Tamyrlin: 2005-05-17

Jolly, you bring up a good point an interesting idea I can't remember discussing in detail. Why was Gaidal Cain reborn? Assuming, as I do, that Gaidal can only be, as Birgitte suggests, a baby or a young boy, "All is changed. Gaidal is out there, somewhere, an infant, or even a young boy", why would the Pattern push Gaidal out now? I think it is for the reason you suggest, or something close, but I don't think it portends what you suggest. In other words, Rand doesn't have to be dead, just inactive. It is likely Rand, as viewings, foretellings, etc., support, Rand will die, will live again, and will leave the world in a boat. In other words, he will dissappear. He won't be a participant. However, as Jordan says, Tarmon Gai'don will pass, but the world will still be rocked with war, which is possibly why Gaidal was born, to help bring peace to the world, likely with Birgitte's help, possibly to clean up the mess the DO's minions will create at the end...

Callandor: 2005-05-17

**3) He must be very young. Even if he is Oliver which I know some people believe, I'm not sure myself, that means he must be at least 10.**

No, Olver is not Cain, never was Cain, and never will be Cain (as per RJ).

**Why was Gaidal Cain reborn?**

It's just further proof that the Last Battle will be won by the Light. There will be things that need doing after the Last Battle.

Merk: 2005-05-17

I don't think Heroes have to be born to confront a great evil or calamity. For example, what was Hawkwing born for? He ended up uniting the nations, sending a force over to Seanchan, and generally setting things up that needed to be set up for LTTs return. It wasn't one big challenge he was needed for, it was just the Wheel weaving out what it needed. And some of them, like Birgitte and Cain, I believe, may be less important in the grand scheme of things as far as fighting the Shadow or bringing great tumult to the world or conquering Randland. They are born to do great individual things and become legends. Think of heroes of our legends, like Hercules or Gilgamesh or Odysseus. They didn't always change the face of the world, but they were great individuals who became legends.

Anyway, even if Gaidal Cain is needed to save the world as you say, what does that have to do with Rand's death? Even if he lives, there will still be tumult (there's tumult now, even as the people and nations know they need him. Imagine once he's served his prophecied use and people start wanting control of Illian or Tear back, or want to carve out their own countries.) Even with him living, I don't see him ruling a peaceful world all united under his benevolent hand. That's not the way the real world works, nor the way Randland works.

Callandor: 2005-05-18

**I don't think Heroes have to be born to confront a great evil or calamity.**

The Heroes of the Horn are reborn according to the Wheel as corrective measurements to the Pattern. Humanities choices are throwing the predicted course of the Pattern out of line, and the Heroes are reborn to make the corrections.

lurk: 2005-05-18

Robert Jordan said he would leave loose ends in the story. One probabnly is the fragile balance between the seanchan and the rest of Randland. Maybe Caidal is needed for a war between the two. Or he becomes a red herring

Great Lord of the Dark: 2005-05-18

Gaidal is Mat, thus he is in place at the right time. I might as well post my own theory on this rather than sidetrack yours.

I do like your idea that a reborn Gaidal might be present for the aftermath of the Last Battle, and not the Battle itself, but I do not agree it is so.

: 2005-05-18

Callandor:

///The Heroes of the Horn are reborn according to the Wheel as corrective measurements to the Pattern. Humanities choices are throwing the predicted course of the Pattern out of line, and the Heroes are reborn to make the corrections.////

Right, but we can't know what the Pattern needs, and I don't think it's always a big calamity or situation we can predict in advance. Like my example of Hawkwing. Clearly the Pattern needed him to set up a bunch of things that are important in the "now" of the book. But an outside observer of the time shortly before he appeared couldn't predict that someone was needed to unite Randland, turn on Tar Valon, send armies over the sea, etc. He didn't face a calamity we could have sensed in advance, we bent the world around him. So I don't think we can necessarily say the world is going to be in danger or something major is coming that the world will need Gaidal Cain to respond to. It may be that *he* brings the something major, as Hawkwing did. But I also think the Heroes correct or shift the Pattern in much more subtle ways, especially people like Gaidal Cain and Birgitte. They may do important or necessary things for the Pattern, but not necessarily things that we could predict needed them beforehand or that seem earth-shattering afterwards.

All the things we've heard about Gaidal Cain and Birgitte that I remember hearing just seem to be individual heroic stories or details about them, not stories about how they shook the world or saved it. That seems odd if everything Heroes do is such a big deal, especially since we know they've been spun out fairly recently (since the Breaking).

Like I said, maybe I'm wrong and we *can* predict something big is coming that needs Gaidal Cain. Maybe that something big is war and chaos after the LB. I still don't see how that requires Rand to die. Maybe Rand dies and maybe he doesn't, but this seems like flimsy evidence for him dying.

Reddrgn: 2005-05-18

I have to disagree with you about Rands Death being linked to Gaidal Cains Rebirth. Nowhere in my recollection have there been any hints, dreams, etc. linking the two events.

As for the reason Gaidal Cain is reborn. . . balance in the pattern. He is always there with Birgette when she is spun out.

Birgette was ripped out before her time so she says, but she cannot remember all of her previous lives so something similar could have happened to her before. This could mean that something can still happen along those lines to rip Gaidal out as well. Thus allowing for him to meet the needs of the pattern alongside Birgette.

As to Gaidal being Oliver, we already know via a previous post that RJ has stated it is not so. However, time flows differently where the heroes are tied to the pattern before they are spun out. Could it be that Gaidal was spun out after Birgette in that time which actually in Randland time was years earlier and he is actually someone we have seen in several of the books?? Just a thought. . .

haertchen: 2005-05-19

Sorry, folks, RJ has stated that time flows differently in T'A'R, but it *does not flow backwards*. If someone takes part in event A in Randland and then takes part in event B in T'A'R, then it is impossible to find someone else who sees the two happening in opposite order. Thus, for instance, it is impossible for Mat or Oliver to be Gaidal because Gaidal was seen in T'A'R well after both of them were born. It is exactly like Birgette said, and she should know best: Gaidal is an infant or young boy right now. Finito.

Callandor: 2005-05-19

**Right, but we can't know what the Pattern needs, and I don't think it's always a big calamity or situation we can predict in advance.**

Did I say once that there was a calamity or battle or anything? No. I said that humanities free will choices were throwing the Pattern off it's predicted course, and a Hero is reborn to make the corrections.

** So I don't think we can necessarily say the world is going to be in danger or something major is coming that the world will need Gaidal Cain to respond to.**

Once again, I did not say danger, though that would be the most obvious since Cain is always reborn as a fighter.

**But I also think the Heroes correct or shift the Pattern in much more subtle ways, especially people like Gaidal Cain and Birgitte. They may do important or necessary things for the Pattern, but not necessarily things that we could predict needed them beforehand or that seem earth-shattering afterwards.**

You're being far to vague here. Are you refering to us as the reader or using us to refer to people of Randland?

**Could it be that Gaidal was spun out after Birgette in that time which actually in Randland time was years earlier and he is actually someone we have seen in several of the books??**

No. It is not.

Merk: 2005-05-19

/////Did I say once that there was a calamity or battle or anything? No. I said that humanities free will choices were throwing the Pattern off it's predicted course, and a Hero is reborn to make the corrections./////

But the original poster did seem to be saying there will be a big calamity or battle. You quoted me and took the discussion in a direction you wanted to go; I quoted what you said, agreed to some extent, and took it in a direction I wanted to go with it, ie, clarifying my original point.

////**But I also think the Heroes correct or shift the Pattern in much more subtle ways, especially people like Gaidal Cain and Birgitte. They may do important or necessary things for the Pattern, but not necessarily things that we could predict needed them beforehand or that seem earth-shattering afterwards.**

You're being far to vague here. Are you refering to us as the reader or using us to refer to people of Randland? //////

Umm, how is this "far too vague"? By "we" I mean the orginal poster to whose theory we are all responding, you and other people reading the thread or contributing to it, and me. None of us to my knowledge are residents of Randland. This seems to be a pretty standard and clear use of the word "we." I used it before in my post (in things you quoted) and it didn't confuse you, why would you think I would suddenly be speaking for the fine citizens of Randland when I said "we" instead of the "we" I meant before and the "we" that is obvious? I guess I could mean residents of Randland as well, but none of them appear to have all the information we have. Only a few even know Gaidal Cain has been reborn.

Callandor: 2005-05-19

**Umm, how is this "far too vague"?**

Because people often talk about themselves as if they ~were~ Randlanders -- heck, I do it a bit myself. The need to clarify it necessary.

**I used it before in my post (in things you quoted) and it didn't confuse you, why would you think I would suddenly be speaking for the fine citizens of Randland when I said "we" instead of the "we" I meant before and the "we" that is obvious?**

Because you went from talking about the general theory, to talking about Hawkwing and Cain, without another clarification.

Friar: 2005-05-20

I think that a point is being missed. It was stated in the dialog from Birgitte that she was always around with Gaidal Cain, in a conversation with Nynaeve and Elayne, (haven't got the books with me to get the quote), that she needed him as a balance to temper her heroic Randland feats.

Just because at this time he is a “small” child does not exclude the fact that at some point the pattern requires Birgitte, (and him), to meet and act. For example, an act of saving/finding THE child instead of an alternative means that one of the DO's plans is foiled. It could be that at some point in the next book(s), whilst on a “mission or duty” she will hear/discover a small child crying/calling and avoid a trap or a death in one of the DO's (or his servants), plans.

As to Gaidal Cain the “man”, in the future, he may well have a much larger part to play. But, for now, I believe that he, “the child”, SAVES Birgitte so that future “pattern” related acts are possible.

dedoublya: 2005-05-20

I agree with the loose end theory. Jordan did say he was gonna leave a few things unanswered, and I think this is one of them. We do know that the pattern plans ahead. Ref- Hawkwing, Seanchan, and all that. So I guess Gaidal is for afters.

Merk: 2005-05-20

But Friar, Gaidal Cain was reborn, and then Birgitte was ripped from the Pattern. The Pattern can try to adjust to her being ripped out after the fact, but I don't think the Pattern could prepare for her to be ripped out in advance.

I think Gaidal was spun out, and Birgitee was due to be spun out, because the Pattern required them for whatever reason (a whole argument in itself). Gaidal was spun, but Mog screwed things up by ripping Birgitte out of T'AR and out of the Pattern's plan. Either that will screw things up for whatever the Pattern orginally intended G and B for, or the Pattern will have to adjust.

I don't think G is born just to save B from some single situation, I think they are both great Heroes that are meant to meet at some point and do all kinds of things together.

free will: 2005-05-23

I think that GC is not spun out. Remember that GC and B hang out in TAR together, so GC knew that B was talking and breaking "the rules", so he stopped hanging out with her. He didn't specifically predict her getting ripped out, but he knew there would be consequences for breaking the rules, and by distancing himself, he can avoid them, and thus have the power to try to save her. There are often times when people feel watched in TAR and if GC is following the rules and staying unseen and not talking and we have no POV, he could very fell still be in TAR.

Basically the whole theory that GC was spun out was based on Birgette being so uncreative and naive as to assume that no other possible explanation for him not hanging out with her was possible.

Now maybe I'm wrong, since "evidence" against my theory is circumstantial, like it's hard to prove a negative (like that GC wasn't summoned by the horn at Falme) because just because no POV character saw him doens't mean that he wasn't there.

But since I actually expect TG to be fought in TAR, an adult GC fits well. The DO has to be defeated in all worlds to be defeated in any world. The Prison has to be sealed in all worlds to be sealed in one. It seems like a TAR show down is inevitable.

Remember that the seal needs to be sealed to be discovered as a thin spot in the past/future. The horn needs to be destroyed to be created in the past/future. Maybe all the heroes will be ripped out of TAR while "in" TAR to fill up the hole in the pattern. I mean if heroes are forever added and never die, then with the periodic temporal topology that RJ has, then there would be an infinite number of heroes, seemed finite in Falme. So maybe TG is the last battle for all the heroes as heroes, all will become unbound.

And maybe that's Logain glory; to become the first hero of the new horn.

JakOShadows: 2005-05-24

freewill: That's an interesting thought. And all of the memories they talk about never seem to involve the age of legends. So it could be that your right. It just seems like you would need a lot of heroes to fill the void.

Callandor: 2005-05-24

**I mean if heroes are forever added and never die, then with the periodic temporal topology that RJ has, then there would be an infinite number of heroes, seemed finite in Falme.**

Odds are, it's a very rare event to be added to the Horn, and the Heroes would be reborn again to fulfill roles that would've qualified to be a person added to the Horn.

What I mean is, that in Age 6 of Turning 347 (yes, some random time), a ta'veren is needed (a correction -- IE: a Hero). A Hero was spun out to fulfill this correction, and did it and went on to glory, etc., etc.

But what if for some reason the Hero wasn't spun out? And instead Joe Random Randlander took his spot, but still made the correction? Odds are, he'd be added to the Horn and made a Hero.

Or an alternative scenario would be if a Hero is respun to make corrections, and he has some helpers (I'd hate to draw parallels between Rand and Mat and Perrin....). If the correction was fulfilled, you would expect those helpers to be added to the Horn. But if they never took part, and the Hero did it all by himself, they of course would not be added.

It's just that the Pattern only has so many situations over time were it ~needs~ a Hero to be respun to fulfill a role, and with the present number of Heroes the roles seem to be mostly full. It does not seem as if every time a Hero is reborn, that there are 2 or 3 added to the Horn. Might happen, but I doubt it's a common occurance.

**The horn needs to be destroyed to be created in the past/future.**

Not necessarily. It could just be lost and forgotten for a couple of Ages. The turnings of the Wheel aren't always the same, so the creation of the Horn need not always occur again and again.

**The DO has to be defeated in all worlds to be defeated in any world.**

You have it backwards -- if he's sealed in one, he's sealed in all.

**Now maybe I'm wrong, since "evidence" against my theory is circumstantial, like it's hard to prove a negative (like that GC wasn't summoned by the horn at Falme) because just because no POV character saw him doens't mean that he wasn't there.**

Cain was seen at Falme.

dedoublya: 2005-05-24

I think it's pretty certain that Mat's a hero, and we know for a fact that Rand is. But is Perrin?

If not, I reckon he'll be one of the new ones.

free will: 2005-05-24

Callandor

First let me point out that we have a very very very basic disagreement about the nature of time. To me cicular time is eactly that, circular. No beginning. Just like the first paragraph says. Not turning number 347, not turning number 7,209,853,045, but forever. The creator isn't bound to the pattern or to time, the creator invented time and space when he created the universe, and there simply is no first moment. The creator created a whole wheel of time, he didn't create a first moment followed by an infinite number of turnings. That's some blasphemy a darkfriend might say! ;)

So if you want to claim that heroes are created as often as they are ripped out of TAR, then that would achieve an equilibrium, and hence could have a finite number of heroes of the horn in an infinite number of turnings. But it seems to me that if sometimes heroes are added, no matter how rarely, that there must be an equal number of unbinding going on to have a finite number of hero quanta. But I also know enough about physics to know that if you don't understand a closed timelike curve, that I can't explain it to you on the internet, so we'll be forced to agree to disagree. You believe that there is a first turning (which contradicts the first paragraph of every single book in series) and I'll keep reading the books to mean what they say and we can forever disagree, OK? Obviously if the heores have forgotten that heroes can be ripped out and unbound and TAR can be destroyed, transferred, remade, then the time is ripe for such a transaction to occur.

**The horn needs to be destroyed to be created in the past/future.**

Not necessarily. It could just be lost and forgotten for a couple of Ages. The turnings of the Wheel aren't always the same, so the creation of the Horn need not always occur again and again.

It's gotta happen sometime, the phrase is "when the age that gave it birth", so in some age the horn was created and thus there is a legend about that creation, and right now people don't recall that legend, and it must happen when it is forgotten by the 7 turnings. Maybe we just disagree, but there is no beginning to the turning of the wheel. Not even if you turn back 7*347 ages.

**The DO has to be defeated in all worlds to be defeated in any world.**

You have it backwards -- if he's sealed in one, he's sealed in all.

If he is sealed in one, then he's sealed in all, yes. But also if he's free in one then he is free in all. To me this is obvious that to become totally free or to become totally sealed (either way! either one!), it is a prerequesite that there must at that time only be just one world, or maybe a small number. Definately not that there is every possible world.But go ahead and throw out half the statement if that's what it takes to argue against my theory. We wouldn't want you to let quotes from the books and pesky facts get in the way of bashing my theories now, what would that lead to to everyone did it?

**Now maybe I'm wrong, since "evidence" against my theory is circumstantial, like it's hard to prove a negative (like that GC wasn't summoned by the horn at Falme) because just because no POV character saw him doens't mean that he wasn't there.**

Cain was seen at Falme.

And so he wasn't spun out at that point, right? And so he could still be "not spun out", right? My point is that if no POV character sees Cain in TAR, that is no evidence that he is not there.

Callandor: 2005-05-24

**Not turning number 347, not turning number 7,209,853,045, but forever. The creator isn't bound to the pattern or to time, the creator invented time and space when he created the universe, and there simply is no first moment.**

Well, you're simply wrong. There was a point when there was no time, and the Creator made the Wheel of Time. That is the First Moment, and it's been referenced in the series before:

**TITLE: Great Hunt,,CHAPTER: 15 - Kinslayer

"Oh, I know the name you use now, Lews Therin. I know every name you have used through Age after Age, long before you were even the Kinslayer." Ba'alzamon's voice began to rise in intensity; sometimes the fires of his eyes flared so high that Rand could see them through the openings in the silk mask, see them like endless seas of flame. ~"I know you, know your blood and your line back to the first spark of life that ever was, back to the First Moment.~ You can never hide from me. Never! We are tied together as surely as two sides of the same coin. Ordinary men may hide in the sweep of the Pattern, but ta'veren stand out like beacon fires on a hill, and you, you stand out as if ten thousand shining arrows stood in the sky to point you out! You are mine, and ever in reach of my hand!"**

The whole point of ~creating~ something, is to make something new. Before the Creator did his job, there was nothing here -- no time, no reality, nothing. Once he created the world and time, the Turnings started.

Now, I was of course being facetious with the example and exaggerating, but the principle was the same: you can go back to the very first turning if you knew how many turnings there have been, because there was a first time the Wheel turned, then a second, and a third, and then however many we are on now.

**So if you want to claim that heroes are created as often as they are ripped out of TAR, then that would achieve an equilibrium, and hence could have a finite number of heroes of the horn in an infinite number of turnings.**

I claim no such thing. Heroes are created when they are added to the Horn -- nothing more, nothing less.

**But it seems to me that if sometimes heroes are added, no matter how rarely, that there must be an equal number of unbinding going on to have a finite number of hero quanta.**

But we don't know the number. And, we know that one cannot choose to not be a Hero of the Horn:

**Austin, TX: Aside from the Heroes of the Horn waiting around in the World of Dreams, is there any kind of afterlife in WOT? Do the Heroes get a choice when they are linked to the Horn; can they retire, or take 'ordinary life' sabaticals?

RJ: In answer to the first question, yes, there is an ordinary afterlife. In answer to the second, no. You cannot decide NOT to be a hero linked to the Wheel.**

So, what would be the point of the Wheel "unbinding" Heroes? The whole point of being a Hero is that you ar respun by the Wheel again and again for all time.

**But I also know enough about physics to know that if you don't understand a closed timelike curve, that I can't explain it to you on the internet, so we'll be forced to agree to disagree.**

And I also know that to create parallels between the Wheel of Time and physics, is a certain disaster waiting to happen.

If you wish to qualify things this way, first tell me what type of matter the One Power is, and if you ever do that, prove why that is from the books.

Once you realize the futility of that, get back to me.

**Obviously if the heores have forgotten that heroes can be ripped out and unbound and TAR can be destroyed, transferred, remade, then the time is ripe for such a transaction to occur.**

Whoa, whoa, whoa! No wonder you're so far gone. Who says that Birgitte is unbound? Who says that ~any~ Hero is unbound? Who says that tel'aran'rhiod can be destroyed?

Before you simply state those claims, you're going to have to prove them.

**Maybe we just disagree, but there is no beginning to the turning of the wheel.**

Yes, there is, as show above.

**If he is sealed in one, then he's sealed in all, yes. But also if he's free in one then he is free in all. To me this is obvious that to become totally free or to become totally sealed (either way! either one!), it is a prerequesite that there must at that time only be just one world, or maybe a small number.**

No. If he is held in one, he is sealed in all of them. Destroying all the Mirror Worlds in existance won't matter a damn (if it's even possible ~to~ destroy a Mirror World), because he is still held in Randland.

**We wouldn't want you to let quotes from the books and pesky facts get in the way of bashing my theories now, what would that lead to to everyone did it?**

I have yet to see one quote from you, so what are you talking about?

**And so he wasn't spun out at that point, right? And so he could still be "not spun out", right? My point is that if no POV character sees Cain in TAR, that is no evidence that he is not there.**

However, we have Birgitte's knowledge of Cain and his rebirth cycle to imply that he was spun out. He could still be there of course, or he could've been destroyed by Moghedien, or thrown out by her already.

But the obvious and most likely implication is that he was spun out.

JakOShadows: 2005-05-26

freewill: I hate to rub it in, but I think Callandor is right here. You can't really use physics to explain the WoT. It is strongly based in that, but not everything aligns. And you also got remember that the mirror worlds are all tied to Randland. I've said this in a previous post, but I tend to think that everytime someone makes a pattern changing decision, an alternate mirror world is created to make a balance of some sort. And so even if the DO is trapped, the rest of the world can be darkfriends and trollocs and be inherently evil. Now I know you didn't mention anything about this in your post, but I just wanted to explain the paradox your talking about. Like in tGH, when Rand goes to that alternate world, that's probably what happened. In a way, what your saying completely disconnects all these worlds. You have to think about the creator as God, and the DO as the devil. Or rather, think of it as 3-dimensions vs. 4 dimensions. If there really is a 4th dimensions in our world, why do you think we haven't reached them? We can't; but if there is a 4th dimension wouldn't God and the devil be able to touch all of them equally as one being. Now I realize I'm getting more into philosophy than actual proof now. But everything you said didn't logically or philosophically make since, so it makes it very hard to believe.

free will: 2005-05-31

**But I also know enough about physics to know that if you don't understand a closed timelike curve, that I can't explain it to you on the internet, so we'll be forced to agree to disagree.**

And I also know that to create parallels between the Wheel of Time and physics, is a certain disaster waiting to happen.

Whatever. According to you if people use naive incorrect ignorant physics, then there is no disaster, like you talking about "before time, so and so did X", the word "before time" is naive incorrect ignorant physics that you used, that modern physicists do not use. Modern physicists describe spacetime as a complete structure, just as a being not in the structure would itself would describe it. What is a disaster I admit is people who think they know more physics than they do making assumptions and applying them. Your next statements being a perfect example.

If you wish to qualify things this way, first tell me what type of matter the One Power is, and if you ever do that, prove why that is from the books.

Once you realize the futility of that, get back to me.

I never claimed that the One Power was a type of matter, that's you thinking that closed timelike curves are somehow related to matter. The disaster going on is your hubris, not my theory. I have no interest in connecting the one power to physics, the one power is described as what turns the wheel, so sounds entirely subjective except in the sense that it might implies that time would be linear without magic.

What I'm saying is that the overly restricted models of the universe that lay people make are not required to be the ones that RJ uses, since he has studied physics. So he can very well have a fictional universe where there is no first moment. Physicists are great at describing fictional universes. They do so all the time. If there is no first moment, (like the narrator tells us in the beginning of each book) and it is possible for Heroes to be added and yet it is not possible for them to be removed (even by balefire!! come on Callandor!) then in such a universe as the narrator describes, there would an infinite number of heroes, and there is not. Sorry if math you don't like scares you Callandor, but the books agree with me, my math is fine, and your theory that heroes are immune to balefire is just plain silly!

**Obviously if the heores have forgotten that heroes can be ripped out and unbound and TAR can be destroyed, transferred, remade, then the time is ripe for such a transaction to occur.**

Whoa, whoa, whoa! No wonder you're so far gone. Who says that Birgitte is unbound? Who says that ~any~ Hero is unbound? Who says that tel'aran'rhiod can be destroyed?

Before you simply state those claims, you're going to have to prove them.

I'm saying that if it happens in a cycle, then chances are good for it to happen now. I already earlier explained why I think that it has to happen in a cylce, based on there being no first beginning, as stated in the first paragraph of every book. And TAR doesn't have to be destroyed so much as remade. If the current real world is remade to be like a TAR to the TAR's real worldness, then all the possibilities of the mirror worlds can be compressed into one world (the new real world), causing a pressure of the old real world acting as the new TAR to create new mirror worlds. But if the mirror worlds compress according style into a world where the DO is bound, then he can become bound in all the "now possible" mirror worlds newly created. You don't destroy the real world or TAR, and you don't create either, you switch their roles and destroy and create the mirror worlds. It's a very "balance" kind of thing that RJ would like. It meets Verin's criteria about one world and all worlds. It keeps the number of heroes down, it explains the ghosts, and it is a surprise that allows the LB to be fought in all the worlds simulateneously while giving RJ an excuse to not describe it in detail because there are an infinite number of battles going on, he can describe the story arcs and patterns.

As for proof, you obvioulsy don't understand what it means to make a theory. You explain that something is possible. It's possible that the quotes in the beginning of each book are correct for that world, and that TAR can become real if all the mirror worlds are compressed into it and that if the ghosts and such are placed in the "real world" that new mirror worlds can be created, and that such an act, as it involved all possiblities at once is the way that the DO can be made sealed or made free. That's why it is a theory, and why I post it on theoryland.

**Maybe we just disagree, but there is no beginning to the turning of the wheel.**

Yes, there is, as show above.

Wrong. Read the first paragraph of any book in the series. That's the narrator saying there is no beginning. Not a character. Randlanders can claim that the creator sealed the forsaken in SG at the moment of creation, and that just means that the Randlander is insanely stupid or insanely ignorant, since clearly the forsaken were wandering around being generals, slaughtering cities, creating Trollocs, etc. Similarly any other character can make false claims all they want, but the narrator already said that there is no beginning. What evidence do you seriously have that the narrator is wrong other than you poor knowledge of physics?

**If he is sealed in one, then he's sealed in all, yes. But also if he's free in one then he is free in all. To me this is obvious that to become totally free or to become totally sealed (either way! either one!), it is a prerequesite that there must at that time only be just one world, or maybe a small number.**

No. If he is held in one, he is sealed in all of them. Destroying all the Mirror Worlds in existance won't matter a damn (if it's even possible ~to~ destroy a Mirror World), because he is still held in Randland.

read the words "if he's free in one then he is free in all", feel free to look up the exact quote (by Verin I think). The quote being from a character and not the narrator could be wrong I admit, but if true and if the totality of mirror worlds contain every possibility, then either being bound is either perfectly 100% probable or it is perfectly 0% possible, in which case there is nothing to worry about either way ...

or

the mirror worlds can be destroyed, in which case this is a required event if it approaches that it becomes possible for both to happen, then mirror worlds must be destroyed for either to happen. And if ignoring the words that I type is the only why you can even pretend that I'm wrong, then that says quite a bit.

**We wouldn't want you to let quotes from the books and pesky facts get in the way of bashing my theories now, what would that lead to to everyone did it?**



I have yet to see one quote from you, so what are you talking about?

The first paragraph of every book, Callandor! Pick one!

**And so he wasn't spun out at that point, right? And so he could still be "not spun out", right? My point is that if no POV character sees Cain in TAR, that is no evidence that he is not there.**

However, we have Birgitte's knowledge of Cain and his rebirth cycle to imply that he was spun out. He could still be there of course, or he could've been destroyed by Moghedien, or thrown out by her already.

But the obvious and most likely implication is that he was spun out.

In other words, you agree that he could still be in TAR.

JakOShadows Your post didn't make since to me. Sorry. My theory was about the mirror world being destroyed, and I tried to make it clear how this was required to imprison the DO and your objections sounds like "I object" without stating why, except your ever-so-useful judgements (again without the observations which you used to make them) that I am illogical and philosophically below par. Other then that I just found your post humorous. People use physics all the time, good physics or bad physics, vague physics or precise physics. I never claimed that the DO or the True Source was a gauge theory or any such thing. But I do know how to model universes and if I take the first paragaph of each book to be correct, the model is quite clear that there is no first moment. If the creator is a hyperdimensional being, then he could have created the 4D spacetime that is the universe in 5D moment to trap another 5D being like the DO, and I would tend to agree with that. In fact I think the DO like the Creator is beyond the bounds of time in the 4D universe.

If the worlds represent all the possiblities as long as they exist and the DO has to be free (bound) in all of them, then the other worlds have to either not exist, or there has to be zero possiblity that he can be bound (free). There is the logical and philosophical problem in your theory.

Callandor: 2005-06-02

**Whatever. According to you if people use naive incorrect ignorant physics, then there is no disaster, like you talking about "before time, so and so did X", the word "before time" is naive incorrect ignorant physics that you used, that modern physicists do not use. Modern physicists describe spacetime as a complete structure, just as a being not in the structure would itself would describe it. What is a disaster I admit is people who think they know more physics than they do making assumptions and applying them. Your next statements being a perfect example.**

You don't realize what in the heck you are saying. Here's a quote for you:

**BWB: page 13, CHAPTER: 1 - The Wheel and the Pattern

"What is the Wheel of Time? Imagine a great cosmic loom in the shape of a seven-spoked wheel, slowly spinning through eternity, weaving the fabric of the universe. ~The Wheel, put in place by the Creator, is time itself, ever turning and returning.~ The fabric it weaves is constructed from the threads of lives and events, interlaced into a design, the Great Pattern, which is the whole of existence and reality, past, present, and future.**

Now, I have never claimed to be using physics to describe what is going on in Randland -- I'm using what is given from the books. If you're too blinded to see that, I'm sorry.

The Creator made the Wheel of Time. The Wheel of Time is time itself.

Before the Creator created the Wheel, there was no time. Hence, ~before time.~

**I never claimed that the One Power was a type of matter, that's you thinking that closed timelike curves are somehow related to matter. The disaster going on is your hubris, not my theory. I have no interest in connecting the one power to physics, the one power is described as what turns the wheel, so sounds entirely subjective except in the sense that it might implies that time would be linear without magic.**

Do you understand the concept of sarcasm?

I was using this as an example to show how big of a mistake you are making in drawing parallels between Randland and physics.

**So he can very well have a fictional universe where there is no first moment.**

He can all he wants -- but he didn't create one. Randland has a specific first moment -- right after the Wheel was put in place and time began.

**Physicists are great at describing fictional universes. They do so all the time.**

Great, good job for them. That's other physicists, not RJ.

**If there is no first moment, (like the narrator tells us in the beginning of each book) and it is possible for Heroes to be added and yet it is not possible for them to be removed (even by balefire!! come on Callandor!) then in such a universe as the narrator describes, there would an infinite number of heroes, and there is not. Sorry if math you don't like scares you Callandor, but the books agree with me, my math is fine, and your theory that heroes are immune to balefire is just plain silly!**

1. I distinctly said there is no way to ~remove~ a Hero from the Horn. I never said one thing about them being destroyed.

2. There is a first moment, so this entire section is your own delusion.

3. Balefire is not the destruction of the soul by any means (as said by RJ), so, yes, even that does not remove a Hero from the Horn.

4. When have I ~EVER~ said that Heroes were immune to balefire? Read more carefully before you accuse next time.

**I already earlier explained why I think that it has to happen in a cylce, based on there being no first beginning, as stated in the first paragraph of every book.**

And that is where you are wrong.

There ~was~ a first moment. You simply refuse to accept it, and claim a knowledge of physics makes it so.

** And TAR doesn't have to be destroyed so much as remade.**

Then say that, instead of destroyed.

**Wrong. Read the first paragraph of any book in the series. That's the narrator saying there is no beginning. Not a character. Randlanders can claim that the creator sealed the forsaken in SG at the moment of creation, and that just means that the Randlander is insanely stupid or insanely ignorant, since clearly the forsaken were wandering around being generals, slaughtering cities, creating Trollocs, etc. Similarly any other character can make false claims all they want, but the narrator already said that there is no beginning. What evidence do you seriously have that the narrator is wrong other than you poor knowledge of physics?**

1. I did not quote a character saying that the Creator sealed the Forsaken and the Dark One at the moment of creation, because that is half incorrect -- the Forsaken were sealed in the AoL.

2. No, ~YOU~ read the beginning of every book. I'll even walk you through it to point out your glaring mistake here.

**TITLE: Great Hunt, CHAPTER: 1 - The Flame of Tar Valon

"The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass leaving memories that become legend, then fade to myth, and are long forgot when that Age comes again. In one Age, called the Third Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose in the Mountains of Dhoom. The wind was not the beginning. ~There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time.~ But it was a beginning."

What is this saying? The Wheel keeps turning. That's it. The Wheel turns and there isn't a "Oh, here comes the end again. Whoops! Here's the start again." The Wheel of Time is of course, a wheel -- the start is the same as any other point on it.

That is not what I am saying is occuring.

Going back to what I quoted before:

**BWB: page 13, CHAPTER: 1 - The Wheel and the Pattern

"What is the Wheel of Time? Imagine a great cosmic loom in the shape of a seven-spoked wheel, slowly spinning through eternity, weaving the fabric of the universe. ~The Wheel, put in place by the Creator, is time itself, ever turning and returning.~ The fabric it weaves is constructed from the threads of lives and events, interlaced into a design, the Great Pattern, which is the whole of existence and reality, past, present, and future.**

The ~CREATOR~ created the Wheel of Time. What was before that moment? No time! There ~was~ a beginning. That beginning was when the Creator created the Wheel, and time began.

Want more? Since you love narrators, try the BWB again:

**BWB: page 16, CHAPTER: 1 - The Wheel and the Pattern

"The only known forces outside the Wheel and the Pattern are the Creator, who shaped the Wheel, the One Power that drives it--as well as the plan for the Great Pattern--and the Dark One, ~who was imprisoned outside the pattern by the Creator at the moment of creation.~ No one inside and of the Pattern can destroy the Wheel or change the destiny of the Great Pattern. Even those who are ta'veren can only alter, but not completely change, the weave. It is believed that if he escapes his prison, the Dark One, being a creature or force beyond creation, has the ability to remake the Wheel and all of creation in his own dark image. Thus each person, especially each of those born ta'veren, must struggle to achieve his or her own best destiny to assure the balance and continuation of the Great Pattern.**

How about the wolves?

**TITLE: Eye of the World, CHAPTER: 23 - Wolf brother

"They found out," Elyas replied, "I didn't. Not at first. That's always the way of it, I understand. The wolves find you, not you them. Some people thought me touched by the Dark One, because wolves started appearing wherever I went. I suppose I thought so, too, sometimes. Most decent folk began to avoid me, and the ones who sought me out weren't the kind I wanted to know, one way or another. Then I noticed there were times when the wolves seemed to know what I was thinking, to respond to what was in my head. That was the real beginning. They were curious about me. Wolves can sense people, usually, but not like this. They were glad to find me. ~They say it's been a long time since they hunted with men, and when they say a long time, the feeling I get is like a cold wind howling all the way down from the First Day."~**

**Me:I have yet to see one quote from you, so what are you talking about?

You: The first paragraph of every book, Callandor! Pick one!**

You have not presented ~ANY~ quotes for me to ignore -- and many of them are twisted to your own interpretation by your memory.

**In other words, you agree that he could still be in TAR.**

Yeah, or did you miss when I stated that in my reply, and in the area you quoted?

** But I do know how to model universes and if I take the first paragaph of each book to be correct, the model is quite clear that there is no first moment.**

And that is where you are wrong. There was a first moment.

**In fact I think the DO like the Creator is beyond the bounds of time in the 4D universe.**

Only things apart of and in the Pattern, woven by the Wheel of Time, are subject to time. The Dark One and Creator are not bounded by time in any sense.

Yaga Shura: 2005-06-02

"It's just further proof that the Last Battle will be won by the Light. There will be things that need doing after the Last Battle."

Not necessarily. If the Shadow wins TG, then there would still be things that need doing for the Light, provided the DO can't actually break the Wheel and remake the Pattern in his own image.

Callandor: 2005-06-02

**Not necessarily. If the Shadow wins TG, then there would still be things that need doing for the Light, provided the DO can't actually break the Wheel and remake the Pattern in his own image.**

Then it's not a victory for the Shadow then, because they did not win the Last Battle, since the Dark One did not break free.

JakOShadows: 2005-06-02

freewill: I'm sorry if you didn't quote get my reference. I was trying to apply a little religion to this. And I'm assuming I can because they pray to the light/creator for help in a tough situation. There are several examples in the book. Now, like before, we are assuming the creator is God. In any monothiestic religion, God is not outside of time AND PLACE. He is only one being, but he is present in everything, everywhere, and at anytime even though he is one being. So therefore, if he is imprisoned on the main world, he is imprisoned on all the other mirror worlds and T'A'R. Because as one being, if he is trapped, so he doesn't touch the world at anytime or anyplace.

Yaga Shura: 2005-06-03

"Then it's not a victory for the Shadow then, because they did not win the Last Battle, since the Dark One did not break free. "

If the Dark One breaks free, will the Wheel immediately and unavoidably be broken? I don't believe so.

Callandor: 2005-06-03

**If the Dark One breaks free, will the Wheel immediately and unavoidably be broken? I don't believe so.**

Why not? What else is the Dark One going to do to remake the world in his image?

Yaga Shura: 2005-06-03

"Why not? What else is the Dark One going to do to remake the world in his image? "

This is again assuming that he would accomplish this.

Pure speculation now, but say what the DO needs the Dragon for is to remake the world in his own image, not to break free. This could be why the Forsaken and Darkfriends are allowed to kill Rand as a last resort. So, in some hypothetical previous turning, the Dragon turned, TG was lost and the DO broke free, but before he could break the Wheel and remake the world, the Dragon was slain.

Callandor: 2005-06-03

**Pure speculation now, but say what the DO needs the Dragon for is to remake the world in his own image, not to break free. This could be why the Forsaken and Darkfriends are allowed to kill Rand as a last resort. So, in some hypothetical previous turning, the Dragon turned, TG was lost and the DO broke free, but before he could break the Wheel and remake the world, the Dragon was slain.**

That is pure hypothetical, and drawing the line at fictions of another world as well.

1. As far as we know, the Dragon has never turned ever.

2. The Dark One cannot remake the world in his own image, if he has not broken free -- hence his desire to be free.

3. If the Dark One breaks free, he's free. There ain't no putting the Dark One back in his prison step to this.

free will: 2005-06-03

JakOShadows I really can't follow what you are saying. The DO is like the creator outside of time and space, but he is trapped by the pattern. If the pattern is breakable, then he could get out. I don't think the DO can win, since being outside of time and all, he never really would have been trapped if he could get out. I think all the talk about possibility is discussing the mirror worlds. They will feature in the novels. The DO won't win, and he won't break free. I even think you agree on that. The DO is outside of time, so the only way that the pattern could hold him is if the pattern and the wheel and such itself are what traps the DO, time itself. He would have to break time to get out, just like the creator had to make time to have creation.

for "before time" man the phrase "before time" is middle school physics, you used it again. Imagine that I create a circle and I call one orientation of the cirlce time? Is there a "before the circle"? No, outside of the circle to me there might be things other than the circle, things outside time, lke myself, but I don't call any of that "before", the whole word "before" is a relative term. It only aplies with something ordered by time. Something outside of time is outside. Elsewhen, elsewhere. Not before and not after and not during, but outside.

That's like saying that a point above a horizontal line is left of the line (when left is only defined within the line), it's not, it's completely outside the line.

The creator could create a universe without a beginning, exactly like the quote in the BWB and the first paragraphs of all the books describe. Just because you can't imagine it properly doesn't make it impossible.

I could make an infinite past 4D model of our real universe and claim that it's structure was determined by a 5D field. Just because you choose to not try to understand wouldn't make my model wrong. This means that the creator actually created every moment. Not that he created a first moment with the inertia to carry through to on it's one create more moments. Such an idea implies that time already existed. Creation is the direct object to the creator, it doesn't imply a preexisting time (like "before time"), it implies that one is determined by the other, not vice versa. The creator has to have a 5D way to determine a 4D spacetime, and such a method would include 5D terminology, not misnomers like "before time".

free will: 2005-06-03

You don't realize what in the heck you are saying. Here's a quote for you:

**BWB: page 13, CHAPTER: 1 - The Wheel and the Pattern

"What is the Wheel of Time? Imagine a great cosmic loom in the shape of a seven-spoked wheel, slowly spinning through eternity, weaving the fabric of the universe. ~The Wheel, put in place by the Creator, is time itself, ever turning and returning.~ The fabric it weaves is constructed from the threads of lives and events, interlaced into a design, the Great Pattern, which is the whole of existence and reality, past, present, and future."

An analogy, where time is a function of a property of the model. I'm familiar with that from cosmology classes. But you aren't.

Now, I have never claimed to be using physics to describe what is going on in Randland.

You never claim to use bad physics, you even deny it. But you still do. Your claims of "before time" are proof positive. Whereas I claim that time has no beginning. The wheel is time. Time is a compact manifold. I've seen these models before in physics, and I understand what they mean. As does RJ. It's only you that don't seem to get.

The Creator made the Wheel of Time. The Wheel of Time is time itself.

The wheel was "put in place" by the creator, yes. The wheel is time, yes. Other things you say seem like speculation.

Before the Creator created the Wheel, there was no time. Hence, ~before time.~

The books have not, and I predict never will, mention a "before the creator created the wheel", that's something that you made up out of your bad physics understanding. Like pretending that there must be a "before time" to model your notion of there being a time when the wheel was created, when obviously the wheel is time, there was no turning of the wheel corresponding to it's creation, hence no time it was created, there was no time when the wheel was created. Just like there is no time when the ratio of the electron to the muon was set. That's a determination outside of time. A determination that determines all times, not an action within time.

**I never claimed that the One Power was a type of matter, that's you thinking that closed timelike curves are somehow related to matter. The disaster going on is your hubris, not my theory. I have no interest in connecting the one power to physics, the one power is described as what turns the wheel, so sounds entirely subjective except in the sense that it might implies that time would be linear without magic.**

Do you understand the concept of sarcasm?

I was using this as an example to show how big of a mistake you are making in drawing parallels between Randland and physics.

Seems like irony, not sarcasm. You use your misguided notions of physics to make incorrect conclusions about Randland. As a scientist I just make models and compare their predictions to data, I don't believe any of them to "be true". It's your actual beliefs about "before time" and not being able to imagine a 4D solid reprenting a past, present, and future. Your faith would disagree with modern cosmology as much as with my theory of randland because you are unwilling to let people model time in whatever fits the data and instead you insist that all determinations must occur within a time, and hence you have claims like "before time", which are utterly meaningless.

**So he can very well have a fictional universe where there is no first moment.**

He can all he wants -- but he didn't create one. Randland has a specific first moment -- right after the Wheel was put in place and time began.

So say you, contradicting that the books all clearly say that there is no beginning. Contradicting that time is identified with the wheel itself and not to "moments" in which the wheel "does stuff like being created". Just like you could claim that the ratio of muon mass to electron mass must happen "before time". Hey, if you want a brane model where the 5D or whatever dimension branes determine the mass ratios, go ahead and call it outside, but "before" is a term within a time, not outside of time.

**Physicists are great at describing fictional universes. They do so all the time.**

Great, good job for them. That's other physicists, not RJ.

I have no idea what you are saying. Are you saying that RJ is describing the real world in his novels? As opposed to the models that physicists make to generate predictions?

**If there is no first moment, (like the narrator tells us in the beginning of each book) and it is possible for Heroes to be added and yet it is not possible for them to be removed (even by balefire!! come on Callandor!) then in such a universe as the narrator describes, there would an infinite number of heroes, and there is not. Sorry if math you don't like scares you Callandor, but the books agree with me, my math is fine, and your theory that heroes are immune to balefire is just plain silly!**

1. I distinctly said there is no way to ~remove~ a Hero from the Horn. I never said one thing about them being destroyed.

Excuse me for thinking that balefire would remove a hero. My apologies. I have zero idea what your distinction between remove and destroy is, but if you think that balefire can't remove a hero, then my thesis gets stronger, so sure.

2. There is a first moment, so this entire section is your own delusion.

Sorry, each book disagrees with you. The narrator quite explicitly says that there is no first moment. The moments are even described as part of a wheel, clearly no first moment, and you still insist on a first moment for no reason whatsoever other than your own physical biased unscientific faith based beliefs.

3. Balefire is not the destruction of the soul by any means (as said by RJ), so, yes, even that does not remove a Hero from the Horn.

4. When have I ~EVER~ said that Heroes were immune to balefire? Read more carefully before you accuse next time.

Hey, if RJ said that the soul is still bound to the wheel, then that just makes my case all the more stronger since now they have to be unbound to avoid an infinite pile up. Thanks for helping my theory. I didn't have such a RJ quote, so I had to waffle that part about frequencies.

**I already earlier explained why I think that it has to happen in a cylce, based on there being no first beginning, as stated in the first paragraph of every book.**

And that is where you are wrong.

There ~was~ a first moment. You simply refuse to accept it, and claim a knowledge of physics makes it so.

No, my knowledge of physics tells me it is possible. My God, it says that there is no beginning. You claim that there is a beginning. How can I possibly reason with you. Open the book, any book, read the first paragraph. I'm right that there is no first turning. And that is possible. I even know from physics how to describe such things, and so I can read the description of the wheel and read it exactly as such a description.

I could be wrong by being wrong. But at least my theory is consistent with the books, whereas yours can't make it through the very first paragraph.

** And TAR doesn't have to be destroyed so much as remade.**

Then say that, instead of destroyed.

There are thousands of variations of my theory. The point is that I cited evidence that implied that the mirror worlds would have to be destroyed, I claimed that while doing that TAR could be made the real world, and the real world into the new TAR and that this could explain other things like ghosts.

**Wrong. Read the first paragraph of any book in the series. That's the narrator saying there is no beginning. Not a character. Randlanders can claim that the creator sealed the forsaken in SG at the moment of creation, and that just means that the Randlander is insanely stupid or insanely ignorant, since clearly the forsaken were wandering around being generals, slaughtering cities, creating Trollocs, etc. Similarly any other character can make false claims all they want, but the narrator already said that there is no beginning. What evidence do you seriously have that the narrator is wrong other than you poor knowledge of physics?**

1. I did not quote a character saying that the Creator sealed the Forsaken and the Dark One at the moment of creation, because that is half incorrect -- the Forsaken were sealed in the AoL.

That's my point. People say stuff, that doesn't make it true. The narrator says "no beginning".

2. No, ~YOU~ read the beginning of every book. I'll even walk you through it to point out your glaring mistake here.

**TITLE: Great Hunt, CHAPTER: 1 - The Flame of Tar Valon

"The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass leaving memories that become legend, then fade to myth, and are long forgot when that Age comes again. In one Age, called the Third Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose in the Mountains of Dhoom. The wind was not the beginning. ~There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time.~ But it was a beginning."

What is this saying? The Wheel keeps turning. That's it. The Wheel turns and there isn't a "Oh, here comes the end again. Whoops! Here's the start again." The Wheel of Time is of course, a wheel -- the start is the same as any other point on it.

YOU read it, it says "There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time", so the creator did not start the wheel turning, the turnings of the wheel IS time. It clearly says that there is no beginning to the turning of the wheel. You claim that there was.

That is not what I am saying is occuring.

Going back to what I quoted before:

**BWB: page 13, CHAPTER: 1 - The Wheel and the Pattern

"What is the Wheel of Time? Imagine a great cosmic loom in the shape of a seven-spoked wheel, slowly spinning through eternity, weaving the fabric of the universe. ~The Wheel, put in place by the Creator, is time itself, ever turning and returning.~ The fabric it weaves is constructed from the threads of lives and events, interlaced into a design, the Great Pattern, which is the whole of existence and reality, past, present, and future."

The ~CREATOR~ created the Wheel of Time. What was before that moment? No time!

There is no moment of when creation happens. The creator is outside time. Just like the laws of physics are outside time. There is no moment when they affect each other, moments are just parts of the universe. They don't exist outside of the universe. Assuming that the creator has to have moments in which to do an action of creating moments is your raving anthrocentric nonsense. It is not required, and your ravings claim that modern cosmology is as wrong as my theory about Randland. You are wrong because you have such a bias about time that you can't objectively model a totality of time by analogy with an static object.

There ~was~ a beginning. That beginning was when the Creator created the Wheel, and time began.

Contradicting the first paragraph again. There is no beginning to the turnings of the wheel of time. No beginning.

Want more? Since you love narrators, try the BWB again:

**BWB: page 16, CHAPTER: 1 - The Wheel and the Pattern

"The only known forces outside the Wheel and the Pattern are the Creator, who shaped the Wheel, the One Power that drives it--as well as the plan for the Great Pattern--and the Dark One, ~who was imprisoned outside the pattern by the Creator at the moment of creation.~ No one inside and of the Pattern can destroy the Wheel or change the destiny of the Great Pattern. Even those who are ta'veren can only alter, but not completely change, the weave. It is believed that if he escapes his prison, the Dark One, being a creature or force beyond creation, has the ability to remake the Wheel and all of creation in his own dark image. Thus each person, especially each of those born ta'veren, must struggle to achieve his or her own best destiny to assure the balance and continuation of the Great Pattern."

Every moment in time is the moment of creation, creation is a spacetime, it has moments, each of them is a moment of creation. The totality of creation is exactly what imprisons the DO and what the creator made. Not a sequences with a beginning. The books have already been clear that there was no beginning, and every moment in the wheel is the moment of creation, and being bound outside it means that creation binds you. Just like a 4D surface of a 5D balloon imprisons a 5D being inside.

How about the wolves?





**TITLE: Eye of the World, CHAPTER: 23 - Wolf brother

"They found out," Elyas replied, "I didn't. Not at first. That's always the way of it, I understand. The wolves find you, not you them. Some people thought me touched by the Dark One, because wolves started appearing wherever I went. I suppose I thought so, too, sometimes. Most decent folk began to avoid me, and the ones who sought me out weren't the kind I wanted to know, one way or another. Then I noticed there were times when the wolves seemed to know what I was thinking, to respond to what was in my head. That was the real beginning. They were curious about me. Wolves can sense people, usually, but not like this. They were glad to find me. ~They say it's been a long time since they hunted with men, and when they say a long time, the feeling I get is like a cold wind howling all the way down from the First Day."~**

And the Forsaken were sealed by the creator. People say stuff. And oh no, you quoted someone making a simile. People who don't believe in Hell talk about about something hurting like the fires of hell, and that doesn't make hell exist.

**Me:I have yet to see one quote from you, so what are you talking about?

You: The first paragraph of every book, Callandor! Pick one!**

You have not presented ~ANY~ quotes for me to ignore -- and many of them are twisted to your own interpretation by your memory.

First paragraph. Each book. Not twisted, it's clear. I'm not sure that you are used to talking about things that are outside of time. I have the books, I've read them and they say no beginning.

**In other words, you agree that he could still be in TAR.**

Yeah, or did you miss when I stated that in my reply, and in the area you quoted?

You seemed to be focused on attacking it even when it looked like you were forced to agree.

** But I do know how to model universes and if I take the first paragaph of each book to be correct, the model is quite clear that there is no first moment.**

And that is where you are wrong. There was a first moment.

No there wasn't. The book says "no beginning". You know it does.

**In fact I think the DO like the Creator is beyond the bounds of time in the 4D universe.**

Only things apart of and in the Pattern, woven by the Wheel of Time, are subject to time. The Dark One and Creator are not bounded by time in any sense.

The DO is bound in 5D by the pattern, bound outside of the pattern, but bound, thus me describing being inside a hollow 5D sphere with a 4D boundary that is the pattern. He's bound outside the 4D pattern, an thus stuck in the 5D space inside. I agree that the DO is in 5D and so not bound by the wheel to move through time, but you claimed that the creator and the wheel were bound by time when he was forced to have a moment in order to "create" the wheel. I'd say that the wheel doesn't bind itself to force a moment to it's own creation, that like the creator it is outside time. It's you that claim that there is an uberwheel that made the time when the current wheel was created. The novels don't say so, and you have to add it after each quote. You never have a quote that says "begining of the wheel" or "first moment", and the reason you can't is because it is consistent for me to say that there wasn't one, just like the books say.

Can't you respond to my theory. The Verin claim is enough to require the end of the mirror worlds as part of a binding or freeing of the DO, and I'm theorizing that the mirror worlds could be destroyed and made new. You only attack my rationalizations about why this might be required.

Narianna: 2005-06-04

the dark one broke free??

then how come he is trapped NOW.

did the creator bound him again?

but its mentioned everywhere that the creator bound DO at the moment of creation. so no chance that DO has EVER broken free.

Davian93: 2005-06-04

****Why not? What else is the Dark One going to do to remake the world in his image?****

If the DO breaks free, he would not "remake the world in his image" He would destroy it and everything on it. The DO is the antithesis of the Creator, not a dark mirror image of him. The Creator brings life, order, and hope, the DO brings utter destruction, chaos, and death.

Kantuna: 2005-06-04

JakOShadows,

Here is some proof that the creator is not part of everything in RandLand.

You say, "He [The Creator] is only one being, but he is present in everything, everywhere, and at anytime even though he is one being."

Balefire destroys every part of you - ie, if it hits your finger, it kills you completely. This is because you and your finger are all one part, all connected. If the creator is part of everything, then when Balefire is used he would be completely annihilated. This obviously isn't true. Balefire was used in the AoL, and the Creator is still around - we know this because he talked to Rand (Can't find quote right now, I'll post it when I've found it.)

The only way the creator could survive is if he is not part of the pattern (So he is not part of all things) or if he is immune to Balefire.

I know Balefire only burns a persons thread out of the pattern, and the creator doesn't have a thread. If he doesn't have a thread then he isn't part of the pattern, he is outside. That makes him immune to Balefire, but also not part of everything in RandLand.

QED

Tamyrlin: 2005-06-04

Would you agree, Free Will, that events exist when the Creator existed and the Wheel and Time did not exist? Whereas, events of the Wheel and Time only existed when the Creator existed? Sorry, I had to work hard to avoid “before time”, since that really pisses you off. ;) As far as I understand in physics, events don't have to be a function of time, depending on your particular view...(I don't know anything about physics...if that isn't obvious).

Also, you say the paragraph in the books explains it by saying no beginning, but isn't beginning a concept of time itself, and the narrator who is creating the language, subject to time, therefore any explanation found anywhere, will not be the correct explanation, from the vantage point of the Creator. Isn't Jordan attempting to explain creation and existence outside of creation from a perspective inside Time?

Please forgive my ignorance of physics.

Finally, back to the Verin claim; I think she is ignorant and using a philosophical analogy she learned to explain the complexities of Mirror Worlds and the Dark One's existence. Jordan having Verin give that information is another reason to hold suspect it's veracity to the point that we can conclude anything definitively. Personally, I think other characters have shown us much more and given us a clearer understanding of Mirror Worlds than Verin ever could. However, if the Dark One was freed in the Real World, I think he would destroy the Pattern, in essence destroying the reflections of reality too...but I can't remember your point... :)

JakOShadows: 2005-06-04

Kantuna: Good point. I meant that he could touch them in someway. Not that he was actually in the threads. I was argueing more that the DO and creator could touch all the worlds and still be one being. Therefore, if the DO were to be imprisoned, he would be imprisoned in all of the worlds without having to destroy the mirror worlds. Same for the Creator, although I hope it doesn't happen that way.

Callandor: 2005-06-04

**An analogy, where time is a function of a property of the model. I'm familiar with that from cosmology classes. But you aren't.**

I don't quote anything about an analogy -- I quoted and specifically pointed out:

The Creator made and placed the Wheel of Time. He made time. He made the beginning.

**You never claim to use bad physics, you even deny it. But you still do. Your claims of "before time" are proof positive. Whereas I claim that time has no beginning. The wheel is time. Time is a compact manifold. I've seen these models before in physics, and I understand what they mean. As does RJ. It's only you that don't seem to get.**

And it's still funny that you go with that instead of following what the ~BOOKS~ say about time.

**The wheel was "put in place" by the creator, yes. The wheel is time, yes. Other things you say seem like speculation.**

Hey, look at that, admitions of fault from the delusional.

~Look~ like suppositions? This is getting tiresome.

You already ceeded that the Creator made time and placed the Wheel. What came before that? Because, if you notice (dunno if you have observed this, or are too focused on the physics part), if there is no Wheel, there is no time, and there was a point when the Wheel was made (as you yourself have already ceeded), hence ---- A BEGINNING.

**The books have not, and I predict never will, mention a "before the creator created the wheel", that's something that you made up out of your bad physics understanding. Like pretending that there must be a "before time" to model your notion of there being a time when the wheel was created, when obviously the wheel is time, there was no turning of the wheel corresponding to it's creation, hence no time it was created, there was no time when the wheel was created. Just like there is no time when the ratio of the electron to the muon was set. That's a determination outside of time. A determination that determines all times, not an action within time.**

Just wow.

1. ~YOU~ YOURSELF ceeded the Creator made the Wheel.

2. The Wheel of Time is time (again, as you yourself have ceeded).

3. The quotes you don't even have the 2 minutes to look at, refer to the turnings of the Wheel -- which bare absolutely no point on what the heck happened when there was no time.

4. You still, STILL, cannot let go of the physics part.

**Your faith would disagree with modern cosmology as much as with my theory of randland because you are unwilling to let people model time in whatever fits the data and instead you insist that all determinations must occur within a time, and hence you have claims like "before time", which are utterly meaningless.**

1. My faith? What the heck does religion have to do with anything here?

2. I have specifically ~NEVER~ said that everything must occur within time -- how the heck can that be possible, when there was a period when there was -- ~GASP!~ -- no time!

**So say you, contradicting that the books all clearly say that there is no beginning.**

Please, quote the books and point out the contradictions, because I grow tired of doing so to you, and you blatantly ignoring them.

**I have no idea what you are saying. Are you saying that RJ is describing the real world in his novels? As opposed to the models that physicists make to generate predictions?**

You're entire view of this, is based on physics. That is proven, so you say, because RJ has studied physics.

So, what? RJ is clearly well-read in many, many, fields and look what he has done.

Take mythology. Any mythological major or professor, in a parallel situation to the one you're in, would read these books, and say, "The Horn of Valere is Heimdall's Horn, and so every they fight each other in the afterlife, cutting themselves to pieces, and then area healed back to normal the next day to do it again. It is proven, because the Horn of Valere is clearly Heimdall's Horn."

Instead of seeing it for what it truely is -- an influence. No more.

This series was ~started~ in one reason to show how myths ~might have~ begun, and shows how RJ can twist them to his own accord.

Yes! Imagine that! An author doing what he dang well feels, in a world ~he created and can do anything at all he want.~

THAT is why drawing conclusions based on physics always fail. RJ can take a physic concept, and it could have one out come that we know of and hold as a law (I don't know physics that much, and could careless -- put in some random but commonly held law at your own choosing) and say "Screw that, I need to change that so that Rand can get to ~some place~ fast."

You are putting rules on RJ and claiming he must follow them. That is false, and you fail to recognize it.

**Excuse me for thinking that balefire would remove a hero. My apologies. I have zero idea what your distinction between remove and destroy is, but if you think that balefire can't remove a hero, then my thesis gets stronger, so sure.**

Don't see how. Addition to the Horn of Valere has one point: rebirth at the Wheel and Pattern's choosing for all eternity. Balefire does not destroy the soul, so why would it do anything to the Heroes, except take them back to where they await rebirth?

**Sorry, each book disagrees with you. The narrator quite explicitly says that there is no first moment.**

Oh, really? Hmmm, I don't see that in the part ~I QUOTED~. Nor do I see that, in any part you quoted -- surprisingly because you haven't quoted a one, and are trying to get by with doing that. Doesn't work with me.

Quote your parts now. If you don't do that, you're simply refusing to accept that what you are stating simply is not there, and are blinding yourself from the truth.

**The moments are even described as part of a wheel, clearly no first moment, and you still insist on a first moment for no reason whatsoever other than your own physical biased unscientific faith based beliefs.**

And you say this after I have quoted the books from 4 different sources. Amazing.

**Hey, if RJ said that the soul is still bound to the wheel, then that just makes my case all the more stronger since now they have to be unbound to avoid an infinite pile up. Thanks for helping my theory. I didn't have such a RJ quote, so I had to waffle that part about frequencies.**

No, they do not, since the infinite gap you are refering to, is a product of you're own facts (I'm sure it exists somewhere in a physics book, and you could quote it by route, but not in these ones).

**No, my knowledge of physics tells me it is possible.**

And that is the trouble with accepting that what you know about physics ~DOES NOT MATTER IN THESE BOOKS~.

**My God, it says that there is no beginning.**

To the turnings of the Wheel -- it never says that the Wheel was never created (hence, a beginning).

**Open the book, any book, read the first paragraph. I'm right that there is no first turning.**

Look, I quoted the first paragraph you're using as the proponant of this delusion already above. Yet, you still state that things are in there that are not.

**I could be wrong by being wrong. But at least my theory is consistent with the books, whereas yours can't make it through the very first paragraph.**

Talk about irony, when you're using parts of the books that are not there, to quote what you are proposing.

**That's my point. People say stuff, that doesn't make it true. The narrator says "no beginning".**

Since you obviously have a hard time, use a defintion for a fact based on this series. Here, use mine:

Anything said in the series that is not contradicted by the books, Guide, interviews, or RJ saying so, must be taken as fact.

I'll give you an example. Verin makes one reference to the Numbers of Chaos. This is the only reference to that concept in the entire series. How do we know it exists? We are forced to. Why? Because RJ wrote it in, and it is not contradicted.

Now, Rand saying that Ba'alzamon is the Dark One -- is clearly contradicted in the later books many times.

Why does anyone believe a word that Moiraine ever said to Rand or Egwene or anyone about the One Power in The Eye of the World? People didn't have these concepts like saidin and saidar. Physics sure didn't. But why did people believe that they existed? (Of course if you believe they ~truely~ exist in the real world, you might have some problems, but that's an aside)

Because this is a ~FICTIONAL~ world, and RJ is the god of it. What he writes is fact, unless he is diverting us intentionally. Even if he is by a long shot, if he states it once, because he is the author describing his world and how it works, we are forced to believe it.

**YOU read it, it says "There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time", so the creator did not start the wheel turning, the turnings of the wheel IS time. It clearly says that there is no beginning to the turning of the wheel. You claim that there was.**

Great. Now you are going back on yourself.

1. You state, and agree, that the Creator made the Wheel of Time.

2. You now state that the Creator did not start the Wheel turning.

It's one or the other, free will. Choose one, stick to it, and forget the meshing of facts and skewing them to fit your own ideas.

**The totality of creation is exactly what imprisons the DO and what the creator made.**

No, the Creator imprisoned the Dark One. He did it at he moment of creation.

**And the Forsaken were sealed by the creator. People say stuff.**

~Sigh~

Look at the quote. I did not quote what you are referencing, and you are trying to use that to somehow show that what I quote is absolute trash, but what you quote, is clear spun gold straight from RJ.

**First paragraph. Each book. Not twisted, it's clear. I'm not sure that you are used to talking about things that are outside of time. I have the books, I've read them and they say no beginning.**

You specifically said that the first paragraph of every book states that there was no first moment. Please quote that, for it is not in any of the quotes I have (and I did cite one of the ones you are louding as having it).

**You seemed to be focused on attacking it even when it looked like you were forced to agree.**

What I said in my original reply could not have been any clearer than what I wrote.

**No there wasn't. The book says "no beginning". You know it does.**

Yep, but I also know there is an attachment phrase to that which you are leaving out: no beginning to the turning of the Wheel. There was a point when the Wheel began, and first turned -- hence a first moment.

**The DO is bound in 5D by the pattern, bound outside of the pattern, but bound, thus me describing being inside a hollow 5D sphere with a 4D boundary that is the pattern.**

You really need to let go the physics parallels between our world and the world RJ has created. You really do. And just take it as fact, since it is quoted above in my replies, that the Creator imprisoned the Dark One at the moment of creation.

**It's you that claim that there is an uberwheel that made the time when the current wheel was created.**

What?! Please quote me saying that. I have repeatedly said that the Creator made the Wheel (you even agreed on that) and quoted it. Do not put words into my mouth.

**The novels don't say so, and you have to add it after each quote. You never have a quote that says "begining of the wheel" or "first moment", and the reason you can't is because it is consistent for me to say that there wasn't one, just like the books say.**

1. I did quote it -- you ignore it.

2. I did quote that there was a First Moment -- 4 times. Once again, you ignore them.

**It is not required, and your ravings claim that modern cosmology is as wrong as my theory about Randland.**

All I can say is you've totally and 100% proven my objections to your ideas to be correct.

1. I know this is a fantasy world. You do not seem to know that distinction.

2. I have not made one claim about disproving physics, and never will cite a fictious source to do so, nor will I try, because I am a believer in physics.

**Balefire destroys every part of you - ie, if it hits your finger, it kills you completely. This is because you and your finger are all one part, all connected. If the creator is part of everything, then when Balefire is used he would be completely annihilated. This obviously isn't true. Balefire was used in the AoL, and the Creator is still around - we know this because he talked to Rand (Can't find quote right now, I'll post it when I've found it.)**

1. The Creator and the Dark One exist out of time and seperate from the Wheel and the Pattern. There is nothing a person within the Pattern can do that will "kill" the Creator or the Dark One. If they aren't by their own powers, they are for all intensive purposes immortal.

2. It is not know that the Creator talked to Rand. It's a nice idea, and most likely, but not known for sure.

**If the DO breaks free, he would not "remake the world in his image" He would destroy it and everything on it.**

I can quote Ishamael telling you differently, but you already know of that paragraph anyway.

free will: 2005-06-05

Would you agree, Free Will, that events exist when the Creator existed and the Wheel and Time did not exist?

No, I wouldn't particularly agree. I'd say that there the pattern is not everything, being as the Creator and the DO are both outside it. But outside is outside, it is not an event, it has no time and no place.

Whereas, events of the Wheel and Time only existed when the Creator existed? Sorry, I had to work hard to avoid "before time", since that really pisses you off. ;)

I very much appreciate your effort. Unfortunately I simply can't figure out what your second statement is supposed to mean. I really tried, but you could be speaking greek for all I can tell. But my sympathy goes out to you when I imagine that my statements could be as unfathomable to you. At least if you don't understand me you can pick up a book on cosmology and figure it out since my view isn't original in the slightest. Your statement is just a mystery to me.

As far as I understand in physics, events don't have to be a function of time, depending on your particular view (I don't know anything about physics if that isn't obvious).

In physics, an event has a moment and location, in fact in most common modern physics an event is snoymous with the point in spacetime that it shares with anything that has that moment and location coincident.

Also, you say the paragraph in the books explains it by saying no beginning, but isn't beginning a concept of time itself, and the narrator who is creating the language, subject to time, therefore any explanation found anywhere, will not be the correct explanation, from the vantage point of the Creator. Isn't Jordan attempting to explain creation and existence outside of creation from a perspective inside Time?

Physicists have the same problem describing the universe in cosmology, it is not insurmountable. One makes a model and discusses it. Terms like beginning and before and time and location all have meanings inside the model and we can discuss the model as if "from the outside", the point being that the model as a whole models the universe as a whole, that events in the universe have corresponding points in the model. Since I'm sure that RJ is aware of how to do this, and I see him doing exactly that, that is my basis for my understanding of what he writes. And I'm not trying to say that only I can be right, I'm trying to say that it is consistent with the books. One can consistently have a universe with no first moment and RJ describes exactly such a universe. I like how he has a Creator anyway because that makes the eternal pattern that is creation more objective to the readers as an entire unbroken whole. I used to be outright impressed with how well he got this idea across to lay people. Now I'm just disappointed that the majority view is that the past in RJ's world is finite. My opinion of the genius of RJ has fallen considerably since learning that he did not after all make this concept intuitive to those that haven't seen it before. It is still beautiful to me, and I feel sorry for anyone that can't grasp what I read.

Finally, back to the Verin claim; I think she is ignorant and using a philosophical analogy she learned to explain the complexities of Mirror Worlds and the Dark One's existence. Jordan having Verin give that information is another reason to hold suspect it's veracity to the point that we can conclude anything definitively. Personally, I think other characters have shown us much more and given us a clearer understanding of Mirror Worlds than Verin ever could. However, if the Dark One was freed in the Real World, I think he would destroy the Pattern, in essence destroying the reflections of reality too

Verin wasn't just lecturing about the mirror worlds but also about the nature of the binding of the DO, and I've seen no other characters do a better job of relating the two, I'm not sure if anyone else even tried to relate the two. Verin's claim almost requires that the mirror worlds be destroyed or unified for any progress to be made one way or another regarding the DO's imprisonment.

Since you are a knowledgeable guy, Tamyrlin, is there any evidence that the mirror world's nature has not changed since the seals were made? Could the seals have made the mirror worlds into mirrors when before they were more real? Could the unter-reality of the mirror worlds be what gives the DO the possibility of breaking free that people seem to think he has? I'm not trying to ask so many questions, it's just the Verin didn't mention the seals much or whether or not things were always as she said they are now. Rand seems to be contemplating breaking the seals and I wonder if that could affect the dead or the mirror worlds. If the seals were broken and the DO broke free that might shatter the mirror worlds and then in that moment when there is just one world left, Rand (or Logain?) might then and only then have the power to reseal the DO this time correctly. I tend to not believe that will happen because blood on the rocks and funereals with three women and such and I don't see how Rand's death could fit in there. That's why I originally brought in TAR and switching death versus life for everyone. If Rand dies and comes back, then it'll be cheesy. If Rand inverts what it means to be dead versus alive for everyone, and then "lives" by going to the afterlife ("dying") then it's surprising, not cheesy (to me).

Tamyrlin: 2005-06-05

Okay, Free Will, let me see if I can take another stab at asking you a question regarding Physics. You don't particularly agree with this statement, “the Creator existed and the Wheel and Time did not exist”, however your short explanation did not make sense to me. Did the Creator, create the Wheel of Time? And if so, was the creation an event? In other words, before the creation of Time, did the Creator exist?


My second question will be answered by your answer to the above questions.

In physics, an event has a moment and location, in fact in most common modern physics an event is snoymous with the point in spacetime that it shares with anything that has that moment and location coincident.

I will go back and read something that I read concerning Time and Physics, but I was under the belief there is a group of theorists that believe Time is something human beings created to explain the relationship between events; in other words, Time doesn't truly exist, but I assume more mainstream theorists don't agree.

Physicists have the same problem describing the universe in cosmology, it is not insurmountable. One makes a model and discusses it. Terms like beginning and before and time and location all have meanings inside the model and we can discuss the model as if "from the outside", the point being that the model as a whole models the universe as a whole, that events in the universe have corresponding points in the model.

Your answer, above, is still a bit hazy. The idea that we can explain or discuss a model “as if from the outside” is a contradiction to what is occurring with these books. The Creator and Creation is being explained from within the Pattern; as far as I read it, the narrator is not taking an outside perspective to creation, which is why creation to the narrator's perspective is infinite, where as from the Creator's perspective, he created the Wheel, so the actual event of creation is known to him.

Since you are a knowledgeable guy, Tamyrlin, is there any evidence that the mirror world's nature has not changed since the seals were made?

That is impossible to say. We don't have the information to examine such an idea. However, if this is simply one of many turnings, and turnings vary little from one to another, the DO's prison has been bored into previously, seals have been made and unmade, Saidin has been tainted and cleansed, and Mirror Worlds exist in this turning. Does the nature of Mirror Worlds change? Possibly.

Could the seals have made the mirror worlds into mirrors when before they were more real?

No. Jordan has given us quite a large amount of information regarding Mirror Worlds. They are permanent reflections of reality, that can't affect the Real World.

Could the unter-reality of the mirror worlds be what gives the DO the possibility of breaking free that people seem to think he has?

I think I understand what you are suggesting. I don't think the Mirror Worlds lend themselves to this type of “hacking” by the DO. The Mirror Worlds do give the Pattern something to choose from, but I think it is the threads in the Pattern that are really what give the DO the possibility of breaking free.

Rand seems to be contemplating breaking the seals and I wonder if that could affect the dead or the mirror worlds. If the seals were broken and the DO broke free that might shatter the mirror worlds and then in that moment when there is just one world left, Rand (or Logain?) might then and only then have the power to reseal the DO this time correctly.

I am party to the belief that Mirror Worlds are a natural function of the Pattern used from prediction/guiding purposes of the Weave, and have no beginning nor end. :)

Tristin: 2005-06-05

The problem with physicists is that they always ignore theology. Aquinas' principle in the Summa of an Uncaused first Cause is intrinsic to talking about the Creator and Time in Jordan's world, even if not so important in our own. Perhaps more specifically important, Freewill, is the argument that there must be a nescesary being/thing upon which all contingent beings/things rest. This is due of course to the principle of reductio ad absurdum and infinite regress.

Basically Aquinas says:

1) Contingent beings/things/events are caused.

2) Not every being/thing/cause can be contingent.

3) There must exist a being/thing/cause which is necessary to cause contingent beings/things/causes.

4) This necessary being/thing/cause is God or in our case the Creator.

It is much easier to talk about Jordan's Creator in theological and philosophical language that with physics. Physics is obviously limited by empirical evidence within the world, which makes talking about unobservable things like Creators a bit pointless.

At any rate, most of your physics (in regards to time) is crap. No offense :p. Try reading Nathan Oaklander's "New Theory of Time." Or any book on Quantum physics should tell you that your perception of an event is seriously flawed (when based on relativity and space-time).

In short, the Creator, who by his title is Act, did create a universe/world/wheel that exists independently of him. That Act, which could be interpretted as a one move (Deism), or as a continued Act (holds the world and wheel in place, moving the pattern by his Will). But that seems to be a different discussion entirely.

Yaga Shura: 2005-06-05

"its mentioned everywhere that the creator bound DO at the moment of creation. so no chance that DO has EVER broken free."

It is also said in a lot of places that the Forsaken were bound at the moment of creation along with the DO. This is not true. Can you rely on one part of an assertion we already know to be at least half false?

Yaga Shura: 2005-06-05

Callandor:

"That is pure hypothetical, and drawing the line at fictions of another world as well.

1. As far as we know, the Dragon has never turned ever. "

TGH disagrees with you: ch 41 Disagreements

~You have served me before. Serve me again, Lews Therin, or be destroyed forever!"~

"2. The Dark One cannot remake the world in his own image, if he has not broken free -- hence his desire to be free. "

Not sure why you're saying this: who disputed it? I know I didn't.

"3. If the Dark One breaks free, he's free. There ain't no putting the Dark One back in his prison step to this. "

Is there a quote for this?

If the Creator bound the Dark One at the moment of creation, there must be a way that the DO can be bound.

free will: 2005-06-05

Okay, Free Will, let me see if I can take another stab at asking you a question regarding Physics. You don't particularly agree with this statement, "the Creator existed and the Wheel and Time did not exist", however your short explanation did not make sense to me. Did the Creator, create the Wheel of Time? And if so, was the creation an event? In other words, before the creation of Time, did the Creator exist?

The "creation" is "the creation" is "the pattern", it is not a single event, it is "the universe". Like is always the case for anything outside of time, it involves relations to the totality of time as a whole, not any particular parts within it. The creator created the wheel not in the sense that "there was a time when the creator existed and the wheel didn't" and also "there were both at a later time", he created it instead in the sense that he determined it in a completely atemporal way, much as the laws of physics determine our universe, there is no moment in the universe when that happens. From a temporal point of view each moment is created anew, because they are all created equally, directly by the creator. This is historically even an old Christian concept, not new at all. It's like the creator created each moment separately as it were in a completely atemporal way, from outside of time his will makes creation what it is, imagine one thought of the creator affecting all parts of the pattern equally, past present and future as well as all points. Much like the laws of physics. Ubiquitous as far as the universe is concerned for physics, so the "action" of the creation is ubiquitous in space and time within the pattern. Some people ask why the creator doesn't act, but he does, his hand shelters each moment of time itself.

I will go back and read something that I read concerning Time and Physics, but I was under the belief there is a group of theorists that believe Time is something human beings created to explain the relationship between events; in other words, Time doesn't truly exist, but I assume more mainstream theorists don't agree.

The mainstream view is to treat spacetime as a unified whole, and say that the appearance of time and space are both a subjective process, while spacetime is objective. That gets in the way of trying to discuss time separately, you end up talking about the whole universe, so you need a model of the whole universe.

"Physicists have the same problem describing the universe in cosmology, it is not insurmountable. One makes a model and discusses it. Terms like beginning and before and time and location all have meanings inside the model and we can discuss the model as if "from the outside", the point being that the model as a whole models the universe as a whole, that events in the universe have corresponding points in the model."

Your answer, above, is still a bit hazy. The idea that we can explain or discuss a model "as if from the outside" is a contradiction to what is occurring with these books.

Not the way I read the books. Describing a wheel turning is exactly a description from the outside. No one in the pattern says "look I see the wheel, it was behind that rock". Same with saying that the one power turns the wheel, no one sees a spoke poking through with the OP pushing it along.

The Creator and Creation is being explained from within the Pattern; as far as I read it, the narrator is not taking an outside perspective to creation, which is why creation to the narrator's perspective is infinite, where as from the Creator's perspective, he created the Wheel, so the actual event of creation is known to him.

If I'm reading you correctly it sounds like you just assume that the narrator is lying. If I assumed that, then I wouldn't read the books. Creation is the creation. Creation is the universe. Creation is what the Light shines on. Creation is not an event within Time or within Creation. The narrator and the creator have the same perspective to me, they both "see" all of creation "at once" and are aware that the creation has no beginning. The narrator describes only parts of the creation, but that is for our benefit as small beings. The narrator does a good job of explaining the pattern as a whole as a woven pattern with the lives of people being some of the threads, that clearly discribes a 4D pattern. The creator being outside is a 5D being.

"Could the seals have made the mirror worlds into mirrors when before they were more real?"

No. Jordan has given us quite a large amount of information regarding Mirror Worlds. They are permanent reflections of reality, that can't affect the Real World.

Could you try to answer the question again. I did NOT ask if the previously more real mirror worlds made the seals somehow when they became the less real reflections that they are known as today (if they did change), which would be an example of the mirror world affecting the Real World, or any other such claim. I asked if the seals could have made the mirror worlds less real, that's an example of the Real World affecting the nature of the mirror worlds.

"Could the unter-reality of the mirror worlds be what gives the DO the possibility of breaking free that people seem to think he has?"

I think I understand what you are suggesting. I don't think the Mirror Worlds lend themselves to this type of "hacking" by the DO.

I'm so incrediably confused my your posts. Do you think that the DO created the seals or something? I'm asking whether the seals can make the mirror worlds less real making only one "real" world, which gives the DO an opening by attacking the one world where previously he'd have to break through them all. The DO didn't make the seals, so your response doesn't make sense to me.

"Rand seems to be contemplating breaking the seals and I wonder if that could affect the dead or the mirror worlds. If the seals were broken and the DO broke free that might shatter the mirror worlds and then in that moment when there is just one world left, Rand (or Logain?) might then and only then have the power to reseal the DO this time correctly."

I am party to the belief that Mirror Worlds are a natural function of the Pattern used from prediction/guiding purposes of the Weave, and have no beginning nor end. :)

I'm totally lost again, you think that the pattern has a beginning (a first moment of creation), yet the mirror worlds (a part of the pattern) don't have a beginning. I can't even follow your thoughts here, you've lost me completely.

Tamyrlin: 2005-06-05

Not the way I read the books. Describing a wheel turning is exactly a description from the outside. No one in the pattern says "look I see the wheel, it was behind that rock". Same with saying that the one power turns the wheel, no one sees a spoke poking through with the OP pushing it along.

Well, of course, this describes our complete misunderstanding; you see the narrator as the Creator, and I see the narrator as a historian, telling us this world's “Creation Story”, passed down from generation to generation. Something real, as real as a human can describe such a thing, perhaps, but expounded upon by Philosophers with grand imaginations, like Ishamael himself; a creation story explained with fun analogies like spokes of a wheel, and threads of a weave...I mean, you really don't think a soul is an actual weave of thread (cotton perhaps)...do you? The Guide, where most of the details about the Wheel of Time can be found, comes with a caveat that everything in the book was put together by a historian, implying that it's sources can be doubted.

I asked if the seals could have made the mirror worlds less real, that's an example of the Real World affecting the nature of the mirror worlds.

No, I do not believe the seals made the Mirror Worlds less real. The solidity of a Mirror World is based on its comparison of reality to the Real World, the closer of a reflection of the Real World, the more solid the reflection. Why would you think the seals could have made the Mirror Worlds less real? There are many "almost real" Mirror Worlds, solid worlds, where only a slight variation from reality occurred. The seals existence hasn't changed the solidity of such worlds.

I'm asking whether the seals can make the mirror worlds less real making only one "real" world, which gives the DO an opening by attacking the one world where previously he'd have to break through them all. The DO didn't make the seals, so your response doesn't make sense to me.

And I responded to you that there has always only been One Real World, as far as I read the books, and an infinite amount of Mirror Worlds.

I'm totally lost again, you think that the pattern has a beginning (a first moment of creation), yet the mirror worlds (a part of the pattern) don't have a beginning. I can't even follow your thoughts here, you've lost me completely.

I was attempting to move on to the issue of Verin, despite the contradictions that exist regarding time, without time, within time, etc. Within the books, Loial says, “The Pattern has infinite variation, she says, and every variation that can be, will be." Therefore, it is my belief an infinite amount of Mirror Worlds exist.

Asmodean: 2005-06-06

yes there are an infinite ammount of mirror worlds..there is a mirror world for every choice and infinite choices..

Narianna: 2005-06-06

which other half?

just take a look at the characters talking. it has been shown to us most vividly thruout the series that the forsaken were bound in the bore at the end of the war of power.

but the common people still remember their deeds and in order to "convince" themselves this catcheism of "the do and all forsaken are bound by the creator ...." yada yada.nowhere during the series any character having a least bit of knowledge about history has ever spoken that the forsaken were bound at the moment of creation.

the false part u are referring to is the ignorance of common people in randland.

and proof that the DO has never broken free: the wheel of time still exists,the pattern still exists,the world is not remade in the image of the DO and THE BLODDY DO STILL SPEAKS ONLY IN THE BORE ABOUT HIS INABILITY TO STEP OUTSIDE TIME.

Narianna: 2005-06-06

"TGH disagrees with you: ch 41 Disagreements

~You have served me before. Serve me again, Lews Therin, or be destroyed forever!"~"

look whose statement is that?

a certified insane personality called ishy.can u honestly take his ramblings without a pinch of salt?

if so then how do react to this one:

"the dead belong to ME"!!!!

"3. If the Dark One breaks free, he's free. There ain't no putting the Dark One back in his prison step to this. "

Is there a quote for this?

If the Creator bound the Dark One at the moment of creation, there must be a way that the DO can be bound""

yes, there is a way. the creator steps in and binds DO again. but i seriously doubt this (as i believe that creator doesn't interfere ). also in COT rand's musings show that the creator has seen the death of many worlds but he has not interfered.

BUT again the DO getting freed might put an end to ALL the worlds/realities that exist.

Will the creator intervene then ?

Callandor: 2005-06-06

**a certified insane personality called ishy.can u honestly take his ramblings without a pinch of salt?**

It's not that he's insane that makes the statement hard to believe, it's that Rand makes a parallel and oppositon assertion that he (meaning the Dragon obviously) has never served the Shadow, in a thousand lifetimes or more.

**"3. If the Dark One breaks free, he's free. There ain't no putting the Dark One back in his prison step to this. "

Is there a quote for this?**

**Q: Mr. Jordan, it's fairly common knowledge that the Dark One was bound by the creator outside of the pattern at the moment of creation. Would it then be safe to assume, after concepts brought to light in the new release, that the world before the opening of the prison never knew true evil? If so, then was each age before the opening of the Age of Legends different facets of some utopia? As well, without major conflict between good and evil, what caused ages to pass? Thanks.

A: Given that time is cyclic, you must assume that there is a time when the prison that holds the Dark One is whole and unbroken. There is a time when a hole is drilled into that prison and it is thus open to that degree. And there is a time when the opening has been patched in a makeshift manner. But following this line, the cyclic nature of time means that we have at some time in the future inevitably a whole and unbroken prison again. Unless, of course, the Dark One breaks free, in which case all bets are off -- kick over the table and run for the window.**

If the Dark One breaks free, call the game off for humanity.

**Will the creator intervene then ?**

No. That is his entire view of things: create worlds, then leave them to see what comes about from them of their own choices. He never, ever, intervenes, and never, ever, will.

Yaga Shura: 2005-06-06

"look whose statement is that?

a certified insane personality called ishy.can u honestly take his ramblings without a pinch of salt?"

Seen his certificate, have you?

And of course not everything he says can be taken at face value, but that particular statement is only contradicted by Rand's assertion.

Propaganda versus blind faith: what a choice...

"if so then how do react to this one:

"the dead belong to ME"!!!! "

Maybe they do. Can you prove otherwise? Just because I own a car doesn't mean I can make it do anything.

"and proof that the DO has never broken free: the wheel of time still exists,the pattern still exists,the world is not remade in the image of the DO and THE BLODDY DO STILL SPEAKS ONLY IN THE BORE ABOUT HIS INABILITY TO STEP OUTSIDE TIME."

Who are you to say that the Dark One would or even could break the Wheel? If I remember correctly, Ishamael told us that was the plan. Remember, Ishamael whose word you do not trust?

Also, him being in the bore now means nothing, as he could have been resealed.

"just take a look at the characters talking. it has been shown to us most vividly thruout the series that the forsaken were bound in the bore at the end of the war of power."

I know, but that isn't what the catechism says.

"nowhere during the series any character having a least bit of knowledge about history has ever spoken that the forsaken were bound at the moment of creation. "

So? Our only source that the Dark One was bound only at the moment of creation is the exact same mantra. If it cannot be wholly relied upon, there is room for speculation.

Narianna: 2005-06-06

even after reading all the books especially the three books u need to ask about his certificate , then i guess u need to take a relook at the books and all the passages with ishmael in it.you have to be really thick to take him at face value.

and about him being the owner of dead, if you are even ready to consider the idea u again need to take a closer look at the series.

in the books and the interviews it has been made clear that the DO don't control ALL the dead souls.and u r giving credence to the idea that ishy ,a mortal, is the owner of the dead !!!! that's downright wrong IMO.

And now about the bloddy catcheism. i may have got this wrong but r u seriously suggesting that we know only thru that catcheism that the DO is bound?

this is a ludicrous idea. i merely wanted to point out that not everything in the is totally wrong.there is a seed of truth in every legend/catcheism.

and abt the wheel thingy.

well the DO wants to break the wheel of time .This i assumed(and i freely admit it so) because when th DO breaks free, he wouldn't be content with the pattern and the age lace.because the pattern is neitheer good or evil.

i assumed that the DO wouldn't like a world .and so to remake the world in its image(a statement repeated by many darkfriends AND the forsaken)

he has to destroy the pattern.

now what weaves the pattern?

the wheel .

so i logically assumed that to break the wheel is the goal of the DO (again assuming that controlling is what the DO likes).

Now, u see this statement of breaking the wheel is not derived from ONLY ishmael but also follows logically from a set of assumptions i have been working from.

of course if any of them is wrong ,then ...

Callandor: 2005-06-06

**Our only source that the Dark One was bound only at the moment of creation is the exact same mantra. If it cannot be wholly relied upon, there is room for speculation.**

False -- the BWB explicitly says that the Dark One was imprisoned at the moment of creation (I gave the quote to you on the boards, so I can only assume this was written before that happened, so if this is already resolved, don't worry about a reply to this).

**you have to be really thick to take him at face value.**

Why? Ishamael maybe a liar and a partial lunatic -- but he does hold a lot of truths.

Also, full words (not chat speach or anything) and functional sentences are suggested. Don't have to be totally grammatically correct (heck, mine are more erroneous than a 6th graders), but it just makes for ease of reading, as well as adding to image of what you post.

Yaga Shura: 2005-06-06

"even after reading all the books especially the three books u need to ask about his certificate , then i guess u need to take a relook at the books and all the passages with ishmael in it.you have to be really thick to take him at face value. "

I don't know about that. He was and still is a clever man and a respected philosopher. He may not be the most stable of people any longer, but he has never been certifiably insane, and he provides valuable insights on occasion.

"in the books and the interviews it has been made clear that the DO don't control ALL the dead souls.and u r giving credence to the idea that ishy ,a mortal, is the owner of the dead !!!! that's downright wrong IMO."

At that point, he was still doing his "I'm the DO" thing, so I'm actually attributing the potential ownership of the dead to the DO. And as I said before, just because I own a car, does not mean I can make it do anything.

" r u seriously suggesting that we know only thru that catcheism that the DO is bound?"

No. My point was that I was saying the DO could have broken free before and then been resealed.

JakOShadows: 2005-06-07

Ishmael is more of a spinner of truths as I see it. What he says about the history and other such events are mostly interpretations that can be said about the events which can't be proven wrong. But that does not make them correct all the time. Like it has been said, take everything Ishy says with a grain of salt. But as far as the sealing of the bore, if the DO were to break free, he would be able to break the wheel and all the mirror worlds. And the creator would never intervene, but he would give his champion a slight edge I think. In tEotW, it doesn't sound Rand is channeling Saidin and the creator does guide him to where he needs to go, so this leads me to believe that the creator gave some indirect help. But what RJ is saying is that the creator will never directly step in and fight the DO for Randland.

Rogosh Eagle-eye: 2005-06-07

*2) Gaidal Cain was reborn.

Why does Cain have to have been reborn, he's always linked with Birgitte in ages past so why can't the pattern have "forseen" that Birgitte would be ripped out and have the same happen to Gaidal Cain. We have no evidence to suggest he was "spun out" and we have no evidence to disprove the possibility of him being ripped out.

Callandor: 2005-06-07

**We have no evidence to suggest he was "spun out" and we have no evidence to disprove the possibility of him being ripped out.**

Rule 1 of Theoryland:

The lack of evidence is not evidence.

We do not know what happened to Cain. He could've been spun out. He could've been torn out. He could've been destroyed for all time. He could still be in tel'aran'rhiod.

We do not know.

However, Birgitte is certain that he was spun out. Since she is certain, and all we have to fall back on is open possiblity -- her assertion makes it the most likely event.

free will: 2005-06-08

The Creator made and placed the Wheel of Time. He made time. He made the beginning.

You make unsupported claims. There might be no beginning to make. That's the whole point being debated.

**You never claim to use bad physics, you even deny it. But you still do. Your claims of "before time" are proof positive. Whereas I claim that time has no beginning. The wheel is time. Time is a compact manifold. I've seen these models before in physics, and I understand what they mean. As does RJ. It's only you that don't seem to get.**

And it's still funny that you go with that instead of following what the ~BOOKS~ say about time.

I based my theory on what the books say. To fit the data the books provide.

**The wheel was "put in place" by the creator, yes. The wheel is time, yes. Other things you say seem like speculation.**

Hey, look at that, admitions of fault from the delusional.

~Look~ like suppositions? This is getting tiresome.

You already ceeded that the Creator made time and placed the Wheel. What came before that? Because, if you notice (dunno if you have observed this, or are too focused on the physics part), if there is no Wheel, there is no time, and there was a point when the Wheel was made (as you yourself have already ceeded), hence ---- A BEGINNING.

**The books have not, and I predict never will, mention a "before the creator created the wheel", that's something that you made up out of your bad physics understanding. Like pretending that there must be a "before time" to model your notion of there being a time when the wheel was created, when obviously the wheel is time, there was no turning of the wheel corresponding to it's creation, hence no time it was created, there was no time when the wheel was created. Just like there is no time when the ratio of the electron to the muon was set. That's a determination outside of time. A determination that determines all times, not an action within time.**

Just wow.

1. ~YOU~ YOURSELF ceeded the Creator made the Wheel.

2. The Wheel of Time is time (again, as you yourself have ceeded).

3. The quotes you don't even have the 2 minutes to look at, refer to the turnings of the Wheel -- which bare absolutely no point on what the heck happened when there was no time.

Duh, because there is not point within creation, in the pattern, without time. I suspect that you misunderstand my theory, but you insist on assuming a first moment, no matter how it disagrees with the books.

4. You still, STILL, cannot let go of the physics part.

**Your faith would disagree with modern cosmology as much as with my theory of randland because you are unwilling to let people model time in whatever fits the data and instead you insist that all determinations must occur within a time, and hence you have claims like "before time", which are utterly meaningless.**

1. My faith? What the heck does religion have to do with anything here?

You keep assuming that there must be a moment when the creator creates moments, that's not required by logic, hence it's an article of faith for you, something you refuse to admit or submit to reasoned discourse. You brought in your religious views, not me. It's you that require times for all relations, not me. I'm flexible with any theory that fits the data.

2. I have specifically ~NEVER~ said that everything must occur within time -- how the heck can that be possible, when there was a period when there was -- ~GASP!~ -- no time!

"Period when there was no time"! Ha Ha, very funny, we both know that a period is an interval of time. Every point in the pattern has a time, and there is no first time, no earliest time.

If you agree that the DO and creator are outside of time, then clearly relations between the two can happen outside any particular time. Please consider that when I theorize that the moments of creation themselves are what binds the DO, the binding is an event outside of any particular time. This is the only consistent theory that I've come up with, because the books are clear about there being no single moment of creation because there is no beginning to the turnings of the Wheel, and such a moment would be a beginning.

**So say you, contradicting that the books all clearly say that there is no beginning.**

Please, quote the books and point out the contradictions, because I grow tired of doing so to you, and you blatantly ignoring them.

First paragraph.

**I have no idea what you are saying. Are you saying that RJ is describing the real world in his novels? As opposed to the models that physicists make to generate predictions?**

You're entire view of this, is based on physics. That is proven, so you say, because RJ has studied physics.

So, what? RJ is clearly well-read in many, many, fields and look what he has done.

Take mythology. Any mythological major or professor, in a parallel situation to the one you're in, would read these books, and say, "The Horn of Valere is Heimdall's Horn, and so every they fight each other in the afterlife, cutting themselves to pieces, and then area healed back to normal the next day to do it again. It is proven, because the Horn of Valere is clearly Heimdall's Horn."

Instead of seeing it for what it truely is -- an influence. No more.

This series was ~started~ in one reason to show how myths ~might have~ begun, and shows how RJ can twist them to his own accord.

Yes! Imagine that! An author doing what he dang well feels, in a world ~he created and can do anything at all he want.~

Yeah, he's the author, he can do what he wants. I claim that the DO and the creator can be outside of time, which physics tells me how that CAN be possible. I don't claim that this must be so, I claim that it fits the data RJ gives us. I also claim that your theory that there is an earliest moment does not fit the data. My knowledge of physics help me see what is possible, I then use the books to weed away what RJ didn't choose. Your theory falls to such weeding, while mine does not.

THAT is why drawing conclusions based on physics always fail. RJ can take a physic concept, and it could have one out come that we know of and hold as a law (I don't know physics that much, and could careless -- put in some random but commonly held law at your own choosing) and say "Screw that, I need to change that so that Rand can get to ~some place~ fast."

You are putting rules on RJ and claiming he must follow them. That is false, and you fail to recognize it.

It's you that are doing the above. You have some notion that the wheel can be started turning without that being a beginning. I have no idea what screwed up physics theory leads you to that, and I don't much care. Good theorists don't insist that the impossible is possible or that the possible must be so.

I take it back, you aren't putting rules on RJ, you are fantasizing. There is zero way that there can be a first age of all turnings and yet no beginning, it's obvious just looking at it, you go back and back and back and when you hit the first age you go back and back, and since there is no previous age eventually you hit the beginning of the turnings of the Wheel and get contradicted by book 1 chapter 1 paragraph 1, theory dies.

You champion a dead theory. I an infinite universe, created as a whole outside of time, where the DO is bound by the whole of creation. That's my theory. It at least fits the data that RJ gives us. It might not be right, but at least it fits the data.

**Excuse me for thinking that balefire would remove a hero. My apologies. I have zero idea what your distinction between remove and destroy is, but if you think that balefire can't remove a hero, then my thesis gets stronger, so sure.**

Don't see how. Addition to the Horn of Valere has one point: rebirth at the Wheel and Pattern's choosing for all eternity. Balefire does not destroy the soul, so why would it do anything to the Heroes, except take them back to where they await rebirth?

Balefire burns someone right out of the pattern, a full 4D burn, forgive me for thinking that it can have permanent affects. I do think that it is unclear. Maybe souls need to be connected to the pattern in order to find their way, so a large enough burn back could conceivably to me affect a soul. I could be mistaken. Maybe RJ says that they can't, my point was that it's wasn't clear to me and I was attempting to be generous to opposing arguments that contradict my thesis. If balefire can't affect being bound, then my argument simply is stronger, so I don't mind. I'm not sure that you get that.

**Sorry, each book disagrees with you. The narrator quite explicitly says that there is no first moment.**

Oh, really? Hmmm, I don't see that in the part ~I QUOTED~. Nor do I see that, in any part you quoted -- surprisingly because you haven't quoted a one, and are trying to get by with doing that. Doesn't work with me.

You've already quoted it. No beginnings to the turnings of the Wheel.

Quote your parts now. If you don't do that, you're simply refusing to accept that what you are stating simply is not there, and are blinding yourself from the truth.

Already been done, by you. No beginnings to the turnings of the Wheel. Therefore the wheel can be traced back to no first turning, no first moment. End of arguement. You are wrong, full stop.

**The moments are even described as part of a wheel, clearly no first moment, and you still insist on a first moment for no reason whatsoever other than your own physical biased unscientific faith based beliefs.**

And you say this after I have quoted the books from 4 different sources. Amazing.

I'd do it again. You supporting me with your quotes each time. And one time you cited something that could be read to contradict other parts of the books, but at least I can interpret it in a way that agrees, which happens to be how I do interpret it. No beginning. First paragraph.

**Hey, if RJ said that the soul is still bound to the wheel, then that just makes my case all the more stronger since now they have to be unbound to avoid an infinite pile up. Thanks for helping my theory. I didn't have such a RJ quote, so I had to waffle that part about frequencies.**

No, they do not, since the infinite gap you are refering to, is a product of you're own facts (I'm sure it exists somewhere in a physics book, and you could quote it by route, but not in these ones).

Are you confusing fact with theory. There is no beginnings to the turnings of the Wheel, therefore there is an infinite past, that's the "infinite gap", it's based on my theory, one that I made to be consistent with the books.

**No, my knowledge of physics tells me it is possible.**

And that is the trouble with accepting that what you know about physics ~DOES NOT MATTER IN THESE BOOKS~.

My point is that my knowledge of physics, my knowledge about various models and how to test and describe them, tells me what kinds of things are possible. Not what is true, but what is possible. I'm not saying that anything true in the books has to be true in the world. Or that anything true in the world has to be true in the books. But whatever is possible for the books is possible for the books and whatever is possible for the world is possible for the world.

**My God, it says that there is no beginning.**

To the turnings of the Wheel -- it never says that the Wheel was never created (hence, a beginning).

If you are proposing a theory that the wheel was created not turning and has never turned, then such a theory would be consistent with the phrase "there is no beginning to the turnings of the Wheel", since there would be no turnings of the Wheel. But if the Wheel has turned, you can trace those turnings backwards, and one of two things happens, either you never reach a first moment (consistent with my theory and the books) or you do reach a first moment, and if so then that moment is the beginning of the turnings of the Wheel (which is then inconsistent with the books, but sounds like it would fit your theory, too bad for your theory).

**Open the book, any book, read the first paragraph. I'm right that there is no first turning.**

Look, I quoted the first paragraph you're using as the proponant of this delusion already above. Yet, you still state that things are in there that are not.

The books say no beginning. Sorry.

**I could be wrong by being wrong. But at least my theory is consistent with the books, whereas yours can't make it through the very first paragraph.**

Talk about irony, when you're using parts of the books that are not there, to quote what you are proposing.

I'm using the first paragraph, and you know that, you claim that the first paragraph doesn't exist?

**That's my point. People say stuff, that doesn't make it true. The narrator says "no beginning".**

Since you obviously have a hard time, use a defintion for a fact based on this series. Here, use mine:

Anything said in the series that is not contradicted by the books, Guide, interviews, or RJ saying so, must be taken as fact.

Insane. Thousands are things and their negations are not contradicted by the books. Is there a planet (in the real world, not a mirror world) populated by flying pigs within 100,000 light years? Both their being one and their not being one are "not contradicted by the books". Your definition is useless. You are arguing that all consistent claims are true, which is not doable. Two things can be consistent with the books so far, but inconsistent with each other. They both cannot be facts.

I'll give you an example. Verin makes one reference to the Numbers of Chaos. This is the only reference to that concept in the entire series. How do we know it exists? We are forced to. Why? Because RJ wrote it in, and it is not contradicted.

We aren't FORCED to conclude anything other than that Verin mentioned Numbers of Chaos.

**YOU read it, it says "There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time", so the creator did not start the wheel turning, the turnings of the wheel IS time. It clearly says that there is no beginning to the turning of the wheel. You claim that there was.**

Great. Now you are going back on yourself.

1. You state, and agree, that the Creator made the Wheel of Time.

I believe that I said determined, to be more clear since you think that the Creator is inside time and needs to moments in which "to do actions", and I refuse to play that game with you, so I avoid active words like "make".

2. You now state that the Creator did not start the Wheel turning.

It's one or the other, free will. Choose one, stick to it, and forget the meshing of facts and skewing them to fit your own ideas.

Of course the creator did not "start the Wheel turning", since there is no beginning to the turnings of the wheel of time. Time is the turnings of the wheel, there is not beginning to time, it goes forwards and backwards forever. There is no time when the wheel was turning "followed" by a time when it is turning. The turnings of the wheel are time, and there is no beginning to that. It's repeated ad nauseum in the books.

**The totality of creation is exactly what imprisons the DO and what the creator made.**

No, the Creator imprisoned the Dark One. He did it at he moment of creation.

It's my theory that all the totality of moments that are creation is what binds the DO. The DO is bound by the moments of creation.

**And the Forsaken were sealed by the creator. People say stuff.**

~Sigh~

Look at the quote. I did not quote what you are referencing, and you are trying to use that to somehow show that what I quote is absolute trash, but what you quote, is clear spun gold straight from RJ.

People say stuff. The DO and the creator are outside of time. This is the whole point where your physics usually starts running amok. Beings outside of time don't have moments when they do stuff, moments are like the stuff they do. The creator can create moments, just like the DO can destroy them, they do so from outside of time. If you have a 4D surface to represent a 3 spatial dimensional universe, then outside of time just means not on the surface. It's not complicated. The DO and the creator are not on the surface. The DO is bound by the surface, but he isn't in it. The creator is not in it either, but he isn't bound. People talk about the actions of the DO and the creator, but their actions, not being part of the pattern are outside time, from not in the pattern. So if the creator is binding the DO, he is doing this outside of time, from inside time it's like it happens all at once or everywhen, symmetrically. The moments of creation themselves in their entirety as a single unit, the moment of creation (not the first moment IN creation, there is no such thing) IS what binds the DO. That's my theory. Closing your eyes and saying "no it isn't" is not a come back. It's avoidance. All you do is avoid my theory.

**You seemed to be focused on attacking it even when it looked like you were forced to agree.**

What I said in my original reply could not have been any clearer than what I wrote.

Your whole presentation of claiming to quote things that you don't. Of claiming that I say things that I don't. It's very unclear. Like you claim that there is no beginning to the turning of the wheel of time, and then you talk about a first age, a first turning, and a beginning. I have zero ability to tell when you are serious and when you are joking.

**No there wasn't. The book says "no beginning". You know it does.**

Yep, but I also know there is an attachment phrase to that which you are leaving out: no beginning to the turning of the Wheel. There was a point when the Wheel began, and first turned -- hence a first moment.

I have zero idea what you can even be talking about. Any first moment is a beginning to the turnings of the wheel of time, expressly forbidden. Your statement sounds like "I accept that there are no apples, but obviously this golden delicious apple exists".

**The DO is bound in 5D by the pattern, bound outside of the pattern, but bound, thus me describing being inside a hollow 5D sphere with a 4D boundary that is the pattern.**

You really need to let go the physics parallels between our world and the world RJ has created. You really do. And just take it as fact, since it is quoted above in my replies, that the Creator imprisoned the Dark One at the moment of creation.

I've never claimed that the real world is the 4D surface of a 5D sphere. I'm giving an example of my theory that fits the data RJ gives us. The closest you come to pointing towards a first moment is a watering down of an "encounter" between two beings outside of time itself. I've explained that creation is creation, it's the 4D universe, and that it's full of moments and that they are all creation. That's how beings outside of time react to an entire creation. Just like a law of physics relates to each moment of our 4D universe, it's doesn't "happen" at any particular moment inside the universe because it is outside the universe. Same with the DO and the creator. You can imagine the DO as a 5D being inside a hollow 5D sphere, bound by each moment of creation. It's a model that fits the data. That doesn't have to assume things like a first moment, things ruled out by each book.

Just because you misunderstand my theory SO BADLY that you think I'm citing real world physics, is just proof that you aren't trying to listen to my theory, it's not proof that my theory is wrong.

**It's you that claim that there is an uberwheel that made the time when the current wheel was created.**

What?! Please quote me saying that. I have repeatedly said that the Creator made the Wheel (you even agreed on that) and quoted it. Do not put words into my mouth.

You said "before the wheel" that's like "before time", since time is the wheel, there must be a larger wheel (according to you) that represents the time before the smaller wheel. And your "logic" if sound would disprove modern cosmology by requiring a big wheel that sets the laws of physics.

**The novels don't say so, and you have to add it after each quote. You never have a quote that says "begining of the wheel" or "first moment", and the reason you can't is because it is consistent for me to say that there wasn't one, just like the books say.**

1. I did quote it -- you ignore it.

No you've never mentioned a first moment. You allude to one over and over. First paragraph each book, there is no beginning. Stop assuming that the narrator is lying, if we do that then we know nothing.

2. I did quote that there was a First Moment -- 4 times. Once again, you ignore them.

Saying that you quoted something is not quoting something.

**It is not required, and your ravings claim that modern cosmology is as wrong as my theory about Randland.**

All I can say is you've totally and 100% proven my objections to your ideas to be correct.

1. I know this is a fantasy world. You do not seem to know that distinction.

2. I have not made one claim about disproving physics, and never will cite a fictious source to do so, nor will I try, because I am a believer in physics.

You don't have quotes about a first moment, so you argue for a first moment based on logical necessity, and that contradicts many cosmological models. There is no logical necessity for a first moment. The books say no beginning, quite clearly, and you know it. Since models can logically exist that fit the observations, your claims that you've proven a first moment is required are very wrong.

Yaga Shura: 2005-06-09

The first chapter of every book contains an almost identical opening paragraph, which states that "There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the wheel of time".

However, consider that we now that the DO intends to break the wheel so that he can reform the world in his own image. To do this, the wheel must stop turning. So the opening of each book is not 100% accurate and reliable.

There is also Ishamael's reference to the first moment: ""I know you, know your blood and your line back to the first spark of life that ever was, back to the First Moment."(TGH, ch15). He has no reason to lie to Rand about there having been a first moment, and Ishamael was a respected philosopher, so this is good evidence that there was a first moment.

then there is the BWB which says: "The Wheel, put in place by the Creator, is time itself, ever turning and returning"(ch1). This suggests that there was no first moment for the universe of Randland. The wheel was already turning when it was added to Randland: whatever space outside the universe that containd World of the Wheel and is occupied by the Creator and the DO may have had a first moment. The world inhabitted by Rand et al did not.

Conclusion: both sides have some evidence for their claims. Freewill has an unreliable quote from the start of each book, and my shaky interpretation of a quote from the BWB. Callandor has his own interpretation of that quote, and a quote from a reliable and respected philosophical source. It seems to me that there probably was a first moment.

Also, freewill, I think you really do need to let go of your physics obsession and hang-up on real world cosmological models. Although the World of the Wheel is supposed to be a past or future earth, RJ can do whatever he likes with the physics. You cannot rely on what you know of Physics to prove anything. Or if you do, it has to explain everything, from Lamarkian old-blood memories to the One Power.

Tristin: 2005-06-09

Freewill and Callandor are effectively arguing between the "A Theory of Time" and the "B Theory of Time." The problem is that they are applying linear time theory to cyclical models.

The A Theory of time uses words like past, present and future. It describes the moment of NOW passing along a timeline. What has happened is previous to what is happening, and what will happen is still a variable.

Two Theories of Time: tensed and tenseless

According to L. Nathan Oaklander, there are two different aspects to the way in which humans think, speak, and experience time. The first aspect, as noted by Oaklander, is the conception “of time as something that flows or passes from the future to present and from the present to the past” (1998, 85). Consider the following example: when I buy a plane ticket now (in the present) at t1, for a flight from Glasgow to Detroit at t2, I now (in the present) perceive at t1, the event of my traveling to Detroit is in the future, at t2. I know that barring any unexpected catastrophe on or before t2, I will be traveling from Glasgow to Detroit at t2. As time passes there will come a point when t2 is no longer future and t1 is no longer present, rather t2 is present (and I am either traveling or coping with catastrophe) and t1 is past. As time continues to pass, t1 will move into the distant past, t2 will cease to be present and move into the near past, and other times will take their place in the future and present. Thus, the perception of time as events which move from past to present to future is called the tensed theory of time. Tensed relationships are mutable because each event has all the properties of being future, becoming present, then fading into the past.

The second aspect regarding our experience of time, as described by Oaklander, is the perception that events in time occur in an ordered succession, one event after another. This aspect of our experience does not classify any event as having pastness, presentness, or futurity; rather the ordering of successive events is framed in the language of events that stand in relationships of earlier, later, or simultaneous with. The following example is provided by Oaklander:

it is natural for a parent to tell a child that ‘You cannot go out before you do your homework,' or ‘You can watch TV only after you clean your room,' or ‘You must go to bed at (i.e., simultaneous with) 10 o'clock.' When viewed in this way, events stand in various different temporal relations to each other but no one event, or set of events, is singled out as having the property of being present or as occurring NOW. (Oaklander, 1998, 85-86)

The perception of time as a series of events which are not described via past, present, or future relations, but through the language of earlier, later, and simultaneity is called the tenseless theory of time. Those who hold the tenseless theory are known as detensers. For detensers it is the case that if Socrates perverts the minds of the young before his death, it is always the case that his act of perverting comes before his death. Tenseless relations, therefore, are unchanging, permanent, and fixed.

McTaggart's Paradox: on the unreality of time

According to McTaggart, the tensed theory represents A-series time (A-theory), and the tenseless theory represents B-series time (B-theory). McTaggart argues that because B-series relations are permanent, and A-series relations are transitory, A-series relations are more fundamental precisely because B-series relations are dependent upon A-series properties (temporal becoming) (McTaggart, 1927, 10-12). Thus, if the B-series purports to be a time series then change must occur, i.e., the temporal properties of pastness, presentness, and futurity must be made manifest with the passage of time. It is because these temporal properties are not manifested on the B-series alone, that it follows: time and change require temporal becoming, i.e., A-series.

McTaggart's argument begins with the premise that any concept applied to reality, which causes contradiction in reality, is a concept untrue of reality. Because time implies change, and because change implies the A-series, McTaggart reasons that the very notion of time must stand or fall with the A-series. Thus, if the A-series involves a contradiction then both the A-series and time are untrue of reality. The final move in McTaggart's argument is to say that the application of A-series temporal becoming to reality does involve contradiction, thus neither the A-series nor time can be true of reality. Oaklander efficiently summarizes McTaggart's support of this crucial last premise:

McTaggart argues simply that if events move through time from the future to present to the past, then every event in time must be past, present, and future. However, past, present, and future are incompatible properties; if an event is present, then it is not past or future, and if it is past, it is not present and future, and if it is future, it is not present or past (Oaklander, 1994, 158-159).

Thus, the idea that a moving NOW exists which travels into the future making future events present and present events past is contradictory. With the A-series all events have the properties of pastness, presentness, and futurity. For example, I can say “Christmas is in four days” and that statement is uttered now, in the present, and refers to something in the future. But the time will come, namely when I finish the sentence, that the statement will no longer be being uttered, rather the statement will have been uttered in the past. The truth value of “Christmas is in four days” can vary depending upon when it is uttered, yet when the utterance of “Christmas is in four days” occurs at any time, including the present, the statement has all of the properties of pastness, presentness, and futurity at that time (there was a time when the utterance is future [A], a time when it is uttered in the NOW [B], and a time when the utterance fades into the past [C]).

The first problem with this multiplicity of contradictory temporal properties (pastness, presentness, and futurity) within one object/event, is that temporal relations can no longer be grounded in temporal properties because there is no way to determine whether [A] is before [B] or [B] is before [A]. The second problem with this multiplicity of temporal properties is that we have reintroduced the contradiction that was supposed to be addressed by the notion of change. Change is needed to explain that over time apple1 which is green and apple1 which is red are the same apple, but when the apple's redness is past, present, and future we have merely exchanged one contradiction for another.

McTaggart goes on to argue that the only way these new problems can be solved is with the reintroduction of time. Yet any such move merely causes a reductio ad absurdum because the only viable options are A-series time and B-series time. B-series time could explain that [A] is earlier than [B] and [C] is later than [B], but such an explanation reintroduces McTaggart's earlier objections to the B-series. Whereas A-series time could explain that [A] is future, [B] is present, and [C] is past, yet such a solution is a reductio ad infinitum of the original problems. According to McTaggart time implies change and only the A-series represents change, yet the A-series involves contradiction; thus both the A-series and time are unreal.

A Response to McTaggart: The New (tenseless) Theory of Time

In response to the allegation by McTaggart's Paradox that time is unreal, there have been a slew of attempts from A-theorists, B-theorists, and those arguing for a hybrid of the two which seek to salvage time. While the issue is still hotly debated among metaphysicians there is little consensus as to where the answer might lie. Most ‘time philosophers' have tried to cope with McTaggart's Paradox by showing that either the A- or B- theory is capable of translating the other's claims about the nature of time experience without contradiction. All of these attempts have failed. One noticeable exception to the long list of failures was first suggested by J. J. C. Smart in his 1980 article “Time and Becoming,” and was dubbed the ‘new tenseless theory of time;' this new tenseless theory was later developed more systematically by D. H. Mellor and L. Nathan Oaklander. The new tenseless theory of time argues that McTaggart's argument is unsuccessful because there are no temporal determinations which are not provided by the tenseless theory. According to these new detensers, the A-theory does cause contradiction, but fortunately the reality of time is dependent upon the B-series rather than the A-series.

According to Quentin Smith, the move from the old tenseless theory to the new tenseless theory of time occurred as a result of advancements in the philosophy of language (1994b, 18). Smith goes on to note the historical developments in the field: first was the development of The New Theory of Reference by Ruth Marcus in her 1961 article “Modalities and Intensional Languages,” and then The New Theory of Reference was expanded throughout the 1970's by Kripke, Kaplan, Perry, Donnellan, Putnam, N. Salman and others (Ibid). The New Theory of Reference became the key for rethinking issues of tensed and tenseless sentences.

The major premise of The New Theory of Reference is that many expressions, such as proper names, refer directly to objects rather than indirectly through the sensing of an object's properties. David Kaplan became the first to apply Marcus's theory to indexicals such as “now.” As stated by Smith:

Kaplan argued that the rule of use (“character”) of “now” is that it refers directly to the time at which it is uttered and does not ascribe any property. This theory supports the tenseless theory of time. If “now” refers directly, then the “now” in “The sun is rising now” refers directly the date of its utterance (Ibid).

Moreover it must be noted that a sentence like “The sun is rising now” is not translatable into a tenseless sentence. For Kaplan, translation requires sameness not only of semantics but also of meaning—and meaning is synonymous with the rule which identifies sentence usage. Thus, as noted by Smith:

The rule of use of “the sun is rising now” is (in part) that “now” refers to the date on which it is uttered. But the rule of use of the “The sun rises at 6 A.M., 23 April 1992,” is (in part) that “6 A.M., 23 April 1992,” refers to 6 A.M., 23 April 1992, regardless of when this expression is uttered.

It is because these sentences have different rules of usage (i.e., different meanings) that one sentence cannot be translated into the other. Tensed sentences do not ascribe temporal determinations to reality which are not ascribed by tenseless sentences precisely because indexicals like “now” refer directly to the date of their utterance (i.e., it is not ascribing the property of presentness to anything). The trademark of the old tenseless theory, that marked the failed projects of so many early detensers, was the attempt to translate A- series properties into B- series language. With the new tenseless theory, however, it has been recognized that such translations are impossible (but this is only the case because tensed temporal determinations refer to nothing which is not ascribed by tenseless sentences).

The matter is far from settled, as debate continues among contemporary philosophers regarding the viability of the new tenseless theory. Variations of the new tenseless theory have appeared from Oaklander and Mellor, only to be criticized by Q. Smith and others, revised, and then reissued.

What I'm trying to argue here is that Callandor is arguing for a basic version of A theory and Free Will is arguing for a version of B Theory (Despite the fact that free will is arguably non-existent in the B Theory).

Both of their views have to take into account the relationship between time and change, albeit rather than apple seeds becoming apples which become rotten apples we are talking about the possiblity of change on a slightly larger scale.

Jordan's world and all cyclical time theorists have a dual problem. Cyclical time requires taking a B view of time and overlaying it with an A View. As we all know things that have happened in Jordan's world have all happened before in some way and are likely to happen again (except maybe in the Rand instance). The way this works is that regardless of a "first moment" all moments have to be created in some respect at the first moment. There was a first moment when all moments were first moments. This is to say that all of the turns of the wheel of time were there so that the possibility of them turning again was in place. All the moments were predetermined. And yet not entirely. In order for the wheel to turn it has to have something which makes it a wheel in the first place. The guide lines for these moments I would argue is called the pattern. The pattern is the created moments surrounding the wheel. Yet when the wheel turns the predetermined "shape" of each moment can play out differently each time. This allows for free will and seeming change. This is the A theory of time (the construction of non-predetermined futurity) but always layed against the background of created moments. Yet the actual possibility for change still has to face McTaggart's thesis on the unreality of time (the impossibility of change), but now it has to do so on both accounts: A and B. Not only that but Oaklander's (New Theory of Time) cannot save Cyclical Wheel of Time, time because it isn't able to find a medium between A and B, instead it is forced to work out and A and B respectively and together.

free will: 2005-06-09

Also, freewill, I think you really do need to let go of your physics obsession and hang-up on real world cosmological models.

No I don't, because I never had one to let go. You and some others really do need to let go of your obsessions that I'm "proving" things "based on physics", I'm making a theory, just like we all do. Physics also makes theories. I don't prove things, physics doesn't prove things, ergo I do not take proven things from physics and insist that they must be true in the novels to prove things in the novels.

Although the World of the Wheel is supposed to be a past or future earth, RJ can do whatever he likes with the physics. You cannot rely on what you know of Physics to prove anything. Or if you do, it has to explain everything, from Lamarkian old-blood memories to the One Power.

Since physics makes theories (ones that pass tests and ones that don't, they are all theories) I can use physics, just like anything else, to make theories to fit the data that RJ gives us. Nothing is especially evil about physics as example of possible theories. Nature can do whatever she likes, same deal with RJ, it's not new. The point is to make theories that fit the data. I've proposed a theory that Heroes are unbound. It's based on their being no first moment, since I find the sources for no first moment to be unreliable. I also think the DO actually slaying the Wheel to be unreliable, I have zero fear that the DO might win. Other people are free to disagree, if they think that there is a first moment, then there is no evidence of heroes being unbound or obliterated beyond returning. Such reasoning seems to put more weight on an insane Ishamael than anything else, in which case the evidence in favor of Verin's claims seems to go up, so my other theory that the mirror worlds need to be destroyed seems stronger than it would be without the hero evidence alone.

free will: 2005-06-09

Well, of course, this describes our complete misunderstanding; you see the narrator as the Creator, and I see the narrator as a historian, telling us this world's “Creation Story”, passed down from generation to generation.

I've found the narrator of the novels to be a know it all, that chooses what to reveal, just like a creator. The narrator of the BWB does seem to sound very much like a historian, no POV inside people's heads or such. Are we agreeing or disagreeing, I can't tell because you say narrator, without mentioning which one.

a creation story explained with fun analogies like spokes of a wheel, and threads of a weave...I mean, you really don't think a soul is an actual weave of thread (cotton perhaps)...do you? The Guide, where most of the details about the Wheel of Time can be found, comes with a caveat that everything in the book was put together by a historian, implying that it's sources can be doubted.

I do tend to doubt the BWB compared to the novels, but I also do imagine the pattern and wheel to be a fairly accurate metaphores, so a soul to me is a literal thread in a 4D pattern in a larger space, you need something like that to have balefire work.

Why would you think the seals could have made the Mirror Worlds less real?

If the DO has to break free in all of them simultaneously, then there has to be zero choice that allows him to remain bound, which seems hard to take seriously unless maybe not all the worlds "count" anymore. Being destroy is a way not to count, but if there is some realness threshhold that makes it not count as well, that would work.

And I responded to you that there has always only been One Real World, as far as I read the books, and an infinite amount of Mirror Worlds.

I just didn't understand you previous response, it sounded like you attribute the making of the seals to the DO, since you have no come out and said that you don't think the seals affect the mirror world, I even further have no idea what your pervious response meant. I'm willing to drop it if you don't want to explain what you meant because it now seems unrelated to my theory.

Within the books, Loial says, “The Pattern has infinite variation, she says, and every variation that can be, will be." Therefore, it is my belief an infinite amount of Mirror Worlds exist.

If all the variety exists, then the DO can be neither sealed nor break free. So it seems like both Rand and the DO will want to insist that these other worlds ... can not be ... and therefore will not be, the way that can happen is by destroying them all. If the DO and Rand both want to do it, that's why I considered the issue of the seals, that seems like something that both sides want to do, destroy the seals. So it seems like there are two things both sides want, to destroy the seals and to destroy all or most of the mirror worlds, if the two are related somehow, then it's only one thing in common.

Tamyrlin: 2005-06-09

I've found the narrator of the novels to be a know it all, that chooses what to reveal, just like a creator. The narrator of the BWB does seem to sound very much like a historian, no POV inside people's heads or such. Are we agreeing or disagreeing, I can't tell because you say narrator, without mentioning which one.

The narrator of the novels uses the same explanation as the Historian in the BWB, presenting us with a problem; is the language regarding the Wheel of Time a historical explanation, or an omniscient, outside time, explanation?. Historical of course, but something you are unwilling to accept. To note, the historian's explanation of the Wheel of Time, the One Power, and the Pattern, is much more detailed than anything we find in the books.

I do tend to doubt the BWB compared to the novels, but I also do imagine the pattern and wheel to be a fairly accurate metaphores, so a soul to me is a literal thread in a 4D pattern in a larger space, you need something like that to have balefire work.

Fairly accurate metaphors? A metaphor isn't meant to be taken literally. You are aware a metaphor is...a figure of speech, speaking figuratively, like, “All the world's a stage”...the world isn't really a stage, and people's souls really aren't threads, nor meant to be taken literally as such. You don't need a thread to make balefire work, however, if you want a good metaphor, burning a thread is a convenient one for people who have burned a piece of thread before. This is where your explanation dies; the information regarding the Creator, the Wheel, Time, etc., is figurative language much more akin to the Creation story, than some real, literal, explanation for the actual creation of such.

If the DO has to break free in all of them simultaneously, then there has to be zero choice that allows him to remain bound, which seems hard to take seriously unless maybe not all the worlds "count" anymore. Being destroy is a way not to count, but if there is some realness threshhold that makes it not count as well, that would work.

This would be true, working off your explanation of Mirror Worlds, and using Verin's one sentence explanation of what she believes to be a paradox...again, an explanation she learned in class one day; Jordan points out in the BWB, and makes it a consistent theme in the books, you can't take anything for certain, especially when Aes Sedai and their limited knowledge is involved. Mirror Worlds do not depend on the seals to exist. Proof you want? The Mirrors of the Wheel and the Portal Stones existed before the Bore was created.

I just didn't understand you previous response, it sounded like you attribute the making of the seals to the DO, since you have no come out and said that you don't think the seals affect the mirror world, I even further have no idea what your pervious response meant. I'm willing to drop it if you don't want to explain what you meant because it now seems unrelated to my theory.

I am even more confused. I have found it difficult to explain what I mean to you, because you have been unwilling to extrapolate general understanding of my explanation of the books when I use Jordan's language to describe Jordan's world. No, the Dark One didn't create the seals. The seals affect Mirror Worlds like each abject of the Real World affects them; if a house is in the Real World, then Mirror Worlds are being created where that house exists. If seals are in the world, Mirror Worlds exist where there are seals. However, Mirror Worlds can't change the real World, there is no counter-effect. If a Mirror World is destroyed, it doesn't affect the Real World. If you break a seal in the Mirror World, it doesn't break in the Real World. There are only three constants in all worlds, the Creator, the Dark One, and T'A'R. The seals are not constants.

If all the variety exists, then the DO can be neither sealed nor break free. So it seems like both Rand and the DO will want to insist that these other worlds ... can not be ... and therefore will not be, the way that can happen is by destroying them all. If the DO and Rand both want to do it, that's why I considered the issue of the seals, that seems like something that both sides want to do, destroy the seals. So it seems like there are two things both sides want, to destroy the seals and to destroy all or most of the mirror worlds, if the two are related somehow, then it's only one thing in common.

You believe the DO's goal is to destroy Mirror Worlds? Could you point me to the quote, or the part of the book that led you to this conclusion?

free will: 2005-06-09

Freewill and Callandor are effectively arguing between the "A Theory of Time" and the "B Theory of Time." The problem is that they are applying linear time theory to cyclical models.

I wasn't, in fact, I don't even distinguish better linear and cyclical. I use cosmological models, which can do either just fine.

The A Theory of time uses words like past, present and future. It describes the moment of NOW passing along a timeline. What has happened is previous to what is happening, and what will happen is still a variable.

I hope that's Callandor's, because mine has no variables, and has no NOW moving along, just events, the totality of events. A cosmological model (and for all that claim that I'm using cosmological model of the real world to model RJ's world, I'm not. I'm making _A_ cosmological model for RJ's universe, it's not the same one I'd choose for the real world, so don't even think of trying that tired old false accusation that I'm conflating the two. I'm making a theory, I'm using techniques that worked in the real world for making theories. Then I see if it fits the data RJ gives us instead of comparing it against data that astronomers give us, that's what makes it a theory for theoryland instead of a theory for science).

Two Theories of Time: tensed and tenseless

According to L. Nathan Oaklander, there are two different aspects to the way in which humans think, speak, and experience time. The first aspect, as noted by Oaklander, is the conception "of time as something that flows or passes from the future to present and from the present to the past" (1998, 85). Consider the following example: when I buy a plane ticket now (in the present) at t1, for a flight from Glasgow to Detroit at t2, I now (in the present) perceive at t1, the event of my traveling to Detroit is in the future, at t2. I know that barring any unexpected catastrophe on or before t2, I will be traveling from Glasgow to Detroit at t2. As time passes there will come a point when t2 is no longer future and t1 is no longer present, rather t2 is present (and I am either traveling or coping with catastrophe) and t1 is past. As time continues to pass, t1 will move into the distant past, t2 will cease to be present and move into the near past, and other times will take their place in the future and present. Thus, the perception of time as events which move from past to present to future is called the tensed theory of time. Tensed relationships are mutable because each event has all the properties of being future, becoming present, then fading into the past.

Do any people seriously imagine a "present" as "moving" like that. Tensed terms are always relative to something, the present is just an implict thing being the relative component, it's just vague speech, not different than untensed language.

The second aspect regarding our experience of time, as described by Oaklander, is the perception that events in time occur in an ordered succession, one event after another. This aspect of our experience does not classify any event as having pastness, presentness, or futurity; rather the ordering of successive events is framed in the language of events that stand in relationships of earlier, later, or simultaneous with. The following example is provided by Oaklander:

You do understand that in physics the relations are past, future, and elsewhere, not "present", correct? It seems like you and Oaklander want to prohibit GR and SR and similar such theories (branes, giant wheel outside time, etc.) for no particular reason, just because you want to assume that such theories can't exist.

it is natural for a parent to tell a child that 'You cannot go out before you do your homework,' or 'You can watch TV only after you clean your room,' or 'You must go to bed at (i.e., simultaneous with) 10 o'clock.' When viewed in this way, events stand in various different temporal relations to each other but no one event, or set of events, is singled out as having the property of being present or as occurring NOW. (Oaklander, 1998, 85-86)

Yes, and it is also not required that one event must stand in the future or the past of something else, it could stand elsewhen relative to the other event.

The perception of time as a series of events which are not described via past, present, or future relations, but through the language of earlier, later, and simultaneity is called the tenseless theory of time. Those who hold the tenseless theory are known as detensers. For detensers it is the case that if Socrates perverts the minds of the young before his death, it is always the case that his act of perverting comes before his death. Tenseless relations, therefore, are unchanging, permanent, and fixed.

And tenseless models can even be made more robust by not requiring earlier, later and simultaneous, to allow earlier (one could have influenced the other) later (the other could have influenced the one), or elsewhen (no effect on individual events, but maybe common causes).

McTaggart's Paradox: on the unreality of time

According to McTaggart, the tensed theory represents A-series time (A-theory), and the tenseless theory represents B-series time (B-theory). McTaggart argues that because B-series relations are permanent, and A-series relations are transitory, A-series relations are more fundamental precisely because B-series relations are dependent upon A-series properties (temporal becoming) (McTaggart, 1927, 10-12). Thus, if the B-series purports to be a time series then change must occur, i.e., the temporal properties of pastness, presentness, and futurity must be made manifest with the passage of time. It is because these temporal properties are not manifested on the B-series alone, that it follows: time and change require temporal becoming, i.e., A-series.

McTaggart's argument begins with the premise that any concept applied to reality, which causes contradiction in reality, is a concept untrue of reality. Because time implies change, and because change implies the A-series, McTaggart reasons that the very notion of time must stand or fall with the A-series. Thus, if the A-series involves a contradiction then both the A-series and time are untrue of reality. The final move in McTaggart's argument is to say that the application of A-series temporal becoming to reality does involve contradiction, thus neither the A-series nor time can be true of reality. Oaklander efficiently summarizes McTaggart's support of this crucial last premise:

McTaggart argues simply that if events move through time from the future to present to the past, then every event in time must be past, present, and future. However, past, present, and future are incompatible properties; if an event is present, then it is not past or future, and if it is past, it is not present and future, and if it is future, it is not present or past (Oaklander, 1994, 158-159).

Thus, the idea that a moving NOW exists which travels into the future making future events present and present events past is contradictory. With the A-series all events have the properties of pastness, presentness, and futurity. For example, I can say "Christmas is in four days" and that statement is uttered now, in the present, and refers to something in the future. But the time will come, namely when I finish the sentence, that the statement will no longer be being uttered, rather the statement will have been uttered in the past. The truth value of "Christmas is in four days" can vary depending upon when it is uttered, yet when the utterance of "Christmas is in four days" occurs at any time, including the present, the statement has all of the properties of pastness, presentness, and futurity at that time (there was a time when the utterance is future [A], a time when it is uttered in the NOW [B], and a time when the utterance fades into the past [C]).

The first problem with this multiplicity of contradictory temporal properties (pastness, presentness, and futurity) within one object/event, is that temporal relations can no longer be grounded in temporal properties because there is no way to determine whether [A] is before [B] or [B] is before [A]. The second problem with this multiplicity of temporal properties is that we have reintroduced the contradiction that was supposed to be addressed by the notion of change. Change is needed to explain that over time apple1 which is green and apple1 which is red are the same apple, but when the apple's redness is past, present, and future we have merely exchanged one contradiction for another.

This all sounds like sloppy language dances. Future is a relative term, even if someone doesn't mention what it is relative to. Like the word "my" from "my apple" it's a relative word, in relation to the speaker. Just because that's implict in the word doesn't create problems for anyone that isn't looking to artificially create non-existant problems to look smart by fixing them later.

McTaggart goes on to argue that the only way these new problems can be solved is with the reintroduction of time. Yet any such move merely causes a reductio ad absurdum because the only viable options are A-series time and B-series time. B-series time could explain that [A] is earlier than [B] and [C] is later than [B], but such an explanation reintroduces McTaggart's earlier objections to the B-series. Whereas A-series time could explain that [A] is future, [B] is present, and [C] is past, yet such a solution is a reductio ad infinitum of the original problems. According to McTaggart time implies change and only the A-series represents change, yet the A-series involves contradiction; thus both the A-series and time are unreal.

A Response to McTaggart: The New (tenseless) Theory of Time

In response to the allegation by McTaggart's Paradox that time is unreal, there have been a slew of attempts from A-theorists, B-theorists, and those arguing for a hybrid of the two which seek to salvage time. While the issue is still hotly debated among metaphysicians there is little consensus as to where the answer might lie. Most 'time philosophers' have tried to cope with McTaggart's Paradox by showing that either the A- or B- theory is capable of translating the other's claims about the nature of time experience without contradiction. All of these attempts have failed.

Probably because any modern person that cares about time considers McTaggart's claims useless. Seriously, he outlawed SR without a blink. So who knowledgable is going to bother with him?

One noticeable exception to the long list of failures was first suggested by J. J. C. Smart in his 1980 article "Time and Becoming," and was dubbed the 'new tenseless theory of time;' this new tenseless theory was later developed more systematically by D. H. Mellor and L. Nathan Oaklander. The new tenseless theory of time argues that McTaggart's argument is unsuccessful because there are no temporal determinations which are not provided by the tenseless theory. According to these new detensers, the A-theory does cause contradiction, but fortunately the reality of time is dependent upon the B-series rather than the A-series.

Fortunately the reality of time is that it is merely one component of relative placement in spacetime. You don't need a philosopher to tell you that.

According to Quentin Smith, the move from the old tenseless theory to the new tenseless theory of time occurred as a result of advancements in the philosophy of language (1994b, 18). Smith goes on to note the historical developments in the field: first was the development of The New Theory of Reference by Ruth Marcus in her 1961 article "Modalities and Intensional Languages," and then The New Theory of Reference was expanded throughout the 1970's by Kripke, Kaplan, Perry, Donnellan, Putnam, N. Salman and others (Ibid). The New Theory of Reference became the key for rethinking issues of tensed and tenseless sentences.

The major premise of The New Theory of Reference is that many expressions, such as proper names, refer directly to objects rather than indirectly through the sensing of an object's properties. David Kaplan became the first to apply Marcus's theory to indexicals such as "now." As stated by Smith:





Kaplan argued that the rule of use ("character") of "now" is that it refers directly to the time at which it is uttered and does not ascribe any property.

Wow, it took until 1994 before some people understood that tense is a realtive term that can sometimes be used to be relative to the event where the statement is uttered. Amazing. And relativity was invented 80 years prior, just amazing!

This theory supports the tenseless theory of time. If "now" refers directly, then the "now" in "The sun is rising now" refers directly the date of its utterance (Ibid).

See, I guessed correctly!

Moreover it must be noted that a sentence like "The sun is rising now" is not translatable into a tenseless sentence. For Kaplan, translation requires sameness not only of semantics but also of meaning - and meaning is synonymous with the rule which identifies sentence usage. Thus, as noted by Smith:

The rule of use of "the sun is rising now" is (in part) that "now" refers to the date on which it is uttered. But the rule of use of the "The sun rises at 6 A.M., 23 April 1992," is (in part) that "6 A.M., 23 April 1992," refers to 6 A.M., 23 April 1992, regardless of when this expression is uttered.

Since all times are relative, "now" is as translatable as anything else, one mentions the location in spacetime relative to other things. The sun and earth, clocks, books, nations, oceans, tides, whatever one wants.

Describing the entire universe requires a cosmological model, in the model everything is placed relative to other things in such a way as to agree with observation or not. That's it. No philosophy required.

It is because these sentences have different rules of usage (i.e., different meanings) that one sentence cannot be translated into the other. Tensed sentences do not ascribe temporal determinations to reality which are not ascribed by tenseless sentences precisely because indexicals like "now" refer directly to the date of their utterance (i.e., it is not ascribing the property of presentness to anything). The trademark of the old tenseless theory, that marked the failed projects of so many early detensers, was the attempt to translate A- series properties into B- series language. With the new tenseless theory, however, it has been recognized that such translations are impossible (but this is only the case because tensed temporal determinations refer to nothing which is not ascribed by tenseless sentences).

So philosophers just recently finally realized to only talk about what is in the model instead of made up concepts, wow. Just wow.

The matter is far from settled, as debate continues among contemporary philosophers regarding the viability of the new tenseless theory. Variations of the new tenseless theory have appeared from Oaklander and Mellor, only to be criticized by Q. Smith and others, revised, and then reissued.

Why do these people seem to never study science?

What I'm trying to argue here is that Callandor is arguing for a basic version of A theory and Free Will is arguing for a version of B Theory (Despite the fact that free will is arguably non-existent in the B Theory).

No, I don't argue A or B I make a model to fit the data that RJ gives us. That's all, the model doesn't require a NOW or any such tricotomy like your philosophers want. Good thing too, since your philosophers are terrible at describing SR, GR, and things like creators and DOs that exist outside of time.

Both of their views have to take into account the relationship between time and change, albeit rather than apple seeds becoming apples which become rotten apples we are talking about the possiblity of change on a slightly larger scale.

My models just model all the events that happen and their relative relation in the cosmology.

Jordan's world and all cyclical time theorists have a dual problem. Cyclical time requires taking a B view of time and overlaying it with an A View. As we all know things that have happened in Jordan's world have all happened before in some way and are likely to happen again (except maybe in the Rand instance).

If you just make a cosmological model then there are no problems at all. Instead of assigning global relations like "before", "after" or "elsewhen", you can describe the shape of the path from A to B back to A, and it's topology. If B is in the simple future of A, then the curve is a simple loop, if B is in the simple past, same deal. If B was in the simple elsewhere of A, then the loop will have to wrap around the universe as a whole at least once before reaching A again after reaching B.

Here's a simple model of a closed time. Consider a flat plane, lines parallel to x-axis being moments, lines parallel to the y-axus being positions. Now indentify two point (x1,y1) and (x2,y2) if and only if (x2-x1) and (y2-y1) are both integers. So if there is a thing at (x,y) then there is an identical thing at (x+n,y+m) for every integer n and m. In this model, time and space are cyclical. A point (x1,y1) is in the simple future of (x2,y2) if there are integers n and m such that there a box of unit length with both the points (x1,y1) and (x2+n,y2+m) such that (x2+n-x1)^2 < c^2 * (y2+m-y1)^2. Sometimes there is no two points but there is always a smallest box of length k such that there are integers n and m such that there a box of length k with both the points (x1,y1) and (x2+n,y2+m) such that (x2+n-x1)^2 < c^2 * (y2+m-y1)^2, that's a cyclical model, and it introduces no fundamental problems or hardships. If it takes 7k ages for you to affect a thing, then that's the box of length k.

The way this works is that regardless of a "first moment" all moments have to be created in some respect at the first moment.

Discussing when moments are "created" as if you need a moment to create moments is just putting the creator within your moments, you are putting limits on the creator. You theory misrepresents mine, and it doesn't even allow basic modern physics, I'm not impressed.

There was a first moment when all moments were first moments. This is to say that all of the turns of the wheel of time were there so that the possibility of them turning again was in place.

I can't parse your claims, basically because you are attempting like Callandor to ascribe moments to when a Wheel wasn't turning.

All the moments were predetermined. And yet not entirely. In order for the wheel to turn it has to have something which makes it a wheel in the first place.

You are ascribing time to the creator again.

The guide lines for these moments I would argue is called the pattern. The pattern is the created moments surrounding the wheel. Yet when the wheel turns the predetermined "shape" of each moment can play out differently each time. This allows for free will and seeming change. This is the A theory of time (the construction of non-predetermined futurity) but always layed against the background of created moments. Yet the actual possibility for change still has to face McTaggart's thesis on the unreality of time (the impossibility of change), but now it has to do so on both accounts: A and B. Not only that but Oaklander's (New Theory of Time) cannot save Cyclical Wheel of Time, time because it isn't able to find a medium between A and B, instead it is forced to work out and A and B respectively and together.

Cyclical time works just fine, I gave an example of a model up above. Whether or not all 3rd ages are exactly the same is unclear, in my model they were, but you don't have to require that and it doesn't matter either way. If you make a cosmological model (a model of the entire universe) then everything in the universe is just a relative placement in the model, you don't have to model the placement itself because you don't have to introduce an uber-time that subjects the creator or DO, the 5D beings can just have their 5D shape, fixed and tenseless just like the tenseless model. The model is a model. Time in the model is just a property relative placement, just like position in the model. There need not be any moment inside the model corresponding to when the model was made because the model can be infinite.

Just because philosophers make unfounded assumptions and sloppy definitions, doesn't create any problems for theorists that do no such thing.

Callandor: 2005-06-09

**No I don't, because I never had one to let go. You and some others really do need to let go of your obsessions that I'm "proving" things "based on physics", I'm making a theory, just like we all do. Physics also makes theories. I don't prove things, physics doesn't prove things, ergo I do not take proven things from physics and insist that they must be true in the novels to prove things in the novels.**

Can you make my point anymore correct, than with that statement?

**Since physics makes theories (ones that pass tests and ones that don't, they are all theories) I can use physics, just like anything else, to make theories to fit the data that RJ gives us.**

But that is just it! You are ignoring the facts and putting your own proposals up to the light and holding them as fact.

**It's based on their being no first moment, since I find the sources for no first moment to be unreliable.**

See?

free will: 2005-06-09

Mirror Worlds do not depend on the seals to exist. Proof you want? The Mirrors of the Wheel and the Portal Stones existed before the Bore was created.

You continue to take the obverse of my claim as if it is the original. I'm saying that right now the mirror worlds are currently weaker, depending on how close they are to the one real world. But what if back in the first age when the portal stone were made with the number of chaos they weren't weaker. What if the bore made them weaker, what if they have to be removed to seal the bore, what if the seals affect the mirror worlds because the bore affects the reality of the mirror worlds? I never ever ever claimed that the mirror worlds require the seals, I'm talking about affecting.

I am even more confused. I have found it difficult to explain what I mean to you, because you have been unwilling to extrapolate general understanding of my explanation of the books when I use Jordan's language to describe Jordan's world.

I don't know what you are talking about.

No, the Dark One didn't create the seals.

Good.

The seals affect Mirror Worlds like each object of the Real World affects them; if a house is in the Real World, then Mirror Worlds are being created where that house exists. If seals are in the world, Mirror Worlds exist where there are seals. However, Mirror Worlds can't change the real World, there is no counter-effect. If a Mirror World is destroyed, it doesn't affect the Real World. If you break a seal in the Mirror World, it doesn't break in the Real World. There are only three constants in all worlds, the Creator, the Dark One, and T'A'R. The seals are not constants.

You seem to be ignoring the Verin thing again. And assuming that the bore being connected to the DO can't be different than houses. How do we know that the bore and the seals don't affect mirror worlds differently than houses. Verin says that the DO has to affect all worlds to break free (and that Rand needs to affect all worlds to seal the DO), if all the worlds always exist and always represent each outcome, then Rand or the DO would have to figure out how to make all choices lead to their conclusion they want. This seems unacheivable.

"If all the variety exists, then the DO can be neither sealed nor break free. So it seems like both Rand and the DO will want to insist that these other worlds ... can not be ... and therefore will not be, the way that can happen is by destroying them all. If the DO and Rand both want to do it, that's why I considered the issue of the seals, that seems like something that both sides want to do, destroy the seals. So it seems like there are two things both sides want, to destroy the seals and to destroy all or most of the mirror worlds, if the two are related somehow, then it's only one thing in common."

You believe the DO's goal is to destroy Mirror Worlds? Could you point me to the quote, or the part of the book that led you to this conclusion?

The part above. Taking Verin's description, and the paragraph's starting with "You seem to be ignoring the Verin thing again" and "If all the variety exists," it seems that both Rand and the DO want to destroy all or most mirror mirror worlds as a means to an end of sealing the DO or breaking the DO free. Since it has to happen in all worlds, either there needs to be just one world, or there needs to be no choices that can change things to the other apparant possibility.

Tristin: 2005-06-09

I think I gave the wrong impression. After I made a statement about theology earlier on you didn't pay attention I switched to focus on time language. I'm not saying that you are arguing for one or the other, but only that you are all using the language of different models, and that there IS serious problems with using that language in the first place.

Anubis: 2005-06-09

**Verin says that the DO has to affect all worlds to break free (and that Rand needs to affect all worlds to seal the DO), if all the worlds always exist and always represent each outcome, then Rand or the DO would have to figure out how to make all choices lead to their conclusion they want. This seems unacheivable.**

Wrong, what Verin says that if the Dark One is freed in one he is freed in all and if he is bound in one he is bound in all. The wording is a bit sketchy but what it means is that if the Dark One is freed in Randland Proper then POOF he is freed in all the mirror worlds as well.

Anubis: 2005-06-09

But there was a First moment. Its been mentioned too many times by narration for there not to be.

Tamyrlin: 2005-06-09

Before I reply to your latest reply to me, I do want to point out how blatantly you ignored my evidence that supports my contention the beginning of each book regarding the Wheel of Time, is something written by a Historian, and not by a narrator outside of creation. To be honest, its as though you are basing your cosmological model on creation myth. I can prove what is written in the BWB is more comprehensive, and includes the basic two or three sentences that begin each book...all written by a Historian, not exactly unbiased or omniscient narrators outside of time.

I'm saying that right now the mirror worlds are currently weaker, depending on how close they are to the one real world.

What evidence from the books leads to this conclusion?

But what if back in the first age when the portal stone were made with the number of chaos they weren't weaker.

Why do you think they are weaker or stronger based on the existence of the Bore? The only thing we have been given in the books, regarding the solidity or lack of solidity, of Mirror Worlds, has to do with how close they are to the Real World.

What if the bore made them weaker, what if they have to be removed to seal the bore, what if the seals affect the mirror worlds because the bore affects the reality of the mirror worlds? I never ever ever claimed that the mirror worlds require the seals, I'm talking about affecting.

I don't believe there is any evidence to even suggest a connection between Mirror World strength or weakness based on the existence of the Bore and seals.

“I have found it difficult to explain what I mean to you, because you have been unwilling to extrapolate general understanding of my explanation of the books when I use Jordan's language to describe Jordan's world.”

I don't know what you are talking about.

:) The irony of telling me you don't know what I am talking about, after I told you it appears you are unwilling to extrapolate a general understanding of what I am trying to say...good joke. :)

You seem to be ignoring the Verin thing again. And assuming that the bore being connected to the DO can't be different than houses. How do we know that the bore and the seals don't affect mirror worlds differently than houses. Verin says that the DO has to affect all worlds to break free (and that Rand needs to affect all worlds to seal the DO), if all the worlds always exist and always represent each outcome, then Rand or the DO would have to figure out how to make all choices lead to their conclusion they want. This seems unacheivable.

I don't believe Verin had any idea what she was talking about, which is why she called it a paradox, and quickly moved on to the point of her conversation with Egwene. However, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Verin is not an omniscient narrator, and Jordan has explicitly taught the reader to mistrust information from Aes Sedai; the truth in what they say is what they believe.

matoyak: 2005-06-10

quoting free will

"YOU read it, it says "There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time", so the creator did not start the wheel turning, the turnings of the wheel IS time. It clearly says that there is no beginning to the turning of the wheel. You claim that there was."

how can the wheel turn, if it does not exist? it did not exist untill the creator created it...the creator created time...created time...seems to me that if you CREATE anything, then that is the first time that certain thing existed...

also, how can you put the laws of physics into a imagined relm? isnt it against all laws of physics for the bumblebee to fly?, yet fly it does...and that happens in the real world, much less a fake, comepletely imagined world...

Tristin: 2005-06-10

dude...bumblebees are totally quantum. transporters are real. live long and prosper.

matoyak: 2005-06-10

Quoted from free will

"Duh, because there is not point within creation, in the pattern, without time. I suspect that you misunderstand my theory, but you insist on assuming a first moment, no matter how it disagrees with the books."

so are you saying that the creator is inside of time? inside of the wheel? inside of the pattern?(i hope not...)if that is not what you are saying then,...i am completely and utterly confused and would like you to clarify your point, without using physics because i do not understand much about them laws

matoyak: 2005-06-10

quoting Free Will:

"Period when there was no time"! Ha Ha, very funny, we both know that a period is an interval of time. Every point in the pattern has a time, and there is no first time, no earliest time."

so...there is a wheel and pattern that governs the do and the creator? one that encompases the creator and the dark one and the pattern? that the DO and the creator are part of some gigantic pattern? if so then there is an infinity of wheels/patterns incompassing each other.

matoyak: 2005-06-10

BWB quote

"The only known forces outside the Wheel and the Pattern are the Creator, WHO SHAPED THE WHEEL, the One Power that drives it--as well as the plan for the Great Pattern--and the Dark One, ~who was imprisoned outside the pattern by the creator AT THE MOMENT OF CREATION.~"

there you have it Free Will, in bold letters...THE moment of creation...

matoyak: 2005-06-10

o...ok, just asking a question...something i read somewhere

free will: 2005-06-10

**It's based on their being no first moment, since I find the sources for no first moment to be unreliable.**

See?

All I see is a typo. The narrator in the books is quite clear about no beginning to the turnings of the wheel. You have some interpretation that says there can be an actual first moment when then the wheel is turning and then you accuse me of ignoring facts. I can't figure out why you think your theory of finite turnings is consistent with the books, and you seem to have no interest in explaining it, as if you'd rather go on and on and on waiting for me to make a typo, like above.

free will: 2005-06-10

"Duh, because there is not point within creation, in the pattern, without time. I suspect that you misunderstand my theory, but you insist on assuming a first moment, no matter how it disagrees with the books."

so are you saying that the creator is inside of time? inside of the wheel? inside of the pattern?(i hope not...)if that is not what you are saying then,...i am completely and utterly confused and would like you to clarify your point, without using physics because i do not understand much about them laws

No matoyak, I was saying the opposite, I can't imagine how you thought I said that the creator was within time. That's something someone else seems to claim and then deny, not me.

"Period when there was no time"! Ha Ha, very funny, we both know that a period is an interval of time. Every point in the pattern has a time, and there is no first time, no earliest time."

so...there is a wheel and pattern that governs the do and the creator?

Not in my theory. Someone else talked like there was one, but then denied it.

one that encompases the creator and the dark one and the pattern? that the DO and the creator are part of some gigantic pattern? if so then there is an infinity of wheels/patterns incompassing each other.

Not my theory, in some models of my theory the Creator and DO are fixed shapes in a 5D universe, just like all the turnings of the wheel and the pattern make up a 4D surface in the 5D universe in my theory. Times and moments are required and assigned to all points on that 4D surface, but not to points outside. The DO and the creator are not on that surface, hence are outside time. Again I have zero idea why you accuse me of saying the exact opposite on my theory.

BWB quote

"The only known forces outside the Wheel and the Pattern are the Creator, WHO SHAPED THE WHEEL, the One Power that drives it--as well as the plan for the Great Pattern--and the Dark One, ~who was imprisoned outside the pattern by the creator AT THE MOMENT OF CREATION.~"

there you have it Free Will, in bold letters...THE moment of creation...

I already explained my opinion and resolution of that quote. First the source is clearly that of a historian, compared to the words of the creator that make up the novels. Secondly, interpreting a purported physical act of creation to happen in a moment would require those infinite wheels that I don't believe in, and would attach concepts of time to the Creator and the DO, which I think is uncalled for. Thirdly, every moment of creation is a moment of creation, a part of the pattern, a point in the 4D surface, the totality of the pattern can in my opinion be referred to as the moment of creation, and so the totality of the pattern can imprison the DO, like the 4D surface of a 5D sphere can imprison a 5D shape inside the surface. That's the interpretation I take, and honestly that source is less reliable than the narrator of the novels, and I have zero clue how you would attempt to reconsile to the statements. How do you have a single moment of creation and no beginnings to the turnings of the wheel? How maytok?

free will: 2005-06-10

"YOU read it, it says "There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time", so the creator did not start the wheel turning, the turnings of the wheel IS time. It clearly says that there is no beginning to the turning of the wheel. You claim that there was."

how can the wheel turn, if it does not exist?

In my theory the pattern is a 4D surface, each point on the surface has a time assigned to it by it's relation to the wheel, a 5D object just like the Creator and the DO. It's a theory written in manner where time is just like position, a relative concept.

it did not exist untill the creator created it...the creator created time...created time...seems to me that if you CREATE anything, then that is the first time that certain thing existed...



Imagine an large 4D flat surface in a 5D space, pick a family of pararrel 1D lines in the 4D surface and call them time. See how it is infinite and for any value of time you pick, there is a 3D section of the surface? There is no "until" or "before" or anything. The Creator could literally be a giant 5D object that gives the 4D surface the properties it has. I'm not saying that the Creator has to be a giant literal 5D object, but he could be and fit the data, that's what I'm saying. Assuming that the Creator is subject to time (an assumption I don't make, but which you seem to do when using words like create as if they happen at a particular time) implies that he needs a moment to create, but that's uncalled for. As a being outside of time, he could determine a 4D surface that includes all places and times without choosing any one as special and without there having to be a first time. And based on the beginnings of the books, that seems like the only choice I can even imagine. But everyone else seems to have other ideas but would rather laugh at me and accuse me of saying the opposite of what I clearly meant rather than share their ideas. If you have a theory that fits the data, share it!

also, how can you put the laws of physics into a imagined realm?

I'm making a bloody theory, just like everyone else in theoryland and just like physicsists do. I'm not imposing or assuming anything other than that my theory has to fit the facts. Since my theory is about an imagined realm, the facts are the facts that the narrator gives us. Those are the facts my theory has to fit.

isnt it against all laws of physics for the bumblebee to fly?

No it isn't.

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree with you, an omniscient narrator is useful and powerful. However, I do not see proof that this Narrator must be outside of creation. You believe I am attempting to discredit the narration, which is not true. I am attempting to discredit the idea you have put forward that this omniscient narrator is outside of creation.

It was you that brought it up as if it mattered, I don't see how it matters, the only point I needed was that I trust the narrator of the novels over other sources, whether they be characters, typos, glossaries, or the BWB. I also tend to take interview questions seriously, but that's tricky like In response to "Just how can an Aes Sedai be a damane? Aren't they bound by the Third Oath: to not use the One Power as a weapon except to defend their lives, their Warder's life, or another sister's life? Wouldn't they be useless as damane to the Seanchan?" Robert Jordan Answered "The Aes Sedai captured by the Seanchan are indeed useless as weapons, except against Shadowspawn or Darkfriends, because they are bound by the Three Oaths, and that limits their value considerably since being weapons is a major use for damane" which implies that the oaths don't stop against darkfriends, something I remember from first reading the books, but which seems clearly contradicted by the BWB and the glossary which says that darkfriends are off limits for preemptive first strikes. I was willing to concede that AS couldn't use the power as a weapon agasint darkfriends like they can against shadowspawn when I read the narrator decribe Morainne's Oaths in New Spring, but then RJ goes and muddies it with the interview questions again (I'm mostly bothered because I can't track down the original source, like maybe the edition of the book matters? I hope not!).

"I'm not personally familiar with any quotes where the narrator of the novels denies being the creator. I'm not personally familar with any quotes where the narrator of the novels says that he is bound by time or within the pattern.


I happen to believe neither until you show me evidence otherwise. Because if the narrator is part of the pattern then the narrator could be lying and if you presented such evidence, then I'd stop making theories, stop replying to theories, and maybe stop reading the books, it's not worth it if I have to second guess the narrator."

I don't believe the Narrator is a thread in the Pattern; I am suggesting Jordan is using an omniscient narrator, within creation, to do the story telling. Also, it is your theory a Narrator outside of Creation couldn't be lying; a Narrator inside or outside of Creation, doesn't have to be honest. Maybe you could present me with some evidence your version of the Narrator cannot lie?

I still can't figure out why the narrator's origin matters. And so when you write things like "narrator is not a thread in the pattern" and "narrator is within creation" I both can't figure out what it means, or tell it matters to the discussion. I believe the narrator is honest and omniscent simply because I see no more attractive possibility for a public discussion. I'd like to take all sources, narration, glossaries, BWB, interviews equally, but they seem to disagree with each other, so I don't take them equally. I'm open to anyone making them agree with each other. But the closest I get to that is people saying things like "narrator is not a thread in the pattern" and "narrator is within creation" which make no sense to me, if it made sense to me maybe it would resolve things, but as long as it does not make sense then it resolves nothing for me.

*A quick clarification, you don't believe Portal Stones created Mirror Worlds do you?*

"I'm not sure I understand the question. I've always wondered if the mirror worlds are the other turnings of the Wheel, so in my model if that were so then they are all equally real. However if the DO destroys the entire pattern in breaking free, past and future, then shattering the mirror worlds and the past and the future turnings is at least consistent. Before portals there were effectively no mirror worlds because they weren't affecting each other, no bore, no seals, no DO activity, nothing but existing."

A very interesting interpretation you have (I say this, because I have never come across such an interpretation before, although stuff Adragonburnedfool posts, come close)which I think I understand, more fully, with your statement above. It is your belief all turnings of the Wheel exist, are, even though within Creation, there is an appearance of before and after. And that the Bore created a connection to all worlds, which the DO could then begin to affect. Of course, I believe Mirror Worlds have existed as long as the Pattern has existed.

I do like to treat everything equally real, past and future and current turnings of the Wheel. Balefire is something I still have trouble with, so I have to be careful when thinking about it. From outside of time, all the turnings are equally real, as I'd expect all the mirror worlds to be. The pattern includes all possibilities, so I'd expect it to include them equally, making one more special seems weird. Since Shai'tan is so singular, if the bore itself makes that world or turning more singular, that's something that helps me. It could be true or it could be false.

"They could have been a transportation to totally real parts of the pattern, remeber the pattern of age laces pattern of patterns that Verin or someone speculates about? Ontological economy suggests that the mirror worlds are the other turnings which are other patterns with every variation."

I think Weird Harold has an idea similar to this, although I have disagreed with it in the past. Ages repeat, with small variations. I understand how you get there; however I don't believe Mirror Worlds are Real Worlds from the past or future. They are called reflections of reality, if-worlds, and are mentioned as being not what is or what was or what can be, but instead they are what never was, what will never be, a reflection.

I recall a description like that, do you perchance have quotes so I could be critical of the source? The BWB does say that the turnings are different, but I wasn't 100% sure if that was ages different or if 7 ages later it didn't repeat quite the same way, it seemed to point towards the latter by no definatively so for me. But if I can rule out mirror worlds as including things that will never be, it's different. Another way to explain thinness would be how often that version comes up, if the 7 age cycle isn't 100% correct, then maybe things near to Randland happen often and ones farther away happen less, and it's sorta like the pattern is thicker where it's woven more. Does that make sense? It in 700 ages one thing happened only once and another happened 10 times, then the second would find the first 1 tenth as weak, if another age happened 20 times it would see the 10 timer as half as strong. So Randland might be the most probable world with so many ta'varen steering things.

"I give primacy to the narration in the novels. To me the novels don't make it clear. For instance can people in the mirror worlds enter the one T'A'R, to me that isn't clear."

To me it is clear; I have had this conversation tens of times. "Formless, she floated deep within an ocean of stars, infinite points of light glimmering in an infinite sea of darkness, fireflies beyond counting flickering in an endless night. Those were dreams, the dreams of everyone sleeping anywhere in the world, maybe of everyone in all possible worlds, and this was the gap between reality and Tel'aran'rhiod, the space separating the waking world from the World of Dreams. Wherever she looked ten thousand fireflies vanished as people woke, and ten thousand new were born to replace them. A vast ever-changing array of sparkling beauty." The points of light represent all dreams in all possible worlds, this is the space we have designated as the Gap of Infinity. T'A'R is a constant that surrounds all worlds. Each world has its own reflection within T'A'R. So, "people" within mirror worlds can enter their mirror version of T'A'R.

So there is one gap of infinity and many different T'A'R, mirror T'A'Rs?

"T'A'R seems more real to me than the "real world", can a dream walker go to a dream version of a place in a mirror world? Unclear to me."

Yes. This is also clear. "Ba'alzamon leaned on his staff and looked at Rand a moment, then moved to stand over Loial and Hurin, peering down at them. The vast shadow moved with him. He did not disturb the fog, Rand saw - he moved, the staff swung with his steps, but the gray mist did not swirl and eddy around his feet as it did around Rand's. That gave him heart. Perhaps Ba'alzamon really was not there. Perhaps it was a dream."

Here, while in the Mirror World, Rand meets up with Ba'alzamon in the T'A'R of that Mirror World.

So it's not the mirror Ba'alzamon of that mirror world?

"Can a dream walker go to a vastly different time's dream reflection?"

Are you asking whether or not T'A'R can be used to travel through time?

Yup. I'd ask the same about Portal stones, if T'A'R were stable enough and you could make time flow fast enough you could wait 6 ages then almost another age and it's be mostly like moving back in time. Each of you would help a 7 ages later version of the world, which sucks for that first age if there is one.

"What about the wolves? Slayer is giving wolves the final death, isn't he ... by killing them in T'A'R? That seems to make T'A'R more real to me than the real world."

Does the narrator tell us that, or is it a wolf that tells us the wolves Slayer kills die the final death?

I only recall a wolf, but since that wolf claimed to remember being in the dreaming between waking lives, it's either fairly reliable or totally not reliable. How about a Hunter of the Horn, can you fight a Hero in T'A'R, and if so, are they still reborn if you kill them there?

"I think that today the mirror worlds are clearly different."

I don't. They are only as different as they are a reflection of the Real World. Clearly, the majority of Mirror Worlds reflect the Real World where a Bore exists. However, when "every variation that can be will be" and we are unsure whether or not Mirror Worlds actually ever cease to exist, it is impossible to quantify such a statement from what the books tells us.

I think I meant that today there are definately weaker mirror worlds. We have direct narratation to support that. But we don't have direct narration of there being weaker mirror worlds prior to Meirin's Bore.

"I think that with Verin's puzzle, the other worlds might not have proper bores or proper seals or any at all. Maybe Meirin made the bore in Randland SG and the DO started affecting all worlds, and LTT placed the seals in Randland SG and the DO was affected across all worlds. If that's the case then the mirror worlds seem to matter not at all, and Verin's puzzle seems like a joke."

Not a joke, a misunderstanding. I think what you just said above makes a great deal of sense, but I know you take Verin's quote as fact.

But if the mirror worlds don't matter, why not bring in Shadowspawn or other world armies to take care of the real TG in this world? To be frank here, I actually get more problems in my own mind from taking Verin's statement as a joke than taking it as close or spot on.

The Bore's creation would be present in some Mirror Worlds, but you can't access the Bore from a Mirror World,

"What do you mean "it's creation would be present"? Presumeably there is a world where Meirin bored the hole, but where something else important happened differently, like LTT was still in love with her and they were on the same the side(s) the entire war of power, so unless the mirror worlds were already "differnet and weaker" then you'd expect the bore in that world to be just as real as the world primarily featured in the narration."

No, I don't agree that the Mirror World's drilling of the Bore would be just as real, since Mirror Worlds are reflective realities. They are not made of the same earth and stone of the Real World. Lanfear and LTT in a Mirror World do not have independent souls. The reality of a Mirror World cannot be directly compared to the reality of the Real World; as with T'A'R, a Real World individual can visit T'A'R, but bringing something back from T'A'R into the Real World is rather difficult to impossible. The matter that makes up reflective realities is different from that which makes up the Real World.

The BWB (which I thought you took seriously) says that the exotic Seanchan animals (the real exotics, not elephants and such) came from mirror worlds. That makes them pretty real to me. So what is your evidence that they aren't?

"as far as I interpret the text, just like you can't go to a Mirror World and bring back Ishamael number 2 to the Real World, and which is also why beings from Mirror Worlds cannot use their Portal Stone to visit the Real World. The reality of Mirror Worlds is controlled by the Pattern; but, this all goes down to our interpretations of Mirror Worlds. Which is where I don't believe we are going to agree.

Do you have evidence that mirror world people can't access the real world or T'A'R or Travel or anything like that?"

Yes, indirectly. While Lanfear tells Loial when you go to a Mirror World, you can visit yourself, Jordan gives us narration of Rand and company's experience when they visit Mirror Worlds where they exist; they don't meet themselves, they become themselves. Now, imagine the following: Rand goes to a Portal World by way of a Portal Stone. At the same time, there would have been Mirror World Rand's who used that same Portal Stone, same symbol, and those Rand's, Loial's, and Hurin's would have ended up in that world, but maybe the Mirror Rand, Loial, and Hurin wouldn't have shown up with their animals, the variation. Or maybe only Mirror Rand and Loial would have made it, from a Mirror version. Then imagine when Rand comes back to the Real World; he uses the Portal Stone, at which time, Mirror Rand's should have been using the same Portal Stone, and should have traveled to the Real World, since those symbols carry over from Portal Stone to Portal Stone. However, as we see, only one Rand, Loial, and Hurin end up in the Mirror World, and only one Rand, Loial, and Hurin end up back in the Real World. Mirror individuals don't actually exist in the same reality as Real World individuals. Now, there is a caveat to this, which always comes up; the Seanchan animals. From everything I have read, these animals were "brought" back, by Real Worlders, during the Age of Legends.

Um I couldn't follow your example, I hypothsized that you made different worlds different (some real, others mirrors) based on different choices about how to use a portal stone (take animals or not, etc.) but then also had the Portal Stone act differently based on who was from where. And I couldn't follow both things, I just couldn't follow it. The textual evidence I think you bring up is basically Lanfear says you can "visit yourself" and also the characters recall living other lives, and that's the evidence you have that only one Ishamael is possible in a world, right? Because I'm not sure that Rand couldn't see a mirror Rand even today if he actually went to a mirror world directly instead of a mistake (plus there is the time travel option I mention later). I thought the living other lives happened in a real-to-real portal transport, like from Tear to Rhuidean except that went very badly, in which case the possibility that Rand could meet himself is not ruled out in a good method. As for the Seanchan animals, the BWB say: "descendants of beasts brought back from parallel worlds, via Portal Stones, during the first thousand years after the Breaking, probably in an attempt to find aid against the real Shadowspawn.", so not the AoL, but in Rand's Age after the last male AS died but before the Trolloc Wars.

As Moghedien demonstrates, she is able to manipulate T'A'R in such a fashion, that she pushes a soul out of T'A'R, and gives it/her a body, Birgitte. In a similar fashion, it is my belief, those in the Age of Legends who had studied Mirror Worlds, knew how to bring back a reflected animal, and make it Real. Also, we must remember, creatures found in Mirror Worlds, are reflected from other Real Worlds. Therefore, it is unclear whether or not those from the Age of Legends found the Real World off which that Mirror World was based, and took those Real animals, or whether or not they "made" them Real. Either way, naturally, something from a Mirror World cannot exist on its own in the Real World, without some form of "assistance" (such as a Bubble of Evil, the Mirror Rands we see jump out of a mirror, naturally they shouldn't be able to exist, but within that bubble, those reflections were enabled to exist.)

I see a lot of claims made with a great deal of certainty, where is the evidence? Moghedien also mentions space travel, there are other worlds besides mirror worlds, just as there are other ages of a world, many places for the animals to come from, but the BWB does say parallel, not "other", so I think mirror world is the source and this Age too. Basically I see small evidence that the other worlds are so different, based on textual evidence you've provided. If Rand traveled to a world with himself without trying to go to another point in the real world, then it's unclear that he'd live some other Rand's life. Just I see little evidence of a primacy of this world, or that bubbles of evil come from mirror worlds. But I see lots of strong claims by you, to the point where I wonder if there is some text that you've read that I haven't. Am I that crazy, or are you just going super fast?

"But I'm a creative guy, so if no one will make such a theory, then I'll propose my own. The first moment is by definition the set of all moments when the DO is bound. OK? So from there we derive that whatever battle "precedes" that is in a sense "the last" battle, much like the last dance. There might be more battles, but they are after the first moment, so the other one was still "the last", you with me? So Rand to bind the DO needs to do creation over again, I again hypothesize the destruction of the mirror worlds entirely, the destruction of the real world as the real world and it's boundaries populated with the dead and the heroes, much like I expect T'A'R currently is. Then T'A'R is made the one new real world, starts spawning mirror versions, Logain walks up to the old bore which is now in the new T'A'R and uses his mind to seal it up since now it is a dream thing. The theory isn't really that different, but I can the moment of binding the DO the "first moment" on account of the new creation has no prior moments because it used to be T'A'R, and not real."

You weren't holding this back the entire discussion, because your pet peeve is the misuse of time analogies when referring to concepts of time, outside of time? To be honest, I don't care about the time issues too much; I am more interested in your opinions regarding Mirror Worlds.

Naw I never hold back, I sometimes worry that this is bad flow for a discussion on Rand's death and GC, I seriously thought that spinning out of heroes and final deaths and binding new heroes was topical to this discussion and that the infinite past implies a final death for heroes, just as no final death implies billions of heores for distantly future ages, which is all fun until someone blows the horn and they all come out to play. I think there could be a "moment of creation" inside the turnings that isn't really any different than any other moment except that everyone moves around and leaves Shai'tan behind. It's not really a first moment. First moments still seem like contradicting "no beginnings to the turnings of the wheel", but my thesis all along is to find something consistent with the evidence. In this case heroes being added to the horn. If seems like the slate has to be wiped at some point, endless addings of heroes gets out of hand. And if wiping is rare enough that the clean slate is called "the moment of creation" then that's fine with me, it still seems like a pretty normal (age ending) kind of moment. But the problem is don't we have evidence of a more than 7 ages binding of a hero to the horn? If so, we can't defeat Shai'tan by wiping the slate clean each time. Maybe the heroes are kept down another way to keep fatalities in line with raisings.

Why does an omniscient narrator HAVE to be outside of time? Authors use omniscient narrators all of the time, without creating a 5D model and placing them outside of time.

I thought you brought up whether the narrator was outside of time or not. The narrator says "no beginnings to the turnings of the wheel of time" and as long as we agree that it's true and accurate, then I'm not certain myself that it matters who says it.

"What I can't figure out is why so many people think that my theory isn't a possibility."

I think it is the "time lectures" you are giving, but I will try to not speak for those who don't consider it a possibility.

When someone says that the books say something, then I want to understand what the books say or to show them that the books leave it as an open question. This time issue is hard because people get all personal about it, and I still can't figure out why. I started out just assuming that the Wheel always had been turing and, Shai'tan willing, always would turn, and was honestly shocked to have people disagree as I thought it was the single most uncontested fact of the series. And any attempt at time lectures were useless since I'm not sure anyone paid attention to any of them. Just as Callandor is probably wasting his time posting the same quote that does NOT say that the DO and then the Creator rested for a Day and then created time. It's a waste of my time to read it because Callandor will just say that is says that. I can only respond to the posts as I read them, just like I try my hardest to write my posts to be understandable.

we do have this quote: "The Wheel wove the heroes into the Pattern as they were needed, to shape thc Pattern, and when they died they returned here to wait again. That was what it meant to be bound to the Wheel. New heroes could find themselves bound so as well, men and women whose bravery and accomplishments raised them far above the ordinary, but once bound, it was forever." Is the narrator talking about this turning or all turnings?

Hey, if the destruction of the bore is called "the moment of creation" then "forever" could mean until that point, it could also mean all turnings, the tone is clear that one is a hero even if later you act a coward or with normal bravery. Your quote mentions "here", is that where the narrator lives, is the narrator a hero of the horn? I'm not sure at all about the quote, the only thing is makes clear is that the Wheel chooses when a hero is born, nothing more is perfectly clear. Maybe that's even true of all souls. If a hero is bound but everyone is bound in the same way, then it's a bit lacking in meaning. But if heroes are added and never removed and the horn summons them all, then that's a big summoning. Maybe the horn makes something like a gateway for heroes to step out and not all of them come out, the potentially infinite horde of heores.

"That was now, what about three thousand years ago? What about when the DO was expanding the bore, what about before the bore? I don't see any data on that."

I think you are splitting hairs on this point concerning Rand and the affect his death doesn't have on him. We know Rand, during his trip through the Portal Stone, lived thousands of Rand lives, and in each he lost, he died in some fashion. Should we assume the only Mirror Worlds where this occurred, were weak ones? No. The reason we shouldn't assume such has to do with the fact that Rand was himself, became himself. In other words, as Loial says, those worlds where you find yourself, those are the closest to reality, the strongest. Yet, they had no direct affect on him. You are right, I can't prove if this happened before the Bore was created, it wouldn't have affected him, but certainly I can infer such logically from what we know about Mirror Worlds.

Um, that is the only example you gave. Rand tracked PF to Cairhein in a mirror world with Selene, but there was no mirror Rand there. Those two cases are the only examples I know of, which is a poor selection both times. The one world was 2000 years conquered by the Shadow, wasn't it? And the others were a failed transport attempt which could explain weirdness. You imply that there is a logically structured basis of prior experience in which to frame your example, can you share this basis? Because to me it seems like speculation, not logic. Remember when I mentioned mirror worlds potentially being other times 7 or 14 or 21 or so on ages in the past or future? Well if Rand actually went forward enough ages until he got to an age where he used that Portal stone again, then the deaths could have been 100% and totally real, you die, are reborn and live again and continue. So he didn't recall the LTT lives, big deal. So he didn't recall the afterlife/beforelife (between-life would be more accurate), again big deal. He could have been time travelling and actually living those other lives. Seems possible to me. I see lots of possibility in interpreting RJ's books, and little certainty. But not because I will it so, I'm totally open to hard data from you to narrow the possibilities.