Tales from the Dawn

[WellGramarye]

Because Graha's time travel does not run on the same rules as normal time travel. Normal time travel sends you back on a linear time scale. Graha's also mixed space into the mix. Instead of just going back in time on the Source, which would have been a case of "can't change the past," he crossed space as well as time onto the First, a place where he doesn't/shouldn't exist. This breaks outside of the normal rules of time travel, which allowed him to change how things occurred. We could get into the nitty gritty about how that works (let's not for our own sakes) considering the Sundering first needed to take place, but it's going to be quite a few paradoxes.

Graha's time travel IS normal time travel, as Elidibus ghost warns us, if we go back in time and change anything, then the present we come back to will not be the same one we left from, and that we should be careful about that. He thinks this won't be a problem because we will be so Aetherically thin that we won't be able to have an affect on the past, but once we are there Emet-Selch and Hythlodeus change us into a form that CAN have an affect on the past, thus now causing a paradox.

Graha only ended up on the First because at the time of his jump into the past, the First and the Source had already been merged together due to the U8C. Graha's jump to the past is 300 years into the future after Stormblood. When he went back in time, he went to a pre-merged world and it landed him 100 years in the past (from Stormblood) on the First.

[RyuDragnier]

Which doesn't at all match what we are show in Endwalker which is another retcon they made for endwalker. Zodiark was inert with out it's heart so inactive like we see on the moon

That brings to mind a question. Since Elidibus was the heart, and we've seen numerous creatures and monsters control things not connected to themselves over the course of the game, could Elidibus control Zodiark from afar, since they were still technically linked? That would be the key info we need here whether to debunk the story or not, considering Ishikawa herself wrote that story for Nier: Reincarnation.

[WellGramarye]

That brings to mind a question. Since Elidibus was the heart, and we've seen numerous creatures and monsters control things not connected to themselves over the course of the game, could Elidibus control Zodiark from afar, since they were still technically linked? That would be the key info we need here whether to debunk the story or not, considering Ishikawa herself wrote that story for Nier: Reincarnation.

Zodiark was only inert in the moon because it was bound in the runes that Hydaelyn had set up. Once that binding is broken, it immediately attacks up, and Fandaniel exerts control over/merges with it becoming its heart to try to complete his goal of utter nihilistic annhilation. Without Elidibus to control it, Zodiark was a ravenous raging beast.

[RyuDragnier]

Graha's time travel IS normal time travel, as Elidibus ghost warns us, if we go back in time and change anything, then the present we come back to will not be the same one we left from, and that we should be careful about that. He thinks this won't be a problem because we will be so Aetherically thin that we won't be able to have an affect on the past, but once we are there Emet-Selch and Hythlodeus change us into a form that CAN have an affect on the past, thus now causing a paradox.

Incorrect, Elidibus's exact words are:

"Yet even should you be able to interact with others, you will be unable to effect meaningful change. For the reality you wish to save--the reality to which you must return--exists as a result of the Final Days. You cannot reshape the past to undo the tragedies of the present. Cannot unmake the sorrow and suffering fated to come."

Meaning it was written in stone, there was nothing we could do to change what was going to happen. Any interactions we were going to have were supposed to happen.

Graha only ended up on the First because at the time of his jump into the past, the First and the Source had already been merged together due to the U8C. Graha's jump to the past is 300 years into the future after Stormblood. When he went back in time, he went to a pre-merged world and it landed him 100 years in the past (from Stormblood) on the First.

The problem is the world he was going onto was at time/space coordinates different from the Source. The Source itself is mentioned as being the original, meaning the equivalent of (0,0) on an X/Y grid. All the shards are shifted to different locations around the Source, making their coordinates on that X/Y grid different from the coordinates of the Source. Jumping to any of them requires jumping on that grid, and completely altering your location. Considering that the Crystal Tower also does not exist on the place it's going to originally, Crystal Tower and the Exarch are unnatural additions to the First's timeline, which required shifting the location through both space and time.

[WellGramarye]

Incorrect, Elidibus's exact words are:

Meaning it was written in stone, there was nothing we could do to change what was going to happen. Any interactions we were going to have were supposed to happen.


The problem is the world he was going onto was at time/space coordinates different from the Source. The Source itself is mentioned as being the original, meaning the equivalent of (0,0) on an X/Y grid. All the shards are shifted to different locations around the Source, making their coordinates on that X/Y grid different from the coordinates of the Source. Jumping to any of them requires jumping on that grid, and completely altering your location. Considering that the Crystal Tower also does not exist on the place it's going to originally, Crystal Tower and the Exarch are unnatural additions to the First's timeline, which required shifting the location through both space and time.

First point, this doesn't contradict what I said, nor does it make what I said wrong. He was saying we could not stop the calamity, that it was always fated to happen, but we still changed things by going back in time.

Secondly, the other shards dont revolve around the source like planets around the sun. They occupy the same space, but not the same time and aetherical balance. They are all shifted slightly from Light to Dark and Astral to Umbral. X/Y wise they are in the same spot. You can't take our space ship and fly to the First from the Source. Its why we go through the sparkly magic travel thing every time we shard hop and then fall into a shard of crystal.

[EaraGrace]

Doesn't this sound familiar? Oh, right it's Venat. It's Emet-Selch and the Ascians Three of course as well, but let's not do us all an intellectual disservice and count her out. I don't even honestly see why this line of inquiry is even relevant, personally. You're just proving his point by entertaining it, when you openly support someone who's ended as many lives however virtual as she has. You've openly stated if she was real you'd help her kill them all.

shrugs

Yes that does sound very close to Venats situation, that’s the whole point.

I don't really see how you can hold the value in the general and not the specific. The general view is nothing but an infinite set of specific cases, but when it comes to the specific case, suddenly the imperative shifts?

No you’ve misunderstood. The general view is distinct and one can in fact further the aims of the general view by violating the individual. We do this with deer all the time, culling the population in order to protect the ability of the species in general from collapsing due to overeating. The potential for life oftentimes runs counter to the protection of individual life, which wouldn’t work if they just collapse into each other no?

I recognize this may sound odd, but for what reason is the idea of the potential of life somehow more important than the actual potential of an actual life? The existence of a single life is as unique and special to the universe as the existence of life itself. Is it just a utilitarian numbers game? If so, surely the math in both cases adds up the same - There is more potential life in the universe than the potential life of the Ancients, and there is more potential life in a child than the remaining life of a mother. Does the scale, the gulf of the difference, just feel more appropriate for you to make that choice?

It is very much not a utilitarian numbers game, as shown by the very core of the thing we are arguing against. Let me once again use an example. Imagine grizzled bears are endangered and our protagonist holds that they should be protected and their species maintained. Now this selfsame person finds themself in a situation, not at all their fault, where they are about to be mauled by a grizzly. Killing the grizzly won’t permanently damn the population but it would kill that individual life. I can’t assume either that my killing will somehow lead to more life as that is outside of my control, all I can say is I’m reducing the number of lives by one. By your thinking, if the person holds that the potential for grizzly’s at all to exist is worthy of protecting, then because that is just an “infinite set of specific cases” they shouldn’t kill the grizzly and thus would die? Does that seem logical and true to you?

Following this, you outline scenarios where suffering is forcibly incurred in order to bear the burden of propagating life. So yes, a person certainly doesn't need to be pro-life in order to believe that drastic action inducing suffering and burden for the purposes of protecting life - But in the same way, I fail to see how this is actually a logically or morally consistent position. You may say it's a pragmatic position in certain regards, but that doesn't make it morally sound.

It all leads back to valuing the potential for life in general to exist vs the potential for specific life to exist. In inter generational ethics there’s the concept of a threshold, a point that current generations must reach in order to be just to those not yet born. The threshold would not require banning abortions if I believe it important to maintain the potential for life, as the potential for life is needed for a basic just society, whereas forcing a pregnant parent to die for their child is very much not.

Frankly, yes. Again, the general is just a set of the specific. To force someone to effectively be a human shield to allow life to continue but not do the same in the case of a birth is completely inconsistent.

You say this but haven’t justified it. Why are they the same? The examples I posted I think show a distinction between the two. How would you reconcile that if they are, as you say, the same?

Why should the obligation, forced, to give up one's life for another be incurred differentially? I assume that in asking the question you already have your own response for the comparison, so what do you think?

Because of the reasons for it! A person forced to die for an evil cause is an evil act is evil. A person forced to die for a defensible cause can be just and defensible. Do you think conscription by the Allies in WW2 was an evil act?

[Veloran]

The general view is distinct and one can in fact further the aims of the general view by violating the individual. We do this with deer all the time, culling the population in order to protect the ability of the species in general from collapsing due to overeating. The potential for life oftentimes runs counter to the protection of individual life, which wouldn’t work if they just collapse into each other no?

Interesting argumentation, given you've just assumed a position that justifies everything the Ancients were doing on Elpis and their entire plan to sacrifice lives, something you've been so critical of in the past.

But really, "we have to pragmatically violate our supposed ideals for the greater good"? You must know how completely faulty and self-defeating that is, it's logic that renders the original view and intent morally destitute and worthless.

Does that seem logical and true to you?

If they were actually acting in accordance with their ideals, yes that is precisely what they would do. But remember, we're talking about a level of values import where someone actually does believe that the bear's life is worth more than a human life and should be protected over a human life, not a case where it's just some half-hearted idea. That itself would still be hypocrisy, but we're talking about an absolutist position where one is willing to weigh the lives of other people and trade them in reality, not just some layman notion. And to be clear, I'm not saying it's morally wrong for that person to defend their own life. I'd just like some honesty about it.

You also sidestepped my first point in that response. Why exactly is an individual life of less uniqueness and import than the idea of all life?

It all leads back to valuing the potential for life in general to exist vs the potential for specific life to exist. In inter generational ethics there’s the concept of a threshold, a point that current generations must reach in order to be just to those not yet born. The threshold would not require banning abortions if I believe it important to maintain the potential for life, as the potential for life is needed for a basic just society, whereas forcing a pregnant parent to die for their child is very much not.

A society where a conscripted soldier is forced to die for a child but a parent can leave their child to die doesn't sound very just at all to me, even if we just table the pregnancy part of it. It sounds to me like the ideals you're talking about are the exact foundations of an unjust society, a system where nebulous concepts are given priority over individuals, where the lives of people are treated as things to be traded for promises and ideas of a better future. In other words, something Endwalker, and XIV as a whole, has been criticizing for years. These are the foundations of dysfunction, hypocrisy, and tyranny, the constant excuse for brutality and murder, not justice.

Why are they the same? The examples I posted I think show a distinction between the two.

It seems to me the distinction is imagined. You're controlling someone's life to sacrifice them for the sake of another life. It's the same thing, no matter the labels you put on it.

A person forced to die for an evil cause is an evil act is evil. A person forced to die for a defensible cause can be just and defensible. Do you think conscription by the Allies in WW2 was an evil act?

Again, these are just falsehoods and titles, used to rationalize something which is not morally justifiable. "A person forced to die for a defensible cause can be just and defensible"? No, absolutely not, I'm not going to invoke godwin's law but you must know exactly what follows that logic. Yes, forced conscription is wrong, no matter the enemy. For someone who proposes to be a moral absolutist, you really do seem intent on taking positions which completely erode concepts such as "good and evil" and render them nothing but empty moralization. Again, this logic your using is the exact line of thought that leads to atrocity. This is what I'm talking about when I'm asking people to use some critical thinking about the ideas they're raising.

[Kozh]

Graha only ended up on the First because at the time of his jump into the past, the First and the Source had already been merged together due to the U8C. Graha's jump to the past is 300 years into the future after Stormblood. When he went back in time, he went to a pre-merged world and it landed him 100 years in the past (from Stormblood) on the First.

Actually, while g'raha time travel is normal time travel, by that point the first hasn't rejoined with the source since. At least not completely. That's why they need omega technology, since it is the one that allows him to jump from source dimension to the First dimension.

Meaning it was written in stone, there was nothing we could do to change what was going to happen. Any interactions we were going to have were supposed to happen.

True that it won't change anything, but that's the point of ShB time travel. G'raha couldn't change his timeline history, but that results in branching timeline. Logically, us using the same technology as him should also result in branching timeline. Well actually it kinda did, but venat force it to become a time loop instead by making us the catalyst of sundering.

Inb4 someone say "Alexander is time loop!", yes but it also happens only to him and his surroundings. Plus it's intentional on his part. When we speak to him, he said that from countless alternatives timeline, he consider the current timeline (back in HW) is the most optimal.

[Iscah]

I ran out of posts last night and was trying to edit this all into my last post higher up, but reposting it now.

If Graha does not go back in time, and the events of Shadowbringers never happen, we live within the 8UC timeline, in which WE DIE. If we die at that point in time (the end of Stormblood) we are not ALIVE to go back in time to warn Venat and have our adventures in Elpis.

The time loop in Shadowbringers does not require our 8UC counterpart to travel back to Elpis, because the events in Elpis sit outside of the span of time altered by G'raha's actions.

All that matters in the 8UC timeline is that the Sundering happened in the past.

The end result of Shadowbringers is that the 8UC timeline is bypassed and the Elpis time loop continues along the "new" timeline that, from a whole-of-time viewpoint, has always existed alongside the 8UC timeline. If you are tracing this timeline, there is never a point where we die in the calamity, and this not-dying version of our timeline leads onward to Endwalker and our trip to Elpis.

G'raha's actions are necessary to create the path, but the result is that there is never a time where the path is not there.

There was only one WoL who travelled to Elpis, and it was always only us.

Graha's jump to the past is 300 years into the future after Stormblood. When he went back in time, he went to a pre-merged world and it landed him 100 years in the past (from Stormblood) on the First.

Partly correct, but only from G'raha's personal experience.

From memory, the stated time that G'raha was awoken in the future was 200 years forward, and in travelling back in time (and across to the First) he arrived shortly after the Flood of Light occurred. In the First, that was about a hundred years before we arrived there, but then you have time variation on top of that.

From the events of post-Heavensward we know exactly when the Flood was happening in Norvrandt, because it was the time when the Warriors of Darkness came to the Source. Not a hundred years ago, but probably less than a year before the events of Shadowbringers occur by our perspective.

Because Graha's time travel does not run on the same rules as normal time travel. Normal time travel sends you back on a linear time scale. Graha's also mixed space into the mix. Instead of just going back in time on the Source, which would have been a case of "can't change the past," he crossed space as well as time onto the First, a place where he doesn't/shouldn't exist. This breaks outside of the normal rules of time travel, which allowed him to change how things occurred. We could get into the nitty gritty about how that works (let's not for our own sakes) considering the Sundering first needed to take place, but it's going to be quite a few paradoxes.

I don't believe the jump between shards had anything to do with how time travel works any why he successfully altered events.

My theory is that what made the difference is that he is trying to change a specific historical event. He knows exactly how it happened and when it happened and why. By altering circumstances so it is impossible for that known event to take place, he creates a situation that cannot lead to the future he travelled from, and so a second branch of time forms to house this altered situation.

By contrast, we can't do anything in Elpis because we have no idea of the specifics, so there's nothing we can do to create a similar contradiction.

First point, this doesn't contradict what I said, nor does it make what I said wrong. He was saying we could not stop the calamity, that it was always fated to happen, but we still changed things by going back in time.

We became part of events by going back in time, but that isn't the same thing as changing them. There still only needs to be one version of events at Elpis.

Actually, while g'raha time travel is normal time travel, by that point the first hasn't rejoined with the source since. At least not completely. That's why they need omega technology, since it is the one that allows him to jump from source dimension to the First dimension.

The First is definitely rejoined in that future. It's what caused all the destruction.

Omega tech is required to jump the rift after the tower travels back in time to a point before the Rejoining. Backwards, then sideways.

True that it won't change anything, but that's the point of ShB time travel. G'raha couldn't change his timeline history, but that results in branching timeline. Logically, us using the same technology as him should also result in branching timeline.

As I said earlier, I don't think that's the case. The determining factor isn't how we got to the past but what we do once we arrive, combined with how much pre-existing knowledge we have of the event.

We knew nothing about what would happen in Elpis, so there was nothing we could do (either deliberately or accidentally) that could not be incorporated into the timeline as it always has been.

[Lyth]

Here's a wildly controversial and white-hot take - If you believe that Venat's argument is right and that the potentiality of future life supersedes the survival of existing life, you must also believe that preventing abortion, even in the case where the mother's life would be forfeit if it wasn't done, is morally correct. Now maybe that's wrong or maybe that's right, but either way that's an argument and line of thinking that practically nobody, regardless of their stance, is willing to seriously consider. So at the very least I'd like people to actually think more deeply about the values that they're talking about.

It's always interesting to see how an individual's framing of a topic reflects their political views. Especially when someone discusses that particular topic in terms of the so called 'potentiality of life' and not 'autonomy'.

You can't discuss the Sundering using modern political references because there's no real world equivalent for it. What exactly does it mean to be 'sundered', and is it actually analogous to death? We see the Amaurotians merge souls and split apart. Lahabrea literally sunders his own soul into two and chats away to us about what he did. Venat sundered herself and retained her sense of self for the next twelve thousand years. Elidibus merged with other souls and emerged as a completely different person, his old memories coming apart at the seams. Just because you've chosen to conflate two terms doesn't mean that they're the same thing. Plenty of mythological systems have gods losing their powers to become mortal and vice versa. It's a poetic way of showing that the soul is still divine.

You can argue that Venat significantly changed the course of humanity and our way of life by removing our 'godhood', but the benefit was that life on Etheirys survived into the present day rather than dying out to a threat that they couldn't fight. That's not mere potential. We're living proof of that.