Author Topic: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view  (Read 15824 times)

Eske

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« on: December 24, 2008, 03:01:54 am »
The Compendium traditionally holds that the Marle Paradox (her apparently being subject to the grandfather paradox in 600AD) is an exception to the rule or some strange anomaly, or a move made by the Entity.

This seems to come from the view that the Marle Paradox = the Grandfather Paradox.  Her ancestor disappears, so she also vanishes.  Lucca even explains this in the game with a little mini cutscene.

To ignore a scene from the game that is further explained by another scene in the game or dismiss it as an oversight when developing theories is just wrong in my opinion.

I understand why the Compendium seems to feel this way:

1) All other instances that would exhibit the effects of the Grandfather Paradox  do not.
2) Time Travellers are freed from causality

^^ I agree with both statements, but let's take a look at the situation at hand from the perspective of another popular theory here:  Time Bastard

Person A in Time X goes to Time X-10
When their double, Person A', approaches Time X, he vanishes, but why?

Its not that doubles can't exist so much as extra information cannot exist. 
Time Bastard just happens to discard extra information that is duplicate to the Time Traveller.

I propose that, instead of being an exception to the rule, The Marle Paradox is simply the demonstration of a different rule.

It isn't an example of the Grandfather Paradox, its an example of Conservation.

Like the doubles, Marle and her ancestors after Leene are closest to the entity that was changed.
Leene was that entity.   In the new 1000AD, the matter that would have been a part of Marle still exists, but Marle does not.  So the version of her in 600AD is extra information.  There is nothing to "TB" as it were, so something has to go to preserve balance.

The question is:  why did she disappear when she did?

I don't know.  My first assumption for this thread is that there is some point in time, a reference point the system can use.
For Time Bastard this reference point is easy.  If A travels at Time X, the reference point is Time X - simple.
But for examples of Conservation that are indirectly related to time travel the reference point must be different.
The simple solution would be Queen Leene's death. But we see in the game that it's not the case.

So, my two cents will be:

Queen Leene is saved at Time X.
Marle travels at Time X+400 to Time X-N
At Time X the Queen is no longer saved.
When Marle reaches Time X, she will be eliminated.

Not really claiming anything, just starting the idea train...
Looking for ideas, who has 'em?

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2008, 03:16:42 am »
If this were true, Robo could not visit himself in 600 A.D. working on Fiona's Forest. This sounds like a Time Cop rule of "the same matter cannot occupy the same space," but since we can, it seems that the Chrono series universe includes time in its conservation. That is, the same object can exist in the same time as its predecessor, though the Time Error "age" will be different for the two people.

Eske

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2008, 03:42:38 am »
If this were true, Robo could not visit himself in 600 A.D. working on Fiona's Forest. This sounds like a Time Cop rule of "the same matter cannot occupy the same space," but since we can, it seems that the Chrono series universe includes time in its conservation. That is, the same object can exist in the same time as its predecessor, though the Time Error "age" will be different for the two people.

No, I understand that Robo can visit himself in 600AD.
Robo A is left in 600AD
Robo B is picked up in 1000AD
Robo B goes back in time at Time X to visit Robo A
Robo A is TB'ed at Time X.

^I understand how that works but this is different.

Looking at the timeline as a whole, the matter that comprises Marle originally exists in the form of Marle.
Marle travelling into the past isn't the issue,  TB will prevent extra information.
But Marle makes it so that the matter that would comprise her never does.
That matter still exists in 1000AD, at the point where Marle would have entered the gate.
Either that matter needs to be eliminated (TB style) or the Marle in 600AD does.     
In the game, we see the Marle in 600AD vanish.

The Robo example shows matter being "moved around" on the timeline - which is no problem.  There is X amount of matter at all times.
Marle departs 1000AD at Time X: The Marle example shows that Marle and [matter value]=Marle would both exist on the timeline up to Time X.  At that point, one of them has to go.

Acacia Sgt

  • Guru of Reason
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
  • Forever loyal to the Acacia Dragoons
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2008, 03:49:24 am »
I always see Marle's disappearance as the way to 'repair the damage' done by her accidental time travel.

As seen in the attached picture:

1.- Leene is captured.

2.- Leene is rescued.

3.- Telepod Incident. (First time Marle travels, second time TB claims Marle and Crono travels, third  
                                time TB claims Marle and Crono and Lucca travels, any time line after TB
                                claims all three.)

4.- Marle appears, is found, and the search is over.

5.- Marle disappears, the search is resumed, or it doesn't, although Frog goes anyway no matter the
    outcome.

6.- Crono appears.

7.- Lucca appears.

8.- Marle reappears.

It may not be correct, but that's how I think the whole thing went.

There are some problems still in there, like what happened between events 2 and 3 in the third time line since Crono, and possibly Marle if she reappeared, are now stuck in 600 AD until Lucca travels.

Also, it would be the cause of her disappearance. We could blame the Entity for it, although I'm not sure.

Even if it's proven wrong, well, at least I tried.

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 03:52:56 am by Acacia Sgt »

chrono eric

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2008, 03:54:33 am »
This is an interesting scenario as I have traditionally sided with the Compenidum's analysis of the Marle paradox.

At first when I was reading your post, I was thinking essentially what Zeality was and I further thought that what we have been discussing in the other thread about time and dimensional travel is a special case. What I mean by this is that the examples of TB working in an unnatural way, which we proved in the other thread about as thoroughly as we could, happens because of the dimensions being split and reunified and matter being created/combined so that a problem of duplicate matter caused TB to work in a different fashion than it normally does.

But then after reading your response to Zeality I am not so sure anymore. The Marle case is unique, to be sure. But I raise the following question:

Why wouldn't the atoms that composed Marle in 1000 A.D. just disappear as a person normally would due to Time Bastard?

In proposing your theory, Eske, you would have to explain this. But here, I'll help you out. If TB does indeed work by sucking an individual into a single "black gate", perhaps a single black gate could not TB away all the atoms which formerly composed Marle in 1000 AD, so instead the Marle in 600 AD was TB'd away to conserve matter?

But then, why did she disappear when she did and not immediately upon entering 600 AD? You would have to explain this as well. The Entity explanation still makes more sense to me.

killercactus

  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2008, 09:13:55 am »
I came up with a wild theory equating Marle's disappearance and Chronopolis' disappearance in Home World, you can see it here. http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php?topic=5755.15

It basically says that TTI is overruled in these two situations due to the irregularity of the time travel incident, but I don't think it was considered much or accepted at all.  However, I'm sticking to it...

Eske

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2008, 01:46:12 pm »
This is an interesting scenario as I have traditionally sided with the Compendium's analysis of the Marle paradox.

At first when I was reading your post, I was thinking essentially what Zeality was and I further thought that what we have been discussing in the other thread about time and dimensional travel is a special case. What I mean by this is that the examples of TB working in an unnatural way, which we proved in the other thread about as thoroughly as we could, happens because of the dimensions being split and reunified and matter being created/combined so that a problem of duplicate matter caused TB to work in a different fashion than it normally does.

But then after reading your response to Zeality I am not so sure anymore. The Marle case is unique, to be sure. But I raise the following question:

Why wouldn't the atoms that composed Marle in 1000 A.D. just disappear as a person normally would due to Time Bastard?

In proposing your theory, Eske, you would have to explain this. But here, I'll help you out. If TB does indeed work by sucking an individual into a single "black gate", perhaps a single black gate could not TB away all the atoms which formerly composed Marle in 1000 AD, so instead the Marle in 600 AD was TB'd away to conserve matter?

But then, why did she disappear when she did and not immediately upon entering 600 AD? You would have to explain this as well. The Entity explanation still makes more sense to me.
So you have 2 questions then:

1. Why wouldn't the matter that was to be her composition in 1000AD disappear at Time X, mimicking Time Bastard?
2. Why did she not disappear immediately upon entering 600AD.

I have 2 answers:

1. Could the matter that formed Marle and her ancestors really be identified? No.  So how does the system decide what matter to eliminate in 1000AD at Time X?
It doesn't - it takes the path of least Resistance and deletes the matter corresponding to Marle in 600AD.

Remember that with Time Bastard, the time traveller, as an entity, still exists up to Time X.  At Time X that entity's original version entered a gate.  If this new version does not, it will vanish because at this point it is extra information.  If it does enter the gate it will vanish as well for the same reason.

2.  Not just this, but why did the timeline not reset as soon as she travelled to the past?  How did Crono and Lucca both travel from the same 1000AD even though 600AD is now completely different?      Another member, Thought, once said that I "assumed time is brittle"  and that every change in the past would erase the timeline immediately would be "wasteful".    He was right.  So I've changed my thinking a bit.

Let's look at how time is preserved despite changes to the past:

1. Marle goes back in time to change 600AD even the slightest bit.  Nothing happens.
2. Crono goes back in time and finds Marle, perhaps originally Marle never saw Crono and there was some intermediate timeline.  But wait.
3. While Crono is in the past, Lucca travels from the present.  There is no Crono who lives out his life in the past, so we can conclude the same goes for Marle.

Time isn't so lenient with the items in the Northern Ruins:  If you take them out in 600AD, they won't be there in 1000AD.  That makes sense.
But looking at the Marle example above lets play out an event assuming that there is a gate in the Northern Ruins.

at Time X Persons A and B are in the Northern Ruins and Person A time travels to 600AD.
An Item is known as Item P in 600AD and Item F in 1000AD.
With the Marle example above we see that timelines aren't reset immediately.
Person A takes Item P out of the chest.
Person B is looking at Item F in the chest, the past isn't immediately changed as in the Marle example.
But at some point it must reset.  Let's see:

If Person A  (an immortal)  waited out the 400 years would he still see Person B looking at Item F?  No.  Item F isn't there, the timeline has reset.  But for Person B, this never happened.   How can this be explained?

My idea is a different take on the 5th axis.   Time Error is the idea that if you spend Time Error Y amount of time in an era or the EoT,  your entrance to a different era will be the destination time (say 600AD) + Time Error Y. 

I would think that the gates merely take us so many years into the past or future, from our point in the present.  So if Crono said "screw it" and waited until 1001AD to enter the Millennial Fair gate, he would end up in 601AD.

I look at it this way:   Every point on the 4D axis (time) is a snapshot of everything in 3D space.   Every point on the 5D axis is a snapshot of everything in 4D space.

aka - an entire timeline.   In another thread I used a flipbook analogy.   4D is like flipping through the pages of a flipbook one at a time, each page being a snapshot of motion -- while 5D is seeing all the of the pages at once, seeing all of the motion at once.

I propose that these "timecycles" explain why the future isn't immediately changed for Crono and Co.  when Marle travels to the past, but if she were to travel back to the future, or wait out 400 years - the future would seem to be adjusted.  She is at one point on the 5D axis, while Crono and Lucca are at another - they are totally unrelated right now.

Time Error isn't needed to explain why they don't reappear as they disappear.  The gates need only take an entity back/forward a set timeframe.  If they reenter a gate 10 minutes after they left it, they would emerge from the other gate 10 minutes later.

==============
So back to the Marle Paradox.
Using the above idea that at Timecycle N the matter that is Marle exists in two places in the same timeline, Time X.  She doesn't disappear upon entry to 600AD because some event at Time Y in 600AD is what determines whether or not she is able to exist later on.    This event at Time Y never occurs.
Crono and Lucca at Timecycle N-1 will not be affected by the changes into the past - that timecycle will carry itself out as normal.

I don't think we will find the answer or an answer that works until we shake things up a bit.  I noticed awhile ago that I approach many of the puzzles here with TE. TB. and TTI on my mind right away. I'm sure many others do the same --  They work, but alternatives might be helpful as well.  I mean, what if something in Chrono Break disproved TTI?  We would have to retool many theories.

chrono eric

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2008, 04:47:43 pm »
Well your answer to question 1 is pretty much the same as my answer, worded in a different way, so I naturally agree with it.

But question 2 is a bit more complicated and there are several things that I have trouble picturing as I have traditionally thought about Time Error working in a different way. These may not be real problems at all and I just have to adjust my way of thinking about it.

The first problem - the event of Marle removing Item P in 600 AD was not a part of the original timelines' past. Since Crono and Lucca do not see Item F spontaneously disappear in 1000 AD, it goes to reason that these two locations of 600 AD and 1000 AD are not linked by causality. For that matter, it goes to reason that 600 AD with Marle and 600 AD without Marle are not linked by causality either. Also, 600 AD without Marle removing Item F would have to be causally linked to 1000 AD where Item P still remains.

So when Marle time travels, she makes a move through Time Error to a "new" version of the timeline. That much is obvious. Crono and Lucca are left behind in the old timeline. Traditionally we have assumed that they are immediately shafted to the DBT, replaced by new versions of themselves in the new timeline. But what if this isn't exactly the case?

This example is 100% analagous to your Black Omen example of "seeing the Black Omen the first time around if it was sent back in time" from the other thread. I'll take the liberty of quoting you from there if you don't mind:

Crono - at Time 2300AD, Time Error N+100,  is now in the future to get the new Epoch.  Some years later on this timeline...
Black Omen - at Time 23XXAD, Time Error N +100,  vanishes, bound for the past.   But before that....
Crono - at Time 2300AD, Time Error N+100, vanishes, bound for  Antiquity via Epoch.  (12000BC)    Resulting in.....
Crono - at Time 12000BC, Time Error N+101, appears in Antiquity.
Black Omen - at Time 12000BC+ X amount of time, Time Error N+101, appears in front of Crono and Co.

When Crono defeats Lavos and creates a new future, the fact that he travelled in the old future to the past is preserved through TTI, even if all of that information has now been replaced.   A future Omen would work the same way.  Even if Crono time travelling first would "push" Time Error, the entire timeline will play out and come full circle for Crono's arrival - preserving any time travelling done by anyone (or thing) after him.

If something leaves the timeline at the same point on Time Error as you, and then reappears on the same Time Error point you reappear on, but AFTER you on the timeline, you can see their entrance.

If you think about it... look at what happens when Marle goes into 600AD at the beginning of the game:

From the 600AD onward, the timeline should be discarded and there should be a new timeline where Marle is never born in 1000AD.

But that isn't what happens -- the old 1000AD and onward still plays out.   That means we are still in the same Time Error.  Even crazier is that Crono time travels from there!   That means, from Marle's perspective, Crono eventually comes for her.  There is no Marle who lives out her life in 600AD to old age, or even a 600AD where the Queen is never saved.

Now, the game conveniently gives the opposite perspective.   While the player is in 600AD, Lucca travels into the past, changing the timeline yet again, but still there is no Crono who lives out to old age or one that rescues the Queen on his own.    All 3 of them travel from the same point on Time Error, and end up on the same point because each one travelled/arrived after the other and the timeline continued to run its full course before resetting.

In conclusion, it is possible for the Black Omen to have travelled from a very distant future to the past, appearing in Antiquity X amount of time after Crono and Co.


So it seems you have even predicted this yourself. If Crono and Lucca time travel after Marle on the old timeline, they will still appear in the new timeline with Marle!

If one views time as cyclical and not linear, with time/space beginning and some point and ending at another, and then starting again in the same way with everything playing out exactly the same except for time travel interference (think eternal recurrence), then this actually predicts that the future containing Crono and Lucca is not sent to the DBT until the entire cycle plays out. When they time travel and move through Time Error, they are essentially "bypassing" the entire future history of their universe and ending up in the new one!

EDIT: Hmm, this is actually an entirely new way of thinking about the concept of the "DBT". I've never seen anyone else talk about it this way actually.

Now, I don't think question 2 is actually that relevant to the Marle Paradox now that I think about it. It certainly explains why Marle and Crono don't subsequently live out their entire lives once before they can continue their quest, but it's not relevant. Only question 1 is. And I think that question 1 is very well explained by assuming that the timeline takes the "path of least resistance" by eliminating Marle in 600 AD instead of the bajillion trillions of atoms that previously composed her in 1000 AD.

« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 04:51:11 pm by chrono eric »

Eske

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2008, 05:42:09 pm »
Yea.  If you think about it, there is no such thing as "time travel", its "time error travel" because no matter what you do you will move forward in time error.
Though I'm using Time Error in a slightly different sense.     So its like you said, when they travel in time, they skip the rest of their cycle and move onto the next one.


  The question "why was Marle eliminated?"  is easy to answer in my opinion:  Shes extra info, shes easier to eliminate.

The problem remains:  "why was Marle eliminated at that specific time?"

Oi, that makes my head hurt. 

chrono eric

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2008, 06:18:12 pm »
Not necessarily. Let's look at my example of eternal recurrence a little more closely.

To an outside observer on a perpendicular timeflow such as the End of Time looking down at the timeline, they would see a static series of all events in that timeline, as your analogy suggested. But to a person living out their life on the timeline, they would feel as though they are progressing through time (and rightly so). So a reasonable question can be asked: Is there a single "present", or "multiple presents?". To the outside observer, he would surely answer "multiple" because that is what it looks like to him. To the inside observer, he would surely answer "single" because that is what it looks like to him. But what is the right answer? The truth is somewhere in between.

If there is a "single" present and time progresses linearly, because time is perpendicular for the outside observer he would still see the timeline as if it had "multiple" presents. So if we go on the assumption of a "single" present time we have the following example:

Time Error 0: Marle time travels to 600 AD, followed by Crono and Lucca.
 
Time Error 1: The universe begins again nd time plays out until 600 AD when Marle arrives. She effectively changes the future so that she doesn't exist, but at what point? For Marle, she is existing in the true present state of the universe. There is no future in existence yet, only a collage of potential futures which depends on the choices and actions that people make in this present of 600 AD. When the time rolls around that the particular causal series of events in the future is altered so that she doesn't exist any longer - then bam she is TB'd away by the path of least resistance. This would create the illusion that time travelers do not have TTI, when in reality this is just a unique case.



So, regardless of what one may think, the Marle situation is unique and does not invalidate TTI theory, it may just be an exception to it. If one were to make the assumption that TB follows the path of least resistance at all times, wiping out Marle in 600 AD rather than all of the bajillions of atoms that composed her in 1000 AD, then a necessary conclusion from that would be that if a time traveller alters the future so that he does not exist, then he will cease to exist at that moment due to TB.

Now, I don't necessarily believe that this is the case. I think the Marle paradox was an oversight by developers, and this entire theory rests on the back of the assumption that TB follows the path of least resistance. However, it demonstrates that there may be a second and perfectly rational explanation to the Marle paradox that is in line with respected theory, rather than stupidly asserting:

"The Entity did it!" - as I have seen so many Compendium members say before. Think outside of the box a little bit people, christ.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 06:22:56 pm by chrono eric »

Acacia Sgt

  • Guru of Reason
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
  • Forever loyal to the Acacia Dragoons
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2008, 07:47:57 pm »
However, it demonstrates that there may be a second and perfectly rational explanation to the Marle paradox that is in line with respected theory, rather than stupidly asserting:

"The Entity did it!" - as I have seen so many Compendium members say before. Think outside of the box a little bit people, christ.


I still don't see how Marle is an exception. She shouldn't disappear like in the many other cases of time travel done.

Agreed, saying it was the Entity is just the easy way out.

chrono eric

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2008, 08:26:14 pm »
She is an interesting case because it is the lone instance in the game where the actions of the time travellers actually lead to a future in which they do not exist (excluding the end of the game with the Robo problem).

The concept of her being an exception came from the possibility that if people are TB'd away by black gates, then would bajillions of tiny black gates be created to TB out all the atoms that once were part of Marle's body? What if those atoms are now part of other things? Would TB follow the "path of least resistance" and just eliminate Marle in the past? Since there is no real physical equivalent to TB and TTI and it is inferred from strong evidence within the game, there is nothing that is set in stone saying that TB has to work this way and not the other.

I still think it was just developer oversight though. I have no problem with the concept of the atoms that once made up Marle's body disappearing in 1000 AD. TTI should mean that time travellers are immune from all changes they make to the timeline, including changes in which they cease to exist in the future.

But, since Eske and I have been pretty much systematically dismantling and reassembling the theories here on the Compendium in this forum lately, the Marle paradox was fair game.

End conclusion: It could be an exception to TTI. Or it could be developer oversight and mean nothing, akin to saying "The Entity did it".

I have no problem with either conclusion, I just have a problem with people saying "The Entity did it!" as a way of copping out of an intelligent, thought provoking conversation.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 08:30:02 pm by chrono eric »

Jutty

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 614
  • The Most In-Frequent Poster Ever
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2008, 09:54:44 pm »
I'm new to this, so if this is completely stupid or already not accepted as the reason then I'm sorry. Isn't it possible that the reason Marle disappeared without Leene being dead is because had Yakra not been stopped by Crono and company that Leene would have been murdered. If that had happen Marle would have ceased to exist in the present and it was possibly a warning for Crono kind of like the fading pictures in Back to the Future. If this is completely illogical feel free to call me a tard.

Acacia Sgt

  • Guru of Reason
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
  • Forever loyal to the Acacia Dragoons
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2008, 10:20:01 pm »
I'm new to this, so if this is completely stupid or already not accepted as the reason then I'm sorry. Isn't it possible that the reason Marle disappeared without Leene being dead is because had Yakra not been stopped by Crono and company that Leene would have been murdered. If that had happen Marle would have ceased to exist in the present and it was possibly a warning for Crono kind of like the fading pictures in Back to the Future. If this is completely illogical feel free to call me a tard.

Well, that is also what I think. In a previous post I have how I think the whole thing happened. Not entirely correct I know but, it's something.

Eske

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
Re: Marle Paradox: Let's change our point of view
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2008, 11:28:09 pm »
End conclusion: It could be an exception to TTI. Or it could be developer oversight and mean nothing, akin to saying "The Entity did it".

I have no problem with either conclusion, I just have a problem with people saying "The Entity did it!" as a way of copping out of an intelligent, thought provoking conversation.

It isn't an exception to TTI.  TTI preserves nothing more than her arrival from the gate in 600AD - after that she, like everyone else, is fair game.

I'm new to this, so if this is completely stupid or already not accepted as the reason then I'm sorry. Isn't it possible that the reason Marle disappeared without Leene being dead is because had Yakra not been stopped by Crono and company that Leene would have been murdered. If that had happen Marle would have ceased to exist in the present and it was possibly a warning for Crono kind of like the fading pictures in Back to the Future. If this is completely illogical feel free to call me a tard.

That is something I've been trying to figure out.   Why did she disappear when she did? It might have something to do with the lack of Marle in the new 1000AD or, like you said, some point before the Queen would have died           -  somehow, the system determined Marle had to go.

I'm new to this, so if this is completely stupid or already not accepted as the reason then I'm sorry. Isn't it possible that the reason Marle disappeared without Leene being dead is because had Yakra not been stopped by Crono and company that Leene would have been murdered. If that had happen Marle would have ceased to exist in the present and it was possibly a warning for Crono kind of like the fading pictures in Back to the Future. If this is completely illogical feel free to call me a tard.

Well, that is also what I think. In a previous post I have how I think the whole thing happened. Not entirely correct I know but, it's something.

The model you had earlier was correct except it had too many timelines.  For whatever  reason, the timeline does not reset when Marle travels back in time - so all three of them arrive on the same, new timeline.  Other than that, the sequence was correct and in line with what Jutty posted.