If Crono would be killed before he goes to the Millennial Fair

[KebreI]

A. The time traveler from 2300B wants to kill Crono so he goes back in time.. (let's say to 1000 AD)
B.  Crono dies.
C.  Lavos lives.
D.  2300 A occurs, thus the assassin either 1. does not exist, or 2.  has no idea who Crono is, thus has no reason (or means perhaps) to travel back to 1000 AD.
E. Crono lives.
F.  Lavos dies.
G.  2300B occurs, go to A.


At point D the assassin is fine and due to his TTI he would then conteniue to live just as before, yes the future would then be 2300A but Crono is dead and it is never saved. Not a Paradox if you use TTI, is a Paradox with out it.

[Dark Serge]

That doesn't make any sense... Either one of them happens, not both

[Shadow D. Darkman]

Causing a Paradox is like DIVIDING BY ZERO.

[V_Translanka]

Only dividing by zero is basically saying dividing by nothing which means you're not dividing anything at all...It's not like a paradox, it's just like adding zero.

[Shadow D. Darkman]

True, but the results of both actions are really really bad, which was the point of my comparison.

[art_garfunkel]

The thing about paradoxes in the Chrono universe is that they are impossible to create. There are specific laws at work to prevent paradoxes.

As for the Marle Paradox......the Entity did it.

[placidchap]

How about we change the name TTI to Temporal Transcendence...sounds groovier and its acronym is one less character!  TT or T²   o wow even the acronym looks better.  Anyone, anyone??

How are they impossible to create, btw?  What are the specific rules?  I haven't actually played the game in a few years.  Are you talking about stuff that was specifically stated in the game?  Or the piles of theory created right here, with TTI, Time Error, Time bastard etc...because those could change if something better comes along...

[Thought]

Because if it would go round and round, like someone said, after Chrono fixes the future there's no ruined future anymore for Chrono to fix, so he would never fix it, so there's a ruined future, etc etc paradox

Sorry, I was asking how it "violates some of the things in CT as well."

And I sort of agree with PlacidChap, but for other reasons. TTI seems to be a misnomer; it isn't so much that the travler has immunity, but rather the event of their appearance in a time period (and in that exact form) does.

[killercactus]

A. The time traveler from 2300B wants to kill Crono so he goes back in time.. (let's say to 1000 AD)
B.  Crono dies.
C.  Lavos lives.
D.  2300 A occurs, thus the assassin either 1. does not exist, or 2.  has no idea who Crono is, thus has no reason (or means perhaps) to travel back to 1000 AD.
E. Crono lives.
F.  Lavos dies.
G.  2300B occurs, go to A.


At point D the assassin is fine and due to his TTI he would then conteniue to live just as before, yes the future would then be 2300A but Crono is dead and it is never saved. Not a Paradox if you use TTI, is a Paradox with out it.

I think this is off a bit - here's what I believe should happen (assuming TTI and everything)

A. The time traveler from 2300B wants to kill Crono so he goes back in time.. (let's say to 1000 AD)
B.  Assassin kills Crono, but we don't know which version of Crono he killed.  In 1000 AD, there are now two possible versions of Crono to kill.  He could kill the one that is born sometime around 984 AD in the current timeline that will be eventually discarded as a Time Bastard, or he could kill the version of Crono that has already killed Lavos and shows up for the Moonlight Parade.  Either way, I don't think killing either version of Crono will bring Lavos back from the dead.  The Time Bastard Crono had nothing to do with killing Lavos, and the Moonlight Crono has already done it.  No version of Crono exists that will kill Lavos sometime in the future.
C.  Lavos is still dead
D.  2300 B occurs.  Some assassin is born that thinks going back in time to kill Crono will bring Lavos back into existence.  He goes back in time to kill Crono.  End of circle.

[Thought]

You're forgetting other Crono's, though. There is the Crono that appeared for his trial for kidnapping princess Nadia. That would not be the time bastard Crono (as this Crono is the original Crono, protected by TTI). He hasn't killed Lavos yet, so killing him might lead to Lavos surviving. Of course, Crono time traveled after that, so there are other forms of him that have TTI as well.

[placidchap]

Maybe someone can clarify this, why does a person time travelling from Time A to Time B, not violate the Conservation of Energy which is currently part of the Time Bastard theory?  When Crono introduces himself into the past (or future) is he not bringing his mass with him?  His mass is already present in Time B, since it is assumed mass/energy is not created or destroyed.  This would mean that Crono's mass is in the same point in time, twice (albeit not in the same form). Is it assumed that when someone time travels that they only travel in essence so to speak, and rematerialized in the new time with existing "unused" mass?  Or am I missing something here...

[Vehek]

I think the main idea is that it'll be balanced out in the end when Time Bastard takes place.

[placidchap]

How though?  I don't mean two Crono's existing at the same time if thats what you think I meant, I mean the same mass that makes up Crono in Time A, is dispersed elsewhere in Time B (assuming Crono doesn't exist in Time B).  So when Crono goes to time B, does an equal amount of mass get pushed into Time A, from Time B to offset the original time travel event?  I assume the conservation of energy means at any point in time the energy = X

[Thought]

Conservation of Energy only affects entire systems. That is, the universe.

Crono travels from 1000 AD to 600 AD. If we look only at a slice of the universe (that which represents 600 AD), then yes, it would appear that matter was created. However, if we look at the system as a whole (which would include both 600 and 1000 AD), the energy is the same, it was just moved around.

Imagine you had 10 groups (aka, time periods) of 5 widgets (aka, matter) each. The entire system has 50 widgets. You move one widget from one group to another. While that one group suddenly has more widgets (and another group suddenly has less), the entire system's number of widgets remain constant.

[placidchap]

Ah alright.  That would be the only other option, that I could think possible then.  Is that stated anywhere in the encyclopedia?  That is a useful tidbit to know...I spent a good few hours thinking about that a couple weeks ago..had my own analogy all lined up too...picturing a highway(timeline) submerged in a tank of water...if a car got off then on by way of ramp at different points, the "matter" of the tank stays the same, just shifts a bit ...and here it is already assumed! bugger.  thanks