The References of Monism in Shadow Fight (STAFF NEEDED—1 MORE)

[Antvasima]

It doesn't seem like our staff members are interested in evaluating this thread.

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

It doesn't seem like our staff members are interested in evaluating this thread.

So, what do you suggest? Wait for Udlmaster's input, or you could evaluate this yourself?

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

Bump.

 

[Vesxpura]

Nothing that happens in architects events is real in the same sense as everything else

Any proof of this?

That "preacher" wasn't even real bro. That entire event was literally just an illusion created by Hoaxen, who is the embodiment of lies and hoax. So this statement or any statement from any enemy from in that event, in reality comes from Hoaxen who is an eternal.

Ur missing the point, its not who said it but how and where it was said. According to you, in that fight hoaxen said alot of things, are we gonna take them all literally?

I'm not contradicting myself, that's literally what the game states. I think we're clearly not on the same page here, because you obviously haven't read the OP.

Distinctions only exist at the level of conventional reality, where things are perceived through a limited perspective. However, the underlying truth is that these distinctions are illusory within the Void. We even have statements from an embodiment of illusion supporting this, along with other evidence indicating the same (for example, effects like bleeding into the Void).

“Nowhere” is a bold claim, especially when there is actual evidence suggesting otherwise. Unless you can refute that evidence directly, I don't think your position holds much weight in this case. I'm sorry.

since these 2 go hand in hand, ill address them at once. Just saying "there is evidence" doesnt clarify anything. WHAT is the evidence, where is the evidence. So far the only thing uve actually argued is a direct reference to monism is the statement that "all is nothing and nothing is all" which is currently being contended rn. The problem with this is, this is like ur only argument that actually suggests what ur claiming if we assume its true. nothing else in ur OP proposes the idea that everything is a mode of the void. Everything else could also be explained without a monistic framework, u dont provide an argument for why its necessarily monistic.
and yes, you are contradicting urself since somehow u dont know that substance monism also allows for distinctions to appear real in regular reality. Yet u keep proposing priority monism which completely contradicts what u believe the game "states"

That's... just a play (he literally named his next fight as “Drama”, I don't think he's serious about anything at all)

Do you actually have any evidence outside of pure speculation? being named drama doesnt insinuate anything inherently.

he literally says, “I have great plans for you” exactly after he changes Shadow's nature from a mute-protagonist to actually talking, which shows he still intends to shape Shadow's life regardless of what happens. This isn't even a blind assumption, since there are two recent events that clearly show him interfering with Shadow's life.

yeah so i dont see how this addresses anything. being able to survive without an active sustainer does NOT mean they cannot be influenced whatsoever. this just doesnt follow. So in conclusion, i never made the claim they were incapable of being interacted with, i simply stated they are independent. and ur just arguing against arguments u made up ur self

So the argument is that... Shadow Fight is just a silly mobile game with no real depth in its story? I don't really understand why you're trying so hard to dismiss these points as if they hold no value within the narrative.

nobody argued this btw. making up ur own fantasies and responding to them doesnt change what the actual counter argument is.

You haven't actually provided a solid argument for why they're unusable, only that you think they aren't. Simply labeling them as “poetic” or “metaphorical” doesn't really support your case if it's not backed up.

I literally did though. Labelling them as poetic and metaphorical DOES support my case since i backed it up with context. If u actually read what i said, i implied the idea that all the text there was filler text which backs up my claim that its metaphorical/poetic language. and the flowery language is literally explicit, idk why u have a problem with me coming to obvious conclusions. The whole point of what i said was to question why were taking this one statement as literal and not the the others, that is, why is this not flowery language.
Btw i also asked u prove why it actually has cosmological implications, since the context doesnt support it which you just havent done, i dont know if this is out of ignorance or guilt but proving this to be the case would just solve the problem instead of you complaining.

statement that isn't even... remotely framed as serious

prove that to be the case. idk why u think ill just blindly believe ur speculation.

you’ll need a stronger argument than this.

i mean since u arent even properly responding to it, i think this is more than enough.

this thread is already much better than ts

i promise you its not. my masterpiece is infinitely better. if u have a problem with it u can pm me, ill happily slime you out on that topic. the difference between my thread and urs is that i actually use context to come to my conclusions, while u just stay in pure speculation, relying on suggestions and implications.

All ur doing is just cherry picking statements that seem similar to monism and completely ignoring the possible meanings that might suggest otherwise without any good reason.

PS: you didnt even address the actual problem of the architect being beyond the void. Which completely debunks the idea its a monistic cosmology.

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

since these 2 go hand in hand, ill address them at once. Just saying "there is evidence" doesnt clarify anything. WHAT is the evidence, where is the evidence. So far the only thing uve actually argued is a direct reference to monism is the statement that "all is nothing and nothing is all" which is currently being contended rn. The problem with this is, this is like ur only argument that actually suggests what ur claiming if we assume its true. nothing else in ur OP proposes the idea that everything is a mode of the void. Everything else could also be explained without a monistic framework, u dont provide an argument for why its necessarily monistic.
and yes, you are contradicting urself since somehow u dont know that substance monism also allows for distinctions to appear real in regular reality. Yet u keep proposing priority monism which completely contradicts what u believe the game "states"

You can choose to be an ignorant all you want, but the fact that you haven't even addressed the evidence already says a lot. I'm not going to engage with that kind of reasoning, especially when your standard for monistic principles is something as oversimplified as “a dot turning into two dots”.

(And yes, what I just did in the last sentence is as irrelevant as what you’re doing rn).

yeah so i dont see how this addresses anything. being able to survive without an active sustainer does NOT mean they cannot be influenced whatsoever. this just doesnt follow. So in conclusion, i never made the claim they were incapable of being interacted with, i simply stated they are independent. and ur just arguing against arguments u made up ur self

And I already countered that they're not...? We all know you can't refute what I just said, don't ever try to go down this route, bro.

nobody argued this btw. making up ur own fantasies and responding to them doesnt change what the actual counter argument is.

Oh, really? It’s funny how you’re being ignorant not just of my point, but of your own statements as well. Need I remind you that you said this?

i mean just look at the fight for context. it isnt some place u expect a genuine lore drop

At this point, I'm expecting you to twist this into something else in your next reply. Either way, I won’t be responding further.

prove that to be the case. idk why u think ill just blindly believe ur speculation.

Did that, done that. The fact that you're not even attempting to refute what I said in its proper context speaks for itself.

I literally did though. Labelling them as poetic and metaphorical DOES support my case since i backed it up with context. If u actually read what i said, i implied the idea that all the text there was filler text which backs up my claim that its metaphorical/poetic language. and the flowery language is literally explicit, idk why u have a problem with me coming to obvious conclusions. The whole point of what i said was to question why were taking this one statement as literal and not the the others, that is, why is this not flowery language.
Btw i also asked u prove why it actually has cosmological implications, since the context doesnt support it which you just havent done, i dont know if this is out of ignorance or guilt but proving this to be the case would just solve the problem instead of you complaining.

You literally didn't. The entire context was that the journey is to seek the truth about the Eternals and the Universe as a whole. Sly was there to explain what is Eternals and their function in the large scheme of things, as this is the first event that introduce the Eternal to the big plot (before this, all we know about them are basically non-canon to the storyline).

But hey, twist this all you want, lol.

i mean since u arent even properly responding to it, i think this is more than enough.

Like you did? Right.

I guess blatantly being an ignorant, cherry-picking points, and deliberately misleading is the proper way of making an argument. Kudos to you.

All I'm seeing here is a lot of mental gymnastics, to be honest.

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

i promise you its not. my masterpiece is infinitely better. if u have a problem with it u can pm me, ill happily slime you out on that topic. the difference between my thread and urs is that i actually use context to come to my conclusions, while u just stay in pure speculation, relying on suggestions and implications.

All ur doing is just cherry picking statements that seem similar to monism and completely ignoring the possible meanings that might suggest otherwise without any good reason.

PS: you didnt even address the actual problem of the architect being beyond the void. Which completely debunks the idea its a monistic cosmology.

Suuureeee, buddy chum pal kiddo dearie. I bet I touched your ego by mentioning your thread, isn't it? I'm all with being fair, if “a dot turning into two dots” is such a masterpiece to you, then my thread with an actual evidence beyond that is masterpiece to mine.

 

[Mythic381]

On an unrelated note, this thread is already much better than ts (I have no idea how you can come up with just... that), honestly son.

I bet I touched your ego by mentioning your thread

Ragebaiting, derailing, and bringing up irrelevant points. Those can result in warnings and punishments iirc. Wonder why this thread doesn't get much traction

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

The core idea behind Architect's event is that Shadow's entire life and journey are built on a lie. Everything is fabricated, and free will doesn’t actually exist, it's all been predetermined within Architect's design (no shit, this is literally the premise of the event).

Shadow supposedly “surpassing his creator” falls under that same framework. While it's stated that Shadow is no longer part of Architect's script and has become independent, that claim reads more like a narrative device to conclude the event rather than an actual shift in control.

This is reinforced by the following dialogue, where Architect explicitly says that Shadow will enjoy the new life he has planned for him. That directly implies continued control, contradicting the earlier claim of independence. Hell, if anything, that implies this whole event (where Shadow wins the fight) is fabricated by Architect's design to make Shadow enjoy his new life.

So, within the context of the event, the conclusion is straightforward, free will was never truly present to begin with. Just to leave this final argument against that little misleading.

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

Ragebaiting, derailing, and bringing up irrelevant points. Those can result in warnings and punishments iirc. Wonder why this thread doesn't get much traction

I’m not the only one doing that. The discussion was actually pretty healthy until that point, when false information started being introduced. Tell me, is explicitly being ignorant NOT a ragebait and derailing to you? Two people have done that, and you're more concern about what I respond to them? I did what they just did.

 

[Mythic381]

I'm not the only who's been doing that. Tell me, is explicitly being ignorant NOT a ragebait to you? Two people have done that, and you're more concern about what I respond to them? I did what they just did.

What? I'm not talking about anything related to this argument or being ignorant. I'm referring to the fact you decided for absolutely no reason to mention something to insult the person you were arguing with. It's you who first mentioned their thread despite it being unrelated to the argument, and your opposition not having mentioned it prior.

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

What? I'm not talking about anything related to this argument or being ignorant. I'm referring to the fact you decided for absolutely no reason to mention something to insult the person you were arguing with. It's you who first mentioned their thread despite it being unrelated to the argument, and your opposition not having mentioned it prior.

I'm well aware that they're irrelevant, that's exactly why I said “on an unrelated note”, and I even acknowledged it in my next reply. My point is, if this thread doesn't qualify as monistic in his view despite the evidence presented pointing towards it, then how does he consider his own thread to qualify? It just comes across as a double standard. In this case, I'm not attacking his argument, I'm attacking his point-of-view. Which is crucial and should be considered.

 

[Mythic381]

I'm well aware that they're irrelevant, that's exactly why I said “on an unrelated note”, and I even acknowledged it in my next reply. My point is, if this thread doesn't qualify as monistic in his view despite the evidence presented pointing towards it, then how does he consider his own thread to qualify? It just comes across as a double standard. In this case, I'm not attacking his argument, I'm attacking his point-of-view. Which is crucial and should be considered.

I don't really care about the argument here, or how hypocritical either argument are. My point is that randomly insulting and mentioning something that can lead to derailment and an unnecessary argument here are all punishable offences.

 

[Antvasima]

So, what do you suggest? Wait for Udlmaster's input, or you could evaluate this yourself?

I can wait for Udlmaster. I am not very good at evaluating content revision threads with very limited time available.

 

[Antvasima]

Vesxpura seems to make sense here in any case.

Ragebaiting, derailing, and bringing up irrelevant points. Those can result in warnings and punishments iirc.

Also, this is correct, yes.

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

Vesxpura seems to make sense here in any case.

On what basis? His points are essentially a misrepresentation of what the story actually implies. It's basically a mislead. It's as if narrative or flavor text can't be considered here (even though other series like Undertale and Deltarune use it just fine), despite the story clearly treating these elements seriously.

His main argument (he said it himself, this is the core debunk) hinges on Architect stating that creation is now independent from him, but I've already addressed that, even providing both context and supporting evidence in my reply.

 

[VoidWalker777]

Jepilstiltskin cooking hard

 

[Vesxpura]

You can choose to be an ignorant all you want, but the fact that you haven't even addressed the evidence already says a lot. I'm not going to engage with that kind of reasoning, especially when your standard for monistic principles is something as oversimplified as “a dot turning into two dots”.

(And yes, what I just did in the last sentence is as irrelevant as what you’re doing rn).

I dont know why u continue to bring this up when i clearly said if u had a problem with it, you can pm me. i even directly messaged you myself so u didnt have to, yet its completely empty. i wonder why.

atleast i can prove why an oversimplified analogy actually has cosmological implications, and prove why it is necessarily the case

On what basis? His points are essentially a misrepresentation of what the story actually implies.

i mean if thats what you call basic literary analysis without bias then you do you. All you ever did was say something was a certain way but u never actually proved why it must be the case.

His main argument (he said it himself, this is the core debunk) hinges on Architect stating that creation is now independent from him, but I've already addressed that, even providing both context and supporting evidence in my reply.

i mean, can we like read what i actually said? Even if we completely IGNORED everything related to that. i blatantly said this:

PS: you didnt even address the actual problem of the architect being beyond the void. Which completely debunks the idea its a monistic cosmology.

This is because a monistic cosmology requires everything be reducible to one singular principle or thing. And given what u said. we now have 2 things which are distinct from each other and therefore "everything" isnt reducible to 1 single ultimate reality. its why ur soul analogy is absolute bogus, you have multiple souls for multiple people.

also i dont think just making assertions without actually providing evidence is a proper response regardless of what you think. I mean you even highlighted some of my key problems with ur case, yet you just ignored it completely and started saying i didnt address ur "evidence" without any justification for it.

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

I dont know why u continue to bring this up when i clearly said if u had a problem with it, you can pm me. i even directly messaged you myself so u didnt have to, yet its completely empty. i wonder why.

I don't have to.

i dont think just making assertions without actually providing evidence is a proper response

Yeah bro, we were wondering.

atleast i can prove why an oversimplified analogy actually has cosmological implications, and prove why it is necessarily the case

Yeah bro, I wish you could say that if the thread wasn't got rejected. In any case, it's time to drop this topic.

i mean, can we like read what i actually said? Even if we completely IGNORED everything related to that. i blatantly said this:

I did, you didn't. Which is why I'm wondering why haven't you touch the rest of the evidence.

This is because a monistic cosmology requires everything be reducible to one singular principle or thing.

Yes.

we now have 2 things which are distinct from each other

No scan, can't verify.

and therefore "everything" isnt reducible to 1 single ultimate reality

Blatantly being ignorant. Address each evidence before you say this.

its why ur soul analogy is absolute bogus, you have multiple souls for multiple people.

The idea is that all multiplicity ultimately resolves into a singular unity. For example, the moon may appear in different forms across different realities, but it is still fundamentally the same “one” moon. It doesn't need to perfectly match Plotinus's exact concept of the Soul to be applicable. I mean, isn't that your own standard, that something doesn't have to be exact to reflect and scale to a philosophical framework?

Yeah Mr. Vesxpura, yeah science.

 

[Voidnether]

i promise you its not. my masterpiece is infinitely better. if u have a problem with it u can pm me, ill happily slime you out on that topic. the difference between my thread and urs is that i actually use context to come to my conclusions, while u just stay in pure speculation, relying on suggestions and implications.

All ur doing is just cherry picking statements that seem similar to monism and completely ignoring the possible meanings that might suggest otherwise without any good reason.

 

[Vesxpura]

snip

since its clear ur not gonna address anything i rest my case(i mean how could you, you dont even understand the argument). have fun waiting for the admins.

 

[Vesxpura]

snip

moot up if u can defend this.

 

[Antvasima]

Should we close this thread? It does not seem to be going anywhere.

 

[Voidnether]

moot up if u can defend this.

I'm neutral about this tbh

 

[Vesxpura]

I'm neutral about this tbh

no like im talking about u dissing my stuff. i dont really mind what ur opinion is on this thread specifically

 

[Thermor]

Should we close this thread? It does not seem to be going anywhere.

I think we could tag DarkDragon considering he's active atm. One staff disagree to this thread seems insufficient for closing.

 

[Vesxpura]

I think we could tag DarkDragon considering he's active atm. One staff disagree to this thread seems insufficient for closing.

yeah but i dont think hes interested in this thread, thats the whole problem with trying to get admins. there are a few mods active rn but they js dont view this as a good use of their time. i propose we wait until a mod maybe feels bad and decides to conclude the thread

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus

What do you think about this?

 

[Voidnether]

no like im talking about u dissing my stuff. i dont really mind what ur opinion is on this thread specifically

You think Sirius wouldn't be shocked after Altair somehow became an omnipotent entity after being erased to nonexistence (vanity of vanities)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm not sure, not exactly a 1-A expert (I know bits and pieces, but not exactly and expert). And this is a pretty long read for what not so much time I have.

 

[Thermor]

since its clear ur not gonna address anything i rest my case(i mean how could you, you dont even understand the argument). have fun waiting for the admins.

Can you make a summary?

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Should we close this thread then? Nothing seems to happen here except some back and forth bickering.

 

[Thermor]

Okay. Should we close this thread then? Nothing seems to happen here except some back and forth bickering.

I think both sides making a summary is preferable. Closing the thread would seem unfair for the OP attempts on proposing the rating.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems fine then.

 

[Vesxpura]

Can you make a summary?

definitely.

his argument seems to rely on the idea that sf is somehow monistic
1: the first issue with that is, almost(not all) all of the scans and arguments he provides are either suggestions about the void or very vague statements that dont automatically force whatever conclusion he has. Now i think people would agree with me when i say an unnecessary conclusion doesnt constitute proof whatsoever, lets apply that here

Heres an example:

the Void are described as perceiving “past” and “future”, as well as “truth” and “falsehood”, as a single, inseparable unity

if we scrutinize this, the first thing we see is that, theres no mention of the void here. so to begin with we dont even know if its actually talking about the void.
second of all, the scan only says it combines such diametrically opposite categories, combine here being very vague and in no way does it necessitate an identity collapse into unity. Therefore his conclusion of it being a single inseperable unity doesnt follow necessarily, that is, something other could very well be the case. Hence given what was said before, this does not constitute as proof.

unfortunately this applies to almost all of his arguments. this isnt exclusive to this one scenario, you can have a go urself, like a fun little exercise.

2: my second issue with it, is that it wouldnt qualify in the first place. as established by monism(specifically the substance variety), the monad is all encompassing, yet he himself states

Architect as an exception as he is obviously beyond it

which means theres something that exists outside of the void, contradicting it ever being truly fundamental or all encompassing and thereby contradicting it qualifying for monism

3: The third and final issue is that, everything/almost everything(to consider the idea that i may have missed something) he established can be justified without a monist system. The closest thing he had to arguing its specifically monist is the "all is nothing, nothing is all" statement, which had problems on its own(refer to the first problem), specifically that it was embedded with flowery language and non literal language in the context of that statement. ultimately, the monism part is just completely redundant.

This is likely because the OP has misunderstandings of the concept of monism itself(refer here)

This is a small summary of the major problems that need to be fixed like asap

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

1: the first issue with that is, almost(not all) all of the scans and arguments he provides are either suggestions about the void or very vague statements that dont automatically force whatever conclusion he has. Now i think people would agree with me when i say an unnecessary conclusion doesnt constitute proof whatsoever, lets apply that here

Heres an example:

the Void are described as perceiving “past” and “future”, as well as “truth” and “falsehood”, as a single, inseparable unity

if we scrutinize this, the first thing we see is that, theres no mention of the void here. so to begin with we dont even know if its actually talking about the void.
second of all, the scan only says it combines such diametrically opposite categories, combine here being very vague and in no way does it necessitate an identity collapse into unity. Therefore his conclusion of it being a single inseperable unity doesnt follow necessarily, that is, something other could very well be the case. Hence given what was said before, this does not constitute as proof.

unfortunately this applies to almost all of his arguments. this isnt exclusive to this one scenario, you can have a go urself, like a fun little exercise.

What's funny is that you didn't actually make this argument earlier, nonetheless, counter-argument is still a counter-argument, so let's address it.

There may not be an explicit statement that the text is referring to the Void, yes. However, contextually, it strongly points to the Void. The text mentions “the veil beyond”, and there’s no other structure in the story that fits that description other than the Void. More importantly, the only structure consistently associated with perceiving everything as one is the Void (or something directly related to it). At this point, that’s practically common knowledge within Shadow Fight.

As for why I argue for it to be an inseparable unity, this was already established earlier (assuming you actually read the OP), where I explained about logic operation of the world that doesn't follow dualistic view and that the Void perceives these distinctions as literally one.

So, the connection between the scans is clear:

1. The Void perceives categories like past and future as non-existent, experiencing everything simultaneously.
2. There is prior evidence supporting this interpretation.
3. The statement itself contextually refers to the Void.

Taken together, the conclusion follows consistently from the evidence presented. It only takes basic deduction skills, really.

my second issue with it, is that it wouldnt qualify in the first place. as established by monism(specifically the substance variety), the monad is all encompassing, yet he himself states

Architect as an exception as he is obviously beyond it

which means theres something that exists outside of the void, contradicting it ever being truly fundamental or all encompassing and thereby contradicting it qualifying for monism

Which I already refuted, something you don't even take a glance on.

That's... just a play (he literally named his next fight as “Drama”, I don't think he's serious about anything at all). In the next dialogue, he literally says, “I have great plans for you” exactly after he changes Shadow's nature from a mute-protagonist to actually talking, which shows he still intends to shape Shadow's life regardless of what happens. This isn't even a blind assumption, since there are two recent events that clearly show him interfering with Shadow's life.

His “losses” are essentially just narrative events designed to satisfy the player, Shadow isn't actually in control in any situations if Architect were involved.

The core idea behind Architect's event is that Shadow's entire life and journey are built on a lie. Everything is fabricated, and free will doesn’t actually exist, it's all been predetermined within Architect's design (no shit, this is literally the premise of the event).

Shadow supposedly “surpassing his creator” falls under that same framework. While it's stated that Shadow is no longer part of Architect's script and has become independent, that claim reads more like a narrative device to conclude the event rather than an actual shift in control.

This is reinforced by the following dialogue, where Architect explicitly says that Shadow will enjoy the new life he has planned for him. That directly implies continued control, contradicting the earlier claim of independence. Hell, if anything, that implies this whole event (where Shadow wins the fight) is fabricated by Architect's design to make Shadow enjoy his new life.

So, within the context of the event, the conclusion is straightforward, free will was never truly present to begin with. Just to leave this final argument against that little misleading.

3: The third and final issue is that, everything/almost everything(to consider the idea that i may have missed something) he established can be justified without a monist system. The closest thing he had to arguing its specifically monist is the "all is nothing, nothing is all" statement, which had problems on its own(refer to the first problem), specifically that it was embedded with flowery language and non literal language in the context of that statement. ultimately, the monism part is just completely redundant.

This is likely because the OP has misunderstandings of the concept of monism itself(refer here)

It's not just “flowery language” when the event itself is thematically centered on uncovering the truth behind the Eternals and understanding the nature of the universe (as well as protecting it). You can check the event footage yourself, I've already included the title in the OP. Flavor text can still function as supporting evidence, since it provides additional CONTEXT for why the verse aligns with monistic principles. To put it more bluntly, it is just a supporting (or backup) evidence.. In any case, I never claimed it was the main piece of evidence, the rest already establishes that.

And no, I didn't misunderstand monism. My point was that multiple forms of monism could potentially apply to Shadow Fight, and that is confusing because I had to choose which one. Not that I'm confused with the concept itself.

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

Should we close this thread? It does not seem to be going anywhere.

That's unfair.

 

[Vesxpura]

snip

summarize the relevant points like how i did since u love to just say stuff for the sake of it

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

summarize the relevant points like how i did since u love to just say stuff for the sake of it

That's my summarization. I didn't write any new argument here, if anything, you did.

 

[Vesxpura]

That's my summarization. I didn't write any new argument here, if anything, you did.

"relevant points"

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

Sigh, you made a new argument, everything that I just said earlier is indeed a relevant point. But whatever.

1. The first issue I have with @Vesxpura's argument is that he selectively ignores a significant portion of the evidence already presented. While he does attempt to address some points, he dismisses the rest without proper engagement. This obviously weakens his overall position, as it becomes unclear what specific argument he is consistently responding to. As a result, it is difficult to directly address his stance when large parts of the evidence are simply disregarded rather than refuted, and that it's hard to explain to someone who's only looking on the smaller picture. Not to mention the inconsistency across his arguments. At one point he presents two objections, but after those are addressed, he expands them into three or four different points (as he just did with his “summarization”). This shifting structure gives the impression of a “moving the goalposts” approach, where instead of defending a stable position, new objections are introduced once previous ones are refuted. That makes it difficult to engage meaningfully, since the target of the discussion keeps changing rather than being consistently defended.

2. To summarize (an oversimplification) my position more clearly, the reason the verse aligns with monistic principles is because the evidence consistently reflects attributes associated with monism. For instance, the Void does not operate under a dualistic framework, distinctions such as opposites are treated as unified rather than separate. While this may not always be explicitly stated, it is strongly implied through the descriptions and behavior attributed to the Void. But the counter-argument for this is that it cannot be treated as a guaranteed truth because it is “only” implied or suggested. However, that’s a strange position to take, considering that @Vesxpura's own argument seems to rely on the same kind of implication. It overlooks a core aspect of battleboarding, which is forming hypotheses based on the available evidence. That's exactly what I've done, and most of the evidence consistently points in that direction.

By Occam's razor, we should favor the simplest explanation that best fits the evidence. Since the majority of the material points toward a monistic framework, the most reasonable conclusion is to accept that interpretation, rather than speculate about some “alternative possibilities”, especially in the absence of any real counter-evidence or anti-feats. Therefore, it means that the distinctions as said in the OP are not truly independent, they are expressions of a single underlying reality as the OP already established.

3. @Vesxpura's reasoning is flawed because it relies on selective interpretation and unsupported assumptions. For example, he argues that creation can be independent based on Architect's dialogue, yet this interpretation is directly contradicted by subsequent dialogue that reaffirms Architect's control. Similarly, dismissing “All is nothing, nothing is all” as merely metaphorical ignores the broader narrative context in which that statement appears. Overall, his counter-arguments depend on another assumptions (which is ironic considering he disagreed with the thread largely because he sees it as being an assumption) that are neither substantiated nor consistent with the full scope of the evidence.

4. Finally, @Vesxpura's does not engage with the refutations already provided against his arguments. He repeatedly claims that his points were not addressed, despite detailed responses that included context and supporting evidence. Ignoring both the original arguments and their subsequent refutations prevents meaningful discussion and undermines the validity of his critique. Such as the response I made towards him and doesn't even get a reply is:

That's... just a play (he literally named his next fight as “Drama”, I don't think he's serious about anything at all). In the next dialogue, he literally says, “I have great plans for you” exactly after he changes Shadow's nature from a mute-protagonist to actually talking, which shows he still intends to shape Shadow's life regardless of what happens. This isn't even a blind assumption, since there are two recent events that clearly show him interfering with Shadow's life.

His “losses” are essentially just narrative events designed to satisfy the player, Shadow isn't actually in control in any situations if Architect were involved.

The core idea behind Architect's event is that Shadow's entire life and journey are built on a lie. Everything is fabricated, and free will doesn’t actually exist, it's all been predetermined within Architect's design (no shit, this is literally the premise of the event).

Shadow supposedly “surpassing his creator” falls under that same framework. While it's stated that Shadow is no longer part of Architect's script and has become independent, that claim reads more like a narrative device to conclude the event rather than an actual shift in control.

This is reinforced by the following dialogue, where Architect explicitly says that Shadow will enjoy the new life he has planned for him. That directly implies continued control, contradicting the earlier claim of independence. Hell, if anything, that implies this whole event (where Shadow wins the fight) is fabricated by Architect's design to make Shadow enjoy his new life.

So, within the context of the event, the conclusion is straightforward, free will was never truly present to begin with. Just to leave this final argument against that little misleading.

5. That is all, I guess.