R = L = N = E = K = N = ...... = U

Okay, if a Sorceress needs to pass her powers on before she dies then in theory Ultimecia really is a descendent of Rinoa.

Don't flip out yet!

So waaaaay back when there was Hyne, she created the world blah blah. So many many many years later we have 2 sorceresses existing, Edea and Adel.
Before them there were many sorceresses made by Hyne (there had to be, or else how could we have 2 sorceresses in one time period?) but they were hunted etc. and eventually there were only 2 sorceress bloodlines, the one that eventually passed its powers onto Edea, and the other to Adel. Now, because Adel died it eliminated the second to last sorceress blood line (well, its not literally a bloodline, but you get the point) and that left Rinoa, whom had recieved her powers from Edea. So now there is one sorceress in the present day, Rinoa.

So Rinoa MUST have passed her powers on before dying, lets say to some girl named Lenne, then to Nina, Eleanor, Kelly, Nadia etc. etc. so all these sorceresses (yeah i know i made them up, but go with me) passed down their powers to the next, eventually getting to Ultimecia, so really Ultimecia has to be a descendent of Rinoa, but they definitely aren't the same person.

But Ultimecia is from the future, so she can't be a descendant. Also I thought that the 'sorceress'-to-be' didn't have to be related. Edea wasn't related to Rinoa, was she?? O I'm confuzzled! :confused:

Anyone in the Sorceress tale was a descendent of other, only the powers were passed, she is not a descendent, she only haves the powers, thats it.

Well yeah that's what I meant, if all sorceresses are a descendent of Hyne, then Ultimecia is a descendent of Rinoa, not by blood of course.

Quote:

---

Well yeah that's what I meant, if all sorceresses are a descendent of Hyne, then Ultimecia is a descendent of Rinoa, not by blood of course.

---

Yeah, not like the traditional definition of "descendent", but thats it.

I guess it's kind of like a version of all people being the children of God. but lets not get into that :)

Quote:

---

I guess it's kind of like a version of all people being the children of God.

---

Yup, but lets try to get out religions, because we can get in trouble.

Lets just agree that Final Fantasy is our Religon as Lychon stats.

Yeah good one IceAngel lets not get into that:) (i just realized i could've put these both in the same post but i forgot):mog:

Lol silly person!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceAngel

But Ultimecia is from the future, so she can't be a descendant. Also I thought that the 'sorceress'-to-be' didn't have to be related. Edea wasn't related to Rinoa, was she?? O I'm confuzzled! :confused:

---

How can she not be a descendant? Rinoa exists in a time prior to Ultimecia, therefore it is feasible that a descendant of Rinoa in the FUTURE, such as Ultimecia, could acquire her powers.

-LYCHON

But in the game they mention some other sorceressess in hiding, so they could pass on their powers too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lychon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceAngel

But Ultimecia is from the future, so she can't be a descendant. Also I thought that the 'sorceress'-to-be' didn't have to be related. Edea wasn't related to Rinoa, was she?? O I'm confuzzled! :confused:

---

How can she not be a descendant? Rinoa exists in a time prior to Ultimecia, therefore it is feasible that a descendant of Rinoa in the FUTURE, such as Ultimecia, could acquire her powers.

-LYCHON

---

I'm thinking decendant got confused with ancestor. Its very possible Ulti could be Rin's great grand daughter xD

But Ultimecia travels back when she is killed and passes her powers onto Edea.
So essentially Rinoa and Ultimecia are both descendants of each other. :/ XD

Quote:

---

But Ultimecia travels back when she is killed and passes her powers onto Edea.
So essentially Rinoa and Ultimecia are both descendants of each other. :/ XD

---

Yeah, is the reality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aisle_s

Before them there were many sorceresses made by Hyne (there had to be, or else how could we have 2 sorceresses in one time period?) but they were hunted etc. and eventually there were only 2 sorceress bloodlines, the one that eventually passed its powers onto Edea, and the other to Adel.

---

It can and should be assumed that Hyne (asuming Hyne was a real figure and not a mythological device) passed the Witch Embodiment on to Edea, but only in the sense that Hyne was the progenitor of the Embodiment. Edea's powers were explicitly received from Ultimecia, meaning that any Sorceresses preceding Edea were and are irrelevant to her power.

Your main point is correct, as Ultimecia would have certainly inherited the Witch Embodiment from Rinoa; Ultimecia effectively takes on the entirety of the power at the end of the game. This means that even if other Sorceresses did exist during Rinoa's era (something the game does not wholly preclude), all of their power would have eventually "trickled down" to Ultimecia.

Quote:

---

It can and should be assumed that Hyne (asuming Hyne was a real figure and not a mythological device) passed the Witch Embodiment on to Edea, but only in the sense that Hyne was the progenitor of the Embodiment. Edea's powers were explicitly received from Ultimecia, meaning that any Sorceresses preceding Edea were and are irrelevant to her power.

---

Actually, Edea explicitly states that she was already a sorceress BEFORE Ultimecia gives her her powers, hence your conclusion that any sorceresses preceding Edea are irrelevant is incorrect. There was a sorceress before Edea (certainly not Hyne by the way) whom Edea received powers from. Ultimecia simply gave Edea even more powers. Clearly though, we cannot ignore the impact of the first sorceress!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

Actually, Edea explicitly states that she was already a sorceress BEFORE Ultimecia gives her her powers, hence your conclusion that any sorceresses preceding Edea are irrelevant is incorrect. There was a sorceress before Edea (certainly not Hyne by the way) whom Edea received powers from. Ultimecia simply gave Edea even more powers. Clearly though, we cannot ignore the impact of the first sorceress!

---

And clearly, we cannot ignore the plausibility and possibility that Rinoa passed on her sorceress powers to Ultimecia. So, even if Rinoa is not the same person as Ultimecia, the essence of Rinoa's powers have been passed on to Ultimecia so she is someone related to Ultimecia. Therefore, Rinoa is in part responsible for the coming about of Ultimecia, which explains some of the game's unanswered questions. (Although, if Rinoa is actually the same person as Ultimecia, which I have argued in a previous thread, it would explain the unanswered questions in the game even more).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Last Oath

Lets just agree that Final Fantasy is our Religon as Lychon stats.

---

Just saw this. Classic! :)

-LYCHON

Unanswered questions? Like what?

The only thing the R=U theory explains to me is who Ultimecia is and where she came from...yet, I don't believe the R=U theory anyway so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aisle_s

Unanswered questions? Like what?

The only thing the R=U theory explains to me is who Ultimecia is and where she came from...yet, I don't believe the R=U theory anyway so...

---

There are many unanswered questions that remain after the game ends which we do not know for sure:

1.) Who really is Ultimecia?
2.) What are her true motives for time compression?
3.) What is the significance and meaning behind Ultimecia’s words (both when she is possessing Edea and when she is herself)?
4.) What is the mystery behind the fact that Ultimecia extracted Griever from Squall’s mind?
5.) Who really is Ellone and what is the explanation for her powers and her significance in the game?
6.) Since Ultimecia has altered the past by interfering with Squall and Rinoa's time, what really would have happened if she had not attempted time compression?

Not only this, but when I last finished the game, I had about 10 other significant questions which still remain unanswered, but they ellude me at this moment. As I have argued in the thread of "what is Ultimecia's real name?" the above questions are answered and explained perfectly if Rinoa really is Ultimecia. It doesn't prove anything, but it at least yields plausibility and possibility to the R=U theory.

-LYCHON

It must of course be mentioned that all the above questions, save that of Ellone's powers (which is not explained by R=U either) and the one concerning the altering of time (but that only because I advocate a static time theory in FF8, hence the question does not apply), can equally well be answered if you simply assume that Ultimecia = Ultimecia, and that's that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

It must of course be mentioned that all the above questions, save that of Ellone's powers (which is not explained by R=U either) and the one concerning the altering of time (but that only because I advocate a static time theory in FF8, hence the question does not apply), can equally well be answered if you simply assume that Ultimecia = Ultimecia, and that's that.

---

I never said they couldn't be answered by a different scenario. And besides even in the R=U theory, Ultimecia would still be Ultimecia in her time but in the past she would have been Rinoa.

Also, your static time theory doesn't bode well with me. Ultimecia manipulates time in the game, so time is by no means purely static or linear throughout the game's plot. As I have already pointed out, since Ultimecia interferes with the past, Rinoa and Squall's time is altered and will result in a different future than the one Ultimecia comes from. The only reason that Ultimecia did not blink out of existence before she was defeated was because she had already acquired a defense against the linear time effect, and continued to survive (by beginning time compression) even when her timeline was temporarilly merged with Squall and Rinoa's timeline.

Therefore, even if Rinoa really was Ultimecia, it may now come about that Rinoa will never become Ultimecia, hence the game's happy ending. If Ultimecia had not interferred with Rinoa and Squall's time, then perhaps Rinoa would have been locked away in the Sorceress Memorial for real, and eventually released in future generations only to become embittered over continued persecution and the death of her lover Squall. Hence, she might possibly then become Ultimecia and want to compress time and end all of her pain.

-LYCHON

P.S. Also, if you want to keep arguing but you do not like long posts such as the ones before, then keep the responses short like mine above. In this way we can argue one idea at a time and come to a logical conclusion for each question. But if you do want longer responses, I will be happy to oblige.

Quote:

---

Also, your static time theory doesn't bode well with me. Ultimecia manipulates time in the game, so time is by no means purely static or linear throughout the game's plot.

---

I disagree. Ultimecia's supposed changing of the past can merely be seen as another event set in stone by the fate constantly referred to in the game. One may see her as simply fulfilling her 'destiny' and that in reality, nothing is changing through all the time-travelling occuring in the game (ie. Ultimecia's presence in the past has always been an immutable event on the line of time, along with the event in which she travels back in time).

However, the discussion of whether or not time is static or dynamic is still one which is left open. I advocate static time, and can use it to explain everything in the game pertaining time-travelling. On the other hand, dynamic time can also be used to explain everything. I merely advocate static time because I believe it is the simpler and more elegant theory. My specific views on the matter (along with a dynamic time explanation as well) can be found in the FAQ I know you are familiar with, so I won't discuss this further here.

The rest of your arguments rest on changing the past, and since I have already made myself quite clear in previous threads what I think of your scenario, I see no reason to argue further on the matter. All my own views can be found in the FAQ previously referred to anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

I disagree. Ultimecia's supposed changing of the past can merely be seen as another event set in stone by the fate constantly referred to in the game. One may see her as simply fulfilling her 'destiny' and that in reality, nothing is changing through all the time-travelling occuring in the game.

However, the discussion of whether or not time is static or dynamic is still one which is left open. I advocate static time, and can use it to explain everything in the game pertaining time-travelling. On the other hand, dynamic time can also be used to explain everything. I merely advocate static time because I believe it is the simpler and more elegant theory. My specific views on the matter (along with a dynamic time explanation as well) can be found in the FAQ I know you are familiar with, so I won't discuss this further here.

The rest of your arguments rest on changing the past, and since I have already made myself quite clear in previous threads what I think of your scenario, I see no reason to argue further on the matter. All my own views can be found in the FAQ previously referred to anyway.

---

The 'fate constantly referred to in the game'? This does not change simple logic about the effects of time manipulation. Your impression of the in-game dialogue may be that all events are fatefully set in stone, but I do not agree with this interpretation. If Ultimecia had never interferred with Squall and Rinoa's time, then the events of their lives would be very different than what we saw in the game. Concepts of 'destiny' and 'fate' are subjective, so let's stick with solid logic.

The rest of my arguments do not depend on the changing of the past. I am merely discussing one of my arguments which deals with the past being changed because someone from the future interferred (i.e. Ultimecia).

-LYCHON

Quote:

---

The 'fate constantly referred to in the game'? This does not change simple logic about the effects of time manipulation. Your impression of the in-game dialogue may be that all events are fatefully set in stone, but I do not agree with this interpretation. If Ultimecia had never interferred with Squall and Rinoa's time, then the events of their lives would be very different than what we saw in the game. Concepts of 'destiny' and 'fate' are subjective, so let's stick with solid logic.

---

Destiny and fate are indeed subjective, but this is a game, and since Square decided to include allusions to fate all over their game ("Liberi Fatali" even means children of destiny, and that's one of the main musical themes of the game; Ultimecia further speaks of Squall being 'destined' to defeat her etc. etc.), this must be taken into account, and cannot simply be dismissed.

As I said though, the question of whether or not time is static or dynamic is an open question. I have helped develop a static time concept which can be used to explain the time-travelling events in the game. However, a dynamic time theory has also been created. They both work, it's just that they differ in what 'simple logic' is assumed to apply to time in FF8 (an assumption which, considering that FF8 is a game and not the real world, is necessarily based more on opinion then fact).

You say you agree with dynamic time; that's fine with me. I disagree, but cannot say you are wrong. I hope you can respect that we merely disagree here.

Quote:

---

The rest of my arguments do not depend on the changing of the past. I am merely discussing one of my arguments which deals with the past being changed because someone from the future interferred (i.e. Ultimecia).

---

Exactly; you are discussing an argument which is based on the notion that the past can be changed. Since I think that time in FF8 is set in stone, there is really no point for me to argue further because a key assumption on your scenario is based on something I simply disagree with.

Again, my views on the actual R=U scenario you describe I believe are well recorded elsewhere.

Sir B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

Destiny and fate are indeed subjective, but this is a game, and since Square decided to include allusions to fate all over their game ("Liberi Fatali" even means children of destiny, and that's one of the main musical themes of the game; Ultimecia further speaks of Squall being 'destined' to defeat her etc. etc.), this must be taken into account, and cannot simply be dismissed.

---

Exactly, this is a game, not reality. Therefore the concepts of what can be possible and what can be plausible are bent to an even greater degree. Fate and destiny become even more subjective, and the plausibility and possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia fits quite nicely within this fantasy. Your defense about destiny is flawed because it is based on your interpretation. Sure, destiny may have played a part in the game, but this does not change the fact that Rinoa’s timeline has been changed because Ultimecia interfered with the past.

The fact that Ultimecia speaks of Squall being destined to defeat her only goes to support the R=U theory. If Ultimecia really is Rinoa, then she may still possess some remnant of her previous self. Her only purpose in life is to achieve time compression after she has been persecuted for so long and her lover Squall has long since died. Therefore, she may very well knowingly go to her death by beginning time compression and altering the past which will now result in Rinoa having her destined ‘happy’ future instead of the incorrect ‘sad’ future where she becomes Ultimecia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

As I said though, the question of whether or not time is static or dynamic is an open question. I have helped develop a static time concept which can be used to explain the time-travelling events in the game. However, a dynamic time theory has also been created. They both work, it's just that they differ in what 'simple logic' is assumed to apply to time in FF8 (an assumption which, considering that FF8 is a game and not the real world, is necessarily based more on opinion then fact).

---

Time is not static in Final Fantasy VIII. If you refuse to see this then you are refusing to acknowledge the entire premise of the game. Ultimecia’s mere interference in the past is altering her future, but she is unaffected because she begins time compression. The only way she can survive is if time compression is sustained, but that does not happen and Ultimecia is defeated. Also, Ultimecia’s and Squall’s timelines are merged together by the beginning of time compression. There is no way that time is linear or ‘static’ in the game. If you want to support that theory, that is your choice.

The dynamic theory of the Final Fantasy VIII plot works much better than any kind of ‘static’ theory. It is simple logic to know that if someone interferes in the past from the future they will leave a changing mark on the past, especially if they cause so much trouble as Ultimecia did. ‘Dynamic’ is not even the correct word to use when describing time in the Final Fantasy VIII universe. The correct word to use is ‘non-linear.’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

You say you agree with dynamic time; that's fine with me. I disagree, but cannot say you are wrong. I hope you can respect that we merely disagree here.

---

We do disagree about the qualities of time in Final Fantasy VIII. I go one above you by stating that I completely disagree with any notion of a ‘static’ or ‘linear’ timeline in Final Fantasy VIII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

Exactly; you are discussing an argument which is based on the notion that the past can be changed. Since I think that time in FF8 is set in stone, there is really no point for me to argue further because a key assumption on your scenario is based on something I simply disagree with.

Again, my views on the actual R=U scenario you describe I believe are well recorded elsewhere.

Sir B.

---

Time is not set in stone in Final Fantasy VIII. What don’t you understand about the concept that if someone from the future meddles with the past, then the past timeline will have their actions imprinted as events? It is simple logic: Ultimecia is from the future and she interfered with the past. If Ultimecia had never attempted time compression and remained confined to her own future time, then the events of Final Fantasy VIII would never have transpired the way they did, and Rinoa and Squall’s futures would have been very different than what they will now be after the end of Final Fantasy VIII.

The logic here can be disagreed with, but it cannot be disproved. Do you honestly believe that the events of Squall’s and Rinoa’s lives would have been the same even if Ultimecia had never interfered with their time period? It’s preposterous and goes against reason and rationale.

P.S. I asked you before to keep the posts short and sweet so that I can keep my own responses short and you don’t start complaining again about how long the posts are. Well you did not want to do this, so my posts will only double in size from now on. :)

-LYCHON

Sorry to butt in...but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lychon

Exactly, this is a game, not reality. Therefore the concepts of what can be possible and what can be plausible are bent to an even greater degree. Fate and destiny become even more subjective, and the plausibility and possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia fits quite nicely within this fantasy. Your defense about destiny is flawed because it is based on your interpretation. Sure, destiny may have played a part in the game, but this does not change the fact that Rinoa’s timeline has been changed because Ultimecia interfered with the past.

---

If time /is/ indeed static (and I agree with S. Bahamut on this) then Ultimecia never did or could interfere with the past. It was all pre-determined that she would travel back into Squall's time, possess whoever, do this, attack that, release whomever and thus through these events Squall and Co. learn of her existence and aims. It is also set in stone that they will travel forward, defeat Ultimecia, whom in turn will return to Edea's time at the orphanage and forfeit her powers to her.

Quote:

---

The fact that Ultimecia speaks of Squall being destined to defeat her only goes to support the R=U theory. If Ultimecia really is Rinoa, then she may still possess some remnant of her previous self. Her only purpose in life is to achieve time compression after she has been persecuted for so long and her lover Squall has long since died. Therefore, she may very well knowingly go to her death by beginning time compression and altering the past which will now result in Rinoa having her destined ‘happy’ future instead of the incorrect ‘sad’ future where she becomes Ultimecia.

---

Ultimecia could also know that Squall and Co. are her destined destroyers through history books. The moment of time compression in Squall's present and the whole fear the world had for Ultimecia would undoubtedly be documented, thus giving Ultimecia access to knowledge of the SeeDs whom would ultimately bring her to an end.

As for Ultimecia wanting to compress time on one single moment, in which she is with Squall, is completely wrong. Ultimecia's plans to compress time were /not/ to see Squall, but to become an all powerful being. She was not going to stop on one point for the rest of her life, but absorb time. When you scan her final form it says something along the lines of : "absorbing time as we speak" or something to that effect. So how could she live in a point of time that she had 'absorbed'? Her goal was to become all-powerful, not staying with a lover.

Quote:

---

Time is not static in Final Fantasy VIII. If you refuse to see this then you are refusing to acknowledge the entire premise of the game. Ultimecia’s mere interference in the past is altering her future, but she is unaffected because she begins time compression. The only way she can survive is if time compression is sustained, but that does not happen and Ultimecia is defeated. Also, Ultimecia’s and Squall’s timelines are merged together by the beginning of time compression. There is no way that time is linear or ‘static’ in the game. If you want to support that theory, that is your choice.

---

That doesn't make sense to me. If time is indeed static, Squall and Ultimecia's time-lines had already 'merged' (I don't understand what you mean by this) since the beginning of time, because time compression had already left it's 'mark' (if it leaves one at all) on all of time.

Let us suppose for a moment that you are right and Ultimecia can in fact change time itself. Why would her time period not be affected? She tries to kill Rinoa on several occasions (depending if she's in your party in the battles with Edea), would that not in turn be killing Ultimecia? Well you say that Ultimecia's interference does not effect her
because she begins time compression, but that doesn't make sense. If for some reason Time Compression stops her from feeling the effects of what she changes in the past (which I don't see why it would), it still wouldn't protect her if she killed Rinoa PRIOR to beginning time compression, and she does try to kill Rinoa before that moment when she fights Squall and Co. as Edea.

Quote:

---

The dynamic theory of the Final Fantasy VIII plot works much better than any kind of ‘static’ theory. It is simple logic to know that if someone interferes in the past from the future they will leave a changing mark on the past, especially if they cause so much trouble as Ultimecia did. ‘Dynamic’ is not even the correct word to use when describing time in the Final Fantasy VIII universe. The correct word to use is ‘non-linear.’

---

The static theory works in this situation too. It was already pre-determined by fate that Ultimecia would cause so much trouble, so in reality she did not change time at all.

Quote:

---

Time is not set in stone in Final Fantasy VIII. What don’t you understand about the concept that if someone from the future meddles with the past, then the past timeline will have their actions imprinted as events? It is simple logic: Ultimecia is from the future and she interfered with the past. If Ultimecia had never attempted time compression and remained confined to her own future time, then the events of Final Fantasy VIII would never have transpired the way they did, and Rinoa and Squall’s futures would have been very different than what they will now be after the end of Final Fantasy VIII.

---

Once again, this theory works too, but the idea and evidence that time is set in stone works much better. Ultimecia wouldn't stay in her future because fate would not allow it, everything is predetermined! She and everyone else may have thought they would be changing time, choosing a destiny, when in reality they are only following one path...they cannot change that path because they only can choose once, and the choice they make will ALWAYS have been predetermined.

Quote:

---

The logic here can be disagreed with, but it cannot be disproved. Do you honestly believe that the events of Squall’s and Rinoa’s lives would have been the same even if Ultimecia had never interfered with their time period? It’s preposterous and goes against reason and rationale.

---

Of course it would be different if Ultimecia never came to the past...but she would've no matter what if time was set in stone.

*answers the initial question*

Well, yeah, wouldn't she have to be? Unless there's like, more than just Rinoa as a Sorceress at that point...which...

Then I suppose she'd just have to be, if Rinoa was the only one left who's a Sorceress, and it just gets passed down through time, it'd have to hit Ulti eventually. :cat:

Well, does it really matter all that much? Ah well, this is alot better than those godawful "OMG Rinoa must be Ultimecia!" theories. :cat:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aisle_s

Sorry to butt in...but...



If time /is/ indeed static (and I agree with S. Bahamut on this) then Ultimecia never did or could interfere with the past. It was all pre-determined that she would travel back into Squall's time, possess whoever, do this, attack that, release whomever and thus through these events Squall and Co. learn of her existence and aims. It is also set in stone that they will travel forward, defeat Ultimecia, whom in turn will return to Edea's time at the orphanage and forfeit her powers to her.



Ultimecia could also know that Squall and Co. are her destined destroyers through history books. The moment of time compression in Squall's present and the whole fear the world had for Ultimecia would undoubtedly be documented, thus giving Ultimecia access to knowledge of the SeeDs whom would ultimately bring her to an end.

As for Ultimecia wanting to compress time on one single moment, in which she is with Squall, is completely wrong. Ultimecia's plans to compress time were /not/ to see Squall, but to become an all powerful being. She was not going to stop on one point for the rest of her life, but absorb time. When you scan her final form it says something along the lines of : "absorbing time as we speak" or something to that effect. So how could she live in a point of time that she had 'absorbed'? Her goal was to become all-powerful, not staying with a lover.



That doesn't make sense to me. If time is indeed static, Squall and Ultimecia's time-lines had already 'merged' (I don't understand what you mean by this) since the beginning of time, because time compression had already left it's 'mark' (if it leaves one at all) on all of time.

Let us suppose for a moment that you are right and Ultimecia can in fact change time itself. Why would her time period not be affected? She tries to kill Rinoa on several occasions (depending if she's in your party in the battles with Edea), would that not in turn be killing Ultimecia? Well you say that Ultimecia's interference does not effect her
because she begins time compression, but that doesn't make sense. If for some reason Time Compression stops her from feeling the effects of what she changes in the past (which I don't see why it would), it still wouldn't protect her if she killed Rinoa PRIOR to beginning time compression, and she does try to kill Rinoa before that moment when she fights Squall and Co. as Edea.



The static theory works in this situation too. It was already pre-determined by fate that Ultimecia would cause so much trouble, so in reality she did not change time at all.



Once again, this theory works too, but the idea and evidence that time is set in stone works much better. Ultimecia wouldn't stay in her future because fate would not allow it, everything is predetermined! She and everyone else may have thought they would be changing time, choosing a destiny, when in reality they are only following one path...they cannot change that path because they only can choose once, and the choice they make will ALWAYS have been predetermined.



Of course it would be different if Ultimecia never came to the past...but she would've no matter what if time was set in stone.

---

You're falsely assuming subjective ideas of fate, destiny, and 'pre-determination.' The entire idea is preposterous because the very events in the game go against fate and destiny. If Ultimecia had never achieved time compression, then Squall and Rinoa's time period would have been significantly different. But Ultimecia did achieve time compression and therefore any set course on which Rinoa's and Squall's timeline were on has been radically altered. Bringing in ideas of 'fate' and 'destiny' is the same as someone defending the validity of the Bible by stating that it is valid because the Bible says it's valid, lol .

-LYCHON

Lychon, these things are pre-determined by FFVIII's big Time-Loop thing. (Ultimecia gives Edea her powers, and the cycle continues, etc.) Which is why these things were 'meant to be' in that sense. :cat:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeromus_X

Lychon, these things are pre-determined by FFVIII's big Time-Loop thing. (Ultimecia gives Edea her powers, and the cycle continues, etc.) Which is why these things were 'meant to be' in that sense. :cat:

---

I do not agree with you that they are pre-determined. Pre-determination is one concept that has no place in Final Fantasy, especially FFVIII. Let's stop assuming things as facts. What's more, the entire scenario of a time causality loop erases the possibility of pre-determination because it obliterates things which have already come to pass or things which were going to come to pass if events from the future did not interfere. Therefore, the entire idea of the time loop prevents anything from being 'set-in-stone.'

-LYCHON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lychon

You're falsely assuming subjective ideas of fate, destiny, and 'pre-determination.' The entire idea is preposterous because the very events in the game go against fate and destiny. If Ultimecia had never achieved time compression, then Squall and Rinoa's time period would have been significantly different. But Ultimecia did achieve time compression and therefore any set course on which Rinoa's and Squall's timeline were on has been radically altered. Bringing in ideas of 'fate' and 'destiny' is the same as someone defending the validity of the Bible by stating that it is valid because the Bible says it's valid, lol .

-LYCHON

---

How can you prove that their time period would be different? If time is indeed set in stone then the time period that the game takes place in has already been affected by time compression. There is no possible way in which to prove that Squall and Co's time period would be different if time is set in stone because it will be the same no matter what.

All in all, you have you ideas, I have mine; this debate is unresolvable. So I guess we can leave it at that, if you want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aisle_s

How can you prove that their time period would be different? If time is indeed set in stone then the time period that the game takes place in has already been affected by time compression. There is no possible way in which to prove that Squall and Co's time period would be different if time is set in stone because it will be the same no matter what.

All in all, you have you ideas, I have mine; this debate is unresolvable. So I guess we can leave it at that, if you want to.

---

Here's an example for you that I wrote in an earlier thread that proves that the time period can and will be different simply because Ultimecia interfered with the past:

Say that you are in a timeline which will eventually result in you marrying a girl named Chrissie, and having a son named George. Now imagine what would happen if your son George came back in time to you (from the future) before you even met Chrissie. In your time, you have not even had a son yet, but George is nevertheless alive because he comes from the future. George’s mere presence in your time is already changing things, but imagine now that George comes to you and tells you not to marry Chrissie and not to have kids, whatever the reason may be for him telling you this. Now, if George has managed to come to your time line or gained access to your time line through time compression, then he has stepped outside of the linear time effect, and therefore would not vanish from existence because he caused his father(you) in the past never to marry and have children with his mother Chrissie. But the moment that time compression ceases, and time returns to normal, George will vanish from existence in the future, because he caused his father never to marry Chrissie and never to have Chrissie give birth to him.

As we can see, it was George from the future who changed the past and caused the past to be altered. Because George traveled in the past and did what he did, he changed the past by causing his dad not to marry Chrissie and not to father any children. This altered time line will now continue, but it will never result in George coming into existence. If George had never tampered with the past by time traveling or through time compression, then your future would have been very different because you would have ended up marrying Chrissie and fathering George. But your time line has now been changed because you have taken George's advice (for whatever reason) and you have decided not to have kids and not to marry. I hope you can understand this principle, because this is only a VERY basic presentation of the consequences of time manipulation. Now replace George with Ultimecia, and the scenario with the plot of Final Fantasy VIII, and you can see why it is possible that Ultimecia can result in negating herself. The only way she would save herself and continue her existence would be if she maintained time compression, but she was defeated and therefore she perished for all time.

-LYCHON

That scenario doesn't 'prove' anything. If time were simply set in stone, George wouldn't be changing anything. His travelling to the past would have been set in stone. It would simply have been impossible for him to prevent his parents from marrying. Instead, his attempts to tamper with the past would have been exactly what caused them to get married in the first place. This is a logical theory which people such as Brian Greene (trusting that you know him) have explained in popular physics books.

Both static time and 'non-linear' time work. They differ because you assume that the past can be changed, while I assume that when Ellone says "You can't change the past" she means it, and thus the past cannot be changed. Both assumptions can be logically extended to explain the events in the game but it is impossible to prove which one is correct because it is truly impossible to prove exactly how time works in FF8 (this is a game after all). Your scenario offered no proof, it was merely a scenario which assumed from the start that the past can be changed. I could give a scenario based on the opposite, yet that would not prove anything.

Quote:

---

The logic here can be disagreed with, but it cannot be disproved. Do you honestly believe that the events of Squall’s and Rinoa’s lives would have been the same even if Ultimecia had never interfered with their time period? It’s preposterous and goes against reason and rationale.

---

You have clearly missed the point. Static time does not say anything like this. All it says is that since time is set in stone, Ultimecia's presence/interference in the past has always been part of the line of time, and thus is not actually changing anything, simply fulfilling her destiny. This is possible; your persistent claim that the entire premise of the game is based on Ultimecia changing the past is purely your opinion; nothing can prove that time is dynamic (or non-linear, whichever) or static. It is purely a matter of interpretation. Both theories work (ie. none have any logical flaws) though, so why bother arguing further, eh?

Destiny does indeed play an important role in FF8, by the way. I agreed that its true importance is a matter of opinion, so I don't see why that has to be discussed further.

PS: Ultimecia never truly achieved TC by the way. If she did, it would be Game Over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

That scenario doesn't 'prove' anything. If time were simply set in stone, George wouldn't be changing anything. His travelling to the past would have been set in stone. It would simply have been impossible for him to prevent his parents from marrying. Instead, his attempts to tamper with the past would have been exactly what caused them to get married in the first place. This is a logical theory which people such as Brian Greene (trusting that you know him) have explained in popular physics books.

---

Actually, the scenario above does prove one thing: that Ultimecia most defintely changed the past because she accessed a time period which was not her own. It is actually simple logic which is quite easily understood. You falsely state that time is set in stone, when this is only a figment of your imagination. The mere fact that time compression occurs (and yes, it does occur) proves that time is not set in stone. You see, for Ultimecia to even have come about, then she would have had to develop in the future of Squall and Rinoa's timeline. But since she has gone back in time and has interfered with the past, she has forever changed her future. Ultimecia no doubt knows that if she is defeated and time compression is not completed, then she will vanish from existence. The reason for this is because she has changed the past, and this will now result in a different future than the one which will have resulted if she had never meddled with the past. So the only way that she can maintain things exactly the way they are is to maintain/complete time compression.

Therefore, in my scenario, the situation is the same. Even if George goes back in time and does absolutely nothing, his mere presence in the past will alter the very future that he knows and holds dear. It is funny that you bring up Brian Greene (who has done spectacular presentations on string theory) as a vehicle for your defense here. Although I am well aware of his work, and obviously you are as well since you have implicated yourself as being an amatuer 'physicist,' the fact that you mentioned Brian Greene here only goes to show how assuming you really are. We are talking about pure time travel theory, something which is not at all accurate when describing the work of Brian Greene. Not only do you falsely assume that time is 'static' and 'set in stone' in the Final Fantasy VIII universe, but you also assume that the Final Fantasy VIII universe is guided by the same physical properties which our own universe is. Given the content of the game, I find it quite surprising that you would assume such a thing.

One more thing about my scenario in the previous post: since you refuse to admit to the logic of the time-traveling son altering the timeline of his father, consider what would happen if the time-traveling son murdered the very people who will join together to give birth to him in the future. No doubt you have heard of such an example, and it would most definitely cause the past to be altered and the future to be changed (if not in one universe, then in the subsequent creation of an alternate or parallel universe).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

Both static time and 'non-linear' time work. They differ because you assume that the past can be changed, while I assume that when Ellone says "You can't change the past" she means it, and thus the past cannot be changed. Both assumptions can be logically extended to explain the events in the game but it is impossible to prove which one is correct because it is truly impossible to prove exactly how time works in FF8 (this is a game after all). Your scenario offered no proof, it was merely a scenario which assumed from the start that the past can be changed. I could give a scenario based on the opposite, yet that would not prove anything.

---

Incorrect. Static time does not work because time compression and time manipulation have been introduced to the Final Fantasy universe. What's more, time is not normally 'static' and would in fact be the opposite of static if something like time compression were to take effect on the normal space-time continuom. However, non-linear time does work quite well to describe the possibility of Rinoa's present and future being altered because Ultimecia has come from the future and interfered with the past. I do not assume that the past can be changed: the game shows it quite nicely actually. If Ultimecia had left Rinoa and Squall's timeline alone, then eventually Ultimecia would have come into existence in the future. But now, since she has interfered with the past, she has altered time and has destroyed herself, therfore changing the past by showing that she will not come into existence into the future, or at least she will not come into existence in the same way.

You once again misinterpret what Ellone says. Ellone does not have the power for time compression; it is Ultimecia who initializes this. Ellone herself warns people that by junctioning people, they cannot change the past, regardless of what they see while they are junctioned to someone else. It has nothing to do with the logic behind the game's facts of time compression and time manipulation, which will most definitly change the past and the future.

My scenario not only offered proof, but it logically proved your concept of 'set in stone time' as utterly false and incorrect. I fear at times your assumptions get the best of you. Once again you have proven yourself as hypocritical by stating something unknown as fact, while previously claiming that neither side could claim definitude. However, I am finally glad that you admitted that Final Fantasy VIII was a 'game after all,' after I have been stating this repeatedly to you so that you see the error of bluntly relating our universe to the Final Fantasy VIII universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

You have clearly missed the point. Static time does not say anything like this. All it says is that since time is set in stone, Ultimecia's presence/interference in the past has always been part of the line of time, and thus is not actually changing anything, simply fulfilling her destiny. This is possible; your persistent claim that the entire premise of the game is based on Ultimecia changing the past is purely your opinion; nothing can prove that time is dynamic (or non-linear, whichever) or static. It is purely a matter of interpretation. Both theories work (ie. none have any logical flaws) though, so why bother arguing further, eh?

---

Again you fail to understand that Ultimecia does change the past because she disrupts the past from a point in the future. By initializing time compression, she changes the events which will bring out her own existence. She knows that the only way she can now survive is if she maintains time compression. However, she is defeated, time is returned to normal, and Squall and Rinoa are returned to their normal time periods. However, Ultimecia has already changed the course of their timelines as well as the entire course of the past timeline. I have already proven this in the scenario of the time-traveling son, who also might end up murdering his parents (for whatever reason).

Time is not set in stone, and if you assume this then you missed the entire plot of Final Fantasy VIII. Ultimecia is most defintely changing the past: a normal timeline which is not tampered with by any means of time compression will eventually result in Ultimecia. But Ultimecia then reaches back into the past and changes the very timeline which brought her into existence. This will then result in the very least of Ultimecia coming about in a different way or form, if she does come about in the future at all. Either way you look at it, the past and future have both been changed because of Ultimecia's interference. Refer above if you need more clarification on this.

Why would you ask me why I continue arguing this when it is you who believes that this argument cannot be resolved? I have proven you incorrect: time is not static and time is not linear in the Final Fantasy VIII universe, therefore I will continue to post responses to any such false notions, good sir. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

Destiny does indeed play an important role in FF8, by the way. I agreed that its true importance is a matter of opinion, so I don't see why that has to be discussed further.

---

If you agreed that the concept of destiny is a matter of opinion, then why do you keep bringing it up here? Obviously you must want to continue arguing about it, in which case I will be happy to oblige. I, for one, do not believe that destiny in Final Fantasy VIII is a matter of opinion. The game's plot specifies a logical set of events which prove the plausibility and possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

PS: Ultimecia never truly achieved TC by the way. If she did, it would be Game Over.

---

P.S. Ultimecia did achieve time compression in Final Fantasy VIII. She didn't 'truly achieve' it, but she did initialize the event which is what matters in this argument. Squall's and Rinoa's time line becomes merged with Ultimecia's time period, otherwise they would not have been able to fight Ultimecia in person.

I await your response despite the fact that you have stated 4 times now (twice in the public forums and twice in PM's to me) that you do not wish to continue arguing this subject with me, lol .

-LYCHON

You've still yet to explain why Ultimecia tries to kill Rinoa prior to compressing time.

If she managed to kill Rinoa (herself) before time compression, following your rules, she would no longer exist.

If Ultimecia was not the same person as Rinoa, and the past was able to change, then killing Rinoa would not affect Ultimecia in the future. This makes the R=U theory less plausible.

Lychon, fate and destiny is the main point of the story, other than the whole romance schtick. Just because it's a fantasy game, doesn't mean that even it doesn't have certain rules. (It's not like they can just up and manipulate time, Ultimecia could only possess Sorceresses in the past, and Ellone could only 'send' people to others in the past.) Going to the future was impossible until they made Time Compression. (Which isn't really explained all too well, but meh.)

Anyway,the whole Time Loop regarding Ulti giving her powers to Edea, and causing the cycle to continue again is most definitely a throw-back to FFI's still confusing Time Loop, and it's not like pre-determination and fate are strangers to the FF Universe, much less fiction. Whether you believe or not believe in such things regarding the real world doesn't really matter, those things are definitely so in the world of FFVIII. (Even if time can be manipulated a little, it's not like it can just be tweaked to whatever they want it to.) :cat:

Lychon:

Your last posts only reveal your lack of understanding of the nature of static time. I have demonstrated in the Time/Ultimecia Plot FAQ at Gamefaqs how a Static Time theory can work, and how no logical flaws arise from it. Your so-called 'proofs' against static time are either based on a bad understanding of static time, or an inability to picture an FF8 where the past cannot be changed. Either way, your 'proofs' are not proofs at all.

As such, I'm going to have to refer you to the aforementioned FAQ (why explain it again here, when I have it already written out much clearer there, eh?). If you still think static time doesn't work, I'm going to have to refer you to chapter 15 of Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos". Unlike yourself, I have actually read this book, so unlike what you seem to think, Brian Greene DOES discuss an entirely similar approach to time-travel, when considering the exact same paradox you mention. He says, and I quote:

"Take the paradoxical example of your having gone back in time and having prevented your parents from meeting. Intuitively, we all know what that's supposed to mean. Before you time-traveled to the past, your parents had met - say, at the stroke of midnight, December 31. 1965, at a New Year's Party - and, in due course, your mother gave birth to you. Then, many years later, you decided to travel to the past - back to December 31, 1965 - and once there, you changed things; in particular, you kept your parents apart, preventing your own conception and birth. But now let's counter this intuitive description with the more fully reasoned spacetime-loaf depiction of time [earlier in the book he uses special relativity to reason that all spacetime exists at once like a big loaf of bread].

At its core, the intuitive description fails to make sense because it assumes moments can change. The intuitive picture envisions the stroke of midnight, December 31, 1965 (using standard earthling time-slicing) as "initially" being the moment of your parents meeting, but envisions further that your interference "subsequently" changes things so that at the stroke of midnight, December 31, 1965, your parents are miles, if not continents, apart. The problem with this recounting of events, though, is that moments don't change; as we've seen, they just are. The spacetime loaf exists, fixed and unchanging. There is no meaning to a moment's "initially" being one way and "subsequently" being another way.

If you time-travelled back to December 31, 1965, then you were there, you were always there, you will always be there, you were never not there.

[...]

This realisation leads us to some quirky conclusions, but it avoids paradox".

End of quote.

Sound familiar? If it doesn't, it is your own knowledge of the static time theory that needs to be freshened up. The whole thing is in Chapter 15, as mentioned, so if you think Greene has made a logical fallacy, you can always take it up with him.

Now, don't get me wrong here, like you did in your last post:

I am not saying that FF8 works exactly like the real world!

I never said that, so don't put it into my mouth. The fact that Brian Greene's ideas here perfectly correspond to static time (something I was not aware of until after static time was developed) only prove that static time is a logical theory with no holes in it (as said, if you disagree, you can take it up with Greene, not me). His idea is brought up when considering the notion of tampering in the past, so your statement that time-travelling and such in FF8 disproves static time is incorrect. Obviously static time takes into consideration time-travelling (what would the point be if it didn't?), and as shown by Greene here, it is perfectly logical. It does not prove static time as being the 'correct' idea of time in FF8 though.

The reason it doesn't prove it, is because it is impossible to tell whether or not the past actually can change in FF8. The initiation of TC does not prove this, because if time is assumed to be static, TC can merely be seen as another immutable event on the line of time (or 'spacetime loaf' as Greene says). TC is only an unavoidable problem if it is fully completed (because then Ultimecia could rearrange time as seen fit), but since that never happens, it can be assigned a fixed part on the line of time without any paradoxes arising (as Greene said, the conclusions are quirky, but they avoid paradoxes). This is also explained in the FAQ. On the other hand though, nothing can prove that the past CANNOT be changed. Your statement that "Time is not set in stone, and if you assume this then you missed the entire plot of Final Fantasy VIII" is purely your opinion. What exactly stops me from staying "Time IS set in stone, and if you assume the opposite the whole plot of FF8 is meaningless"? You do not seem to understand that this is merely a difference in opinion. It is not that I 'refuse to grasp the logic' of your time-travelling son scenario; on the contrary, I have repeatedly now stated that a dynamic time is perfectly possible. It is merely that our base assumptions (can the past change?) differ, due to differences in opinion.

I have nothing more to say though, until you either thoroughly (re?)read the static time theory described in the FAQ referred to, or read chapter 15 of "The Fabric of the Cosmos" (or both!), because all your arguments against static time are, as mentioned, based on a flawed understanding of static time. And again, if you feel that the theory of static time itself is inherently flawed, please try and convince Greene of that first, because I'm afraid that if you two disagree on what is logically possible, I'm going to put a wee bit more faith in his word. Consider this my last post in the discussion until then.

Sir B.

PS: Last time I checked, the question of R=U and the debate of static vs. dynamic time are not the same debate. My only comment to R=U I made in my first response to you. My continued participation here has been due to the static time vs dynamic time bit, nothing else.

PPS: You say that "Once again you have proven yourself as hypocritical by stating something unknown as fact", yet throughout the entire debate, I have explicitly stated over and over again that static time is not a fact, and that it is merely opinion. The very bit you quoted before stating this even has me saying "it is impossible to prove which one is correct" and "Both static time and 'non-linear' time work". If you reread my other posts you'll find similar remarks everywhere. How you drew the conclusion that I consider static time as a 'fact' from that, I do not know, but please read my posts a bit more carefully in the future anyway.

Dear Sir Bahamut and any other individual interested in knowing the ideas behind the R=U theory: not only have you proven to be inept at the underlying sociological circumstances of Final Fantasy VIII, but you are now showing that you know virtually nothing about the logic behind time travel or time manipulation. Your misinterpret the entire plot of the game, and you confuse yourself even further by advocating false notions of ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ time as fact. Let’s go over your response carefully so I can show you exactly what I mean and how there is more than enough evidence from the game to support the possibility and plausibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

Lychon:

Your last posts only reveal your lack of understanding of the nature of static time. I have demonstrated in the Time/Ultimecia Plot FAQ at Gamefaqs how a Static Time theory can work, and how no logical flaws arise from it. Your so-called 'proofs' against static time are either based on a bad understanding of static time, or an inability to picture an FF8 where the past cannot be changed. Either way, your 'proofs' are not proofs at all.

---

Your FAQ is plagued with false logic, and I have disproved it previously in my posts. The ‘Static Time theory,’ which you have invented from your imagination, does not work at all within the plot of Final Fantasy VIII. The only theory that does work in the game is theory of non-linear time, or ‘dynamic’ time if you will. You once again confuse the our universe with the Final Fantasy VIII universe, and therefore you cannot understand the fact that the past was changed in Final Fantasy VIII. Anything you have listed as ‘proof’ has been discarded because it is composed mostly of logical flaws which have no bearing on what really happened or what could happen in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

As such, I'm going to have to refer you to the aforementioned FAQ (why explain it again here, when I have it already written out much clearer there, eh?). If you still think static time doesn't work, I'm going to have to refer you to chapter 15 of Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos". Unlike yourself, I have actually read this book, so unlike what you seem to think, Brian Greene DOES discuss an entirely similar approach to time-travel, when considering the exact same paradox you mention. He says, and I quote:

---

As I have already disproved your ideas in the FAQ you are referring to, I do not know why you continue to cite from it. False logic is not a good way to prove your ideas. You have no idea what books I have read regarding time or the cosmos, so your assumption that I have not read that book is unfounded. As I have stated previously, I am well aware of what Mr. Brian Greene has presented in his work, and I appreciate you posting an excerpt of his here. Now, the quote you cited from Brain Greene (although I do not recall this quote from his book from I will take your word for it) was the following:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Physicist Brian Greene

"Take the paradoxical example of your having gone back in time and having prevented your parents from meeting. Intuitively, we all know what that's supposed to mean. Before you time-traveled to the past, your parents had met - say, at the stroke of midnight, December 31. 1965, at a New Year's Party - and, in due course, your mother gave birth to you. Then, many years later, you decided to travel to the past - back to December 31, 1965 - and once there, you changed things; in particular, you kept your parents apart, preventing your own conception and birth. But now let's counter this intuitive description with the more fully reasoned spacetime-loaf depiction of time.


At its core, the intuitive description fails to make sense because it assumes moments can change. The intuitive picture envisions the stroke of midnight, December 31, 1965 (using standard earthling time-slicing) as "initially" being the moment of your parents meeting, but envisions further that your interference "subsequently" changes things so that at the stroke of midnight, December 31, 1965, your parents are miles, if not continents, apart. The problem with this recounting of events, though, is that moments don't change; as we've seen, they just are. The spacetime loaf exists, fixed and unchanging. There is no meaning to a moment's "initially" being one way and "subsequently" being another way.

If you time-travelled back to December 31, 1965, then you were there, you were always there, you will always be there, you were never not there.



This realisation leads us to some quirky conclusions, but it avoids paradox".

---

The above quote only serves to bolster my own arguments and weaken your own. I have no idea why you would cite such a quote which has absolutely no bearing on the core of your arguments. Mr. Greene has shown (quite nicely I might add) that even though time travel in the past may avoid a paradox, it still changes the past. The time-traveling son proves this by going back in time and altering the way that his parents met, but this does necessarily mean that his parents will meet differently in an alternate universe or even in an alternate dimension. Ultimecia in effect compresses the ‘space-time loaf,’ so it does not remain unfixed and unchanging. You are once again assuming incorrectly that our universe has the same physical properties as the Final Fantasy VIII universe.

If you do travel back in the past to a certain point before you were born, then it is irrelevant if ‘you were there’ or if ‘you will always be there’ or if ‘you will never not be there.’ You exist in a time period before you were conceived, which would never have happened if you did not attempt to go back in time. In one universe, nothing may change moment to moment, but a change has nevertheless taken place. It does not have to be a change which is based on ‘initial’ or ‘subsequent’ actions: as Mr. Greene shows, the change has always been there, it will always be there, it never will not be there. But it is, nevertheless, a change. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

Sound familiar? If it doesn't, it is your own knowledge of the static time theory that needs to be freshened up. The whole thing is in Chapter 15, as mentioned, so if you think Greene has made a logical fallacy, you can always take it up with him.

Now, don't get me wrong here, like you did in your last post:

---

Of course the above quote sounds familiar because my argument was one which was very similar to Mr. Greene’s. The figment of your imagination which has thought up ‘static time theory’ needs to be introduced to plausible and implausible reality, lol . Now, this is going to take me a long time to introduce you to the relations between quantum mechanics and general relativity and how they operate in regards to time travel, so I’ll assume that you at least have a firm grasp on both those concepts. As I have shown, however, Mr. Greene’s logic appears to be plausible and possible, but it only goes in support of my own concept. You also once again make the false assumption that Ultimecia time travels: she does not time travel per se, she achieves time compression. And whether or not she ‘truly achieves’ it or not is irrelevant because her time period was already merged with Squall and Rinoa’s time period. Therefore, this ‘changing’ of two time periods by their merging may in fact always have been and always will be true, and Rinoa now may not even become Ultimecia in her own universe, although alternate universes and alternate dimensions may prove capable of bypassing a paradox and maintain Mr. Greene’s idea of a fixed and unchanging space-time loaf. However, as I have stated previously, the concepts of Mr. Greene’s ideas have no valid bearing on universe of Final Fantasy VIII, because such a universe operates on different physical laws and different understandings than our own universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

I am not saying that FF8 works exactly like the real world!

I never said that, so don't put it into my mouth. The fact that Brian Greene's ideas here perfectly correspond to static time (something I was not aware of until after static time was developed) only prove that static time is a logical theory with no holes in it (as said, if you disagree, you can take it up with Greene, not me). His idea is brought up when considering the notion of tampering in the past, so your statement that time-travelling and such in FF8 disproves static time is incorrect. Obviously static time takes into consideration time-travelling (what would the point be if it didn't?), and as shown by Greene here, it is perfectly logical. It does not prove static time as being the 'correct' idea of time in FF8 though.

---

You did not need to have said, but you consistently imply it in your posts. You continue to imply it by citing a physicist who is describing our own universe and attempting to use his logic to describe the universe of Final Fantasy VIII. You also incorrectly state that Brian Greene’s ideas correspond to a static universe. Mr. Brian Greene has continually supported the idea of the uncertainty principles when it comes to quantum mechanics, the building blocks of space-time motion and operation. Therefore, to state that time is static not only contradicts cosmological initiations, but it also assumes way to much of our own universe which remains unproven. Remember that I never set out to prove Rinoa=Ultimecia. I only set out to prove that the idea was plausible and possible, which I have done repeatedly.

That being said, I am taking up the idea of static time with you, because I have no problems with Mr. Greene’s logic. Your own concepts are the ones which lack logic and validity when applied to the Final Fantasy VIII universe. In our own universe, it does not appear that any concept of ‘time compression’ is feasible, but it is feasible in the Final Fantasy VIII universe. In that universe, time compression does indeed change Mr. Greene’s ‘fixed and unchanging’ space-time loaf, therefore the relations you make between our own universe and the Final Fantasy VIII universe are false.

Also, it is most likely true that moments do not change, but this does not mean that moments cannot be added. When Ultimecia (you know, the villain in the Final Fantasy VIII universe) merges her time period and life progression with the time periods and life progressions of Squall, Rinoa, and company, she is adding moments to space-time continuum. Other moments which may have resulted in Rinoa becoming Ultimecia are still true and in existence, but other moments have now been added due to Ultimecia achieving time compression. These moments state the opposite: that Rinoa may not become Ultimecia, if she was even going to become Ultimecia in the first place. Now we have the concepts of alternate universes, parallel universes, or alternate/parallel dimensions come into existence. :) Hope you can understand this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

The reason it doesn't prove it, is because it is impossible to tell whether or not the past actually can change in FF8. The initiation of TC does not prove this, because if time is assumed to be static, TC can merely be seen as another immutable event on the line of time (or 'spacetime loaf' as Greene says). TC is only an unavoidable problem if it is fully completed (because then Ultimecia could rearrange time as seen fit), but since that never happens, it can be assigned a fixed part on the line of time without any paradoxes arising (as Greene said, the conclusions are quirky, but they avoid paradoxes). This is also explained in the FAQ. On the other hand though, nothing can prove that the past CANNOT be changed. Your statement that "Time is not set in stone, and if you assume this then you missed the entire plot of Final Fantasy VIII" is purely your opinion. What exactly stops me from staying "Time IS set in stone, and if you assume the opposite the whole plot of FF8 is meaningless"? You do not seem to understand that this is merely a difference in opinion. It is not that I 'refuse to grasp the logic' of your time-travelling son scenario; on the contrary, I have repeatedly now stated that a dynamic time is perfectly possible. It is merely that our base assumptions (can the past change?) differ, due to differences in opinion.

---

First you state that the past cannot be changed in Final Fantasy VIII, and now you state that it is impossible for that past to change in FFVIII? Lol, well which one is? Are you on the fence, or do you support the idea that the past in Final Fantasy VIII cannot be changed? Or, are you on the fence logically, but personally you support the idea that the past in Final Fantasy VIII cannot be changed? Whichever one it is, I have shown above that the past most definitely can be changed, but perhaps not in the same way as most people think when they talk about the ‘past being changed.’ Time compression may just as well be an inevitable part of the ‘space-time loaf,’ just like a changing of the past may also be an inevitable part of the ‘space-time loaf.’ Time compression contradicts the idea of a ‘fixed and unchanging’ space-time loaf because it changes the very structure of time, of all-time actually, all time in the future and all time in the past and all time in the moment-to-moment present. My statement of time not being set in stone is not my opinion: it is a well-supported theory which takes Mr. Greene’s premises into account and is even supported by them.

You cannot state that ‘Time is set in stone’ because in Final Fantasy VIII the possibility for complete time compression contradicts such a notion. You just stated above that Ultimecia could have re-arranged time as she saw fit, therefore making the idea of ‘time being set in stone’ utterly false in the Final Fantasy VIII universe. Therefore, it is much more plausible to assume that time is not set in stone in the Final Fantasy universe, and it is even supported by the logic of Mr. Greene and my own logic. (Although it is not necessary that the universe of Final Fantasy VIII operate in the same manner as our own universe).

Our base assumptions may differ, but I am not trying to prove the R=U theory is incorrect, and I am not trying to prove that the past can be changed. I have established the plausibility and possibility of both scenarios, so therefore I have succeeded in my argument. As far as our own universe is concerned however, we have much more research and observation and comparison to do before any kind of theory about the universe’s cosmology (asides from Big Bang) or of time-travel take definite support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

I have nothing more to say though, until you either thoroughly (re?)read the static time theory described in the FAQ referred to, or read chapter 15 of "The Fabric of the Cosmos" (or both!), because all your arguments against static time are, as mentioned, based on a flawed understanding of static time. And again, if you feel that the theory of static time itself is inherently flawed, please try and convince Greene of that first, because I'm afraid that if you two disagree on what is logically possible, I'm going to put a wee bit more faith in his word. Consider this my last post in the discussion until then.

Sir B.

---

I do not know why you keep bringing up your FAQ. I will not give you the satisfaction of bringing it up here, so if you would like me to address a portion of it, then by all means go ahead and post it here. You ideas of ‘static time’ are not only incompatible with the logic behind the events of Final Fantasy VIII, but they are also figments of your imagination which you have attempted to bolster by citing Mr. Brian Greene’s work here. If you are re-thinking your ideas based on his work, then I congratulate you on a valiant effort- perhaps now you will understand my own logic and support for the R=U theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

PS: Last time I checked, the question of R=U and the debate of static vs. dynamic time are not the same debate. My only comment to R=U I made in my first response to you. My continued participation here has been due to the static time vs dynamic time bit, nothing else.

---

As I have already shown (and you yourself) admitted, the concept of dynamic time is what prevails in Final Fantasy VIII, as opposed to our own universe where static time or dynamic time or even a different concept of time may prevail. The mere possibility that Ultimecia could have achieved true time compression and controlled all time, past and future, proves that the Final Fantasy VIII universe operates on mechanisms which include the concept of dynamic time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

PPS: You say that "Once again you have proven yourself as hypocritical by stating something unknown as fact", yet throughout the entire debate, I have explicitly stated over and over again that static time is not a fact, and that it is merely opinion. The very bit you quoted before stating this even has me saying "it is impossible to prove which one is correct" and "Both static time and 'non-linear' time work". If you reread my other posts you'll find similar remarks everywhere. How you drew the conclusion that I consider static time as a 'fact' from that, I do not know, but please read my posts a bit more carefully in the future anyway.

---

I would ask of you to do the same, seeing how in the past it was you who admitted to passing over my posts. You may state now that ‘static time is not a fact,’ but in your previous posts you specifically implied that the concept was fact. Not only this, but you constantly fail to specify which universe you are referring to, which leaves the reader with the logical conclusion that you believe the Final Fantasy VIII universe to possess the same physical characteristics as our own universe.

Thank you for replying, and I look forward to your response. :)

-LYCHON

Sorry Lychon, but this latest post only only makes it painfully obvious that you are too busy with your personal vendetta against myself for previous arguments to stop and consider the logic (or lack thereof I should rather say) behind what you are saying. It is also painfully obvious that this personal vendetta is going to make it impossible to ever convince you that static time is possible and logical in FF8. Nothing you have said has given me reason to alter what I said in my last post, and I highly doubt anything ever will, hence I'm out of the topic for good this time. I'm sure anyone without a personal vendetta against anything I think about FF8 will be able to appreciate static time as one logical explanation (and in fact, you are so far the only one who has been inable to do so), so it doesn't really bother me if you do not.

Sir B.

Good ‘Sir B,’ I have no ‘vendetta’ against you are anyone else on this forum, and I apologize if you have misinterpreted my posts as such. I was only pointing out specific cases of hypocrisy and false logic in hope that you would make note of these things and correct them. You have not done so, however, and we have not been able to lead a worthy argument. I never believed that static time is ‘impossible’ in Final Fantasy VIII, and if I did state this it was only because of your implications that ‘dynamic’ time is impossible. I only wanted to defend the concept that it is dynamic time which is proven possible in Final Fantasy VIII, while ‘static’ time remains unproven in the game’s plot. I hope that you do not continue deluding yourself with the false belief that I am the only one who does not agree with your theories about time travel and your explanation of R=U. Anyone with a sense of love for Final Fantasy and an open-mind to logic will not take your ideas as valid or true.

-LYCHON