320 replies to this topic

[Mgoblue201]

TML: That's the exact reason I hated the split timeline, and I said it many times on this board. But after TP, I think it's the much more likely answer. I'm more interested in trying to find the theory with the least inconsistancies. That doesn't mean it's true, after all the creators could be making all sorts of huge inconsistancies and not even care, but I think from an objective viewpoint it's the most logical. I just cannot believe that WW preserves its connection to OOT so pristinely and clearly and yet TP looks like a blithering mess to both OOT and WW in a single timeline.

Crazy Penguin: I just started following the split timeline, but I don't see how that timeline makes any sense. WW deals absolutely with the adult timeline. Aonuma confirmed that. Therefore LTTP could not, so anybody claiming that the split timeline was made to preserve OOT's connection to LTTP must have been very, very wrong. Even if it did originally, so what? It's not up to the fans to decide a timeline. It's up to the fans to decipher quotes and evidence and create one to the best of their ability. If people made the split timeline to preserve OOT to LTTP, then there is no objective truth to that. It doesn't make the fans right. And if people are going to go around claiming that OOT is no longer the IW or that the Zelda myth in AoL was abandoned, then they sure as hell lose the right to criticize other timelines for adjusting its theories.

Edited by Mgoblue201, 01 February 2007 - 06:30 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

Well, I know much of this has been mentioned before, but here is my reply.

There are so many parallels between the two, so many connections between the two, so many similar references to time itself that to say that they have different abilities would likely be less canon than saying they had to function the same.

This is the flaw of your argument - You choose to disregard the rule about only adhering to the strictest level of canon. Basically, this is nothing but personal speculation, and you don't even consider every aspect of the ending, such as Zelda saying she can use it "as a Sage" to return Link to his original time (outright stating that it was due to her own power, not the Ocarina's, that she could send Link back) or that she plays Zelda's Lullaby, a song with 'mysterious powers' which Link never uses to travel in time (BTW, I understand that you ignored Majora's Mask, because you are only comparing one game to itself, although it could be argued that Nintendo fixed this error in OoT with the sequel, thereby disqualifying it as an argument to be used this debate). Thus, while your counter argument might fool the masses of ZeldaBlog, it does not actually prove anything in adherence to the strictest level of canon.

That's not to say canon does not contradict itself within the series. Twilight Princess alone has enough plot holes to 'disprove' the ultimate infallibility of canon, and I don't quite understand why you chose the Song of Storms as the subject of your argument (perhaps to intentionally confuse people?) although I would argue that none of those contradictions could qualify as evidence for anything (more on that below).

Couldn't it have been that Nintendo just screwed up somewhere? — I'm not dismissing that possibility at all, actually. In fact, my money would be on it.

Here I would argue that outright contradictions of the main plot within a game should be ignored, even if you consider canon to be the ultimate truth. This is because such plot holes are obviously not part of the intended story, and are due to human error. Thus they should be ignored, because they defeat the very point of the game.

All discussion of whether or not their words are even canon to begin with aside, no, they shouldn't. The highest level of canon, everyone agrees, is the game text and events.

I do not. Truth be told, I don’t even believe in a ‘timeline’ anymore. As such, I do not care about canon, or plot holes, or fan fiction, or making sense of the timeline. I only care about what the creators intend. The biggest reward for playing any (of the latter) Zelda games is discovering past references, or how the game connects to its predecessors.

That said, I still use in-game canon to prove, or disprove a theory, and argue the timeline just like everybody else. This is because the games reflect the creator’s intention, and so long as no new information is given we must assume what we know from them is true. However, if a new game is released that contradicts past games, then the new game reflects the current intention of the creators, and thereby overrides the older games.

At any rate, your argument is interesting and might entertain certain people (while deluding most), but it ultimately does not hold up to any closer scrutiny.

Edit: I noticed that you tend to use the "Well, prove that I'm wrong!" argument a lot. However, I could say the same thing, and thus you are not qualified to make any claims about the absoluteness of your idea either. For instance, take the part where you said the OoT might work without the MS in MM because the flow of time is different in Termina. Fair enough. However, can you prove that, especially with Zelda stating to Link that the Goddess of Time (who apparently exists in both worlds) would come to his aid even whenever he played the Song of Time (in Hyrule or otherwise)? No, Zelda says the OoT can control time on its own. Thus falls your entire argument.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 01 February 2007 - 07:03 PM.

[The Missing Link]

I just want to say, Dave, that this article is probably my favorite timeline-related article. Ever. You illustrate ideas that I agree with 100% so eloquently and powerfully, and actually manage to back them up, something I have never been able to do. On top of that you wove a delicious trap for those who tried to argue against it. I am honored that you came to me with this.

A penny from you, LoS, is worth a hundred in the bank. I'm honoured by your words, and you make me want to write more. I might have to "dual blog" more often.

TML: That's the exact reason I hated the split timeline, and I said it many times on this board. But after TP, I think it's the much more likely answer. I'm more interested in trying to find the theory with the least inconsistancies. That doesn't mean it's true, after all the creators could be making all sorts of huge inconsistancies and not even care, but I think from an objective viewpoint it's the most logical. I just cannot believe that WW preserves its connection to OOT so pristinely and clearly and yet TP looks like a blithering mess to both OOT and WW in a single timeline.

This actually brings up a set of rules that I came up with a long time ago. I actually was inspired by my neural networks class (Everything can be related back to Zelda. Everything.) to come up with this. The principle is called the Curse of Dimensionality. In Neural Networks, it goes like this:

As the number of considered dimensions (variables) within a neural network increases, the more possible an accurate representation of the answer become. However, as the number of considered dimensions within a neural network increases, the more trivial the representation of the answer becomes.

I have typically applied this premise to simply the "Multiple Link Theory" (now known as the as "Single Timeline Theory") as follows: The more Links you have in your theory, the more likely it is that you can make a workable timeline; however, as the number of Links increase, the more trivial and unrealistic your timeline becomes. In short, you could easily solve all timeline problems with thirteen Links (one for each game) and a lot of time to rebuild Hyrule whenever needed. However, such a timeline is inevitably bad because it's trivial; it doesn't truly seek to connect games whatsoever. Thus, the "best" timeline would be a Single Timeline, Single Link timeline, but we all know that trying to crap all 13 games into that construct is impossible, and if it really is possible, completely unrealistic.

My thoughts on the Split Timeline have been similar, except that adding additional timelines beyond the first increase the freedom and triviality much faster than adding additional Links. The exact ratio is something I've never sought to compute, but it has a hard upper bound (and in fact is much less than) 12:1, which is the number of Zelda games minus 1 to 1. (After all, a Split Timeline is more believable than 13 Links.) However, I have tried my best to stay away from the Split Timeline because of that very reason, that so long as I could fathom a Single Timeline candidate that worked within the bounds of my conceivable imagination, I would never convert. I hesitate to call the Split Timeline "cheating," but if it is "cheating," then it "cheats" much more than adding a single Link does.

Twilight does its damage to Single Timeline, but it is an equal opportunity offender; it damages Split Timeline just as well. And if that's the case, well... then I'm content where I'm at.

This is the flaw of your argument - You choose to disregard the rule about only adhering to the strictest level of canon. Basically, this is nothing but personal speculation,

Let's do this. Leerooooooooooy... Jenkins!

and you don't even consider every aspect of the ending, such as Zelda saying she can use it "as a Sage" to return Link to his original time (outright stating that it was due to her own power, not the Ocarina's, that she could send Link back)

OBJECTION! Now, let's break this down and weed out the assumptions that you added to her statement.

It is true that Zelda said the line which you quoted, but what did she really say. She said that she had the power to send Link back to his original time; most of that is word-for-word, although I don't want to spend the effort to look it up, so I won't put quotes around it for safety's sake. Now, this sentence she uses is a very simple logical statement. Because I am a Sage, I can do this. Zelda is a member of a set of people S that have the ability to manipulate time; we'll call that action X. So, S proves X. Now, let's see what she didn't say:

She didn't say that only Sages could do this. In short, she didn't say that X proves S, or more simply, S equals X. There's nothing that states that Link doesn't share this property either. Keep this in mind because we'll use it later. Also, she also didn't say that she has a special version of the ability to manipulate time; in other words, while members of NOT(S) could do something like X, they cannot do X itself. This also has the corollary that the other six sages could conceivably do the very same thing that Zelda herself did.

By strict canon, we must assume that her statements are 100% accurate. Thus, every statement above is assumed true.

Now, let's get back to her "ability". If Zelda's power was all that was needed, so why did she play the Ocarina when sending Link back? Herein lies the trick. Truly we have to define what X is, or rather how X works. Is X simply the ability to manipulate time? If that were possible, why didn't she just screw with time more? Why didn't she send someone else back in time to hide the Ocarina of Time from herself before she ever did it? That someone else very well could have been Link. Because she plays the ocarina (which initiates the effect of the spell, I might add) and the fact that she cannot seem to exhibit this trait without the Ocarina of Time, we must assume by canon that it is the Ocarina that is causing this effect. Thus, X is not a native skill; X, rather, is the ability to manipulate time using the Ocarina.

Now, I mentioned that we'd use the the fact that not just Sages could do this as well, yes? Well, so we have it. Link can use the Song of Sun, which manipulates time, spinning forward the clock a full half day (maximum). Thus, Link also is able to do X, and since Zelda's parsed statement does not preclude him from doing such, the ending of the game is self-consistent with itself. End of story.

or that she plays Zelda's Lullaby, a song with 'mysterious powers' which Link never uses to travel in time

OBJECTION! We also know from canon a peculiar part of the ocarina songs. They have zero effect when played... until the moment you actually realise what they do. Go ahead, boot up a new game and try to play the Nocturne of Shadow when you get the Ocarina of Time. Doesn't work. Funny that...

Thus, we must assume that there is something more to the song than just the melody. And that is where canon saves the day. There is intent. A magical melody when played without expecting some result will inevitably yield nothing because there is no intent behind the playing of the song. However, if I expect a certain melody to produce some effect (and indeed that melody is capable of doing such), then and only then is the magical ability unlocked.

Zelda never taught Link that Zelda's Lullaby could be used to manipulate time. Merely, he found out that it had mysterious properties. Thus, Link likely never imagined it could manipulate time, and thus the song therefore did not. All of which canon. All of which self-consistent. (Ironically, this is also self-consistent with the Song of Storms.)

(BTW, I understand that you ignored Majora's Mask, because you are only comparing one game to itself, although it could be argued that Nintendo fixed this error in OoT with the sequel, thereby disqualifying it as an argument to be used this debate).

OBJECTION! I actually have taken that into account over at the 'Blog because of some very simple things that we must consider.

First and foremost, any possible intervention of the Song of Storms from Termina--regardless of source--had to take place after (with respect to the normal flow of time) Link played the Song of Storms for the Guru-Guru Man as a child. Otherwise, we have the contradiction that the well would already be empty because the windmill already would have went crazy. (In addition, the Guru-Guru Man would already be angry, but again, the well is sufficient.)

We can now strictly narrow down any possible person who could have done the deed. First off, from our experience, no one in Hyrule seems to be aware Termina exists, even Zelda. Second off, there are only two people in Termina that knew of Hyrule (or at least knew of places other than Termina): the Skullkid and the Happy Mask Salesman. The Happy Mask Salesman never was shown to have an ocarina in his possession, so it could not have been him. The Skullkid did have possession of the ocarina, so it theoretically COULD have been him. Strict canon reduces down to that it must have been him if this theory holds true.

HOWEVER, we see from the opening scene when Link is ambushed that, when the Skullkid tries to play the ocarina, he cannot play it well. He can get a few notes out of it, but he doesn't start playing any sort of complicated (or even simple!) tune. Thus, he does not know how to play it. Thus, he couldn't have possibly played the Song of Storms for the Guru-Guru Man (assuming he went back to Hyrule during the three day stretch). Thus, that means he didn't do it.

This is further supported by the fact that Link going back in time to play the Song of Storms did not change the future at all. Everything seemed to exist exactly as it was before. If someone else had played the song, Link had just changed the past so that two people would have played the song, and there could have been some changed outcome in the future (unless you believe Future Predestination). Now granted, this is a much harder leap of faith to overcome than the first, but I'm using this only as supporting evidence only, a secondary backup plan. Strict canon shows it wasn't the Skullkid, and canon shows it wasn't anyone else in Termina.

That's not to say canon does not contradict itself within the series. Twilight Princess alone has enough plot holes to 'disprove' the ultimate infallibility of canon, and I don't quite understand why you chose the Song of Storms as the subject of your argument (perhaps to intentionally confuse people?) although I would argue that none of those contradictions could qualify as evidence for anything (more on that below).

My reason for choosing the Song of Storms over Twilight Princess is actually a very simple reason.

You see, to disprove the possibility of the existence of something that can potentially have many forms, you have to meticulously disprove every such possibility, one after the other. It is why my article had three separate sections, one for each of the major timeline templates. Because it all revolved around a single game, I didn't have to worry about placement of games with regard to other games. I just had to say, "Look here... this game is self-inconsistent, and reordering your timeline won't save you. QED."

Now, the moment I bring into account other games, I have to worry about ordering. What if, for instance, you decided to place Twilight before Ocarina? How about the child timeline? The adult timeline? A single timeline where it takes place after A Link to the Past, after Legend of Zelda, or any possible permutation of games therein? Each of those are a theoretically valid possibility as far as timeline goes, and I would have had to disprove each one through proof by exhaustion. And with the number of possible permutations, how exhausting it would be! And THAT doesn't even account for the various timeline templates. The number of variables by accounting for any other Zelda title (with the exception of maybe Majora's Mask) became much too complicated (which is why I didn't even use Majora's Mask except as supporting evidence).

Here I would argue that outright contradictions of the main plot within a game should be ignored, even if you consider canon to be the ultimate truth. This is because such plot holes are obviously not part of the intended story, and are due to human error. Thus they should be ignored, because they defeat the very point of the game.

Alright, so let's now be candid about this.

It is very obvious to say for certain that, if some event A exists that produces result X and some event B exists that produces result NOT(X), one of the two must be invalidated. It's paradoxical, I understand that. One of the two, A or B, must get ignored, and to prevent loss of generality, either or may be assumed false. But herein lies the problem. The fact that A or B is false proves that the canon is not completely true. There's no 100% any more. There's no guaranteed truth to any of it (although we still, for sanity's sake, assume there's truth to most of it).

But let's then say that we've arranged our timeline in some fashionable order that in our order, we find some event C that produces Y and some event D that produces NOT(Y). However, another timeline may not have this contradiction... but will have yet a different contradiction set (event E and outcome Z, event F and outcome NOT(Z)). Is C false? Is D false? Are C and D both true, thus invalidating that one timeline? Likewise, E and F may have the same problem. Suffice to say, when you get into conditional paradoxes--paradoxes that only exist within specific timelines--we run into problems assigning universal truth values. The first timeline may have no problem assigning E and F as true events, but the second one does not... yet the second one is better than the first one. Which is superior? No one can say.

So much of this becomes subjective that I stop worrying about specific truth values of individual events in the canon and then just start giving everything a specific weight. "This fact isn't a big deal so I can declare it false if need be; this fact is a very big deal, so I should strictly adhere to this." I then find out which canon events my timeline must have set to "not true" and sum them up, and hopefully that number's not too big. So long as I don't completely go hog wild and kill everything, I'm good. After all, it's subjective, and we can't do anything to change that. Once you declare that at least some nonzero percentage of the canon is false, any percent can be arbitrarily chosen as false.

That said, I still use in-game canon to prove, or disprove a theory, and argue the timeline just like everybody else. This is because the games reflect the creator’s intention, and so long as no new information is given we must assume what we know from them is true. However, if a new game is released that contradicts past games, then the new game reflects the current intention of the creators, and thereby overrides the older games.

And that's the thing I'm really driving at. We really shouldn't be so big and grant ourselves the "right" to hold timeline "debates." The timeline we know is broken at some level, and it's just a matter of time before it becomes truly irreparable. Instead, our purpose now should be "discussing" rather than "debating." We should be comparing ideas and possibly being swayed by the other side, but with a broken canon, the goal of finding te "truth" is a subjective affair rather than an objective one.

At any rate, your argument is interesting and might entertain certain people (while deluding most), but it ultimately does not hold up to any closer scrutiny.

I'd like you to consider that after this post.

Edit: I noticed that you tend to use the "Well, prove that I'm wrong!" argument a lot. However, I could say the same thing, and thus you are not qualified to make any claims about the absoluteness of your idea either. For instance, take the part where you said the OoT might work without the MS in MM because the flow of time is different in Termina. Fair enough. However, can you prove that, especially with Zelda stating to Link that the Goddess of Time (who apparently exists in both worlds) would come to his aid even whenever he played the Song of Time (in Hyrule or otherwise)? No, Zelda says the OoT can control time on its own. Thus falls your entire argument.

As LoS wisely said, this article is a trap. And you have just fallen in it. Let me explain how:

When I discuss strict canon, my precise definition for it is as follows: "If the canon suggests (shows some evidence for) some 'fact' F but does not suggest (e.g., there is no evidence to support) any alternative theory G, then F may be assumed to be true even if it does not prove F is true. This is the very epitome of Occam's Razor, namely that the simplest or most strongly supported explanation is as true as the game mechanics and dialogue itself. That is the assumption I am going with, and my proof attempts to show a contradiction using that philosophy.

I do this by creating what most people would call a "Smoke and Mirrors" proof. Think about it like those amusement park rides where you're going through a haunted house. I construct for you a scene that looks real, but it only looks real when you look at it from the little trolley car path that I laid out. You might even not be scared because you know it's all smoke and mirrors, a presentation that really isn't real but looks real enough. Such is the case here.

However, we all know that once you go behind the scenes or look at things from a different vantage point, the illusion disappears. You realise it's all animatronics and a painted, fiberglass set. When you look from things from that perspective and you realise the whole thing is false, you cry foul. It's just smoke and mirrors; the proof is a fraud, and the scene I created for you--the conclusion--is invalid.

However, I was darn careful in the construction of this article. You see, my goal is not to prove that the scene I constructed is real; rather, my goal was to show you that the path--the means, not the end--is invalid. Because I assumed my definition of strict canon, I instantly invalidated anyone leaving the path to investigate things from that alternate perspective. The moment anyone does it, I declare foul and can ignore you because you either (1) didn't follow my assumption and therefore proved something different or (2) used circular logic and thus didn't prove anything at all.

Can I prove any of this? Can I prove that the Master Sword time travel is the same as the Ocarina of Time time travel? Absolutely not.

But I don't have to.

All I have to do is show that canon suggests it as a possibility... and shows zero evidence for everything else. Canon doesn't have to prove or disprove anything; merely the suggestion and the lack of suggestion is enough.

So, I turn it back to you, as you expected. Can you provide an alternate explanation that canon supports? I'm not asking you to prove; after all, I didn't prove myself; all you need is suggestive evidence, logical deductions from canon. Until you can do that, my theory holds. The scene remains valid when viewed from the path.... but the path itself is invalid.

Have fun.

Oh and as far as the Goddess of Time goes, well, I can boil that one down to intent as well. Link didn't know the Goddess of Time would come to him in Ocarina of Time, so the effect of the song was different in Majora's Mask than Ocarina. Similarly, I can also say that the Goddess of Time did help Link whenever Link played the Song of Time and needed help the "Goddess of Time" could provide; you can look at that in terms of the "context sensitive" buttons from Conker's Bad Fur Day, a song that gives you precisely what you need when you need it. In Ocarina, it moved blocks when Link needed it; in Majora, it toyed with time to help Link out. Either of those canon suggestions cause the theory to hold.

Edited by The Missing Link, 02 February 2007 - 04:02 AM.

[Evilsbane]

...
I THOUGHT I understood what you were getting at with the article, but now I'm lost. What was your point again?

[Hero of Legend]

Note: You might think this post sounds somewhat pissy, but I recon, if you post “OBJECTION!” every five seconds, then I am allowed to beat you at your own game.

TAKE THAT!

Let's do this. Leerooooooooooy... Jenkins!

Chicken?

OBJECTION! Now, let's break this down and weed out the assumptions that you added to her statement.

It is true that Zelda said the line which you quoted, but what did she really say. She said that she had the power to send Link back to his original time; most of that is word-for-word, although I don't want to spend the effort to look it up, so I won't put quotes around it for safety's sake. Now, this sentence she uses is a very simple logical statement. Because I am a Sage, I can do this. Zelda is a member of a set of people S that have the ability to manipulate time; we'll call that action X. So, S proves X. Now, let's see what she didn't say:

Irrelevant. We have already established a difference from when Link uses it. The strictest level of canon cannot have you assume it works the same way when Zelda states differently.

She didn't say that only Sages could do this. In short, she didn't say that X proves S, or more simply, S equals X. There's nothing that states that Link doesn't share this property either. Keep this in mind because we'll use it later. Also, she also didn't say that she has a special version of the ability to manipulate time; in other words, while members of NOT(S) could do something like X, they cannot do X itself. This also has the corollary that the other six sages could conceivably do the very same thing that Zelda herself did.

By strict canon, we must assume that her statements are 100% accurate. Thus, every statement above is assumed true.

Strict canon would not let you insert personal speculation, such as the unsupported claim that it will work the same for everyone who uses it. Yes, everyone can use it, we know this. However, there is again the notion that sending Link back with it is something Zelda can only do as a sage, and you claiming differently is nothing but hypocritical, considering how you demand proof for assumptions going the other way.

If that were possible, why didn't she just screw with time more? Why didn't she send someone else back in time to hide the Ocarina of Time from herself before she ever did it? That someone else very well could have been Link. Because she plays the ocarina (which initiates the effect of the spell, I might add) and the fact that she cannot seem to exhibit this trait without the Ocarina of Time, we must assume by canon that it is the Ocarina that is causing this effect. Thus, X is not a native skill; X, rather, is the ability to manipulate time using the Ocarina.

The reason she did nothing but send Link back seven years was that the stated reason for doing so was to let Link "regain his lost time." It would be pointless and hypocritical to send anyone else back (or send him back to change the past). Thus canon disqualifies that part of your argument.

And indeed it is true she uses the Ocarina to send Link back. This, however, does not change anything, because simply playing Zelda's Lullaby does not send Link back in time. That was Zelda's doing entirely.

Now, I mentioned that we'd use the the fact that not just Sages could do this as well, yes? Well, so we have it. Link can use the Song of Sun, which manipulates time, spinning forward the clock a full half day (maximum). Thus, Link also is able to do X, and since Zelda's parsed statement does not preclude him from doing such, the ending of the game is self-consistent with itself. End of story.

First, let me point out that Rauru says Link has the ability to use the Sages' powers, so that argument is flawed right there. But as I said, normal people can use it, including young Zelda (She left a telepathic message in it using the Song of Time). Regardless of this however, is the fact that the Sun's Song is a completely separate song from the Song of Time (it literally summons the sun/moon), and moreover, it can be used while playing the Fairy Ocarina. Thus whatever connections you wish to draw between it and the Ocarina of Time/Master Sword are inherently flawed. In fact, you are doing nothing but bending canon to suit your theory, and that is a big no-no according to your own rules.

OBJECTION! We also know from canon a peculiar part of the ocarina songs. They have zero effect when played... until the moment you actually realise what they do. Go ahead, boot up a new game and try to play the Nocturne of Shadow when you get the Ocarina of Time. Doesn't work. Funny that...

Thus, we must assume that there is something more to the song than just the melody. And that is where canon saves the day. There is intent. A magical melody when played without expecting some result will inevitably yield nothing because there is no intent behind the playing of the song. However, if I expect a certain melody to produce some effect (and indeed that melody is capable of doing such), then and only then is the magical ability unlocked.

Even if we choose not to disregard that as gameplay mechanics (which would certainly be a valid stance - the game itself admits to being a video game) that still does not work. I could just as easily say that when Link first learns a song, the Ocarina is infused with its power, and only then can the magic of the song be used. Indeed, there is a glimmering about the Ocarina whenever Link learns a new tune. Thus, visual evidence (which is just as canon as any other information) is on my side.

Zelda never taught Link that Zelda's Lullaby could be used to manipulate time. Merely, he found out that it had mysterious properties. Thus, Link likely never imagined it could manipulate time, and thus the song therefore did not. All of which canon. All of which self-consistent. (Ironically, this is also self-consistent with the Song of Storms.)

Ignoring what I said above, your retribution still does not address the main issue. If your claims that Zelda only could send Link back with her song because she knew of its abilities, then where is the proof that these abilities are exactly the same as those of the Master Sword? There is nothing supporting this assumption, and so it holds no weight in this debate. Yes, I know about Sheik using the exact same words, but that is simply her saying he will return to his original time. It has no bearing on the method used in accomplishing this.

OBJECTION! I actually have taken that into account over at the 'Blog because of some very simple things that we must consider.

First and foremost, any possible intervention of the Song of Storms from Termina--regardless of source--had to take place after (with respect to the normal flow of time) Link played the Song of Storms for the Guru-Guru Man as a child. Otherwise, we have the contradiction that the well would already be empty because the windmill already would have went crazy. (In addition, the Guru-Guru Man would already be angry, but again, the well is sufficient.)

I was actually referring to the Song of Time. Obviously, the notion that Link learned the Song of Storms in Termina before he learned it in OoT (despite the fact that he "remembered" it in MM) is flawed by nature.

Second off, there are only two people in Termina that knew of Hyrule (or at least knew of places other than Termina): the Skullkid and the Happy Mask Salesman.

There is actually a Goron who speaks of the 'delicious rocks' from Dodongo's Cavern in MM, but that is beside the point. Link was obviously the one who taught the Guru-Guru the Song of Storms (Although he did play it before Link even used the Ocarina...) and we are dealing with OoT alone, anyway.

Now, the moment I bring into account other games, I have to worry about ordering. What if, for instance, you decided to place Twilight before Ocarina? How about the child timeline? The adult timeline? A single timeline where it takes place after A Link to the Past, after Legend of Zelda, or any possible permutation of games therein?

Oh, but I was talking about Twilight Princess internal logic. There are numerous examples. Take for instance the scene where Zelda cures Midna at the cost of her own life. We SEE Zelda dissolve into nothingness at that time. Yet, at the end of the game, she is somehow held captive by Ganondorf. This is a contradiction of canon. And because we do not receive any explanation from the game, it is no better than the Song of Storms in OoT.

It is very obvious to say for certain that, if some event A exists that produces result X and some event B exists that produces result NOT(X), one of the two must be invalidated. It's paradoxical, I understand that. One of the two, A or B, must get ignored, and to prevent loss of generality, either or may be assumed false. But herein lies the problem. The fact that A or B is false proves that the canon is not completely true. There's no 100% any more. There's no guaranteed truth to any of it (although we still, for sanity's sake, assume there's truth to most of it).

Yes, but my point was one could be allowed to disregard such obvious contradictions because of their nature as errors. We do it all the time. Remember, everything is allowed in love and war.

And that's the thing I'm really driving at. We really shouldn't be so big and grant ourselves the "right" to hold timeline "debates." The timeline we know is broken at some level, and it's just a matter of time before it becomes truly irreparable. Instead, our purpose now should be "discussing" rather than "debating." We should be comparing ideas and possibly being swayed by the other side, but with a broken canon, the goal of finding te "truth" is a subjective affair rather than an objective one.

That depends on your viewpoint. Statements like "These games (could) connect to each other" or "The developers have a timeline" are either true or false, and will remain so until the series ends. Subjective things however cannot easily be proven right or wrong, mostly because they go beyond the intention of the creators. That's why I keep it simple and just look at every game for itself. It is no guarantee that I'm right, but it makes things easier.

This is the very epitome of Occam's Razor, namely that the simplest or most strongly supported explanation is as true as the game mechanics and dialogue itself. That is the assumption I am going with, and my proof attempts to show a contradiction using that philosophy.

That would have been true if your argument truly did follow Occam's Razor. But you do not. Evidently, I have been able to counter your arguments using canon. Until you address these issues, you have effectively fallen into your own trap.

All I have to do is show that canon suggests it as a possibility... and shows zero evidence for nothing else. Canon doesn't have to prove or disprove anything; merely the suggestion and the lack of suggestion is enough.

Here I would like to point out that you failed to address what I said about the Ocarina in MM. It alone is proof that your claim that all canon supports your notion is false. However, I am willing to disregard this, because again, this is about OoT, not MM.

So, I turn it back to you, as you expected. Can you provide an alternate explanation that canon supports? Until you can do that, my theory holds. The scene remains valid when viewed from the path.... but the path itself is invalid.

I could argue that Zelda's quote suggests she is using a different kind of time travel than Link. The fact that she plays the Ocarina of time, and that Link disappears in a different kind of light than he usually does supports this. If you claim differently, than that is nothing but your interpretation, which is no better than mine. Adhering to the strictest level of canon would have none of us be correct, and so the problem ceases to exist.

And as for the path being invalid. Certainly, it is. But I already admitted that.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 02 February 2007 - 10:09 AM.

[Mgoblue201]

TML: I'll argue that yes the split timeline increases the possibilities, which is a much more likely reason for the creators to flow with it. They want the most freedom afforded to them to create the games that they want, although frankly after PH, and depending on in if Wii Zelda is a direct sequel to TP, both of which will stretch through a lot of this current generation, that goodwill will practically be over. They will be forced to go back to slotting games in between others and making explicitely direct connections. I'd hesitate to call it a triviality though. I mean I once thought that, but once you get past that initial barrier, it actually gives Wind Waker breathing room and it makes the ending all the more impeccable and appreciable in lieu of shoehorning it in a timeline where it probably doesn't belong. WW has that sense of finality, and coming back a few centuries later with a new, unexplained Hyrule just doesn't do it justice. If they make a sequel to WW with a new Hyrule, I want it explained within that game. Perhaps it'll open the door for a new villian now that Ganon and the Master Sword are at the bottom of the sea (one of the most amazing endings ever, by the way, and it would be a shame to ruin that by some crappy non canonical explanation).

But I'd say TP did far more damage to the single timeline. Now you have a sequel to OOT that seems to harp upon the adult endings with a sequel that seems to ignore all of that. If you go for an explanation that explains one, you're short changing the other. It's very, very difficult to take care of both of them with one brush without making stuff up. TP didn't necessarily hurt the split timeline. It could be slotted in without much trouble, and it sort of follows what we already knew. The status of the Triforce in TP is still the big thing, and figuring that out might go a very long way to figuring out what happens post TP.

[Crazy Penguin]

TP didn't necessarily hurt the split timeline. It could be slotted in without much trouble, and it sort of follows what we already knew.

So how would it relate to A Link to the Past?

[Evilsbane]

If they make a sequel to WW with a new Hyrule, I want it explained within that game.

Why would you need one when Daphnes explicitly says at the end that whatever land Link and Zelda find will be the new Hyrule. The Great Deku Tree also says at an earlier stage that the trees that grow from the seeds the Koroks scatter will become forests in their own right and expand the landmass of the islands. The second coming of Hyrule has already been set in motion; as the King says: 'I have scattered the seeds of the future...'

But I'd say TP did far more damage to the single timeline. Now you have a sequel to OOT that seems to harp upon the adult endings with a sequel that seems to ignore all of that. If you go for an explanation that explains one, you're short changing the other. It's very, very difficult to take care of both of them with one brush without making stuff up. TP didn't necessarily hurt the split timeline. It could be slotted in without much trouble, and it sort of follows what we already knew. The status of the Triforce in TP is still the big thing, and figuring that out might go a very long way to figuring out what happens post TP.

Well (if you believe such things), Ganon can't be killed properly without Silver Arrows (Light Arrows MIGHT not necessarily be the same), so his disembodied spirit having a temporary stay in the Sacred Realm while he licks his wounds and regains his strength (much like while he was stuck in the Twilight Realm) is not only possible but probable. Any sequels to TP can use that as a premise, and it's possible that ALttP already is.

[Crazy Penguin]

Why would you need one when Daphnes explicitly says at the end that whatever land Link and Zelda find will be the new Hyrule.

He says the exact opposite.

ZELDA: W-Wait! You could... You could come with us! Yes, of course... We have a ship! We can find it. We WILL find it! The
land that will be the next Hyrule! So…

DAPHNES: ...Ah, but child... That land will not be Hyrule. It will be YOUR land!

[Mgoblue201]

Crazy_Penguin: It doesn't unless you count the explanation for the Master Sword. It simply doesn't go back on previously learned knowledge that was present within the games.

Evilsbane: And the Deku Tree says the land can be reformed. So which one is it? Besides that, the entire timeline just feels fresher when we have connections cultivated between games. Imagine WW if they had completely left out all throwbacks to OOT. Of course the game worked fine on its own and the connections could've been implied, but it's just not as clean. For the sake of streamlining the timeline, they really should explain it.

I don't know how that explanation in your second paragraph would help the timeline, so you'd have to explain it to me.

[BourgeoisJerry]

So, in following the strictest level of canon we're allowed to fill the blanks only when they're implied to be filled, eh? In that case, do end results prove what leads up to them? For example, Ruto calling the Zora Sapphire an engagement gift (sorry, best example I could come up with) would imply that Link and her were engaged (at least in her mind,) but we know that she later lets him off the hook. If Ruto letting Link off the hook is enough to prove that she no longer expects him to marry her, wouldn't seeing Zelda in the castle after she fled be enough to prove that she later returned? It's not like it's impossible for her to return, so occam's razor would dictate that she does, wouldn't it? Well, if we're following the strictest level of canon as I'm interpreting it anyway.

[Crazy Penguin]

Crazy_Penguin: It doesn't unless you count the explanation for the Master Sword. It simply doesn't go back on previously learned knowledge that was present within the games.

Whether or not there is (or will be) a "New Hyrule" after the events of The Wind Waker is entirely irrelevent to my reply to Evilsbane. Evilsbane claimed that Daphnes stated Link and Zelda would found a new Hyrule. He was incorrect, as the above quotation from The Wind Waker's ending demonstrates.

[The Missing Link]

Alright, Hero of Legend, you've made your point. I think it is quite apparent to you and I (as well as the rest of the bloody world) that you hate this theory. We all know you want to avidly disprove it so that you can go back to theorisation on your terms (despite the fact that you've even said that you don't play by my rules anyway). It's also quite apparent that, yes, you posted last and so therefore you automatically have the "upper hand" in the argument because I haven't had the chance to counter your argument yet. These things are intuitively obvious to the casual observer. However, bragging at every step of the way that "HAHA! I HAV FOILEDED U 4EVAR!!! U LOOSE!!!" is not a gentlemanly way of approaching the whole ordeal. The conclusion of this debate, as you should be aware of--since you've been doing this for a while now--is not over when you say it's over. You post, then I post, and we continue until someone is tired or we agree to disagree. This discussion need not proceed this way, and you know it. So please, drop the 'tude and let's play civilised here.

As far as my OBJECTIONs are concerned, you'll notice that I did the very same thing in my article (and did so in a very humorous way). Such things continue to be mock-serious at best. If you feel the need to get frustrated by such, you shouldn't even be here at all.

Irrelevant. We have already established a difference from when Link uses it. The strictest level of canon cannot have you assume it works the same way when Zelda states differently.

Strict canon would not let you insert personal speculation, such as the unsupported claim that it will work the same for everyone who uses it. Yes, everyone can use it, we know this. However, there is again the notion that sending Link back with it is something Zelda can only do as a sage, and you claiming differently is nothing but hypocritical, considering how you demand proof for assumptions going the other way.
The reason she did nothing but send Link back seven years was that the stated reason for doing so was to let Link "regain his lost time." It would be pointless and hypocritical to send anyone else back (or send him back to change the past). Thus canon disqualifies that part of your argument.

And indeed it is true she uses the Ocarina to send Link back. This, however, does not change anything, because simply playing Zelda's Lullaby does not send Link back in time. That was Zelda's doing entirely.

Now, personally I wish you would reply to entire blocks of text as a whole instead of chopping everything up and trying to tackle it piecewise because then you break up the logical flow when you post in fragments. You dispute my first paragraph as completely irrelevant, and I will admit that it is introductory text that leads into the body of the point, but it is still relevant, nevertheless... as the subsequent paragraphs build off of this to show my point. Don't be hasty, Master Meriadoc; these proofs speak slowly because I want to make sure that you understand exactly where they come from. After all, we're using a surgeon's knife to tackle the problem, not some ineffecient sledgehammer; we have to be precise about it. Now, I'm going to reply to this all as one body and make general points applying to the spirit of what you're saying. This might mean that I might not cover every single point you flagged, but since half of them are really spurious argumentation to begin with, you'll just have to deal with it.

At this stage, I'm not thinking that you read the entire post because you're already accusing me of "personal speculation" when all I did was analyse a single sentence and tell you--precisely--what it meant. Now honestly, if we're going to start being accusatory and say my analysis of the precise definition of a single sentence is undoubtedly biased, we might as well drop the entire forum because every fact would be required to be parsed through our interpretation, and then what meaning would canon have to begin with? The answer is, of course, nothing at all. So stop being cocky, open your eyes for just a few moments, and work with me even though you hate the idea.

In all actuality, you're attributing far more meaning to the phrase "as a Sage" than you should be, introducing your personal opinions as baggage along with that. Let me show that with a simple example. Consider the sentence: "As an employee of my video game company, I can get into my building after hours." This sentence is grammatically structured to be similar to Zelda's text (again, without me looking up the precise wording, but it's at least close). Now, is this sentence a true statement? Yes, it is. Do I have this power? Yes. However, is this power native to me? No. You see, I have this key card which unlocks the doors, and without the key card, I can't get into the building. The ability mentioned in my sentence is not a native skill. The ability X (getting into the building) is not a native talent; it is merely something that I can do given the power at my disposal, namely the key card in this case. Furthermore, do I belong to the only class of people who can do such? I actually do not know, but I would also think that the building owner has such a key card as well, and he doesn't work for us. This is precisely what I mean by S proves X and nothing else. Her words are very precise, and you're adding in additional, invisible words to her sentence while ignoring the greater point here.

By strict canon, her sentence reads (when understood at a basic grammatical level), "All Sages have the ability to, given the proper tools (if necessary or applicable) send you, Link, back to your original time; I am such a Sage, so I have this ability."

Now, we can further narrow down this sentence by analysing her actions. She asks for the Ocarina. She doesn't then put it away and then cast a spell on Link. If she had the native ability to do such, would not she do that directly without beating around the bush? I know most people here would definitely look at it that way. Why put on a song and a dance when what you really want is the beef? But no, that doesn't happen; she plays the ocarina, and while playing, the spell begins to form about Link. Now, could she have created the spell on her own power while playing? This is a possibility, but Occam's Razor shaves that and reduces it to the fact that the Ocarina of Time's song caused this.

Now before you harp on me about the thought of a song "having two different effects" when played by different people, let's be clear that some of the songs have multiple effects as is. The Song of Time actually has two. First, it opens the Door of Time, which is the declared purpose of the song, mind. Second, it moves those time blocks around. (And third, it rewinds time in Majora's Mask; again, I'm using this only as supporting text.) So why then cannot Zelda's Lullaby presume such a trait of having multiple effects? After all, it is a magical song with "mysterious properties". Furthermore, it serves as the generic context sensitive song when standing on all the Triforce symbols, thus allowing many things to be keyed to the song. It has many abilities as is, so why can't it have the additional property of manipulating time itself?

So I turn this over to you. Again, you have to show canon suggestion. If not to cast the spell, what is the purpose of Zelda's Lullaby at the end of the game if not to send Link back in time? You're absolutely stuck in this trap. Occam's Razor has you by the throat, and by my definition of strict canon, so you're wrong. This is your only defence in the matter. What canon evidence do you have to show that the Ocarina of Time did not cause Link to be sent back in time?

First, let me point out that Rauru says Link has the ability to use the Sages' powers, so that argument is flawed right there. But as I said, normal people can use it, including young Zelda (She left a telepathic message in it using the Song of Time). Regardless of this however, is the fact that the Sun's Song is a completely separate song from the Song of Time (it literally summons the sun/moon), and moreover, it can be used while playing the Fairy Ocarina. Thus whatever connections you wish to draw between it and the Ocarina of Time/Master Sword are inherently flawed. In fact, you are doing nothing but bending canon to suit your theory, and that is a big no-no according to your own rules.

As for your next point, HoL, you've made a grave error. You see, you actually pointed out things that actually help my case. You just claimed that Link had the ability to do things that the sages did, that he had the power of the sages at his beck and call. How then does this contradict what I was saying? My own argument in my previous post to this point was that Link very well could have had the same ability as did Zelda and the sages... and here you come out and say it as if it's a contradiction to my point? What's going on here? But what the heck, I'll bite anyways. Let me refer you back to a quote you might have forgotten:

SHEIK, MEETING LINK IN THE TEMPLE OF TIME A SECOND TIME:
................................................................
As long as you hold the Ocarina of Time and the Master Sword, you hold time itself in your hands... [emphasis mine]

Again, canon is 100% true by assumption. Therefore, Sheik must be truthful when saying this. So let us presume for the moment that the Sun's Song cannot be counted by your argument; I then ask you why is the Ocarina of Time included in this phrase? If Link could not use the Ocarina of Time to manipulate time, then this statement would be false; however, the Ocarina of Time--at least in part--enables time travel at some degree. So thus, there must be some other property that the Ocarina of Time has that manipulates time, some property that Link can use. However, Link does not use any such property with the Ocarina of Time outside of the Sun's Song (at least within Ocarina). As such, some other song must be capable of being used for time travel. We certainly see this with the Song of Time in Majora, and again, Occam's Razor (unless canonical evidence is shown to the contrary) allows Zelda's Lullaby to be considered as well. The last one is potentially discardable since the song can be played to some effect on the Fairy Ocarina, and the Majora defence I used above I'm only going to use as supporting evidence, but I still have a Drumpf card up my sleeve; I'm going to use the Song of Time another way to show what I need to show.

This song is never played on the Fairy Ocarina nor indeed could it. Since Link already had an ocarina and could play magical songs on it, why else would Zelda have given Link the Ocarina of Time rather than just allow him to use his own ocarina? The answer, by Occam's Razor, is that the Ocarina of Time must be used. Thus, the Ocarina of Time has some special property that the Fairy Ocarina does not, thus giving credence to the possibility that perhaps the Ocarina of Time can do things that the Fairy Ocarina cannot. The Song of Time is the proof to show it.

Even if we choose not to disregard that as gameplay mechanics (which would certainly be a valid stance - the game itself admits to being a video game) that still does not work. I could just as easily say that when Link first learns a song, the Ocarina is infused with its power, and only then can the magic of the song be used. Indeed, there is a glimmering about the Ocarina whenever Link learns a new tune. Thus, visual evidence (which is just as canon as any other information) is on my side.

Au contraire. The ocarina may glow, but you have to remember one fundamental flaw with your theory. Some of those songs only glow for the Fairy Ocarina... yet they can still be played on the Ocarina of Time. I'd say that's a pretty good reason why not to go with your belief. I think that's 'nuff said about that.

Ignoring what I said above, your retribution still does not address the main issue. If your claims that Zelda only could send Link back with her song because she knew of its abilities, then where is the proof that these abilities are exactly the same as those of the Master Sword? There is nothing supporting this assumption, and so it holds no weight in this debate. Yes, I know about Sheik using the exact same words, but that is simply her saying he will return to his original time. It has no bearing on the method used in accomplishing this.

You keep asking for this proof thing. I thought I had explained it in crystal clear text the first time, but for the record, let me repeat. I don't have to. My assumption states that if I can show the canon suggests a "fact" and does not directly support any other interpretation, that "fact" may be assumed true. Thus, I don't have to offer proof. Stop asking for it. (But I will hint you this; I cannot prove it completely; I only can prove it in my theory because my assumption that my methodology is a valid one allows me to sidestep that and call it proof.)

Instead, why don't you actually try playing defence rather than offence? Why don't you show canon evidence to merely support the idea that they are different? Clock's ticking on this one. It's a very simple request; I asked for it last time, and still you haven't provided. The only way to defeat my postulate is to show that strict canon suggests something--anything!--else. If you can put your money where your mouth is and show some quote that suggests that the two forms of time travel are different, then I'd love to hear about it.

Yes, but my point was one could be allowed to disregard such obvious contradictions because of their nature as errors. We do it all the time. Remember, everything is allowed in love and war.

If everything is allowed, then we shouldn't be so get so picky through the use of artistic license. But you really don't mean that, I'm guessing?

Here I would like to point out that you failed to address what I said about the Ocarina in MM. It alone is proof that your claim that all canon supports your notion is false. However, I am willing to disregard this, because again, this is about OoT, not MM.

You asked for proof. I said I didn't have to. I know you want "proof" so bad, but I did answer you. Suggest an alternative and back it up or don't play, my friend.

I could argue that Zelda's quote suggests she is using a different kind of time travel than Link. The fact that she plays the Ocarina of time, and that Link disappears in a different kind of light than he usually does supports this. If you claim differently, than that is nothing but your interpretation, which is no better than mine. Adhering to the strictest level of canon would have none of us be correct, and so the problem ceases to exist.

And as for the path being invalid. Certainly, it is. But I already admitted that.

Then why are we even debating if you already believe my point?

[The Missing Link]

I apologise for the double post, but so no one else loses my reply to them in HoL's post, I'm doing this here.

Sorry for the inconvenience. ~ God

...
I THOUGHT I understood what you were getting at with the article, but now I'm lost. What was your point again?

The point I am trying to prove is this: If you all of the statements and actions and events within the games extremely seriously and assume every little detail as unquestionable fact, you eventually will ruin your own timeline because there are too many contradictions. Namely, the Song of Storms versus the ending of Ocarina is one such contradiction.

However, I am not a timeline hater, and indeed I like timeline speculation, so I'm not saying that there is no timeline. What I am saying is that to arrive at a timeline, an alternate means must be used to arrive at one; this means that we have to throw out at least some facts of the canon to achieve a timeline.

TML: I'll argue that yes the split timeline increases the possibilities, which is a much more likely reason for the creators to flow with it. They want the most freedom afforded to them to create the games that they want, although frankly after PH, and depending on in if Wii Zelda is a direct sequel to TP, both of which will stretch through a lot of this current generation, that goodwill will practically be over. They will be forced to go back to slotting games in between others and making explicitely direct connections. I'd hesitate to call it a triviality though. I mean I once thought that, but once you get past that initial barrier, it actually gives Wind Waker breathing room and it makes the ending all the more impeccable and appreciable in lieu of shoehorning it in a timeline where it probably doesn't belong. WW has that sense of finality, and coming back a few centuries later with a new, unexplained Hyrule just doesn't do it justice. If they make a sequel to WW with a new Hyrule, I want it explained within that game. Perhaps it'll open the door for a new villian now that Ganon and the Master Sword are at the bottom of the sea (one of the most amazing endings ever, by the way, and it would be a shame to ruin that by some crappy non canonical explanation).

Don't misunderstand me here. By trivial I don't mean "insignificant." I merely say that it is the easiest proof to construct and has the fewest explicit connections, thus making it the least powerful theory. That doesn't invalidate the theory by any means, but it does put it as a "last ditch resort" possibility (proceeded only by a 13-Links-over-multiple-timelines theory). I don't have a problem with adding Links by any means; such is the inevitability as having too few Links to cover the games make them all have highly unrealistic lives, especially with such vast diversity in the games.

In short, I think you and I are truly on the same line of thinking right now, that there is some optimum rough configuration that balances believability and canon adherence. What that configuration is, I don't know, but there indeed is one. However, I don't concern myself finding what it is because everyone has a different belief as to how much we should tilt the scales in either direction between canon and timeline.

But I'd say TP did far more damage to the single timeline. Now you have a sequel to OOT that seems to harp upon the adult endings with a sequel that seems to ignore all of that. If you go for an explanation that explains one, you're short changing the other. It's very, very difficult to take care of both of them with one brush without making stuff up. TP didn't necessarily hurt the split timeline. It could be slotted in without much trouble, and it sort of follows what we already knew. The status of the Triforce in TP is still the big thing, and figuring that out might go a very long way to figuring out what happens post TP.

In some ways yes and others no. Remember that I personally have a different perspective than you as far as that balance between canon and timeline goes. I much more heavily weight timeline than canon whereas you lean more towards canon rather than timeline. Yes, as you so uneloquently put it, "making stuff up" will allow a Single Timeline Theory to prosper (I prefer the words "artistic license"), but for me, that's precisely what I find enjoyable. Since I write mine theory in terms of a story rather than an outline or an article, believability is much more important than being canon-strict, and so I can reap the rewards of that and apply it to a Single Timeline... even if others cannot.

He says the exact opposite.

............................................

DAPHNES: ...Ah, but child... That land will not be Hyrule. It will be YOUR land!

I don't mean to change horses midstream and talk about something else, but let me proffer one little plot idea. Daphnes certainly has his intentions of them building a new Hyrule. He washed the old Hyrule away for that reason. However, just because he wishes it doesn't mean that Link and Tetra/Zelda are required to respect that wish. They could build a new Hyrule if they wanted; it's their land, after all. What land eventually comes out of Wind Waker is left undefined... and when something is undefined, it is our obligation to come up with our own explanation. And that explanation, in this case, is inevitably dependent upon how we see Link and Tetra/Zelda.

So, in following the strictest level of canon we're allowed to fill the blanks only when they're implied to be filled, eh? In that case, do end results prove what leads up to them? For example, Ruto calling the Zora Sapphire an engagement gift (sorry, best example I could come up with) would imply that Link and her were engaged (at least in her mind,) but we know that she later lets him off the hook. If Ruto letting Link off the hook is enough to prove that she no longer expects him to marry her, wouldn't seeing Zelda in the castle after she fled be enough to prove that she later returned? It's not like it's impossible for her to return, so occam's razor would dictate that she does, wouldn't it? Well, if we're following the strictest level of canon as I'm interpreting it anyway.

Were it but so simple.

Remember that this sticking point only is important with regards to the Future Predestination Theory. (This truth of this statement is unimportant to both Split Timeline and Future Elimination.) So let's for the moment assume that this is the case, that we can assume she returned. Next question: Why? Why did she return? Ganondorf isn't locked up in the Sacred Realm or anything; from the future we know that Ganondorf has been looking for Zelda for a long time; Zelda has the Triforce he is looking for; Zelda isn't safe being out in the open as it only took seconds after she revealed herself to Link before she was caught.. Why on Farore's green Hyrule is she there?

Well, maybe she thought it was safe. Again, why? Well, maybe she knew Ganondorf was occupied somewhere. How? Well, maybe she foresaw it. Then why didn't she foresee it when she revealed herself to Link? Maybe she thought the risk was worth it. Why? The questions can go forever on this road. In the end, we have to start inventing answers ad infinitum that have no possible link to the canon.

Rather, an explanation of the ending in other terms is much simpler. In Future Elimination or Split Timeline, her presence wouldn't cause much alarm. Ganondorf is contained, and life is merry. No real explanation needed. She returned nice and safely, and poof.

So by Occam's Razor, the ending is not Future Predestination. But Occam's Razor says the ending is Future Predestination. Who do we believe?

Now, you could say that because the contradiction, Occam's Razor cannot apply and thus something more complex must be the right answer. Yet this is the trap that I mentioned earlier. Occam's Razor is the thing that supports strict canon, and breaking that breaks the starting assumption. If you try to stick with the base assumption that Occam's Razor is true, however, you inevitably create a circular logic flow. You assume that the consistency of the game must be true (and thus trumps Occam's Razor)... but then since this is used to disprove the inconsistency of the game, the proof is meaningless because it's quite obvious that P proves P; that's a given for anything.

Think of it in terms of this: Assume the sky is blue; therefore, the sky is not green. It's actually a valid proof, perfectly legal. However, it's quite meaningless. It doesn't go anywhere.

Assuming that Occam's Razor must explain the princess' return to Hyrule Castle in spite of the otherwise disjoint concepts of the end of the game and the Song of Storms begs the question. The only explanation is that the princess' return is not the simplest solution, which causes the assumption to fail, which then allows the timeline to be created.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Uh... why do we have to explain why Zelda returned? If we're going by strictest level of canon, the only possibility is Future Predestination. So, if we see Zelda in the castle in the games ending we know she must have returned for some reason. Before Link left the Kokiri Forest he was told "We Kokiri will die if we leave the forest!" We're also told that Link is a Kokiri. If we only played the first part of the game and didn't see Link leave the forest, occam's razor would dictate that Link was a Kokiri and thus would die if he left the woods. We later see that Link doesn't die when he leaves the forest, then he grows up, then we're finally told that he's actually a Hylian. This all contradicts what the canon would have led us to believe early on, but none of us actually believe that Link is a Kokiri (sure, the game does pretty much explain everything, but you get the point.)

Anyway, let's say we only play the portion of the game before Link opens the Door of Time and withdraws the Master Sword from its pedestal. Occam's razor would now dictate that Link is not Kokiri despite earlier canon suggesting otherwise. Seeing Zelda in the castle is basically the same as seeing Link outside of Kokiri Forest. We don't know why, but the fact that she's there proves that for some reason she returned. If the other timeline theories were possible while adhering to the strictest level of canon, the ending would suggest one of those timelines, but canon dictates that those timelines are all (technically) impossible, so the simplest solution is that Link returned sometime after pulling the Master Sword and Zelda had returned to the castle for some unknown reason.

Why she's there doesn't need explained any more than we need to explain the Deku Tree dying after it had been implied that Link would be able to save him. Of course, that kinda is explained, but it still contradicts the earlier implication. Anyway, going by the classic “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” rule, the Future Predestination theory must (technically) be true, and since we see Zelda in the castle and we know Link (technically) couldn't have gone back before she fled the castle, we know she must (technically) have returned. We don't know why, but the why is no more necessary to this "fact" as it is with other facts of the Zelda universe. "How is that resurrection thing in the Adventure of Link manual possible?" "I dunno, but according to the manual Ganon can be revived with the blood of the person that killed him."

Wouldn't the “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” rule overrule occam's razor? Or rather, the possibility of Link going back before Zelda fled shouldn't (technically) even be considered. Occam's razor doesn't simply state that "the simplest solution tends to be the best one." Occam's razor states that "all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." Since Future Predestination is (technically) the only possible theory, these laws dictate that Zelda must have returned for some unknown reason.

Anyway... I probably could have thrown the word "technically" in there a few more places, but you get the point. I'm not sure exactly why I'm still nitpicking this, since in the end I agree with what you're saying. I guess I just like debating.

Edited by BourgeoisJerry, 03 February 2007 - 03:54 AM.

[Crazy Penguin]

[quote name='The Missing Link' post='294064' date='Feb 3 2007, 07:59 AM']I don't mean to change horses midstream and talk about something else, but let me proffer one little plot idea. Daphnes certainly has his intentions of them building a new Hyrule. He washed the old Hyrule away for that reason. However, just because he wishes it doesn't mean that Link and Tetra/Zelda are required to respect that wish. They could build a new Hyrule if they wanted; it's their land, after all. What land eventually comes out of Wind Waker is left undefined... and when something is undefined, it is our obligation to come up with our own explanation. And that explanation, in this case, is inevitably dependent upon how we see Link and Tetra/Zelda.[/quote]

As I just said, twice already, Link and Tetra (or another group of people entirely) certainly could found a new Hyrule - HOWEVER - Daphnes told them that whatever land they find would not be Hyrule, it would be their land.

We have absolutely no idea what happens next - BUT - I wasn't claiming to know what happens next, or throwing out any ideas of what might happen next, I was simply correcting Evilsbane's error.

I thought I was making myself pretty clear the first time.

Leaving that discussion behind (hopefully!)...

Majora's Mask had an interesting scene, possibly intended to retroactively foreshadow the latter part of Ocarina of Time.

PRINCESS ZELDA:

You are already leaving this land
of Hyrule, aren't you?

Even though it was only a short
time, I feel like I've known you
forever.

I'll never forget the days we
spent together in Hyrule...

And I believe in my heart that a
day will come when I shall meet
you again...

Until that day comes, please...
Take this...

I am praying...
I am praying that your journey be
a safe one.

If something should happen to you,
remember this song...

The Goddess of Time is
protecting you.
If you play the Song of Time,
she will aid you...[/quote]

[Hero of Legend]

I think it is quite apparent to you and I (as well as the rest of the bloody world) that you hate this theory.

Well, I do that with most theories, so this is really nothing out of the ordinary.

However, bragging at every step of the way that "HAHA! I HAV FOILEDED U 4EVAR!!! U LOOSE!!!" is not a gentlemanly way of approaching the whole ordeal. The conclusion of this debate, as you should be aware of--since you've been doing this for a while now--is not over when you say it's over. You post, then I post, and we continue until someone is tired or we agree to disagree.

"Hahaha! You have fallen into my trap! You cannot argue with me without bending my rules! I have disproved the timeline! etc, etc." Sounds familiar?

As far as my OBJECTIONs are concerned, you'll notice that I did the very same thing in my article (and did so in a very humorous way). Such things continue to be mock-serious at best. If you feel the need to get frustrated by such, you shouldn't even be here at all.

What, you can't handle someone not rolling over and dying just because the great TML said so? Is it really that horrible that your theory wasn't as bulletproof as you had imagined?

...See, I wasn’t exactly trying to insult you either.

Now honestly, if we're going to start being accusatory and say my analysis of the precise definition of a single sentence is undoubtedly biased, we might as well drop the entire forum because every fact would be required to be parsed through our interpretation, and then what meaning would canon have to begin with? The answer is, of course, nothing at all.

Oh I would, but then again, people normally don’t pretend their theories are absolute fact.

This is precisely what I mean by S proves X and nothing else. Her words are very precise, and you're adding in additional, invisible words to her sentence while ignoring the greater point here.

Of course, such an analysis defeats the entire purpose of her mentioning it in the first place. Why would Nintendo have her say she could do it as a Sage, if she could just have had Link, or anyone else to do it for her (as you previously claimed)? Ignoring the obvious intention of the creators' is faulty reasoning. See, when called for, I can point to the implications of canon just as well as you can.

By strict canon, her sentence reads (when understood at a basic grammatical level), "All Sages have the ability to, given the proper tools (if necessary or applicable) send you, Link, back to your original time; I am such a Sage, so I have this ability."

Or, it means, "I, in my Sagehood, with the Ocarina of Time, can send you, Link, back to your original time." Your inference that she is but one of the other Sages is not only unsupported, but directly contradicted by the rest of the game, which makes a real difference between the Seventh Sage and the others.

But this is irrelevant, anyway, because being a Sage is apparently still important to her ability to send Link back in time.

So I turn this over to you. Again, you have to show canon suggestion. If not to cast the spell, what is the purpose of Zelda's Lullaby at the end of the game if not to send Link back in time? You're absolutely stuck in this trap. Occam's Razor has you by the throat, and by my definition of strict canon, so you're wrong. This is your only defence in the matter. What canon evidence do you have to show that the Ocarina of Time did not cause Link to be sent back in time?

That would be contradicting canon - It is a fact Zelda sends Link back by playing her song. Fortunately, I don't need to show you that this is wrong. Why? Because you have yet to show any evidence that Zelda's Lullaby works the same way the Master Sword does (when the Song of Time didn't in MM) or that Zelda had nothing to do with it (despite the fact that she says so).

I know, "canon implies it". Problem is, it really doesn't.

As for your next point, HoL, you've made a grave error. You see, you actually pointed out things that actually help my case. You just claimed that Link had the ability to do things that the sages did, that he had the power of the sages at his beck and call. How then does this contradict what I was saying? My own argument in my previous post to this point was that Link very well could have had the same ability as did Zelda and the sages... and here you come out and say it as if it's a contradiction to my point? What's going on here?

It is fairly simple. When I said that, I was really only talking about the Six Sages, not Zelda. How come, you ask? Well, because Zelda, as I have said said, is separate from the others. She does not have a Temple or a Symbol of her own. In fact, she is not even counted amongst the ‘ancient Sages’. And, most importantly, she does not grant Link any power, like the other Sages do. You could of course argue that her power is the Light Arrows, but those are given to the “chosen ones” and so they are not part of Zelda’s own powers.

The point is, we have no idea about the true nature of Zelda’s powers, nor any indication that Link can use them like he does the other Sages. And if Nintendo intended Zelda to be the only one who could send Link back at the end of OoT, canon has nothing against it.

Again, canon is 100% true by assumption. Therefore, Sheik must be truthful when saying this.

And what if Sheik was referring to the opening of the Door of Time? The Ocarina was the key to the Door, and the Master Sword was the key to the Sacred Realm. Both were needed to travel in time, but the Ocarina was never directly involved.

Au contraire. The ocarina may glow, but you have to remember one fundamental flaw with your theory. Some of those songs only glow for the Fairy Ocarina... yet they can still be played on the Ocarina of Time. I'd say that's a pretty good reason why not to go with your belief. I think that's 'nuff said about that.

I point to the Master Sword. The Blade of Evil’s Bane has the power to repel evil forged inside of it, but it only glows when Link holds it. That means the power to use the sword resides inside Link. Similarly, the ocarina glows to show that Link has learned the song. Although the ocarina glows, the power is actually within Link.

An assumption, I admit, but it is consistent with canon, both within OoT and the series as a whole.

You keep asking for this proof thing. I thought I had explained it in crystal clear text the first time, but for the record, let me repeat. I don't have to. My assumption states that if I can show the canon suggests a "fact" and does not directly support any other interpretation, that "fact" may be assumed true. Thus, I don't have to offer proof. Stop asking for it. (But I will hint you this; I cannot prove it completely; I only can prove it in my theory because my assumption that my methodology is a valid one allows me to sidestep that and call it proof.)

I suppose I worded it poorly. Let me rephrase myself – I simply have not seen any implications that unfailingly support your theory. And to be frank, I have yet too see you accept any implications that go against your theory. Case in point being the OoT in MM.

Instead, why don't you actually try playing defence rather than offence? Why don't you show canon evidence to merely support the idea that they are different? Clock's ticking on this one. It's a very simple request; I asked for it last time, and still you haven't provided. The only way to defeat my postulate is to show that strict canon suggests something--anything!--else. If you can put your money where your mouth is and show some quote that suggests that the two forms of time travel are different, then I'd love to hear about it.

Well, as I said, I don’t actually need to. But if it pleases you, I did provide some amount of evidence in this post.

If everything is allowed, then we shouldn't be so get so picky through the use of artistic license. But you really don't mean that, I'm guessing?

It was only meant to illustrate a point. You know full well what I meant.

Then why are we even debating if you already believe my point?

Because your theory is flawed. The only way you could ever 'prove' it (even by your own definition of 'strict canon', because you could always interpret something differently) would be if Zelda said “Now I’m going to send you back using the exact same method of time travel as you did with the Master Sword.” But she doesn’t.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 03 February 2007 - 02:31 PM.

[FDL]

As I just said, twice already, Link and Tetra (or another group of people entirely) certainly could found a new Hyrule - HOWEVER - Daphnes told them that whatever land they find would not be Hyrule, it would be their land.

We have absolutely no idea what happens next - BUT - I wasn't claiming to know what happens next, or throwing out any ideas of what might happen next, I was simply correcting Evilsbane's error.

I thought I was making myself pretty clear the first time.

Leaving that discussion behind (hopefully!)...

Majora's Mask had an interesting scene, possibly intended to retroactively foreshadow the latter part of Ocarina of Time.

PRINCESS ZELDA:

You are already leaving this land
of Hyrule, aren't you?

Even though it was only a short
time, I feel like I've known you
forever.

I'll never forget the days we
spent together in Hyrule...

And I believe in my heart that a
day will come when I shall meet
you again...

Until that day comes, please...
Take this...

I am praying...
I am praying that your journey be
a safe one.

If something should happen to you,
remember this song...

The Goddess of Time is
protecting you.
If you play the Song of Time,
she will aid you...

You mean as in Link returns from Termina and the second half of OoT happens? I'm not sure what you're implying. But, I'm not saying that it's definetly incorrect, because I think lay out OoT, MM, TWW, and TP, they have inconstincies with ingame statements as well as connections to other games. I used to think the idea that he returned and did everything again was foolish, but now I don't know what to believe. Nothing fits 100%. However, I'm not sure I see this scene as implying that Zelda has no memory of OoT. That's just how I see it though, someoene could possibly sway my opinion on it if they gave proof. When I first played OoT, I thought that the ending implied that Zelda screwed up again and while she changed Hyrule back to how it was before Ganondorf took over, but he also was out of the SR. I believed that Zelda's expression was more "Holy shit! He's back!" rather than "Who are you?" Also, we have Zelda's quote in MM that the SoT reminds her of her and Link. Regardless, I don't believe this theory any more, but I do think it's possible she remembered Link. I don't see how she couldn't and yet be friendly with him by the time he went to Termina.

Edited by Fierce Deity Link, 03 February 2007 - 12:18 PM.

[The Missing Link]

"Hahaha! You have fallen into my trap! You cannot argue with me without bending my rules! I have disproved the timeline! etc, etc." Sounds familiar?

Actually, it doesn't. I'm hardly taking this thing personally; I'm merely rolling with the punches as they come and proffering logical feedback in subsequent paragraphs. I don't think anyone here would agree that I'm lambasting them for whatever preconceived notions they have about anything, and I certainly have made an attempt--whether you agree or not--to keep a civil and slightly playful tone so as to enforce that aim. (You'll notice that my article actually had the very same tone as this very debate.) This you might call the opposite of "copping a 'tude."

What, you can't handle someone not rolling over and dying just because the great TML said so? Is it really that horrible that your theory wasn't as bulletproof as you had imagined?

First off, there is no such thing as "The Great TML." If I was indeed trying to be high and mighty, I'd have never left this forum to begin with. Rather, I barely come here and otherwise only offer my advice and criticism on timelines when asked.

Secondly, as far as the whole bulletproof nature of the argument, you're firstly assuming that the debate ends whenever your post ends, thus automatically assuming the high ground whenever you speak. But more crucially, I've openly admitted that some points of my theory are weak, and that they should be attacked for massive damage. (I do believe that I even said this in the first post of the topic, for that matter.) I expected people to come after them. I just only wish that they'd be open to hearing a subsequent post on the matter rather than start teabagging the moment someone falls on the battlefield. Speaking of, my computer screen is saying the words "Respawn in 3 seconds..." Guess I should get my gun ready and begin the hunt.

In this particular case, you can argue, based on your own inference (common sense, really) that the Song of Storms is a plot hole. It likely is. However, you cannot prove this. There is no such proof within the game. That is your problem.

*sigh*

Ah yes, we go back to the old "you cannot prove it neener-neener" defence. As I said before, in very open speech with you, no, I cannot prove it. If I could prove it, believe me, the intelligence that is gathered in this forum could have solved this years ago without my help. I cannot magically come in with secret dialogue never discovered from within Ocarina of Time and say, "Why, here you go! This line here makes it all work out! " But no, there isn't. Ya'll have the same evidence as I do; ya'll have the same powers of logic and such as I do. Do you honestly expect me to bring out a magic quote and prove it to you for once and for all? I can't; it doesn't exist.

That's why I chose a different stratagem. I made the proof unnecessary. I made a bold assumption that made the whole argument possible, that the merest suggestion (in absence of suggestion for other possibilities) would equate to proof. Now, whether or not this claim is valid or not, only the moon and stars above know, but I have a hunch that this indeed is a false claim... and the intent is to prove that through the contradiction. So long as there's some solid chain of logic between my assumption and the conclusion, evidence--which is normally far different than proof--becomes proof by assumption. This is like sweeping all of the dirt in the room under a rug; it's still there, but I've removed it from sight... unless you throw out the rug, at which point then my work is done.

Of course, such an analysis defeats the entire purpose of her mentioning it in the first place. Why would Nintendo have her say she could do it as a Sage, if she could just have had Link, or anyone else to do it for her (as you previously claimed)? Ignoring the obvious intention of the creators' is faulty reasoning. See, when called for, I can point to the implications of canon just as well as you can.

I can provide two theories for you on this. One of them you won't like, and the other one you REALLY won't like but cannot possible disprove.

(1) Her statement isn't as obvious as you believe it is. As I said before, my analysis of her statement was purely grammatical; I injected no bias into my analysis whatsoever, eventually taking the road to obtain its discover the sentence's denotation, its precise meaning. Such a thing should not be questionable because, as we all know, no one can argue against a dictionary (except for maybe words that post-date the dictionary's publication date, but that's neither here nor there); the dictionary wins every time because it's factual. Now, the problem with such an analysis is that grammatically parsing a sentence inevitably loses its connotative meaning(s). We don't get to hear the emotion in Zelda's voice, the tone of her words, and we barely know 100% of her inner workings and thought processes. Such things can only be deduced from the connotative. However, connotative meanings are always highly subjective to the reader. Everyone will inevitably yield one's own conclusion. This is apparent because you and I disagree about it's absolute meaning; however, the precise meaning should be unquestioned. As a result, your interpretation could conceivably be different than that of the creators themselves. This is why I chose the connotative approach here; inevitably, you're going up against grammar and attempting to wrestle prepositional phrases away from their logical nature. Such an attempt can only fail.

(2) Nintendo was being careless with their dialogue. This very point is inevitably the thing I'm trying to establish, and so I cannot yield this is as hardcore evidence (for that would be begging the question), but as supporting evidence, this explanation would make a great amount of sense. Perhaps the folks that wrote the dialogue were not being as exact as they should've. After all, (1) could have contributed to this very possibility. Perhaps it's like Viccini and the word "inconceivable"; their sentence didn't mean precisely what they thought it meant. Inevitably, the people who wrote the game dialogue are human beings, and to expect them to be blessed with Nayru's perfection is a point is an undue constraint upon any human being. Sure, there are teams to double-check this; sure, there are lots of people looking over their shoulders. But errors eventually make their way into the final product. Just read a major newspaper and you'll eventually find a typo or two. They happen. Nintendo isn't perfect. Perhaps this is one such case.

Or, it means, "I, in my Sagehood, with the Ocarina of Time, can send you, Link, back to your original time." Your inference that she is but one of the other Sages is not only unsupported, but directly contradicted by the rest of the game, which makes a real difference between the Seventh Sage and the others.

Of course, that's a possibility. Show evidence to support it that is different from that line of text. Or, alternatively, since I like to be thorough in the analysis of my own weak points (in the interest of not being "biased"), provide canonical evidence to explain why else she would play the Ocarina of Time.

That would be contradicting canon - It is a fact Zelda sends Link back by playing her song. Fortunately, I don't need to show you that this is wrong. Why? Because you have yet to show any evidence that Zelda's Lullaby works the same way the Master Sword does (when the Song of Time didn't in MM) or that Zelda had nothing to do with it (despite the fact that she says so).

I know, "canon implies it". Problem is, it really doesn’t.

*snickers* You speak this as if canon contradiction is this horrible atrocity. Need I drudge up your old quotes? How about Twilight Princess? Didn't you say that that game violated canon? Specifically, you mentioned that "Twilight Princess alone has enough plot holes to 'disprove' the ultimate infallibility of canon." Through your admission, this then becomes a moot point. If contradiction of canon takes place, then this very thing cannot be held against me I try to cast the light from the heavens elsewhere with a very handy mirror.

But as far as evidence is concerned, I've already showed it to you. Yes, I refer to my Zelda and Sheik quotes that you alluded to earlier. They're very poignant and reasonably sound. However, you just don't like it, you don't think it's sufficient, and thus you have ignored it, but it remains nevertheless my canonical explanation. Of course, you're more than free to show that an alternate suggestion truly exists; that would, quite easily, destroy this pillar. My advice to you is that you will find it much easier to simply knock the pillar over than to continue shooting it with bullets such that it falls from structural failure.

It is fairly simple. When I said that, I was really only talking about the Six Sages, not Zelda. How come, you ask? Well, because Zelda, as I have said said, is separate from the others. She does not have a Temple or a Symbol of her own. In fact, she is not even counted amongst the ‘ancient Sages’. And, most importantly, she does not grant Link any power, like the other Sages do. You could of course argue that her power is the Light Arrows, but those are given to the “chosen ones” and so they are not part of Zelda’s own powers.

The point is, we have no idea about the true nature of Zelda’s powers, nor any indication that Link can use them like he does the other Sages. And if Nintendo intended Zelda to be the only one who could send Link back at the end of OoT, canon has nothing against it.

Yet let us return to this sentence that you so avidly love to discuss. Zelda mentions that, as a Sage, she can send Link back to his original time. Now, there are six other sages besides her. This is a fact, and you cannot ignore it. The sentence reads that sages can send Link back to his original time. Thus, the other six sages have the same ability that Zelda has. Link has the power of the other six sages at his beck and call. Thus, Link has the power to manipulate time. I understood you were talking about the six sages; however, the law of transitivity gives Link the power.

And what if Sheik was referring to the opening of the Door of Time? The Ocarina was the key to the Door, and the Master Sword was the key to the Sacred Realm. Both were needed to travel in time, but the Ocarina was never directly involved.

Yet we know that the Ocarina of Time can manipulate time. Majora's Mask provides supporting evidence to this. You can't just wave this to the wind quite so easily.

I point to the Master Sword. The Blade of Evil’s Bane has the power to repel evil forged inside of it, but it only glows when Link holds it. That means the power to use the sword resides inside Link. Similarly, the ocarina glows to show that Link has learned the song. Although the ocarina glows, the power is actually within Link.

An assumption, I admit, but it is consistent with canon, both within OoT and the series as a whole.

In Wind Waker, the Master Sword is quoted as having "lost its power." In fact, you have to go through a rigorous series of dungeons and plot points to have it regain its power. And need I use Dungeon Eight of Twilight Princess as an example to further bolster my claims? Supporting evidence shows that this is not the case.

I suppose I worded it poorly. Let me rephrase myself – I simply have not seen any implications that unfailingly support your theory. And to be frank, I have yet too see you accept any implications that go against your theory. Case in point being the OoT in MM.

If there's any canonical evidence to firmly support the "Majora fix" to the Song of Storms without extraneous speculation, I've yet to hear it.

Well, as I said, I don’t actually need to. But if it pleases you, I did provide some amount of evidence in this post.

Most of which directly violates game quotes or utilises invalid logic.

It was only meant to illustrate a point. You know full well what I meant.

Then be more careful next time.

Because your theory is flawed. The only way you could ever 'prove' it (even by your own definition of 'strict canon', because you could always interpret something differently) would be if Zelda said “Now I’m going to send you back using the exact same method of time travel as you did with the Master Sword.” But she doesn’t.

Of course my theory is flawed, but you don't get it. My theory is flawed because the assumption of "strict canon" itself is flawed. Ergo, we must abandon strict canon. Which means that my proof really proves what I truly want it to prove, not that there's not a timeline... but because there's no conceivable way strict canon works.

But actually, you're also replacing me with a Straw Man here. You're misquoting my position because it's convenient for me to do so. The fictitious quote you used above provides solid proof that they'd be the same time travel mechanism. I wouldn't even need to assume strict canon because it's spelled out in black and white. In turn, she said what she said, but she used identical text to describe the Master Sword; either she (and thus the dialogue writers) were being careless with words, or she means precisely what she means. Either way, that's a win in my column. In order to disprove that assumption, the text could have been changed to something equally in-character but more explicit, such as:

"Link, I do not want you to live through these horrors as I have. I am going to send you back to your own time, but a time without war or hardship. I want you to have the childhood I did not have. This is my penance for involving you."

Make sense now?

[The Missing Link]

Uh... why do we have to explain why Zelda returned? If we're going by strictest level of canon, the only possibility is Future Predestination. So, if we see Zelda in the castle in the games ending we know she must have returned for some reason. Before Link left the Kokiri Forest he was told "We Kokiri will die if we leave the forest!" We're also told that Link is a Kokiri. If we only played the first part of the game and didn't see Link leave the forest, occam's razor would dictate that Link was a Kokiri and thus would die if he left the woods. We later see that Link doesn't die when he leaves the forest, then he grows up, then we're finally told that he's actually a Hylian. This all contradicts what the canon would have led us to believe early on, but none of us actually believe that Link is a Kokiri (sure, the game does pretty much explain everything, but you get the point.)

The analogy here is flawed. If you look at that one line, that "We Kokiri will die if we leave the forest!" and only limit your knowledge to the first part of the game, then yes, this would be a seeming contradiction. However, we know later that this indeed is not the case once we get all the facts. The seeming contradiction resolves itself when all of the facts become known.

However, a return to the Ocarina world is highly unlikely, especially within the seven-year span when Ganondorf took over Hyrule. We know as many facts as we can, and so we aren't getting any more. But just to nail this thing in the bud, let me show you a different element within the canon:

SHEIK/ZELDA IN TEMPLE OF TIME:
..........................................................................
On that day, seven years ago, Ganondorf attacked Hyrule Castle.
(flashback)
I saw you as I was escaping from the castle with my attendant, Impa. I thought I should entrust the Ocarina to you... I thought that would be our best chance...
(end flashback)
As long as you had the Ocarina in your possession, I thought Ganondorf could never enter the Sacred Realm, but... something I could never expect happened... After you opened the door of time, the Master Sword sealed you away in the Sacred Realm... Your spirit remained in the Sacred Realm...and then the Triforce fell into Ganondorf's hands. He went on to invade the Sacred Realm... Ganondorf had become the Evil King, and the Sacred Realm became a world of evil. All of this is an unfortunate coincidence. I passed myself off as a Sheikah and hoped that you would return. I waited for seven years... And... now you are back. [emphasis mine]
This is Zelda describing her time during those seven years.

Now, do you notice anything that's missing?

Oh yes, her meeting with Link in the castle after Link returned! The logical assumption (through omission) is that the meeting at the castle never occurred. Otherwise, it would've been mentioned, but instead, no mention of Link is made between the bold sections of text. There was no meeting in that time by Occam's Razor or else it would have been mentioned. This is why the garden scene at the end of the game is a contradiction rather than a logical deduction.

Now, conceivably your next point might be that she must have just omitted it, but that's where the trap of this article is. Once you assume that the game must be consistent and then try to workaround the failings of individual scenes, you lose the ability to disprove self-inconsistency because you've started the loop of circular logic.

As such, this quote suggests, rather, that the ending of the game took place in an alternate future or an alternate timeline rather than being the same-timeline-same-future as Future Predestination suggests. The contradiction is still in place.

[mohammedali]

Great article - and an enjoyable read. It seems you've got a really strong grasp of what the Zelda community is about, and it really shows in your writing. It's a shame you don't post here much anymore, as you’d be a great asset to the boards.

However, regarding this particular article, I think there's a major flaw in your reasoning that I thought you would have addressed. Despite your use of mathematical style inductions and proofs by contradiction, you're missing a rather major part of the debate... Context. You’re title is about the Song of Storms, but you've been too busy in the article trying to debunk some of the broader timeline ideas that it gets heavily sidelined. Perhaps by understanding the evidence better, you may come to a different conclusion.

The vital question that needs to be asked when trying to understand the SoS (Song of Storms) is who knew it to start with.

As we see in OoT, Link learns the song from the Windmill man, who originally learnt it from Link. This is a clear paradox; similar to the chicken and egg scenario except for one thing... either answer would be impossible. If Link originally taught it to the Windmill man, who taught Link? And if the Windmill man originally taught it to Link, who taught the Windmill man?
What we can infer from this is that neither Link nor the Windmill man knew of the song without each other's involvement. Therefore, the song had to have been taught to one of them outside of this paradoxical loop. i.e. If Link learnt it from the Windmill man, and the Windmill man learnt it from Link, where did the song actually come from? It had to be from outside the loop.

Now we know that the song must have come from an external source, and can thus start working out a possible course of events. The first point to note is that this loop must have began from either Link or the Windmill man being taught the song, otherwise it could never have entered the loop in the first place. I know you must be thinking that if it was introduced by someone already then there would be no loop, just a chain of events, but hear me out first.

The first thing we hear about the SoS in OoT is the Windmill man complaining to Link about a song he heard from a little boy (who is clearly Link as a child). Adult Link has not heard this song as yet, nor has Child Link (who is exactly 7 years younger). Therefore Child Link must have taught the Windmill man the song somewhere between Adult Link (now), and Child Link (exactly 7 years ago).
i.e. Child Link teaches Windmill man just less than 7 years before (say 6 years ago).

However, we still have to understand where this Child Link learnt the song from in the first place. As we've shown above, it had to be introduced from outside the loop. We must assume someone taught Child Link the song so that an impossible paradox does not occur as explained before. This event also occurs slightly after the time of the Child Link that we currently control (i.e. the Child Link that does not know the song yet), yet before Adult Link.
The reason Adult Link still doesn't know the song is because he hasn't actually lived through that part of his Child life where he learns the SoS (similar to why he doesn't know any of the other child songs upon awakening as an adult until he has physically learnt them in the past).

This song that Child Link was taught (by person X, say), and was passed to the Windmill man, is then taught to Adult Link. The point that Adult Link learns this song from the Windmill man is at a point where neither Adult Link knows the song (as he hasn't experienced it), nor Child Link knows it (as he hasn't met person X yet). Therefore, after time travelling, Child Link can now go back to the past, at a point before he was originally taught the song, and teach the Windmill man.

We now have a set of events that can occur that no longer make this a paradox. To summarise these events:
Link at time ZERO does not know the SoS
Link at time SEVEN does not know the SoS
Link at time ONE (between ZERO and SEVEN) is taught the SoS
Link at time ONE teaches the SoS to the Windmill Man
Windmill Man at time SEVEN teaches the SoS to Link who hasn't experienced the SoS yet (as he hasn't been through time ONE yet as a child ... he's still at time ZERO)
Link from time SEVEN travels back to time ZERO with the knowledge of the SoS.
Link at time ZERO, who now knows the SoS, teaches the SoS to the Windmill Man.
Link at time ONE learning the SoS becomes irrelevant as Link has learnt the SoS before that point, and is thus of no importance anymore.
A loop has now been created as knowledge from the future is used in the past.

Come to think of it, there was a program (staring Rodney from Only Fools and Horses) that once showed a similar idea where Rodney hears a popular song on the radio, and then goes back 100 years to record and release the song for the first time. When he comes back to the current time, his alter ego from the past is known to be the person that originally created the song in the first place, with the original songwriter being of no consequence anymore.

The only other point that may be brought up is that of beans. Yes. Beans. Beans are planted in OoT child, but only exist in the future when Link experiences planting them in the past. If we were to use this idea for the SoS, it would suggest that Link would have to experience the SoS in the past for it to have an effect on the future (i.e. for the Windmill man to hear it). However, this is not necessarily the case.
The way I see the game working is quite simple. There are certain things that will happen if Link in the past experiences them or not. These include Ganon taking over Hyrule, Nabooru being mindwashed, etc etc. Even though Link hasn’t see these things happen yet, they are the natural course of his life without hindsight.
i.e. In the future, Link doesn't know all the things he has done yet as a child. However, in the future, these things have happened (even if he hasn't experienced them as a child). I call this Autopilot Link.
As for the beans, they are something else altogether. They are the changing of the past from what it would have otherwise been. These are things that Link does differently based on experiences from the future. This is the reason why planting a seed in the past, creates a vine in the future. These are Link out of autopilot.
In the context of the SoS, Link learning the SoS from person X at time ONE is Link on Autopilot. Whilst Link teaching the SoS to the Windmill man at time ZERO is Link out of autopilot.


To disprove your theory, all that is needed is one counterproof (rules of maths again ) and that's the post so far. Even if you don't like the idea of how I'm suggesting it works, the point remains that it does work, and unless you can disprove the above theory, this counterproof is enough to show a way is possible.

Finally, as a little bit of fun, I got to thinking of who the mystery person X is that taught Link at time ONE. Fact is, it could be anyone. HMS, Zelda, Impa, Abdul... who know? However, I like to think that the one that taught Link the SoS originally was not even a person. Instead, it was the stone tablet in MM with the SoS written on it. Just a little food for thought...

Mohammed Ali

Edited by mohammedali, 04 February 2007 - 05:47 AM.

[Mgoblue201]

Crazy_Penguin: I was talking about your reply to me about how TP relates to LTTP.

TML: I appreciate Zelda for its artistic expression too. You have no idea how many times I've heard the "OOT can't be LTTP's backstory because it contradicts canon" line and it literally makes me want to rip out my hair. Of course I don't necessarily believe the adult ending is LTTP's backstory anymore, but I have no problem accepting it. The problem becomes how we interpret the games. If a certain timeline fits together the best, does that then become the most likely timeline? Are the creators screwing up? Are they mad geniuses and carefully piecing everything together? The problem with artistic license is that you're acknowleding the artist himself. What he does then becomes paramount. Of course, you can take any screw up and flash the artistic license card. Trust me, I do it too. But then we can go overboard and simply flash it whenever we see a problem that does not fit our timeline. TP relates to WW in absolutely no way unless you believe in the single timeline by default. I believe you even said once how you doubted that TP would fall in between OOT and WW simply based on the evidence you proposed that Aonuma was a stickler for facts within the timeline. If you know that and still choose a different timeline then fine, but it then becomes too easy just to pass everything off as artistic expression.

I try to use artistic license when I truly believe that the developers actually took that. That's something else that is highly subjective. But if the facts align very, very well, I'll go with the theory that is best supported by those facts. If there's something funny that doesn't line up such as the Zelda story in AoL or the OOT=IW war thing, then of course it's just the creators wanting to change things. I also try to steer away from believing in game facts changing or else the in game facts would eventually become meaningless. If I am forced to eventually believe that a single timeline is the one, true solution and that they rewrote the OOT-TP-WW connection, then fine, it'll be messy, but I can live with that because I'm not really that tied to the facts. I can completely accept the games being mere imperfect forms of a more perfect timeline that exists outside of the games and that the games are simply tellings of what the artist thought the story was like at that time. But I'd rather not do that if the games make (mostly) sense on their own.

Edited by Mgoblue201, 03 February 2007 - 04:11 PM.

[Arturo]

Two Suggestions to Mohammed:

1-I think we can't take the beans, the chests and such as an evidence, because they are merely game mechanics. Since the game wants you to do certain tasks, they wouldn't let the time work the way it should.

2-The one who could have taught Link could have been the Ghost of Sharp (or Flat, I am not sure) in termina. However, it is said that Linko remembered the song then, not that he learnt it.

Edited by Arturo, 03 February 2007 - 04:11 PM.

[mohammedali]

Hey Arturo,

Two Suggestions to Mohammed:

1-I think we can't take the beans, the chests and such as an evidence, because they are merely game mechanics. Since the game wants you to do certain tasks, they wouldn't let the time work the way it should.

The beans point wasn't being used as evidence. To the contrary, it was the only thing that could be used to counter my theory. Therefore I showed it isn't proof against the theory. I'm not using it as proof, just preempting a counter theory.

2-The one who could have taught Link could have been the Ghost of Sharp (or Flat, I am not sure) in termina. However, it is said that Linko remembered the song then, not that he learnt it.

He remembers it because he heard it in OoT at time ZERO. If he hadn't heard it at time ZERO this would have been the first time he heard it.

Mohammed Ali

[BourgeoisJerry]

The analogy here is flawed. If you look at that one line, that "We Kokiri will die if we leave the forest!" and only limit your knowledge to the first part of the game, then yes, this would be a seeming contradiction. However, we know later that this indeed is not the case once we get all the facts. The seeming contradiction resolves itself when all of the facts become known.

However, a return to the Ocarina world is highly unlikely, especially within the seven-year span when Ganondorf took over Hyrule. We know as many facts as we can, and so we aren't getting any more. But just to nail this thing in the bud, let me show you a different element within the canon:

SHEIK/ZELDA IN TEMPLE OF TIME:
..........................................................................
On that day, seven years ago, Ganondorf attacked Hyrule Castle.
(flashback)
I saw you as I was escaping from the castle with my attendant, Impa. I thought I should entrust the Ocarina to you... I thought that would be our best chance...
(end flashback)
As long as you had the Ocarina in your possession, I thought Ganondorf could never enter the Sacred Realm, but... something I could never expect happened... After you opened the door of time, the Master Sword sealed you away in the Sacred Realm... Your spirit remained in the Sacred Realm...and then the Triforce fell into Ganondorf's hands. He went on to invade the Sacred Realm... Ganondorf had become the Evil King, and the Sacred Realm became a world of evil. All of this is an unfortunate coincidence. I passed myself off as a Sheikah and hoped that you would return. I waited for seven years... And... now you are back. [emphasis mine]
This is Zelda describing her time during those seven years.

Now, do you notice anything that's missing?

Oh yes, her meeting with Link in the castle after Link returned! The logical assumption (through omission) is that the meeting at the castle never occurred. Otherwise, it would've been mentioned, but instead, no mention of Link is made between the bold sections of text. There was no meeting in that time by Occam's Razor or else it would have been mentioned. This is why the garden scene at the end of the game is a contradiction rather than a logical deduction.

Now, conceivably your next point might be that she must have just omitted it, but that's where the trap of this article is. Once you assume that the game must be consistent and then try to workaround the failings of individual scenes, you lose the ability to disprove self-inconsistency because you've started the loop of circular logic.

As such, this quote suggests, rather, that the ending of the game took place in an alternate future or an alternate timeline rather than being the same-timeline-same-future as Future Predestination suggests. The contradiction is still in place. ;)

The point is that we've (technically) ruled out all theories but Future Predestination. We've eliminated the impossible and have one option remaining. This one option is not impossible, thus must be true according to these laws. The implication that Zelda never saw Link again after she fled the castle is no more solid than the implication that Link was a Kokiri. The only difference was that it was explained that Link wasn't truly a Kokiri, while it wasn't explained that Zelda saw Link again within those seven years but didn't mention it because Link hadn't lived through those later meetings yet. Do I need to track down more false implications that aren't explained to be false?

Eh, forget it. I'm tired of debating with somebody that keeps bringing up rules I don't seem to be able to understand. We're almost a full 2 pages in and the best understanding I have so far is:

"If it happened, it happened."
"Every statement is true."
"All implications are true, unless an NPC explains that the implication was false."
"If it's not implied, it didn't happen."
"[Insert occam's razor here.]"

If nothing else, I can at least say there are theories that canon does not contradict, but those theories are incredibly ridiculous thanks to all the OoT sequels.

Edited by BourgeoisJerry, 03 February 2007 - 04:36 PM.

[The Missing Link]

The point is that we've (technically) ruled out all theories but Future Predestination. We've eliminated the impossible and have one option remaining. This one option is not impossible, thus must be true according to these laws. The implication that Zelda never saw Link again after she fled the castle is no more solid than the implication that Link was a Kokiri. The only difference was that it was explained that Link wasn't truly a Kokiri, while it wasn't explained that Zelda saw Link again within those seven years but didn't mention it because Link hadn't lived through those later meetings yet. Do I need to track down more false implications that aren't explained to be false?

Well, the thing that we've got is that Future Predestination becomes helluva complicated very quickly. I mean, let's look at how this works. I'm going to explain what happens with regards to Hyrule from the standard flow of time.

(1) Link goes on a quest to get the Spiritual Stones... and indeed he gets them.
(2) Ganondorf heads to Hyrule Castle and chases out Zelda and Impa.
(3) Link gets the Ocarina of Time and pulls the Master Sword, promptly falling asleep.
(4) Ganondorf enters the Temple of Time to get the Triforce.

I'm going to separate the next few because there's one event which must happen between now and the end of the next section; I'm going to designate this with (*) in order to designate this:

(5) Time passes in Hyrule without a Link.
(6) Link returns from the future in order to enable the Shadow Temple in the future.
(7) He plays the Song of Storms and makes the Guru-Guru Man angry, and then he does the well.
(8) Link returns to the future.
(9) Link returns from the future after beating the Shadow Temple.
(10) Link does the child half of the Spirit Temple.
(11) Link returns from the future.
(12) Link finally returns from the future from when Zelda sent him back. The Door of Time is closed.
(*) Ganondorf emerges from the Sacred Realm with the Triforce of Power; the two other Triforces have been given to Link and Zelda. This must take place after (4) but before (12).

Continue with the standard flow of events.

(13) Zelda returns from hiding, but has not changed to Sheik yet. Link meets her in the castle. Link gives her the ocarina back at this point.
(14) Link then decides to go off on his quest to find his friend, whomever that may be. Zelda gives him the Ocarina of Time back.
(15) Ganondorf conquers Hyrule; Zelda is turned to Sheik.
(16) Seven years (minus a few days or weeks or months) pass.

(17) Termina-Link must have returned from Termina at this point; he must open the Door of Time. By your theory, he must also then enter the Chamber of the Sages.
(18) Hyrule-Link's spirit takes over Link's body (overriding Termina-Link's spirit) and he awakens in the Chamber of the Sages and meets Rauru and Sheik.
(19) Link goes and beats the Forest, Fire, and Water Temples.
(20) Kakariko is set to flame, and Sheik tells Link to go back in time to get the Lens of Truth.
(21) Link learns the Song of Storms from the Guru-Guru Man.
(22) Link goes back in time.
(23) Link comes back from the past and defeats the Shadow Temple.
(24) Link befriends the Gerudo and meets Sheik at the Spirit Temple.
(25) Link goes back in time.
(26) Link comes back from the past and defeats the Spirit Temple.
(27) Link meets Zelda in the Temple of Time; she gets captured.
(28) Link goes and kicks Ganon/dorf's tail.
(29) Link and Zelda have their powwow in the sky.
(30) Zelda sends Hyrule-Link's spirit back into the past (i.e., event (12)).
(31) Link (Termina-Link's spirit) and Zelda continue living their life in the future.

So, let's get down to the skinny of it. By your theory where the body does not travel, Link has to undo everything he does in the past so as to allow the future to happen. As such, when the Door of Time closes... he will have to reopen it. Thus, why does he give the Ocarina of Time back to Zelda in (13) after it closes in (12)? He knows he's going to need it again in (17)... so why does he give it away?

Furthermore, he also knows that Navi, after leaving him in (12), will also come back in (17) in order to fulfil the theory. So then why does Link bother to go off searching for her in (14)? Both of these are illogical, and the specific canon scenes would imply that they did not happen this way. This is why the end of the game makes more sense with Future Erasure or Split Timeline... because otherwise (13) and (14) would not have happened the way they happened.

Now granted, we could say that Majora's Mask never mentioned the name of the friend by name... but the only person who ever left Link would have been Navi... and so strict canon would equate her to be the friend he left. Therefore, we still arrive at a contradiction.

"If it happened, it happened."
"Every statement is true."
"All implications are true, unless an NPC explains that the implication was false."
"If it's not implied, it didn't happen."
"[Insert occam's razor here.]"

If nothing else, I can at least say there are theories that canon does not contradict, but those theories are incredibly ridiculous thanks to all the OoT sequels.

The basic rules are as follows:

(1) If it happens in the game, it must have happened exactly as it happened in the game without deviation.
(2) If the game suggests that something happened but does not directly say that it happened, then it can be assumed to be true provided that the game does not more strongly support some other alternative. (This is the Occam's Razor part of it; that which has the most supporting evidence must be the correct theory.)
(3) If something is not implied by the game, it cannot ever be assumed true.
(4) If two fragments of the story create a contradiction, then the whole timeline is a contradiction.
(5) A valid timeline under the above rules cannot be presumed to exist.

As a few corollaries to this, let me explain where I'm going at with the proofs:

(6) Because of Rule (5), Rule (3) may not be used to work around a valid application of Rule (4). This must be true because assuming that a more complicated solution must be the correct answer assumes that a timeline must exist, which violates Rule (5). This is so because of that fact that if the simplest explanation of the game is that the game creates a contradiction, then the fact that canon in its strictest form creates a contradiction is simpler and more strongly supported by canon (and more correct by Rule (2)) than any possible time.

The article starts off in the following way:
* I utilise (1) and (2) to show a contradiction in the game.
* Then by (4), then that means that the whole timeline is a contradiction.

My defence is a tandem of the other three parts:
* (3) is used to invalidate speculation that has no evidence that an event happened. In short, if something isn't vaguely alluded to, it must be tossed out as speculation.
* When (3) cannot be applied (as in your argument above), I attempt to invoke (4) using (1) and (2).
* Because (5) yields corollary (6) whenever (3) or (4) applies, I immediately invoke (6) to cancel out the whole argument.
* And then I validate the rationale for using (6) by showing what (1) and (2) can produce, thus serving as the double-check.

I hope that explains it.

TML: I appreciate Zelda for its artistic expression too. You have no idea how many times I've heard the "OOT can't be LTTP's backstory because it contradicts canon" line and it literally makes me want to rip out my hair. Of course I don't necessarily believe the adult ending is LTTP's backstory anymore, but I have no problem accepting it. The problem becomes how we interpret the games. If a certain timeline fits together the best, does that then become the most likely timeline? Are the creators screwing up? Are they mad geniuses and carefully piecing everything together? The problem with artistic license is that you're acknowleding the artist himself. What he does then becomes paramount. Of course, you can take any screw up and flash the artistic license card. Trust me, I do it too. But then we can go overboard and simply flash it whenever we see a problem that does not fit our timeline. TP relates to WW in absolutely no way unless you believe in the single timeline by default. I believe you even said once how you doubted that TP would fall in between OOT and WW simply based on the evidence you proposed that Aonuma was a stickler for facts within the timeline. If you know that and still choose a different timeline then fine, but it then becomes too easy just to pass everything off as artistic expression.

I try to use artistic license when I truly believe that the developers actually took that. That's something else that is highly subjective. But if the facts align very, very well, I'll go with the theory that is best supported by those facts. If there's something funny that doesn't line up such as the Zelda story in AoL or the OOT=IW war thing, then of course it's just the creators wanting to change things. I also try to steer away from believing in game facts changing or else the in game facts would eventually become meaningless. If I am forced to eventually believe that a single timeline is the one, true solution and that they rewrote the OOT-TP-WW connection, then fine, it'll be messy, but I can live with that because I'm not really that tied to the facts. I can completely accept the games being mere imperfect forms of a more perfect timeline that exists outside of the games and that the games are simply tellings of what the artist thought the story was like at that time. But I'd rather not do that if the games make (mostly) sense on their own.

This is an understandable point of view, and it's one I can respect (even if I disagree here and there, depending upon our definitions for things). My general approach is an attempt to understand the "spirit" of each Zelda game. I first rank-sort all of the elements within the game to find the most important ones (as those are the most important points to adhere to). I then look at the core of each game--the top few elements--and try my best to do pattern matching and so forth to find a basic timeline that fits at least those elements. Once I get there, my timeline is set; however, this requires then a second pass to go through the games and write out precisely what happened... and how much of my timeline ignored in the games. Hopefully, my least squared error from the canon is relatively small.

Now if you call developer intent the "spirit of the game," then we're much closer than I believe we are. If not, well, then we're very different in our theories. How much overlap exists between those two definitions is how to compare where I am with respect to you.

Great article - and an enjoyable read. It seems you’ve got a really strong grasp of what the Zelda community is about, and it really shows in your writing. It’s a shame you don’t post here much anymore, as you’d be a great asset to the boards.

Glad to know I'd be loved here. As I said to LoS, I might "dual blog" here more often if but only to challenge readers more often!

The vital question that needs to be asked when trying to understand the SoS (Song of Storms) is who knew it to start with.

Hold up here... let's not get hasty.

The question is why someone has to be the first one to do anything. I'm going to go off on a small tangent and redirect you to an interesting event in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Let's look at the flow of time from Harry Potter's perspective:

(1) Harry finds his godfather by the lake.
(2) The Dementors come to kill Harry and his father.
(3) Someone casts a Patronus spell that banishes the Dementors; Harry believes this person to be his father. (Note that Harry has never managed to successfully cast this before.)
(4) He faints and wakes up in the medical chamber.
(5) Dumbledore tells Harry (and his friend) that his godfather was captured and will be put to death, but it's possible to go back in time to save him.
(6) Harry (and his friend, hereafter ignored) go back in time.
(7) Harry arrives at the lake and sees himself and his godfather surrounded by Dementors.
(8) Harry then realises that it wasn't his father who came to save him; it was himself.
(9) Harry then successfully casts the Patronus spell because he was encouraged by the fact that he knew it would happen.
(10) Harry then takes the griffin, flies up to the roof, and sets his godfather free.
(11) Harry then returns to the medical wing moments after he left.
(12) Harry resumes normal time.

Now, let's look at this from the normal flow of time. Note, I will refer the Harry that has not gone back in time yet as Harry1 and the one that did go back in time as Harry2.

(1) Harry2 arrives by the lake and waits for Harry1 and his godfather to show.
(2) Harry1 and his godfather come to the lake.
(3) The Dementors start circling over Harry1 and his godfather.
(4) Harry2 realises that it was Harry2 that cast the Patronus spell.
(5) Harry2 casts the Patronus spell.
(6) Harry1 sees Harry2 cast the Patronus spell but thinks it's his father; he faints.
(7) (Both) Harry's godfather is captured.
(8) Harry2 goes to free (both) Harry's godfather.
(9) Harry1 wakes up in the medical wing.
(10) Dumbledore comes to tell Harry1 to go back in time.
(11) Harry1 goes back in time.
(12) Harry2 arrives in the medical wing seconds later.
(13) Harry2 now presumes Harry1's role in the timeline.

In this fictitious example, who's idea was it for Harry to cast the spell? It was Harry2 who seeded the idea into Harry1 that this would happen. But they're the same person; this means that Harry taught himself the spell. But Harry didn't think to teach himself the spell... until he'd already learned the spell from himself. So which caused which? Did learning the spell from his future-self cause him to teach his past-self, or did teaching the past-self cause him to learn it from his future-self?

This is actually a much more complicated example than the Song of Storms is, namely because the two people involved in the teaching are the same person. Yet the answer is a very basic one: One could not have happened without the other. If Harry had not gone back in time, Harry would have died. Had Harry not taught himself, he wouldn't have been able to learn from himself to cast the spell, thus leading to his death. The teaching and the learning had to both exist; they mutually depend upon one another. In short, the answer of which caused which is both; they both caused each other.

Now, so I must query you... what makes the situation I described above different from the situation with the Song of Storms? Yes, I do realise that they're completely separate fandoms and so forth, but what difference is there? Structurally, there is no difference whatsoever. Both have a very basic premise. In both cases, the protagonists learns some skill X... and then goes back in time; the protagonists realises that they're the one that caused X, and so they go teach the skill X to some other body (which may or may not be the same character).

Now, I'm going to illustrate a wildly off base point for you. Hyrule is a fictional world. The Potterverse (at least the magical side of England) is a fictional world. If someone can speculate this as possibility in one fictional world (Potterverse), why cannot it apply to another (Zeldaverse), especially when the laws of time and space can be bent as far from reality as conceivably possible to achieve the creator's aim? There's absolutely no reason at all.

The answer of which causes which event in the Song of Storms is both. Link's teaching of the Guru-Guru Man causes the Guru-Guru Man's teach of Link and vice versa. As such, who knew the song first? Neither. Or actually, a better answer would be that the answer is relative; the Guru-Guru Man would claim Link; Link would claim the Guru-Guru Man. That Einstein and his Theory of Relativity certainly can help out in a pinch.

The only other point that may be brought up is that of beans. Yes. Beans. Beans are planted in OoT child, but only exist in the future when Link experiences planting them in the past. If we were to use this idea for the SoS, it would suggest that Link would have to experience the SoS in the past for it to have an effect on the future (i.e. for the Windmill man to hear it). However, this is not necessarily the case.

Then Future Predestination does not apply. Which means that the Song of Storms contradicts this. The simplest solution is that Ocarina contradicts itself.

Finally, as a little bit of fun, I got to thinking of who the mystery person X is that taught Link at time ONE. Fact is, it could be anyone. HMS, Zelda, Impa, Abdul… who know? However, I like to think that the one that taught Link the SoS originally was none other than the Windmill man’s counterpart from Termina. Just a little food for thought…

Very tricky, but let me just add a little more to the blender.

The purpose of the Song of Storms--in other words, WHY Link needed it was to get into the Well. Now you start off with a decent idea here, so let's follow the time flow according to Link:

(1) Child-Link from Ocarina of Time goes into the future.
(2) The Hyrule Guru-Guru Man teaches Link the Song of Storms.
(3) Link then returns back in time.
(4) Immediately thereafter, he plays the Song of Storms for the Guru-Guru Man; the well opens.
(5) Link finishes the game and returns in history to some point in time after the event happening in (4)...
(6) Link heads to Termina.
(7) He learns the Song of Storms.
(8) He returns to Hyrule...
(9) Link teaches the Guru-Guru Man the Song of Storms.

Now, there are two problems with this. While you have successfully linked up (9) as a catalyst for (1), there are two problems. First, the Guru-Guru Man already knows the Song of Storms in event (9). You see, we taught him the song in event (4), and T(4) < T(9), where T(X) is the time at which event X takes place. Therefore event (9) is unnecessary. Second, Link already knows the Song of Storms in event (7); he learned it in event (1), and L(1) < L(7), where L(X) is the time with respect to Link at which event X takes place, which makes event (7) unnecessary.

On one hand, Link doesn't need to relearn the Song of Storms just to teach it to the Guru-Guru Man; Link already knows the song. Secondly, the Guru-Guru Man already knows the song by the time Link went to Termina. Thus, we must remove both of those events from the necessary flow of time since they are irrelevant. Which means that we revert to the standard time loop. Your theory is no different from mine when looking at it from the Future Predestination side of things.

Unless you consider Future Erasure or Split Timeline... then Link wouldn't have gone back to the past to go to Termina to learn the song from the alternate dimension before he learned it to begin with. All and all, it's still a contradiction.

[mohammedali]

Glad to know I'd be loved here. As I said to LoS, I might "dual blog" here more often if but only to challenge readers more often!

Sounds good. Look forward to it

The question is why someone has to be the first one to do anything. I'm going to go off on a small tangent and redirect you to an interesting event in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

snip

I've snipped your Harry Potter explination for 2 reasons.
Point 1) (A minor note) The idea you described to me about Harry Potter sounds like an impossible paradox. Impossible because the spell had to have been created originally, otherwise it would not have been in the loop in the first place. Therefore, either it's impossible (and J.K.Rowling decided to use an impossible scenario that sounds cool), or Harry invented the song to start with.
Point 2) (The main crux) The point that you're missing is that all that is needed to disprove a theory is one counter proof. You have an idea of how the SoS works, similar to Harry Potter. There's nothing wrong with that even if it doesn't make logical sense. However, my understanding works as well. As far as the game goes, my theory works. It is no where stated that the paradox in Zelda has to be exactly the same as the paradox in Harry Potter.
Your theory can work with the game mechanics, but shows the game to be inconsistant.
My therory can also work with the game mechanics, but shows the game to be consistant.
Therefore, we take the theory that is consistant. Your idea of disproving every possible avenue didn't work.

Now, so I must query you... what makes the situation I described above different from the situation with the Song of Storms? Yes, I do realise that they're completely separate fandoms and so forth, but what difference is there? Structurally, there is no difference whatsoever. Both have a very basic premise. In both cases, the protagonists learns some skill X... and then goes back in time; the protagonists realises that they're the one that caused X, and so they go teach the skill X to some other body (which may or may not be the same character).

They may be similar scenarios to some extent (though not even that similar), however, this doesn't mean the mechanics of the paradox have to work the same way. There is no reason Zelda have to follow the same idea of Harry Potter. If I suggest an idea that works, and shows OoT is consistant, then that's the end of the arguement. It's not about Zelda matching Harry Potter, but there being at least one possible way that OoT can work.

Now, I'm going to illustrate a wildly off base point for you. Hyrule is a fictional world. The Potterverse (at least the magical side of England) is a fictional world. If someone can speculate this as possibility in one fictional world (Potterverse), why cannot it apply to another (Zeldaverse), especially when the laws of time and space can be bent as far from reality as conceivably possible to achieve the creator's aim? There's absolutely no reason at all.

The reason it can't be the same as Harry Potter is all detailed in your article. If it's like Harry Potter, then OoT is inconsistant with itself. For that reason, it has to be another way. The way I've suggested makes sense of the SoS paradox, AND makes OoT consistant.

The answer of which causes which event in the Song of Storms is both. Link's teaching of the Guru-Guru Man causes the Guru-Guru Man's teach of Link and vice versa. As such, who knew the song first? Neither. Or actually, a better answer would be that the answer is relative; the Guru-Guru Man would claim Link; Link would claim the Guru-Guru Man. That Einstein and his Theory of Relativity certainly can help out in a pinch.

Relativity wouldn't help here. You're talking about a self dependant loop. The information (song in this case) must have been introduced via someone, otherwise it wouldn't have been in the loop. The introduction can then be cut out of the loop if need be, but unless Link or the Windmill man made the song up on the spot (which we know they didn't), then the song can't exist in the loop.
J.K.Rowling may have ignored this point, but in my opinion, adult Harry would have had to have learnt the spell between child Harry and Adult Harry's life, then he could teach it as an adult to child Harry before the point he learnt it (meaning the point he learnt it as an adult would no longer matter). If that's not the case, then the paradox would indeed be impossible. Although I understand that having the freedom to write what you want in a book means that Rowling could have written it any way she wants.
In any case, whether you accept that time should work like this or not, if nothing else you have to accept that it *could* work like this. You may not like this way of explaining the SoS paradox, but it's a possiblility. It's a possibility that shows OoT can be consistant. Therefore, there is a possible way to make OoT consistant (which is different to what your theory proposes).

Then Future Predestination does not apply. Which means that the Song of Storms contradicts this. The simplest solution is that Ocarina contradicts itself.

That's like me saying the simplest solution to a plane flying is a plane being a bird. However, a plane is not a bird, and is made of metal. This contradicts it's ability to fly and therefore planes contradict themselves. Obviously this logic doesn't work.
The correct logic is: A plane can fly using the following mechanics (even if they're complicated). This is how a plane flys and doesn't contradict itself. J.K. Rowling thinks planes and cars fly using magic which would contradict planes flying using their own mechanics, however, we are not using that theory. Our theory of them using mechanics to fly not only works, but doesn't contradict the laws of the world.

The purpose of the Song of Storms--in other words, WHY Link needed it was to get into the Well. Now you start off with a decent idea here, so let's follow the time flow according to Link:

(1) Child-Link from Ocarina of Time goes into the future.
(2) The Hyrule Guru-Guru Man teaches Link the Song of Storms.
(3) Link then returns back in time.
(4) Immediately thereafter, he plays the Song of Storms for the Guru-Guru Man; the well opens.
(5) Link finishes the game and returns in history to some point in time after the event happening in (4)...
(6) Link heads to Termina.
(7) He learns the Song of Storms.
(8) He returns to Hyrule...
(9) Link teaches the Guru-Guru Man the Song of Storms.

Now, there are two problems with this. While you have successfully linked up (9) as a catalyst for (1), there are two problems. First, the Guru-Guru Man already knows the Song of Storms in event (9). You see, we taught him the song in event (4), and T(4) < T(9), where T(X) is the time at which event X takes place. Therefore event (9) is unnecessary. Second, Link already knows the Song of Storms in event (7); he learned it in event (1), and L(1) < L(7), where L(X) is the time with respect to Link at which event X takes place, which makes event (7) unnecessary.

snip

2 points. The first is that Link learning the SoS from MM was just an extra bit of fun. If you don't like that part of the theory, cut it out. Link learnt that song from Dampe or Sheikh or Ahmed! Doesn't matter who. The timing wouldn't matter, as the original course may have meant Link would teach it to the Windmill man 2 days after he actually did. In this case, the timetravel point is not an issue.
The second point I would like to make is that I agree. By the time MM has happened, Link would have already taught the SoS. This is the entire point of the loop. Originally, had the song not been taught to the Windmill man, Link would have learnt it from Termina and taught it to him. The world would then be taken over by Ganon, and when Link is older, he would learn the SoS from the Windmill man (who originally learnt it from MM Link). Link would then teach the Windmill man BEFORE MM happens (even though that's where the song came from originally). He would then go on to save Hyrule. When he finally returns to being a child, he then goes to Termina, only to find a song that he's already heard before (and hence MM mentions that Link is 'remembering' the song).

To summerise:
Autopilot Link
1) Link picks up the MS <--- Link's conciousnous in OoT the game is always around this point for a child
2) Sometime in the future outside of what we can see in the game, Link learns the SoS from a tablet in Termina.
This happens outside of Link's conciousness, so although this happens, when Link wakes up, he will not be aware of ever learning the song, as his conciousness is linked to point 1).
3) Link teaches this song to the Windmill Man
4) 7 years in the future, Link wakes up <--- Link's conciousness is linked to point 1) so he is unaware of what he will do at points 2) and 3).

Non-Autopilot Link
5) Link speaks with the windmill man who tells him of a kid from 7 years ago that taught him a song. Fact is, that kid is Link on auto-pilot. However, our hero never lived through that time in his conciousness, so he doesn't know the song.
6) Link is taught the song by the windmill man.
7) Link goes back in time to point 1), a time where he originally didn't know the SoS, but as he took the information from the future, he now does.
8) He teaches this song to the Windmill man, who doesn't know the song yet (as he learns it at point 2)).
9) Link eventually saves the world and comes back in time.
10) When Link reaches point 2) but in a concious level, he sees the song just like he would have done in autopilot mode except due to his acts in non-autopilot mode he's already seen this song, and therefore remembers it instead of learns it.

I know it's a little difficult to grasp, and I'm probably not explaining it terribly well, but it does work. However, if you're still not convinced, leave MM out of it. The theory works fine without it as well.

Mohammed Ali

Edited by mohammedali, 04 February 2007 - 08:57 AM.

[Hero of Legend]

Actually, it doesn't. I'm hardly taking this thing personally; I'm merely rolling with the punches as they come and proffering logical feedback in subsequent paragraphs. I don't think anyone here would agree that I'm lambasting them for whatever preconceived notions they have about anything, and I certainly have made an attempt--whether you agree or not--to keep a civil and slightly playful tone so as to enforce that aim. (You'll notice that my article actually had the very same tone as this very debate.) This you might call the opposite of "copping a 'tude."

Well I never intended to offend anyone.

First off, there is no such thing as "The Great TML." If I was indeed trying to be high and mighty, I'd have never left this forum to begin with. Rather, I barely come here and otherwise only offer my advice and criticism on timelines when asked.

Whatever, you certainly have a habit of telling people what to think. One only needs to look at your article - "It is the unfortunate world in which Nintendo has placed us, and now it is up to decide which road we shall follow: the road of truth where nothing can be created, or the road of imagination where nothing can be destroyed." Or in other words, "join me or die be an idot", which is really everything that I'm arguing against.

Secondly, as far as the whole bulletproof nature of the argument, you're firstly assuming that the debate ends whenever your post ends, thus automatically assuming the high ground whenever you speak.

That's just how I always have debated. Nothing much I can do about it.

*sigh*

Ah yes, we go back to the old "you cannot prove it neener-neener" defence. As I said before, in very open speech with you, no, I cannot prove it.

I actually realized this and deleted that part of my post right before you replied. Go figure.

Nintendo was being careless with their dialogue. This very point is inevitably the thing I'm trying to establish, and so I cannot yield this is as hardcore evidence (for that would be begging the question), but as supporting evidence, this explanation would make a great amount of sense.

Heh, I don't need you to tell me OoT's English script was crappy. Now, I am more inclined to blame poor translation than the original scriptwriters, but that is besides the point. Simply put, if we go by that logic, we could just as well claim every line to be faulty. And neither of us would want that, I'm sure.

Of course, that's a possibility. Show evidence to support it that is different from that line of text. Or, alternatively, since I like to be thorough in the analysis of my own weak points (in the interest of not being "biased"), provide canonical evidence to explain why else she would play the Ocarina of Time.

If you mean evidence that the Ocarina works differently when Zelda uses it, I can again point to the fact that Zelda’s Lullaby doesn’t normally send people through time. It doesn’t really matter why, it just does. And we know it can send people through time, so that would be why she uses it.

Also, since you brought in MM...

I am praying... I am praying that your journey be a safe one.

If something should happen to you, remember this song...

The Goddess of Time is protecting you. If you play the Song of Time, she will aid you...

I say canon definitely implies Zelda had a hand in the Song of Time working as it does in MM. So, give me a reason why it isn’t so in OoT?

*snickers* You speak this as if canon contradiction is this horrible atrocity. Need I drudge up your old quotes? How about Twilight Princess? Didn't you say that that game violated canon? Specifically, you mentioned that "Twilight Princess alone has enough plot holes to 'disprove' the ultimate infallibility of canon." Through your admission, this then becomes a moot point. If contradiction of canon takes place, then this very thing cannot be held against me I try to cast the light from the heavens elsewhere with a very handy mirror.

That was canon contradicting itself. It is very different from us contradicting canon.

But as far as evidence is concerned, I've already showed it to you. Yes, I refer to my Zelda and Sheik quotes that you alluded to earlier. They're very poignant and reasonably sound. However, you just don't like it, you don't think it's sufficient, and thus you have ignored it, but it remains nevertheless my canonical explanation. Of course, you're more than free to show that an alternate suggestion truly exists; that would, quite easily, destroy this pillar. My advice to you is that you will find it much easier to simply knock the pillar over than to continue shooting it with bullets such that it falls from structural failure.

You don’t accept that either, and have no problem with twisting facts in your favor. So tell me, how am I supposed to do that?

Yet let us return to this sentence that you so avidly love to discuss. Zelda mentions that, as a Sage, she can send Link back to his original time. Now, there are six other sages besides her. This is a fact, and you cannot ignore it. The sentence reads that sages can send Link back to his original time. Thus, the other six sages have the same ability that Zelda has. Link has the power of the other six sages at his beck and call. Thus, Link has the power to manipulate time. I understood you were talking about the six sages; however, the law of transitivity gives Link the power.

Uh-huh... I don’t suppose I could argue against that somehow?

Rauru:

“The power of the Sages remains.
When the power of all the Sages is awakened...
The Sages' Seals will contain all the evil power in the void of the Realm...
I, Rauru, am one of the Sages...
And...
Your power to fight together with the Sages makes you the Hero of Time!
The Hero of Time, chosen by the Master Sword!
Keep my spirit with you...
And, find the power of the other Sages and add their might to your own!”

Sheik:

“When evil rules all, an awakening voice from the Sacred Realm will call those destined to be Sages, who dwell in the five temples.
One in a deep forest...
One on a high mountain...
One under a vast lake...
One within the house of the dead...
One inside a goddess of the sand...
Together with the Hero of Time, the awakened ones will bind the evil and return the light of peace to the world...
This is the legend of the temples passed down by my people, the Sheikah.”

Impa:

“That is when we, the six Wise Ones, will seal up the Evil King and return peace to Hyrule.”

Sheik:

“And the other, who holds the Triforce of Wisdom... is the seventh Sage, who is destined to be the leader of them all...”

Zelda:

“The six Sages will open the sealed door and lure Ganondorf back into the Sacred Realm.
I will then seal the door to the Sacred Realm from this world.
Thus, Ganondorf the Evil King will vanish from Hyrule.”

So, if you notice, the seventh sage is not part of the six sages, does not share the same origin, and has an entirely different role in the sealing of Ganon. Oh, and her power is based on the Triforce of Wisdom. So what evidence do you have that would imply she has anything to do with the other sages aside from sharing their title and being their destined leader?

Yet we know that the Ocarina of Time can manipulate time. Majora's Mask provides supporting evidence to this. You can't just wave this to the wind quite so easily.

Yes, but it also works completely different from the Master Sword. So if you use that as evidence, well, that’s pretty much it for your argument.

In Wind Waker, the Master Sword is quoted as having "lost its power." In fact, you have to go through a rigorous series of dungeons and plot points to have it regain its power. And need I use Dungeon Eight of Twilight Princess as an example to further bolster my claims? Supporting evidence shows that this is not the case.

Does it now? I was fairly certain TWW made a point of this. If you remember, it only regains its power once Link takes it in his hands. Also, it certainly doesn’t glow when Ganondorf knocks it away before the final battle.

And dude, it does glow in Twilight Princess. Just compare it to the Ordon Sword (the blade is much brighter and is surrounded by a faint aura that distorts the background). The light of the Sols is entirely different from the Master Sword’s light.

If there's any canonical evidence to firmly support the "Majora fix" to the Song of Storms without extraneous speculation, I've yet to hear it.

I was again talking about the Song of Time.

Most of which directly violates game quotes or utilises invalid logic.

Well, that makes two of us.

Of course my theory is flawed, but you don't get it. My theory is flawed because the assumption of "strict canon" itself is flawed. Ergo, we must abandon strict canon. Which means that my proof really proves what I truly want it to prove, not that there's not a timeline... but because there's no conceivable way strict canon works.

Oh I get it. Thing is, I don’t think this does it. And I can’t let you walk away with misinformation, can I?

Edited by Hero of Legend, 04 February 2007 - 09:50 AM.

[The Missing Link]

I've snipped your Harry Potter explination for 2 reasons.
Point 1) (A minor note) The idea you described to me about Harry Potter sounds like an impossible paradox. Impossible because the spell had to have been created originally, otherwise it would not have been in the loop in the first place. Therefore, either it's impossible (and J.K.Rowling decided to use an impossible scenario that sounds cool), or Harry invented the song to start with.

As a small aside, Harry knew the spell already, but he had never successfully cast it before. According to canon, the reason he was able to cast it this time was that he knew already that he had, thus giving him the confidence needed to cast it correctly (that was an obvious prerequisite of the spell). Sorry for the miscommunication there with the words "learning" and "teaching"; it still is very similar--and without Harry-from-the-future, present-time-Harry would not have been able to cast the spell, but I think I distracted you slightly. However, in theory, even if Harry hadn't known the spell, the situation here is exactly the same.

Now, I'm going to be talking about the book here, but realise that this through equivalence talks about the game. With this book, you're mentioning that this is "impossible." Now, I have to take a small step back from this statement and say that you really don't have the choice to declare it as such. The choice of impossibility in this case is not yours to make. You personally believe that time travel cannot operate in such a time loop phenomenon, that there must be some definitive order of all things, which the physicists call causality. You assume a strict ordering of events; in mathematical terms, you assume that there is some "predecessor relationship" < such that E1 < E2 < E3 < ... < En, where the union of all the sets {Ei} compromise the set of all events to be considered.

However, we live in a world where time travel back in time is impossible--at least, the bigwigs of physics such as Stephen Hawkings and so forth say such (their "proof" being that it hasn't happened yet; at any rate, it is impossible as of now). As such, there's no way we can determine ourselves the precise nature in which time travel backwards works. Simply put, the slate is blank, and there are as many theories in physics how such things would work as there are Zelda timeline templates. In fact, we emulate that very process with Ocarina of Time and so forth, trying to determine just how the flow of time should be, but we are less powerful than the creator. The creator of the book/game has the ability to decide the laws and make it happen.

Who are we to say that a time loop is impossible? Sure, it breaks your nice chain of causality... but does it? Actually, the only thing change that time loops make to your causality assumption is that your "predecessor relationship" < has to evolve into a "predecessor or co-dependence relationship" <=. Thus, E1 <= E2 <= E3 <= E4 <= E5 <= ... <= En... and there may be some Ei and Ej where Ei <= Ej and Ej <= Ei, thus making Ei "equal" to Ej (whatever that means).

From what we're covering here, each timeline template assumes some format of how time is manipulated; these serve as assumptions and that's the end of it. Even if you don't like them, you cannot simply break them because they violate some logical way in which you think time flows... unless you can show that it directly violates canon.

Point 2) (The main crux) The point that you're missing is that all that is needed to disprove a theory is one counter proof. You have an idea of how the SoS works, similar to Harry Potter. There's nothing wrong with that even if it doesn't make logical sense. However, my understanding works as well. As far as the game goes, my theory works. It is no where stated that the paradox in Zelda has to be exactly the same as the paradox in Harry Potter.
Your theory can work with the game mechanics, but shows the game to be inconsistant.
My therory can also work with the game mechanics, but shows the game to be consistant.
Therefore, we take the theory that is consistant. Your idea of disproving every possible avenue didn't work.

I'm actually not saying that the Zeldaverse paradox has to be the Potterverse paradox. I'm explaining to you how the Zeldaverse paradox is not an "impossible" situation by showing to you the possibility of the Potterverse paradox. In other words, I'm showing the proof of concept here, that we can't just toss out the idea because it's silly. Furthermore, this also proves potentiality, that this time loop is a possible solution. It doesn't declare it the correct solution. I never have claimed that.

Be that as it may, it is a logical fallacy to assume self-consistency in this case. You are trying to prove that Ocarina of time is self-inconsistent, or rather that it isn't non-self-consistent. Assuming that a right answer must exist when trying to prove, as I am doing, that no simple, right answer exists, makes your proof a trivial proof and thus is not a disproof of mine.

Relativity wouldn't help here. You're talking about a self dependant loop. The information (song in this case) must have been introduced via someone, otherwise it wouldn't have been in the loop. The introduction can then be cut out of the loop if need be, but unless Link or the Windmill man made the song up on the spot (which we know they didn't), then the song can't exist in the loop.

Why? I know where you're going with this; you're hoping to defeat the predestination paradox. However, assuming anything else lets you wind up with the grandfather paradox. Time travel is not as simple as you believe it to be. This is why we assume basic rules and see how they function. Yes, the simplest explanation is a time loop, but just because there is no alternate-1985 doesn't declare it incorrect. The rules of causality are unknown, and just because you don't like them doesn't disprove them.

That's like me saying the simplest solution to a plane flying is a plane being a bird. However, a plane is not a bird, and is made of metal. This contradicts it's ability to fly and therefore planes contradict themselves. Obviously this logic doesn't work.

The correct logic is: A plane can fly using the following mechanics (even if they're complicated). This is how a plane flys and doesn't contradict itself. J.K. Rowling thinks planes and cars fly using magic which would contradict planes flying using their own mechanics, however, we are not using that theory. Our theory of them using mechanics to fly not only works, but doesn't contradict the laws of the world.

Actually, J. K. Rowling doesn't think that. Sure, planes can fly on their own accord, but they can alternatively fly via magic. Suffice to say, she's not saying our laws of physics are incorrect, that physics = magic. She's saying that magic can produce effects similar to (and often greater that) magic.

However, in our universe, time travel backwards is impossible (as far as we know). Thus, one cannot assume a correct strategy for doing timeline manipulation as is. It's a flawed analogy.

The second point I would like to make is that I agree. By the time MM has happened, Link would have already taught the SoS. This is the entire point of the loop. Originally, had the song not been taught to the Windmill man, Link would have learnt it from Termina and taught it to him. The world would then be taken over by Ganon, and when Link is older, he would learn the SoS from the Windmill man (who originally learnt it from MM Link). Link would then teach the Windmill man BEFORE MM happens (even though that's where the song came from originally). He would then go on to save Hyrule. When he finally returns to being a child, he then goes to Termina, only to find a song that he's already heard before (and hence MM mentions that Link is 'remembering' the song).

To summerise:
Autopilot Link
1) Link picks up the MS <--- Link's conciousnous in OoT the game is always around this point for a child
2) Sometime in the future outside of what we can see in the game, Link learns the SoS from a tablet in Termina.
This happens outside of Link's conciousness, so although this happens, when Link wakes up, he will not be aware of ever learning the song, as his conciousness is linked to point 1).
3) Link teaches this song to the Windmill Man
4) 7 years in the future, Link wakes up <--- Link's conciousness is linked to point 1) so he is unaware of what he will do at points 2) and 3).

Non-Autopilot Link
5) Link speaks with the windmill man who tells him of a kid from 7 years ago that taught him a song. Fact is, that kid is Link on auto-pilot. However, our hero never lived through that time in his conciousness, so he doesn't know the song.
6) Link is taught the song by the windmill man.
7) Link goes back in time to point 1), a time where he originally didn't know the SoS, but as he took the information from the future, he now does.
8) He teaches this song to the Windmill man, who doesn't know the song yet (as he learns it at point 2)).
9) Link eventually saves the world and comes back in time.
10) When Link reaches point 2) but in a concious level, he sees the song just like he would have done in autopilot mode except due to his acts in non-autopilot mode he's already seen this song, and therefore remembers it instead of learns it.

I know it's a little difficult to grasp, and I'm probably not explaining it terribly well, but it does work. However, if you're still not convinced, leave MM out of it. The theory works fine without it as well.

Contradiction: Link has the Ocarina of Time on him during the time he is unconscious. Before Majora's Mask, we see Zelda giving him the Ocarina. She doesn't have it; this is a contradiction.

Contradiction: His spirit, according to Rauru, was sealed in the Sacred Realm during that seven-year stretch. How could have gotten out of there without a direct violation of canon occurring?

Whatever, you certainly have a habit of telling people what to think. One only needs to look at your article - "It is the unfortunate world in which Nintendo has placed us, and now it is up to decide which road we shall follow: the road of truth where nothing can be created, or the road of imagination where nothing can be destroyed." Or in other words, "join me or die be an idot", which is really everything that I'm arguing against.
That's just how I always have debated. Nothing much I can do about it.

Actually, this is the exact opposite of the standard case, although you wouldn't find it in my article. I actually am very against people telling me what to think. My personal beliefs are that everyone can have their own timeline theory so long as it is based upon some semblance of canon and logic (albeit with varying amounts of "made up information"), and I support people discussing those ideas in a mild-mannered fashion. I do not support people telling me that I cannot think this certain way because of such-and-such piece of evidence.

My article (and my argumentation) takes on the latter view--that things cannot be because of X--and uses it to show the flaw in that level of thinking. In short, I'm showing that people must be open-minded rather than closed-minded by showing that closed-mindedness results in a contradiction. That's why it feels like I'm bearing down against you. I only do such so as to enable the opposite as a universally legitimate viewpoint.

Heh, I don't need you to tell me OoT's English script was crappy. Now, I am more inclined to blame poor translation than the original scriptwriters, but that is besides the point. Simply put, if we go by that logic, we could just as well claim every line to be faulty. And neither of us would want that, I'm sure.

Definitely not!

If you mean evidence that the Ocarina works differently when Zelda uses it, I can again point to the fact that Zelda’s Lullaby doesn’t normally send people through time. It doesn’t really matter why, it just does. And we know it can send people through time, so that would be why she uses it.

Also, since you brought in MM...

I say canon definitely implies Zelda had a hand in the Song of Time working as it does in MM. So, give me a reason why it isn’t so in OoT?

The intent argument could conceivably work in this case. In Ocarina, it was merely used to open Doors of Time and move Time Blocks. (And the Time Blocks had the symbol of the Door of Time, so Link probably obtained the intent to mess with them from that.)

However, before Majora's Mask (and actually, I should say right when Link needed it), Link remembered that Zelda told him the additional info, that the Goddess of Time would help him. This was something he didn't know in Ocarina, and so he probably didn't think about using it then for help. But Zelda could have gotten him to realise that this song had more purposes than he had originally though, which was why it invoked a different response.

You don’t accept that either, and have no problem with twisting facts in your favor. So tell me, how am I supposed to do that?

Game quotes are usually a good start.

Uh-huh... I don’t suppose I could argue against that somehow?

......................................

So, if you notice, the seventh sage is not part of the six sages, does not share the same origin, and has an entirely different role in the sealing of Ganon. Oh, and her power is based on the Triforce of Wisdom. So what evidence do you have that would imply she has anything to do with the other sages aside from sharing their title and being their destined leader?

A good attempt, but no.

SHEIK/ZELDA IN TEMPLE OF TIME:
..................................................
And the other, who holds the Triforce of Wisdom...
is the seventh Sage, who is destined to be the leader of them all...

ZELDA, END OF GAME:
As a Sage, I can return you to your original time with it. [empahsis mine in both]

All sages have this ability. Link has the power of the other sages. It matters not.

Yes, but it also works completely different from the Master Sword. So if you use that as evidence, well, that’s pretty much it for your argument.

Evidence?

Does it now? I was fairly certain TWW made a point of this. If you remember, it only regains its power once Link takes it in his hands. Also, it certainly doesn’t glow when Ganondorf knocks it away before the final battle.

And dude, it does glow in Twilight Princess. Just compare it to the Ordon Sword (the blade is much brighter and is surrounded by a faint aura that distorts the background). The light of the Sols is entirely different from the Master Sword’s light.

King Daphnes
.....................................
I have a suspicion about what has caused the Master Sword to lose its power. [emphasis mine]

The Master Sword has some native power.

[BourgeoisJerry]

The basic rules are as follows:

(1) If it happens in the game, it must have happened exactly as it happened in the game without deviation.
(2) If the game suggests that something happened but does not directly say that it happened, then it can be assumed to be true provided that the game does not more strongly support some other alternative. (This is the Occam's Razor part of it; that which has the most supporting evidence must be the correct theory.)
(3) If something is not implied by the game, it cannot ever be assumed true.
(4) If two fragments of the story create a contradiction, then the whole timeline is a contradiction.
(5) A valid timeline under the above rules cannot be presumed to exist.

As a few corollaries to this, let me explain where I'm going at with the proofs:

(6) Because of Rule (5), Rule (3) may not be used to work around a valid application of Rule (4). This must be true because assuming that a more complicated solution must be the correct answer assumes that a timeline must exist, which violates Rule (5). This is so because of that fact that if the simplest explanation of the game is that the game creates a contradiction, then the fact that canon in its strictest form creates a contradiction is simpler and more strongly supported by canon (and more correct by Rule (2)) than any possible time.

The article starts off in the following way:
* I utilise (1) and (2) to show a contradiction in the game.
* Then by (4), then that means that the whole timeline is a contradiction.

My defence is a tandem of the other three parts:
* (3) is used to invalidate speculation that has no evidence that an event happened. In short, if something isn't vaguely alluded to, it must be tossed out as speculation.
* When (3) cannot be applied (as in your argument above), I attempt to invoke (4) using (1) and (2).
* Because (5) yields corollary (6) whenever (3) or (4) applies, I immediately invoke (6) to cancel out the whole argument.
* And then I validate the rationale for using (6) by showing what (1) and (2) can produce, thus serving as the double-check.

Well, you got yourself a winning argument, but you kinda lost my agreement with your point by being so strict with these rules. Well, it's not that I disagree with your point, I just think it's a pointless point to make. Who exactly are you telling to lighten up about the strictest level of canon with that thing? People can still create possible theories without contradicting canon, and that article doesn't do anything to convince them otherwise. If somebody's not willing to bend the rules a little to make Monopoly more fun, you don't bring up poorly conceived optional rules that aren't even in the rulebook to convince them that ignoring the rules is okay sometimes, you bring up the rules that they've been following. If there really is somebody that looks at the Zelda timeline as strictly as that article does, then I guess there's one person out there that needs to read it, but all the article does for people that simply take canon as the law is convince them that the split timeline doesn't work.

Edited by BourgeoisJerry, 04 February 2007 - 05:29 PM.