Poll

Having read and understood this critique, do you continue to find the Time Bastard theory unneeding of heavy revision?

Yes, the theory works. (Please explain why.)
6 (33.3%)
No, the theory needs help. (You're welcome to try and offer it.)
12 (66.7%)

Total Members Voted: 17

Voting closed: April 30, 2005, 06:26:53 am

Author Topic: Debunking the Time Bastard Theory  (Read 11740 times)

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5460
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« on: April 30, 2005, 06:26:53 am »
The time has come to put the Time Bastard theory to rest. Many of the theories on the Compendium don’t hold water, but it usually does not matter because everything is in good fun—that is, until people use one of these shoddy theories to interfere with legitimate questions pertaining to the various possible interpretations of some aspect of a Chrono game’s artistry.

In another topic, someone raised a legitimate question: Are the cats seen throughout the time periods in Chrono Trigger actually Crono’s cat(s)? While probably they are not, the question is legitimate enough that any attempt to answer it should not be derailed by an illogical theory, but that is precisely what happened when Time Bastard was invoked to declare—to declare—that these cat(s) could not belong to Crono in 1000 A.D., at least not if they had come from Crono’s exact timeline, because they only entered the time gate at the end of the game, which, by the Time Bastard theory, would make it impossible for them to appear in any of the timelines Crono visited. At best we could say that, if they are Crono’s cat(s), then they are actually belonging to a Crono from a higher-order timeline that we never see.

This is an instance of pure conjecture being used to nullify a legitimate artistic interpretation, which detracts from the enjoyment of the games, and which is therefore why I offer to debunk that conjecture this evening.

The Time Bastard theory, as presented below, is riddled with logical contradictions both in its substance and presentation. I will address the theory and its deficiencies in three parts for organizational purposes.

~~~
The Time Bastard Theory
Quote
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.


~~~
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.

~~~
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!

~~~
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.

~~~
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.

Aitrus

  • Guru of Life Emeritus
  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2005, 03:27:26 pm »
Quote
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

Quote from: Lord J esq

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.

Quote from: Lord J esq

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.


Quote from: Lord J esq

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.


Quote from: Lord J esq

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.

Shadow_Dragon

  • Chronopolitan (+300)
  • *
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2005, 05:20:28 pm »
Quote
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.


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)


And I'm pretty sure that we all accept that time travel (or at least instaneous backwards time travel as in the game) isn't possible, so the need for scientific reasons why the timelines would be created/destroyed (although I believe that they aren't destroyed) is silly. You can't take out a key law of physics, and then expect to use our understanding of physics to hold up without that law.

Aitrus

  • Guru of Life Emeritus
  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2005, 05:31:40 pm »
Quote from: Shadow_Dragon
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.

Shadow_Dragon

  • Chronopolitan (+300)
  • *
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2005, 06:30:22 pm »
Quote from: Aitrus
Quote from: Shadow_Dragon
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.


I don't understand your understanding of the 'theorem'. Magus did travel from A (600 AD) to B (12000 BC), and B (12000 BC) is, in fact, less than, or prior to (as I assume it means, but with simplified notation) A (600 AD). I don't see how return trips have anything to do with the 'theorem'.


Now that I've read it again, I've become confused completely by what it tries to say. This is what I understand that it means:
Crono travels from 1000 AD to 995 AD. Crono's memories of the 995-1000 AD are all that are left of Crono's original timeline, and his original timeline is 'replaced' with whatever happens Crono's existance from 995 onward (the Crono that existed before 995 in the new timeline is really Crono'). However, according to the Time Bastard 'Theorem', Crono and Crono' exist together only from 1000 and onwards; this doesn't even make sense.

Hadriel

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1044
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2005, 08:40:19 pm »
Here's my 1/50 of a dollar.

Dragon: Here's what the theory states.  

If Crono travels in time from 1000 to 995, Crono and Crono' exist together from 995 until 1000 AD.  Then one of two things happens.

Scenario A: Crono' travels back through time, becoming a past version of Crono.  History is relatively unchanged.

Scenario B: Crono waits until 1000 AD.  Crono' does not obey the original history and travel back in time, and he gets his ass booted to the DBT.

I think the theory does need a bit of retooling -- who's to say that Crono doesn't get discarded instead of Crono'?  I believe that the precept of Time Traveler's Immunity was formed to explain this, and extended to explain how the team can change history by effectively creating new timelines over and over.  The alternate timeline theory is predicted by general relativity, as is time travel.

J esq: I understood the theory's claims perfectly.  The fact that it's in mathematical terms should give you a clue as to its intent.  It does not endeavor to explain why or how time travel occurs, only to postulate a set of rules to explain a theoretical circumstance.  The problem is that we cannot test that circumstance itself, only circumstances resembling it, which is a viable grievance against the theory.

In CT, you can complete the Sunken Desert quest and get Robo from 1000 AD, but you can't go back to a time in 600 AD before you beat Retinite.  This implies that there is no way to travel to a lower Time Error, which explains the Crono's cats postulation -- Crono at any time during the CT quest is at a lower Time Error than the cats when they traveled back in time, thus explaining why the cats cannot be Crono's.

The main issue here lies with the fact that Crono is from a different timeline than Crono'.  Thus, the events that occurred to produce Crono are different from those that occurred to produce Crono', just as the events that occurred to produce Home World's Norris are different from those of Another World.  If those events are not preserved somewhere, i.e. the Tesseract, Crono will cease to exist.  But if this place is not real or material, what happens then?  The Ideal Timeline's synthesis lends something to this -- presumably, the two timelines are recombined into one.  However, not much else is explained.  Some entities may or may not be annihilated in this combine.  They may merge into one entity.  I have suggested that, rather than simply destroying one universe and creating another, which twice violates Conservation of Mass/Energy, the matter in the universe takes on a different arrangement as dictated by the new history, and the life forces on timeline Y are shifted into the corresponding beings in timeline Y' -- this allows Atropos XR to exist in the new 2300 AD even though she was killed in the original.  Or, if you don't think robots have life forces, it allows Belthasar to not die in the new future.

All that we know is that it works somehow and the universe isn't destroyed.  I'd like to see some revisions or clarifications to the theory that account for these things.

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2005, 09:15:09 pm »
here is the link to the page with this theory, along with many others you should read as well: http://www.chronocompendium.com/wiki/index.php?title=On_The_Axioms_And_Corollaries_Governing_Temporal_Transforms

Okay, the TB theory only mandates that the Janus you meet be sent to the DBT only when he gets to the point in time where the original Janus is sent to 600ad.

Now, as for the point that since this new Janus would be sent to the DBT, why would people still remmber Magus, and the Mystic wars?  Well, here is a picture that illustrates it:


It will always be the original Janus that arrives in 600ad.  The new Janus will arrive in whatever timeline is in existance at the moment.  But Sentenal, what about if TimechangeA was before 12,000bc?  In the orginal timeline, Janus always timetravels to 600ad.  If someone in say, 1000ad, or whatever, went back to 13,000bc(theorical date), and prevented the Kingdom of Zeal from being formed, would Janus ever show up at 600ad?  Yes.  This would have been a new Timeline, one created after the timetraveling took place, and therefore Janus would have still timetraveled initally.  Of course this is irrelavant, because nothing happend that would have potentally prevented Janus being sent to 600ad.

And as for your questions about timelines being sent to the DBT, its fact.  Here is some text proving that erased timelines do, in fact, get sent to the DBT:

Quote
Miguel: Yes... I've been here in this very place... For 14 years... It wasn't like this when I got here, though... An incident that occurred 10 years ago, transformed it into the Dead Sea. Don't you know...? There's nothing in the world as ruthless or impartial as death. All living matter ages over time and eventually dies... No matter how mighty or tiny its life force... So being alive means you're creeping closer to death with every second... But there's none of that here. No one and nothing ages. Nothing wastes away.
This quiet, boundless, and beautiful world... An ideal world, straight out of a fairy tale, isn't it? A place and time that belongs to no one... Res nullius... It's because this is a future that was eliminated!!! History is composed of choices and divergences. Each choice you make creates a new world and brings forth a new future. But at the same time, you're eliminating a different future with the choices you didn't make. A future denied of all existence because of a change in the past... A future that was destroyed even before it was born rests here... condensed into the Dead Sea.

Radius: How is that possible...!?

Miguel: "Fate." Our lives are governed by fate. Fate knows all and controls all. No one can run from fate... Even your presence here was predestined... long, long ago. Wouldn't you all like to become one with this world? To be a part of eternity? How about it, Serge? You need no longer struggle alone, nor fear an uncertain tomorrow. Well? What do you say?

(Serge): Refuse!!!

Miguel: I see... I guess there's only one thing left to do then... I take it you're trying to restore the dimensional distortion? If you defeat me and liberate this place, the distortion will return to the way it was. I guess this is it... Just as there are times of peace, there are times of war... You don't have to hold back. Attack me with all your soul if you wish to live. Let fate take its course...!!!

Miguel: Well done! That's the way, Serge! My, you have grown strong. Maybe... just maybe... you and your friends have the power to defeat FATE and build a new future for humanity. The Dead Sea is the true form of this planet's future. That's right... At one stage our world was on the verge of such inevitable destruction... That was in 1999, when the parasitical alien life-form known as Lavos awoke and after centuries of feeding off this planet. Lavos fell from the heavens a countless number of years ago and burrowed deep beneath the surface to eat and sleep. Slowly but deliberately, Lavos devoured our planet from the inside out... waiting for the time to ripen its true awakening. Finally Lavos did awake and manifested its true form on the surface of the planet. That's when our world faced a death from which there seemed no possibility of escape... Were it not for a teenage boy and his group of adventurer friends, that is... These young heroes caught a glimpse of this planet's future destruction as it appeared in the year 2300. They realized they could not turn their backs on our planet, even if its death would not be anywhere near their lifetime. Time traveling from epoch to epock, they battled Lavos for the future of our planet, and eventually won. But in saving our planet from the death Lavos was going to bring about, they also changed the course of history...

Lucca: At that very moment, this whole future time axis ceased to exist. Call it cause and effect... It is just a problem of possibilities, after all... In this world, there are no such things as absolutes or certainties.

Marle: But the future that was supposed to have disappeared is about to be restored here... The future destruction of our planet is going to become a reality in this world once again...

Crono: The vengeance of the future we killed is about to begin... With Serge serving as the trigger...

Miguel: Perhaps, or perhaps not... Either way, it is all part of the grand game of the gods... and "goddesses!" People are dragged into playing this game... forced to put their own lives on the line... without even knowing the rules. Without even being allowed to complain, they try to do their best under the conditions placed upon them... The only alternative is to give up and leave the playing field in a forfeit... Three years ago, members of the Acacia Dragoons from Termina visited here... Those knights were after the Frozen Flame, of course. But instead they became salt for the Dead Sea... You see, only
the chosen one can approach the Flame...

Miguel: It looks like Fate has made its decision and has started to carry it out now...FATE doesn't want the Frozen Flame to awaken in this place at this time... It would choose to destroy the Flame along with the whole Dead Sea, than to allow its enemies to take hold of the Flame... This lost future is about to disappear into the darkness beyond the dimensions again... You have no time to spare. You must leave here immediately! Quick... go!


basically this says that history, or time if you prefer, is composed of choices.  Every choice made creates a new timeline, and destroyed countless other timelines, or possible timelines.  And these destroyed timelines end up in the Darkness Beyond Time.

EDIT:  This is in response to Shadow_Dragon and Lord J esq.

saridon

  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 720
  • eater of cows and small fuzzy animals since 1991
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2005, 12:28:29 am »
this isent really my field

dosent lucca state

Quote
Lucca: At that very moment, this whole future time axis ceased to exist. Call it cause and effect... It is just a problem of possibilities, after all... In this world, there are no such things as absolutes or certainties.


and marle

Quote
Marle: But the future that was supposed to have disappeared is about to be restored


dosent this sorta mean that only the future from the future is affected from the point time is changed and the old future destroyed or becomes another dinension one where lavos wasent destroyed but in the original he was creating two dimensions. am i making any sense? well as i said this isent really my field.

Shadow_Dragon

  • Chronopolitan (+300)
  • *
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2005, 01:54:42 am »
Sentenal, I don't quite understand your paragraph under the picture (nor the picture for that matter), so I'll say what I'm thinking it means to see if it is what you mean
I'll use the Magus/Janus example just so that I don't have to say X or X' or w/e

Janus goes from 13,000BC to 600AD. In 605AD Magus (he grew up to being Magus in 5 years magically, duh) goes back in time to 12,995BC and kills Janus (I dont like the idea of Zeal's being prevented). Janus, then, can't time travel from 13,000BC to 600AD, however, Janus still appears in 600AD.

Hmm... I thought of an interesting example:
I travel forward in time 5 minutes. Then, upon arriving in the future, I travel back in time 10 minutes, where I convince myself to not travel into the future. When 15 minutes pass, the two of me convince the me that appears aftering traveling forward 5 minutes to not travel back in time. Thus, 3 of me exist; the original I, which was supposed to have been sent into the future, the I that was sent into the future and then went back in time 10 minutes, and the I that was only sent into the future.

I dont think it's reasonable for 3 'indentical' entities to exist from one past-time-travel, so I think that since the I that was going to go into the future was stopped from doing so, the I that would've been the I that was going to go into the future in the future wouldn't appear.

That last sentence didn't really make sense, so I'll try to do it with I, I'', and I''', I being the original I that went forward in time but was stopped, I'' being the I that appeared in the future, and I''' being the I that appeared in the past: ..., so I think that since I was stopped from going into the future, I'', who is really I after time traveling, wouldn't appear.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5460
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Refutation of the Time Bastard Theory, Part II
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2005, 11:14:36 am »
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory, Part II

Contents:
Archives: The Time Bastard Theory and Supporting Discussion
Time Bastard Theory: Not a Theorem
Supporting the Refutation of the Time Bastard Theory
The Alternative


~~~~~
Archives: The Time Bastard Theory and Supporting Discussion

Quote
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.


Quote from: Aitrus
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.


Quote from: GrayLensman
In its original form, Time Bastard described the version Serge who was born in the ideal timeline, after the dimensional unification of Chrono Cross, and was subsequently eliminated when the old Serge returned from the Darkness Beyond Time.  It was supposed that the new Serge was sent in to DBT or otherwise discarded by the direct actions of some agency.

However, all time travelers who change the past would also produce duplicates.  For example, if Crono warps back in time, a new timeline is created, containing a new version of himself.  Evidently, when Crono returns home, the duplicate is nowhere to be found.  Presuming that the new Crono also travels through time doesn't solve the problem, because it doesn't eliminate the copy, and introduces some trouble with cause and effect.

There has to be some universal mechanism which removes these redundant copies, so that time travelers can return home.  The duplication of matter in this fashion may also violate the laws of thermodynamics.  We surmise the Time Bastard theory to operate like the Missing Piece theory in reverse.  If a dimension contains an excess of a particular entity, the extra one is pushed out.  When Crono travels back in time, and creates a new timeline, the instant the old Crono stepped into the Gate, the new Crono is sent into the Darkness Beyond Time.  If this event coincides with the new Crono entering a Time Gate, then it is only an added bonus

For the record, bringing Robo to 600 AD while his past self if still reseeding the forest is not an example of duplicate travelers existing.  Past, present and future, there is only one version of Robo in the universe.  He has a single, uninterrupted world line, which is viewed from different time frames.


Quote from: YbrikMetaknight
This allows for, among other things, Robo to exist in A.D. 2300 after the defeat of Lavos.  In CT's ending, Robo himself worried that, due to any unforseeable result of Lavos's defeat and the possibly radically different future that event could cause, he would not have a counterpart in the new future.  This subtheorem of the Time Bastard theorem states that if there was a Robo' he was replaced by Robo, and if there was not a Robo' then Robo simply came into existence as a true Time Bastard, that is one without an origin in the timeline in which he resided.


Quote from: GrayLensman
TB states that the mechanics of time travel cannot be used to create duplicate entities. If you warp back in time and create a new future where you did not time travel at all, you cannot meet the new, non-time traveling, version of yourself because that person will disappear at the instant of your original departure. This would be the same for any material object.

For all time and space, only one version of any entity may exist. However, an entity's world line may loop back onto itself so that the past and future version of an entity may exist in the same space-time. Magus can warp back to Zeal and encounter his past self, Janus, but there is no duplication. Robo can meet himself in Fiona's Forest. The articles taken from the sealed boxes can co-exist in the exact same way.

If the travelers retrieve a Red Mail from a sealed box in 1000 AD and then seemingly remove the same article from a box in 600 AD, they have not duplicated the item. For all space and time, only one item containing the physical matter of the Red Mail exists. But, the travelers possess versions of that item from two different times. The world line of the Armor has looped in on itself just like Magus and Robo.

This is not a free lunch, however. Once the Red Vest experiences a passage of time such that it reaches 2300 AD, it will cease to exist.

~

A traveler exiting a time warp is a “time bastard” with no relationship to the causality of that timeline whatsoever. That traveler’s past world line cannot be affected by any event within that timeline, and thus no change can prevent the traveler’s arrival from taking place. The traveler’s arrival is not dependant on his departure from another time or his historical existence in that timeline. I see this as a requirement for time travel to function in the Chrono universe as it does.

When Magus was warped to the Dark Ages, his actions significantly changed the events of the Ocean Palace disaster, but his memories were unaffected. The historical events involving Magus in 600 AD did not appear to change either. Magus changed the timeline prior to his original departure in 12000 BC, and this did not cause a new Janus to warp to 600 AD, or a new Magus to warp to 12000 BC.


Quote from: GrayLensman
TIME BASTARD - A REVIEW

The premise behind Time Bastard is that time travel cannot be used to create duplicates of entities.  It is possible for past and future versions of entities to exist in the same point in space-time, but duplicate entities from the same time period cannot coexist.  The doubles in Chrono Cross do not violate this because Home and Another are separate dimensions.

Consider this scenario:

At the Millennial Fair Crono warps 400 years into the past.  His presence in 600 AD creates a new timeline, and the original is sent to the Darkness Beyond Time.  In the new timeline, a new version of Crono will exist, but the original version of Crono in 600 AD is not affected because he has time traveller immunity.

In 1000 AD, the new version of Crono may enter the warp to 600 AD, but where does he go?  He cannot arrive in 600 AD, because the original version of Crono, who is protected by time traveller immunity already exists there.  Based on evidence in Chrono Trigger, time periods do not fill up with duplicate time travellers.  Thus, the new version of Crono is eliminated from the timeline and sent to the DBT.

Basically, if changes to the timeline result in the version of a time traveller entering a time-warp not being identical to the same traveller exiting the warp, the traveller entering the time-warp is sent to the DBT.

And if Crono continued time travelling:

The original version of Crono warps from 600 AD to 12,000 BC, creating another timeline.  Yet another version of Crono would enters the warp in 1000 AD, and is sent to the DBT.  The original version of Crono, protected by time traveller immunity, arrives in 600 AD.  However, due to the new timeline, when this version Crono warps to 12,000 BC, he is not identical to the original Crono, and is sent to the DBT.

Another case:

Perhaps if the changes to the timeline are severe, the new version of Crono would not enter the warp in 1000 AD (or the version of Crono in 600 AD).  Would the original version of Crono return to the present to find a duplicate of himself?  Since there are no duplicates, the new version of Crono must have been sent to the DBT at the same time the original Crono left.

The Theory in a Nutshell

Duplicates of entities cannot be created through time travel because this would violate the conservation of energy in the universe.  If a time travel scenario would cause a duplicate entity to exist, the entity with the least seniority of time traveller immunity would be sent to the DBT.

Examples

Robo encounters the past version of himself in 600 AD

After Fiona's Forest is replanted, Robo warps from 1000 AD to 600 AD and encounters his past self.  They are not duplicates because the versions of Robos are not the same age.  They are the same version of Robo looped in time.  When the "past" version of Robo reaches 1000 AD, he will be sent into the DBT at the time the "present" version of Robo originally warped out.

Magus encounters Janus in 12,000 BC

After the encounter with the time travellers in 600 AD, Magus is warped to 12,000 BC.  Magus encounters his past self (Janus), but they are not duplicates because they are not the same age.  During the destruction of Zeal, the new version of Janus will be sent to the DBT at the time the original Janus was warped to the middle ages.  The new version of Magus will be sent to the DBT when the original warped to 12,000 BC, and so on.


Quote from: GrayLensman
Quote from: Zatopek
Quote from: GrayLensman
The new version of Magus will be sent to the DBT when the original warped to 12,000 BC, and so on.

This is the only part I'm not getting.  When was there a new Magus?  If the new Janus is sent to the DBT there won't be a new Magus, right?  Am I missinbg something here?

The original version of Janus will warp to the middle ages, but the slight changes to the timeline will alter his experiences from the original Magus.  For example, the existence of the Black Omen.  This new version of Magus will not be identical to the original in 600 AD.


Quote from: Zatopek
I think I'm getting it now.  Even though the new Janus is sent to the DBT, there will still be a new Magus because of slight changes and big ones like the rising of the Black Omen.  Because the Magus in your part obviously does not remember the Black Omen existing in 600 AD the new Magus had been sent to the DBT when Magus warped to 12,000 BC.


~~~~~
Time Bastard Theory: Not a Theorem

Quote from: Aitrus
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.


To clarify our objectives and our boundaries, I would like to begin by pointing out why the “Time Bastard theorem” is not a theorem, but in fact a theory.

A theorem is a proposition that has been or is to be proved on the basis of explicit assumptions. (“Explicit” assumptions are readily true either by convention—e.g., a triangle has three corners—or overwhelming physical consistency—e.g., the gravitational acceleration on Earth’s surface is roughly 9.8 m/s².)

I think we would agree that the observation which inspires the “Time Bastard theorem” is that, for Entity X occurring on Timeline T, allegedly no two instances of X at any point on a T are exactly the same age. But a theorem demands the proof of explicit logical assumptions, and “Time Bastard theorem” offers no proof of the sort. It simply regurgitates the observation. It is not a theorem.

Instead it is a theory. Actually several words come to mind, but a presumed “Time Bastard theory” would attempt to explain our alleged observation in physical terms, and could be tested and used to make predictions. And indeed:

Quote from: Aitrus
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.


I think whoever originally came up with the title “Time Bastard theorem” was just trying to sound good. What we’re dealing with is a theory, something that attempts to explain what I have dubbed the “Time Bastard Effect,” which is a way of summarizing “the alleged observation that, for Entity X occurring on Timeline T, no two instances of X at any point on a T are exactly the same age” just as I stated above. I use the word alleged, because, after all, I disagree with the theory and therefore I do not necessarily agree with the observation it attempts to explain. We’ll get to that later.

For now, suffice it to say that this is why I have called the “Time Bastard theory” a theory while everyone else is calling it a theorem. I do so in order to clarify what exactly it is we’re talking about here, and what we’re trying to do with it.

~~~~~
Supporting the Refutation of the Time Bastard Theory

Quote from: Aitrus
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.


In Time Bastard theory we see the difference between a verifiable theory, and one that simply happens to fit the facts, if even that. The Time Bastard theory attempts to explain a phenomenon—the Time Bastard Effect—by describing the process that governs the function of this phenomenon, but in order to be accepted as true it is absolutely necessary for the theory’s proponents to provide reasoning for the stupendous mechanisms that allow for its operation. It is not an acceptable support of the theory to say that, because these elucidations which I have required in my original refutation as logical satisfying conditions to the theory have already been provided for elsewhere on the Compendium, therefore Time Bastard is a valid theory. Instead, what should happen is that the theory invoke no less than those elements in order to demonstrate the theory’s status as a derivative of the higher-order theorizations regarding temporal mechanics as presently accepted here on the Compendium.

In simpler terms, Time Bastard as it currently exists makes claims without proof, and relies upon theories which it does not reference. That is, it does not express itself in terms of other Chronoverse theories. My demand is that the Time Bastard theory not exist in this vacuum, that it instead comprise itself of and express itself by the higher theories of temporal mechanics upon which it relies. I am not asking for any of the higher temporal mechanics to be proved here; I am asking them to be identified to whatever degree of explication is necessary and then related to the Time Bastard theory directly.

A few examples of what the Time Bastard theory’s deficiencies in this regard:

“If X time travels…”
The concept “time travels” must be expressed in terms of the temporal mechanical model. If a timeline represents chronotic potential, then we’re talking about a discontinuity in the chronotic potential. But if a timeline represents entropic potential, then we talking about a discontinuity in the entropic potential. Or maybe “potential” isn’t an accurate representation at all; maybe a timeline represents neither of these things; maybe it can only be expressed in terms of a relative causation string, or even something else altogether. This must be clarified! We have to know what time travel means before we can talk about what it does.

“…such that B is less than A…”
Again, “less then” by what measure? What units are we using here? Obviously we are talking about B being “earlier” in time than “A,” but that word means nothing if it is not tied to the temporal mechanical conventions governing time. Trying to explain the Time Bastard Effect by talking about seniority on a timeline without knowing what a timeline represents is like talking about voltage at a point on a circuit without knowing how the circuit is configured, and then trying to use that information to imply fundamental truths of electricity. The conclusions drawn are almost certain to be wrong.

“…for time > B…”
I mentioned this in my original refutation, but no one seemed to understand the importance. It is unjustifiable to apply a limiting stipulation to a process without describing the threshold that governs the limitation. Even if the Time Bastard theory were true, which is a dubious prospect, it would either have to apply to time travel between any two points on a timeline, or there would need to be a physical reason for excluding travel to some portions of the timeline (in this case, future portions) from the theory’s domain of applicability. No such reason is given, and thus the stipulation is arbitrary and therefore invalid. Now, we all know the limitation is meant to account for the observation that no two instances of Entity X are the exact same age. But as it presently stands, the Time Bastard theory only regurgitates this observation; it does not explain why, which is the whole point of the theory in the first place. As such, the Time Bastard theory is little more than an attempt to restate the Time Bastard Effect.

Quote from: Aitrus
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 gets back to what I was just saying about the need to explain the reason for a limiting stipulation. If you look on from the End of Time, time traveling back in time alters history just as much as time traveling forward in time. So why does the Time Bastard theory apply only to traveling backward in time?

Example: From the perspective of someone in, say, 2500 A.D., due to the process commonly referred to on the Compendium as Time Error, at the beginning of the game Crono has not yet traveled into the future era of 2300 A.D. The people in 2500 would have no history recording his arrival and subsequent resuscitation of human spirits in the Domes. Indeed, there might not be any humans alive at all in 2500! But once Crono does travels forward into 2300, there will suddenly be perhaps a more hopeful, healthy people living there who will well remember the day when the world revived.

Ergo, if the Time Bastard theory is true, it must apply to all instances of time travel rather than just the backward-traveling ones. The only way to get around this requirement is to specifically define some threshold as I have described previously, or else refute or revise the “Time Error” theory—a much more sound theory, I might add, albeit an inaccurate one.

Quote from: Aitrus
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.


Again, this is a restatement of the (alleged) observation of the Time Bastard Effect, followed by claims of a sequence of events that must occur to satisfy the observation. But the theory offers no explanation as to how or why these claims are the correct ones. Indeed, some very significant problems arise. When Crono travels to 600 A.D., the Time Bastard theory claims the creation of a derivative timeline and that the Crono born in this timeline would grow up in a timeline where “that spiky-haired boy won the war.” But because this derivative Crono isn’t present when the original Crono returns to his time, the theory alleges that he must have been “sent” to the Darkness Beyond Time. At the same time, everything else in the new, derivative timeline has no memory of the history that the original Crono remembers. So thus we have the original timeline and the derivative Crono sent to the Darkness Beyond Time while the derivative timeline and the original Crono take their place.

By what mechanism is this transformation effected? Why does an act of time travel have any effect on a timeline? You say that:

Quote from: Aitrus
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.


But that’s just not true. Show the difference between “an entire universe” and “events of said universe.” There is no difference! It is two ways of describing the same thing.

What the Time Bastard theory is effectively saying is that any act of time travel is not merely an act of time travel, but a reorganization of the entire universe, with everything changed according to some new specifications determined by a special set of contents (the time travelers), who alone of all things in the universe remain the same.

You see, I certainly do understand the theory. I just don’t buy it. Crono’s original timeline was real. He was there. The Time Bastard theory says that upon an act of time travel, now suddenly it’s not real anymore. But if that were true, this timeline had to go somewhere. And indeed, the theory says the timeline is “sent” to the Darkness Beyond Time. But what mechanism provides for the “sending”?

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.

Quote from: Aitrus
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.

But we’re talking about the entire universe! If the Time Bastard theory is true, the reality of its ramifications means one of two things. The first possibility is that there is some force larger in energy and capacity than the entire universe, which is responsible for providing the mechanisms of obliviation and creation of universes, and that this “ultra force” is triggered somehow by time travel.

The second possibility is more interesting, and far, far more plausible. All this time I have not provided any alternate explanation of the Time Bastard Effect. For one thing, I’m still not satisfied that the observation is complete. There may be times when a timeline does contain two or more indigenous Entities X of the same age. This much is intimated after the Ocean Palace disaster—among other times—when Janus and Melchior are recounted to have disappeared into a huge gate. The Time Bastard theory says this detail doesn’t matter; they’re going to be erased because of a more senior Magus and Melchior. And Lavos itself…well, Lavos seems to exist uniformly at every point in time after its arrival, and, for all we know, prior to its arrival too. Lavos takes the limit of Time Bastard theory as the Time Bastard Effect goes to infinity, and what we get is a bunch of gobbledegook…Lavos is still there, but the theory is in shambles.

But an alternative explanation might be constructed to avoid these problems. And while it is not necessary to complete the refutation of a false theory by providing a true theory in its place, it would be icing on the cake.

~~~~~
The Alternative

I do have an alternate explanation. Unfortunately, it’s a part of my unified space-time theory for the Chronoverse, which I undertook over a year ago and have a ways to go yet before I finish. But if you don’t mind a “half-baked” alternative to the Time Bastard theory, consider this premise:

Quote from: Derivative Material based upon [i]Josh’s Grand Unified Space-Time Theory of the Chronoverse (Working Draft)[/i]
Suppose that, orthogonal to real time, where real time is represented by a continuous, nonplanar surface—the curvature of which is determined by the actions undertaken on each real time timeline set—and is divided into infinite parallel adjacent real time timelines, there is a continuous planar “wave front” representing the instance of real time at any given orthogonal time. (Note that this allows for simultaneous timelines to exist, by the nonplanar real time surface crossing over itself in metaspace, the interpretation of which provides for the existence of multiple dimensions.) This orthogonal wave front transects real time timelines at a smooth rate, continuously, as it moves forward in orthogonal time. In effect, it acts to determine the “absolute” real time timelines, which means that, on the axis of real time, only one set of timelines at a time can actually exist—namely, those with a value on the orthogonal axis corresponding to the wave front.

Because the real time timelines are infinitesimal, they do not actually exist distinctively, except where the wave front transects. The premise of indistinguishable real time timelines means that every action on every point of a real time timeline set at the moment of wave front transection determines the shape of its corresponding point in real time on the next instance of absolute real time as the wave front progresses. What this means is not certain in the context of real time itself, but it would nonetheless be observable by taking a cross-section of real time at a specific point in real time. This cross-section would typically be a continuous curve. However, it is possible for there to be points of discontinuity, and these would be reconciled by moving to another cross-section to see that the curvature in real time was changed at another point in real time on the same absolute real time timeline set.

This change in curvature leading to discontinuities at other points in real time, would be the mathematical expression of a “change” to the real time timeline, and whose causative phenomena would include the arrival point of a time traveler.

This would explain the elements of the Time Bastard Effect we know to be true by observation. Consider an empty universe, in which real time would be planar. Every point in real time, being null, will determine that the next point is also null, and hence the progression of orthogonal time will yield no changes to real time. But in a full universe, everything affects everything else, not only in real time, but in orthogonal time, and this is represented by the continuity of orthogonal time.

Lavos, rather than existing in a pocket dimension, would be said to exist bound to orthogonal time rather than to real time, which is why it exists at all points in real time prior to its destruction, but no points in real time thereafter.

Unlike with the Time Bastard theory, nothing is destroyed to nothingness by this model, and nothing is created out of nothingness, as the existence of real time as a surface rather than a line provides for an orthogonal progression which continuously—i.e., without violation of physical laws—reflects the occurrences at every point in real time. The trick is that it adds an extra dimension of infinitude to the universe, along the orthogonal axis. That which passes into the Darkness Beyond Time is synonymously said to abruptly cease to affect its corresponding points in real time further along the orthogonal axis.

When Crono travels back from 1000 A.D. to 600 A.D., a discontinuity occurs at all cross-sections of real time from the point 600 onward. The new real time timeline set now reflects a history where that spiky-haired kid won the war.

And the same applies equally well to all other instances of the Time Bastard Effect, or at least those of which that I have evaluated.


At this point, I am not ready to offer the above material as a functional alternative, because even though it is leaps and bounds more logically consistent than the now-defunct Time Bastard theory, it still hasn’t passed my own personal review, which depends upon the completion of the unified space-time theory, which is far from finished. (If anyone was thinking this post is long, they ain’t seen nothin’ yet…) However, as a show of goodwill, I have offered it for consideration as what an alternative to the Time Bastard theory might look like.

In closing, Chrono Cross does indeed establish that timelines are at least sometimes overwritten by choices made that affect the course of history. There is circumstantial and perhaps even some direct evidence to further suggest that time travel in particular can cause this overwriting. But the grain of all three Chrono games makes it very clear that certain people are special to the space-time continuum, and what might apply to them does not necessarily apply to others. At the end of the day, meaningful achievements are made, which could only occur if the universe were not littered with infinite timelines, discarded left and right at the drop of a hat, relegating entire infinitudes of people and things to the Darkness Beyond Time without good artistic cause—and, here at last, we should remember that these games are about art and leisure, more so than hard mathematics. Any attempt to explain their mechanics physically…should mind artistic license.

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2005, 01:23:52 pm »
You are asking to much of the TBT.  This is not the end-all of Time Travel rules.  This is not the supreme theory that governs Time Travel in CT.  This theorm is ment to work with the numerous other theorys in the article linked above.

There is no need to provide the MEANS of timelines getting discarded.  We know it happens, its a GIVEN, a constant.  This is not even the theory that discusses the creation of new timelines!  We cannot actually go and test the physics of the Chrono Universe.  You ask for means of how timelines are discarded, and means for them being created?  Time is built on choices, and remove a lower choice, and everything on top of it crumbles.  Thats how it works.  We dont need to prove that, or give means on how it works.

To clarify the picture in my above post, it means the original version of Janus will always appear in 600ad, regardless changes into the timeline prior to Janus time traveling.  If Janus originally gets sent to 600ad, and then someone goes back into 12,000bc and murders Janus, the original version of Janus that was not murdered will still appear in 600ad.

Quote
“…for time > B…”
I mentioned this in my original refutation, but no one seemed to understand the importance. It is unjustifiable to apply a limiting stipulation to a process without describing the threshold that governs the limitation. Even if the Time Bastard theory were true, which is a dubious prospect, it would either have to apply to time travel between any two points on a timeline, or there would need to be a physical reason for excluding travel to some portions of the timeline (in this case, future portions) from the theory’s domain of applicability. No such reason is given, and thus the stipulation is arbitrary and therefore invalid. Now, we all know the limitation is meant to account for the observation that no two instances of Entity X are the exact same age. But as it presently stands, the Time Bastard theory only regurgitates this observation; it does not explain why, which is the whole point of the theory in the first place. As such, the Time Bastard theory is little more than an attempt to restate the Time Bastard Effect.


Why would going into the future have any relavance?  We know that the future is built on choices and actions made in the past, not visa-versa.  Changes in the future to do effect the past, excluding people in the future timetraveling to the past.

Quote
The second possibility is more interesting, and far, far more plausible. All this time I have not provided any alternate explanation of the Time Bastard Effect. For one thing, I’m still not satisfied that the observation is complete. There may be times when a timeline does contain two or more indigenous Entities X of the same age. This much is intimated after the Ocean Palace disaster—among other times—when Janus and Melchior are recounted to have disappeared into a huge gate. The Time Bastard theory says this detail doesn’t matter; they’re going to be erased because of a more senior Magus and Melchior. And Lavos itself…well, Lavos seems to exist uniformly at every point in time after its arrival, and, for all we know, prior to its arrival too. Lavos takes the limit of Time Bastard theory as the Time Bastard Effect goes to infinity, and what we get is a bunch of gobbledegook…Lavos is still there, but the theory is in shambles.


Janus and Melchior were not present at the Ocean Palace.  So, at the point in time where the original Janus and Melchior were supposed to be sent to 600ad and 1000ad, respectivly, they are swallowed up and sent to the DBT.  Why would there just be some random gate appearing far away from the Ocean Palace, that just happens to swallow up these to, and no one else?  This is an example of the TB at work, erasing both of these characters.  And your example of Lavos is... Well, very flawed.  Lavos never time travels, this the TB has no effect on him.

Your problems with the TBT come from your demand that it provide means and hows for time traveling and changes in time.  Accept that this is not the theory to be asking that of, and I think that will solve some problems here.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5460
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2005, 02:29:32 pm »
Sentenal, with regard to the flavor of your reply, I think that in your haste to defend the established theory, you have neglected to consider the substance of and motivation for my refutation of it. I am disappointed to see no meaningful consideration of what I have said.

I don’t expect it to be easy for members here to stop believing in something we used to believe in, but if the Compendium values its espoused dedication to genuine scientific speculation of phenomena in the Chrono games, then you ought to go back and reconsider what I have written, not from the point of view of defending a theory that you think is true, but from the point of view of judging a grievance.

My grievance is that the Time Bastard theory not only is wrong, but that it has been invoked in an effort to stifle legitimate artistic questions pertaining to the series—you will recall that bit about the cats in the various timelines.

If you wish to assemble a more relevant critique, one that addresses the grievance raised, evaluates the substance of my arguments with equal substance on your own part, and formulates a cohesive response in a thoughtful manner, then we might go on from there. But as to your above post…I think you’ve already made up your mind that this is a topic on which you are unwilling to consider further possibilities.

Hadriel

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1044
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2005, 02:49:25 pm »
Well, I actually think your mathematical representation of curved linear time versus nonlinear time as a sort of wavefront is pretty 1337.

Other than that, I don't have much else to say right now.  Maybe later after I'm more awake.

Aitrus

  • Guru of Life Emeritus
  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Re: Refutation of the Time Bastard Theory, Part II
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2005, 03:26:20 pm »
Quote from: Lord J esq
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.

Quote from: Lord J esq
Quote from: Aitrus
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.

Quote from: Lord J esq
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.

Swordmaster

  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2005, 04:28:21 pm »
Quote from: saridon
this isent really my field

dosent lucca state

Quote
Lucca: At that very moment, this whole future time axis ceased to exist. Call it cause and effect... It is just a problem of possibilities, after all... In this world, there are no such things as absolutes or certainties.


and marle

Quote
Marle: But the future that was supposed to have disappeared is about to be restored


dosent this sorta mean that only the future from the future is affected from the point time is changed and the old future destroyed or becomes another dinension one where lavos wasent destroyed but in the original he was creating two dimensions. am i making any sense? well as i said this isent really my field.



Possibilities.

The timelines are based in the higher probabilty of a event to happen.
But...
what happens when  theres no higher probabilty? Something like all chances are equal? 50/50 chance of life and death for Chrono Trigger
Paralel Dimensions.
Thats why Home and Another still running together.