Searching the web for even more material on the Squall’s Dead theory, I came across this post.
The author’s theory is pretty abstract, but the basic gist is two-fold. The first half takes a cue from Schrodinger’s cat. Only that model is based on our ignorance of the outcomes. Here, the author roughly deals with Squall is alive or dead based on how you perceive him to be.
Which is unnecessary:
First, this theory requires two timelines: a “live-timeline” (Squall Lives) and a “death-timeline” (Squall’s Dead). The timelines are split/activated once Squall receives his wound and loses consciousness. Both timelines happen similarly because each contains an infinite amount of possibilities within their timelines. Two of which are identical to each other. But only with only one subtle distinction: your perception of Squall’s state of being.
The author seems to suggest Squall is alive or dead based on what you think happens to him. So in one timeline, he survived the wounds, in another, he could have had internal complications and then died. Well, this is the basis of the fan fiction. But you could do this with nearly EVERY main character from the Final Fantasy series.
For example, maybe I think Cloud Strife could have died falling from Sector 5 bridge. Maybe he only imagines waking up in Sector 5 church? Maybe I think Zidane could have died in the Crystal World and woke up on the Hill of Despair to fight
God Necron for a second chance to live. But if this is what the author intended, this isn’t really how the Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment works…
Or how about my favorite from this same game: did Selphie and friends survive the Galbadian Missile Base blast? Apparently, she did because this is the timeline the game chose for us to see. In fact, all timelines happen in the game. In this sense, the author contradicts him/herself. The Squall’s Dead timeline is defunct because we’re seeing him live, and there’s nothing to suggest he died.
In the second half, this person ends up going on a different route altogether, creating an interesting non-sequitur:
According to this theory, if you were to open the magical lamp before Squall “dies”, then Diablos is what you’ll find inside of it. However, if you were to open the magical lamp after Squall “dies”, then you’re imagining you find a creature named Diablos. The “Squall Lives” Diablos is the actual Diablos, whereas the “Squall’s Dead” Diablos is the imagined Diablos. So then, “Dead Squall” isn’t imagining the real Diablos, he’s imagining another Diablos that just happens to be identical to the real Diablos. How is this possible? Because out of all the possible timelines, Squall is imagining the one that he could have taken had he lived and that’s the one we’re viewing. In other timelines that we aren’t aware of, “Dead Squall” might imagine a Griffin in there…
Pretty interesting stuff. Now we shifted focus from Squall’s life to Squall’s perception of what the entity in the lamp could be. What are the odds that Squall’s imagination of Diablos is identical to the actual Diablos?
I guess, in hindsight, 100% if Squall is dead. Even more so, what are the odds Squall, Selphie and Zell’s shared dreams in his imagination? Since the dreams happen to be in Squall’s mind, Squall could simply be carrying on those dreams. It wouldn’t explain why Selphie and Zell had them as well, however…
Yet, as another one person in the post pointed out:
The biggest problem with this theory is that it maximizes the number of entities beyond necessities. Still, it doesn’t mean that Squall can’t necessarily be dead; it’s just unlikely he’s dead, with no prior justification for that assumption.
Which is correct. While the Squall’s Dead theory isn’t science (and this theory isn’t particularly good philosophy), if we apply Occam’s Razor to the story we’ll find no reason in the game suggests Squall actually died.