- 16
- 12
As a preliminary note, full credit for the revision of this short thread goes to VictorDT.
World in Pandora Hearts.
First, as we already understand, the cosmological foundation of Pandora Hearts is a cumulative system of branching worlds, implicitly reiterated multiple times. However, the “world” in question aligns more closely with the Many-Worlds Interpretation, where each branch results in a distinct ending.
Size Problem.
Where does the issue arise? The scale of a “world” cannot be arbitrarily generalized—such as equating it to an entire universe—because the term “world” within the narrative is inherently ambiguous and vague. Consequently, labeling it as a “collection of branching universes” would constitute a fallacy, specifically a Hasty Generalization.
Regarding the claim of exponential, infinitely scaled cosmic expansion involving dimensional exponentiation, this is fundamentally misleading. When the MWI framework is properly aligned with such expansion, the resulting interpretation is that the so-called expansion signifies infinite branching across alternative worlds in continuous progression. What follows from this?
That an Infinite World can at best be described within the range of High-3A to Low-2C. As for the Abyss and Oz, both are portrayed as equivalent, making the final conclusion: 2-C.
World in Pandora Hearts.
First, as we already understand, the cosmological foundation of Pandora Hearts is a cumulative system of branching worlds, implicitly reiterated multiple times. However, the “world” in question aligns more closely with the Many-Worlds Interpretation, where each branch results in a distinct ending.
Size Problem.
Where does the issue arise? The scale of a “world” cannot be arbitrarily generalized—such as equating it to an entire universe—because the term “world” within the narrative is inherently ambiguous and vague. Consequently, labeling it as a “collection of branching universes” would constitute a fallacy, specifically a Hasty Generalization.
Regarding the claim of exponential, infinitely scaled cosmic expansion involving dimensional exponentiation, this is fundamentally misleading. When the MWI framework is properly aligned with such expansion, the resulting interpretation is that the so-called expansion signifies infinite branching across alternative worlds in continuous progression. What follows from this?
That an Infinite World can at best be described within the range of High-3A to Low-2C. As for the Abyss and Oz, both are portrayed as equivalent, making the final conclusion: 2-C.
Last edited:
