Time Travel: Predestination vs Dynamic?

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

This statement you made is a rookie mistake.

No, no. Propping up one one iteration of link, that you think can be easily disproved, in order to avoid addressing a theory concerning a different iteration is the definition of a straw-man argument.

This isn't good for your theory you just provided a counter argument against your own theory because your argument was that the focus on the present is irrelevant and all they needed was the will in order for it to affect a previous point in time.

Not necessarily. We see rather fantastical flashes of magic in other games, that just make the wish happen. When we see the wish take place in SS, it is remarkably practicable, in comparison. A big hunk of land literally drops to squish the imprisoned. This tells us two things. The manner in which the wishes are granted in different games are, well, different. Using one to disprove another doesn't work. It also tells us that if the wish in SS did make a change to the past of SS, it would look similarly basic in it's execution; something like empowering someone who is already a time traveler to be able to do the deed.

While time manipulation is common the Triforce has never been the source of it in any confirmed canon event. Since the theory is yours the burden of proof is yours its not cherry picking to point out that the one time we have the ability to fact check your claim the data goes against it. But to discard it then the term would apply.

In many cases, I would agree with you. Unfortunately. We are told, in no uncertain way, that the Triforce can grant any wish, bound only by the will of the wisher. To then say that the Triforce is bound by what we see in game, is now what needs further proof. Have we yet seen a wish denied? No. Not once.

So two things with this: first I specifically stated that removing the anchor from the PAST would cause the split and second the connection between the two eras was still intact in Oracle of age post game.

I find it highly unlikely that a time portal opened by an evil individual would be simply allowed to remain open, but that's a smaller issue to the fact that we canonically have two timeline splits, and only one such removal centered around OoT.


I have so much more to say, but I need to head out to work, so I'll leave it here, for now.

 

[DarkDagger52]

No, no. Propping up one one iteration of link, that you think can be easily disproved, in order to avoid addressing a theory concerning a different iteration is the definition of a straw-man argument.

The definition of a Straw-man argument is to blame an irrelevant data point for an effect which is what your doing here. Because by the specifications of your theory the RELEVANT variables are the Triforce being used and the user's will. Skyward sword Link used the Triforce and demonstrated more will than any other Link and the affect on the timeline can also be fact checked. So I have in fact addressed your theory with the RELEVANT data points.

Not necessarily. We see rather fantastical flashes of magic in other games, that just make the wish happen. When we see the wish take place in SS, it is remarkably practicable, in comparison. A big hunk of land literally drops to squish the imprisoned. This tells us two things. The manner in which the wishes are granted in different games are, well, different. Using one to disprove another doesn't work. It also tells us that if the wish in SS did make a change to the past of SS, it would look similarly basic in it's execution; something like empowering someone who is already a time traveler to be able to do the deed.

That is not a defense for your theory as you just called the Triforce fundamentally inconsistent which means that by your argument that you just provided here the effects of the Triforce are random. rethink this argument and comeback with something that doesn't tear your theory apart on a fundamental level.

Also you don't know what a Triforce wish even is by your reaction to Skyward sword Link's wish. Did Link wish to drop a temple on Demise? No he didn't he wished for an ideal the affects of that wish are: the complete destruction of ALL traces of Demise including what was in the Master sword, the removal of the cloud barrier and reuniting the two halves of the Temple of Hylia. All of the was at the moment of binding this isn't kill a demon with a rock and Link was not aided by his wish in the final battle.

In many cases, I would agree with you. Unfortunately. We are told, in no uncertain way, that the Triforce can grant any wish, bound only by the will of the wisher. To then say that the Triforce is bound by what we see in game, is now what needs further proof. Have we yet seen a wish denied? No. Not once.

You keep saying "bound ONLY by the will of the user" this was proven false because if the will of the user was the only limitation then the Sealing war would not have happened. Ganon was sealed when his wish was challenged by the kingdom of Hyrule the ability to challenge a Triforce wish is another rule of the Triforce that limits the user's ability to make wishes therefor the Triforce wish is bound by multiple variables not just that one. We have yet to see a wish denied only because we have yet to see a wish made that is outside the boundaries of what the Triforce can do and yet we DO have information about the Triforce denying wishes because the Triforce denied Hylia's wish showing a clear definitive boundary the Triforce can't cross.

I find it highly unlikely that a time portal opened by an evil individual would be simply allowed to remain open, but that's a smaller issue to the fact that we canonically have two timeline splits, and only one such removal centered around OoT.

Weather or not its ever closed is unknown all we do know is how to safely close it and that it was still open in post game. As for your other problem one is solved with time travel the other is solved in a different way. Multiverse theory more specifically I have one that I've been working on for video game theory that I'm actually checking for singularity problems unlike some physics theorist that will go unnamed. So there are two kinds of multiverses the first is a dimension based multiverse this is where there are multiple parallel dimentions the second is a time based multiverse this is where you have multiple timelines running side by side these are not mutually exclusive and the Zelda franchise has both. The time travel theory handles the artificial timeline splits the other theory handles the natural timeline splits. The exact rules vary by franchise but the common guidelines are that natural timeline splits can come from alternate endings and alternate campaigns.

 

[Commander_Has]

"You keep saying "bound ONLY by the will of the user" this was proven false because if the will of the user was the only limitation then the Sealing war would not have happened. Ganon was sealed when his wish was challenged by the kingdom of Hyrule the ability to challenge a Triforce wish is another rule of the Triforce that limits the user's ability to make wishes therefor the Triforce wish is bound by multiple variables not just that one. We have yet to see a wish denied only because we have yet to see a wish made that is outside the boundaries of what the Triforce can do and yet we DO have information about the Triforce denying wishes because the Triforce denied Hylia's wish showing a clear definitive boundary the Triforce can't cross."

This is an extreme fallacy (Appeal to ignorance). You cannot say, "oh, we haven't seen it yet but it could still exist." that's like saying we haven't seen humans fly, but that doesn't mean we can't do it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Weather or not its ever closed is unknown all we do know is how to safely close it and that it was still open in post game. As for your other problem one is solved with time travel the other is solved in a different way. Multiverse theory more specifically I have one that I've been working on for video game theory that I'm actually checking for singularity problems unlike some physics theorist that will go unnamed. So there are two kinds of multiverses the first is a dimension based multiverse this is where there are multiple parallel dimentions the second is a time based multiverse this is where you have multiple timelines running side by side these are not mutually exclusive and the Zelda franchise has both. The time travel theory handles the artificial timeline splits the other theory handles the natural timeline splits. The exact rules vary by franchise but the common guidelines are that natural timeline splits can come from alternate endings and alternate campaigns."

This is a special pleading and irrelevant. Earlier in this discussion, I refenced the nexus point theory of timelines, but you said that theories had to be limited to the Zelda franchise, excluding real world examples. Also, were talking about timelines, not multiverse. The two are fundamentally different from each other.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The definition of a Straw-man argument is to blame an irrelevant data point for an effect which is what your doing here. Because by the specifications of your theory the RELEVANT variables are the Triforce being used and the user's will. Skyward sword Link used the Triforce and demonstrated more will than any other Link and the affect on the timeline can also be fact checked. So I have in fact addressed your theory with the RELEVANT data points."

You have not mentioned a triforce wish, but rather seem more concerned with calling problems in others work while giving minimal contradiction at best.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"That is not a defense for your theory as you just called the Triforce fundamentally inconsistent which means that by your argument that you just provided here the effects of the Triforce are random. rethink this argument and comeback with something that doesn't tear your theory apart on a fundamental level.

Also you don't know what a Triforce wish even is by your reaction to Skyward sword Link's wish. Did Link wish to drop a temple on Demise? No he didn't he wished for an ideal the affects of that wish are: the complete destruction of ALL traces of Demise including what was in the Master sword, the removal of the cloud barrier and reuniting the two halves of the Temple of Hylia. All of the was at the moment of binding this isn't kill a demon with a rock and Link was not aided by his wish in the final battle."


This in no way refers to the triforce as random and inconsistent, rather, the way it fulfills that wish can change from time to time. The writers of SS thought it would be cool to drop a temple on the imprisoned's head, so the triforce thought it was a good idea. Ultimately, we must remember this is a game, and some things are just popular or sounded like a cool idea at the time.

 

[DarkDagger52]

"You keep saying "bound ONLY by the will of the user" this was proven false because if the will of the user was the only limitation then the Sealing war would not have happened. Ganon was sealed when his wish was challenged by the kingdom of Hyrule the ability to challenge a Triforce wish is another rule of the Triforce that limits the user's ability to make wishes therefor the Triforce wish is bound by multiple variables not just that one. We have yet to see a wish denied only because we have yet to see a wish made that is outside the boundaries of what the Triforce can do and yet we DO have information about the Triforce denying wishes because the Triforce denied Hylia's wish showing a clear definitive boundary the Triforce can't cross."

This is an extreme fallacy (Appeal to ignorance). You cannot say, "oh, we haven't seen it yet but it could still exist." that's like saying we haven't seen humans fly, but that doesn't mean we can't do it.

While we do not see it that limitation is mentioned a wish that was denied this is a direct answer to his statement:

Have we yet seen a wish denied? No. Not once.

Its directly mentioned by Zelda in Skyward sword.

"Weather or not its ever closed is unknown all we do know is how to safely close it and that it was still open in post game. As for your other problem one is solved with time travel the other is solved in a different way. Multiverse theory more specifically I have one that I've been working on for video game theory that I'm actually checking for singularity problems unlike some physics theorist that will go unnamed. So there are two kinds of multiverses the first is a dimension based multiverse this is where there are multiple parallel dimentions the second is a time based multiverse this is where you have multiple timelines running side by side these are not mutually exclusive and the Zelda franchise has both. The time travel theory handles the artificial timeline splits the other theory handles the natural timeline splits. The exact rules vary by franchise but the common guidelines are that natural timeline splits can come from alternate endings and alternate campaigns."

This is a special pleading and irrelevant. Earlier in this discussion, I refenced the nexus point theory of timelines, but you said that theories had to be limited to the Zelda franchise, excluding real world examples. Also, were talking about timelines, not multiverse. The two are fundamentally different from each other.

First of all this is relevant because of part of the conversation from earlier and this statement:

but that's a smaller issue to the fact that we canonically have two timeline splits, and only one such removal centered around OoT.

One split is from time travel the other is not. What I told you before is that you need something to tie it in which is something I will provide if I'm questioned further on that point. The definition of a multiverse is to have multiple parallel universes if you split a timeline for any reason you now have multiple parallel universes thus a timeline containing splits is a type of multiverse its like how a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

"The definition of a Straw-man argument is to blame an irrelevant data point for an effect which is what your doing here. Because by the specifications of your theory the RELEVANT variables are the Triforce being used and the user's will. Skyward sword Link used the Triforce and demonstrated more will than any other Link and the affect on the timeline can also be fact checked. So I have in fact addressed your theory with the RELEVANT data points."

You have not mentioned a triforce wish, but rather seem more concerned with calling problems in others work while giving minimal contradiction at best.

At this point in the argument I had already mentioned the wish itself to mention it here would redundant. To recap he claimed that if the will of the user was strong enough then the wish would also alter a previous event to make the changes there to I pointed out this scenario because this Link had best demonstrated the will he claimed would change a previous event and this Link travels through time to a point in time BEFORE the wish was made and one of the specifications of the wish was the complete destruction of all traces of Demise. This is the one scenario that allows the claim to be fact checked. The results the Triforce did not change any previous events this is the data until another scenario that allows for his theory to be fact checked.

He then came up with the claim that this Link was so focused on the here and now and thus his theory was supposed to be saved by that. The problem being that that goes against his theory and that EVERY Link that used the Triforce was focused on their time.

"That is not a defense for your theory as you just called the Triforce fundamentally inconsistent which means that by your argument that you just provided here the effects of the Triforce are random. rethink this argument and comeback with something that doesn't tear your theory apart on a fundamental level.

Also you don't know what a Triforce wish even is by your reaction to Skyward sword Link's wish. Did Link wish to drop a temple on Demise? No he didn't he wished for an ideal the affects of that wish are: the complete destruction of ALL traces of Demise including what was in the Master sword, the removal of the cloud barrier and reuniting the two halves of the Temple of Hylia. All of the was at the moment of binding this isn't kill a demon with a rock and Link was not aided by his wish in the final battle."


This in no way refers to the triforce as random and inconsistent, rather, the way it fulfills that wish can change from time to time. The writers of SS thought it would be cool to drop a temple on the imprisoned's head, so the triforce thought it was a good idea. Ultimately, we must remember this is a game, and some things are just popular or sounded like a cool idea at the time.

If dropping a temple on Demise permanently killed him then Hylia would have done that long ago. If you line up the same object with everything set in the same location and you apply the same action then the outcome should be the same if the results keep changing then it is random. What we have here is if the Triforce wish gave two different answers to the same scenario then it is random. We also have the fact that the final battle does not match the specifications of the wish the complete destruction of ALL traces of Demise thus it was not part of the wish.

 

[Commander_Has]

will you please stop see yourself as the ultimant right and atleast try for a second to see what others are doing. I see almost no actual volume to these arguments. You're just repeating previous arguments that had been proven wrong by everyone involed. Also, I literally just finished Skyward sword, and I mainly enjoyed it for the lore. I know what it says, and most of your points here are wrong. for example, dropping the temple was a physical reprisentation of driving a perminate spike into the ground and sealing him forever. It didn't kill him, and it wasn't a random event. Also, the triforce stayed by Demise, ensuring he was gone forever, but brought it's home as well. the sealed temple is the temple of the triforce now, it killed 2 birds with one stone.

 

[Commander_Has]

All who have spoken on this thread make up many different aspects of zelda. Raku is our #1 theorist for the past four years (Right Raku, or is it just 3), I am something of a philosipher and historian. We as a whole, probably are right if so many from so many different sides agree. You, on the other hand, are newer, and have only proven yourself to be difficult and unmoving. No one here wants that, and If your goinf to continue, no one is going to want to be in a discussion with you. If that is what you want though, continue

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

All who have spoken on this thread make up many different aspects of zelda. Raku is our #1 theorist for the past four years (Right Raku, or is it just 3), I am something of a philosipher and historian. We as a whole, probably are right if so many from so many different sides agree. You, on the other hand, are newer, and have only proven yourself to be difficult and unmoving. No one here wants that, and If your goinf to continue, no one is going to want to be in a discussion with you. If that is what you want though, continue

I have never seen my name spelled like that. It's kinda cute. I have awards for four years, though I have been part of the site longer than that. I am also humbled that you think so highly of my work. I strive to be as good as I am able.

@DarkDagger52 , you seemed far more interested in working with others when I originally invited you here. There are legitimate concerns with your theory, and what you are saying it disproves. This is a great opportunity for you to develop and hone your theory. If I thought your ideas were completely wrong, I would tell you so, generally tell you why, and leave it at that. Ultimately, it comes down to your intent. Are you the person seeking to improve your theory craft, as I am, or are you the person who believes they have reached the pinnacle of superiority?

 

[Commander_Has]

Apologies, I was typing quick

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Apologies, I was typing quick

No shade. I do it too.

 

[DarkDagger52]

will you please stop see yourself as the ultimant right and atleast try for a second to see what others are doing. I see almost no actual volume to these arguments. You're just repeating previous arguments that had been proven wrong by everyone involed. Also, I literally just finished Skyward sword, and I mainly enjoyed it for the lore. I know what it says, and most of your points here are wrong. for example, dropping the temple was a physical reprisentation of driving a perminate spike into the ground and sealing him forever. It didn't kill him, and it wasn't a random event. Also, the triforce stayed by Demise, ensuring he was gone forever, but brought it's home as well. the sealed temple is the temple of the triforce now, it killed 2 birds with one stone.

I do not see myself as the ultimate right that is reserved for the lore itself. And I do see what others are doing and that is why I see the flaws because I see what the theory is in the form of its functions and I compare its foundations to the claimed outcome and what functions are supposed to lead to that outcome. By gaining this understanding I can see ultimately how it actually interacts with the lore as a whole.

As for the claims of the Triforce being random we have the same demon sealed in the same pit with the same temple in the sky and the same Triforce in that temple in BOTH time periods same scenario two different outcomes in order for the theory to be true WITHOUT the Triforce being random then the temple would have fallen in BOTH times and Demise would be destroyed leaving no trace of him in BOTH time periods as they both used the same wish to claim that the result should be different in order to save the theory is to claim that the Triforce is random.

As for the Triforce and the nature of the wishes it grants I've cross referenced EVERY Triforce wish and their affects on the world they are consistent their function is to change the world to better fit the user's ideal. I've also cross referenced the limitations of the Triforce and what the Triforce is shown to be able to do and as I pointed out there are limits to what the Triforce can do. The Triforce has never altered past events within the games or manuals or other official sources, the Triforce cannot grant its power to gods, the Triforce can't tell the difference between good and evil, the Triforce is bound to the first person to touch it for life, if someone with an imbalanced heart tries to bind the Triforce to themself then it will split unless it was recently reunited, the full Triforce even bound to a user stays in physical form, etc. Also another rule of importance here is the Triforce only changes the world at the moment of binding.

All who have spoken on this thread make up many different aspects of zelda. Raku is our #1 theorist for the past four years (Right Raku, or is it just 3), I am something of a philosipher and historian. We as a whole, probably are right if so many from so many different sides agree. You, on the other hand, are newer, and have only proven yourself to be difficult and unmoving. No one here wants that, and If your goinf to continue, no one is going to want to be in a discussion with you. If that is what you want though, continue

So to be completely honest he is considered your best theorist here but in the Youtube theory community he's only rookie level not the lowest of rookies but still a rookie. You say they make up many aspects but at what level is their knowledge of those aspects? You claim that you all as a whole are probably right when many people from different sides agree and yet I was there when almost an entire thread agreed with someone cultist like the instant they said something stupid and blamed it on Nintendo their claim has even been disproven time and time again so your claim just now doesn't hold any weight. Pyramids are unmoving and have withstood the test of time in both the harsh desert and jungle/rain forest because they are designed to withstand anything nature throws at them. I've built my theories upon the foundational lore of the series consistent patterns that many theorists failed to map out, the geography, time travel, functions of the Triforce, Ganon's mortality, the results are that my map theory predicted the placement of Eldin volcano in Echoes of wisdom LONG before the game was ever announced and my Triforce theory predicted the EXACT function of the Triforce when echo Zelda touched it down to the surge of dark power YEARS before the game was announced this is because I built my theories from the foundational lore of the series. But of course you wouldn't believe me because I don't have time stamps on those theories. If the community want's me gone I can leave however I will not lie to them even if it means that they get hostile towards me.

I strive to be as good as I am able.

You once said that you approached your theories like a scientist however that's not what you have shown here. The one time your theory could be tested you throw away its results as an anomaly and declare your claim correct instead of considering the possibility that your theory is wrong. You also once said that a good theory has predictive qualities if your theory was correct then it should have predicted the results of the Skyward sword Triforce wish's affect on Impa's era. If you truly strive to be as good as you could be then you will meditate on this.

@DarkDagger52 , you seemed far more interested in working with others when I originally invited you here. There are legitimate concerns with your theory, and what you are saying it disproves. This is a great opportunity for you to develop and hone your theory. If I thought your ideas were completely wrong, I would tell you so, generally tell you why, and leave it at that. Ultimately, it comes down to your intent. Are you the person seeking to improve your theory craft, as I am, or are you the person who believes they have reached the pinnacle of superiority?

I am working with people its why I only point out a few flaws at a time I wasn't kidding when I told you that I could rain hellfire down on theories if I were to point out all the flaws all at once there would be no picking up the pieces the only way that would help someone learn is if their ego was the thing stopping them from learning but by pointing out a few at a time that gives them the ability to adapt by supplying more evidence to support their theory or changing the theory based on the new information. I want to see the theory community thrive which is why its so frustrating to see theorists cling to lies and misinformation instead of seeking the truth. I've only shown parts of my theories here when you showed that your understanding was that my time travel theory was meant to solve ALL timeline splits I pointed out that it wasn't as well as pointed out which theory was supposed to solve what part. My timeline theory uses BOTH my multiverse theory and my time travel theory as a backbone to its structure and then from there it uses my map theory for where events happen and then for when things happen that's mostly just the history as its described within official sources prioritized by level of canon. The concern of its function comes from not understanding that its part of a greater whole which is to be expected as its a style that I've never seen anyone else use.

Actually this isn't a great opportunity to develop and hone my theories as they are past that level of development an example is my map theory in its early stages I tore apart many map theories and map comparisons I found online (some of those I found out recently were yours) I did this to find patterns and common mistakes to avoid like rotating maps and throwing your compass out the window I also did my own map comparisons with the maps directly encountering very quickly a common problem the maps are not all made equal they range from being very gameplay oriented to being very stylized I overcame this by exploring the Hyrules of the various games making note of landmarks to use along side the maps for much better results what I have shown is in the final stages of development and mostly just needs polishing and a level of precision even higher than what I've shown here an example is my time travel theory what I have shown of it is for the major effects of time travel it will be complete when I finish adding the small effects that are more centralized to different titles. At this point what helps with refining is more of a clash of intellectual concepts rather than hammering out the flaws in the theory. Honestly I've been refining my theory crafting skills for over a decade and at this point I haven't found anyone at or above my level which is part of why I want to see the theory community strive for more skill because its easier to improve when you have other people at or above your level to help you out.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

I see how you intend to move forward. As such, I will be blunt.

You look down on others, calling them rookies, and you don't even seem to understand what a straw-man argument is. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition:

straw man; noun
1: a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

For being such a self reported top tear theorist, it's strange that you don't know this. As best I can figure, your "definition" of "to blame an irrelevant data point" is closest to what is called "irrelevant data," or "attribute blame."

For the record, you have also performed the fallacy of appealing to authority. (An argument from authority is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure is used as evidence to support an argument.) Just saying that you have talked to other people, saying that YouTube is where the better theorists are, or telling us how great of a theorist you think you are, does not make your claims any more credible. In fact, swaying so easily into logical fallacies ultimately harms your credibility. Here, the strength of your argument is based on how you back it up, and how you react when people poke at it, not how many likes a video has. It's the content of the idea, not the platform it's on.

Honestly I've been refining my theory crafting skills for over a decade and at this point I haven't found anyone at or above my level which is part of why I want to see the theory community strive for more skill because its easier to improve when you have other people at or above your level to help you out.

This is only true in confrontational skills, where you need someone with greater skill, who can control the situation, to reduce the risk of harm. in more collaborative skills, one needs to learn to collaborate with all kinds of perspectives and skill levels. You and your friend can communicate the most complex ideas in an echo chamber, but if you don't learn to communicate outside of that chamber, your skills as a communicator will degrade. As the saying goes, you can't pour tea into a cup that is already full.

If you do see your theory work as adversarial, I see where my next point comes from. Your theory, at it's current state, as presented here, doesn't work, and it will never disprove any other theory, even if it is refined. First, the disproving aspect. Theories can disagree, and they can conflict, but no game theory can disprove any other game theory. Canonical information can disprove a theory, or more commonly make them unlikely. And, head-canon based on canon does not. This one point has been an issue from the moment you presented your theory to me. You have a theory. I have a theory. You say your theory disproves mine, yet even if a theory could disprove another, your theory says nothing valuable about mine. If you have any canonical information about my theory, that you say you disproved, feel free to post that canonical information here: https://zeldadungeon.net/forum/threads/is-the-downfall-the-natural-timeline.70156/

Going forward, lets focuss on your theory, here.

I do think looking at time travel in the series from the point of view of anchor points is interesting, but it doesn't have the power of explanation you say it does. To use the analogy that seems to be your main anchoring source of evidence; an anchor may connect to a point in the river of time, but that does not tell us anything about the water, or the flow. I agree that we do have time travel anchoring points in the series, but you have done very little as far as explaining how they function, aside from saying that all time travel somehow seems to include them (even when there is no evidence of any anchoring, just a sending.), and saying that breaking an anchor point in the past is what creates timeline splits. You still haven't explained how the split between the Downfall and Adult timelines works under your theory, aside from;

One split is from time travel the other is not. What I told you before is that you need something to tie it in which is something I will provide if I'm questioned further on that point.

Does this mean that you want us to simply accept what you have provided, so far, as truth, before giving us some other part of your theory, that would have been important from the start? It doesn't work that way. You either have more to the theory, or you don't. Plus, I can see why you insist that it needs to be a break in the past, because other wise we would need a branch at Skyward Sword, from when Impa drops the mic. in Lanayru Desert. Not only does this bring us from a data set of two, to a data set of one, which has it's own problems, but it doesn't make any since why one would react to the flow of time any differently. The vast majority of time travel, aside from MM (evident by his constant returning to the exact time, with no passage of time from one trip and another), connects to a moving point in time. Time still flows forward in Young Link's time of OoT, as well as the portal of SS, and OoA, evedent by the fact that past events in the story still happened between trips. Combine that with how the flow of time does not care about directionality. (Yes, we have something called the arrow of time in our own universe, and it's still debated how that might even work, seeing how photons don't care which direction they are traveling through time.) When we have a truck pulling a tralor, it doesn't matter which side of the hitch breaks from, the truck or the trailor; they still drift apart. Just the same, it wouldn't matter which anchor is desterbed, the past or the future, the two flowing time periods go from beinng linked, to being disconnected.

To be anchored indicates that the connection is stable. It also suggests that it may be tied to location, but that has some metaphysical wiggle room, and is clearly false, so I'll let that go. The stability issue, though is where we need a better definition. We have some clearly stable connections, such as the SS time portals, and the pedistal location in OoT. on the other end of the spectrum are when Zelda sends Link back at the end of OoT, and Terrako's time manipulation in AoC, where it is a one off event that is self contained event. Some instances of time manipulation are more stable than others. If these anchors you talk about are not connected to physical location, or stability of the location, then it is really just a fancy way to say that the future can influince the past... which is just regular time travel.

 

[DarkDagger52]

I see how you intend to move forward. As such, I will be blunt.

You look down on others, calling them rookies, and you don't even seem to understand what a straw-man argument is. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition:

For being such a self reported top tear theorist, it's strange that you don't know this. As best I can figure, your "definition" of "to blame an irrelevant data point" is closest to what is called "irrelevant data," or "attribute blame."

I shall also be blunt I knew the validity of the theory that lead to all this from the start and I knew your general skill level from interactions in the Youtube comments section your skill level is that of a rookie however the philosophy you were throwing around showed promise of a one day equal but then you showed that you actually don't follow through. I always found it suspicious that whenever we got close to the fundamental flaw of your theories you disappeared I had given you the benefit of doubt until now since you have now proven those suspicions correct you were hiding and since you couldn't hide here when your theory was proven wrong you lashed out like a cornered animal.

So I was wrong about which fallacy it was. What's more strange tho is why you seem to think that knowing fallacies by name makes you a top tier theorist. Also by the definition you provided I did not use that fallacy as you were unable to provide any other scenario within the games where your theory COULD BE TESTED.

For the record, you have also performed the fallacy of appealing to authority. (An argument from authority is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure is used as evidence to support an argument.) Just saying that you have talked to other people, saying that YouTube is where the better theorists are, or telling us how great of a theorist you think you are, does not make your claims any more credible. In fact, swaying so easily into logical fallacies ultimately harms your credibility. Here, the strength of your argument is based on how you back it up, and how you react when people poke at it, not how many likes a video has. It's the content of the idea, not the platform it's on.

Quite frankly I measure a theorist by the content of their ideas and how solid their theories are as well as by their spark for striving to be better. If I judged a theorist off of prestige instead things would look a lot different and I would never have become a theorist. The view of the people on a platform defines where the bar is placed for what is considered great and you have demonstrated how low that bar is here. As for the authority thing I pointed out why your four medals don't make you an expert, and asked for the depth of expertise on the "many aspects of Zelda" and pointed out the major flaw in mob appeal something you conveniently failed to see the term you used was "cherry picking" that term applies here since you want to claim that I'm committing so many fallacies and ignore any thrown my way. And when I pointed out my expertise and my accomplishments it was to show the reason for the unmoving state I built my theories like the pyramids foundationally sound through the entire structure it was not directed at your theory.

This is only true in confrontational skills, where you need someone with greater skill, who can control the situation, to reduce the risk of harm. in more collaborative skills, one needs to learn to collaborate with all kinds of perspectives and skill levels. You and your friend can communicate the most complex ideas in an echo chamber, but if you don't learn to communicate outside of that chamber, your skills as a communicator will degrade. As the saying goes, you can't pour tea into a cup that is already full.

Your statement here has been proven wrong over 2000 years ago through concepts like apprentices refining skills much easier working with someone of greater skill. Regardless of what skills your trying to strengthen working with someone of equal or higher skill level makes it easier.

If you do see your theory work as adversarial, I see where my next point comes from. Your theory, at it's current state, as presented here, doesn't work, and it will never disprove any other theory, even if it is refined. First, the disproving aspect. Theories can disagree, and they can conflict, but no game theory can disprove any other game theory. Canonical information can disprove a theory, or more commonly make them unlikely. And, head-canon based on canon does not. This one point has been an issue from the moment you presented your theory to me. You have a theory. I have a theory. You say your theory disproves mine, yet even if a theory could disprove another, your theory says nothing valuable about mine. If you have any canonical information about my theory, that you say you disproved, feel free to post that canonical information here: https://zeldadungeon.net/forum/threads/is-the-downfall-the-natural-timeline.70156/

You once again claim that it doesn't work simply because its not solving an irrelevant problem that's like saying your map theory doesn't work simply because it doesn't tell us how Ganon damaged the Master sword in Breath of the wilds. If you want a theory that solves ALL timeline splits then you need to look for a TIMELINE theory this is a TIME TRAVEL theory it will not solve any timeline split that is irrelevant to TIME TRAVEL like the Downfall timeline. I would also like to point out that its not the theory that causes your theory problems its the lore more specifically the lore in question was Groose's experience with time travel which is not a theory it is fact.

Going forward, lets focuss on your theory, here.

I do think looking at time travel in the series from the point of view of anchor points is interesting, but it doesn't have the power of explanation you say it does. To use the analogy that seems to be your main anchoring source of evidence; an anchor may connect to a point in the river of time, but that does not tell us anything about the water, or the flow. I agree that we do have time travel anchoring points in the series, but you have done very little as far as explaining how they function, aside from saying that all time travel somehow seems to include them (even when there is no evidence of any anchoring, just a sending.), and saying that breaking an anchor point in the past is what creates timeline splits.

The flow of time is something we don't get to see any physical representation of however it can be seen by the same method as a black hole can be seen by the affect on the world around it. If your parenthesis are about Oracle of ages the land was literally scarred by that connection.
From Ocarina of time we know that an anchor point in the past will keep the timeline linear and severing that connection from the past will cause the timeline to split this gives us information on Oracle of ages where Veran traveled back in time without splitting the timeline this tells us why Link needed to close the Gate of time in Ocarina of time severing the connection. As for why the effects would be different between connecting the present to the future and connecting the present to the past the present is the now what is not what will be not what was but simply what is the future is what will be if events continue unchanged its still only possibility and the past is what was it already happened to try to change that has a much greater impact. To safely sever a connection between present and past without splitting time you sever it in the present leaving both ends of the connection as things in the past the pathway between those two time periods is now lost.

You still haven't explained how the split between the Downfall and Adult timelines works under your theory, aside from;

Does this mean that you want us to simply accept what you have provided, so far, as truth, before giving us some other part of your theory, that would have been important from the start?

I've actually answered this very clearly THE TIME TRAVEL THEORY DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DOWNFALL TIMELINE BECAUSE THAT SPLIT IS NOT FROM TIME TRAVEL. I've also explained very clearly that the Downfall timeline is answered by a DIFFERENT theory the reason to not bring it up before was BECAUSE it was a different theory the ONLY reason I brought it up was that you were under the impression that my time travel theory was supposed to solve ALL timeline splits. My timeline theory uses BOTH because they solve different parts of the structure of the timeline. My multiverse theory handles three current splits and several possible future splits however I will only go into detail on the Downfall split as that's where the major tie in is and its the currently debated topic if I went into detail on any more it would escalate to a full on timeline discussion. My multiverse theory is designed to function as ground rules for multiverse related theories the part that's relevant here is alternate endings being able to create timeline splits now the tie in for the Zelda series is the Four swords trilogy. At release Four swords could go almost anywhere on the timeline however that changed when it got its sequel Four swords adventures which was originally supposed to be the Sealing war before higher up intervention happened however it retains many of the defining traits of that timeline including geography and architecture it also contained a Ganon origin story where no previous Ganon existed prior and then Minish cap was made providing an origin for both Vatii and the Four sword and it provided TWO endings one where Vatii is killed preventing the Four swords games from taking place and another where Vatii claims the power he was after giving reason for why they needed to seal him instead of killing him the fact that the ALTERNATE ending is the one compatible with the games it was created to be a prequel to ties in the multiverse theory which is NOT the time travel theory.

It doesn't work that way. You either have more to the theory, or you don't.

Again I'm going to stress this point so that its not missed again THE TIME TRAVEL THEORY AND THE MULTIVERSE THEORY ARE TWO SEPARATE THEORIES.

Plus, I can see why you insist that it needs to be a break in the past, because other wise we would need a branch at Skyward Sword, from when Impa drops the mic. in Lanayru Desert. Not only does this bring us from a data set of two, to a data set of one, which has it's own problems, but it doesn't make any since why one would react to the flow of time any differently. The vast majority of time travel, aside from MM (evident by his constant returning to the exact time, with no passage of time from one trip and another), connects to a moving point in time. Time still flows forward in Young Link's time of OoT, as well as the portal of SS, and OoA, evedent by the fact that past events in the story still happened between trips.

Actually time is not passing on both sides in Ocarina of time (this seems to be a short range time travel trait as its also present for both of the other cases of short range time travel) in Ocarina of time Link is traveling between the moment right before he pulled the Master sword and the moment right before he put the Master sword back we know this because Ganon quickly gained access to the Sacred realm before Link went to sleep for seven years and when he touched the Triforce the Sacred realm became the Dark world and the temple radiated Ganon's dark power so if time was flowing on both sides Link would have returned to a world currently controlled by Ganon or being actively attacked by Ganon. As for the other events those do have time flowing on both sides.

Combine that with how the flow of time does not care about directionality. (Yes, we have something called the arrow of time in our own universe, and it's still debated how that might even work, seeing how photons don't care which direction they are traveling through time.) When we have a truck pulling a tralor, it doesn't matter which side of the hitch breaks from, the truck or the trailor; they still drift apart. Just the same, it wouldn't matter which anchor is desterbed, the past or the future, the two flowing time periods go from beinng linked, to being disconnected.

As I pointed out earlier in this comment where you disconnect it is important.

To be anchored indicates that the connection is stable. It also suggests that it may be tied to location, but that has some metaphysical wiggle room, and is clearly false, so I'll let that go. The stability issue, though is where we need a better definition. We have some clearly stable connections, such as the SS time portals, and the pedistal location in OoT. on the other end of the spectrum are when Zelda sends Link back at the end of OoT, and Terrako's time manipulation in AoC, where it is a one off event that is self contained event. Some instances of time manipulation are more stable than others. If these anchors you talk about are not connected to physical location, or stability of the location, then it is really just a fancy way to say that the future can influince the past... which is just regular time travel.

Most of them definitely are connected to physical locations/artifacts however others are unknown like the secret to traveling through time.

 

[Commander_Has]

Listen man, I would love to continue this conversation, but at this point, you've just built yourself a great tower and claimed so be the superior theorist. This statement may be true, but I have only seen pride in your arguments. I will say this once more, the most clear that I can: On YouTube, be as much of a pain as you want, but here, where we generally keep relative peace, stay civil and learn when to say, "I don't get it, I can't seem to convey my thoughts, or pick up what your laying down. Do you mind repeating your thesis one more time." I don't mean this as a personal attack, simply a request to calm down and try working with a little humility.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Time manipulation and alternate timelines, as far as I am concerned, are part of the same conversation. It's like trying to talk about gravity and orbital bodies seperatly.

I never once relied on my awards as proof of my ability. I let my work speak for itself, and always strive to improve. I even invited you to directly address the theoy that you claim was disproven.

The only hiding going on now, are your statements about doing the calculations elsewhere, or basically asking us to just accept a premise because we are too basic to understand.

 

[DarkDagger52]

Listen man, I would love to continue this conversation, but at this point, you've just built yourself a great tower and claimed so be the superior theorist. This statement may be true, but I have only seen pride in your arguments. I will say this once more, the most clear that I can: On YouTube, be as much of a pain as you want, but here, where we generally keep relative peace, stay civil and learn when to say, "I don't get it, I can't seem to convey my thoughts, or pick up what your laying down. Do you mind repeating your thesis one more time." I don't mean this as a personal attack, simply a request to calm down and try working with a little humility.

Quite frankly this was civil until he decided he wanted to turn it into a battle ground with his accusation of a "straw man fallacy" to try to hide the blaring flaw of there being only one point in the ENTIRE series where the theory can be tested its only a straw man if there are other points where it could be tested that gave positive results. Since there is only one point for testing it the results of that test is all the results we have.

I would also like to point out that he omitted one important detail when he was talking about how I see the people here by skill: I told him when he invited me that the people here are rookies. He didn't realize at the time that the statement applied to him too but now that he knows well you saw his reaction to finding out. As for my exact quote:

@RyuuKageDesu I think a Zelda time travel post is a good idea this could clear up a lot of the time travel misconceptions I will look into joining.

So my analysis of the forum community is that they seem to be a decent community but theorizing is not their strong suit most of the people there look to be rookies which there is nothing wrong with that it means they are new and may get better but it also means I can accidentally rain hellfire down on their theories if I'm not careful.

Up until that point I was reluctant to join but when he decided to do a post about a deep lore concept I thought I could provide value to the community because this was a topic I specialized in and thus knew the value of to an extent that others don't. This was before I found out why this community is at the skill level its at.

Also when you referred to his level it was by his awards instead of by his content and yet he makes this claim:

I never once relied on my awards as proof of my ability. I let my work speak for itself

And he decorates himself with his awards instead of relying solely on what he presents.

Time manipulation and alternate timelines, as far as I am concerned, are part of the same conversation. It's like trying to talk about gravity and orbital bodies seperatly.

So you DON'T know the difference between time TRAVEL theory and timeLINE theory after all that explains why that point never sank in.

I never once relied on my awards as proof of my ability. I let my work speak for itself

For my take on this view the one from earlier in this comment.

and always strive to improve.

You have betrayed the principles by which you claimed to theorize by that's the exact opposite of striving to improve. You claimed you approached it like a scientist however any scientist worth their salt trusts the data you supplied the hypothesis based off of specific data points I tested that with the only possible point to test it both your variables were there and the end result can be seen only its not the one from your hypothesis. Until you can provide another point where your hypothesis can be tested the only available results are what's seen at the end of Skyward sword. This is the data that you betrayed.

I even invited you to directly address the theoy that you claim was disproven.

Until I found proof against it now you want to discredit me and get rid of me because it turns out there is proof against it not just a lack of evidence to support it.

The only hiding going on now, are your statements about doing the calculations elsewhere, or basically asking us to just accept a premise because we are too basic to understand.

You say this like dumping all my calculations on random internet sites would be normal. I'm a deep lore specialist I gather massive amounts of lore to cross reference if I gave you ALL the data one answer would take up several comments so instead I give the data as it becomes relevant if I had my videos uploaded I could instead link my video on the topic but I don't have those made yet. As for your hiding on Youtube whenever we got close to the core of your theories where the problem was you either tried to change topics to another theory or went silent and then here you falsely accuse me of a fallacy when I found proof against your theory that already didn't have enough backing it that is lashing out like a cornered animal.

If you want to bring this back down to being a civilized discussion then you will withdraw your claims about that "fallacy" but know this the damage is already done.