What lore do you ignore?

[Lyth]

...

No. We know that a divergent timeline did not occur. This is a thought experiment to determine if a divergent timeline was viable (i.e. one that does not result in the destruction of humanity).

I'm treating the timeline like a black box. Imagine a Radiant Historia style timeline map of the decision nodes. I don't know where all the individual decision nodes are or what choices were made at those nodes. I can't brute force a solution like Alexander can because I can't run tests of every possible outcome. All I can do is identify any constraints that would limit the 'form' of a viable solution. There may be additional constraints that I haven't identified that may restrict the range of viable solutions even further beyond what I've stated. These are entirely at the discretion of the writing team, should they ever elaborate further.

On the subject of space travel, Hermes cannot be directly used in any solution against Meteion. Hermes believes that the activation of Kairos was triggered by Meteion's shared consciousness becoming unstable, resulting in her destruction (Lv.87, Thou Must Live Die and Know). Venat elaborates further:

'As for Hermes... I think it unlikely he will create more entelechies. He poured much of himself into Meteion, and now that she and her sisters are gone - dissipated, in his mind - the grief must be unbearable. He will blame himself. He will believe that, had he never acknowledged his dissatisfaction with the world, then the Meteia would have never been born to suffer and die. The offer to join the Fourteen will be a welcome distraction, and one day hence, he will face the advent of the Final Days in the role of Fandaniel...' (Lv. 87, Caging the Messenger).

If you want Hermes to develop either space travel or entelechies further for you, you'd need to take him into your confidence and tell him what actually happened. We already know that leads to a bad end. As a result, any solutions which depend on Hermes developing these technologies further are non-viable. We also know that Hermes was miles ahead of his peers in his development in these fields, as I had established previously. As a result, you can't pin your bets on anyone else spontaneously developing those solutions in parallel. A means to forestall the Final Days is necessary. And we know the outcome of that.

Combined with the restrictions you've outlined it's hard to imagine any course of action that does not play directly into Meteion's hands, especially under the contextual constraints of time and the actions of others already in motion. It can be imagined, of course, but virtually all of the quest content, developer statements, and Encyclopaedia text supports that we're supposed to assume futility by the time the first two waves of sacrifices were made, the plan to sacrifice new life was decided, and civil war was at its climax.

I'm not saying the execution of the storytelling was clean, but I am saying that, when one knows where the developer's heads are at, rooting for one's counter-interpretation to pan out is - generally speaking - setting oneself up for disappointment.

Your final statement here is succinct and spot on. It's a bit like arguing with a DM/GM/storyteller in a pen and paper roleplaying game. They control the entire decision tree. We can propose whatever solutions that we like, but the downstream consequences of those decisions can render the proposed solutions non-viable.

[Iscah]

No. We know that a divergent timeline did not occur.

More exactly (and speculatively), if the timeline split in some way due to the information we gave Venat at Elpis, we are not part of that timeline and have no way to detect it, just like we have no direct evidence of G'raha's original timeline even though it must now be playing out parallel to ours. So for functional purposes, even if an alternate timeline did exist, it does not exist in any way that we need to consider it.

We can confirm that we are living in the same timeline that we visited in Elpis even before we go there because the after-effects of what happened there can be seen in the present day. Argos trusts us because he already met us; Hydaelyn is already aware that we are approaching the "confluence" where the time loop will be completed.

[ZavosEsperian]

No. We know that a divergent timeline did not occur.

see

These are entirely at the discretion of the writing team, should they ever elaborate further.

You have contradicted yourself again, which renders everything stated in between those two points in your argument moot. Due to how the writers are allowing people to take either approach in terms of timelines, it causes there to be a Schrödinger's cat-like paradox, where both states are able to be accepted as true from the outside observer's perspective. You cannot declaratively state one is true over the other without going against the writers’ intent at the moment. I am not inherently dismissive of converging timeline interpretations, the problem is that without clear clarification of the paradoxes that have to exist for a converging timeline to be true, it is extremely difficult to accept this interpretation in its current state. Divergence allows for the events to all play out as they have in the way they have been depicted without the need to deal with these paradoxes as they would not exist. That being said, I do not want to give myself carpal tunnel discussing something where the writers have clearly indicated it is up to your own interpretation, thus I will agree to disagree with your overall position.

Venat elaborates further: 'As for Hermes... I think it unlikely he will create more entelechies.

This statement does nothing to enhance your previous argument and arguably makes it worse. The quote used is based on Venat's opinion and, on top of that, uses language that is not entirely dismissive of the possibility of Hermes creating more entelechies as the term 'unlikely' is not 'never'. In addition, you have failed to refute any of the points in my former post in regards to negating your argument, thus I find the continuance of your argument with the points you are currently making otherwise to be strictly headcanon/personal opinion, as none of these things are directly stated inside of the story or any other source material. Do understand, this is not me arguing Hermes will ever end up doing what is deemed unlikely above, it is refuting the complete dismissal of that possibility as something that can still be viable.

More exactly (and speculatively), if the timeline split in some way due to the information we gave Venat at Elpis, we are not part of that timeline and have no way to detect it, just like we have no direct evidence of G'raha's original timeline even though it must now be playing out parallel to ours. So for functional purposes, even if an alternate timeline did exist, it does not exist in any way that we need to consider it.

From the perspective of the WoL, this is an accurate interpretation. Any viewpoint related to how the WoL interprets events will seem to them as being convergent, as there is no way for them to have an omniscient view where they can see how time streams twist and turn and potentially branch and parallel each other. In the case of G'Raha (Crystal Exarch) in particular, he did not cease to exist upon averting the 8th Umbral Calamity, which suggests his actions did not remove/overwrite the conditions required for him to exist, which is proof his original time stream is still intact and running parallel to our own, where our own time stream is diverged from his original time stream.

We can confirm that we are living in the same timeline that we visited in Elpis even before we go there because the after-effects of what happened there can be seen in the present day. Argos trusts us because he already met us; Hydaelyn is already aware that we are approaching the "confluence" where the time loop will be completed.

This reads like Yoshi-P's interpretation, which he has described as his own opinion/interpretation. This above statement can exist in all time stream types, and much like I argued above, due to how the writers intended to leave this open to interpretation, it creates a Schrödinger's cat-like paradox where both interpretations of how time travel works and how time streams work both exist at the same time, which causes a whole assortment of issues when discussing anything related to the time travel portions of EW. As I have indicated to Lyth above, I don't feel like developing carpal tunnel over this so I will agree to disagree with any approach that is dismissive of either of the two time stream types.

[Iscah]

In the case of G'Raha (Crystal Exarch) in particular, he did not cease to exist upon averting the 8th Umbral Calamity, which suggests his actions did not remove/overwrite the conditions required for him to exist, which is proof his original time stream is still intact and running parallel to our own, where our own time stream is diverged from his original time stream.

I know that, but that would be indirect proof – we can logically reason that because G'raha still exists, the timeline he came from is likely to still exist.

I specifically wrote "direct proof" to mean confirmable evidence that the timeline exists: some way to look across the high-degree dimensional split and actually observe the existence of the other timeline. To our knowledge we have no device that could do so and assure G'raha that his friends' reality continues.

On a pedantic sidenote, "G'raha" (as for all Seeker names) doesn't have a capital on the start of the given name when the tribe letter is used. I assume it might be a limitation of forcing player names to start with a capital and then lower case for the rest.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

I know that, but that would be indirect proof – we can logically reason that because G'raha still exists, the timeline he came from is likely to still exist.

I specifically wrote "direct proof" to mean confirmable evidence that the timeline exists: some way to look across the high-degree dimensional split and actually observe the existence of the other timeline. To our knowledge we have no device that could do so and assure G'raha that his friends' reality continues.

On a pedantic sidenote, "G'raha" (as for all Seeker names) doesn't have a capital on the start of the given name when the tribe letter is used. I assume it might be a limitation of forcing player names to start with a capital and then lower case for the rest.

But we're talking about allowing millions of people to be murdered and an entire civilization to be destroyed on the grounds we only have circumstantial proof that divergent timelines are possible. To me, that level of selfishness is not the trait of a hero. G'raha risked it with no proof at all. We have proof and we're just standing there taking quests from these people knowing they are all about to die and doing nothing to help them.

And as ZavosEsperian has pointed out, attempting to lock us into a loop where nothing can possibly be done causes a paradox because if we always went back in time and caused the Sundering which causes our creation which leads to us going back in time, how/why did the first Sundering happen? And if nothing can be done or changed, why are we actively, and shamefully not helping? We look down in sadness and shame like we know we're doing wrong every time these people ask us about their future and we condemn them to their deaths with our inaction. It seems to me that is a choice. If nothing can be done to change their fate, then we should be able to shout from the rafters what's coming their way and our actions simply won't change things.

Earlier I explained there are two kinds of "can't be helped." Situations where there is no action that could be taken at the time to change things, like most of the deaths that happen in the story. And situations where things could be changed, but doing so goes against your self-interest, so you do nothing no matter how much pain and suffering it will cause someone else. What we're doing in Elpis is the latter "can't be changed." We are purposely condemning a people for the (possible) benefit of our own which was something the game was against when Emet-Selch, the Warriors of Darkness and Golbez attempted to do it. And the only argument I've seen that makes us the exemption is we're the sacred timeline with the only "chance of survival" while all other timelines are "dead ends" which means it's only wrong to sacrifice us because our lives are simply worth more due to some terrifying Darwinist ideal.