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