• 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.

Critters and Kikai are Nonexistent?

Celestial_Pegasus

Celestial_Pegasus

VS Battles
Administrator
19,178
6,465
Been wondering about this for awhile, does being a possibility mean you are nonexistent?

Looking at the definition of possibility: "A chance that something might exist, happen, or be true" In other words that something might exist, and it could be that it doesn't exist.

Lets move on the info provided to us about kikai and critters, long stoy short, 10 years ago a stair collapsed and fell on a hospital and killed 41 patients. All those patients were pregnant and for each unborn child a toy was going to be given.

The hospital was destroyed, the patients died, the unborn children became kikai, the toys became critter.

Possibility
Critter
No material form
Immortal kikai


Intangible
Phenomenon


Kikai time
Critter phenomenon


As you can see in the scans above critters are described as supernatural phenomenon, this is a theory that was proposed by a scholar, lemure later reveals that kikai and critters are only the possibilities of the 41 lives that never got the chance to be born when the hospital was destroyed, they technically aren't even lives, they have no material form, and the concept of time doesn't exist for them, because they haven't been born into the world.

What does it mean to be the possibilities of 41 lives? Well those lives were never born, they never happened, so wondering if this means kikai and critter are essential just things which don't exist? Might be a stretch.

What does destroying a possiblity even entail in terms of abilities? Every kikai uses attacks capable of destroying critters, critters aren't even alive and are possibilities, so what does this mean for someone who can destroy such things? What level of regen will even save you from this.
 
Maybe, just looking for opinions here, if they are i guess that means ppl who can kill them have some form of void manipulation.

Should probably highlight this since it could potential scale to almost every sekien no inganock character.
 
To play devil's advocate here, couldn't that also be interpreted as them being the intangible, timeless, existence as a representation of what those 41 lives could have become?

i.e. they exist, but what their existence is certain but represents what those 41 lives could have possibly become. However, according to those screens those existences would still have to be timeless and intangible.
 
@Agnaa Don't know, kikai and critters don't even have a human form, except the 4 stolen ones who are special in that they have have human forms.

At the end of the series, the kikai were returned to being human again by Grimm=Grimm, Dr. Gii porshion for example became a 10 year old child, so it's as if they never died.

Before they were just unborn possibilities of 41 lives, like Petrovna who died 10 years ago, her body is literally in the ground, but she is not dead, she became a combo of a kikai and a critter, which both don't have lives.

Kikai and critter
 
Things can still exist without having a human form, and they can even get a human form later having existed the whole time. Damaging them would just be ability to damage intangible beings, which has no bearing on Regenerationn afaik.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm really iffy about treating "Possibility" as nonexistent. I mean, those unborn childs were technically exist within their mother womb, it just that they weren't officially born yet.

Takes this thing for example. The thing is a creature called "witch" and they were erased throughout the Infinity universe by this girl (Basically there is no possibility for "Witch" to exist). Yet, the thing still come out later on.

At best, Critter and Kikai are Non-Corporeal.
 
Don't know what we treat possibilities as, just what has been stated was that those unborn children died, and from them grimm=grimm created kikai, as possibilities which haven't been born.

Possibilities in and of themselves are just what might happen, but added to that is the fact that concept of time doesn't exist for them, because they haven't been born into the world.

Even an unborn child in the womb experiences time, so this could only mean unborn is meant as in not existing.
 
This is basically just the Problem of Universals but replace Concepts with Possibilities. This is outright philosophy.
 
@Homu Even a fetus or an embryo or a single cell experiences time, the reason why kikai don't have a concept of time is because they haven't been born into the world yet.

Unborn has several definitions: not born, not brought into life, still to appear.

@Assalt What is the problem of universals?
 
I mean, doesn't have concept of time could only means that Time Manipulation aren't gonna work on them. Similar to Tiamat (Fate/Grand Order) who is immune to Death Manipulation cuz she doesn't have concept of death.

And I thought we also treat life and exist differently. Even a pregnant women considered the baby in their womb as living thing.

Posibility is something that cannot be defined with visual showing, but we know it exists. If Critters and Kikai exists as "possibilities", then they should definitely get Abstract Existence.
 
The problem is, do we know they only exist as possibilities (they may or may not exist), or do they exist as representations of possibilities (they always exist but they represent an uncertainty)?

Since imo it's unclear from those screens which is meant, we should go for the weaker interpretation, which is that they always exist but represent uncertain possibilities.
 
tbh they never exist as a whole. Kikais and critters are warped by grimm to become what they are. Kikai the unborn children died during the accident along with their mothers and a number of ppl like Kia while critters are the 41 toys that were about to be given to said kids. They never truly exist only as possibilities that never came only by the end with Gii's wish to Grimm that people like porshion were revived and finally exist this time as a 10 year old child. Though i'm neutral on this i just want to point out yes all kikais at least from what i remember never actually have time to begin with as they simply died.
 
More scans of being possibilities.

Petrovna possibilities
Petrovna possibilities 1


Lemure possibility
Lemure possibility 1


Kikai possibilities
Porshion possibilites
Porshion possibilites 1


From what i can gather the first phenomenon equation experiment created grimm=grimm, who then created the kikai and critters out of possibilities of the dead 41 unborn children and toys.

10 years later the crown prince who was conducting the experiment got killed by gii, lemure the first kikai, takes over, and started conduting experiments using orphans possibilities to strengthen petrovna so she can kill gii.

After gii's wish to grimm=grimm, the kikai got resurrected, and became 10 year old kids, before that they were dead, and just possibilities.
 
@Redgrave Dead bodies still exist. Dead fetuses still exist. Timeless beings can still exist. Embodiments of possibilities can exist.

@Celestial Those scans seem to be talking about them "having" possibilities rather than "possibly existing". For them to be partially nonexistent, their existence would have to be in question, rather than them simply being things that exist which have "possibilities" which can be stolen.

Those scans use phrases like "Only you hold two possibilities" and "she had a possibility" don't seem to imply that "possibility" refers to "maybe they exist and maybe they don't", it seems to imply, at least to me, that they do exist and have a thing called a "possibility".
 
OK, it has been established that they are abstract and exist as possibilities, but now we need to determine what possibilities are. There are several options, but none of them are physical. If we look at this like we would approach the Problem of Universals, we can get a better understanding of what these possibilities are in nature.

The Problem of Universals is a discussion and debate over the nature of abstract ideas that form concepts. Essentially: what concepts are. There are several ways to answer this problem, and since "possibilities" are very similar to concepts in that the work consists of possibilities and we perceive said possibilities. The abstract nature of concepts and ideas is answered by several views, and I will cover them in a sort of tier-list-ish fashion (the most powerful/concrete concepts first, descending to the weakest/most unstable).

1. Platonic Realism: This is the idea that abstract perceptions, such as concepts, are Forms that the world partakes in. These Forms are beyond any aspect of reality and control how reality is built and experienced. For example, the Form of "Circle-ness" exists beyond all circles, and if this Form was somehow altered, all circles would be changed to partake in this new aspect of "circle-ness" or stop existing outright. The Form of "Circle-ness" is not contingent on the circles themselves, and everything that is a circle is merely partaking in the Form's circle-ness.

Applying this to our possibilities indicates transcendent possibilities that are above everything, and exist regardless of perception or reality. The possibilities would be around because they are Forms, and that if reality ever ended up having one of these possibilities become reality, it is because reality is partaking in that possibility, not because that possibility is contingent on reality's realization of it.

2. Aristotelian Realism: This form of realism states that abstract concepts exist, but are contingent on the things that partake in them. For example, Circle-ness will always exist so long as there is a circle in reality. If this circle was destroyed and there are no more circles in reality, circle-ness as a concept would become unknowable and therefore stop existing.

As for our possibilities, they would still exist so long as it was possible for them to occur. So, in this case, they needed to come to be from that orphan and toy incident, but now that they have history setting the precedent for them to exist, they exist. However, if the ability for these possibilities to occur was taken away (the toys were given and lives lived) they would stop existing, as they are not transcendent of reality, but need something to be a prerequisite for the existence of their nature of possibilities.

3. Idealism: Abstract concepts exist, but these concepts are determined by and contingent on thoughts. If a population is aware of circle-ness, circle-ness is whatever the population deems it to be. If the understanding of circle-ness changed, the concept would change with it. If circle-ness lacked anyone perceiving or understanding it, it would vanish entirely.

For this to be true about our possibilities, someone would need to understand that there was a possibility of the toys to be given and lives to be lived. If someone decided that the possibilities were different, the abstract possibilities would change with those that perceive them. If someone failed to see that such possibilities existed, the possibilities would stop existing, as no one has understanding of them.

4. Nominalism: Abstract concepts do not exist. Only individuals or particulars exist, and each individual perceives concepts in their own way, not from some abstract rule.

This one can't work with our possibilities, since they clearly are abstract. Or, if the case of these possibilites, the denial of an abstract would cause them to be truly unknowable, yet subjective, and not existing in a conventional manner.
 
Personally I think that Aristotelian Realism seems to make the most sense for this particular situation.
 
Just to clarify Assalt, you're saying that they exist as possibilities, rather than having their existence be a possibility, and your post there is to explore what "existing as a possibility" means?
 
Well guess we just accept them as being abstracts, and not non-existent, have no problem with that, this was more so my curiosity on what a possibility entails.
 
Why do not use FRAPS or Start Screen Capture? is more easy to take a screen shots from ani program or game.

If they're Abstract Existence, can we specify what they represent? Likewise, if they can harm other Abstract Beings, does it mean that they can harm what they represent?
 
represent i forgot however they scale to each other so its obvious they can harm each other even if each of them is an abstract being
 
Pretty much what Assalt said, but about harming what they represent though, that's a more complicated question, basically kikai and critters are indestructible, and also no physical harm can ever come to them, the only way to destroy them is with their unique weaknesses, for example Wendigo's weakness is sunlight, so gii killed it with his fire ability.

Bandersnatch can only be killed if you incinerate all information, which is what gii did. Blood Tree can only be destroyed by simultaneous pressurization of all it's body parts, so gii reduced it to particles.

So basically every critter has a unique weakness, kikai on the other hand, have none though, the only way you can kill a kikai is if you sever the thread which connects the kikai and the host, if that link is already severed though the only thing you can do to destroy it is silmultaneous pressurization of all it's body parts. Petrovna who is a combination of a critter and kikai, can only be killed if you steal all her infinitely multiplying present.

Gii and kerkan though once in their evolved kikai can harm each other without having to destroy the link between them and their kikai, for example kerkan erased gii's kikai's arm from existence, which gii regenerated later.

So in short critters you can only kill with their weakness, kikai you can kill if you sever the connection between it and it's host, but if that link is cut, you have to completely destroy it by pressurizing all its body parts.
 
Extreme123dz said:
Why do not use FRAPS or Start Screen Capture? is more easy to take a screen shots from ani program or game.
Click to expand...
Not really sure on the latter, but the former keeps refusing to work on Steampunk games for some reasons.
 
Fabtastic Glasses said:
Not really sure on the latter, but the former keeps refusing to work on Steampunk games for some reasons.
Click to expand...
Forme some games or VN they need to be in full screen so that the programs work, with Demonbane for example, if I do not have a full screen the programs do not work for me.

No idea if Inganock or another from WaBseries have this problem...i have download right now Sekien no Inganock and Gahkthun (need to find Shikkoku no Sharnoth complete in English...pirate :v) so i will try if work or not :/

Also, i dont know if the OS is another problem, i use Win 7 Professional 64-bit
 
Bumping this to ask a question

Would Kikai have souls? If they're creatures who died before they were born and now only exist as possibilities, I wouldn't think they would have souls.
 
If they are only possibilities I don't think they would have souls. They are already purely metaphysical.
 
They exist only as possibilities so i don't think they have souls, they aren't even alive in the first place.
 
Pretty sure there's a scan Celestial made or posted already that explains how they aren't even alive in the first place because of their status. So I don't think they have souls either, yeah.

Side-note @Celestial: You think a blog explaining about the nature of Critters and Kikai's would be good for WAB?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Celestial_Pegasus
  • Locked
A Couple Kikai/Inganock Revisions
Replies
14
Views
1K
Celestial_Pegasus
Celestial_Pegasus
Celestial_Pegasus
  • Locked
What a Beautiful Series: Cracking Being Physiology
Replies
21
Views
2K
Qliphoth_Bacikal
Qliphoth_Bacikal
Celestial_Pegasus
  • Locked
Major Sekien no Inganock Revisions
Replies
28
Views
2K
Celestial_Pegasus
Celestial_Pegasus
Celestial_Pegasus
  • Locked
Sekien no Inganock: High 7-C to Low 7-B Upgrades
Replies
7
Views
996
Celestial_Pegasus
Celestial_Pegasus
Celestial_Pegasus
  • Locked
What a Beautiful Series: Side-story Revisions + Other Stuff
Replies
9
Views
2K
Celestial_Pegasus
Celestial_Pegasus
Back
Top