Exactly. Time Compression is when past, present, and future is mixed together, nuff said.Originally Posted by Zeromus_X
Exactly. Time Compression is when past, present, and future is mixed together, nuff said.
Str8 Pimpin'
Once again, you cannot be more wrong, my good sir. Your usage of the word was both unwarranted and unwelcome in the context of use. Now, if you have had a difficult time mastering “big” or “difficult” words and wish to pin your insecurities on me, then that is entirely your own prerogative. But spare me your ranting in regards to the application of the word “parsimonious.” Its secondary meaning is only rarely used, and it was completely inappropriate for the situation at hand. As I stated before, “insufficient” would have been a much better, much more sophisticated alternative to the grandiloquent and downright turgid ‘parsimonious.’
The point I have to make is that your semantics are faulty to the core, and I have demonstrated this point quite proficiently. Not only that, but your insecurity about your own linguistic capabilities has come gushing out of you as if I had inflicted you with some mortal wound. I meant you no such harm, and I beg your forgiveness for my transgressions. Nevertheless, your initial inaccuracy and blatant defense of your word-choice is a problem you may wish to address.
Finally, “insufficient” is actually the best possible word to be used in place of the abstruse “parsimonious.” It competes the meaning of the phrase to a greater degree and better conveys the concept that the theory in question is inadequate in supporting or proving a certain point.
I await your response, but it seems you have now become what you have been accusing me of being: a nitpicker. You have had a history of name-calling on these forums when you begin to fail in an argument, so hopefully you will be able to control yourself this time.
-LYCHON
P.S.
Last edited by Lychon; 07-04-2006 at 04:55 AM.
Actually, I have a history of name calling- and not much of one at that- when my opponent refuses to debate properly, regurgitates the same argument or claim at me again and again, refuses to offer proof, or make appeals as to my motives. But no, I feel no need to insult you Lychon. I feel pity. That this is even important enough to pursue, this far, to the point of telling me I am wrong about a definition I have already quoted for you, and attempting to put all sorts of spin on the matter just to try and claim a victory, it's just plain sad. I'm going to begin ignoring anything in this vein- as I should have awhile ago, it is terribly off topic and I think it's scaring off other people- from now on, but I will say this. You are wrong. Insufficient is insufficient in context.
Insufficient means 'not sufficient'. This meaning is directly opposite the scientific definition of parsimony- which, despite your unsupported claims to the contrary is an equally valid and contextually appropriate way to use the word- and my intended meaning of the phrase- that the explanation I gave was a workable explanation without any needless fluff, or in other words, it sufficed. Now, you may disagree with my explanation being sufficient, but that is a whole other kettle of fish.
You are also wrong about the scientific definition being rarely used. Do a google search on parsimony. You'll find the vast majority of entries that aren't simply dictionary sites are using it in the scientific/ Ockham's Razor sense, not the frugal.
Now then, back to the conspiracy theories.
You misunderstand,Squall ask Ellone to bring him back to Rinoa's past,but Ellone said she cant because she doesnt know her (Rinoa).I remember, during the game. Squall talked to Ellone, Squall asked Ellone if she can bring Squall back to the past but Ellone said she can't because she doesn't know him. I dunno why though. So I assumed if she doesn't know any person then she can't send them back to the past or ellone lied.
Ellone's power is the formula to make TC happens.Actually, Ellone was necessary to send Ultimecia back to a past Sorceress, in order for her to be able to cast Time Compression. So, she didn't need Ellone's power exactly, but Ellone's power was the only way for her to be in control of the three sets of powers in three different times at once.
I've changed My post no 1.
I think talking about the mistake of that FAQ only make things complicated.So I've changed My post no 1,just read it again to make things clear this time.
Someday I will conquer all and I will be free -- Believe
Well, I’m glad that you admit to having a serious psychological problem which manifests itself in the form of verbal abuse (step one is realizing the problem). Now, let’s move on to the pith of your argument, if we can even call it an “argument” at all. You have accused me of being a nitpicker when in fact I have made a quite valid, quite legitimate point in regards to your linguistics. Your most recent post paints a portrait of a most desperate and illogical person, one who strives to secure victory in the face of futility while delving into the nether realms of hypocrisy. To disprove your entire stance, let us first take a gander at the definition of both “parsimonious” and “parsimony,” provided to us by the good people over at Merriam-Webster.
I trust you were able to understand the above definitions. As you may already be aware, “parsimonious” is the adjective that derives from the noun “parsimony.” As I have already stated in my previous posts, “parsimonious,” and even the noun it derives from, apply primarily to fiscal or economical matters, and are used overwhelmingly to denote economic simplicity or economic frugality. In an attempt to mask your blunder, you attempted to portray the use of “parsimonious” as deriving from an alternate definition, one that is predominantly reserved for scientific inquiries into subjects such as cladistics or penology. Given the nature of your original argument, it is evident that you fail to demonstrate any kind of substantial scientific disquisition. On the contrary, you are merely remarking on the qualities of a certain theory, and in essence stating that it is insufficient in proving or securing consideration for its ultimate proposal. Hence, although your use of the word “parsimonious” can be understood to some degree, in the context of the referred application it is quite obscure and unwonted.
Now, if you wish to continue your denial of plain evidence, I will be more than happy to sustain this discussion with you. Per your recent post, however, I fear that you will abandon our quaint little tête-à-tête, so I say in a perhaps premature conclusion that you are most definitively in error here, good sir. You cannot be more wrong: insufficient is a better and wholly sufficient substitute for the rather obscure “parsimonious.”
In regards to your condescending “pity,” I assure you that it is entirely misplaced. If you believe that the expression of sarcastic commiseration provides an adequate defense mechanism against insurmountable attacks of logic and rationale, then by all means, use it. Unfortunately, it only serves to make your own arguments and ideas seem all the more incredible.
Insufficient is by no means “directly opposite” the scientific definition of parsimony- in fact, it can be quite similar, particularly in the case to which we are referring. Even though I have already established the improper use of the obscure, scientific definition of “parsimonious,” I will indulge you in an elucidation of why insufficient and “parsimonious” are not opposites. When a certain parsimony is considered as a possible solution to a given complication, it is meant (by definition) to be the simplest explanation amongst other possible explanations. However, for any benefit to be derived from said parsimony, the concepts of pragmatism and practicality must inevitably be consulted, especially if the subject matter is scientific in nature. Scientific and philosophical studies over the centuries are testimony that the first or simplest solution to a problem is not sufficient to explain natural phenomena (e.g. Earth being flat, Sun revolving around the Earth, etc…). Hence, the parsimony turns out to be INSUFFICIENT. Therefore, choosing the word “parsimonious” in your original post was not only a blunder when considering the person you were communicating with, but it was also too obscure and unspecific in your contextual application. Next time, instead of being so preoccupied with defending false logic, try doing a little thinking with the old noggin, eh? If I were you, I would edit your original post and replace “parsimonious” with “insufficient.”
If you candidly believe that you can use the popularity of sites such as Google or Wikipedia to back up false generalizations, then my good sir, you are in for disastrous disappointment. Not only have I cited the definition of “parsimonious” and “parsimony” by Merriam-Webster up above, but I have also proved your original and improper utilization of these words. You are plainly wrong to state that the primary definition of “parsimonious” is of a scientific nature. Every dictionary I have ever owned or have ever browsed defines “parsimonious” first and foremost in the context of economic frugality, and only thereafter mentions Occam’s Razor. In fact, if you reread the Merriam-Webster definition up above, you’ll see that even the secondary definition, which mentions Occam’s Razor, is in the context of economic simplicity. So please, spare me your dances around the rosebush and start using proper English. If you do not have this ability, then I recommend you take some time out of your day to visit a library.
I look forward to your response.
-LYCHON
P.S.
Last edited by Lychon; 07-05-2006 at 06:07 AM.
Children, children... cat fights outside please.
I think we've just figured out the mystery of Time Compression. Let's have a tea party!Exactly. Time Compression is when past, present, and future is mixed together, nuff said.
Thank you Hysterian!
Not really...I think we've just figured out the mystery of Time Compression. Let's have a tea party!
I dont tell all the explanation about TC.
That's why I say that you have to solve that mystery.
If you can solved that mystery you can find that missing explanation.(Truth)
Someday I will conquer all and I will be free -- Believe
What truth? You've pulled all of these formulas and theories out, and expected us to just believe you like you're the all-knowing expert on Time Compression. All I'm doing is taking what was said in the game, which already makes sense and doesn't need to be discussed any further. I'll honestly never understand what is up with you theory people. >_>
Well let's see. We know that the world of FF8 has laws different than our world. That also probably means, different math, sciences, and other things. Therefore, any math and science from our world may most definitely be invalid in the FF8 world. Therefore, Time Compression is compressed time, with no thorough explanation in the game.
I think of Time Compression as just a strong magic, a strong form of sorcery... because, well, that's what it is. Ulti is a sorceress, using sorcery to compress time. If you want to figure out Time Compression so bad, can you figure out the rest of the magic spells in the game?
Fantaseh.
Thank you Hysterian!
I am talking about "The Process of Time Compression" not only TC.What truth? You've pulled all of these formulas and theories out, and expected us to just believe you like you're the all-knowing expert on Time Compression. All I'm doing is taking what was said in the game, which already makes sense and doesn't need to be discussed any further. I'll honestly never understand what is up with you theory people. >_>
I never expected you to believe Me,I expected you to ask question regarding to My explanation but so far nobody really ask that question that's why this thread become boring.ASK QUESTION PLEASE!
Who knows,maybe yes maybe no.Well let's see. We know that the world of FF8 has laws different than our world.
No,TC is absorbing Time and Space.Time Compression is compressed time
How can you absorb something infinite;Time IS infinite.
In the game many character said TC is compressing Time(past,present and future)
How can they know TC is compressing time if TC not happens yet;they never know anything about TC at that time,so they just make a speculation about TC.(compressing Time;past,present and future mixed together)
Last edited by Viator; 07-05-2006 at 11:00 AM.
Someday I will conquer all and I will be free -- Believe
So, in short, you have no evidence, you can't prove your claim, and expect us to do your work for us. Not how it works.
Now then, how about that Tea Party?
I'll bring a cake
People, let's chill ok, he makes some points which are to be taken in consideration. This topic could also be seen as a clear-up for people who played the game but still think it's vague in that aspect.
We have concluded (we did right?) Time Compression is actually Time absorbing (with lack of a better name).
The process however is still clouded into mysteries. The proces of time compression. Because time is infinite, the proces would keep happening.
It's is said in the game that only Ultimecia would be able to live in a Time Compressed world. But Squall and co. can go to her time and fight her. This proves that the time is not compressed as that it's gathered in one point. It's more of a symbolic way which (by scanning the final form of U) By the process of absorbing the powers of time and space into one being
The last sentance is the most important in this post. (and the explanation is in the rest of the text)
Time compression = The process of the powers and space being absorded by a single entity which would become all powerfull.
This is not speculation. It's pure logic, if anything isn't, please reply with what and i (or viator or someone else) will try to explain it.
-Hb2
This stuff confuses me and im so not the person to attempt to theorize on it but this is how i see it....
TC1.JPG
In my little home-made diagram (which i'm very proud of) i tried showing how time can be compressed to achieve time travel. Squall and co are represented by the red dot, the red square represents squalls time and the blue square represents ultimecia's time. When the two points are compressed to each other, squall can simple step forward into Ultimecia's time and the when time is uncompressed he remains there. So time compression has been used to enable squall to arrive in ultimecia's time...
To achieve ultimate time compression, i can only imagine that ultimecia chooses two points in time to compress and everything before and after is wiped. I don't know how she would do this and i don't have evidence (im not saying this actually happens before you start ripping it out of me) just a possible idea
In an attempt to bring some logic back into here:
The assumption that time is infinite is purely baseless (whoever disagrees can by all means try and explain Viator's argument here); in fact, we should rather assume the opposite, because if time were infinite, TC would never be possible. Why? Because TC works at a finite speed, and would thus never be able to finish compressing everything. Thus the whole "TC is really time absorbing" argument goes out the window, which is good, because it didn't make any sense to begin with. TC compresses time, but Ultimecia also happens to transform into her "True Ultimecia" form which allows her to also absorb everything being compressed (as well as space), hence the scan info.
Now, the reason Squall and Co can fight Ultimecia is because time is not yet fully compressed. If it were, they would be unable to exist (only Ultimecia can exist in TC). They are however able to avoid being absorbed by Ultimecia by using sheer willpower and having belief in eachother, like Laguna says in the Ragnarok on beforehand ("It's all about friendship, love and courage etc.").
Now, fully compressed time would be like splitting up the line of time into a finite/infinite (we don't know if time is infinitely divisible in FF8 or not) amount of singular 'events', and then merging all those 'events' into one single event. That'd be TC. However, the actual process of getting there, as well as the oddities regarding it's effects (eg. why we see the effects in the Lunatic Pandora and nowhere before that, when the spell was cast before the game starts) seem to be impossible to explain satisfactorily.
For more on time and TC in FF8, refer to the "Time/Ultimecia Plot FAQ" found here:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/psx/game/197343.html
which Viator tries to negate in the beginning of this topic. Unfortunately, he doesn't make enough sense to require any arguments.
Posting Permissions
