Endless possibilities doesn’t have to mean infinite timelines in this case especially it was given the specific mention of “many realities”.
What kind of english is that?
I am equally baffled as Gilver here regarding how one specific mention of "many realities" makes "endless" not... "endless".
Elaborate on what you mean by "based on context".
We also give literally “many timelines” and “many realities”. You seriously can not make this up. The same guidebooks and website I provided give both words.
Please tell me how any of this contradicts endless?
Do tell me how it clarifies that there aren't "endless timelines" but that it looks that way because there are "many timelines". That's not how any of this works.
You and I both know this is the argument of semantics isn’t the only thing, but the context of the evidence as well.
Only thing that isn't up for debate is that the word "endless" has the core meaning of "having or seeming to have no end or limit" as the very first and foremost meaning. We've played this dance more times than I can count.
Also, in case you haven't noticed, those dictionary meanings you speak of? The first core meaning that comes up is literally "having no end, limit, boundaries" and other similar meanings, I'm the one who posted those links in that "endless" debate thread to begin with. You literally cannot form "infinite" without "endless" or "limitless", and to say that the latter two don't mean the former would literally be ignoring the English language.
I have noticed and you keep bring it up like a broken record.
Ever thought about the idea that the rest of those meanings are objectively wrong? Just like Endless' meaning of "Countless" being objectively wrong?
We have no proof if the meaning of the words is objectively wrong though. Not to mention let’s not forget that language from ppl like us did give meanings to the words we used on our lives. Daily or not.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Yeah, I know. It is derailment either way.
Well that saves me from more headaches and the reply that I was about to type out.
You were gonna disagree with me either way since it is not solid facts to begin with.
What the question was about doesn't matter when the answer itself is just a non-sequitur that doesn't even provide the information originally requested, and whether it was from someone on this wiki or not also doesn't really matter when a quick look at the asker's activity makes it transparently obvious what the actual purpose of the question was.
You'd have to prove that Freya was including alternate timelines in her statement when she said "all of creation" was supported by Yggdrasil, with some demonstration that she's aware of the existence of these alternate realities, for instance, because otherwise the statement on its own is very vague and could feasibly refer to the things that sprung forth from Ymir at the beginning of time (Plus Midgard, which is also a created thing courtesy of Odin)
I've already said that, if there was any suggestion Mimir was wrong about Midgard being the centerpoint of Yggdrasil, I'd be fine with discarding that as counterevidence, but so far, nothing of that sort exists that I haven't already addressed.
Might as well axe all the Word-of-God statements from the cosmology blogs then even tho those are considerably more detailed and often at times span multiple replies and/or paragraphs then, because those are also "problably fine-tuned to answer VSDebating-related topics" even though the intent was never there and they are mostly used for clarification on already-existing source material solely to prevent dumb AF circular arguments from other people.
I mean, she already did with the whole "transcending" statement which might sound vague at a glance, until you notice that right after this she states that everything else returns back to the tree.
There's the cloth map on the collector's Edition of Ragnarok which debunks the mid-point notion, but then again, Freya states the whole physical form of the tree to be merely an artistic interpretation for most other people for ease of use, so...
Sure thing, yeah. If statements of that ilk are being used as evidence, then I'm fine with doing away with them.
That's largely just inference on your part. As far as I can tell, Bruno was just asked if the Well of Fate contains infinite timelines, and responded by saying "It's possible" and then listing out examples of alternate timelines existing elsewhere in GoW. That's the entire statement, and as said before, you can't use it as justification for your claims if it doesn't even properly answer the original question.
I don't really see how this would prove alternate timelines would also be a part of that cycle.
Can I see said map?
I'm sorry, what?
I... really don't see why not. It's just proof for the timelines existing, that's all.
Simple enough. Yggdrasil maintains all of existence and everything else returns back to it in the end. Unless you want to say an infinite number of Yggdrasils exist to compensate for those alternate timelines.
Sure, here it is.
Another thing about this, you say that we don't need Word of God clarifications if the feats are this blatant, as you yourself have said after reading the blogs, but that's literally the opposite of what people do on this site. They literally hammer the verse because we're forced to do so to use WoG to make them shut up despite having such textbook blatant statements from the games, guide books, artbooks, novels, official interviews, the bonus videos on the games unlocked as treasures, otherwise we'd get dumbass arguments like mountain-sized stars and shit and questions about whether Uranus truly created the universe or whether or not Cronos has grounds to scale to him to begin with despite the fight between Cronos and Uranus literally going on in more or less the same exact way as the myth. Not our fault that there will always be dumbasses like that out there that won't accept even the most primary of sources.
You got ninja'd my dude.
Yeah, fair enough, then.
That doesn't seem to be what the justifications on Yggdrasil's profile are based around. To quote the thing:
You'd still have to prove that "all of creation" is inclusive of the alternate timelines, too, like I said above. So far, you haven't really done much to show this; your two arguments were:
If there is literally no indication that Yggdrasil encompasses these timelines, then, yeah. You speak of that as if it was something inherently absurd, but if there's no evidence backing up the opposite claim, I don't see where else you'd go.
The scenario where Urd would not be needed for the timelines to exist would be a scenario where Urd itself is a gateway to said realms, based on the Owl thingy being present in that tabletop in the Realm Travel Room, but so far nothing proves that this is the same mechanism that the Nornir peer into, nor is the Well of Destiny stated to be a gateway.
Not long after those tweets Bruno states that Yggdrasil was always the strong bond of the 9 Realms.
I don't know what you mean here. My point is that, just because those timelines exist, doesn't mean Yggdrasil would encompass them. There is evidence that it sustains the Nine Realms, yes, but not the alternate timelines.
How does that support the 2-A rating?
It was more a response to HammerStrikes claim thinking that the Well in the Travel room is the same one used by the Norns, which it isn't.
But I literally just showed why it doesn't just stop there based on Freya's reasonings. The tree encompasses all of Norse creation and everything that exists within it as stated blatantly and narratively, that everything returns back to it including the entire cycles (Which remain higher than the realms based on the fact that the cycles are unaffected with what happens to the realms themselves, including space and time themselves), without it, they would all cease to exist. Unless you mean to tell me the other timelines exist outside of the Pantheon or that an infinite number of Yggdrasils exist to sustain them.
By proving that it contains those cycles and ringing true with what Freya said. Without that tree, everything collapses.
