Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,397
- 3,038
What the hell bro?
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Maou Gakuin No Futekigousha Downgrade
- Thread starter PrinceofPein
- Start date
- Status
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,397
- 3,038
It does work that way.
- 10,937
- 19,076
This will be my final, and only helpful contribution to this thread.
It’s been argued by Pain that since these futures are only considered “possibilities” and need to be actively “materialized” into the “limited world” it necessarily means these “possibilities” don’t physically exist, in the sense of actualization.
My contentions with this argument are around two issues, one being semantical in nature while one being evidential in nature, i'll address the semantical issue in this section of my post.
My semantical issues with Pain’s argument would be her acting like both of the words “materialized” and “possibilities” are singular in definition, regardless of context. “Materialized” doesn't inherently imply that the object, event or structure in question didn’t exist previously, on any material level, while “possibilities” doesn’t inherently imply object unreality.
I'd use an analogy to explain the “materialized” aspect of that sentence: Say that an apple (which in our case would be the infinite possible futures) exists within a separate pocket dimension (which in our case would be Kandaquizorte). While examining everything on a cosmological scale, the apple is actualized, it's a fact of reality. But when examined on a more specific scale, such as the universe of a world separate from that pocket dimension (which in our case would be the “limited world” brought up by Nafta), that apple doesn’t exist, it hasn’t become an objective fact within the confines of that world. So when it’s brought into that specific world, it is “materialized” into it because it’s becoming an actual fact of reality in said world.
This would be analogous to our situation since it’s entirely possible (and i believe, provably so) that these possible futures do actually exist in the grand scheme of things, but when examined on a more specific level, they’re only “possibilities” since they don’t actively exist within that world, so the action of them materializing wouldn’t be an innate counter towards them actually existing or not.
Now with my contentions with the “possibilities” argument would simply be “possibilities”, definitionally, don’t prescribe nor describe any level of ontological existence, “possibilities” are just events which may happen, a meteorite striking Earth could possibility happen, that doesn’t mean both the meteorite or Earth are abstract, non-physical concepts which exist purely in the mind, these are objects that are actualized, they do physically exist. So just because these infinite futures are described as “possibilities” doesn’t mean they aren’t real, or don’t exist on any meaningful level.
My evidential issues with Pain’s argument would be the existence of Kandaquizorte, Nafta’s authority. It’s explained to us that Kandaquizorte “is future itself”, that it’s “many futures of this world”, and the exact amount of those futures are described to be “infinite”. If Nafta’s authority exists on a actualized level, it’s necessarily so that those futures which it’s defined to be, would also exist on that exact same actualized level. So unless you have direct confirmation that Nafta’s authority doesn’t actually exist, and instead exist within the mind, or any other non-physical, ontological state, it’s necessarily so those futures do exist. That’s the logical consequence of these set premises.
I’d further support my interpretation through the fact Kandaquizorte’s stated to have equal shape to the physical world, shapes are by definition, the graphical representation of an object, or its external properties, if an object doesn’t have physical existence, it’s unlikely to have physical expression of visual properties either, such as shapes. If an object does exist, then it’s likely to have physical expression of visual properties, such as shapes.
Concluding Statements:
So after reviewing all the provided evidence, under my ultimately unbiased perspective, it's seemingly true that these futures do actually exist and aren't just abstract possibilities, it's seemingly so it requires less assumptions to claim true when compared to the opposition, so i'm in general agreement that these are actual, existing futures, so 2-A, at least spatially, is fine, now whether or not these are separate timelines, idk for sure, so i'll let other, more knowledgeable people argue on that.
Now this post has been made, i'mma head off and do my boxing training, chao everyone.
Materialization and Possibilities:
It’s been argued by Pain that since these futures are only considered “possibilities” and need to be actively “materialized” into the “limited world” it necessarily means these “possibilities” don’t physically exist, in the sense of actualization.
My contentions with this argument are around two issues, one being semantical in nature while one being evidential in nature, i'll address the semantical issue in this section of my post.
My semantical issues with Pain’s argument would be her acting like both of the words “materialized” and “possibilities” are singular in definition, regardless of context. “Materialized” doesn't inherently imply that the object, event or structure in question didn’t exist previously, on any material level, while “possibilities” doesn’t inherently imply object unreality.
I'd use an analogy to explain the “materialized” aspect of that sentence: Say that an apple (which in our case would be the infinite possible futures) exists within a separate pocket dimension (which in our case would be Kandaquizorte). While examining everything on a cosmological scale, the apple is actualized, it's a fact of reality. But when examined on a more specific scale, such as the universe of a world separate from that pocket dimension (which in our case would be the “limited world” brought up by Nafta), that apple doesn’t exist, it hasn’t become an objective fact within the confines of that world. So when it’s brought into that specific world, it is “materialized” into it because it’s becoming an actual fact of reality in said world.
This would be analogous to our situation since it’s entirely possible (and i believe, provably so) that these possible futures do actually exist in the grand scheme of things, but when examined on a more specific level, they’re only “possibilities” since they don’t actively exist within that world, so the action of them materializing wouldn’t be an innate counter towards them actually existing or not.
Now with my contentions with the “possibilities” argument would simply be “possibilities”, definitionally, don’t prescribe nor describe any level of ontological existence, “possibilities” are just events which may happen, a meteorite striking Earth could possibility happen, that doesn’t mean both the meteorite or Earth are abstract, non-physical concepts which exist purely in the mind, these are objects that are actualized, they do physically exist. So just because these infinite futures are described as “possibilities” doesn’t mean they aren’t real, or don’t exist on any meaningful level.
Evidence for Actualization:
My evidential issues with Pain’s argument would be the existence of Kandaquizorte, Nafta’s authority. It’s explained to us that Kandaquizorte “is future itself”, that it’s “many futures of this world”, and the exact amount of those futures are described to be “infinite”. If Nafta’s authority exists on a actualized level, it’s necessarily so that those futures which it’s defined to be, would also exist on that exact same actualized level. So unless you have direct confirmation that Nafta’s authority doesn’t actually exist, and instead exist within the mind, or any other non-physical, ontological state, it’s necessarily so those futures do exist. That’s the logical consequence of these set premises.
I’d further support my interpretation through the fact Kandaquizorte’s stated to have equal shape to the physical world, shapes are by definition, the graphical representation of an object, or its external properties, if an object doesn’t have physical existence, it’s unlikely to have physical expression of visual properties either, such as shapes. If an object does exist, then it’s likely to have physical expression of visual properties, such as shapes.
Concluding Statements:
So after reviewing all the provided evidence, under my ultimately unbiased perspective, it's seemingly true that these futures do actually exist and aren't just abstract possibilities, it's seemingly so it requires less assumptions to claim true when compared to the opposition, so i'm in general agreement that these are actual, existing futures, so 2-A, at least spatially, is fine, now whether or not these are separate timelines, idk for sure, so i'll let other, more knowledgeable people argue on that.
Now this post has been made, i'mma head off and do my boxing training, chao everyone.
- 4,523
- 2,242
He doesn't need to do that
- 61
- 62
I agree with that. Was neutral until I read this. I disagree with the thread.
- 3,605
- 878
Tier 1 should be discussed elsewhere but it should be noted that Dread is correct. Low 2-C is infinite 4-D and 2-A is also infinite 4-D. Anything 'Larger' then this requires an additional dimensional axis to exist within.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,726
- 3,122
Hell no. The situation here is whether possibilities and futures are real. I don't see the "probably" situation here. The situation here is "either real or not".
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,726
- 3,122
My friend, the situation here is different. Then let's consider 2-A, which is one of the larger infinities than low2-C, as 5D? This is so ridiculous and illogical.
- 3,605
- 878
2-A is 'Unquantifiably' larger then Low 2-C currently which in of itself already doesnt make sense because maths, but again this is derailing the thread. Tier 1 downgrades should be discussed in a different thread.
I encourage you to read the tier 2 standard revision thread currently being discussed.
Chasekilleen
He/Him- 432
- 360
It says that the possibility expands endlessly.
そこには無限の可能性が広がり
It doesn't say that it is infinite like you are claiming, those are two completely different connotations
- 9,982
- 10,821
I saw one of those translations you provided claiming it to be endless, was that correct?
- 18,393
- 14,323
Endless and infinite are the same in vsbw
- 9,982
- 10,821
Ik, that's why I asked her to check if that one is alright.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,726
- 3,122
-Yes, that's exactly what I mean. So I disagree that a larger infinite structure that covers Low 2-C should be Low 1-C .
-Anyway. We must no longer derail.
- 4,523
- 2,242
If they're treated as the same from what I remember. I don't think it's just automatically assumed
- 18,393
- 14,323
You mean countless and infinite/endless are not automatically assumed to be the same, yes.
- 3,227
- 3,556
Endless and infinite are the same thing on this wiki, yeah.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Anyway I will be off, I hope i finish the sandbox where I summarize my thoughts and input latest Sunday.
- 18,393
- 14,323
EldemadeDityjon
He/Him- 16,893
- 12,563
The kanji has both infinite and endless meaning. If you split the words it would give different meanings everytime. You should read the complete paragraph instead of cut and translating one word at a time
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,397
- 3,038
They are vague, hence why I use possibly.
- 9,982
- 10,821
You shouldn't be teaching chase japanese elde. Anyway, let's move on.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,449
I think you people are missing the point... What's being said is that possibility expands infinitely, not that it already is infinite.
- 5,308
- 6,046
Expands endlessly means it's always expanding not that it was always endless.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,726
- 3,122
So the situation here either exists or it doesn't. There is no possibility.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,726
- 3,122
Yeah. Our universe is constantly expanding to infinity, but that doesn't mean it's infinite.
- 9,982
- 10,821
~ checked the translations saw endless is not there, no point in arguing then but for the point,
「未来はなに一つ決まってはいません。 ナフタの愛ととも
にそこには無限 (mugen) の可能性が広がり、人々は希望を胸に、 よ
りよい未来をつかみとる。 竜騎士団よ、 恐れることはあり
ません」, the bolded kanji is indeed stands for infinite, so I'll ask for clearance if it's indeed stands for infinitely expanding and not infinite.
Mugen is a Japanese word for 'infinity', explained
Native speakers say "mugen" to mean 'infinity' in Japanese. In this blog post, this word is explained in detail based on its kanji.
japaneseparticlesmaster.xyz
- 4,523
- 2,242
Endlessly increasing is not the same thing as endless. Those are not the same thing. If the translation actually says growing endlessly, that destroys the 2A arguments
- 5,308
- 6,046
If it was something like "Infinitely/endlessly expansive" then that could've been argued but if it is endlessly expanding then yea it defeats 2-A.
- 9,982
- 10,821
Yeah, I was under the impression that previous translated text were endless.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,449
So this is how 2-A goes? Not with 5 more pages of senseless debate, but with a translation error? Where's the drama in that?
- 3,691
- 2,060
You say seperate time, i give you that every possibility is seperate timeline, they have seperate entire point of time from other possibility and the real world
- 15,998
- 6,001
Agree.
- 3,691
- 2,060
Bruh we have
- constructed future
- possibility is shape of another world
- possibility is different timeline (different in entire point of time or past present future)
And then the materialzed blablbla thing is mean the constructed future that already exist physically in kandaquisorte materialized in real world or mortal world if you dont understand what i mean about real world in here (yeah not mean kandaquisorte is not real)
- 3,691
- 2,060
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
