Something doesn't add up regarding the connection between Amdapor and Norvrandt...

[ObsidianFire]

The only things we see while being pulled through the Rift is the past though. We don't see anything of the bad future.

The only being that has ever been said to have the power to see the future in any way is Alexander. And even that isn't really seeing the future; he's calculating it in his supercomputer of a brain. He doesn't even need the Rift to do so either. It's intrinsic to his powers of the Primal of Time Manipulation.

If I had to take a guess, I'd think the Amdapori saw something similar to Ultima, The High Seraph.

[Berethos]

The only things we see while being pulled through the Rift is the past though. We don't see anything of the bad future.

Moments in the past, all jumbled up and out or order and flying by, right? We see what looked like Shiva and Moenbryda before Zenos, saw Haurchefant before we see Urianger unmasked next to Yotsuyu next Gosetsu to a masked Gaius next to a blue armor wearing Estinien.

Which is what I'm getting at - the rift is operating outside of time. In fact, one of the lines from the caster role quest is thus: "But I remember the words of one of my teachers. 'The rift is not unlike a border between countless worlds - a place that exists beyond time and space." A place that exists beyond time and space wouldn't limit itself to only the present and moments previous to it, and it's a sight more convoluted trying to explain how these various moments would line up across shards to account for the varying passage of years than it is to simply say "It's a plane of existence outside of time and space, through which the past and the future can be seen or reached in the right circumstances or with the right (exceptionally advanced) technology."

Also, while we do see things from our past (though ya never know with some of those fast moving blurry ones), don't ya think there's a pretty good chance that was done for dramatic effect, rather than definitive "you can only see the past through the rift."

Finally, we do have an example of someone seeing into the future (and through the CT no less) - the SMN book I mentioned a couple posts back.

[Iscah]

That interview was made in March 2017, 3.5 had launched in January 2017 and 4.0 launched in June. I'm going to make the assumption they had started to really pinned down what Astral/Umbral and what Light/Darkness were by that moment since they were already planning for the next expantion.

I really think the revelation we got from Urianger is that Astral and Umbral should now be distinguished from Light and Darkness. What was confusing me (and what i feel confuse a lot of player atm) is I made the relation Astral=Light and Umbral=Darkness since ARR and nothing made that assumption false up to that point. The explanation is pretty clear thought:
1) There's no umbral or astral energies, it's only a state of how one element or a mix of element manifest;
2) Darkness and Light are true energies, not elements;
3) Darkness and Light are not the same thing as Astral and Umbral; (But we now know they can have Umbral/Astral charges)

I'm not saying that umbral and astral are "energies". They're polarities or aspects which can apply to any of the elements.

And while Eorzea uses those terms, they are labeled differently on the First.

The active polarity is named "astral" in Eorzea and "Darkness" in Norvrant.

The passive polarity is named "umbral" and "Light".

Meanwhile, separate to the Dark (active) polarity and Light (passive) polarity, there is Dark energy and Light energy. They're separate concepts using the same terms.

[Ardox]

I'm not saying that umbral and astral are "energies". They're polarities or aspects which can apply to any of the elements.

And while Eorzea uses those terms, they are labeled differently on the First.

The active polarity is named "astral" in Eorzea and "Darkness" in Norvrant.

The passive polarity is named "umbral" and "Light".

Meanwhile, separate to the Dark (active) polarity and Light (passive) polarity, there is Dark energy and Light energy. They're separate concepts using the same terms.

Ok, I see what you mean now,

To be honest, the Source people don't really use Astral/Umbral either in their dialogues. At this point, I'd have to replay the game and pay attention when they use the terms astral, light, umbral and darkness to see if they make any distinction. From what I understand, in Eorzea, astral and light are just as much synonyms as astral and darkness would be in Novrant.

yeap.. it's confusing..

[Iscah]

Ok, I see what you mean now,

To be honest, the Source people don't really use Astral/Umbral either in their dialogues. At this point, I'd have to replay the game and pay attention when they use the terms astral, light, umbral and darkness to see if they make any distinction. From what I understand, in Eorzea, astral and light are just as much synonyms as astral and darkness would be in Novrant.

yeap.. it's confusing..

They're totally separate concepts in Eorzea, and not used interchangeably.

The polarities (and eras) are referred to as astral and umbral, but never directly as light and dark - although you naturally might connect the concepts.

The Scions talk about the Light and Dark forces in the battle between Hydaelyn and the Ascians, but never describe those powers as astral or umbral.

[Seraphor]

Ok, I see what you mean now,

To be honest, the Source people don't really use Astral/Umbral either in their dialogues. At this point, I'd have to replay the game and pay attention when they use the terms astral, light, umbral and darkness to see if they make any distinction. From what I understand, in Eorzea, astral and light are just as much synonyms as astral and darkness would be in Novrant.

yeap.. it's confusing..

I think it's more that on the Source, people know about Astral/Umbral (or Active/Passive polarity) and they also know about Light/Dark energies, but having not witnessed a flood as they did on the First, they never had a direct link between them.
With Umbral having manifested on the First as a 'Flood of Light' whether or not they're technically the 'same' thing, they were able to make that link.

[Ardox]

They're totally separate concepts in Eorzea, and not used interchangeably.

The polarities (and eras) are referred to as astral and umbral, but never directly as light and dark - although you naturally might connect the concepts.

The Scions talk about the Light and Dark forces in the battle between Hydaelyn and the Ascians, but never describe those powers as astral or umbral.

It's here our reading diverge. Urianger is surprised to discover that light can be describe as umbral by his sejourn on the First. How would someone be surprised by something they already know? (That Astral/Umbral are entirely different concepts)

[ObsidianFire]

Umbral and Astral are almost philosophical concepts though. Anything that is regarded as "passive" or "stagnent" would be considered Umbral on the Source. Same as anything that is "active" or "energetic" would be considered Astral. That's what we have Astral and Umbral Eras. No one really thinks that there are "astral energies" behind an Astral Era. It's just that the Era itself is marked by growth and societal prosperity and so is considered Astral. While an Umbral Era is a period of death and societal stagnancy. It's just that ather behaves in such a way that matches the philosophical concept of Astral and Umbral.

From the sound of it, no one ever figured out what caused aether to act Astral or Umbral on the Source though. Probably because the Source has never really had such an extreme of Light or Dark energy (or the lack thereof) that the 1st Shard had. Urianger is surprised that there is such a link (actual link vs philosophical link) between the two at all. Thancred even suggest that in Source terms, how the people of the 1st Shard describe Light and Darkness would be considered to be "Umbral Light" and "Astral Darkness". Which suggests the Source might have ideas associated with "Astral Light" and "Umbral Darkness" as well.

The other important thing to remember is that on the 1st Shard, "Astral" and "Umbral" aren't even words or concepts that exist. The Source only has terms for what happens with Light and Dark effect aether. The 1st Shard only has terms for what forces are effecting aether in different ways. And to make matters more confusing, the 1st Shard terms for the forces that effect eather have a different definition and usage on the Source.

[Ardox]

Umbral and Astral are almost philosophical concepts though. Anything that is regarded as "passive" or "stagnent" would be considered Umbral on the Source. Same as anything that is "active" or "energetic" would be considered Astral. That's what we have Astral and Umbral Eras. No one really thinks that there are "astral energies" behind an Astral Era. It's just that the Era itself is marked by growth and societal prosperity and so is considered Astral. While an Umbral Era is a period of death and societal stagnancy. It's just that ather behaves in such a way that matches the philosophical concept of Astral and Umbral.

From the sound of it, no one ever figured out what caused aether to act Astral or Umbral on the Source though. Probably because the Source has never really had such an extreme of Light or Dark energy (or the lack thereof) that the 1st Shard had. Urianger is surprised that there is such a link (actual link vs philosophical link) between the two at all. Thancred even suggest that in Source terms, how the people of the 1st Shard describe Light and Darkness would be considered to be "Umbral Light" and "Astral Darkness". Which suggests the Source might have ideas associated with "Astral Light" and "Umbral Darkness" as well.

The other important thing to remember is that on the 1st Shard, "Astral" and "Umbral" aren't even words or concepts that exist. The Source only has terms for what happens with Light and Dark effect aether. The 1st Shard only has terms for what forces are effecting aether in different ways. And to make matters more confusing, the 1st Shard terms for the forces that effect eather have a different definition and usage on the Source.

I think you're right, people on the source knows there's no astral/umbral energies (I didn't intended to imply they would). What I meant is, it is not clear if Eorzean canonically make a hard distinction between astral light and astral Light (or umbral darkness and umbral Darkness).

Put simply, all umbral eras were period of chaos brought by the servants of Darkness, warriors of Light fought to protect them. It's the warrior of Light that brought the seventh astral era (I can't say if all astral eras have been fostered by WoLs though). I was under the impression the Eorzean made that shortcut too. As far as I know, except for the eras, the terms astral and umbral are almost never used in the dialogues even in ShB so It's not like I'm standing on solid ground to argue (if you have excerpt of cutscenes/dialogues/lore book I'd be glad to be enlighten).

On a side note, I really enjoy this conversation .. would almost feel like a Sharlayan Scholars trying to discover the truth of Hydelyn

[Ouen]

Ok, I see what you mean now,

To be honest, the Source people don't really use Astral/Umbral either in their dialogues. At this point, I'd have to replay the game and pay attention when they use the terms astral, light, umbral and darkness to see if they make any distinction. From what I understand, in Eorzea, astral and light are just as much synonyms as astral and darkness would be in Novrant.

yeap.. it's confusing..

Every time I try wrapping my head around this topic it explodes again. There's some really awesome discussion here that helps a lot. At first I thought it was simple enough, but the more I read, the more I realize I don't fully understand the concept Uriangier was explaining.

For the reason you state, I can't wait for New Game+. I've replayed bits of the game on alts and when you go through the story once again, knowing the significance of what's to happen in the future, it puts everything in a different light. At the launch of 4.0, I didn't even remember encountering Meffrid at Quarrymill. However, after I revisited ARR post-Stormblood, doing that segment and talking to the people at Little Ala Mhigo I'm like "WAAAIT... I'm starting to see all these connections now!" If it wasn't such a slog, I'd like to replay the game after each expansion because it all takes on a different color once you learn things that the new story presents.

There's a lot of conflicting speculation about whether Emet's supposed convictions and goals are based on reality, if they're exaggerations or even perhaps deception. When I see Ascians pop up earlier in the story now, so much more weight and context is lent to those events after receiving the lore he's given us with Amaurot. Whether the events surrounding the Sundering happened as he portrayed them or not, it still just makes earlier events so much more interesting IMO. I hope New Game+ is challenging and gives some good titles/rewards and hope that what we've learned has some grains of truth at least. It seems unclear to a lot of people (myself included) what New Game+ actually is beyond changing the MSQ flags, but I'm excited to go back through nonetheless.