- 15,474
- 22,559
Title. No one in the Verse besides maybe the Annoying Dog exhibits such traits.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
GiverOfThePeace said:Didn't Asriel's hyper goner literally eat a timeline and Frisk was capable of momentarily evading the attack?
I have actually been meaning to ask about this. It is taken as a fact that the player exists within undertale, but what statements and events are used to support this exactly?Read this post said:Well, the player themselves is cannon within undertale. And they play undertale and mess with timelines as if it is a game, and should canonically view undertale in a similar fashion as the player does. It is hard to imagine them being physically 3 dimesional or a non abstract entity.
Higher dimensional existence does make you immeasurable.
Not according to the irl theories, but fiction is free to do other stuff ifnitnwants. We don't take the planck length higher dimensions established by string theory and the like as actually tierable.Assaltwaffle said:There is no forth spatial dimension irl aside from tiny pockets of higher dimensions that cannot be observed or interacted with in any way.
That's not the feat I was calling immeasurable.Wokistan said:@giver Moving around in an erased timeline is considered infinite.
Sans and Flowey mention them and Chara talks to them. It meaning to represent us is irrelevant since it's still The Player.Andytrenom said:I have actually been meaning to ask about this. It is taken as a fact that the player exists within undertale, but what statements and events are used to support this exactly?
I would guess the Flowey speech before true reset is a big one, but even then, he isn't explicitly stated to be the player, a generic human in his own reality who is just playing a fictional game. No, what he is in the context of Undertale is kinda left vague and just seems to be a powerful entity with control over time who is supposed to represent us, but may necessarily be us.