I'd like to add something to Xadzia's ponderings. I'll state now, these
are my personal beliefs, and not meant to offend. I'll be brief, since
it's a vast subject, and normally I'd leave it off this board, but since
it's a public debate, here you are. I feel I need to argue with the
following quote:

"If there was a picture, or a moment in time that was still. Would that
still be chaotic? One has no frame of referance to see the past or the
future in that image. That image alone is not chaotic without before and
after. Thus it could be said that a small degree of time needed to
define Chaos."

Now, what this means, is that something is not considered to be Chaotic
unless there is change involved. Something still and unchanging cannot
be Chaotic, because Chaos itself is change. And according to this
theory, in order for there to be change, there needs to be time. Thus,
in order for change (aka Chaos) to occur, time must control it to some
extent.

But what if we look at this from the other end of things? What is time?
Time is a passage, a movement, and a _change_. If time itself is
constantly changing, then isn't time just Chaos? It's paradoxical. Time
controls and determines Chaos, yet time itself IS Chaos. So if time
controls change, what controls the change of time?

I personally believe that time itself is Chaos, for only Chaos has
control over Chaos, assuming that control exists at all.

Lemon

Penned by my hand on the 4th of Aeguary, in the year 297 AF.