Links to the Split Timeline Theory??

Can anyone direct me to older threads relating to the Split Timeline Theory? I would like to read through and revise them.

Thanks

Hmmm, what particular component of the Split?
Creator intention? Physics? Single timeline inconcistencies? MM connections? Counters to arguments against? Its a broad subject.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have, as a theorist who once shared your conviction, but first I want to warn you that it is epistemology, no theory itslef, which denies the Double Timeline. You cannot possibly argue the Double Timeline to someone with a particular view of the timeline.

You would first have to convince me of that viewpoint, convince me that theorist had a right to imploy inductive reasoning in their theorising, beofe you could hope to convince me to beleive in the Double Timeline. I do not beleive you can do that, but I would happy to argue with you anyway.

Finally, in regards to your signature, i would like to point out that the split is not extinct, it is still the prevailing theory, or atleast a supported possibility, on many forum outside of ZU.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Hmmm, what particular component of the Split?
Creator intention? Physics? Single timeline inconcistencies? MM connections? Counters to arguments against? Its a broad subject.

Anything not entirely relating to physics. We are dealing with fantasy after all.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have, as a theorist who once shared your conviction, but first I want to warn you that it is epistemology, no theory itslef, which denies the Double Timeline. You cannot possibly argue the Double Timeline to someone with a particular view of the timeline.

My intention is not force everyone to believe the Split Timelime. I am still attemtping to configure my own little Timeline. I just wish to show how this theory can possibly work in comparison to the Linear Timeline.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

You would first have to convince me of that viewpoint, convince me that theorist had a right to imploy inductive reasoning in their theorising, beofe you could hope to convince me to beleive in the Double Timeline. I do not beleive you can do that, but I would happy to argue with you anyway.

Once I have the details and evidence I need to properly put together a stronger theory of the Split Timeline, I would be happy to debate with you.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Finally, in regards to your signature, i would like to point out that the split is not extinct, it is still the prevailing theory, or atleast a supported possibility, on many forum outside of ZU.

Yes I notice it is not highly favored at ZU. I've been to other Zelda forums, and I must admit this site is the most dedicated to the franchise. On the other hand though, many fans here are quite relentless.

OK: points in full support of the Double Timeline.
(Dissenters, if you don't mind, give him time to read ask questions before you jump on this. I'm going to take things one at a time.)

Introduction:
The "Double Timeline" is one of many theories conceived in order to explain the connection between OOT and MM. The DT is unique among these, however, because it has implicatons which extend beyond, to other games of the series.
All of these theories are reasoned <b>inductively</b>, and are, therefore, self perfecting. This property is extremely useful in real world science, but in Timeline theorising, where true experimentation is not possible, it is extremely dangerous.

Inducted conclusions can never be proven completely wrong. Rather, a particular part of the theory can be supported against, causing the entire theory to mutate, changing to accomidate the argument, but remaning fundamentally the same. The argument you are currently having with Lionharted is one of many examples of this principle.

If two such inducted theories exist, (ie the Single timeline conection and Double timeline connections) they will obviously come into conflict with each other. Of course, neither theory can prevail in this situation, because neither can fully disprove the other. Without proper experimentation, without the natural continuation of the scientific method, we are stuck fast. Nothing can be accomplished, oinly sensless, unceasing argument can result.

So a warning to you, before you proceed. You will be able to create a "perfect" Double timeline theory, but it can not, will not, avail you to anything.

With me so far?

In short, you can easily make a flawless Double Timeline. The problem is, you will not be able to prove it, since it will be based on personal observation and opinion only. The same, of course, can be said of the single timeline--but the inception of the single timeline as an idea does not require personal observation, since, obviously, a single timeline would be default if the possibility of a double-line did not exist.

This is how it is.

OoT and TWW support a single timeline.
MM supports a double timeline.

Thus, the debate will never end.

Actually, MM could support one or the other, hence the debate.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

In short, you can easily make a flawless Double Timeline. The problem is, you will not be able to prove it, since it will be based on personal observation and opinion only. The same, of course, can be said of the single timeline--but the inception of the single timeline as an idea does not require personal observation, since, obviously, a single timeline would be default if the possibility of a double-line did not exist.

I understand this. My objective is not to prove the Split Timeline is the true timeline, because infact, a true timeline has yet to be revealed. I noticed that it was a dying theory here at ZU, and I'm simply trying to puzzle it back together to make it a theroy that could, more or so, become believable to many.

I do understand though that the Linear Timeline would be the default conception of the timeline if the Split Theory is massly turned down by a major source.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

OK: points in full support of the Double Timeline.
(Dissenters, if you don't mind, give him time to read ask questions before you jump on this. I'm going to take things one at a time.)

Introduction:
The "Double Timeline" is one of many theories conceived in order to explain the connection between OOT and MM. The DT is unique among these, however, because it has implicatons which extend beyond, to other games of the series.
All of these theories are reasoned <b>inductively</b>, and are, therefore, self perfecting. This property is extremely useful in real world science, but in Timeline theorising, where true experimentation is not possible, it is extremely dangerous.

Inducted conclusions can never be proven completely wrong. Rather, a particular part of the theory can be supported against, causing the entire theory to mutate, changing to accomidate the argument, but remaning fundamentally the same. The argument you are currently having with Lionharted is one of many examples of this principle.

If two such inducted theories exist, (ie the Single timeline conection and Double timeline connections) they will obviously come into conflict with each other. Of course, neither theory can prevail in this situation, because neither can fully disprove the other. Without proper experimentation, without the natural continuation of the scientific method, we are stuck fast. Nothing can be accomplished, oinly sensless, unceasing argument can result.

So a warning to you, before you proceed. You will be able to create a "perfect" Double timeline theory, but it can not, will not, avail you to anything.

With me so far?

Yeah I'm following, and I realize it won't avail me to anything, but at the same time... neither can the Linear Timeline. Both theories can't disporve one another, thus leaving for mass open debates.

But this is purely what these theories are about.. debates. The true timeline hasn't been revealed, and until the developpers continue to fill in the gabs neseccary, we won't have a strong idea as to how the timeline fits together.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

Actually, MM could support one or the other, hence the debate.

I disagree. Although we know that MM continues from OoT Link's childhood story (which could be from either the single or double timeline), the details as shown in MM, such a Koume & Kotake, Epona and the Ocarina of Time imply the cause of these details was Link changing history. As you know, TWW's evidence supports Link travelling back in time within the same timeline, so the debate is between the evidence of both games.

What do Koume and Kotake have to do with anything?
How does Epona going to Termina change anything?
Why does it matter if the Ocarina is in Termina?

One of the main arguments against the split timeline is that one cannot demonstrate that these "inconsistencies" actually mean anything, especially given that time travel in OoT (including the travel at the end) does not seem to "mute" events.

But this is purely what these theories are about.. debates. The true timeline hasn't been revealed, and until the developpers continue to fill in the gabs neseccary, we won't have a strong idea as to how the timeline fits together.

Why, then, should you theorize about the Timeline in the first place?
>Most common answers: Its a puzzle, its fun, its cool to know more about the series.
Eaxactly, but the answers to such puzzles, any true knowledge that can be gained, should not be infinitely debatable, they should be (eventually) deductible.

An answer that is infered is neither a solution to a puzzle, nor a true peice of knowledge about the series. It is something personal, rather then universal, and so, IMO, not a true accomplishment of our timeline goals.

Debate is nesassary in order to perfet the process of deductive reasoning, but it is useless when applied to inductive reasoning because no end result is possible. The medium result, the Double Timeline, is nothing but an idea, a hypothesis, never a truth.

I still never got the links to the threads I wanted

There really aren't any that outline a split theory.

They are link's to a bunch of 100 post threads that feature a number of theorists, mostly Lionharted and myself, arguing over nothing and getting nowhere. Something I'd like to avoid from happening again; hence the stigma of link posting.

IMO, it would be better to reun through the DT bit by bit, and I've got a couple hours in which to do that, but I'd first like to get past this epistemology stuff... so are we past it?

Puh,


You will revive the Split Timeline, eh? Yeah right. You and what army? That theory is outdated and evil to the fact that it will prevent the timeline from ever taking on a constant steady pace in the future. It wil only cause nitendo more of a mess in the future if they don't keep up with it after they make the official timeline, whatever it may be. So do you really think that Nintendo is officially going to incorporate two timelines??? If you think you alone are going to undo what I have beset majority support of at ZU in my two years here, you will feel the wrath that other Split Timeline Theorist have shuddered in the past.

The Linear Timeline and the Split Timeline are like oil and water in there own inductive reasonings behind them and neither theory can cancle each other out. I realize this and your sig is a direct message of war, taunting the Linear Timelien. I take a big affence to that because I feel your theory is wrong on many technical reasons that WILL eventually be disproven if you carry on the way you are lately.

So just step back for a moment and look at the mess Nintendo has made out of the timeline over the years because of the unclear direction they have put the chronology through. Do you realize that in interviews that TP was said to be the LAST LoZ to bring closer to the OoT legend. And they even put the game AFTER OoT. Not OoT(child ending) as they had said for MM. After OoT - as in AFTER OoT (Adult ending) If they officially wanted to bring the series to that sort of direction in this theory of yours, then they would have had TP be where it could make the OoT(child ending) have more "backbone" to its timeline base, having TP come after MM instead. Otherwise there is no LoZ historically proven to come off of OoT(child) ending solely without giving visual reference back to that legend in some way. TP does not look promissing to prove the timeline has a split.

I suggest you read my Zelda producers interpretation thread that discusses the direction the chronology of Zelda will have under Anouma instead of Shigeru:

The Word From Above Counts Today...

The Linear Timeline shall shine forth and convert all other Split Timeline theorist it has in the past.

Sincerely,

The Ultimate Rebel Against the Split Timeline Theory: LOZ Historian

LOZ Historian, you are not being productive.