Talk:List of Known World Lines/@comment-88.246.207.183-20150714112303/@comment-26833849-20150730220205

Oh well. We´re starting to go in circles, so let´s just leave it at this. There really is no point in arguing semantics for so long.

I did say before though that he switched Omega by trying to merge characteristics from two alpha worldlines. Okabe expected to be able to merge them, but instead found himself in Omega. I´ve simply been summarizing what I already said. "in the Omega wordline, the divergence happened in 2000, and Okabe reached it by merging two Alpha worldlines" I did state that he reached Omega, not that he created it. If you mean how I used the word in regards to S;G, I merely meant that it draws from two different attractor fields, being "born" in a certain way by using differing characteristics found in them. Wouldn´t two attractor fields be one before a split happens? Let´s take one wordline from before 2010. After 2010, it splits into its beta and its alpha Version, after which the future is created according to convergence Points in those respective attractor fields. Before that though, the wordline would be a single one, as there cannot be differing events in a single wordline. Of course, a split would have to happen in every wordline of a given attractor field, as, as you said, they all differ from each other. Meaning for each worldline before 2010, we´d get an alpha and a beta Version after the split. That´s how I understood it anyway.

To put that into the Omega perspective: in a worldline with the IBN, Mayuri would be safe, and in the worldline Okabe was in before sending that D-Mail we don´t know the content of, Faris´ father was save, so he tried to find a wordline where both events were true. He didn´t know the resulting divergence, but he did try to find a way where everything is solved, similar to S;G, the supposedly best wordline. As for changing the past, all I can repeat is that it doesn´t really matter, as in 10 years of time, S;G would change just as much as the Omega worldline from 2000 to 2010. S;G´s only Advantage is that the characters have 10 more years worth of knowledge about it, nothing else. Back in 2000 Omega couldn´t have been as different as it is now, the next 10 years were what made it differ from other attractor fields so much, due to the butterfly effect. The only advantage of changing the present instead of the past is that change in a world where the present was altered would happen farther into the future. Still a gamble. Time travel as a whole is a gamble, which was also one of the major themes in S;G. And I wouldn´t say meaningless. Omega as a whole had a pretty happy ending as far as I´m concerned, and due to Reading Steiner/deja vu/whatever the heck you want to call it/, it is possible to salvage what was lost.

Problem is, we do know that the lab wasn´t created. Combined with the fact that it is another attractor field, it may not be enough to completely erase any possibility of SERN creating a dystopia, it marginally lowers it, since so far SERN always had the need for the lab. It is not proven, but it certainly isn´t unfounded, because it is based on our knowledge of how the series´ time travel works and because we know how SERN reached its goals in other attractor fields. Sure, its converging point differs vastly than the one in alpha/beta, but that is not to say that we can´t apply knowledge about those attractor fields at all. We can take events we know happened in Omega, compare them to events in other attractor fields, and draw conclusions from there about what is likely, what isn´t. It is more logical to assume that if it lacks components necessary for a dystopia in SERN, it having the same outcome is far less likely than it going towards a completely different future. The fact that the Omega converging point happened in 2000, not in 2010, hardly changes that. What you mentioned is a Scenario that may happen, but as long as we have more plausible alternatives, I´ll stick to them. Speculation might always remain speculation, but it still tries to take into consideration known facts.