Topics

1

Time, Space, and Dimensions / Question concerning timelines/dimentions

« on: December 13, 2007, 02:05:17 pm »

What is the difference between a timeline and a dimention and what evidence in the Chrono series is there to suggest that they're different things?

2

Time, Space, and Dimensions / Possible solution to the Marle Paradox

« on: December 02, 2007, 11:39:00 am »

I don't know if anybody has suggested this theory before but i think it's quite a neat and plausible solution to establish what happened to Marle during her brief disappearance in 600 AD. It isn't listed in the Compendium article, so hopefully this is new to you guys.

Firstly let's get one thing clear: We already know that the real reason for the Marle Paradox was caused by real-life confliction during the making of Trigger's story. Because of this there probably isn't a real in-universe explanation behind the contradiction, and I'm not proclaiming that this theory is canon, nor that the makers of the game intended it to be so. But I think it's quite a good in-universe explanation.

Now the main basis of this theory comes from GrayLensmans theory that the Sea of Eden in Cross is, in fact, a chunk of space-time from the year 15420 AD, which had been 'swapped' with the equivalent chunk of space-time in 1020 AD. I'm not as good as explaining it as GrayLensman was, but essentially the theory holds that the area of the Sea of Eden didn't actually time-travel, but rather it still exists in 15420 AD, and that the barrier surrounding it acts in the same way as a time gate. This theory is usually assumed true by the majority of Chrono fans, until otherwise contradicted. Everything in Cross, including the appearance of the Dead Sea seems to support the idea.

What is important about this is that, as we learn from the Dead Sea, this area of time changes to reflect the future based off the actions of the past. In many ways this can be seen as a circumvention of the otherwise consistant 'Time Travellers Immunity'. However it certainly works within the excepted science behind time-travel within the Chrono universe. Now the question becomes: Could the same thing of happened to Marle in 600 AD. Allow me to explain further:

In Trigger the time-travel that is utilised at the beginning of the game is noticably caused by a different method than the one utilised later by the gang. It could almost be expressed as a fault of the machine. While this is refutable since Lucca apparently based the Gate Key off the configuration of the Telepod machine, it nevertheless is comparable with the Time Crash in the following ways:

1. Both of these events can be identified as errors. It's a strange coincidence that both 'errors' were actually preplanned, (one by the Entity and the other by Belthasar respectively.) but either way, both events were directly caused by malfunctions that weren't supposed to happen. Most other instances of time-travel in the series are the result of the intended function of a machine. (For example, the Gate Key, Epoch and Neo Epoch.)

2.  In both instances a foreign object was integral to the event: Schala's Pendent and the Frozen Flame.

So, following the assumption that 'Telepod Incident' was kinda like a smaller Time crash, now the events are slightly different: During the beginning of Trigger, Marle and Chrono didn't 'time-travel' perse, but rather, their space-time was swapped with space-time in 600 AD, similar to what the Time Crash did with the Sea of Eden. However, as opposed to the Sea of Eden, which includes an area of sea surrounding Chronopolis, Marle's displacement is equal to that of her body mass. This would mean that, in theory, if she were to change her history, her appearance in 600 AD would change to reflect her state in 1000 AD, hence why she disappears after dangering her own existence.

So what do you think? It seems pretty solid to me. Any problems?

THEORY REVISION 1

LinktotheFuture @ the Chrono Crisis forums correctly pointed out that if the effects of Chrono's TTI were eliminated then he would have no memory of Marle, after history of changed, even if it is changed by Lucca. I revised the theory to fix this:

Only Marle was effected by this pre-destination paradox and only Marle entered the Gate without any items to help her, so that's probably why it occurs.

Maybe Chrono's Time-Travel wasn't the same as Marle's afterall... Marle's pendent activated whatever flaw created the initial time gate, but she didn't go through with it. It could have something that protects against the effects of a Time-Crash. Concidering that Lucca' Gate Key was probably based on whatever readings came from the Telepod as a result of the Telepod/Pendent reaction, she would still gain TTI.

Think of it as the pendent as completing a circuit. When Marle let go of it, the circuit broke creating an error. The Gate Key was based off the completed circuit so she doesn't need either a telepod nor a pendent to travel through time... just the Gate Key.

3

Lavos, the Planet, and other Entities / Lavos' umbilical cord

« on: June 18, 2007, 05:49:10 pm »

I've searched for this and I can't find anything on it, so:

I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts concerning a possible cord connecting Lavos and the planet together. Taking into account that Schala in Cross, at one point, states that Lavos (or at least the comet that fell to Earth) would be to the planet, what a Sperm cell would be to an Egg cell. With the result the Lavos we fight in Trigger, which steals energy of the planet to live and grow.

One thing I've noticed is that the arena that we see inside Lavos' shell has a version of Lavos that, whence killed, is revealed to be set over a whole that the characters jump in for the final battle. Concidering the tubes coming out of the arms of the Lavos connected to this thing, could the thing they jump down be an equivelent of an umbilical cord that connects Lavos to the planet. this brings to min dthe theories that the final battle we see in the game is the Entity, especially when one conciders the fact, that the umbilical cord would lead straight to the Entity (in theory.).

Don't forget that we never see the back of Lavos' shell, so whether he is somehow linked to the planet remains undeterminned. Anyway, just some thoughts. What d'ya think?

EDIT: Just for the sake of referance, this image contains the hole I'm referring too:http://sdb.drshnaps.com/sheets/Misc/Square/ChronoTrigger/Lavos2.gif

4

Lavos, the Planet, and other Entities / Some 'Nu' stuff.

« on: March 07, 2007, 08:12:47 pm »

Hello. I'm Radox.  i just dropped in from the Chrono Crisis forums, having just made a pretty decent find. I was convinced to post it here. Just some stuff you may wish to concider... this is my whole post as quoted from the Chrono Crisis forums:

Start Quote

 was surfing the internet between the waves of philosophy and psychology (It's what I do.) When I came across a certain interesting concept related to Nu's. I know the Compendium looked into them on one article but i'm not sure whether or not they came across this. So I ran across to wikipedia to get some info...
I'll boldify thos parts which really piqued my interest. Keep in mind that these are select quotes. These are neither a whole nor from the same article.

In Greek, “first principles” are arkhai, starting points, and thr origin of the physical world and the faculty used to perceive them is sometimes referred to in Aristotle and Plato as “nous” which was close in meaning to “awareness” and therefore “consciousness”. This leaves open the question of whether we become aware by building up and comparing experiences, (Entity anybody?) or some other way.

Nous is a Greek word (pronounced "noose"), that corresponds
to the English words intelligence, intellect, intuition or mind. It signifies a search for order by the part of the soul or mind that knows and thinks. In some forms of Greek mythology, order was imposed by an anthropomorphic father of all things, the Demiurge.(God.)

In philosophy, there were three ordering principles:

1. arche - the source of all things,

The idea of an arche was first philosophized by Thales of Miletus, who claimed that the first principle of all things is water(See bottom*). His theory was supported by the observation of moisture throughout the world and coincided with his theory that the earth floated on water.
Thales' theory was refuted by his successor and estimated pupil, Anaximander. Anaximander noted that water could not be the arche because it could not give rise to its opposite, fire. Anaximander claimed that none of the elements (earth, fire, air, water) could be arche for the same reason. Instead, he proposed the existence of the apeiron, an indefinite substance from which all things are born and to which all things will return.Anaximenes, Anaximander's pupil, advanced yet another theory. He returns to the elemental theory, but this time posits air, rather than water, as the arche. Anaximenes suggests that all is made from air through either rarefication or condensation (thinning or thickening). Rarefied, air becomes fire; condensed, it becomes first wind, then cloud, water, earth, and stone in order. (Remember the books at Zeal?)

2. logos - the underlying order that is hidden beneath appearances.

It is often translated into English as "Word" but can also mean thought, speech, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard, or logic, among other things.
By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term used to describe the faculty of human reason and the knowledge (Fitting for the Guru of Reason)men had of the world and of each other. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues. The development of the Academy with hypomnemata brought logos closer to the literal text. Aristotle, who studied under Plato, first developed the concept of logic as a depiction of the rules of human rationality.


 
3. harmonia - numerical ratios in mathematics.

Harmonia is the natural state of being of all creatures asserted by Plato



The word Nous signifies more than one concept. It is therefore ambiguous. This is a result of the word being appropriated by successive philosophers to designate very different attributes.

Homer used Nous to signify mental activities in general.
Anaxagoras's Nous was a mechanical ordering force that formed the world out of an original chaos. It began the development of the cosmos.
Plato described it as the immortal, rational part of the soul. This section of the soul of the world is the component that brings reasoned order to the universe. It is a godlike kind of thinking in which the truths of conclusions are immediately known without having to understand the preliminary premises.
Aristotle asserted that Nous was the intellect, as distinguished from sense perception. He divided it into an active and passive Nous. The passive is affected by knowledge. The active is an immortal first cause of all subsequent causes in the world. To the Stoics, it was the same as Logos. This is the whole cosmic reason. It contains human reason as a part. (Belthasar sure liked his Nu's.)
Plotinus described Nous as one of the emanations from divine being. (Entity?)

Radox: So whatdya think? Should I (finally) get an account at the compendium and see what they think?

*= this is an edit. Just in case poeple don't know, it's been theorized that the name 'Nu' represents the egyptian letter V which was closely related to water. At the conpendium, they theorise that Belthasar's quote is theorised to mean: 'All life begins with water and ends with water....'
end quote

I hope you Compendium dudes find this information useful if you didn't know it already.