• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
This will be my final, and only helpful contribution to this thread.

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.
 
Deceived3596 said:
This will be my final, and only helpful contribution to this thread.

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.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. Was neutral until I read this. I disagree with the thread.
 
Blackcurrant91 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Georredannea15 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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
Click to expand...
I saw one of those translations you provided claiming it to be endless, was that correct?
 
Blackcurrant91 said:
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.
Click to expand...
-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.
 
Blackcurrant91 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not forgetting this, thanks for help
 
Chasekilleen said:
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
Click to expand...
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
 
It's fine, endless straight means infinite. Both can be argued to be flowery in one way or another, equally. I also remember "mugen" in japanese means same for endless or infinite.
 
BestMGQScalerEver said:
Expands endlessly means it's always expanding not that it was always endless.
Click to expand...
~ 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.
japaneseparticlesmaster.xyz

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 japaneseparticlesmaster.xyz
 
9c4.png
 
Anyway, if it was a translation error then nothing can be done about that, leaving it to it's fate from here on.
 
PrinceofPein said:
I think you should try and translate your words in the OG language, I am not understanding this

I do not even know how this is relevant to my argument, but let us leave that for now
Click to expand...
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
 
Fixxed said:
This is funny because the scan literally say "all future are CONSTRUCTED by order"

And the other scan literally say "this is possibility, the SHAPE of another world"
Click to expand...
Fixxed said:
Seperate time huh?? Well bruh
I already explain this in discussion thread long time ago

Veneziara you can see in arnos' profile its a ability that use possibility

And a possibility not get effect by levine guilma a sword that can cut all point of time (past,present,future)
　リヴァインギルマは鞘に収めたまま、その可能性の刃が＜天牙刃断＞と目の前の敵を切り裂いたのだ。
　過去、未来、現在に渡って斬り裂くこの剣を前にしては、痕跡神と言えども、滅びは免れられぬ。
While Levine Girma was still in its scabbard, the blade of that potential cut through the enemy in front of him with <Tenfang Blade Cut>.
In the face of this sword that cuts through the past, future, and present, even trace gods cannot escape their destruction.
-CHP 276
Click to expand...
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)
Fixxed said:
Order already constructed all the future and kandaquisorte encompasses all of it as physically that why you can destroy them, and the scan literally say you must destroy all possibilities for destroy the crystal. The materialized thing is mean materialized in real world, not in the kandaquisorte because from beginning all the future already constructed in that

And bruh..... the scan literally say "this is POSSIBILITY"
Click to expand...
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)
 
Deceived3596 said:
now whether or not these are separate timelines
Click to expand...
yeah a possibility is seperate timeline
Fixxed said:
Seperate time huh?? Well bruh
I already explain this in discussion thread long time ago

Veneziara you can see in arnos' profile its a ability that use possibility

And a possibility not get effect by levine guilma a sword that can cut all point of time (past,present,future)
　リヴァインギルマは鞘に収めたまま、その可能性の刃が＜天牙刃断＞と目の前の敵を切り裂いたのだ。
　過去、未来、現在に渡って斬り裂くこの剣を前にしては、痕跡神と言えども、滅びは免れられぬ。
While Levine Girma was still in its scabbard, the blade of that potential cut through the enemy in front of him with <Tenfang Blade Cut>.
In the face of this sword that cuts through the past, future, and present, even trace gods cannot escape their destruction.
-CHP 276
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
  • Locked
Additions for Anos Voldigoad
Replies
7
Views
2K
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
fandom_29dan
  • Locked
Maou Gakuin; In An Overarching View of the Light Novel's Scaling
Replies
5
Views
2K
EldemadeDityjon
EldemadeDityjon
Tatsumi504
  • Locked
Maou Gakuin: Anos and Cosmology Additions
2 3
Replies
85
Views
10K
Tatsumi504
Tatsumi504
Guileal
Anos Voldigoad Immortality Type 6 removal
Replies
29
Views
3K
Tatsumi504
Tatsumi504
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
Anos Magic Eyes and Venuzdonoa Revision
Replies
16
Views
3K
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
Back
Top