What lore do you ignore?

[Lyth]

In the interests of quickly wrapping up a few loose ends (the new lore stuff is much more interesting):

What Emet-Selch saw was malformed creatures incapable of speech when he comes from a species that can understand any language due to knowing the intent of your soul.

When you first arrive in Propylaion, both Emet and Hythlodaeus are incapable of understanding what you are saying, despite the fact that you are able to follow their entire conversation. From their perspective, you're 'literally too intangible to form words'. It's only after Emet spares a snifter of his bounteous aether to bring you to their size that they gain the ability to understand what you're telling them (Lv. 86, Hope Upon a Flower).

...

Rebuttal can't happen without refutation. You seem to be misreading my points, which results in the 'counterpoints' not offering any clash for me to engage with.

You can take it as given that the timelines did not diverge in a meaningful way. If they had, the past would have changed when we left Elpis to return to the present. Why this is the case is left open to interpretation. In particular, it is not explicitly stated whether this is a stable time loop, or one that simply converged back on the same sequence of events to keep the future unchanged. It's also unclear about whether this was by design (i.e. Venat attempting to preserve the timeline) or incidental. I'm more inclined to think the latter:

'Until a moment finally arrives, we cannot know for certain what will come to pass - regardless of our supposed foreknowledge. So you needn't worry for us.' (Venat, Lv.87, Travellers at the Crossroads)

I'm not offering a specific interpretation on what happened between our departure from Elpis and the time of the Sundering. I'm just pointing out that there are pre-existing facts from the adjacent story that place limitations on what could have happened in that time period. So when you say it's 'open to interpretation', it's more accurately 'open to interpretation, but within the bounds of the facts of the story'. There are some solutions that are not viable. There are likely more non-viable solutions than we can predict, because we can't test every possibility. Your strategy would likely be more conservative on a single playthrough than one in which you can reset or undo your decisions to test what works.

I'm not sure why you think that enlisting Hermes' aid to create additional entelechies is a viable solution to fighting Meteion. I think the problem with this should be self-evident.

When I say that additional constraints are at the discretion of the writing team, I'm gently reminding you that trying to prove that the writing team are wrong with their own story is a futile task, as anything they offer in response is fact.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

That is because you've just been sent 12k years in the past and are too thin to even press against the door. They weren't failing to understand you because of you sundered status but because of you are literally paper thin. If that had been the same issue, Emet-Selch could have simply given people aether and saved his species...

[ZavosEsperian]

When I say that additional constraints are at the discretion of the writing team, I'm gently reminding you that trying to prove that the writing team are wrong with their own story is a futile task, as anything they offer in response is fact.

Anything you say? I dislike restating myself, or requoting stuff I have quoted earlier, but for the sake of time I will leave out Yoshi-P's personal interpretation as that is his own opinion and only state what the writers’ intent was as fact, as Yoshi-P says this initial response on behalf of the writing team.

Q: I don’t really understand why the Warrior of Light messing around in Elpis didn’t create any alternate timelines. Can you explain what happened?

A: First of all, we’ve left that part up to interpretation.

-Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII (03/03/2022)

Any extra constraints added are invented by you, and thus make your argument invalid to the writers’ point of view, which is leaving everything open to interpretation. In addition, the argument I am stating is on the basis of possibility, whereas yours requires absolutes.

The task you have in proving your statement with the writers' given constrains is not provable. You can only prove it based on contrivances of your own making by adding your own view of various story points into the writer's vision. Under those contrived constrains, you can prove yourself correct, but under the constraints the writers laid out, you can never be correct for sure, which means your argument is always false unless the writers explicitly say yours is correct.

In addition, to prove my argument correct, all I would have to prove the existence of an alternate timeline inside of the story as to show it is consistent with the writers’ constraints (I don't actually have to do this since their interpretation is open, I am doing this just for you), which we know of existing thanks to G'raha Tia's jump from his timeline where the 8th Umbral Calamity occurred and its continued existence via Tales from the Shadow: An Unpromised Tomorrow. It does not matter whether the timeline survives to the end or not, the only thing that matters in my argument is if the possibility exists, which due to the existence of this timeline and its continued existence, thus proving my argument as always true.

Hermes is a different issue altogether. Neither one of us can definitively prove their answer. The difference is the scope of the proof. Yours requires Hermes to turn out bad every time, whereas mine only requires him to do as I have said one time for it to be true. My original argument did invoke an infinity when discussing Hermes as its only contrivance because you are using an argument that also invokes infinity as you directly state the following:

We also know that any branch histories in which Hermes regains his memories prematurely are bad endings, as are any branches in which he does not join the Convocation or is ousted from it.

By invoking the term ‘any’, you are creating a scenario where there are a possible infinite number of timelines and you would have to go and prove for all timelines this being true. Additionally, the information you gate with his memory loss is not subject to the effects of Kairos as I have explained earlier. With those memories freed from your contrived example via proving your statement regarding those memories as false, I can then use them in my argument which, thanks to you using the term ‘any’ is also subject to this infinity, and since my statement is existential, proving it would simply take the writers adding in one scenario where he takes the actions you said he won’t do. Please note us arguing our points doesn’t make one more valid than the other, as neither of these events have been proven to exist or have never been stated to occur in every case, thus both of our arguments are false. The point I am making is you using false information/restrictions via headcanon/interpretation causes your arguments to be extremely poor arguments due to how you frame them in the face of the writers’ point of view as well as invoking terms and conditions you may not intend to. As such, it is rather pointless for either of us to get held up on this argument.

I would suggest in the future to heed your own advice at the beginning of this discussion, it will help you in the future as you appear to defy your own expectations by placing artificial constraints on the story.

(…), you have an obligation to follow the restrictions placed by previous story telling.

[Lyth]

...

No, the burden of proof is yours. If you believe that Venat should have created a divergent timeline, then the burden of proof is on you to show that it's viable (i.e. a solution that doesn't result in Meteion and Hermes winning). I'm just pointing out a few obviously non-viable routes that constrain the type of solutions that you can come up with.

If your proposed 'solution' was to tell Hermes what has happened and enlist his help, then no further input is required from me. I can safely rest my case here.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

No, the burden of proof is yours. If you believe that Venat should have created a divergent timeline, then the burden of proof is on you to show that it's viable (i.e. a solution that doesn't result in Meteion and Hermes winning). I'm just pointing out a few obviously non-viable routes that constrain the type of solutions that you can come up with.

If your proposed 'solution' was to tell Hermes what has happened and enlist his help, then no further input is required from me. I can safely rest my case here.

How do you reconcile your belief that nothing could be done to change the timeline with your belief that Venat released the Ascians hoping the change the timeline (even though she didn't give them any information that would perhaps lead them to behave differently and the producers have stated she's attempting to maintain the timeline.) https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6397195

You've contradicted yourself from post to post. You ignore the ample evidence being quoted at you. And people applaud while nothing you're saying is consistent even with other things you've said in this thread.

I've come to realize the amount of denial I'd have to be in to see Venat's actions as something besides genocide is a level of doublethink I'm incapable of. I was hoping discussing things here would give me new insights that might make me doubt my interpretation. But now I see what would be required of me to view her acts as good.

War is peace.

[Lyth]

Emet did overturn the prophesied outcome that we recounted in Poieten Oikos. It is true that he became a tyrannical despot. But it is also true that he proved to be more than just that, in the end, by coming to our aid in Ultima Thule. Had Venat judged him only based off of what we told her, rather than what she knew about him, then we would have lost.

[ZavosEsperian]

No, the burden of proof is yours.

See my previous post. Everything I stated is logically sound in terms of how logic is understood around the globe (if there are any faults in my logic, you are free to point them out and I will admit to it). My argument and your are fundamentally different, and as far as the burden of proof is concerned, mine is already met for the type of argument I made, which is existential. The type of statement you made is universal and has a higher burden of proof than an existential statement. If you cannot show your statement is universally true, you have failed to make a logical argument and thus the argument should be disregarded. An example of a failed universal proof looks like this:

I'm just pointing out a few obviously non-viable routes that constrain the type of solutions that you can come up with.

Proof by example is a logical fallacy whereby the validity of a statement is illustrated through one or more examples or cases and, as such, is unable to be used as proof for a universal statement

The divergence possibility cannot be ruled out because you want to ignore the existence of the timeline G'raha originated from and its continued existence, which goes against arguments you hold everyone else up to. I will remind you again what your previous statement was paired with what the writers' think on this issue:

When I say that additional constraints are at the discretion of the writing team, I'm gently reminding you that trying to prove that the writing team are wrong with their own story is a futile task, as anything they offer in response is fact.

and here is what the writers say about this issue:

Q: I don’t really understand why the Warrior of Light messing around in Elpis didn’t create any alternate timelines. Can you explain what happened?

A: First of all, we’ve left that part up to interpretation.

-Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII (03/03/2022)

As far as Hermes is concerned, I have already stated neither of us have any way to prove our arguments as true, nor have I ever taken a stance where I am personally invested in proving this point true for headcanon reasons. You are free to assume what I believe in terms of the story, but you cannot deny the logic of the argument. From a logical standpoint, the burden of proof is higher on universal statements than it is on existential statements due to the nature of the two statement types. No amount of arguing will ever change this fact. As such, you have no way to prove what Hermes would do outside of conjecture, which is not sufficient to prove a universal statement true. Similarly, I have no way to prove Hermes' involvement either because there does not exist a case to prove me true. As such, it is pointless to keep doing this unless you are enjoying learning about logical proofing for our arguments here, in which case I do not mind continuing to show you how to argue using logical statements.

In any case, there is one true universal statement you have made in your posts on the subject from all viewpoints based on the circumstances:

The fact that we reached an ending where humanity survived at all was, in all likelihood, a lot of blind luck in dodging the multitude of bad ends.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

Emet did overturn the prophesied outcome that we recounted in Poieten Oikos. It is true that he became a tyrannical despot. But it is also true that he proved to be more than just that, in the end, by coming to our aid in Ultima Thule. Had Venat judged him only based off of what we told her, rather than what she knew about him, then we would have lost.

He didn't do anything differently. By the time you reach Ultima Thule either he helps Venat's super soldier made from pieces of his best friend or the universe ends. Given Emet-Selch's goal was always, always to reduce the suffering inflicted by the Sundering by putting people back together again, helping the universe not end is completely consistent with his character. He didn't change. He just got tired. Lost and gave up attempting to undo a genocide given he'd be at it for 12k years and by this point we'd re-evolved to something close enough to what he understood as a person, he'd just have to deal with it.

And yes, Emet-Selch is required not to be bitter about being used, tortured and his people massacred--or we lose. He had to produce a child with beings he believed less than human--or we lose. That child's descendant had to grow up to be a psychopath that's willing to stalk us to the edge of the universe--or we lose.

It's almost like a single person shouldn't take it upon themselves to decide the fate of the universe given it was barely saved. It's almost like Venat should have played through the 6.x content and learned the importance of teamwork...

[Lyth]

...

I'm not saying that Emet did anything 'differently'.

If Venat had acted entirely based off of the story that we told her in Poieten Oikos (i.e. the information about Emet's misdeeds that we knew from Shadowbringers), then Emet-Selch would have lived out his days as an ordinary human being and died thousands of years ago, his memories and knowledge along with it. The story that we told her was only half of the picture, because even we didn't yet know that he had a redemption arc at that point. It just goes to show you how precarious it can be to try to metagame a predicted future event when you don't fully understand how the timeline is constructed.

You can act like Emet didn't have a choice in any of this, but either everyone has free will or nobody does at all. He chose to become a villain, but he also chose to try to redeem himself.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

You can act like Emet didn't have a choice in any of this, but either everyone has free will or nobody does at all. He chose to become a villain, but he also chose to try to redeem himself.

You are correct. Because of this stupid time loop, no one has free will besides the WoL and Venat because without awareness of the time loop, what you did the first time and the results, you do not have the ability to choose another path. The only two people with agency in this world are Venat and the WoL and they both chose genocide. And I am supposed to feel good and right about that based on the framing.

I do not.

As for Emet-Selch, he did not redeem himself. His motivations and actions remain consistent. He labored to save the world, as he always have, because that's who he is. Defining things that benefit the main character personally as good, and things that are a detriment to the main character as bad is the exact kind of dumbing down of morality that makes Endwalkers morals pure hypocrisy. Genocide is bad when it's against us, but genocide is good when it's for us. WHAT?!

Also, since all the people supporting this have completely contradictory readings of what happened, if you're one of the ones that believes Emet-Selch is tempered then you're contradicting yourself again. If that's the case, he didn't have free will at any point and there was nothing to redeem himself for as he was mentally enslaved. Also, I've caught yet another contradiction in what you've stated you believe. If you think Venat spared Emet-Selch *hoping* he'd do the right thing and not put his butchered people back together, then if she was right and he didn't, then the WoL would never be created. So even if he somehow did something he doesn't have the power to do because he doesn't know he's in a time loop, that would simply mean the end of the universe.

She can't both not want the rejoinings because wanting millions of people murdered is bad, but also want the rejoinings to build her super soldier who will ensure her godhood and save the universe. It's one or the other. She's Schrodinger's God.