fit observed facts which we cannot duplicate for experimentation - never the most ideal conditions.  However, as I said, we cannot duplicate this for experimentation, and until the next game is created (assuming it has to do with time travel), we won't obtain any new information.

As for your grievance against it being used in the discussion regarding Crono's Cats - it may have been misused there; I haven't read all that discussion because, frankly, I think that entire thread is bunk.  I doubt that they are Crono's cats simply because of the way that the gates work in CT: only to fixed points, both of which move through time at the same rate.  You jump in the gate in 1000 AD, April 3rd, 7:08 AM, you'll come out in 600 AD, April 3rd, 7:08 AM.  

Still, theories have been used throughout history at the wrong times.  You just look at who did it, laugh, and then move on with the discussion as if they hadn't spoken.  So let's just leave that grievance where it belongs: either in the Crono's Cats thread or in Zeality's PM box.

62

Time, Space, and Dimensions / Re: Debunking the Time Bastard Theory

« on: April 30, 2005, 05:31:40 pm »

This is the one part of the supposedly called theroem that bothers me.
Magus sees Janus when Magus goes back in time to Zeal, does he not (i don't remember exactly, so correct me if i'm wrong)? Also, if Janus were sent to the DBT simply because Magus came into his time, then Janus wouldn't have been able to have been sent to 600 AD (through the gate that one of the people mentions), and thus, in the altered timeline, no one in 1000 AD would remember anything about Magus, since he never would've appeared in 600 AD (although Magus would still exist, since he would've originally been from a timeline in which Janus was sent to 600 AD)

This is not an applicable situation, as Magus (Entity X) did not, in the first place travel from A to B, where B<A.  The Time Bastard theory would only apply when Magus travels from 12000 BC back to 600 AD.  The destruction of Entity X' only happens when the first journey is back in time, and the return trip is forward in time.  The Time Bastard theorem is not applicable to the Magus/Janus case.

And, as you said, this is all speculation.  Of course it all violates the laws of physics; we're just trying to make a theory which would explain what happened in the game.  And, also, the inability to travel through time isn't a law of physics; it is just not possible with our current knowledge.

63

Time, Space, and Dimensions / Re: Debunking the Time Bastard Theory

« on: April 30, 2005, 03:27:26 pm »

Time Bastard Theorem
ZeaLitY, GrayLensman

Suppose an entity X exists on timeline Y.

If X time travels from time A to time B, such that B < A; for time > B, Y is sent into the DBT, and Y' is created, containing X'.

For time > A, two identical entities X and X' will exist in Y'.

Conservation of Energy requires that only one entity X or X' exist.

Therefore, X' will be expunged from Y' at time A, and sent into the DBT.

Leavng this here for reference

The phrase: “If X time travels from time A to time B, such that B < A…”

First we have “Entity X,” which is defined only as that which is displaced by an unspecified mechanism from one point A on a “Timeline Y,” which is not defined at all, to some earlier point B on that timeline. There is no explanation as to why a stipulation is applied that B must be “less than” A, nor is any definition given of what “less than” means in this context, since no quantifiable unit of time is referenced and no means of measurement thereof is introduced.

Given the vagueness of these designations, along with absolutely no discussion of the mechanics of time travel, it is impossible to say that this phrase means anything. It cannot be evaluated analytically because there are no equations written, nor it does not provide anything that can be tested. Because this phrase cannot be tested it cannot be used to make a prediction of some known event in Chrono Trigger, which is a fundamental requirement of any theory.

I can only see the very tip of the iceberg of scientific gobbledygook going on here. Problems that must be addressed include but are not limited to:
•   Define “time.” What is the characteristic of the medium of time? When we talk about “time,” what are we talking about?
•   How do we measure time?
•   Define “timeline” in terms of “time.” How does a timeline represent the mechanics of time? What is the relationship? What does it mean to exist at one point on a timeline relative to another point?
•   Define “time travel” in terms of both “time” and “timeline.” What are the mechanics of time travel?
•   What are the effects of time travel on that substance which is said to time travel?
•   What is the nature of that substance which is said not to time travel in terms of time travel as defined above? How does that which does not time travel interact with time?
•   What are the effects of time travel on that which is said not to time travel? Is it necessary to append, “…when an instance of time travel occurs”? Explain.
•   Specifically, how do these effects of time travel affect not only the moments of time-departure and time-arrival, but the timeline as a whole?

Outright problem with the phrase:
•   The stipulation is made that only time traveling “backwards” in time results in the Time Bastard effect. This makes no sense. Either the effect results from any time travel whatsoever, or there is some threshold—completely undefined by the Time Bastard theory—at which the nature of time travel does or does not result in this effect.

Okay, in the first place, the Time Bastard theorem is described more as a mathematical theorem than it is anything else, and as such it is described effectively, with the definitions you seek being irrelevent.  Most of these are things which we do know already, and to try and argue about it is fairly meaningless, especially in the context of this game.  Time we all know about, there's only two methods of time travel (both of which are included here by the generalness of the phrase "time travel"), and timeline is addressed in a seperate theory, I believe.  A link to that would be applicable, but an entire definition would be unneccessary.

The stipulation that time b must be less than time a is essential for reasons I'll get into after your next section.

The Phrase: “…for time > B, Y is sent into the DBT, and Y' is created, containing X'. …”

Now we have more of the same trouble as above. This is the centerpiece of the theory, and as such it contains the most troubling ambiguities of all. The allegation is that, upon an instance of time travel, all the remaining timeline forward from that point is suddenly displaced or “sent” from the universe to reside in the Darkness Beyond Time. Furthermore, a second partial timeline to replace the portion that has just been “sent” away is now “created,” seamlessly taking the place of the original. I quote the theory verbatim in its choice of words.

What we are talking about is nothing less than an entire, infinite segment of the universe being completely sundered from the remainder, obliviated to the Darkness Beyond Time, and then replaced by a counterpart via the same incredible process in reverse. For this to happen, there must first be a mechanical reason that it would happen, as provided for and predicted by the discussion of time, timelines, and time travel above. And, once a reason is established—if such is possible—then a mechanism by which it could occur must also be qualified.

This would be extremely daunting, for not only would it test the definition of time, but perhaps the process would even transcend the mechanics of time, which I take as a possibility because the wording specifically uses terms like “sent” and “created,” which implies an external force acting upon a timeline to dislocate it from its remainder, obliviate it, and replace it. Where does the energy come from for infinite lengths of reality to be “sent” to the Darkness Beyond Time, and likewise the same, where does the energy come from for a new timeline to be “created”? Created out of what? What is the nature of the destruction of the original timeline and the formation of the new one? By what mechanism is this extraordinary act of disassembly and assembly achieved?

Lastly, I wonder what is meant by “X Prime,” the entity, for, if X has time traveled, then X does not exist anywhere on the timeline in the moment of its transition, and therefore is not eligible for being derivated…unless the entire process is not instantaneous, which is never specified one way or the other in the Time Bastard theory, and whose proposal raises serious questions as to the validity of any time model that must rely upon an undefined higher mode of time in order to function.

Questions that must be answered with regard to this phrase include but are not limited to:
•   What does it mean to “send” a partial timeline into the Darkness Beyond Time?
•   What does it mean to “create” a partial timeline to replace the obliviated one?
•   What is the reason this occurs and the mechanism by which it is effected?
•   In terms of matter, energy, and structure, what becomes of the obliviated partial timeline?
•   Likewise, what is the source of the matter and energy for the new, “created” partial timeline, and by what process is its structure assembled?
•   What is the meaning of “X Prime”? Where does it come from if X is not on the timeline during the act of time travel which causes the creation of the Prime timeline?
•   Is the process of partial timeline transformation instantaneous? If so, how is X Prime “created”? If not, how does a process wherein space-time is obliviated occur within that space-time? What are the mechanics?

My deepest concerns include:
•   What is this outside force that sends partial timelines away and creates new ones?
•   Why does the Time Bastard effect only apply to the portion of a timeline occurring forward in time from the earliest point of travel, regardless of whether it is the point of departure or the point of arrival?
•   And why, why, why does this theory audaciously state that the time traveling of finite material obliviates an infinite portion of the universe and causes an equally infinite portion to be created out of seeming nothingness? O, the humanity!

This is why it's essential for time b to be less than time a.

When you travel back in time, time is altered.  You weren't there the first time through.  The history that you remember did not include you being there.  So, when you travel back in time to time b, you've changed history merely by your presence.  This is why timeline Y past point b is sent to the DBT, and a new timeline created.  The original history does not exist any longer, and a new one is created.  This isn't so much a matter of an entire universe being destroyed and a new one created, as it is the events of said universe being destroyed and a new set being made.  Remember in Chrono Cross, seeing the timelines floating by in the bubbles while you battled the Time Devourer?  Most likely, those weren't actual places you could have walked in, through, and around in the DBT, but were instead memories, thoughts, and records of those timelines.  Only very rarely does actual matter get sent to the DBT, Lavos, Schala, and the Mamon Machine being few exceptions.

The entire point of the Time Bastard theory is to explain why on earth the original time traveler, X, is still present with his original memories intact.

The phrase: For time > A, two identical entities X and X' will exist in Y'. Conservation of Energy requires that only one entity X or X' exist. Therefore, X' will be expunged from Y' at time A, and sent into the DBT.

It is…admirable…that the Time Bastard theory attempts to concern itself with mass-energy conservation; however, its efforts seem far too little, and far too late, as the theory has already predicted the obliviation of the universe without a reason or means given.

I could go into a critique, but at this point I think the theory is in so much trouble that to even discuss this aspect of it and provide my criticisms methodically, I would have to presume all sorts of things which I have raised serious questions about in the two sections above. Thus I will not formally critique this section of the theory at this time.

However, informally, I will offer the simple observation that no material—Entity X—will be able to cause the obliviation of another piece of material—Entity X Prime—without some connection between them, which, again, the Time Bastard theory does not provide for.

It is astounding just how many implicit assumptions this theory makes…truly this is stupefyingly bad science. I say that not to discourage the theory’s proponents—certainly not—but to remind them in ungentle terms that “The Truth” isn’t something that can simply be dished out into a nifty little theory without regard to its veracity or functionality.


Consider, here at the end, a few problematic observations. The Time Bastard theory provides for the transition from a less prime timeline to a more prime timeline, via backward time travel, and also for the transition from a timeline to itself, via forward time travel. But there is no way to move from a more prime timeline to a less prime timeline. Every instance of backward time travel displaces the universe into another degree of derivativeness. Thus, there is no way to return to one’s original timeline after having time traveled backwards. That seems very contrary to the “grain” of the mood throughout Chrono Trigger and especially at game’s end, and because the games themselves are our only source of canon, their “grain,” among other elements, must therefore must be respected.

Another, more insidious problem arises. The Time Bastard theory also stipulates that the duplicate material to a prime timeline—that is, the Entity X Prime created on Timeline J Prime to reflect the arrival of Entity X from Timeline J—is obliviated to the Darkness Beyond Time by “conservation of energy” as given by Time Bastard. Thus, an element of Timeline J does remain—Entity X—whereas an element of Timeline J Prime—Entity X Prime—is never realized. Now, on the surface it may be tempting to say that the matter and energy for J Prime come from J, because J always perfectly obliviates to the exact same degree that J Prime is created. But this isn’t actually true. The whole reason for the Time Bastard theory, I presume, is that J Prime is special because it contains Entity X at a point on J Prime which was not the case on J. Forward from that point, the two timelines diverge completely, such that at every point in time where J Prime exists, it will not correspond to J. So we really do have four enormous problems: 1) Where did J go? 2) Where did J Prime come from? 3) How does this reconcile with the conservation of mass and energy?

And the fourth problem, the crux of the whole senselessness of the Time Bastard theory, is 4) Why does an instance of time travel obliviate the entire universe subsequent to the point of arrival of some trivial material X?

That question simply must be answered and the answer elucidated before this theory is to hold a shred of credibility, which I think will prove wholly unlikely.

1) To the Darkness Beyond Time.

2) The same place J originally came from: it arose naturally from the circumstances that came before.

3) Mass and energy are conserved because it is not actually the matter being sent, and even if it were, the matter from Timeline Y prior to point B  is still carried over into the new timeline.

4) Think of it this way: Some lizards, as a defense mechanism, can shed their entire tails, and then slowly regrow them.  So long as the lizard remains alive, it can regrow the tail; not exactly the same as before, but a tail is still a tail.  This is similar to what happens with the universe according to this theory.  When X goes from time A to time B, where B<A, Timeline Y is cut off at point B.  However, the universe itself is still there, and it will regrow naturally, but it won't be the same as the original Timeline Y, but it will be close: Timeline Y'.  If the material is trivial, or Entity X simply sits in the woods and speaks to no one during his stay in Time B, then Timeline Y' will be nearly identical to Y, possibly even indistinguishble.  But it will still be different, because even if no one knew about it, you WERE there, something which most definitely did not occur in the original timeline.

The reasoning behind the destruction of entity X' due to the existance of X is not so much one mandated by theory as one mandated by fact: in CT, you never meet a counterpart of yourself or anyone else in your team.  Therefore, any counterpart you would have in this new timeline must be destroyed or banished somehow when entity X returns to time A.

Note: I have added a poll to this topic so that I might have an at-a-glance indication of opinion among those who are unwilling or unable to contribute a written reply. Gauging Compendium opinion will be important ahead of the eventual release of my combined Chronoverse Space-Time Theory. Thanks for reading.

While I don't agree with the need to get rid of Time Bastard, I do look forward to reading your new theory, and seeing if/how we can integrate it into accpeted Chrono theory.

64

Kajar Laboratories / Chrono Trigger novel

« on: April 28, 2005, 02:24:59 am »

Probably grim determination and a devotion to the story will be all ya need.

65

Site Updates / Chrono Trigger soundtrack voted 10th best in Filter poll

« on: April 27, 2005, 04:53:43 pm »

True, but was there ever really a chance for us getting first?  FFVII is simply too popular, and would have grabbed the top spot simply via name recognition.  But with all the Final Fantasies lumped together, then we won't have four different FF's grabbing spots; just one.

As of now, the only ones ranked higher than CT are the Final Fantasy slot, and Kingdom Hearts.  There are three other games, can't remember which ones, that are hot on CT's heels, though, so vote!

66

Site Updates / Chrono Trigger soundtrack voted 10th best in Filter poll

« on: April 27, 2005, 02:39:46 pm »

Yeah, but it gives us a better shot.

67

Site Updates / Chrono Trigger soundtrack voted 10th best in Filter poll

« on: April 27, 2005, 12:35:55 pm »

http://www.g4tv.com/filter/index.html

Currently, if you scroll down, you can vote in the "Best RPG" poll, rating many different RPG's.  Chrono Trigger is up there, and seems to be doing well.  The episode won't air until May 2nd, so let's see how much we can influence this thing!

68

General Discussion / chrono trigger/cross tat

« on: April 27, 2005, 12:27:10 am »

Yeah, but the differences are very slight, and are mostly because of scale issues for the sprites themselves.  The tapestries are much smaller than the doorways, and you can't get as much detail in them.

While they do look different, I'm betting that they are intended to be the same thing.

69

General Discussion / chrono trigger/cross tat

« on: April 26, 2005, 12:12:36 am »

Actually, if you blow up your picture, it only has three points, as well.

70

General Discussion / chrono trigger/cross tat

« on: April 25, 2005, 05:03:44 pm »

Well, compare the pic to Radical_Dreamer's avatar.  The avatar is the Sealed Door, while the pic is not quite the same.  Possibly a tapestry, maybe even the Zeal Royal Crest and/or Sigil?

71

General Discussion / chrono trigger/cross tat

« on: April 25, 2005, 04:35:05 pm »

I think that's because that pic was on a wall in Zeal somewhere.  I think, anyway...

72

Polling / 4/30/05 - Which is your favorite Chrono Cross NPC?

« on: April 23, 2005, 05:12:25 pm »

That vista reminded me of the North Cape in 12000 BC, post-Zeal, only a little more twisted.  And no Magus, of course.

73

Polling / 4/30/05 - Which is your favorite Chrono Cross NPC?

« on: April 23, 2005, 03:59:05 pm »

I had to go with Dario myself, as the subplot revolving around him was very well done, possibly one of the best ones in the game.

74

Characters, Plot, and Themes / Masa, Mune, and Doreen

« on: April 21, 2005, 04:25:02 pm »

Possibly they are exactly what they said: they embody Melchoir's dreams.  They are the personification of Melchoir's unconcious, whether or not he knows it.

I'd guess that Masa and Mune symbolize his power, his work, possibly even his anger, while Doreen symbolizes his philosophical nature and leanings.  Remember how in the Millenial Fair and when he's reforging the Masamune, he talks about how he wishes that his weapons were not needed?

75

Project ZEAL / Taking Roll. Please Reply.

« on: April 21, 2005, 01:08:54 am »

For anyone who has a character actually in Zeal, I wrote up a walkthrough program for the Palace itself.

It's a simple text-based executable, descriptions of each room.  Feel free to take a look, if ya want.  My favorite is the Conservatory, personally, which is in the very back, off of the Ballroom Balcony.

http://cc.herograw.com/Black/Aitrus/zeal.exe