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 11741 times)

Aitrus

  • Guru of Life Emeritus
  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #30 on: May 04, 2005, 02:49:37 pm »
Quote from: Hadriel
...so, who's up for creating a grand unified theory in half an hour?


Ooh, that sounds like fun.

But seriously, anyone who's hung around here for any length of time would realize how long it takes to get any theory accepted, much less to have one disproved.  Assuming that the "debunking" position has any merit at all, it could take months.  Even if it has no merit, this will most likely result in a slight rewrite.  But still, it's going to take months.

GrayLensman

  • Guru of Reason Emeritus
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2005, 12:34:50 am »
In response to Debunking the Time Bastard Theory:

Zeality and I co-authored Time Bastard. I have reviewed Lord J esq's analysis and I do not believe that the arguments presented have any merit.  Unless someone asks me to comment on a particular point, I will not be posting a defence as it would be a waste of my time and effort.

Although this is an informal community, I found many of Lord J esq's comments to be inappropriate.  For example:

Quote from: Lord J esq
But as for this Time Bastard Theory so misguidedly hallowed in these halls, I'm long overdue to put that codswallop in its final resting place. I take now to my keyboard for to visit condemnation upon the idols of the pseudoscientific establishment and bring revolution to the sum of Chronopolean knowledge.


If Lord J esq wishes to be taken seriously, I ask that he treat Zeality and me with respect.

Shadow_Dragon

  • Chronopolitan (+300)
  • *
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2005, 01:12:51 am »
grr... "I ask that he treat Zeality and I with respect."... it should be "Zeality and me", sorry, but it really bothers me when people use "... and I" in every instance

I don't like how it's called a theorem, but I think that the way Lord J esq has presented it is crazy; I mean, do we really have to define time?

I didn't understand the theory when I started this post, but after thinking about it, I kind of understand it; did Lord J esq give any technical contradictions in the theory in his first post, or did he just pick on the absence of definitions of commonly accepted terms? I can barely understand his post because it's so long and complicated...

Hmm.. so if Magus's going back in time and affecting Janus caused Magus' to have not go back in time in the new timeline, Magus' would disappear at the instant when Magus originally timetravelled because Magus' (in 600 AD) and the corpse of Magus (assuming Magus stayed in Zeal after timetravelling) can't exist in the same time... is that right?

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2005, 01:25:41 am »
uhhh, not sure if I understood you...  But I'll try and explain it.

Okay, Magus (not Janus, but Magus) time travels to 12,000bc, and he prevents Janus(not Magus, Janus) from time traveling (he actually is prevented from time traveling in CT, but not directly because of Magus).  When the new Janus (the one that met Magus) reachs the exact same age as the Magus-Janus did when he first was sent to 600ad, new Janus is sent to the DBT.

GrayLensman

  • Guru of Reason Emeritus
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2005, 03:59:00 am »
Quote from: Shadow_Dragon
I don't like how it's called a theorem, but I think that the way Lord J esq has presented it is crazy; I mean, do we really have to define time?

I didn't understand the theory when I started this post, but after thinking about it, I kind of understand it; did Lord J esq give any technical contradictions in the theory in his first post, or did he just pick on the absence of definitions of commonly accepted terms? I can barely understand his post because it's so long and complicated...

OK, since you asked, I'll give a brief analysis.

Most of Lord J esq's arguments are based on definitions of terms and semantics.  Apparently, the way I worded Time Bastard means it isn't a theory and hence is false.

Lord J esq also attempts to disprove things which are not within the scope of Time Bastard.  He likens the creation of new timelines as a result of time travellers' actions to the destruction of the entire universe due to an insignificant event.  He then dismisses Time Bastard because it presents no mechanism for the recreation of the entire universe.

There are two problems with this.  
[list=1]
  • Time travel does not necessarily affect the entire universe.  Due to relativity, a time traveller will only affect the region of space within his future light-cone.  For example, a time traveller's mass disturbs surrounding bodies through gravitational force, which propagates at light speed.  After 400 years, only objects 400 light years away would be disturbed.  (I guess I've just provided a mechanism for an "insignificant" time traveller to cause the state of the universe to be changed. )
  • Also, the creation of a new timeline does not imply that the substance of the universe is sent to the DBT and recreated out of nothingness.  The new timeline represents the new state of the future light cone of the time traveller which is disturbed by his physical presence.  This new state is affected by gravity and the other physical forces.  The original state of the universe is preserved as information in the DBT.  Nothing is created from thin air.
    [/list:o]
    Lord J esq concludes that Time Bastard must apply to forward as well as backwards time travel, which is false.  (In fact, I am completely baffled as to how he come to this conclusion.)  If a traveller warps to his future, he doesn't affect his past world-line, so no time bastard is created.

    Lord J esq also considers the existence of the Darkness Beyond Time as a repository of discarded timelines to be against the "grain" of the series and that time travel in general does not create new timelines.  In his conclusion, Lord J esq admits that Chrono Cross offers indisputable evidence that at least one timeline was sent to the DBT.  However, he downplays the evidence from Chrono Cross to only applying to "special" entities.  He goes to great lengths analyzing the exact wording of the theory, only to (in my oppinion) present a distorted interpretation of in-game evidence, because the idea that time travel creates multiple discarded timelines is not artistically appealing.

    Quote from: Shadow_Dragon
    Hmm.. so if Magus's going back in time and affecting Janus caused Magus' to have not go back in time in the new timeline, Magus' would disappear at the instant when Magus originally timetravelled because Magus' (in 600 AD) and the corpse of Magus (assuming Magus stayed in Zeal after timetravelling) can't exist in the same time... is that right?

    If reading Lord J esq's critique proved anything, it is that I should present the Time Bastard theory in a more easily understood form.  I hope Sentenal provided an adequate explanation.

Shadow_Dragon

  • Chronopolitan (+300)
  • *
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #35 on: May 11, 2005, 01:34:02 am »
yeah, that makes a lot more sense now, but does the game ever have any examples of it, or is all this in theory of what would happen?

and I really didn't mean to be rude to you, GrayLensman, or Lord J esq (I couldn't find a way to phrase what I was trying to say like GrayLensman), so sorry if it seemed that way

Zaperking

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2210
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #36 on: May 11, 2005, 04:28:35 am »
I have a little suggestion, not sure if this has been posted before, that I need an answer to:

For instance. Magus travels to the past and gets to Zeal 12,000BC. Once he reaches it, he basically skips time lines so there is no loop in him going to Zeal again.

Why?
1) The boy at the millenium fair states throughout the whole game that Guardia won the battle vs the Mystics, and who cares. This may still imply that Magus died the way that he died in the first and original time line.

Now for an explination.

Once Magus jumps from his time, to Zeal, he acctually enters their time line. This way if he sees Janus, there would be no time bastard. Now when Janus goes to the future, which is 600AD. He will always die like he was supposed to by summoning Lavos or whatever. This way 400 years after that, Chrono will meet Marle, gates are triggered again and they happen to end up at Magus' lair where he lives, yet dies in another. We know because Chrono and co didn't beat Magus again in 600AD.

Now Im  was wondering if this would work?
It was just an idea that came into mind when I remembered something that Miguel or Chronopolis said something about new time lines.

^^

SilentMartyr

  • Magical Dreamer (+1250)
  • *
  • Posts: 1373
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chronotrigger.info
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #37 on: May 11, 2005, 02:12:43 pm »
Quote from: Zaperking
I have a little suggestion, not sure if this has been posted before, that I need an answer to:

For instance. Magus travels to the past and gets to Zeal 12,000BC. Once he reaches it, he basically skips time lines so there is no loop in him going to Zeal again.
Why?


Skips timelines? Under the theory there is only one timeline, but obviously there can be multiple dimensions. Think of the timeline like a staight line. Magus is in 600 A.D. on the right side of the string. Once he gates back to 12,000 B.C. he moves directly to the part of the string where 12,000 is represented.

Quote

1) The boy at the millenium fair states throughout the whole game that Guardia won the battle vs the Mystics, and who cares. This may still imply that Magus died the way that he died in the first and original time line.

Now for an explination.

Once Magus jumps from his time, to Zeal, he acctually enters their time line. This way if he sees Janus, there would be no time bastard. Now when Janus goes to the future, which is 600AD. He will always die like he was supposed to by summoning Lavos or whatever. This way 400 years after that, Chrono will meet Marle, gates are triggered again and they happen to end up at Magus' lair where he lives, yet dies in another. We know because Chrono and co didn't beat Magus again in 600AD.

Now Im  was wondering if this would work?
It was just an idea that came into mind when I remembered something that Miguel or Chronopolis said something about new time lines.

^^


Nope it wouldn't, to be blunt. To assume that would be a strech, because it would basically negate any of the things done by the group, since they would all revert back to the original timeline eventually. Having such a loop wouldn't make sense. Why would the entity prefer being destroyed numerous times over and over instead of just once? Seems a little strange to me.

As for why technically, as soon as Janus (new one) is pulled into the gate to bring him to 600 A.D. he is instead taken to the DBT. When the group interfered with Magus's summon of Lavos history was changed so that Magus didn't die in the castle. Everything else stayed the same for the most part, the only other change is that it was known that a boy named Crono was a hero back in 600 A.D. (There is a meal named after him in the 1000 A.D. Guardia Castle kitchen)

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #38 on: May 11, 2005, 04:54:43 pm »
It is always the original Janus, the one that becomes Magus, that will appear in every single new 600ad.  Every new Janus will be sent to the DBT the very second of time that the original Janus traveled to 600ad.  There are no loops in the Chrono universe.  After Crono and Frog interfer with him summoning Lavos, and sent to 12,000bc, it will always be the original Magus that appears in every single new 12,000bc.  That make sense?

Shadow_Dragon

  • Chronopolitan (+300)
  • *
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #39 on: May 11, 2005, 11:15:52 pm »
Quote from: Sentenal
It is always the original Janus, the one that becomes Magus, that will appear in every single new 600ad.  Every new Janus will be sent to the DBT the very second of time that the original Janus traveled to 600ad.  There are no loops in the Chrono universe.  After Crono and Frog interfer with him summoning Lavos, and sent to 12,000bc, it will always be the original Magus that appears in every single new 12,000bc.  That make sense?


why exactly does the original Janus appear, instead of the one that remembers seeing Magus? I don't think that there are any special rules that apply to future time travel, or are there?

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #40 on: May 12, 2005, 12:06:59 am »
Basically, the original Janus had Time Traveler's immunity first, so to speak.  And we know that we have no duplicate Janus appearing in 600ad, so only one must have been able to Time Travel.  This is true in all cases of Time Travel.

Zaperking

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2210
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #41 on: May 12, 2005, 08:56:25 am »
Don't you mean the second Janus. The original Janus was always destroyed by lavos once he summoned him. I think.

The Crono time line would have Crono's time line's Janus that was sent to 12,000BC because of what Crono did.

Two Robos can time travel...
Robo can go back to the past and see himself working in the desert..

I was wondering, wouldn't there always be a loop in the Chrono Universe? Basically in 1000AD Crono goes through all the trouble to defeat Lavos. Now how about in 999 AD, 1 day before the festival happens... Doesn't that mean that this Crono would be like the other Crono, not knowing that he would go onto a journy. Once that Crono also completes his mission, he would live in his 1000AD. For instance 1000AD 10days after the millenium. Whilst the Crono that we played would be in 1000AD 11 days after the millenium. It's like saying that the Epoch could go back 1 day in time. We should all know that the times that we're allowed to go to are only for plot, right?
Unless we go back to the whole thing about the entity purposly making those gates.
Most of the time when I talk about Chrono Time travel, I talk about time travel as in you could theoretically travel to any time, minute, second etc. just that we don't see it in this game >.>
I'm pretty sure the epoch does work under different laws than the gates.

TheOpposition

  • Iokan (+1)
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #42 on: May 12, 2005, 02:15:30 pm »
Well, I read the TimeBastard Theory, and I believe I understand it. Is there even an event in ChronoTrigger where this even takes place?

Since I prefer to explain my understanding using examples, I'll use one now to see if if my understanding is true or not.
==Example1==
-Man-A from Timeline-X goes through a gate back in time by 2 hours.

-As soon as Man-A exits the gate in the past, Timeline-X is essentially destroyed, and a new timeline, Timeline-Y, takes it's place due to Man-A's interference. Man-A is now a part of Timeline-Y, so he is not destroyed with Timeline-X.  

-Man-B is Man-A's counterpart in Timeline-Y. Man-A is Man-B's future self.

-Man-A takes an action which will prevent Man-B from time traveling...

-As soon as Man-A goes through 2 hours, and reaches his -previous present?- there are now 2 Man's where there should be only one. Man-A has time traveller's immunity, and Man-B is cast into the Darkness beyond Time...

Is this correct?

If so, I don't think I like this Theory much. If the thinking of this is the conservation of mass/energy, what happened when Man-A entered Timeline-Y? suddenly new mass and energy are basically injected into the new timeline with nothing to counter-act it.

It also states that only identical entities are considered for the TimeBastard effect. However, Man-A is not the same, he is 2 hours ahead of Man-B in Age. Not to mention the Time-Traveller immunity. They are not identical.

I think the Theory should be elaborated a little for ease of understanding. with an example of how it works.   :wink:  

--I have another example I just thought of >_>  using the above naming conventions.

==Example2==
-Let's say that Man-A did not prevent Man-B from timetraveling.

-Man-B goes back in time through a gate 2 hours to the past.

-As soon as Man-B exits the gate in the past Timeline-Y is cast into the Darkness beyond Time (which includes Man-A) and Timeline-Z is created. with Man-B as the current TimeBastard. and then Man-C will be Man-B's counterpart in the Timeline-Z

This sounds awful to me since this would make a very bad loop if the current Time bastard does not prevent his counterparts timetravelling.

My second example confuses me. I have been thinking about some time-travelling theories myself, which tries to cover what I believe TimeBastard does. However, it is not yet completely thought out. It involves 2 timestrings for each time stream. kinda like a Parent-Timeline and a Child-Timeline, where looking at certain paradoxial events may be resolved by using the Parent-time index for the child's timeline.

I'd explain further, maybe in a new thread, I don't want to hi-jack this one lol. Plus, I've got to get to work -_-'

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #43 on: May 12, 2005, 02:59:17 pm »
Zapper:  Techically, the Janus-Magus you get in your party is the second one.  But he isn't a second version in the sense the Time Bastard uses.  Or maybe we can say that he is the original one, but changed by changes.  Regardless, he is only made the second Janus after Crono time travels, and goes to his castle, and he doesn't die.  Now, if the original Magus, the one who was killed by Lavos, time traveled, the Magus who you eventually get is sent to the DBT, but that didnt happen.

and the Robo example...  The Robo you see tending the field is not a duplicate.  It is Robo at a younger "age".  Once that Robo reachs the moment in time the original Robo gets into that gate to go anywhere (this would be after the forest is restored, and you pick him up), it is sent to the DBT.

Looping in what i'm talking about is a causation loop.  In simple terms, it means that you cannot go back in time and be your own Grand Father, you cannot go back in time and create a time traveling device that you use to go back in time to create a time traveling device that you use to-  Ill stop there on that one, but you know what I mean.

Remmber, the TBT deals with duplicate entities created by possible multiple versions of entities time traveling.

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
Debunking the Time Bastard Theory
« Reply #44 on: May 12, 2005, 03:07:22 pm »
As an example of the TBT in game, there is only an event we can speculate on.  That is the new Janus and Melchior being consumed or something by a dark portal.  Original, before I ever came to this site, I took that to be a gate.  Well, why would a random gate simply appear in the Earthbound Village, and just swallow those 2, if Lavos was merely at the Ocean Palace?  Why would Magus still retain memories of the original Ocean Palace disatster?

As for your first example, yes, that is correct, the theory says that.

There are parts of this theory that I dont particularly like myself, but its not like something like that happens every day in the Chronoverse.

As for your second example...  Man-B would be sent to the DBT the very second he steps in that gate.  Man-A will appear 2 hours ago in timeline-C.  If you think of timelines as actual lines, time travel is not simply moving from one point on a timeline to another, it would be the person detaching from the timeline, and landing on another part, like jumping.  And remmber, changes in the future do no effect the past.  So its not the entire Timeline thats discarded, its just from the point of time traveler's arrive onward.