Revelations from Keynote II

[Cilia]

The thing with Alexander is that while, from one viewpoint, things go around and around infinitely.... there is only one timeline, and there was only ever one timeline. It's a stable time loop, where everything plays out the same way every time (except there's only really one time).

Objection!

This requires an in-depth understanding of what an observer is.

An observer has a very special role in time, that is it determines which causal pathway happened.

To use an example, say we set up a flashlight in front of a piece of plastic with two slits. If you turn on the flashlight, photons stream through the two slots and into the background. However, given each photon can only travel through one of the two slots, we can't know which one because they simply move too fast for us to observe individual photons, so we have to assume it could have gone through both. However, say a device was created that could tell which of the two slots a photon went through. Now we have knowledge of which slot the photon traveled through, but only because something was created to determine that.

The "device" mentioned here is the observer; without it we'd have to assume that each given photon could have traveled through either of the two slots.

It's a lot like applying a save state to reality. If you save your game and choose option A, option B becomes impossible - you've observed option A, which is mutually exclusive with option B. You can choose to go back and reload the save state if you want to see the outcome of option B at a later date (for whatever reason), but the characters aren't aware of this - option A's characters are not the same as option B's characters. You are, in effect, the observer.

Apply this to time. Every action taken by everyone and everything creates infinitely tessellating possibilities, but because this "us" only exists in one timeline (option A), we can't observe the "us"es that exist in every other possibility.

In the context of Alexander, that means yes, there has to be a timeline that created Alexander - because there are infinite timelines where he never existed at all. Someone or something had to create him. The tricky part about Alexander is that due to his power over time he is essentially his own observer, but he can only observe timelines in which he exists. Of the infinitely tessellating possibilities stemming from everything that happens within his storyline, Alexander has to always make the same choices and observe only the timeline we play, because otherwise it creates a temporal paradox.

Do we remember each individual instance of the time loop? No, it's a quantum singularity - everything that happens in and around Alexander has to happen in our timeline, because from our perspective anything else creates a temporal paradox. But... even though we can't observe them, there are infinite other timelines where things played out differently. Something, at some point in some timeline has to be responsible for Alexander's creation and time loop, we just can't observe what because from our perspective Alexander has always existed as a part of the timeline.

It's why I've postulated Hydaelyn acts as our observer (She chooses only the timeline She wants, i.e. the one where we're successful even in the face of nigh-impossible odds; your PC's deaths are just possibilities She chooses to not observe).

TL;DR - time is really complicated, but to say there's only one timeline isn't accurate. There's just only one we can observe.

[YianKutku]

TL;DR - time is really complicated, but to say there's only one timeline isn't accurate. There's just only one we can observe.

I remember reading up on this sort of stuff back when I was looking into various terminology and jargon used by other speculative fiction, but I soon gave up because I have this instinctive urge to try to simplify and analogize everything, and I get the feeling this does not work with quantum concepts.

This discussion did remind me of the concept of quantum immortality, ie the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment from the viewpoint of the cat. Basically, the cat is always alive, because otherwise there would be no observer to observe the timeline, since there is no outside observer (at least for the sake of this thought experiment).

And then I got to wondering how far we can apply this to the way players keep wiping to raids and bosses, and yet the Warrior of Light continues to survive and win, from the viewpoint of everyone else.

[Iscah]

And then I got to wondering how far we can apply this to the way players keep wiping to raids and bosses, and yet the Warrior of Light continues to survive and win, from the viewpoint of everyone else.

The really simple answer is that the player messed up, and didn't make the character do what they needed to do to continue the pre-planned story.

But for an in-game explanation, there's the Echo.

For the most part, I've assumed that it is giving us some kind of premonition - a brief vision of what would happen in the near future if we don't dodge that attack, or aren't ready to heal our friend when they get targeted, or know how to respond to the spell that we saw the enemy casting, but didn't know what to expect.

Although having just replayed the Warriors of Darkness arc, I have to wonder about that. During the battle instance against them, you get them down to zero HP and then they "call on the power of the Echo", which revives them in a blaze of light.

So is that supposed to be a genuine "Echo mechanic" rather than just a gameplay mechanic? Do we really, actually call on the Echo and get revived?

Although on the other hand, perhaps not, as normal gameplay mechanics would suggest rewinding time as well (since we return to the start of the battle and the enemy follows their script again). We don't seem to see this happen in the WoD fight - we don't get sent back to the start of the battle each time they use the Echo.

[Kuroka]

Although on the other hand, perhaps not, as normal gameplay mechanics would suggest rewinding time as well (since we return to the start of the battle and the enemy follows their script again). We don't seem to see this happen in the WoD fight - we don't get sent back to the start of the battle each time they use the Echo.

Ofc not, we got the Echo as well, so that doesnt work on us, id say... I do feel part of it is just gameplay mechanic and basically it still happens just like it did with the wod, jsut that we gotta replay everyhing as we would have infinite lives on trials if not...

[Iscah]

Ofc not, we got the Echo as well, so that doesnt work on us, id say...

The other Scions are with us though, and they don't get "reset".

Maybe I can remember to ask about it for the next lore panel, if we don't get answers in the meanwhile.

Overall I would just say "gameplay and story segregation", but then they have a lore-based explanation for respawning at a save point...

[Fenral]

Overall I would just say "gameplay and story segregation", but then they have a lore-based explanation for respawning at a save point...

Which never comes up again aside from the tutorial quests. I'd like to think that there are certain kinds of incapacitation that non-WoLs can just shrug off with a respawn (otherwise we're all mass-murderers), but the setting tries so Twelvesdamned hard to make Eorzea (and beyond) seem so dangerous at every possible moment, that I sometimes wonder why they didn't simply leave it at gameplay-and-story segregation.

[Kalise]

And then I got to wondering how far we can apply this to the way players keep wiping to raids and bosses, and yet the Warrior of Light continues to survive and win, from the viewpoint of everyone else.

As I recall, the canon for this is our Echo.

When we wipe to a boss/trial/raid, we're not actually doing that. Our Echo is merely showing us a possible future, one where we fail. Which we then learn from and change how we fight.

Kind of like how we use the Echo to explore people's pasts, like Ysale could. Only we have the seemingly unique ability to see into possible futures (Which if you think about it, creates an innumerable amount of alternate timelines...)

Although having just replayed the Warriors of Darkness arc, I have to wonder about that. During the battle instance against them, you get them down to zero HP and then they "call on the power of the Echo", which revives them in a blaze of light.

So is that supposed to be a genuine "Echo mechanic" rather than just a gameplay mechanic? Do we really, actually call on the Echo and get revived?

Well, it's quite possible that's how THEIR Echo manifests.

As we've noted, different people get different things from their Echo. Fordola gets heightened senses which makes her incredibly potent in battle as she can dodge most attacks sent at her. Ysale shares our capacity to delve into people's pasts. While Krile merely is able to discern the emotions of those around her.

So it could be that the WoD's just have a revivification mechanic as their Echo "Super power".

Either that, or there's some odd interaction with an Echo user going all Ascian and giving up their mortal body. Kind of akin to that scene where Varis gets miffed and shoots Solus, only for Solus to come walking back out in a brand new body seconds later.

[Keever]

As I recall, the canon for this is our Echo.

When we wipe to a boss/trial/raid, we're not actually doing that. Our Echo is merely showing us a possible future, one where we fail. Which we then learn from and change how we fight.

Kind of like how we use the Echo to explore people's pasts, like Ysale could. Only we have the seemingly unique ability to see into possible futures (Which if you think about it, creates an innumerable amount of alternate timelines...)

This is a fan idea with no evidence in any official material. It's entirely based off the fact that we get an "Echo" buff after wiping after a set amount of time in certain encounters, but that ignores the facts that:

A) In many cases the Echo buff is retroactively added to fights a patch or two after they are released--so what, are we supposed to believe that the Echo was unable to help us until the game mechanic was retroactively added?

B) The buff is most likely called that because the Japanese name for the Echo is "the power to surpass/transcend". The game is adding the buff to help you surpass the fight.

Basically, it's just something people say on Reddit which doesn't actually gel well with lore, like, at all.

[RicaRuin]

To add to that, the Echo is what some people use to justify why we can see AoE and other markers. But in some cases, you have to accept that there's Gameplay/Story segregation and not everything that is a gameplay mechanic has to answer to lore.

[RenewalXVII]

To add to that, the Echo is what some people use to justify why we can see AoE and other markers. But in some cases, you have to accept that there's Gameplay/Story segregation and not everything that is a gameplay mechanic has to answer to lore.

This should be Rule 1 when discussing the Lore. At the end of the day, the developer's priority is to produce an enjoyable game, and while they respect the lore and do their best to make things fit, their first priority is always to make the game functional and enjoyable, and then wrangle the lore to fit.