The Goddess of the Manifold is not a real character, and should be deleted at once

[Malomtek]

The only thing in the entire Manifold novel series that alludes to its existence is the quote at the top of its page, which is just a character philosophizing.

We literally have an entire set of powers, abilities, and stats for an out-and-out fanfiction character.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Partially but not completely true. She is only talked about 3 times and never appears, but she's discovered through meditation. Technically all we know about her is in verse speculation, but she's fully confirmed to actually exist.

We don't technically know if everything they said about her is true, but claiming she is "fanfiction" is completely false.

 

[Malomtek]

"She" is an entity who is completely hypothetical in-universe who is never described as appearing or doing anything significant in the books.

Bring up the quotes of her being "discovered through meditation" I want to see them.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Going by your logic we could delete any sort of vague supreme being established in verse through dialogue who never directly appears. Like Emperor-Beyond-The-Sea

 

[Malomtek]

Going by your logic we could delete any sort of vague supreme being established in verse through dialogue who never directly appears. Like Emperor-Beyond-The-Sea

False comparison. The so-called "Goddess of the Manifold" isn't even established in-universe, but only hypothesized to exist at most.

Again, where are the quotes of her being "discovered through meditation"?

 

[Antvasima]

Matthew deleted the page.

 

[DarkGrath]

That seems to have been rather sudden. Why was it deleted when this discussion has only just started?

I'm neutral due to just not having much info here, but ZacharyGrossman should have been given the chance to actually back up their argument before the page was deleted.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Well if there's someone Matt trusts, it's Aeyu, and Aeyu said this

"there are plenty of characters with vague attributions which in verse have nebulous context even from a TES perspective you can argue Vivec's sermons can be seen as dicey even though they're most likely not If the Goddess is a thing, then she would be that She is the answer to the question of ok but if the old ones ascended to the level of being able to control the overarching formalism of the multiverse then there would be some meta-recursive system that leads back to some source"

 

[Malomtek]

Well if there's someone Matt trusts, it's Aeyu, and Aeyu said this

"there are plenty of characters with vague attributions which in verse have nebulous context even from a TES perspective you can argue Vivec's sermons can be seen as dicey even though they're most likely not If the Goddess is a thing, then she would be that She is the answer to the question of ok but if the old ones ascended to the level of being able to control the overarching formalism of the multiverse then there would be some meta-recursive system that leads back to some source"

That's little more than Aeyu theorycrafting, and even if we took that as literally true, it still wouldn't prove that the Goddess was real. The "meta-recursive system that leads back to some source" could be in the form of a manlike being, a dog, a giant computer, or it could be in the "form" of an abstract underlying background informational/mathematical field to the multiverse.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Zach, this is the part where you post the quote for her being discovered through meditation.

 

[Threemagi]

I have no problem with this. Just sayin'.

We likely would never get elaboration from Baxter himself since I can hardly find any quotes regarding The God on the newest book of World Engines.

We can wait till September when World Engines Creator releases. But I won't hold my breath.

 

[Super_Saiyan_God_Julian]

It probably would have been best until we waited for the discussion to end, and a consensus reached before we deleted the page.

 

[Threemagi]

Well, I can't really refute Malomtek's points since The God isn't really a confirmed existence.

While the Old Ones validated their existence through their World Engines. And their multiverse being Level 4 is confirmed by themselves... in a way.


Anyway, it depends if people want to accept a 'non-confirmed existence' or not.

 

[Antvasima]

I can restore the page later if you think that it is best.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

She's only talked about and Doesent appear directly, but the same can be said about tons of vague supreme beings and gods on the wiki who don't actually appear.

 

[DarkGrath]

I just personally think further adjustments in any form should be left until a conclusion is reached.

It would have been preferable if the page wasn't deleted before a conclusion was reached, but to avoid piling on unnecessary work, we should probably wait and restore the page only if it's concluded that it can stay. So, it's best it's left for now.

I believe Zach mentioned that they're getting the scans for their argument off-site.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Malomtek]

She's only talked about and Doesent appear directly, but the same can be said about tons of vague supreme beings and gods on the wiki who don't actually appear.

Firstly, we know all those "vague supreme beings and gods" exist because they have more than in-universe deep thunks from a character to support their existence. Entities like Emperor-Over-The-Sea, DC's God, and TOAA can be reasonable assumed to exist because they have been more-or-less directly stated or implied to have done important things by knowledgeable characters.

Secondly, "Zach, this is the part where you post the quote for her being discovered through meditation." - The God Of Procrastination

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

I mean, "god" is mentioned multiple times in phase space

'We are outside the Primum Mobile: beyond duration, beyond the structure of space. Dante understood this place. "There near and far neither add nor subtract …" You know, we underestimate Dante. The physicists are the worst. They see us all running around as Virtuals in the memory of some giant computer of the future. Not to mention the science fiction writers. Garbage. Dante understood that a soul is not a Virtual, and in the Paradiso, he was trying to express the transhuman experience of true eternity' ― 'What did he see?' Himmelfarb smiled. 'Watch.' … Philmus saw light, like the image of God at the centre of the angels' spheres. It was a point, and yet it filled space and time. And then it unfolded, like a flower blooming, with particles and lines (world lines? quantum functions?) billowing out and rushing past her face, in an insubstantial breeze. Some of the lines tangled, and consciousness sparked ― trapped in time, briefly shouting its joy at its moment of awareness ― before dissipating once more. But still the unfolding continued, in a fourth, fifth, sixth direction, in ways she could somehow, if briefly, conceive.'

And

Dante was very precise about how he interpreted what he saw,' said Himmelfarb. 'This is Aristotelian physics. "Substances" and "accidents" describe phenomena and their relationships. I believe that Dante was trying to describe a glimpse of the unification of nature.' 'Yes,' Philmus whispered. 'And then he saw a paradox that he expresses by an image. Three circles, superimposed, of the same size ― and yet of different colours.' 'Separated by a higher dimension,' Philmus guessed. 'Yes. In the high-dimensional artefact Dante saw a metaphor for the Trinity. God's three personalities in one being.' 'Ah,' said the Monsignor, cautiously uncurling. 'But you saw ―' 'Rather more. I knew enough physics ―' 'This is the basis of the new unified theory,' Philmus said. 'An unification of phenomena through the structure of a higher-dimensional space.'

 

[Malomtek]

That's just a bunch of figures of speech used to give pizzazz to a description of higher dimensions. No clear evidence of a "Goddess of the Manifold" character in that anywhere.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Dante was very precise about how he interpreted what he saw,' said Himmelfarb. 'This is Aristotelian physics. "Substances" and "accidents" describe phenomena and their relationships. I believe that Dante was trying to describe a glimpse of the unification of nature.' 'Yes,' Philmus whispered. 'And then he saw a paradox that he expresses by an image. Three circles, superimposed, of the same size ― and yet of different colours.' 'Separated by a higher dimension,' Philmus guessed. 'Yes. In the high-dimensional artefact Dante saw a metaphor for the Trinity. God's three personalities in one being.'

This preeeeeetty clearly refers to "god" in a literal sense.

 

[Malomtek]

"I believe that Dante was trying to describe a glimpse of the unification of nature."

'Yes. In the high-dimensional artefact Dante saw a metaphor for the Trinity. God's three personalities in one being.'

In the second passage:

"This is the basis of the new unified theory,' Philmus said. 'An unification of phenomena through the structure of a higher-dimensional space.'"

I'm sure that "God" here is a poetic metaphor for "underlying substrate of physical reality".

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Except, the entire thing about the goddess of the manifold is she's compared to the Mind of existenxe

"She may actually be an expression of the manifold itself ― or perhaps the manifold itself, the greater structure of reality strands, is itself self-referential, in some sense conscious"

The fact "god" is the underlying substrate of physical reality proves she DOES exist

 

[Malomtek]

Except, the entire thing about the goddess of the manifold is she's compared to the Mind of existenxe

"She may actually be an expression of the manifold itself ― or perhaps the manifold itself, the greater structure of reality strands, is itself self-referential, in some sense conscious"

The fact "god" is the underlying substrate of physical reality proves she DOES exist

This is just a giant non-sequitur.

None of the passages you brought up reference any "Mind of Existence", your "She may actually be an expression of the manifold itself" quote is unsourced and unverified, and "there is a distinct Goddess of the Manifold character" does NOT follow from "'God' is a poetic metaphor for the underlying substrate of physical reality".

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

>Quote is unsourced

Dude this quote is literally from right at the end of manifold origin.

And she is the underlying substrate of reality, but said substrate is just a self aware one.

Your entire argument can be boiled down to "it's just a metaphor/philosophy" which is the absolute worst way to "debunk" direct statements.

 

[Malomtek]

>Quote is unsourced

Dude this quote is literally from right at the end of manifold origin.

And she is the underlying substrate of reality, but said substrate is just a self aware one.

If the quote came from Manifold Origin, then you should have said so already, as well as the chapter of the book it came from.

The quote itself looks merely as a part of that character philosophizing quote as described in the OP. It isn't proof of a "Goddess of the Manifold", it's nothing more than in-universe speculation.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Oh, so you haven't read the books, got it.

"God" is talked about like 4 times and is very clearly stated to be sentient. The fact she doesent directly appear doesent change this.

 

[Malomtek]

Oh, so you haven't read the books, got it.

"God" is talked about like 4 times and is very clearly stated to be sentient. The fact she doesent directly appear doesent change this.

The onus isn't on me to do my homework for you.

The fact that you confuse in-universe speculation with clear statements of fact similarly isn't my problem.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

So you're going to completely miss and ignore my point completely?

Literally all your arguments boil down to calling statements "speculation" or "metaphor" when they aren't intended as such in verse.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

The quotes are quite definitely literal.

 

[DarkGrath]

I'm inclined to agree with Zachary here, though I'm probably not knowledgeable enough to comment on this heavily.

There's a big difference between "actual speculation" and "in-verse speculation". Writers almost never put in pure speculation in their stories unless you're actually supposed to believe the speculation to be true; otherwise, they're literally just writing ridiculous and unnecessary filler.

Having someone in-verse who's knowledgeable on a topic speculate about it and come to a clear conclusion almost always = something true. So, with the above sourced quotes in mind, and the repeat mention of the same being, I'm almost positive the writer intended for this god to be real in-verse; rather than just fantastical speculation.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Thank you. Can her page be restored then?

 

[DarkGrath]

I'd prefer the input of any staff who are knowledgeable on the verse was given first. I do agree to restoring it personally, though I'm not involved enough in the verse to be the be-all-end-all of this discussion.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

There aren't any (current) staff members knowledgeable on the verse, though. Azzy and Aeyu left.

 

[Threemagi]

Kinda unrelated, but, humans' true consciousness (not 'us', we are just the shell) = God. Humans brought universe into existence by their observation.

So there seems to be some kind of circular scaling here

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

You mean this?

"Dante saw a human face projected on his multidimensional artefact. He interpreted whatever he saw as the Incarnation: the embodiment of God—beyond time and space—in our time-bound mortal form. The final paradox of your Christian theology."

That just means she's a downstreamer and as such they're 1-A+

 

[Malomtek]

So you're going to completely miss and ignore my point completely?

Literally all your arguments boil down to calling statements "speculation" or "metaphor" when they aren't intended as such in verse.

How can you "tell" that they weren't intended to be metaphorical in-universe? What makes them literal statements? Nothing in those passages or quotes is anything beyond figurative language descriptors describing an otherwise impersonal fundamental reality as "God". That is all this "God talk" really is, metaphors for an underlying reality that isn't actually a character in its own right.

Even the quote you just brought up can be shown to be figurative at certain key parts.

"Dante saw a human face projected on his multidimensional artefact. He interpreted whatever he saw as the Incarnation: the embodiment of God—beyond time and space—in our time-bound mortal form. The final paradox of your Christian theology."

This means that Dante wasn't seeing an actual god, or a character in and of itself, but just a "multidimensional artifact" as filtered by human perception.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

And we're going in circles now. Like I said, she IS both the fundamental reality and sentient. As in she's specifically compared to being the mind of existence.

Arguing that literally every reference to a character who is compared to being the mind of the multiverse is a metaphor is dumb.

Let me quote someone else for a moment

Simply claiming "Hyperbole / Metaphor" is the absolute worst way of "debunking" quotes and scans.

 

[Antvasima]

So have you reached a conclusion here?

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Malomtek still isn't convinced she's a real character. Most other people are.