320 replies to this topic

[The Missing Link]

BourgeoisJerry:

Alright, I'll 'fess up, although please don't consider me too much of a horrible person for this.

A few years back, I actually used to haunt this forum. During that time, this was roughly around the time of before Wind Waker (or recently thereafter, I cannot remember which, but that gives you some basic idea). During that time, there were a few very outspoken people here who were--how should I put this?--very passionate about their timelines, thank you very much. Many of those people were extremely canon-strict. I can't say for certain whether or not their canon-strictness was the same definition as mine is in the article; however, they conducted their business with all seriousness in an attempt to make sure that their theory was the darn bestest thing since sliced bread. I still remember to this day a topic about things that must be impossible in the whole timeline argument. Seriously, it was that bad.

Now, as a "liberal timeliner," when I came to Timeline Debates Central, I was one (as I still am today) who favoured keeping timelines more open rather than shut down. As such, I would gladly debate against any theory where a timeliner decided that it was his way or the highway, and so I took on challenges, even if it argued against my belief. I would be the one guy trying to come up with "clever workarounds" to their beliefs, showing that their timeline did not have to be true despite it being a rather good timeline. Because of my "argumentative" personality (so sayeth them), I took a lot of flack. I wasn't called a troll at any time, but the way people responded to my posts certainly implied that that was their presumption. In the end, many of the major players--at least the ones with the loudest voices--hated my presence, and so I did them a favour and left.

Since then, I've always had a very bad taste about this forum in my mouth. I abjectly refused to come back here for any purpose unless a friend desperately wanted my criticism about an article they wrote here. (Since my opinion is so drastically off-base from the norm, my criticism is rather beneficial; if they can field questions from me, they can probably take on most of the world.) You'll notice I have an extremely small post count since the forum reorg; I literally think my post count was 2 or 3 before I posted this article. Needless to say, I've sort of sniped at this forum ever since because... well, I figured that the hardcore I'm-right-and-ya'll-are-wrong timeliners still were here.

I see that's primarily not the case anymore.

At any rate, to answer your question, the goal with this article is to give a Backhand of Justice to those people who decided that they were going to convert the world with their theory, those people who argued that any little violation of canon extrapolated to an entire world of trouble for the entire timeline, those people who ignored the contradictions with their own theory by hypocritically making their own assumptions.

Those people who insist that the American canon isn't good enough no matter what... that we must in every case retreat to the Japanese text.

If there is no one here who believes in those stringent principles any more, then the article isn't as important as I had imagined it. However, at any rate, it will remain for those few dedicated people who still have a singular need to destroy timelines just because they violated some random quote fact. That's the goal.

I hardly think you are one of them.

[Evilsbane]

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.

So whether or not you have a point is irrelevant so long as you get to prove me wrong?
To be fair to you, I suppose I shouldn't have used the word 'explicitly' as that would mean that he actually said that they're going to find a land and it'll be called Hyrule and it'll all be like nothing ever happened. That's not the case, true - he never said that. But it's the gist of what he said. It's pretty obvious that he only meant that he no longer belonged in that world, and whatever land they found, it wouldn't be the same Hyrule he once knew and loved.
But when they DO find a new land, I find it highly unlikely that they're going to name it anything other than Hyrule. Surely you can see where I'm coming from in that regard, yes?

[Hero of Legend]

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.

I admit I am somewhat of a hypocrite here, since I don't agree with you that everyone can have their own timeline. Canonically, there is only the intended timeline - assuming such a thing does indeed exist (doubtful by now). But not everyone can 'correct' in either case.

But I suppose you would be a pretty lousy webmaster if you didn’t voice your opinion.

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.

Ah, so we return to that argument once more.

I do believe my theory for how the songs work still stands. And also, it appears to me Zelda's 'blessing', if you wish, was what made the Song of Time work as it did in MM. Indeed, that appears to be what the game makers intended. Otherwise they would likely never have offered it up as a potential explanation.

Game quotes are usually a good start.

Well, that wasn't very effective, was it?

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

You know this because Zelda is a Sage like the other Sages? Just like the Sages in TWW and TP was, you mean?

...Except those were completely different, despite being called 'Sages'. And I might add, there were only six sages in TP. Now, you might argue those TP sages are entirely different from the OoT Sages (I agree with you that they are the true 'creators' of the Hylians, BTW), but you forget, they share the same symbols as the OoT Sages do, so they canonically have to be connected in some way.

Thus, canon states there are different kinds of 'Sages' within the series. Canon also supports the notion that there are different kinds of 'Sages' within OoT. Now it is up to you to show evidence that they are the same.

Evidence?

One only needs to point to the fact that the Ocarina of Time always sends Link back to the exact same point in time, while the Master Sword sends him exactly seven years forward/backwards through time to prove that they are different.

The Master Sword has some native power.

Of course it does. I said so myself, if you remember. However, only when Link holds it does it fully 'activate.' Again in TWW, when Zelda holds it, it doesn't glow. That, my friend, is an illustration of the reason they need a Hero to wield the Master Sword in the first place.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 05 February 2007 - 10:27 AM.

[Raien]

I agree that OoT's time travel is inconsistent, however for different reasons. The problem is that we have two different time-travel concepts being reflected in the same game.

The first concept is that Link's adventures in the past change/erase events that we see happening in the future (such as the Magic Beans, Link's taking of the Ocarina before MM).

The second concept is that Link's adventures in the past simply become part of history that is reflected in the future (such as the Song of Storms and Nabooru's capture).

In short, there is no definite time-travel structure within OoT. Therefore, it is impossible to actually understand what Nintendo's intentions are with the main storyline.

Edited by jhurvid, 05 February 2007 - 09:24 PM.

[The Missing Link]

But when they DO find a new land, I find it highly unlikely that they're going to name it anything other than Hyrule. Surely you can see where I'm coming from in that regard, yes?

There is certainly no way that this can be disproven... given enough leeway to assume things.

I admit I am somewhat of a hypocrite here, since I don't agree with you that everyone can have their own timeline. Canonically, there is only the intended timeline - assuming such a thing does indeed exist (doubtful by now). But not everyone can 'correct' in either case.

The only time that we can determine the correctness of something is if we know the actual truth. That said, we don't know the truth (or if the truth is indeed that there is no timeline), and so it's impossible to go doling around to everyone big happy stickers saying "correct" and "incorrect."

I try not to say it in terms of everyone being correct with their own theory, but since we cannot yet open the box and see if Schrödinger's cat is alive or dead, we all exist with some superposition of the states of correctness and incorrectness.

Ah, so we return to that argument once more.

I do believe my theory for how the songs work still stands. And also, it appears to me Zelda's 'blessing', if you wish, was what made the Song of Time work as it did in MM. Indeed, that appears to be what the game makers intended. Otherwise they would likely never have offered it up as a potential explanation.

Truth be told, it's not a theory that I can begin to disprove, but how the songs have their power and how they grant their abilities to their users inevitably is a different question from what powers the songs have.

Well, that wasn't very effective, was it?

Hey, I'm merely telling you the way to defeat a theory derived from strict canon is by strict canon. I'm not telling you that it's an easy or even a possible task.

You know this because Zelda is a Sage like the other Sages? Just like the Sages in TWW and TP was, you mean?

...Except those were completely different, despite being called 'Sages'. And I might add, there were only six sages in TP. Now, you might argue those TP sages are entirely different from the OoT Sages (I agree with you that they are the true 'creators' of the Hylians, BTW), but you forget, they share the same symbols as the OoT Sages do, so they canonically have to be connected in some way.

Thus, canon states there are different kinds of 'Sages' within the series. Canon also supports the notion that there are different kinds of 'Sages' within OoT. Now it is up to you to show evidence that they are the same.

I never made the connection to Wind Waker or Twilight Princess. People are likely still debating those very questions. So let's not put words into my mouth.

What we can say for certain is that there were seven Sages in Ocarina; Zelda considered herself to be a part of that group, not disjoint from it. She didn't say "as the Sage"; she said "as a Sage," and the difference is crucial. It means that she is not unique, that she acknowledges other Sages, and we can at least assume as the seventh that she is referring to the other six Ocarina Sages.

I'm not going to even speculate as to the similarity of the other groups; that's for a different debate altogether.

One only needs to point to the fact that the Ocarina of Time always sends Link back to the exact same point in time, while the Master Sword sends him exactly seven years forward/backwards through time to prove that they are different.

Zelda's Lullaby is used only once in Ocarina to transport Link through time (discounting the Sun's Song). Thus, proving that it only sent him back to one point in time is an automatic given.

Of course it does. I said so myself, if you remember. However, only when Link holds it does it fully 'activate.' Again in TWW, when Zelda holds it, it doesn't glow. That, my friend, is an illustration of the reason they need a Hero to wield the Master Sword in the first place.

That's fine. I'm not arguing against the fact that the Master Sword is useless without the hero; we all know that a sword stuck in the ground doesn't do diddily against Ganondorf. However, I am saying that it has some semblance of power on its own, and that the possibility that maybe... just maybe... the sword has the power to manipulate time isn't impossible... and in fact, more strongly supported than that ability being a native power of the hero.

In short, there is no definite time-travel structure within OoT. Therefore, it is impossible to actually understand what Nintendo's intentions are with the main storyline.

Amen, brother.

[Hero of Legend]

The only time that we can determine the correctness of something is if we know the actual truth. That said, we don't know the truth (or if the truth is indeed that there is no timeline), and so it's impossible to go doling around to everyone big happy stickers saying "correct" and "incorrect."

Of course, that is true. But just because we don't know who is correct, that does not mean that person isn't correct. And if there is a correct timeline, there are also a whole lot of incorrect ones - Which we can tell, sometimes.

Truth be told, it's not a theory that I can begin to disprove, but how the songs have their power and how they grant their abilities to their users inevitably is a different question from what powers the songs have.

So... You're saying...?

Hey, I'm merely telling you the way to defeat a theory derived from strict canon is by strict canon. I'm not telling you that it's an easy or even a possible task.

Especially if some strict canon is apparently better than the rest.

I never made the connection to Wind Waker or Twilight Princess. People are likely still debating those very questions. So let's not put words into my mouth.

No, you never said anything about them. That does not mean their existence doesn't qualify as evidence, however.

What we can say for certain is that there were seven Sages in Ocarina; Zelda considered herself to be a part of that group, not disjoint from it. She didn't say "as the Sage"; she said "as a Sage," and the difference is crucial. It means that she is not unique, that she acknowledges other Sages, and we can at least assume as the seventh that she is referring to the other six Ocarina Sages.

I do believe both options are grammatically correct. But even if you are correct, how do we know a Sage, whose existence was prophesized in a separate legend from that of the Hero of Time, and who does not have a place in the Chamber of Sages, abides by the same rules as the other Sages? (do note that their powers are completely different)

Zelda's Lullaby is used only once in Ocarina to transport Link through time (discounting the Sun's Song). Thus, proving that it only sent him back to one point in time is an automatic given.

Well, in that case, it works exactly like the Song of Time in MM. And if so, that would potentially allow Link to learn the Song of Storms from the Windmill man without contradicting canon.

That's fine. I'm not arguing against the fact that the Master Sword is useless without the hero; we all know that a sword stuck in the ground doesn't do diddily against Ganondorf. However, I am saying that it has some semblance of power on its own, and that the possibility that maybe... just maybe... the sword has the power to manipulate time isn't impossible... and in fact, more strongly supported than that ability being a native power of the hero.

...You lost me there.

[The Missing Link]

Of course, that is true. But just because we don't know who is correct, that does not mean that person isn't correct. And if there is a correct timeline, there are also a whole lot of incorrect ones - Which we can tell, sometimes.

Yet in the interest of being fair, I tend to be in the school of thought that gives the benefit of the doubt. Until proven wrong, a theory is potentially correct. But this is neither here nor there.

So... You're saying...?

I'm saying it's irrelevant. That the song is magical... that the song could potentially manipulate time... that the song was played by Zelda... that's enough without getting into the WHY it doesn't work all the time.

No, you never said anything about them. That does not mean their existence doesn't qualify as evidence, however.

But it's irrelevant. If they're the same type of Sages as the Ocarina seven, then they get the same abilities; if they don't, then they don't. I'm not requiring an equivalence or a lack thereof with these guys.

I do believe both options are grammatically correct. But even if you are correct, how do we know a Sage, whose existence was prophesized in a separate legend from that of the Hero of Time, and who does not have a place in the Chamber of Sages, abides by the same rules as the other Sages? (do note that their powers are completely different)

Because Zelda tells us so, and if she meant something different, she would have worded it differently. If she were different, she would have said "as the seventh sage" or "as the holder of the Triforce of Wisdom"; because her classification refers to a class of people where more than her exist, and by strict canon she is accurate, so it is proved.

Well, in that case, it works exactly like the Song of Time in MM. And if so, that would potentially allow Link to learn the Song of Storms from the Windmill man without contradicting canon.

No, you misunderstood me.

It cannot be proved that Zelda's Lullaby will only send Link back to a single point in time. Why? Because it is only used once. That one point in time, Link travels back to time T. We have not seen it used multiple times in order to determine the veracity of your claim, of whether the next time he is returned to time T or time U. (Furthermore, it is impossible to prove that T is any other time other than 7 years before Zelda played Zelda's Lullaby.) Thus, whether it works like the Song of Time is unknown, and indeed, if your claim is correct, Zelda's prayers changed the performance of the Song of Time to do that very thing, something it didn't originally do.

...You lost me there.

We are talking about the Master Sword having some sort of native power that would thus make possible that its native power would permit it to allow its wielder time travel. Originally, the claim was that the sword's power was strictly derived from the hero wielding it. With my quote, I showed that this was not true, that there is some native power within the sword. Now at this point, it does not matter whether or not the sword is the only source of power in the pair or if that source is derived from both; all I needed to show to allow the possibility of time travel was that the sword had some amount of power native to itself to allow that.

In fact, I would say that it can be proven that it IS the sword and NOT Link that grants this power, because I'm certain that it was not Link's intent to jump forward seven years the first time he grabbed the sword. The sword blinked him through those seven years because Link was not old enough. Thus, the Master Sword directly has the power to manipulate time.

[Hero of Legend]

Yet in the interest of being fair, I tend to be in the school of thought that gives the benefit of the doubt. Until proven wrong, a theory is potentially correct. But this is neither here nor there.

But then again, there are theories we CAN prove wrong. Not just by adhering to strict canon, but any form of canon. Case in point being the Single Link theory.

I'm saying it's irrelevant. That the song is magical... that the song could potentially manipulate time... that the song was played by Zelda... that's enough without getting into the WHY it doesn't work all the time.

Not really. But again, if it does work that way, canon shows us we cannot know anything about the form of travel it is capable of, since it could potentially do anything.

But it's irrelevant. If they're the same type of Sages as the Ocarina seven, then they get the same abilities; if they don't, then they don't. I'm not requiring an equivalence or a lack thereof with these guys.

The point is, there are more than set of 'Sages', and none of them make any difference between themselves and the other ones by title. So what I'm saying is that your next point is quite pointless.

Because Zelda tells us so, and if she meant something different, she would have worded it differently. If she were different, she would have said "as the seventh sage" or "as the holder of the Triforce of Wisdom"; because her classification refers to a class of people where more than her exist, and by strict canon she is accurate, so it is proved.

The Goddess of Time could potentially refer to herself as a goddess, even though she is the Goddess of Time. Same thing with Zelda. Even though she is not part of the Six Sages, she is still a Sage nonetheless. Canonically, her line doesn't prove anything. And if you infer something from it, I could infer something else from the rest of the game.

It cannot be proved that Zelda's Lullaby will only send Link back to a single point in time. Why? Because it is only used once. That one point in time, Link travels back to time T. We have not seen it used multiple times in order to determine the veracity of your claim, of whether the next time he is returned to time T or time U. (Furthermore, it is impossible to prove that T is any other time other than 7 years before Zelda played Zelda's Lullaby.) Thus, whether it works like the Song of Time is unknown, and indeed, if your claim is correct, Zelda's prayers changed the performance of the Song of Time to do that very thing, something it didn't originally do.

She said she would send Link back to a specific point in time, so I believe it is implied she could control where she sent him.

We are talking about the Master Sword having some sort of native power that would thus make possible that its native power would permit it to allow its wielder time travel. Originally, the claim was that the sword's power was strictly derived from the hero wielding it. With my quote, I showed that this was not true, that there is some native power within the sword.

Um... No? You were the one who brought time travel into this. I never said it had anything to do with the Master Sword's power to repel evil. And it doesn't.

Besides, it is the Pedestal of Time that does all that. The Master Sword is only the key to it - "The Master Sword--the evil-destroying sword that you pulled out of the Pedestal of Time was the final key to the Sacred Realm. ... Only one worthy of the title of "Hero of Time" can pull it from the Pedestal of Time...."

[mohammedali]

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.

On that side note, this version is very different to the one you previously described. Although this has little to no bearing on the thread, I just wanted to give you my opinion on this. If Child Harry saw himself casting a spell he already knew, that's fine, as the spell could exist within the loop without exterior influences being needed. It would be perfectly acceptable, and to some degree logical, that this would be a chicken and egg scenario. i.e. if Adult Harry doesn't cast the spell, then Child Harry won't grow up to cast the spell, but if Adult Harry does cast the spell, then Child Harry grows up to cast the spell. It's quite possible that this unknown event would depend on probability, and as either result (Adult Harry casting vs Adult Harry not-casting) leads to the corresponding same result in Child Harry's future, there is no inconsistancy. The concept makes sense.

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.

Even in fantasy, laws are still in place. I'm not saying that the creators can't do something if they chose. Of course they can. However, unless you have proof to the contrary, it makes more sense that logic still flows even in a made up sceario.
I could say that although logically one would assume the story of the Goddesses was passed to the Deku Tree from someone else, it is possible that in actuallity it just randomly existed in his head without any external influence. This is not logical, and extremely unlikely, but possible if the game developers wanted it to be so (even though we have no reason to believe this is the case).
Similarly, to assume that the Windmill song just invented itself out of nowhere, and just randomly existed without any external force is possible if the creators wish it to be (as is the case with literally anything). However, again, it makes no sense logically, is very unlikely, and never ever alluded to in the slightest.
In any case, even if you want to refuse to listen to the obvious logic, and opt for the creators using pointless illogical story plots that have never been alluded to, it still doesn't hurt the theory itself...
As long as a theory works for OoT, your theory fails to work.

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.
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.

My theory doesn't doubt a timeloop. I agree a timeloop occurs. My only point was that the song had to come from somewhere. If Link didn't know it originally, and the Windmill man didn't know it originally, then even if they were trapped in a timeloop for eternity, where would the song come from? It didn't just pop in from the sky.
In any case, irrespective of what you think of the loop or the song, it doesn't matter. The point is, the loop can and does work without making OoT impossible.

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.
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.

I think you've either mistyped or got me all wrong. I'm not trying to prove OoT is self-inconsistant as you said. Quite the opposite. I'm showing that OoT works. I don't need to disprove concepts like you did in your article. Quite the opposite once again. All I need to do is show one way of looking at OoT that IS consistant. This proves that there is at least one way that OoT works, and thus disproves your theory of there being no way for OoT to work.

Key Point: I have found 1 way that OoT works. Therefore there exists at least 1 way that OoT is consistant with itself.
This goes against your theory that there is no way OoT is consistant with itself.

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.

Couple of things.
First, you need to consider that perhaps Link went back further in time than he usually did when using th MS. I'm not going to go off topic onto a debate about this, so either accept it or, if you're not happy with it, then use my second point.
Second point: there is every chance, that when Link went back, he gave the OoT to Zelda (as she was back and safe in the castle, and the OoT is her heirloom), however, when Link left, Zelda gave it back to him to aid him on his journey.
Choose one of these 2 answers. Theory still holds.

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?

Simple, look at these quotes:

RAURU: "You were too young to be the Hero of Time... Therefore, your spirit was sealed here for seven years."

GANONDORF: "The Triforce parts are resonating. They are combining into one again. The two Triforce parts that I could not capture on that day seven years ago..."

IMPA: "On that day seven years ago, Ganondorf suddenly attacked..."

SHEIK/ZELDA: "Seven years ago, Ganondorf, the King of Thieves, used the door you opened in the Temple of Time and entered the Sacred Realm.

and my personal fav

WINDMILL MAN: "What?! You've got an ocarina!! What the heck! That reminds me of that time, seven years ago!"

What's the reoccuring theme in all of these quotes? That's right... 7 years...

Now, all of these quotes are taken at different points in the game from just after Link is awoken as an adult, till right at the end of the game. Yet they all talk about 7 years. Does that mean all of the adult part of OoT happened on the same day of 7 years after Link lifted the MS? Obviously not. It's impossible to do so much in 1 day according to the game itself.
Therefore, even though Link's spirit had been trapped for 7 years, he still could have spent a good few weeks, even months, running around as a child after he uses the MS for the first time (just as we see him do in the game). Rauru would still be correct in saying he was sealed for 7 years, as would Impa, Zelda, Ganon and the Windmill man about there 7 year timelines. 7 years need not mean exactly 7 years to the day. In fact, when I talk about what happened 7 years ago, I rarely/never mean 7 years to the day.
Now, although I agree it is possible to interpret Rauru as saying Link was sealed for exactly 7 years from when he used the MS, it is by no means the only interpretation. Canonically, my theory still stands.

Conclusion: OoT can be consistant with itself.

Edited by mohammedali, 07 February 2007 - 06:35 PM.

[The Missing Link]

But then again, there are theories we CAN prove wrong. Not just by adhering to strict canon, but any form of canon. Case in point being the Single Link theory.

The TToTT is a Single Link Theory, and no one has the gall to disprove that. Yet accepting the rare case, it is to some degree understood that all things are not fair; you violate a major fact in any game--such as Wind Waker Link being the Ocarina of Time Link (without adding complete strangeness link the TToTT)--and of course you're going to have a flawed argument. I'm cool with that; in fact, I even agree with that. But that's a completely separate issue, really. My belief is that if you can explain your theory to some point where you've tried really hard to adhere to the spirit of each game and have some semblance of explanation linking your games, that should be good enough to count for something.

Not really. But again, if it does work that way, canon shows us we cannot know anything about the form of travel it is capable of, since it could potentially do anything.

Except that the fact that its abilities to control time are linked to the Master Sword. Zelda tells us that once the Master Sword is put to rest, the Ocarina will fail to manipulate the pathways of time.

The point is, there are more than set of 'Sages', and none of them make any difference between themselves and the other ones by title. So what I'm saying is that your next point is quite pointless.

None of them assert similarity either. Be that as it may, my argument doesn't depend upon any such similarity or difference, and Occam's Razor reduces the "as a Sage" line to refer to the Sages she was intimately familiar with, the other six of Ocarina. As such, the point is still irrelevant.

The Goddess of Time could potentially refer to herself as a goddess, even though she is the Goddess of Time. Same thing with Zelda. Even though she is not part of the Six Sages, she is still a Sage nonetheless. Canonically, her line doesn't prove anything. And if you infer something from it, I could infer something else from the rest of the game.

Sadly, the analogy you used is flawed.

Let us presume for the moment that the manipulation of time is only granted to the seventh Sage and not the other six. In short, let us presume that Zelda has the unique ability to do this. Why then would she even need to say the words "as a Sage"? The sentence, grammatically speaking, can be separated into two parts: the first part which is conditional and the second which is consequential. The first half of her sentence places a condition on the second; in short, in qualifies the second. Because of this, the word "as" is like "because," and you only need to look at this very sentence to see the correlation.

Think about it like this: If Batman came up and told you, "As a human, I can leap off tall buildings and survive," wouldn't you be confused? Probably so since not everyone can do it. Rather, "as a superhero" or "as Batman" would be much closer to the point, the only difference between those being precisely how narrow the ability mentioned in the consequential part of the sentence is given. If it were only Zelda, she could have reduced the qualifier to say "as the seventh sage," but she did not. And since she must be correct, your analogy is flawed.

She said she would send Link back to a specific point in time, so I believe it is implied she could control where she sent him.

I'm not so concerned about precisely to when she could send him; in fact, I'd say that's irrelevant unless you try to create a contradiction (e.g., closed Door of Time). I'm more concerned as to how the future would be affected by her action.

Um... No? You were the one who brought time travel into this. I never said it had anything to do with the Master Sword's power to repel evil. And it doesn't.

Besides, it is the Pedestal of Time that does all that. The Master Sword is only the key to it - "The Master Sword--the evil-destroying sword that you pulled out of the Pedestal of Time was the final key to the Sacred Realm. ... Only one worthy of the title of "Hero of Time" can pull it from the Pedestal of Time...."

SHEIK, IN FRONT OF SPIRIT TEMPLE:
(owl flies overhead)
Past, present, future...
The Master Sword is a ship with which you can sail upstream and downstream through time's river...
The port for that ship is in the Temple of Time...

QED.

[The Missing Link]

On that side note, this version is very different to the one you previously described. Although this has little to no bearing on the thread, I just wanted to give you my opinion on this. If Child Harry saw himself casting a spell he already knew, that's fine, as the spell could exist within the loop without exterior influences being needed. It would be perfectly acceptable, and to some degree logical, that this would be a chicken and egg scenario. i.e. if Adult Harry doesn't cast the spell, then Child Harry won't grow up to cast the spell, but if Adult Harry does cast the spell, then Child Harry grows up to cast the spell. It's quite possible that this unknown event would depend on probability, and as either result (Adult Harry casting vs Adult Harry not-casting) leads to the corresponding same result in Child Harry's future, there is no inconsistancy. The concept makes sense.

Not quite, actually. Harry1 actually tried to cast the Patronus spell and failed in doing so. He lacked the confidence to do so. On the second trip through that scene though, he is able to successfully do it, and he admits--and here's the catch--that he was able to do so because he already knew he would do it. Harry could not have done it if he hadn't seen his "second self" cast it his first time through... but Harry wouldn't have been able to "correct the future" without his future involvement because he would have died.

Even in fantasy, laws are still in place. I'm not saying that the creators can't do something if they chose. Of course they can. However, unless you have proof to the contrary, it makes more sense that logic still flows even in a made up sceario.

As I said with Hero of Legend and others, my assumption prevents the need for hard proof before it something must be assumed true. By assumption, we're working solely off of evidence to suggest--and thus prove--truth; hard proof is unnecessary.

I could say that although logically one would assume the story of the Goddesses was passed to the Deku Tree from someone else, it is possible that in actuallity it just randomly existed in his head without any external influence. This is not logical, and extremely unlikely, but possible if the game developers wanted it to be so (even though we have no reason to believe this is the case).

I cannot disprove anything, but again, by assumption, I don't have to. The simpler and more supported theory is that the Deku Tree either knew this story because it was told to him or he was imbued with that knowledge by the goddesses since the dawn of time. Thus by assumption, this is truth.

Similarly, to assume that the Windmill song just invented itself out of nowhere, and just randomly existed without any external force is possible if the creators wish it to be (as is the case with literally anything). However, again, it makes no sense logically, is very unlikely, and never ever alluded to in the slightest.

Yet there is no evidence that suggests that an external force was at work here. Thus by assumption, we can negate that possibility. Unless you've got some evidence to show that someone did it.

In any case, even if you want to refuse to listen to the obvious logic, and opt for the creators using pointless illogical story plots that have never been alluded to, it still doesn't hurt the theory itself...
As long as a theory works for OoT, your theory fails to work.

First off, let me correct a misstatement here. The Song of Storms time loop is actually a clever little puzzle. We are given very little evidence that we are supposed to go play the Song of Storms for the Windmill Man, yet somehow we all as gamers figure it out. Yet at the same time, deep within us, that question of what the heck just happened has probably entered every gamer when they did so: Was I the one who caused that? Note that this isn't some random sidequest that Link doesn't have to go accomplish; Link must do so to beat the game. Nintendo isn't exactly beating around the bush with this one. I believe that it is very strongly implied that this so-called "paradoxical" time loop is meant to exist, that we are supposed to believe this very point. No evidence is given to its contrary, and any alternate assumption is required to make up heavy amounts of story just to propose an alternate solution.

Now, as to your second line there, your bolded text, unfortunately, no, you're wrong. As I was telling Hero of Legend, this article is a very well-constructed trap; I predicted the potential pratfalls that my theory would create, and then I backtracked to the actual proof construction so as to avoid them. So why are you wrong? There's a very simple reason:

I presume that Occam's Razor is adhered strictly; that's my very definition of strict canon. As such, any complicated explanation that the canon does not proffer evidence for is automatically wrong. Even if it's a perfectly possible scenario, even if it makes sense when you're allowed a little play room to make it happen, I can cast it aside simply by showing that there is a theory that is either simpler or is much more supported by canon evidence. As such, because of this, before even beginning, potential contradictions must assume precisely what I assumed in my article: strict canon. If you assume anything else, you're immediately off the track. Perhaps it'll make it easier to give you the following example:

Assume that 1 = 2. By the law of addition, then 1 + 1 = 2 + 1. Since 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 1 = 3, therefore 2 = 3. QED.

Now, we all know that 2 != 3*. It is as plain to the casual observer that this is true. However, be that as it may, this is a completely valid proof. We make an assumption, and using that assumption we prove something. Granted, the assumption is factually false* (also intuitively obvious), but if we assume it to be correct, then the conclusion is correct as well. In other words, 1 = 2 proves that 2 = 3. Now, you can go off for eternity and a day that 2 != 3, declaring how completely off-kilter I am. I in fact, would agree with your claim (except about me being off-kilter, of course); however, what you failed to do was approach it from the point of view of my assumption.

If you're looking for a way to destroy my argument, however, there are two ways to do it. The first is quite simple; consider this proof:

Assume that 1 = 2. By the law of addition, then 1 + 1 = 2 + 1. Since 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 1 = 3, therefore 2 = 3. However, we do know that 2 is strictly less than 3; in other words, 2 < 3. Thus 2 cannot be equal to 3. Therefore, the assumption 1 = 2 is false.

This is the only full proof structure that can destroy the original proof. (The second and yet unmentioned one involves counterexamples.) Trying to approach this problem from the conclusion side proves nothing because you haven't assumed the assumptive clause. Proving 2 != 3 doesn't make my proof false; it merely makes the assumption false. This, of course, is my goal. Disproving my article this way means I win.

The second way--and only other way which has any logical bearing--is to start by assuming my assumption... and then show that I made an arithmetic mistake along the way. Maybe I goofed up and said that 2 + 1 = 4 somewhere. That would certainly invalidate the proof. However, and this is important, you have to do it from the perspective of the assumption in place. I, too, can show that a timeline can easily be constructed from all 13 Zelda games, but I would completely tear apart canon to do so. That doesn't invalidate this opinion either. If you can show that my assumption allows some timeline to squeak through the cracks, then you win. Otherwise, I win. Simple as that.

So, with that said, let us begin afresh:

My theory doesn't doubt a timeloop. I agree a timeloop occurs. My only point was that the song had to come from somewhere. If Link didn't know it originally, and the Windmill man didn't know it originally, then even if they were trapped in a timeloop for eternity, where would the song come from? It didn't just pop in from the sky.

In any case, irrespective of what you think of the loop or the song, it doesn't matter. The point is, the loop can and does work without making OoT impossible.

Point 1: Evidence?
Point 2: I agree, but until you can show it given my assumption, irrelevant.

I think you've either mistyped or got me all wrong. I'm not trying to prove OoT is self-inconsistant as you said. Quite the opposite. I'm showing that OoT works. I don't need to disprove concepts like you did in your article. Quite the opposite once again. All I need to do is show one way of looking at OoT that IS consistant. This proves that there is at least one way that OoT works, and thus disproves your theory of there being no way for OoT to work.

Key Point: I have found 1 way that OoT works. Therefore there exists at least 1 way that OoT is consistant with itself.
This goes against your theory that there is no way OoT is consistant with itself.

Actually, I do understand what you're trying to do; I also believe you cannot do it. But no, finding a way is not enough. See my big long string of text above. Your way isn't simpler or more supported than mine; your counterexample, as such, fails my assumption. Therefore, objection overruled.

Couple of things.

First, you need to consider that perhaps Link went back further in time than he usually did when using th MS. I'm not going to go off topic onto a debate about this, so either accept it or, if you're not happy with it, then use my second point.

Impossible. The Door of Time was closed.
Proof: Go to the Door of Time at any point before drawing the Master Sword. The Door of Time is closed. Therefore, Link could not escape the interior of the Temple of Time if he was sent back to before the drawing of the Master Sword. QED.

Second point: there is every chance, that when Link went back, he gave the OoT to Zelda (as she was back and safe in the castle, and the OoT is her heirloom), however, when Link left, Zelda gave it back to him to aid him on his journey.

No evidence that such a thing transpired. Even in that case, Link knew that he would need the Ocarina of Time seven years from then to do so; it wouldn't make sense for him to give it back when he already needed it. As such, mine explanation is simpler. Yours is wrong by the assumption of strict canon.

Simple, look at these quotes:

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

Contradiction.

Rauru said that Link's spirit remained within the Temple of Time for seven years. However, why did his spirit remain locked within the Sacred Realm? Because, as your quote so kindly mentions, Link was too young to be the Hero of Time.

Now, let us assume your claim, that Rauru didn't start the clock at the moment Link touched the sword, that while it is true that Link slept there for seven years, Link's spirit could wander free for some amount of time before the timer began.

Why? Why would the Master Sword allow that? It was the Master Sword's decision--or if you would rather, some spell cast upon it by someone's decision--to seal a would-be Hero of Time in the Sacred Realm until he is old enough. Why would that decision be... "Oh, but I guess I can let him fiddle around for a few weeks before I actually get around to doing that... Let him get his Game Boy or whatever so he won't be bored..."? Not only is it a much more flimsy argument compared to the fact that the timer started right away, but it is also much less supported by canon. Rauru here is saying because Link was too young, his spirit was sealed until the right time. This is a cause-effect relationship, and this, by strict canon, is assumed true. There's no wishy-washy attitude about when to enable the effect of this; it simply does.

Now, if you can provide canon evidence to the contrary, you're more than welcome to try.

Conclusion: OoT can be consistant with itself.

Yes, but only if you don't assume strict canon.



* Actually, there is a case when this proof works, but not in conventional mathematics. In modular arithmetic, using the ring Z1 actually makes the statement 1 = 2 true. Therefore, 2 = 3 is true as well. In fact, in Z1, 0 = 1 = 2 = 3 = ....

Edited by The Missing Link, 08 February 2007 - 01:45 AM.

[Hero of Legend]

The TToTT is a Single Link Theory, and no one has the gall to disprove that.

Well, the theory doesn't actually work when adhering to strict canon, or indeed any kind of logic reason, because it assumes certain in-game facts to be incorrect in order for the theory to be correct. But otherwise, sure...

Except that the fact that its abilities to control time are linked to the Master Sword. Zelda tells us that once the Master Sword is put to rest, the Ocarina will fail to manipulate the pathways of time.

Ah, now you are the one reading too much into her words. What she said was little more than that the pathway Link had used thus far (i.e. the Master Sword and the PoT) was no longer to be used. This tells us nothing about one's ability to use other forms of time travel. To be completely honest, the OoT is not a fixed 'road' between times at all, and moreover, there would not be anyone to send Link back to the future from his time, so Zelda had no reason to believe he would ever return once he had put the Master Sword to rest, thus explaining her sadness during the ending.

None of them assert similarity either.

Except the symbols in TP. But really, all I care about is that Zelda canon shows there to be more than one kind of Sage, which validates my theory.

Be that as it may, my argument doesn't depend upon any such similarity or difference, and Occam's Razor reduces the "as a Sage" line to refer to the Sages she was intimately familiar with, the other six of Ocarina. As such, the point is still irrelevant.

True enough. Simply looking at that line would have us assume she is one of the other Sages. However, when the whole game is taken into consideration, it is not as simple. You have already shown examples of how one link can be interpreted differently, and so this is by no means a fact.

If it were only Zelda, she could have reduced the qualifier to say "as the seventh sage," but she did not. And since she must be correct, your analogy is flawed.

What her intention was when stating that is still nothing but an assumption, which as we all know, does not qualify as evidence. I ask you for evidence she is part of the six sages. I wonder which side has the most support?

SHEIK, IN FRONT OF SPIRIT TEMPLE:
(owl flies overhead)
Past, present, future...
The Master Sword is a ship with which you can sail upstream and downstream through time's river...
The port for that ship is in the Temple of Time...

An obvious metaphor. The Master Sword is not a ship, nor is the ToT a port. What it really says is thus: "You can use the Master Sword to travel through time if you use it in the Temple of Time." But if you wish to follow your definition of strict canon, I did notice something else. See, it fails to mention what drives the ship upstream - the wind, or in actuality, the PoT, as stated by Rauru.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 08 February 2007 - 03:34 PM.

[The Missing Link]

Ah, now you are the one reading too much into her words. What she said was little more than that the pathway Link had used thus far (i.e. the Master Sword and the PoT) was no longer to be used. This tells us nothing about one's ability to use other forms of time travel. To be completely honest, the OoT is not a fixed 'road' between times at all, and moreover, there would not be anyone to send Link back to the future from his time, so Zelda had no reason to believe he would ever return once he had put the Master Sword to rest, thus explaining her sadness during the ending.

Specifically she said:

ZELDA, END OF GAME
...........................................
However, by doing this, the road between times will be closed...

Again, let's dig into the grammar. Did she mention anything in particular about the road between her time and the time of Link's childhood? No. She says "the road between times"; not the road "between our times" or "between these two times" or "between my time and your time"; the road "between times". Going along the lines of the statement Sheik said about the "Master Sword [being] a ship with which you can sail upstream and downstream through time's river," especially when discussing "past, present, [and] future" within the context of that (especially at a time when Link could theoretically not be sent further into the future than he already was if you are correct), these two quotes have a certain symbiosis here.

Except the symbols in TP. But really, all I care about is that Zelda canon shows there to be more than one kind of Sage, which validates my theory.

Either way, it's irrelevant to this discussion. So it doesn't invalidate mine.

True enough. Simply looking at that line would have us assume she is one of the other Sages. However, when the whole game is taken into consideration, it is not as simple. You have already shown examples of how one link can be interpreted differently, and so this is by no means a fact.
What her intention was when stating that is still nothing but an assumption, which as we all know, does not qualify as evidence. I ask you for evidence she is part of the six sages. I wonder which side has the most support?

Evidence?

An obvious metaphor. The Master Sword is not a ship, nor is the ToT a port. What it really says is thus: "You can use the Master Sword to travel through time if you use it in the Temple of Time." But if you wish to follow your definition of strict canon, I did notice something else. See, it fails to mention what drives the ship upstream - the wind, or in actuality, the PoT, as stated by Rauru.

Strict canon says we interpret her words strictly. Appeal to metaphor is overruled.

[mohammedali]

Not quite, actually. Harry1 actually tried to cast the Patronus spell and failed in doing so. He lacked the confidence to do so. On the second trip through that scene though, he is able to successfully do it, and he admits--and here's the catch--that he was able to do so because he already knew he would do it. Harry could not have done it if he hadn't seen his "second self" cast it his first time through... but Harry wouldn't have been able to "correct the future" without his future involvement because he would have died.

OK. It’s a bit difficult for me to understand exactly what’ s going on having not read the book, so perhaps we should leave it at that. I’m sure if I read it, I would be able to talk more about this, but as I haven’t we’ll leave this out. It’s got nothing to do with Zelda anyway.
Sounds like a good read though. Always thought I should check out the Harry Potter books.

As I said with Hero of Legend and others, my assumption prevents the need for hard proof before it something must be assumed true. By assumption, we're working solely off of evidence to suggest--and thus prove--truth; hard proof is unnecessary.

Fine. As I said before, even if you want to ignore the obvious and assume the illogical, doesn’t matter. As long as a theory for how OoT works exists, there is no inconsistency within OoT.

I cannot disprove anything, but again, by assumption, I don't have to. The simpler and more supported theory is that the Deku Tree either knew this story because it was told to him or he was imbued with that knowledge by the goddesses since the dawn of time. Thus by assumption, this is truth.

Again, Fine. You can assume anything you like about how things happen in OoT, even if they make no logical sense and clearly go against obvious inference. Still, the fact remains that all that’s needed is a theory that works with OoT for OoT to be consistent.

Yet there is no evidence that suggests that an external force was at work here. Thus by assumption, we can negate that possibility. Unless you've got some evidence to show that someone did it.

As I said before, logic would indicate an external force had to be used. The fact that there is a song being taught that neither Link nor the windmill man know is proof of that. However, for what ever reason, you’re refusing to accept this concept by assuming the creators had a different and illogical reasoning instead – even though it’s never been inferred nor shown in the canon.
I’m using a logical implication, whilst you are using an assumption.
Inferred Logic > Random Assumption

Still, if you don’t accept that there logically has to be an external force, then once again, fine. It’s still of no consequence. Just like it’s OK for you to assume there is no external force, it’s also OK for me to assume there is. i.e. if you don’t accept what I am saying is logical, and instead insist it is an assumption, then at the very least, it holds the same amount of weight as your assumption.

First off, let me correct a misstatement here. The Song of Storms time loop is actually a clever little puzzle. We are given very little evidence that we are supposed to go play the Song of Storms for the Windmill Man, yet somehow we all as gamers figure it out. Yet at the same time, deep within us, that question of what the heck just happened has probably entered every gamer when they did so: Was I the one who caused that? Note that this isn't some random sidequest that Link doesn't have to go accomplish; Link must do so to beat the game. Nintendo isn't exactly beating around the bush with this one. I believe that it is very strongly implied that this so-called "paradoxical" time loop is meant to exist, that we are supposed to believe this very point. No evidence is given to its contrary, and any alternate assumption is required to make up heavy amounts of story just to propose an alternate solution.

Again, you’re using assumptions. Your theory doesn’t use only canon like you keep saying it does.

Now, as to your second line there, your bolded text, unfortunately, no, you're wrong. As I was telling Hero of Legend, this article is a very well-constructed trap; I predicted the potential pratfalls that my theory would create, and then I backtracked to the actual proof construction so as to avoid them. So why are you wrong? There's a very simple reason:

I presume that Occam's Razor is adhered strictly; that's my very definition of strict canon. As such, any complicated explanation that the canon does not proffer evidence for is automatically wrong. Even if it's a perfectly possible scenario, even if it makes sense when you're allowed a little play room to make it happen, I can cast it aside simply by showing that there is a theory that is either simpler or is much more supported by canon evidence.

Definition: Ockham’s Razor states that all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

The key point to note is that Ockham’s Razor is about the simplest solution of how something works. Therefore, it is not enough to have the fewest number of assumptions alone.
We need to check for the simplest solution, and only if there is no solution would we consider OoT as inconsistent. You are not giving a solution of how OoT works, but the opposite, you are trying to disprove it. Therefore, even if you use fewer assumptions, Ockham’s Razor would not deem you to be correct.

However, ignoring all of the above, keep in mind one thing. Even if your article has reasoning for why you prefer no solution to a solution, remember at least that there is a solution. Now, even if the fact that there is a solution doesn’t disprove your theory, then by implication, your theory doesn’t disprove OoT being consistent.
i.e. for all intents and purposes, your theory is useless as it doesn’t show anything worthwhile. All it shows is that in your eyes OoT is inconsistent, even if that’s not the case.

Now we can move on...

Q: What are we trying to find out?
A: Is OoT consistent without contradicting the canon

To find this out we need to ask another question.

Q: Is there at least one way that OoT can work without contradicting the canon?
A: Either Yes or No.

If Yes, then OoT is consistent. If No, the OoT is not consistent.
N.B: Contradicting the canon is different to using assumptions (I point this out with the maths you used in your last post).

Finally, as I have found a way that OoT works without contradiction to the canon, it means there is a way that OoT can be consistent. This may not disprove your theory, however, that doesn’t matter as it shows that canon can still be adhered to without contradiction.

As such, because of this, before even beginning, potential contradictions must assume precisely what I assumed in my article: strict canon. If you assume anything else, you're immediately off the track.

Fine, off the track of proving your theory wrong, but your theory doesn’t prove anything worthwhile, so it’s of no consequence.

Assume that 1 = 2. By the law of addition, then 1 + 1 = 2 + 1. Since 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 1 = 3, therefore 2 = 3. QED.

No. That’s not comparable to assuming something that works with the canon. That is the same as assuming something that goes against the canon. Since your assumption is wrong to start with, to show an incorrect result afterwards is inevitable and pointless.
I’m not saying one should assume something that is definitely wrong and against the canon, but assume something that could be true.
e.g. Canon: We are told that (4 + A) = 6 where A can be any positive number.
Assumption: A = 2, (4 + 2) = 6 (the right answer). The fact that we can get a right answer means the equation (4 + A = 6) does not contradict itself and is possible.

snip

There was a lot of detail into irrelevant maths that I snipped out, and for a reason. Your idea of how your theory wins both ways doesn’t work. You’re missing the entire point of what I am debating.

Aim: To find a way that OoT is consistent with as few assumptions as possible.
Outcomes: If a way exists within the bounds of canon, your theory doesn’t work. If a way doesn’t exist within the bounds of canon, your theory does work.
Conclusion: I found a way it does works. Therefore, your theory that it doesn’t work is incorrect.

Now I understand that you want to use only canon, but even in your own logic you are using assumptions. Even if you deny you are using assumptions, you’re not getting away from the simple fact that OoT is consistent without contradicting the canon.

Point 1: Evidence?
Point 2: I agree, but until you can show it given my assumption, irrelevant.

As I said before, logical induction is the proof for my theory. However, if you want to play that game, prove to me that the timeloop doesn’t require an external force to work without using any assumptions. Again, not that it matters to the greater scheme of things.

Actually, I do understand what you're trying to do; I also believe you cannot do it. But no, finding a way is not enough. See my big long string of text above. Your way isn't simpler or more supported than mine; your counterexample, as such, fails my assumption. Therefore, objection overruled.

Again, it may fail your assumption (which ever they may be), but that doesn’t matter in the greater scheme of things. At the end of the day, proving or disproving your theory is not what’s important. Finding out if OoT is consistent using canon is.

Impossible. The Door of Time was closed.
Proof: Go to the Door of Time at any point before drawing the Master Sword. The Door of Time is closed. Therefore, Link could not escape the interior of the Temple of Time if he was sent back to before the drawing of the Master Sword. QED.

Unless he plays the OoT and opens the DoT, but doesn’t lift the MS. Again, doesn’t matter as I have a second point

No evidence that such a thing transpired. Even in that case, Link knew that he would need the Ocarina of Time seven years from then to do so; it wouldn't make sense for him to give it back when he already needed it. As such, mine explanation is simpler. Yours is wrong by the assumption of strict canon.

Strict canon doesn’t out rule this. What I said still works with the canon. You are assuming that Link kept the OoT, I’m assuming he didn’t.

Contradiction.

Rauru said that Link's spirit remained within the Temple of Time for seven years. However, why did his spirit remain locked within the Sacred Realm? Because, as your quote so kindly mentions, Link was too young to be the Hero of Time.

Now, let us assume your claim, that Rauru didn't start the clock at the moment Link touched the sword, that while it is true that Link slept there for seven years, Link's spirit could wander free for some amount of time before the timer began.

Why? Why would the Master Sword allow that? It was the Master Sword's decision--or if you would rather, some spell cast upon it by someone's decision--to seal a would-be Hero of Time in the Sacred Realm until he is old enough. Why would that decision be... "Oh, but I guess I can let him fiddle around for a few weeks before I actually get around to doing that... Let him get his Game Boy or whatever so he won't be bored..."? Not only is it a much more flimsy argument compared to the fact that the timer started right away, but it is also much less supported by canon. Rauru here is saying because Link was too young, his spirit was sealed until the right time. This is a cause-effect relationship, and this, by strict canon, is assumed true. There's no wishy-washy attitude about when to enable the effect of this; it simply does.

Objection
As you can see from the game itself, Link DOES run around for a few weeks as a child after he had lifted the MS. According to your idea of Rauru or the MS locking Child Link up from the point he touches the MS, we should not be able to play as Child Link. That is proof that Link isn’t locked up for all of 7 years from the day he lifted the MS up.

All of this is getting rather pointless and tiresome. My only point is that by following the canon without contradiction still generates a consistent OoT. Therefore, Canon can be followed without exception (with the aid of assumptions which are present in all theories). If this doesn’t disprove your theory, I don’t care.

Mohammed Ali

Edited by mohammedali, 09 February 2007 - 03:06 AM.

[Hero of Legend]

Again, let's dig into the grammar. Did she mention anything in particular about the road between her time and the time of Link's childhood? No. She says "the road between times"; not the road "between our times" or "between these two times" or "between my time and your time"; the road "between times". Going along the lines of the statement Sheik said about the "Master Sword [being] a ship with which you can sail upstream and downstream through time's river," especially when discussing "past, present, [and] future" within the context of that (especially at a time when Link could theoretically not be sent further into the future than he already was if you are correct), these two quotes have a certain symbiosis here.

The notion that placing the Master Sword to rest would prevent any other form of time manipulation is nothing short of ludicrous. Especially since we see it in MM. What Zelda says is nothing more than that the Master Sword will no longer be used to travel forward in time. The lines you quoted even support this, since they only mention the Master Sword and not other items that can control time, such as the Ocarina of Time.

Either way, it's irrelevant to this discussion. So it doesn't invalidate mine.

You were the one who said I should prove my own theory.

Evidence?

You tell me. I asked for your evidence, remember? I already provided mine. Some five-six quotes if I recall...

Strict canon says we interpret her words strictly. Appeal to metaphor is overruled.

The Master Sword is still not a ship, so strict canon would have us accept that it is a metaphor. You never objected to personal interpretation and assumptions when providing support for your theory, and this is really no different. If you suddenly wish to take everything at face value, well, then there goes your entire proof-lacking argument.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 09 February 2007 - 09:33 AM.

[The Missing Link]

The notion that placing the Master Sword to rest would prevent any other form of time manipulation is nothing short of ludicrous. Especially since we see it in MM. What Zelda says is nothing more than that the Master Sword will no longer be used to travel forward in time. The lines you quoted even support this, since they only mention the Master Sword and not other items that can control time, such as the Ocarina of Time.

Majora's Mask can theoretically be cast aside as to being an alternate dimension, because if the moon was haunting Hyrule as it was Termina, Link certainly would not be going off in search of a friend. Alternatively speaking, this quote could also be granted with the implicit constraint that this will close all time travel of which Zelda is aware. After all, we cannot expect her to make judgements about issues she would not have knowledge, and Labrynna is not discovered until many years later by our best reckoning.

You were the one who said I should prove my own theory.

You believed there was relevance at the time. I thought I'd let you have the opportunity to show it.

You tell me. I asked for your evidence, remember? I already provided mine. Some five-six quotes if I recall...

Your evidence is taken out of context.

SHEIK, IN LINK'S FIRST MEETING WITH HIM IN THE TEMPLE OF TIME:
I've been waiting for you, Hero of Time...
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. (emphasis mine)

Question: Is Rauru not a Sage? He certainly didn't dwell in one of the five temples? How do you know he's a sage? This legend certainly doesn't mention anything about that? Huh huh huh? This sounds like a contradiction! Gasp!... Yet it's not. You and I both know it's not... because Rauru is a Sage in a different way... yet the same way. He's not in one of the five temples, but he's still just like the other five. So what do we do with this? We declare it to be exactly what Sheik says, a legend. Everything in this quote is legend; it happens to be an accurate legend in so far as the five are concerned, but a legend nevertheless.

Impa's quote does not explicitly tell a difference between the six and the seventh. She mentions what the six sages will do, which is inevitably what happens. This does not say that Zelda has abilities different than the six; this says that her purpose is different than the six... and that she has the Triforce of Wisdom and thusly is the seventh (a fact that is not necessarily true with LttP, but again, that's irrelevant to this discussion). The same can be extended to the remaining quotes by Sheik/Zelda. The sole difference declared is that Zelda as the seventh leads the other six; that doesn't declare that she has a different ability set. She has a different role to play, this much I will buy. You have shown evidence to that point.

But what evidence do you have to show that Saria or Nabooru or Rauru could not be standing there in the endgame in Zelda's spot playing the Ocarina of Time to whisk Link back seven years? Zelda alludes to the fact that her abilities stem from the fact that she is a Sage, not because of her Triforce. So far, I see no overt contradiction or alternate theory specified strictly by the words as spoken. Where now, brown cow?

The Master Sword is still not a ship, so strict canon would have us accept that it is a metaphor. You never objected to personal interpretation and assumptions when providing support for your theory, and this is really no different. If you suddenly wish to take everything at face value, well, then there goes your entire proof-lacking argument.

I will grant you that "The Master Sword is a ship" is a metaphor. However, metaphor doesn't write off the rest of the sentence, however. Even with metaphor, there is some semblance of equality inherent, and calling it a metaphor doesn't just make the whole sentence trash. If a ship could sail through time--past, present, and future--then the Master Sword must be like that, something that can travel through time--past, present, and future. This much is not metaphor.

Fine. As I said before, even if you want to ignore the obvious and assume the illogical, doesn’t matter. As long as a theory for how OoT works exists, there is no inconsistency within OoT.

Let's be frank as to what assumption I'm referring to; it's not an illogical one, I'm afraid. My assumption is the means I used to come to the conclusion, that strict canon is the most valid way to construct a timeline theory. There's no assumptions beyond that that I am making. You can call the assumption incorrect if you want (which is what I'm hoping people inevitably decide upon), but you cannot call that assumption illogical just because it yields an unwanted result. After all, at one time, it was the de facto assumption.

Again, Fine. You can assume anything you like about how things happen in OoT, even if they make no logical sense and clearly go against obvious inference. Still, the fact remains that all that’s needed is a theory that works with OoT for OoT to be consistent.

To show that OoT is consistent given some set of assumptions X, you're correct, you must show that some theory works given some set of assumptions X.

As I said before, logic would indicate an external force had to be used. The fact that there is a song being taught that neither Link nor the windmill man know is proof of that. However, for what ever reason, you’re refusing to accept this concept by assuming the creators had a different and illogical reasoning instead – even though it’s never been inferred nor shown in the canon.

I’m using a logical implication, whilst you are using an assumption.

Inferred Logic > Random Assumption

Show evidence, please, that backs up your claim that an external force was involved.

Definition: Ockham’s Razor states that all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

The key point to note is that Ockham’s Razor is about the simplest solution of how something works. Therefore, it is not enough to have the fewest number of assumptions alone.

Occam's Razor is merely my "abbreviation" for strict canon in this case. My rules for what I refer to strict canon boil down to approximately Occam's Razor, and so I use the terms almost interchangeably so as not to confuse (since I've already done so with my definition of strict canon). However, if you'd prefer, I'll use my term with you. So, to start off with a clean slate, here are the rules:

(1) If something is declared to happen in the game, it happens exactly as written; if something is declared in the game, it must be true.
(2) If something is alluded to in the game but is not explicitly proven to be true, it may be assumed true unless the game alludes to the potentiality of an alternate assumption.
(3) If something is not explicitly declared or alluded to by the game, it cannot be assumed.
(4) If two facts are in contradiction with one another, then the whole game is in contradiction with itself.
(5) A valid timeline under the above rules may not be presumed to exist.

Corollary (6): (3) may not be used to work around (4).

However, ignoring all of the above, keep in mind one thing. Even if your article has reasoning for why you prefer no solution to a solution, remember at least that there is a solution. Now, even if the fact that there is a solution doesn’t disprove your theory, then by implication, your theory doesn’t disprove OoT being consistent.

Let me declare it first and foremost: "No timeline" is a valid solution just the same. By (5), we cannot assume that one exists as a precondition to our conversation; that would be circular logic.

N.B: Contradicting the canon is different to using assumptions (I point this out with the maths you used in your last post).

See Rule (2); if I can show that something is alluded to, even if it is not proven, and the game shows evidence for nothing else, then it becomes "as good as" canon under assumption. So use this carefully.

No. That’s not comparable to assuming something that works with the canon. That is the same as assuming something that goes against the canon. Since your assumption is wrong to start with, to show an incorrect result afterwards is inevitable and pointless.
I’m not saying one should assume something that is definitely wrong and against the canon, but assume something that could be true.
e.g. Canon: We are told that (4 + A) = 6 where A can be any positive number.
Assumption: A = 2, (4 + 2) = 6 (the right answer). The fact that we can get a right answer means the equation (4 + A = 6) does not contradict itself and is possible.

Well, technically, if you read my asterisked comment at the end of my reply, it is a meaningful proof... in some circumstances. However, disregarding that, the proof structures are still identical because all proofs inherently boil down to logic. Let me demonstrate for you the similarity. Consider the following proof outline:

Proof: Assume P is true. Because of some set of laws and truths, Q is true. Thus, P implies Q, or mathematically P -> Q

Now, this statement P -> Q is defined by a truth table. P and Q can be either true or false, and depending upon their values, P -> Q gets some assigned value:

If P is true, and Q is true, then P -> Q is true.
If P is true, and Q is false, then P -> Q is false.
If P is false, and Q is true, then P -> Q is true.
If P is false, and Q is false, then P -> Q is true.

As a result, whenever I assume anything and then show some conclusion, regardless of the assumption and conclusion, one of two cases must exist: (1) The conclusion is true if the assumption is true, or (2) the assumption is false. So it works with my article. I made an assumption (strict canon) and showed some conclusion (no timeline). Such is the nature of all proofs (unless an equivalence chain can be established at every step.)

But let me answer your claim of mathematics. What if the mathematical canon question was find x for the equation x³ = 1? Now, any good mathematician knows that there are three answers to this question. There is the obvious answer x = 1; this is the trivial solution for any x^n = 1 solution, and so let us consider that to be the trivial solution of the canon question that there is no timeline. Yet we know that there are two other solutions as well: sqrt(3)/2 ± i/2. Consider these two be two (or even one) other solution to the canon question.

Now, let's say I represent the imaginary axis as fanon, the amount of stuff that is made up. And then by strict canon, I make the ruling that all answers must be real. All of a sudden, I've disallowed both of your answers. At this point, you have a choice: Assume that I am correct, or choose to invalidate the restriction. The choice... is yours. The challenge, of course, is to find a real, non-trivial solution to the problem... and that isn't guaranteed to exist.

Aim: To find a way that OoT is consistent with as few assumptions as possible.
Outcomes: If a way exists within the bounds of canon, your theory doesn’t work. If a way doesn’t exist within the bounds of canon, your theory does work.
Conclusion: I found a way it does works. Therefore, your theory that it doesn’t work is incorrect.

Correction:

Aim: To find a way that OoT is consistent with no assumptions. Until you reach that benchmark, you cannot disprove my handiwork.

Now I understand that you want to use only canon, but even in your own logic you are using assumptions. Even if you deny you are using assumptions, you’re not getting away from the simple fact that OoT is consistent without contradicting the canon.

I don't deny using assumptions. If I weren't using assumptions, as I've already said, someone here would have already found the timeline solution years ago. That's where the critical assumption--the opening assumption--kicks in. I can assume anything if the game alludes to it and does not allude to any other possibility. In short, I can take logical leaps of faith so long as the game doesn't offer two unique leaps of faith at the same time. The assumption compensates for my inability to prove. All I need to show is some evidence, take the leap, and be confident that I didn't miss another possibility.

As I said before, logical induction is the proof for my theory. However, if you want to play that game, prove to me that the timeloop doesn’t require an external force to work without using any assumptions. Again, not that it matters to the greater scheme of things.

The evidence converts to proof via the assumption and Rule (2).

Again, it may fail your assumption (which ever they may be), but that doesn’t matter in the greater scheme of things. At the end of the day, proving or disproving your theory is not what’s important. Finding out if OoT is consistent using canon is.

Ocarina can be consistent, but that doesn't mean it is consistent at all levels of canon interpretation. As the slider moves from 100% canon to 0% canon, the game becomes more consistent by nature. The critical question is not whether or not Ocarina is consistent; the question is whether or not it is consistent when viewed at from the highest level of canon possible.

Unless he plays the OoT and opens the DoT, but doesn’t lift the MS. Again, doesn’t matter as I have a second point

Again, the Door of Time is never opened at any point in the game. Go ahead, turn on your N64 cartridge and don't head to the princess; instead go to the Temple of Time. And sit. And wait. The Door of Time doesn't open; therefore, Link didn't come out.

Strict canon doesn’t out rule this. What I said still works with the canon. You are assuming that Link kept the OoT, I’m assuming he didn’t.

Irrelevant by above. Checking the Door of Time at any point in the game until the moment will show that it's closed, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that this is the result of game engine logic. So no.

As you can see from the game itself, Link DOES run around for a few weeks as a child after he had lifted the MS. According to your idea of Rauru or the MS locking Child Link up from the point he touches the MS, we should not be able to play as Child Link. That is proof that Link isn’t locked up for all of 7 years from the day he lifted the MS up.

No, no... don't be so bold as to consider this proof.

Obviously at this point, some spirit is controlling Link. But the Master Sword put Link's spirit into the Sacred Realm by Rauru's words. Since Link seems to be aware of future events in the child portion of the latter half of the game, the spirit inhabiting Link's body is the "adult spirit." Therefore, Link's spirit cannot be presumed to be with him. Since Rauru specifies that "child Link's" spirit was locked up for seven years because of the drawing of the Master Sword, the game alludes to the fact that Link's spirit did not leave the temple during this time but was indeed locked up. This by (2) can be assumed to be fact, thus showing that the autopilot Link theory is not supported by canon by Rule (3). QED.

All of this is getting rather pointless and tiresome. My only point is that by following the canon without contradiction still generates a consistent OoT. Therefore, Canon can be followed without exception (with the aid of assumptions which are present in all theories). If this doesn’t disprove your theory, I don’t care.

That's fine. You don't have to agree. But no matter what, you're still adding your own assumptions to your timeline, which is what I truly want people to do in the long run. So in effect, you already agree, and my work is done.

Edited by Showsni, 10 February 2007 - 12:14 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

Majora's Mask can theoretically be cast aside as to being an alternate dimension, because if the moon was haunting Hyrule as it was Termina, Link certainly would not be going off in search of a friend. Alternatively speaking, this quote could also be granted with the implicit constraint that this will close all time travel of which Zelda is aware. After all, we cannot expect her to make judgements about issues she would not have knowledge, and Labrynna is not discovered until many years later by our best reckoning.

My point hasn't changed: It is still idiotic to assume that placing the in the Master Sword in the Pedestal of Time would somehow prevent other forms of time travel. Zelda says nothing that would imply it, and neither does the rest of the game. In fact, the Sun's Song disproves it because you can use it as young Link while the MS is still in its pedestal. And as for the beginning of MM, Zelda still says it will help him wherever he is, so that argument is bull.

You believed there was relevance at the time. I thought I'd let you have the opportunity to show it.

I already did. The very fact that it exists in Zelda canon makes it relevant.

Question: Is Rauru not a Sage? He certainly didn't dwell in one of the five temples? How do you know he's a sage? This legend certainly doesn't mention anything about that? Huh huh huh? This sounds like a contradiction! Gasp!... Yet it's not. You and I both know it's not... because Rauru is a Sage in a different way... yet the same way. He's not in one of the five temples, but he's still just like the other five. So what do we do with this? We declare it to be exactly what Sheik says, a legend. Everything in this quote is legend; it happens to be an accurate legend in so far as the five are concerned, but a legend nevertheless.

One argument does not discredit another. Yes, Rauru isn’t part of that legend. That’s because he is the ancient sage who resides in the Temple of Light, so logically he does not need an awakening call. But your argument that is different while still being is the same does not necessarily apply to Zelda because, unlike with Rauru, there is no indication that is the same other than her title.

Impa's quote does not explicitly tell a difference between the six and the seventh. She mentions what the six sages will do, which is inevitably what happens.

Nope. She says they will seal Ganondorf, which never happens. They open the door, but that's pretty much it.

She has a different role to play, this much I will buy. You have shown evidence to that point.

Well, she never actually does anything that the other do, and neither do they do anything she does. It’s fairly obvious they have different sets of powers.

But what evidence do you have to show that Saria or Nabooru or Rauru could not be standing there in the endgame in Zelda's spot playing the Ocarina of Time to whisk Link back seven years? Zelda alludes to the fact that her abilities stem from the fact that she is a Sage, not because of her Triforce. So far, I see no overt contradiction or alternate theory specified strictly by the words as spoken. Where now, brown cow?

Maybe not, but as I recall, I don’t need proof in order to be correct.

[mohammedali]

Let's be frank as to what assumption I'm referring to; it's not an illogical one, I'm afraid. My assumption is the means I used to come to the conclusion, that strict canon is the most valid way to construct a timeline theory. There's no assumptions beyond that that I am making. You can call the assumption incorrect if you want (which is what I'm hoping people inevitably decide upon), but you cannot call that assumption illogical just because it yields an unwanted result. After all, at one time, it was the de facto assumption.

If that were all that you were doing, then perhaps it would be fine. However, it is not. What you are trying to show is how a story (OoT) is consistent using strictly the facts of the game without any assumptions. As points such as the method of time-travel and the way the SoS works all require some form of assumption in order to explain the story, such a task is pointless. Your 'proof' of OoT using only the canon is fundamentally flawed because you're making assumptions yourself (such as the Harry Potter idea). It is impossible to use only canon facts without canon, as assumptions have to be made to fill in gaps that aren't explicit. Just as you've done in your own theory, assumptions have to be used to understand the canon. Otherwise, there is no frame of understanding there.

If you didn't want to use any assumptions in OoT, then the proof for it's consistency would be as follows:
We see Link as a child using the MS. He becomes older and can go back to being younger via the MS. He beats Ganon as an adult. He returns to being a child. End of Game
As we can't make any assumptions, points like the SoS don't have to be proven to work. The fact that they do in the game is a canon statement that they worked. Regarding how timetravel explicitly works, or why a paradox exists is of no concequene. As we are not making any assumptions, all we use is the canon facts, and the facts say that it works. The fact that you don't explictly know how the timetravel in OoT works means you can't find an inconsistency.

To show that OoT is consistent given some set of assumptions X, you're correct, you must show that some theory works given some set of assumptions X.

Exactly. Which brings me to the next point. When debating theories, assumptions are fine within reason. If the canon is there, and assumptions back it up to fill in the holes, that's fine. If it's assumptions with little or no canon supporting it, then it's most likely just fanfiction.

Show evidence, please, that backs up your claim that an external force was involved.

I already did. I showed that an external force logically has to have existed because neither Link nor the WMM had knowledge of the song before hand. This is a logical induction as the knowledge has to have come from somewhere, and it certainly didn't come from either Link or the WMM (hence the external source).

Occam's Razor is merely my "abbreviation" for strict canon in this case. My rules for what I refer to strict canon boil down to approximately Occam's Razor, and so I use the terms almost interchangeably so as not to confuse (since I've already done so with my definition of strict canon). However, if you'd prefer, I'll use my term with you. So, to start off with a clean slate, here are the rules:

(1) If something is declared to happen in the game, it happens exactly as written; if something is declared in the game, it must be true.
(2) If something is alluded to in the game but is not explicitly proven to be true, it may be assumed true unless the game alludes to the potentiality of an alternate assumption.
(3) If something is not explicitly declared or alluded to by the game, it cannot be assumed.
(4) If two facts are in contradiction with one another, then the whole game is in contradiction with itself.
(5) A valid timeline under the above rules may not be presumed to exist.

Corollary (6): (3) may not be used to work around (4).

So now you are admitting to using assumptions. Though you're missing out the point of needed interpretation. i.e. if something clearly happens in the game, but the mechanics aren't explained, then what? In our case with timetravel, it becomes impossible to either prove or disprove OoT without making an assumption of exactly how timetravel works (which we are never explicitly told). What do we do now - we're stuck.

Let me declare it first and foremost: "No timeline" is a valid solution just the same. By (5), we cannot assume that one exists as a precondition to our conversation; that would be circular logic.

If 2 explicit facts are totally irreconsilable, then yes, the game would be proven a contradiction within itself (as rule 4 says). However, if you are comparing a canon fact with an interpretation, then it must mean that your interpretation is incorrect. Unless all interpretations are proven not to work, only then would it lead to a contradiction.

See Rule (2); if I can show that something is alluded to, even if it is not proven, and the game shows evidence for nothing else, then it becomes "as good as" canon under assumption. So use this carefully.

It can only be as good as canon until proven wrong by canon (a corollary of point 2). See, if an assumption contradicts a fact, then it's clear the canon is alluding to something else unless there is nothing else it can alude to.

Well, technically, if you read my asterisked comment at the end of my reply, it is a meaningful proof... in some circumstances. However, disregarding that, the proof structures are still identical because all proofs inherently boil down to logic. Let me demonstrate for you the similarity. Consider the following proof outline:

Proof: Assume P is true. Because of some set of laws and truths, Q is true. Thus, P implies Q, or mathematically P -> Q

Now, this statement P -> Q is defined by a truth table. P and Q can be either true or false, and depending upon their values, P -> Q gets some assigned value:

If P is true, and Q is true, then P -> Q is true.
If P is true, and Q is false, then P -> Q is false.
If P is false, and Q is true, then P -> Q is true.
If P is false, and Q is false, then P -> Q is true.

As a result, whenever I assume anything and then show some conclusion, regardless of the assumption and conclusion, one of two cases must exist: (1) The conclusion is true if the assumption is true, or (2) the assumption is false. So it works with my article. I made an assumption (strict canon) and showed some conclusion (no timeline). Such is the nature of all proofs (unless an equivalence chain can be established at every step.)

Still flawed, as your conclusions assumed plenty of 'P's itself. You didn't use only canon facts, you made unbacked assumptions of how timetravel works in OoT. Further than this, you also went against logic and reasoning to come to your assumptions by assuming the SoS could just 'exist' without being introduced to Link or WMM outside the loop.

But let me answer your claim of mathematics. What if the mathematical canon question was find x for the equation x³ = 1? Now, any good mathematician knows that there are three answers to this question. There is the obvious answer x = 1; this is the trivial solution for any x^n = 1 solution, and so let us consider that to be the trivial solution of the canon question that there is no timeline. Yet we know that there are two other solutions as well: sqrt(3)/2 ± i/2. Consider these two be two (or even one) other solution to the canon question.

Now, let's say I represent the imaginary axis as fanon, the amount of stuff that is made up. And then by strict canon, I make the ruling that all answers must be real. All of a sudden, I've disallowed both of your answers. At this point, you have a choice: Assume that I am correct, or choose to invalidate the restriction. The choice... is yours. The challenge, of course, is to find a real, non-trivial solution to the problem... and that isn't guaranteed to exist.

Unfortunatly, it's not that simple. What you are ultimately saying is that "we don't have explicit details on how something happens, and we are not allowed to use anything made up (assumptions/theories etc), therefore, the only alternative is that the event is inconsistent". This is very much like saying "We do not have explicit understanding of how the dinosaurs became extinct, and as we are not allowed to use any theories or assumptions, we must conclude that the history of the world is contradictory". Such poor logic can't be maintained I'm afraid.

Correction:

Aim: To find a way that OoT is consistent with no assumptions. Until you reach that benchmark, you cannot disprove my handiwork.

Your handiwork is already pointless, as it uses assumptions which, ironically, it's trying to point out can't be used.
Using no assumptions means not understanding how timetravel works, and not understanding that, means not being able to disprove it. If you want no assumptions, then you have to accept whatever the canon says, and the canon shows that the game works even though it's not explained. The only arguement you could have against this would be if 2 strict, explicit canon points contradicted one another, which they don't. The only contradiction you've found is when you made an assumption that didn't work with other parts of the game.

I don't deny using assumptions. If I weren't using assumptions, as I've already said, someone here would have already found the timeline solution years ago. That's where the critical assumption--the opening assumption--kicks in. I can assume anything if the game alludes to it and does not allude to any other possibility. In short, I can take logical leaps of faith so long as the game doesn't offer two unique leaps of faith at the same time. The assumption compensates for my inability to prove. All I need to show is some evidence, take the leap, and be confident that I didn't miss another possibility.
The evidence converts to proof via the assumption and Rule (2).

Except you've got the problem you just mentioned. What the canon shows as timetravel can lead to different 'leaps of faith'. Because of this, you are in no position to claim your way is the only way, as it is no more supported than mine. As this point of how timetravel works is critical to understand a proof or disproof, it means all 'leaps of logic' need to be considered. One of those is my idea, and one is yours. Mine leads to proving OoT.

Ocarina can be consistent, but that doesn't mean it is consistent at all levels of canon interpretation. As the slider moves from 100% canon to 0% canon, the game becomes more consistent by nature. The critical question is not whether or not Ocarina is consistent; the question is whether or not it is consistent when viewed at from the highest level of canon possible.

Again, if no assumptions are being made, and 100% canon is being used, then we know OoT is definately consistent, as no 2 canon facts contradict each other. In terms of 100% canon, there is no problem.

Again, the Door of Time is never opened at any point in the game. Go ahead, turn on your N64 cartridge and don't head to the princess; instead go to the Temple of Time. And sit. And wait. The Door of Time doesn't open; therefore, Link didn't come out.
Irrelevant by above. Checking the Door of Time at any point in the game until the moment will show that it's closed, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that this is the result of game engine logic. So no.

Not sure I'm with you anymore. How does the DoT being open or closed have any bearing on Link giving the OoT back to Zelda?

No, no... don't be so bold as to consider this proof.

Those are words you should listen to

Obviously at this point, some spirit is controlling Link. But the Master Sword put Link's spirit into the Sacred Realm by Rauru's words. Since Link seems to be aware of future events in the child portion of the latter half of the game, the spirit inhabiting Link's body is the "adult spirit." Therefore, Link's spirit cannot be presumed to be with him. Since Rauru specifies that "child Link's" spirit was locked up for seven years because of the drawing of the Master Sword, the game alludes to the fact that Link's spirit did not leave the temple during this time but was indeed locked up. This by (2) can be assumed to be fact, thus showing that the autopilot Link theory is not supported by canon by Rule (3). QED.

You're making too many assumptions here. Assumptions of Rauru locking up Link's spirit straight after he used the MS (which is never stated). Assumptions of timetravel, and how it works. Assumptions of the nature of the soul and spirit etc etc. None of these concepts you're using are shown in the strict canon. Some of them (like method of timetravel) aren't even implied by the game as it never talks about the precise mechanics of timetravel. Using your set of assumptions as proof is not following canon.

That's fine. You don't have to agree. But no matter what, you're still adding your own assumptions to your timeline, which is what I truly want people to do in the long run. So in effect, you already agree, and my work is done.

I agree that assumptions are necessary to some extent. They have to be used to interpret parts of canon, and to fill gaps. If they are the basis of a theory, then not so good. If they contradict canon, then forget it. All theories will have assumptions, and your article is not without it's fair share of them. OoT works with strict canon, just not using the same assumptions you have used. You're assumptions are no better than many other people's assumptions. The only difference is your assumptions mean OoT doesn't work, whilst other peoples mean it does.

Mohammed Ali

Edited by mohammedali, 11 February 2007 - 12:15 PM.

[Vertiboy]

I recently re-read this article, and now that I have some more information after TP was released, I have a rebuttle to the claim that the Song of Storm debunks the split timeline. I didn't see the need to start a new thread for this, so that is why I am posting in this one.

The point I disagree with is that Link never could have started the SoS loop with the windmill man if the adult timeline splits from the child. In order for that to apply to the split timeline, Link would have to arrive in his childhood after he learned the SoS. If Link arrives before he learned the SoS, then the section of the timeline in which the loop exists is not tampered with. Link would still learn the song from the windmill man, then teach him in the past, etc. Link would only be tampering with the future of the child timeline. In the child timeline, the windmill man wouldn't know the SoS. Link would remember it only because he was at one point in the adult timeline.

I now need to present evidence that Link could have arrived before he learned the SoS. Take a look at the now famous Aonuma quote.

–When does Twilight Princess take place?

Aonuma: In the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years later.

–And the Wind Waker?

Aonuma: The Wind Waker is parallel. In Ocarina of Time, Link flew seven years in time, he beat Ganon and went back to being a kid, remember? Twilight Princess takes place in the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years after the peace returned to kid Link’s time. In the last scene of Ocarina of Time, kids Link and Zelda have a little talk, and as a consequence of that talk, their relationship with Ganon takes a whole new direction. In the middle of this game [Twilight Princess], there's a scene showing Ganon's execution. It was decided that Ganon be executed because he'd do something outrageous if they left him be. That scene takes place several years after Ocarina of Time. Ganon was sent to another world and now he wants to obtain the power...

I think this is all about interpretation. You first must believe that Aonuma is telling the truth. I don't think that he is just giving us an answer to shut us up. He has clearly thought this through in great detail. On top of that, he directed the game. If the director of the game doesn't care about this game's timeline placement, then we have a big problem.

Anyway, if says that if Link and Zelda left Ganon alone, he would do something outrageous. I'm guessing that something outrageous would get him arrested. If memory serves, though, Ganon already did something outrageous. He attacked Hyrule Castle before Link drew the Master Sword. He could do something outrageous again. TP says that he attacked Hyrule in order to establish dominion over the Sacred Realm. Originally, I thought that meant that it was the attack on HC in OoT. It may be, but after I saw this quote, I changed my mind. I guess that it is possible that it took many years for Hylian guards to arrest Ganon. Here is my interpretation of the events, though.

Link arrives in his childhood before he met Zelda. He goes to Zelda and tells her about his adventure. Zelda and Link go to the King of Hyrule, and he then believes that Zelda's dream was a prophecy. He warns the King that Ganon could be a threat to Hyrule. Since Link's adventure in the child timeline didn't happen, it takes many more years for Ganon to find the Spiritual Stones. That delays his attack on Hyrule Castle by several years. He attacks HC, but the soldiers are ready for him, and he is arrested and sentenced to execution.

Some details can be changed here and there, but OoT, TP, and Aonuma's quote help form a vague mold of what happened between OoT's child ending and TP. The only problem here is that the Door of Time is open. However, there are also plotholes if Link arrives after Ganon attacked Hyrule Castle.

Even that doesn't matter, though, because as long as Link arrives before he learned the SoS, the song is consistent with the split timeline. Here is the way I see it: there is no reason to assume that events happened which are inconsistent with the SoS when there are events can happen that are consistent with the SoS.

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with the point that everything isn't necessarily canon. I do not believe in strict canon. I am disagreeing with the point that the SoS is not consistent with the split timeline.

Edited by Vertiboy, 28 April 2007 - 09:39 PM.

[FDL]

What? He learns the SoS in the adult era. There's no way he didn't know it. Plus, your theory, while common, does have some stuff that's hard to reconcile. For instance, the DoT is open and the Triforce is shown to have been split already. I don't want to really get into it but there's [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] that makes me heavily disagree with this theory. Nothing against you, though, because it's a somewhat common theory.

[LionHarted]

Even though you won’t find Zelda at the window during that span of time, well… fine.

Pardon? You won’t get to the courtyard to not find Zelda at the window, so how do you figure?

He didn’t bring it back like he had always done with his other trips to the child portion of Ocarina.

Who said he “brings back” any items from the future at all? Going back in time using the method seen in OoT–in which your physical body reverts back to its state at the original time–wouldn’t allow for this at all. Link should still have the Ocarina in his possession when he arrives back in the past, regardless of leaving it with Zelda in the future.

After all, like you said, Occam’s Razor would suggest that time travel should involve as few assumptions as possible, and the Song of Storms predestination paradox is the only clear plot-related view we ever get at the workings of time travel in OoT, so it must apply to all Master Sword trips.

But what of Zelda's sage-initiated trip? We have no idea what the consequences would be. Do I expect someone to explain it? No. If the game couldn't do that, then I'm presuming it's not all that important.

Edited by LionHarted, 29 April 2007 - 09:23 AM.

[The Missing Link]

So what are you planning on doing, LionHarted? Raising objections here so I cannot use this point to criticise you in the future? Tired of my little "Song of Storms up Your Tingle-hole" stamp? This is mildly amusing.

Unfortunately, you didn't explicitly reference the post where I said the things you quoted as you stripped away away the URL from the [quote] tag when you posted. I've searched the entire topic here, and nowhere do I see where I posted any of the quotes you're referencing, so I don't have any of the context to see exactly what you're objecting to. And I'm not going to bite if you're not going to be so polite as to give me a little help.

However, both of the general ideas that I referenced--Zelda's physical location during the game and how Link travels through time--were both covered in this article and, failing that, this topic. Using the assumption that Ockham's Razor is king, both of these points were proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. (I suggest you reread them as homework.) The conclusion, thus, was that Ockham's Razor fails to find applicability in the world of Hyrule, therefore requiring interpretive spin and/or fanfiction to be used to come up with anything that halfway resembles a full theory.

[LionHarted]

Zelda's physical location during the game and how Link travels through time

Zelda's physical location is unknown after her initial escape from the castle.
How Link travels through time within the game is only known so far as we witness its results. We only witness him returning to the past in the Temple of Time at the end of the game, and, later, meeting Zelda at the castle. Any number of things could have happened between Point A and Point B that we never see, and we cannot judge game ending time travel based on what we see.

We know that ending time travel somehow caused a split, so it obviously cannot function under the predestination formula we see throughout the rest of the game.

[Vertiboy]

What? He learns the SoS in the adult era. There's no way he didn't know it. Plus, your theory, while common, does have some stuff that's hard to reconcile. For instance, the DoT is open and the Triforce is shown to have been split already. I don't want to really get into it but there's [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] that makes me heavily disagree with this theory. Nothing against you, though, because it's a somewhat common theory.

Yes, the Triforce is shown to be split. TP implies, though, that Ganondorf never entered the Sacred Realm. Why would the Sages be like, "OMFGWTF!!!" when the crest appears on Ganondorf's hand, and he starts coming for them? Why would they say that it was a divine prank if they knew he entered the SR? Besides, if you apply the MM law to the ToC, Link should have it in the child timeline, even if he arrives before it has a chance to split. In the child timeline, the Triforce is not split because of Ganondorf. It is split because the goddesses chose it to be split. It was divine intervention.

I am aware that the DoT was open. I said that in my post. The thing is, though, that every theory regarding when Link arrives has plotholes. The reason I chose to say that Link arrives before he met Zelda, hence before the DoT was opened, was because of the Aonuma quote, which implies that Ganondorf had not yet attacked Hyrule Castle when Link arrives in his childhood. The Aonuma quote shows creator's intent. Creator's intent > any amount of plotholes.

I've used this example before, and I'll use it again. If back in '98, Miyamoto took an episode of Happy Days, then follow it up with a 10 second clip of Ganon being sealed in the Sacred Realm with the Triforce, and call that the Imprisoning War, then it would be official, no matter how many questions are left unanswered.

The question of how the DoT is opened doesn't need to be answered because Aonuma implies that, in his interpretation of OoT's ending (which conveniently happens to be the interpretation of said ending that TP was structured around), Link arrived before he met Zelda.

Actually, I just realized that no matter when Link arrives in the child timeline, it doesn't disturb the SoS loop in the adult timeline. Let's look at it from the point of view of somebody in the adult timeline, seeing the events in chronological order. Unnecessary trips through time are not mentioned.

1. Link's adventure begins.
2. Link draws the Master Sword.
3. Link exits the Temple of Time (back from adulthood for the first time).
4. Link plays the Song of Storms in the Windmill, teaching the windmill man.
5. Link draws the MS again.
6. Link exits the ToT again (back a 2nd time).
7. Link completes the child half of the Spirit Temple.
8. Link draws the MS a final time.
9. Link arrives in adulthood for the first time (from 2).
10. Link completes the Forest, Fire, Water Temple.
11. Link learns the SoS from the windmill man and plants the MS (returning to 3).
12. Link arrives from 5 completes the Shadow Temple.
13. Link plants the MS again (returning to 6).
14. Link arrives from 8 and completes the Spirit Temple.
15. Link finishes Ganon's Castle.
16. Ganondorf is sealed in the Sacred Realm.
17. Zelda sends Link back to his childhood, thus splitting the timeline (he arrives at a point in the child timeline equivelent to 1).
18. Years later, Ganon escapes the SR.
19. The goddesses flood Hyrule to protect it.
20. Ganon is sealed in time (which has stopped completely) in Hyrule.
21. Ganon escapes to the surface, and The Wind Waker begins.

The SoS loop is not affected when Link leaves the timeline, regardless of when he arrives in his childhood. Link's actions in the adult timeline still exist even though he is gone. In the child timeline, the windmill man does not know the SoS. Link knows the SoS only because of his actions in the now split-away adult timeline.

[LionHarted]

I would argue that Zelda sending Link back allows the timeline to be split, but doing the action that renders Adult OoT impossible (closing the Door of Time) is what completes it. Just a point of interest.

[Duke Serkol]

According to what Aonuma said in his interview, it was what Link went to tell Zelda that finally separated the two timelines (after he was sent back and the door of time closed).

[Arturo]

No, he says that that conversation was what made the events go differently in the other timeline.

[Hero of Legend]

Except, and I've said this before, he only said it was what changed the fates of the Triforce bearers. The timeline quite obviously split before that.

Yes, the Triforce is shown to be split. TP implies, though, that Ganondorf never entered the Sacred Realm. Why would the Sages be like, "OMFGWTF!!!" when the crest appears on Ganondorf's hand, and he starts coming for them? Why would they say that it was a divine prank if they knew he entered the SR? Besides, if you apply the MM law to the ToC, Link should have it in the child timeline, even if he arrives before it has a chance to split. In the child timeline, the Triforce is not split because of Ganondorf. It is split because the goddesses chose it to be split. It was divine intervention.

Or they just didn't know he entered the SR and got the Triforce, and superstitiously blame this ?unexplainable? event on the gods. Simple, I know.

And if you're thinking about going onto yet another of those overzealous, can't-get-to-the-point, metaphor-ridden rants of yours, do spare me. Just accept the possibility.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 29 April 2007 - 05:34 PM.

[LionHarted]

According to what Aonuma said in his interview, it was what Link went to tell Zelda that finally separated the two timelines (after he was sent back and the door of time closed).

Mmm. He says that that conversation is what caused the relationship between Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf to take on a new direction. Not necessarily the split itself. I personally think he's referring to the result of the split, which is that Ganon is executed.

[FDL]

Yes, the Triforce is shown to be split. TP implies, though, that Ganondorf never entered the Sacred Realm. Why would the Sages be like, "OMFGWTF!!!" when the crest appears on Ganondorf's hand, and he starts coming for them? Why would they say that it was a divine prank if they knew he entered the SR? Besides, if you apply the MM law to the ToC, Link should have it in the child timeline, even if he arrives before it has a chance to split. In the child timeline, the Triforce is not split because of Ganondorf. It is split because the goddesses chose it to be split. It was divine intervention.

First of all, the ToC didn't necessarily leave Link when he went to Termina. He could very well have lost it when he closed the Door of Time/sent back which apparently may be what it said in the original JP version. Secondly, there are many, many, many reasons why the Sages could've been surprised. They could have nullified it, they could have been unaware, etc. Plus, the reason why they mention being chosen by the gods and "divine prank" and whatnot is because he's the "emperor of power" or whatever it's called. That's how he's been chosen.

I am aware that the DoT was open. I said that in my post. The thing is, though, that every theory regarding when Link arrives has plotholes. The reason I chose to say that Link arrives before he met Zelda, hence before the DoT was opened, was because of the Aonuma quote, which implies that Ganondorf had not yet attacked Hyrule Castle when Link arrives in his childhood. The Aonuma quote shows creator's intent. Creator's intent > any amount of plotholes.

It's not been proven that that was what he meant. If he said "Zelda sent Link back to before they met" then I'd concede that that's how it is. But he says about the time travel that Link merely "jumped forward" and jumped back. That's way different than saying that Zelda erased parts of the timeline for no reason.

I've used this example before, and I'll use it again. If back in '98, Miyamoto took an episode of Happy Days, then follow it up with a 10 second clip of Ganon being sealed in the Sacred Realm with the Triforce, and call that the Imprisoning War, then it would be official, no matter how many questions are left unanswered.

Yeah, but that would actually involve Miyamoto saying that was the case. Aonuma never says what you believe he did. It can be interpreted in numerous ways.

The question of how the DoT is opened doesn't need to be answered because Aonuma implies that, in his interpretation of OoT's ending (which conveniently happens to be the interpretation of said ending that TP was structured around), Link arrived before he met Zelda.

No, he doesn't. You interpreted it as such. That doesn't mean that's what he was saying.