Arceus Hax Upgrade (2)

Continutation of this here .

I'd like to know why "Arceus has never used those abilities before, hence he does not have them" is even a counter-argument.

With all due respect, I agree. First of all, Arceus has used the power of the types before he's literally used them in all parts of the franchise he's in. Thats the point of the thread. Unless your referring to the other 6 currently accepted, I fail to see how he hasnt used them.

Even then too, Conceptual Manipulation is barely used by almost anyone who has the hax to begin with due to how OP it is. If "not using them" is an argument then we might as well take away C.M. from everyone who has it but hasnt used it.

bump

@ProfessorKukui

My point is, if he isn't stripping away people's emotions and killing Uxie, Azelf, and Mesprit left and right, it should not and would not be his first option in a fight.

It's the same logic we use to keep Reinhard Heydrich fights fair, since he does not use the spear willy-nilly either. I don't understand what's so hard about this.

I'm not saying he doesn't have it, I'm just complaining about people's use of it.

As I've already stated, Arceus very clearly created certain concepts directly from himself, such as knowledge, willpower, and emotion. He did not create instances of these concepts. He did not create them from something other than himself. He made it possible for things to be known, experienced, and living things to have the capacity to not simply remain immobile due to lack of any sort of will.

He has conceptual creation, and likely at least a limited degree of control over them.

Whether he can use this in battle, or if he even would, is another argument, and one I'm not particularly interested in.

I agree with Azathoth

Reppuzan said:

@ProfessorKukui
My point is, if he isn't stripping away people's emotions and killing Uxie, Azelf, and Mesprit left and right, it should not and would not be his first option in a fight.

Click to expand...

Rep, will all due respect............this is wrong.

First off, this is Pokemon we are talking about. Killing is clearly not going to be an option on screen. And outside controlling them, Arceus has no grudges against the lake trio and has never had a reason to "kill" them.

Furthermore, why does he need to strip away peoples emotions? Are we really suggesting Arceus needs to strip the concepts away from normal beings to kill them when pokemon in general are able to do the same thing with a normal? Pokemon infinitely weaker than Arceus?

@Kukui

By this logic, the thought that someone could do something means that someone would do something. Superman would also go for Absolute Zero Super Breath or Sub-Atomic Heat Vision. Medaka would always shoot straight for All Fiction. Goku would sit on the other side of the universe and fire ki blasts.

If Arceus doesn't do this sort of thing, I don't think there's a reason we would presume that he would automatically erase someone's willpower in your average versus thread.

But I digress, this is about Arceus revision, not his versus thread matches, so I'll back off on this for now.

I think that Azathoth seems to make sense. You can probably perform the revision.

Okay. Could someone unlock Arceus's page for me please?

Okay. Tell me here when you are done.

I have finished Ant. You can now relock it and close this thread.

Are...people gonna be okay with that wording?

I believe so. I would have put "Pokemon Types" but then that really wouldnt cover anything, especially specific ones.

Unless, do you have something that may be better cal?

Not at 2 AM I don't:

xD yeah its about 2 on my end as well.

Let's wait to see if Azathoth or somebody else wishes to change the wording before locking the thread.

What do I need to fix, exactly?

I do not know, but it would be appreciated if you check if the edit seems acceptable.

Edited.

Okay. Thanks. Should we close this thread then?

I guess.

DontTalk requested that I should reopen this thread.

@Professor

Your first reply was intended to be to me?

I support you, though?

Nice thread so is the life and death thing accepted?

I believe so IIRC. Though Azzy's edit would cover it anyhow.

Thanks for replying kukui but is there any chance you think to put arceus at complex multiversal?!

Sorry but that has nothing to do with this topic. If you want to know more about that, please make a CTR thread of your own and ask that question there.

Ok I am.really sorry to not be on the topic

Sorry for the late reply. I didn't expect the thread to get unlocked, but that I would create a new thread sometime.

Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:

The notion of whether it is abstract in a void is irrelevant, for, as you mentioned before, we can go back to the whole chemical configurations argument, while this is not a universe that abides by that.
In this case, something like emotion is not caused by the interaction of different chemicals to create different responses from us (well, to be exact, it is caused by that, but that interaction is not its progenitor), but is instead something that is intertwined with existence itself, and is real in the same sense something like space is.

Click to expand...

That it is real in the same sense as space is, is the problem, isn't it?

That emotions can be understood as something working due to a physical system actually tells you something about their nature, even if another mechanism is involved.

As wikipedias article on abstract objects puts it "An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing, i.e., an idea, or abstractio."

Given that the emotion a human experiences happens at a certain time and at a certain place (certainly the emotion is part of the human, just like a soul is) the emotions humans practically have aren't concepts, and as such creating the emotions humans fell shouldn't be conceptual creations.

Not to misunderstand, there is also a concept of emotions. It is just that it isn't that which we experience.

In the case of you using empathy manipulation to grant a robot the feeling of sadness, a drastic difference here is that you already have an established idea of what the emotion you are giving it actually is, and this idea comes from example. There have been instances of this emotion before, therefore you are not its progenitor.

In this case, there is an original being, and there has been nothing before it. There are no examples of any emotions to this point, and there is nowhere for it to draw this inspiration from. There is only this being and this being is all. This being then proceeds to create emotion.

You had read my blog, so you remember how I in the beginning differentiated as concepts as mental constructs and concepts as abstract objects, yes?

You are using the concept as mental construct here.

As said, as mental construct a creating concept isn't impressive as humans can do it.

Take cars for example. Before humanity came there were no cars and neither did anyone ever think of them (assuming no alien civilizations for now).

So in this case at some point a human came up with the "concept of cars", likely before they even where invented. He also didn't really have a inspiration for that particular thing to draw from. It was just an idea that human originally had on its own.

In the sense of a mental construct that human created the concept of cars. But by the fact that this ability is something a human can do already shows that it isn't what we want for a superpower.

In that understanding the fact the physical objects are dependent on their objects couldn't hold, as stars would have been created before any sentient being could draw inspiration to come up with the idea for them.

So saying he created the "concept" in that sense isn't wrong, it just isn't what we want to talk about for the superpower conceptual manipulation.


In case of the view as abstract objects the car argumentation wouldn't hold. In that view the human that first thought up the concept of cars actually just discovered it, not created it.

The concept would in that view have always existed independent on whether anyone ever thought it. They wouldn't need a creator.

As such for the Arceus case there is the possibility that the concept, as abstract object, already existed and he just discovered it (created it as mental object), instead having to create the concept as abstract object.

It is not creating emotion for anything in particular at a certain time. It is allowing there to be a possibility for anything to have emotion in the future. If Arceus did not create Uxie, who is Mesprit, who is emotion incarnate, but created everything else the same, there would not be the possibility for sentient beings to experience emotion.

The myth never mentions that. I agree that if nobody else in the verse would have had the ability to create emotions in beings without emotions it wouldn't have happened. But that is like saying that in a world without fire trees can not burn. Practically right, but not because trees aren't burnable.

To shortly summarize what we factually know of the lake trios creation and that of knowledge/willpower/emotion per quotes from the game (as far as I don't miss anything):

"This Pokémon is said to have endowed the human heart with emotions, such as sorrow and joy."

"It is said that its emergence gave humans the intelligence to improve their quality of life."

"This Pokémon is said to have endowed humans with the determination needed to face any of life's difficulties."

from the pokédex.

The myth mentions only as much as

"The three living things wished, and from them, spirit came to be."

(at multiple points)

So the pokédex described event is clear on it only being giving humans the ability to feel emotions/have willpower/ learn knowledge, not creating concepts. The myth on the other hand is pretty vague. It could actually refer to the same event.

(if you take into account that at the beginning all humans and pkmn shared the same conciousness it is also possible that the creation of that one conciousness is what is described there)

In any case it doesn't specifically mentioned that the "spirit" they create here refers to creating a concept, or the possibility of feeling emotions/willpower/knowledge and not actually spirit as the actual conciousness of beings in the universe. (Like creating the souls of all beings)


Essentially the current argumentation, as far as I see it, comes down to that arceus must have created the dozen of concepts he has listed currently, because we should treat those creations as creating also the concepts, since the lake trios creations are assumed to have been creation of concepts, based on a statement that "from them, spirit came to be", being assumed to refer to them creating the concept of knowledge/willpower/emotion instead of just instances of those concepts. (or something else entirely)

In principal non of this is impossible, but I consider it a very vague, speculative reasoning and in the end just not solid proof.

(long reply is long)

Dang it, DT. Even when we're on opposite sides of an argument, I can't help but respect you immensely.

But that's where the issue comes up. Where is proof that the concepts already existed and he happened to discover it? This contradicts the lore of Pkmn as its clearly, explicity and specifically stated in the lore that before Arceus there was absolutely and completely nothing at all in any way. If concepts, like Time and Space for example, merely existed before Arceus came and he just discovered it, that would mean a few things.

A) Dialga and Palkia would have existed before Arceus and that he has no means of being able to create them, which isnt true.

B) Dialga and Palkia would not be all of Time and Space itself as if the concepts already existed and Arceus only found them there is no way they would be able to become both concepts as a whole but only merely manipulate them.

C) Time and Space were already "spinning" and "expanding" before Arceus showed up and as such it truly wouldnt be nothing and that doesnt appear to be the case in the lore.

If he has come from total nothingness where nothing, but only he emerged, then there is no way he could get inspiration, ideas or any sort of hints about the things he was later going to create.

As for the other stuff, the lake trio giving humans the power of emotion, knowledge and willpower wouldnt be creating concepts because those 3 would be the concepts and they were created already. At that point after their birth their just giving humans those capabilities. Its exactly the reason why the creation trio don't have conceptual manipulation above that of just space-time manipulation because they themselves are said concepts.

This.^

And DT, with all due respect, your explanation above seems reasonable but there are issues with that too, one of which I'll get to later.

The first issue about this is that we are assuming such lowly humanily capable concepts cannot be simply done by humans at some point on there ow. Your concept of car example is perfect in this scenerio. Yes its true that humanity had no idea about what cars are or would be, but in the past we had different forms of transportation to be the basis of the car concept, such as traveling on horses or wagons for the means of transporting people or goods. Even if difficult to see at first it's not that hard to put 2 and 2 together to make a car. Basically what im saying is they're may have been no cars but we had a basis for cars coming from older means of transportation to the point where we would be able to think of a more advanced way to transport people. In other words, hints/inspirations. So to make the story short, these may be concepts but they are certainly ones that humans can come across eventually (assuming we have the knowledege and intellect to attempt it).

The second issue here is we are comparing tiny easy to go by concepts like cars, which only benefit humanity, to varying difficult to comprehend concepts like Time and Space that literally affect everything in existence, something we still and will likely never fully understand at all. As far as fiction goes, concepts like those would only be able to be made by figures who are considered gods/deities (like Arceus and the trios) and they would be impossible for human capability to ever even dream of touching. That even includes concepts like the elements. Examples?

-We may be able to discover burning or heating, but that wouldnt be possible without the concept of fire being accessible to us and other factors that lead into creating fire.

-We may be able to come across medicine and other treating alternatives, but that wouldnt be possible without the concept of poison or germs coming into play.

-We may be able to get our hands on light but that wouldnt be a thing without the concept of electricity roaming around.

-We can discover how to plant things or grow crops but that would be thrown out the window if we didnt have the concept of water to give them the growth requirement or the concept of earth to even grow anything from said earth.

The list can go on. These concepts cannot be a thing through human capabilities and they are the basis of what we can do/know. As a matter of fact, this is another point. We wouldnt even be able to make lowly concepts like cars without stuff like Knowledge, Time, Space, the elements and so on to support us.

DT, I feel like a major part of your argument seems to forget that we are talking specifically about the first thing a verse, and not a being in an already existing universe, which makes a vast majority of human comparisons entirely null.

A when a human imagines and then creates a car and does not directly create the concept of the car, the car is created based on knowledge the human has about specific facts involving laws of the physical world and each part of the car. The human builds and imagines this off of experiences and knowledge. This has practically nothing to do with the scenario here.

We know that in the beginning, there was Arceus, and absolutely nothing but Arceus. There is no world, no time or space, only Arceus. Arceus creates Uxie, Mesprit, and Azelf, aka knowledge, emotions, and willpower respectively. I now want to jump back to something you yourself said.

"I think in regards to conceptual creation a good question to ask is "Did it create x or did it create the possibility of creating x". The former is just the ability to create x, while the latter is creating the concept of x."

Now you could argue, "Arceus created knowledge, emotions, and willpower, therefore he only demonstrates the capacity to create instances of these things and not their concepts. However, this is untrue. At the moment, knowledge, emotions, and willpower exist in a vacuum. There is nothing to know and nothing that can know anything, there is nothing to feel emotions, and there is nothing traditionally sentient that has any form of will. These concepts exist, but are not manifest, and only exist in their abstract forms, which is this case is the Lake Trio.

Later, after the components for reality have been created and Arceus has shaped it into what it is now, there now comes a point in time where sentient beings exist. There are now things for these beings to know and said beings have the capacity to accumulate knowledge. There are now things that can feel emotions to prove that emotions exist. There are now sentient beings who can experience desire and drive, having what can be expressed as will. We now know these concepts exist, viewing things only from the perspective of the world.

Did Arceus directly cause this? No. Yet, when there was no world, he created the possibility for knowledge, emotion, and willpower to exist/occur in the world. Three things that would not have manifested and from a physical perspective not existed in an empty void with nothing to experience these things.

You can make plenty of arguments on whether he created other concepts or not, and frankly I don't really have any strong opinion either way on that matter, but it is abundantly clear he did indeed create the concepts of knowledge, emotion, and willpower in a more abstract sense.

@Azathoth:

You again make the mistake to link concept creation to what is going on in an entities mind.

Whether or not a human has drawn inspiration from anything outside is irrelevant, since the entire point is that thinking up with a concept a person isn't creating it, but just discovering.

Even if Arceus discovered the concept without inspiration from anything physical that doesn't mean he created it. It just means he discovered it without inspiration.

The process of someone thinking up a concept means nothing, but that the externally existing concept takes shape in ones mind. That it happens implies that the concept exist, but that it happens without cause doesn't imply that the concept didn't existed to that very moment.

One could also imagine a scenario in which he could also have drawn inspiration from the concept in its already existing abstract state. Not a scenario I assume, but that I think demonstrates well how, just because he came up with it before anything physical existed, doesn't mean he created the concept.


"At the moment, knowledge, emotions, and willpower exist in a vacuum. There is nothing to know and nothing that can know anything, there is nothing to feel emotions, and there is nothing traditionally sentient that has any form of will. These concepts exist, but are not manifest, and only exist in their abstract forms, which is this case is the Lake Trio."

That you do not know.

For once

"From itself, two beings the Original One did make.

Time started to spin.

Space began to expand.

From itself again, three living things the Original One did make.

The two beings wished, and from them, matter came to be.

The three living things wished, and from them, spirit came to be."

is the order of events.

So first Arceus, then Palkia and Dialga, then space and time then the lake guardians, then matter and only at the end spirit.

From step 1 there exist entities that can have sentience, that are arceus and later palkia and dialga and not last the lake guardians themselves.

And from the step before the lake guardians created spirit there was already matter, meaning living beings could already have existed.

So the creation of knowledge, willpower and emotion and the lake guardians, came after the creation of beings that could have those.

That much is absolutely clear.

(Oh, and there is always something to know, because a priori knowledge)

Glad in regards of the other concepts we at least have something similar to an agreement...

@Kukui:

The lore doesn't mention nothing on abstract level and simply inferring that is stretching things way too far.

Actually looking at the myth what is actually said is:" In the beginning, there was only a churning turmoil of chaos. At the heart of chaos, where all things became one, appeared an Egg."

The claim that before arceus existed nothing else did is actually wrong. It is explicitly stated that chaos existed before Arceus, so Arceus didn't even create the world from nothing, he created it from chaos. Quite a few "before Arceus there was nothing" arguments here should actually be invalid just because of that.


A) Wrong, because nothing ever stated that Dialga and Palkia are the concepts of space and time. They are only representatives of the practically existing space and time and beings which are necessary for its physical existence in the actual pokemon cosmology. The concepts of space and time can exist without them, just physical space and time can't. Hence Arceus has also no problem creating them.

B) Neither are they concepts nor do they manipulate the concepts as far as we know. That reasoning was never excepted as far as I am aware and is completely reliant on the interpretation that arceus created concepts which is the debated topic. So this comes down to circular reasoning.

C) No, because the concept existing doesn't mean the instance existing.

As explained it is irrelevant whether he can get ideas from external sources. Getting ideas from nothing doesn't mean creating concepts.

The last is again an interpretation nowhere stated. The lake guardians are never said to be the concepts to begin with.


Your entire second answer fails on the fact that, again, concept Ôëá idea of an individual.

What the metaphors where supposed to show is that if a human can in any way create a concept, be it with or without inspiration and whichever concept whatsoever, that can not be the definition of concept we use for conceptual manipulation, because creating a concept is supposed to make a fundamental change to the universe, something a human should be incapable of through whatever means.

I mean, consider that if that would be the definition it would mean before a human came up with the "concept of cars" a car would have been impossible to form, even by the tiny chance that randomly metal parts assemble in a way forming a car, without anyone living being involved.

This is a rather complicated discussion, but I am not sure if it will lead anywhere...

i personally feel as though we are thinking too far into it. Of course I don't understand anything here either tbh.

I agree 100% with DT.